Loading...
1969-1971 DRB MEETING MINUTES DRB Minutes 1969-1971 I �/� �� 1�� ��� ���� �� �' °� � a • The regular monthly meeting of the Design Review Board was held in the offices of the Salem Redevelopment Authority on 7 December 1971, Present were Messrs. Boulger, Little, Small, and Smith, and Mrs. Haskell. Executive Director John Barrett was present by invitation. The meeting was brought to order by Mr. Boulger at 8:05 P. M. Motion: To dispense with the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting. They have been mailed to all members of the Board prior to the meeting. Action: Seconded and so voted. Mr. Boulger reappointed Mr. Smith as Secretary to the Board for the ensuing year. At the meeting, by invitation, were Mr. Axelrod of Empire Clothing and his architect, Mr. Fred Lennox. A discussion then followed respecting the proposed changes and additions to the Empire Clothing building on''the southeasterly corner of Liberty and Essex Streets. With respect to the air conditioning unit, Messrs. Axelrod and Lennox stated that it would be pushed as far back on the roof as possible and that bleached redwood or cedar baffles could be used to hide the unit from public view as well as serving as a sound baffle. Mr. Smith pointed out that in that area r it would probably be necessary to treat the material against combustibility. 1\ • With regard to the present design showing a long blank wall along Liberty Street, it was suggested that to relieve the monotony it should be patterned, perhaps with bracketed carriage lanterns along the wall at intervals to wash it at night with sub- dued lighting. Mr. Axelrod confessed he was not yet satisfied with the present thoughts on brick color for the addition, although the Board agreed to permit in this case, but not necessarily in other cases, the use of grey brick in order to carry on the architec- tural features of the present Empire building. He also proposed a backlighted script sign, a concept approved of in principle by the Board. After being thanked by the Board for his courtesy and cooperation, Mr. Axelrod left the meeting. Mr. Lennox remained behind as he has also been retained as architect for the Bowker Block. With regard to the Bowker Block, the Board again raised objections to the archways shown over the doors on the ground floor plans. It was also felt that the columns on the ground floor should be granite, not brick. Also, Johns Mansville simulated slate, or other comparable product, should be used on the roof. Down- spouts should run down through the interior of the building. Motion: To eliminate the dormers on the front facade and to use the money saved for the restoration of the first floor area in accordance with the photograph • of the building taken prior to the 1894 restoration. Action: Sec i ed'a�+ unanimously. �� E C 7VE JAN"Elam Red There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:56 P. M. The next scheduled meeting of the Board is to be held at 8 P. M. on 11 January 1972. Respectfully submitted, Philip Chadwick Foster Smith Secretary • • HERITAGE PiAZA-EAST a SALEM t _ JOHN W. BARRETT REDEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1626 SALEM MASSACHUSETTS - AUTHORITY DIRECT HAROLD J. C N i ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 TIMOTHY J. NOONAN CHAIRMAN WILLIAM J. TINT], ESO. VICE CHAIRMAN IDA A. FURNARI TREASURER DAVID S. JOHNSON. M.D. ASST. TREASURER NOTICE OF MEETING FRANCIS H. MCGRATH Notice is hereby given the next meeting of the Design Review Board will be held Tuesday, December 7, 1971 at 8:00 P.M. at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. If for any reason you are not able to attend said meeting, please notify the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority • at your earliest convenience. James Boulger Chairman • HERITAGE PLAZA-EAST SALEM ETT REDEVELOPMENT EXEC W. BARR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1626 AUTHORITY ASST. J. CORCORAN SALEM*MASSACHUSETTS ExscDTIVE olascrOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET •SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE 744-6900 TIMOTHY J. NOONAN CHAIRMAN FRANCIS H. McGRATH VICE.CHAIRMAN IDA A. FURNARI TREASURER DAVID S. JOHNSON, M. D. WILLIAM J. TINT[, ESO. NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given the next meeting of the Design Review Board will be held Tuesday, November 16, 1971 at 8:00 P.M. at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street Salem, Mass. If for any reason you are unable to attend, please notify the • office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority at your earliest con- venience. James H. Boulger, Jr. Chairman ✓� `� _/V Ootl 4�, �. Telephone(617) 744-6201 JAMES H. B❑ULGER, JR., A.I.A. c_it Aitect and Consultant. 150 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASS. 01970 October 26, 1971 Mr. John W. Barrett, Executive Director Salem Redevlopment Authority 60 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Barrett : A couple of the members have informed me that they will be unable to make the November 9, 1971 scheduled meeting of the Design ReVieW Board. Will you be able to reschedule the meeting for the next Tuesday night, November 16, 1971. • Yours very truly, JADES H. BOULGER, JR. , Chairman • REGISTERED ARCHITECT FLORIDA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW YORK MASSACHUSETTS HERITAGE PIAZA-EAST SALEM REDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE IN DIRECTOR t626 ®'- + AUTHORITY HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM*MASSACHUSETTS ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE 744-6900 TIMOTHY J. NOONAN CHAIRMAN FRANCIS H. McGRATH - VICE-CHAIRMAN IDA A. FURNARI TREASURER DAVID S. JOHNSON, M. D. WILLIAM J. TINTI, ESQ. CANCELLATION OF MEETING f The meeting scheduled for October 12, 1971 is hereby cancelled due to the lack of materials for review. Since the only business scheduled for the meeting is the election of Chairman and Secretary, the regular monthly meeting is postponed until November 9, 1971. • James H. Boulger Chairman October 8, 1971 • HERITAGE PLAZA-EAST -=M= SALEM _ _ REDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. BARRETT 4116 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ® AUTHORITY HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM*MASSACHUSETTS ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MR IPW 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 TIMOTHY J. NOONAN CHAIRMAN FRANCIS H. MCGRATH - VICE.CHAIRMAN IDA A. FURNARI TREASURER DAVID S. JOHNSON, M. D. WILLIAM J. TINTI, ESQ. NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given the next meeting of the Design Review Board will be held Tuesday, October 12, 1971 at 8:00 P. M. at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Mass. • If for any reason you are unable to attend said meeting, please notify the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority at your earliest convenience. Philip C. F. Smith Secretary October 5, 1971 Salem, Massachusetts • MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - 14 SEPTEMBER 1971 1 . The meeting was called to order at 8 :00 P.M. , there being a quorum present . 2. Members present were : Mr. Bouler, presiding , Mesdames Haskell , Peirson, and Burns, and Messrs . Small , Smith , Little, Xanthaky , and Doggett. Also present were Mr. Barrett; Executive Director, SRA , and Mr. Kerr , Professional Advisor. 3. Motion : to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the last meeting . Action : Seconded and so voted . 4 . The Messrs . Dana and their architect ; Mr . Hadjian, were on hand to present their views on the requirements recommended by the Board at its last meeting respecting their property on the southeast cor- ner of Essex Street and Derby Square (Dana Property It 10-4) . He ex- pressed a wish to be able to retain the building and expressed an opinion that several of the requirements would present no difficulty but that others the Danas considered either aesthetically displeasing or economically unsound. They dislike the use of granite bulkheads and reject the idea of being able to tenant the building should the show windows be subdivided as requested . After a lengthy and at times heated presentation of their views, they left the meeting at 9 : 15 in order for the Board to discuss the matter privately. 5. The Chair requested that Messrs . Barrett and Kerr retire to another room which was done . • 6. The Chair pointed out that the property under discussion was still technically slated for demolition ; that consideration for its retention and rehabilitation were being given at the request of the owners. It was also pointed out that the building was in a prime location in downtown Salem and that the Danas were in a position to meet the recommendations of the Board . After a lengthy discussion, the following Memo was drafted to be sent to the SRA : Recommendations of the Design Review Board in relation to Prop- ert 10-4 at 211-215 Essex Street . In conference with Myer Dana & Sons Real Estate and Mr. Kerr the Design Review Board received comments, suggestions , and requests from the owners , and after careful consideration of the presentation it is the decision of the Board that the Minutes of the 13 July 1971 meeting , Items A - L, be required with the exception of Item M re- lating to the granite veneer bulkheads . The Board will accept a compatable brick for this area unless granite is there now in which case any existing granite must be retained. The Board accepts the owners ' proposal to remove the two large second floor window units facing the present Essex Street and to install four double-hung windows in the areas and enclosing the re- mainder of the area with a compatable brick. Also , the application of shutters for the four windows is acceptable. We would like to make changes on Item E in relation to the slate rooting , that the existing roofing be removed, sub-roof repaired and • that a slate roof be installed to match the apparent original instal- lation . In lieu of this , the Board will accept the installation of the roofing material (BEL-AIR Simulated Slate Roofing) as installed • on the previously reviewed Salem Fraternity Building. 7. The Secretary read back the above memo and it was moved that it be accepted as read . Action : seconded and so voted . 8. In view of the lateness of the hour and inasmuch as several members had to leave at this time, the . election . of a Chairman and Secretary for the Design Review Board for the coming year was tabled to the second Tuesday of November at the Board ' s next regularly scheduledinueting. 'The 'meeting was adjourned at 10 : 20 P.M. Respectfully submi.tted , Philip C.F. Smith Secretary • HERITAGE PLAZA-EAST SALEM ti- _ JOHN W. BARRETT - REDEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1686 1, • _- AUTHORITY HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM*MASSACHUSETTS ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FRANCIS H. McGRATH VICE-CHAIRMAN CHARRING BACALL, JR. TREASURER MRS. IDA A. FURNARI FRANCIS J. GRAY NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given there will be a meeting of the Design Review Board, Tuesday, September 14, 1971 at 8:00 P.M. at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. • If for any reason you are unable to attend the meeting, please notify the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority at your earliest convenience. Mr. Dana, owner of the property located at 211-215 Essex Street, and his architect, will attend the meeting to discuss the rehabilita- tion of his building. August 26, 1971 RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RELATIVE TO PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. DANA • 7/13 meeting a. The building should be restored to its original brick facade 9/14 No change 7/13 b. No part of the brickwork should be painted. The brickwork should be cleaned or sandblasted and pointed 9/14 No change 7/13 c. Anodized aluminum window frames should not be used. Wood is suggested 9/14 No change 7/13 d. The show window on the ground floor should be sub-divided to a scale to harmonize with the building. Further studies should be presented to the Design Review Board 9/14 No change 7/13 e. It is suggested that the present roofing be removed down to the original slate; the latter to be repaired and patched as necessary 9/14 Change - that the existing roofing be removed, sub-roof repaired and that a slate roof be installed to match the apparent original • installation. In lieu of this, the Board will accept the instal- 1 lation of the roofing material (BEL-AIR Simulated Slate Roofing) as installed on the previously reviewed Salem Fraternity Building. 7/13 f. Copper, rather than aluminum gutters should be used 9/14 No change 7/13 g. The snow rail on the roof should be repaired, restored, or replaced to match the original 9/14 No change 7/13 h. Elevation #2 on the current proposal plans should be restudied 9/14 No change 7/13 i. No item of doors or steps should protrude onto public property. Doorways must be recessed if opening onto a public way. 9/14 No change 7/13 j. A request should be made that the exterior downspouts be run on the inside and connect to the storm drain. 9/14 No change • -2- 7/13 Meeting k. All sills on the second floor windows should conform to the original material 9/14 No change 7/13 1. The material and style of signboards must be indicated 9/14 No change 7/13 m. Granite veneer bulkheads should be employed across the whole building 9/14 Change - The Board will accept compatible brick for this area unless granite is there now in which case any existing granite must be retained Additironal note: The Board accepts the owners' proposal to remove the two large second floor windows facing the present Essex Street and to install four double-hung windows in the area and enclosing the remainder of the area with compatible brick. Also, the application of shutters for the four windows is acceptable. • r _ ROBERT J. KERR, II . . . PLANNING CONSULTANT ~� Y26 THAMES STREET • NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND 02840 TELEPHONE (401( 849-284 • MEMO: Comments on the Design Review Board recommendations for adjustments to exterior treatment proposals..for Property 010-4 (Dana Property at the intersection of Derby Square and Essex Street) TO: Salem Redevelopment Authority 60 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 DATE: 15 July, 1971 N.B. : The content and wording of the Design Review Board's recommendations are from the notes taken by the undersigned at the meeting of the Design Review Board on 13 July, 1971 and may differ somewhat from the wording of the minutes of the meeting; in general however, the subject matter included in each item is held to be consistent with the actions taken by the Design Review Board. 1) Item A: to restore the exterior surface of the building to its original brick masonry condition. Comment: within the purview of the Design Review Board to make such a recommendation . on exterior appearance. j 2) Item B- to require that the brick masonry surface be sand-blasted and pointed and to prohibit painting of the brick surface. • Comment: within the purview of the Design Review Board to make such a recommendation; owTi ever, matters of economic feasibility and possible economic hardship on the owner due to difficulties incident to the matching of materials and lay-up should be weighed by the Authority; painting is an allowable method of acheiving a clean, uniform, weather and water-proof exterior surface, as required in the minimum property standards for rehabilitation (existing municipal codes and ordinances); if the Authority should allow painting of the re-pointed and repaired brick exterior surface, the Design Review Board would be expected to recommend acceptable colors. 3) Item C: to recommend the installation of wood window fromes in the shop front area. Comment: the Design Review Board's purview is over matters of appearance visible from a pu6T'i—c-way; the purview of the Building Inspector is to insure that materials to be used are acceptable under existing municipal codes and ordinances; the Design Review Board may recommend the color and appearance of such acceptable materials (n.b., anodized aluminum is an acceptable mater'ial). 4) Item D: to request further study of the treatment of the shop front display windows in regard to their sub-division into properly proportioned lights. Comment: within the purview of the Design Review Board to request such a re-study. 5 Ltem E: to remove existing materials, replacing, repairing or patching to return to the original appearance (assumed to be slate). Comment:within the.purview of the Design Review Board to advise on matters of appearance of those aspects of the roof of the building visible from the public right-of- way, but not to specify particular materials. • 6) Item F: to install copper gutters. Comment:within the purview of the Design Review Board to advise on the appearance of gutters, when installed, but not to specify materials. Memo," DRB'recommendatiorn for'Property 10-4` p.1 --- 7) Item G: to recommend repair, replacement and/or restoration of the snowrail. Comment:within the purview of the Design Review Board to advise on the appearance oft ire snowrail, if installation is required by other codes and ordinances. 8) Item H: to request re-study of the west elevation of the building. Comment:within the purview of the Design Review Board to request such a re-study. Item I: to require that all doors opening on a public way swing outward and do not project onto or obstruct the public way. Comment: not within the purview of the Design Review Board, but rather within the purview of the Building Inspector. 10) Item J: to l:equire that downspouts be carried to storm drains within the building. Comment: not within the purview of the Design Review Board, but rather within the purview of the Building Inspector; if exterior downspouts are allowed, the Design Review Board would be expected to advise oin their appearance. ** 11) Item K: to, recommend installation of granite veneer bulkheads in.the area of shop fronts. Comment:within the purview of the Design Review Board to make such a recommendation. 12T-Item L; to require submission of specifications as to material, design and placement of shop signs. Comment:within the purview of the Design Review Board are matters of sign design, colors and general placement of the sign within areas of the building facade specified for the ir)stallation of signs and display devices in pertinent municipal codes and ordinances (including the Urban Renewal Plan); matters of materials to be used are not within the purview of the Design Review Board, nor are matters of allowable sign size and location since these. items are specified in pertinent municipal codes and ordinances. "* 13) Item M: to recommend that upper floor window sills conform to original appearance. • Comment: within the purview of the Design Review Board to make such a recommendation. ** Item 11) appears as "M" in the DRB minutes; Item 13) appears as "K" in the DRB minutes. Robert J Kerr II RJ K/eg 1 Minutes of the Design Review Board, Salem Redevelopment Authority , Salem. Massachusetts , 13 July 1971 • 1, The meeting was called to order at 8 : 16 P.M . , there being a quorum present. 2. Members present were : Mr. Bolger, presiding , Mesdames Pierson, Haskell , and Burns , and Messrs. Small , Smith, Xanthaky . Mr. Little was absent . Also present were Mr. Barrett , Executive Director, SRA, and Mr. , Kerr, Professional Advisor. 3. There being an electricity shut-off in the offices of the SRA , Mr : Bolger called for an adjournment to other quarters . 9 . Motion : to adjourn to other quarters . The meeting was therefore adjourned at 8 : 17 P.M. 5. . Pursuant to adjournment , the above persons met in the Ship ' s Cabin of the Salem Marine Society atop the Hotel Hawthorne . The meeting was called to order at 8 : 25 P.M . 6. A Motion being .made to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the last meeting, on 13 April 19.71, it was seconded and so voted. 7 . The first order of business was a review of the exterior rehab- ilitation proposals, Property 4 10-9 (Dana property at the inter- section of Derby Square and Essex Street ) . After lengthy discussion of the proposals presented to this meeting , it was voted that the following recommendations be made to the SRA: ( a) The building should be restored to its original brick facade. (b) No part of the brickwork should be painted.. The brickwork should be cleaned or sandblasted and pointed . ( c) Anodized aluminum window frames should not be used . Wood is suggested. (d) The show windows on the ground floor should be subdivided .to a scale to harmonize with the building . Further studies should be presented to the Design Review Board . (e ) It is suggested that the present roofing be removed down to the original slate ; the latter to be repaired and patched as necessary . ( f) Copper, rather than aluminum, gutters should be used . ( g) The snow rail on the roof should be repaired , restored, or replaced to match the original . ( h) Elevation 92 on the current proposal plans should be restudied. ( i ) No item of doors or steps should . protrude onto public prop- erty . Doorways must be recessed if opening onto a public way . (j ) A request should be made that the exterior downspouts be run • on the inside and connect to a storm drain . ( k ) All sills on the second floor windows should conform to the original material . ( continued ) f J Minutes of the Design Review Board Meeting of 13 July 1971 - .continued Page -2- • 5 ('1 ) The material and style of signboards must be indicated. (m) Granite veneer bulkheads should be employed across the whole building. B, An advisory submission for Property AB-10 (Bowker Building Rehabilitation Proposal ) was examined . The Board then recommended that a copy of the old photograph of the building at an earlier period of history be sent to the developer, together with a request that rehabilitation conform as closely as possible to the original aspect of the building . There was general disapproval of the use of arched windows and doors on the ground floor. 9. Motion : to set the date for the next meeting of the Board for September 14 next unless pressing business occurs in the meantime, in which case the next meeting would be called for August 10, 1971. 10. There being no further business, a motion was made, seconded , . and carried to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 50 P.M . . Respectfully submitted, • Philip C.F. Smith Secretary • MINUTES, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS, 13 APRIL 1971 • 1. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M., there being a quorum present. 2. Members present were: Mr. Boulger, presiding; Mrs. Burns (newly appointed member to the Board); Mrs. Frothingham; Mr. Small; Mr. Smith; and Mr. Xanthaky. Members absent were Mrs. Peirson and Mrs. Haskell (both out of the country) and Mr. Little. Also present were Mr. Barrett, SRA Executive Director and Mr. Kerr, Professional Advisor. 3. The Chair called for the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 9 March 1971. Motion: to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 March 1971, accepting them as written, all members having previously received a copy of said minutes. Action: seconded and so voted. 4. Under old business, drawings of the proposed exterior treatment of the new Central Fire Headquarters were presented. These drawings would be dis- tributed to individual members of the Board for their files -after the proposals had been formally submitted to the City Council and made public. Mr. Kerr noted that the Authority would have to waive certain requirements of the Urban Renewal Plan (i.e. , front and rear yard dimensions and building spacing) and a variance for the rear yard would have to be secured from the City. Otherwise, the plans as presented were in- conformity with the Urban Renewal Plan controls • and Zoning Ordinance. The Board noted the lack of a fully developed land- scape plan and lack of. data on the visibility of the roof-top air-conditioning unit. The Chair asked each member present to comment on the drawings prior to entertaining a motion as to their disposition. Motion: to note the exterior treatment proposals for the Central Fire Headquarters as a substantial improvement over previous submissions and to pass them on t "�the Authority, recommending acceptance of the exterior treatment proposals, excepting matters of landscaping and visibility of the roof-top aii-conditioning unit, pending receipt by the Board of additional documentation of these two aspects of the design. Action: seconded and' so voted. 5. Under new business, the exterior treatment proposals, for the Dana Property, (10-4) at the south-east corner of the intersection of Essex Street and Derby Square were presented. It was the sense of the meeting that this property was of such importance to the plan for renewal and revitalization of the Essex Street and Derby Square intersection that every effort should be made to restore the visual and architectural integrity of the building. Motion: to return the drawings to Mr. Dana, indicating the desire of the Board to see a more careful restoration of earlier appearance, with particular attention paid to matters of shop front design, fenestration and cornice detail. Action: seconded and so voted. • 4 MINUTES, SALEM DRB, 13 APRIL 1971 Page 2 • 6. Motion: to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 P.M., setting the date for the next meeting as Tuesdayi 11 May# 1971. Action: seconded and so voted. Respectfully submitted, Philip C. F. Smith Secretary N.B. Mrs. Frothingham offered some specific suggestions as to the manner in which the exterior treatment of the Central Fire Headquarters might be improved, including deepening of the base for the second floor pilasters, changes in the panelling of the garage doors and application of gold-leaf to the City Seal. She also suggested the use of arched openings in the shop front area of the Dana property. •t - • v MINUTES , DESIGN REVIEW BOARD , SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , SALEM , MASSACHUSETTS , 13 April__ 197T _____ 1 ) The meeting was called to order at 8 :00 PM , there being a quorum present . 2) Members present were : Mr Boulger , presiding , Mrs Burns (newly appointed to the Board) , Mrs Frothingham (.arrived uo m ca , Mr Small , Mr Smith and Mr Xanthaky ( Members absent were Mrs Pierson and Mrs Haskell (both out of the country) and Mr Little . Also present were Mr Barrett , SRA Exec Director and Mr Kerr , Professional Advisor . N 3) The Chair called for the reading of the Minutes of the previous meeting , held on 9 March , 1971 . Motion : to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 March , 1971 , accepting them as written , all members having previously received a copy of — said minutes . Action : seconded and so voted 4) Under old business , drawings of the proposed exterior treatment of tTie new Central Fire Headquarters were presented . • These drawings would be distributed to individual members of the Board for their files after the proposals had been formally submitted to the City Council and made public . Mr Kerr noted that the Authority would have to waive certain requirements of the Urban Renewal Plan (i . e . , front and rear yard dimensions and building spacing) and a variance for the rear yard would have to be secured from the City . Otherwise , the plans as presented were in conformity with the Urban Renewal Plan controls and Zoning Ordinance . The Board noted the lack of a fully developed landscape plan and lack of data on the visibility of the roof- top air-conditioning unit . The Chair asked each member present to comment on the drawings prior to entertaining a motion as to their disposition . a Motion : to note the exterior treatment proposals for the Central Fire Headquarters as a substantial improvement over previous submissions and to pass them on to the Authority , recommending arval of the exterior treatment proposals , excepting matters of landscaping and visibility of the roof-top air-conditioning unit , pending receipt by the Board of additional documentation of these two aspects of the design . • Action : seconded and so voted . Minutes , Salem DRB , 13_April ,_ 1971 p , 2 5) Under new business , the exterior treatment proposals for the Dana property Z10-4) at the south -east corner of the •- -__ intersection of Essex Street and Derby Square were presented . It was the sense of the meeting that this property was of such importance to the plan for renewal and revitalization of the Essex Street and Derby Square intersection that every effort should be made to restore the visual and architectural integrity of the building. Motion : to return the drawings to Mr Dana , indicating the desire of the Board to see a more careful restoration of earlier appearance , with particular attention paid to matters of shop front design , fenestration and cornice detail . Action : seconded and so voted . 6) _Motion : to adjourn the meeting at 9: 1OPM , setting the dare for t7 next meeting as Tuesday, 11 May , 1971 . Action : seconded and so voted . Respectfully submitted , • Philip C F Smith Secretary PCFS/RJK/eg N . B . Mrs Frothinghom offered some specific suggestions as to the manner in which the exterior treatment of the Central Fire, Head- quarters might be improved , including deepening of the base for the second floor pilasters, changes in the panelling of the garage doors and application of gold- leaf to the City Seal . She also suggested the use of arched openings in the shop front area of the Dana property . t • MINUTES , DESIGN REVIEW BOARD , SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS_ 13 April__197T 1 ) The meeting was called to order at 8 :00 PM , there being, a quorum present . 2) Members present were : Mr Boulger , presiding , Mrs Burns (newly appointed to the Board) , Mrs Frothingham.,44** , Mr Small , Mr Smith and Mr Xanthaky, Members absent were Mrs Pierson and Mrs Haskell (both out of the country) and Mr Little . Also . present were Mr Barrett , SRA Exec Director and Mr Kerr , Professional Advisor . 3) The Chair called for the reading of the Minutes of the previous meeting , held on 9 March , 1971 . Motion : to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 March , 1971 , accepting them as written , all members having previously received a copy of said minutes . Action : seconded and so voted . 4) Under old business , drawings of the proposed exterior treatment of tTie new Central Fire Headquarters were presented . • These drawings would be distributed to individual members of the Board for their files after the proposals had been formally submitted to the City Council and made public . Mr Kerr noted that the Authority would have to waive certain requirements of the Urban Renewal Plan ( i . e . , front and rear yard dimensions and building spacing) and a variance for the rear yard would have to be secured from the City . Otherwise , the plans as presented were in conformity with the Urban Renewal Plan controls and Zoning Ordinance . The Board noted the -lack of a fully developed landscape plan and lack of data on the visibility of the roof- top air-conditioning unit . The Chair asked each member present to comment on the drawings prior to entertaining a motion as to their disposition . 4 Motion : to note the exterior treatment proposals for the Central Fire Headquarters as a substantial improvement over previous submissions and to pass them on to the Authority, recommending 6Ace_-ap9r-e- 1 of the exterior treatment proposals , excepting matters of landscaping and visibility of the roof-top air=conditioning unit , pending receipt by the Board of additional documentation of these two aspects of the design . • Action : seconded and so voted . Minutes , Salem DRB , 13_Apr11 , 1971 p . 2 5) Under new business , the exterior treatment proposals for the Dana property 7TO-4) at the south -east corner of the intersection of Essex Street and Derby Square were presented . It was the sense of the meeting that this property was of such importance to the plan for renewal and revitalization of the Essex Street and Derby Square intersection that every effort should be made to restore the visual and architectural integrity of the building. 9 Motion : to return the drawings to Mr Dana , indicating the desire of the Board to see a more careful restoration of earlier appearance , with particular attention paid to matters of shop front design , fenestration and cornice detail . Action : seconded and so voted . 6) _Motion : to adjourn the meeting at 9: 10PM , setting the date for tie next meeting as Tuesday, 11 May , 1971 . Action : seconded and so voted . Respectfully submitted , Philip C F Smith • Secretary PCFS/RJK/eg N . B . Mrs Frothingham offered some specific suggestions as to the manner in which the exterior treatment of the Central Fire Head - quarters might be improved , including deepening 9 9 p 9 dep ng of the base for the second floor pilasters , changes in the panelling of the garage doors and application of gold- leaf to the City Seal . She also suggested the use of arched openings in the shop front area of the Dana property . 6 x/9/71 MINUTES , DESIGN REVIEW BOARD , SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY_ SALEM , MASSACHUSETTS , 13 Apr1 ,_ 1971 _____ 1 ) The meeting was called to order at 8 :00 PM , there being a quorum present . 2) Members present were : Mr Boulger , presiding , Mrs Burns (newly appointed to the Board) , Mrs Frothingham (arrived after the quorum call ) , Mr Small , Mr Smith and Mr Xanthaky (arrived after the quorum call) . Members absent were Mrs Pierson and Mrs Haskell (both out of the country) and Mr Little . Also present were Mr Barrett , SRA Exec Director and Mr Kerr , Professional Advisor . 3) The Chair called for the reading of the Minutes of the previous meeting , held on 9 March , 1971 . Motion : to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 March , 1971 , accepting them as written , all members having previously received a copy of - said minutes . Action : seconded and so voted . 4) Under old business , drawings of the proposed exterior treatment of tTie new Central Fire Headquarters were presented . These drawings would be distributed to individual members of • the Board for their files after the proposals had been formally submitted to the City Council and made public . Mr Kerr noted that the Authority would have to waive certain requirements of the Urban Renewal Plan (i . e . , front and rear yard dimensions and building spacing) and a variance for the rear yard would have to be secured from the City . Otherwise , the plans as presented were in conformity with the Urban Renewal Plan ,controls and Zoning Ordinance . The Board noted the lack of a ,fully developed landscape plan and lack of data on the visibility of the roof- top air-conditioning unit . The Chair asked each member present to comment on the drawings prior to entertaining a motion as to their disposition . s Motion : to note the exterior treatment proposals for the Central Fire Headquarters as a substantial improvement over previous submissions and to pass them on to the Authority , recommending approval of the exterior treatment proposals , excepting matters of landscaping and visibility of the roof-top air-conditioning unit , pending receipt by the Board of additional documentation of these two aspects of the design . • Action : seconded and so voted . Minutes , Salem DRB , 13—April ,_ 1971 p . 2 5) Under new business , the exterior treatment proposals for the Dana at the south -east corner of the intersection of Essex Street and Derby Square were presented . It was the sense of the meeting that this property was of such importance to the plan for renewal and revitalization of the Essex Street and Derby Square intersection that every effort should be made to restore the visual and architectural integrity of the building. Motion : to return the drawings to Mr Dana , indicating the eesire of the Board to see a more careful restoration of earlier appearance , with particular attention paid to matters of shop front design , fenestration and cornice detail . Action : seconded and so voted . 6) _Motion : to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 1OPM , setting the date for tWe next meeting as Tuesday , 11 May, 1971 . Action : seconded and so voted . Respectfully submitted , Philip C F Smith • Secretary PCFS /RJK/ e 9 N . B . Mrs Frothingham offered some specific suggestions as to the manner in which the exterior treatment of the Central Fire Head - quarters might be improved , including deepening of the base for the second floor pilasters, changes in the panelling of the garage doors and application of gold- leaf to the City Seal . She also suggested the use of arched openings in the shop front area of the Dana property . a • P HERITAGE PIAZA-EAST SALEM ^- JOHN INBARRETT - �'^._�3.. � REDEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1626 . .:-��.�.. HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM-MASSACHUSETTS AUTHORITY ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MRUPF 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FRANCIS H. McGRATH VICE-CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALL, JR. TREASURER MRS. IDA A. FURNARI FRANCIS J. GRAY NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given the next meeting of the Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority Design Review Board will be held Tuesday, May 11, 1971 at 8:00 P.M. at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. • If, for any reason, you will be unable to attend said meeting, please notify the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority as soon as possible. Philip C. F. Smith Secretary Minof-s. Design Raview Board, Salem Redevelopment Authority, Salem, P/'•.assachue—its, 9 March, 1971 _ • i) The meeting was called to order at 8:05 PM, there being a quorum present. 2) Members present` were: Mr Boulgar. presiding, Mrs Haskell, Mrs Pierson, Mr Little, Mr Small , Mr Smith and Mr Xanthaky, newly appointed to the Board. Mrs Fro-hinaham was the only member absent. Also present we-e Mr Barret+.-, Executive Director, SRA, Mr Kerr, Professional Advisor and Mr Bourne, Rehabilitation Technical: Assistance Design Consultant. 3) The Chair ccillod for the reading of tho Minutes of the previous mooting, held on 9 February, 1971 . Motion: to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the previous meeting, ht F on 9 February, 1971 . accepting them as written, all members having previously received copies of said Minutes. Aa',ian: seconded and so voted. n) Mo`ion: ?o change the order of business to take up New Business prior to Olc 3U7,ness. Action: seconded and so voted. 5) Mr Kerr introduced Mr Bourne to the members of the Board and gave a brief description of the Rehabilitation Technical Assistance experiment being conducted for 'rhe Authority by Mr Bourne. The techniques being developed by Mr Bourne would provide owners of properties subject to exterior rehabilitation with sketches of alternative methods or` tregI a exterior appearance. Owners would be expected ro equal or better the proposals prepared by Mr Bourne. The purpose of Mr Bourne`s presentationro the Board was to inform the members of the Board of the program and to seek a sense of the meeting as to the Board's preferences on the sketches being prepared for the Alamo Cafe and the Salem Hardware Store. Mr Bourne reviewed the graphic materials which had been consulted in the preparation of c`;terna"ve sketches for the exterior treatment of the two structures, noting three maters of concern as follows: a) the roiationship of the 'Iwo structures to the Town Hall and to the plan for developman'I of Derby Square; b) the selection of colors and .ncte-ials for exterior treatment; c) the specific treatment proposals for each structure. Afte> canside-able discussion and review of the sketches prepared by Mr Bourne, the sense of the meeting evolved as follows: a) the Board preferred Sketch ly 2R for the Alamo Cafe; b) with modifications, the Board preferred Sketch # 2 for the Salem Hardware, noting that: 1 'rhe southern arched opening on the west facade should be restored as an entrance; 2- the ballustrade on the south facade should be retained; • 3- the "eyebrows" over the second floor windows on the south facade sl-ould be retained, but removed on the north facade; ¢- 2/2 windows should be used on the south facade, but b/b should be used on the west and north facade; M'nutcs, Salem DRB -2- 9 Mar, '71 5- shop doors should be glazed w/wood Frame; • 6- dormers should be removed. The Board discussed the matter of surface treatment, particularly the question of painted brick walls. In this context, the color of specific wall treatments was deferred to a later date. 6) Mr Kerr presented the revised 20th scale plans for the development of the pedestrian mall system and open spaces within the Heritage Plaza-East Urban Renewal Project, pointing out the changes which had been made as a result of comments from Mr Braun (Planning), Whitman and Howard (Engineering), Chief Brennan (Public Safety and Emergency Vehicle Access), Mr Foster (Real Estate Values) and the Design Review Board (Aesthetics) . The Chair polled the members of the Board for their reaction to the revised plans, as follows: a) Mrs Pierson: an improvement over the original proposal; b) Mrs Haskell: an improvement over the original proposal; a) Mr Xanflhaky: no comment, since as a new member of the Board he was without background as to the nature of the original proposal; d) Mr Little: felt progress had been made in developing the plans; e) Mr Small: felt 'that progress had been made in developing the. plans, but cautioned against the selection of frees of too large caliper; F) Mr Smith: Felt that the plans were more refined and easier to understand; g) Mr Boulger: recommended another foot reduction in the height of the raised seating area and cautioned against the use of trees which may grow to large size and present maintenance problems. • hl- was the sense of the meating that the plans be returned to the Authority with a recommendation ro psocead with further design development with the stipulation that the plans would be returned at a later date for the Board's review of specific items of street furniture selected for installation. 7) Mr Kerr presented a progress report on the development of the designs for the exterior treatment of the Central Fire Station, illustrating his report with the latest drawings of the exterior treatment proposals (elevations of north, south, east and west facades). The Board offered the following commentary on the current proposals: a) the elevation drawings, as presented, seemed to be a retrogression from the earlier preliminary sketches which the Board had returned to the Authority without cornmeni; b) the Design Review Board feels that the proposed exterior treatment as sub- mitted is generally inappropriate in terms of the functional nature of the structure and the time and place of construction; c) the Design Review Board is anxious to see the plans completed and construction commence on the Central Fire Station; however, the Board `eels that the exterior treatment proposals should be greatly-simplified. 8) Motion: to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 PM. Action: secono'ed and so voted. • Respectful!y submitted, Philip C.F. Smith PCFS/RJK2/eg Secretary e Minutes. Dasign Review Board, Salem Redevelopment Authority, Salem, Mcs<_acnusetts, 9 March, 1971 • 1) The meeting was called to order at 8:05 PM, there being a quorum present. 2, M..ernbers ;,resent were: Mr Boulger. presiding, Mrs Haskell, Mrs Pierson, Mr Little, Mr Small , Mr Smith and Mr Xanthaky, newly appointed to the Board. Mrs Frcthingharn was the only member absent. Also present were Mr Barrett, Executive Director, SRA, Mr Kerr, Professional Advisor and Mr Bourne, Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Design Consultant. 3) The Chair called for the reading of the Minutes of the previous meeting, held on 9 February, 1971 . Motion: to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the previous meeting, 'n.c;Id on 9 February, 1971 , accepting them as written, all members having previously received copies of said Minutes. Action: seconded and so voted. 4) Mo':ion: to change 'rhe order of business to take up New Business prior to Old 3usiness. Action: seconded and so voted. 5) Mr Kerr introduced Mr Bourne to the members of the Board and gave a brief descriotion of the Rehabilitation Technical Assistance experiment being conducted for the Authority by Mr Bourne. The techniques being developed by Mr Bourne • would provide owners of properties subject to exterior rehabilitation with sketches of alternative methods of treating exterior appearance. Owners would be expected to equal or better the proposals prepared by Mr Bourne. The purpose of Mr Bourne's presentation to the Board was to inform the members of the Board of the program and to seek a sense of the meeting as to the Board's preferences on t'ne sketches being prepared for the Alamo Cafe and the Salem Hardware Store. Mr Bourne reviewed the graphic materials which had been consulted in the preparation of alternative sketches for the exterior treatment of the two structures, noting three ma-;ars of concern as follows: a) the relationship of the two structures to the Town Hall and to the plan for dr✓elooment of Derby Square; b) the selection of colors and rnaterials for exterior treatment; c) the specific treatment proposals icor each structure. After considerable discussion and review of the sketches prepared by Mr Bourne, the sense of the meeting evolved as follows: a) the Board preferred Sketch 11 2R for the .Alamo Cafe; b) with modifications, the Board p-eferred Sketch # 2 for the Salem Hardware, noting that: 1;- the southern arched opening on the west facade should be restored as an entrance; 2- the bailustrade on the south facade should be retained; • 3- the "eyebrows" over the second floor windows on the south facade should be retained, but removed on the north facade; 4- 2/2 windows should be used on the south facade, but b/b should be used on the west and north facade; tMinutes, Salem DRB -2- 9 Mar, '71 S- shop doors should be glazed w/wood Frame; 6- dormers should be removed. • f' a Board discussed the matter of surface treatment, particularly the question of :tad brick walls. In this contexit, the color of specific wall treatments was de`Zrred to a later date. 6) Mr Kerr presented the revised 20th scale plans for the development of the pedestrian mall system and open spaces within the Heritage Plaza-East Urban,Renewal Project, painting out the changes which had been made as a result of comments from Mr Braun (Planning), Whitman and HoNard (Engineering), Chief Brennan (Public Safety and Emergency Vehicle Access), Mr Foster (Real Estate Values) and the Design Review Board (Aesthetics) . The Chair palled the members of the Board for their reaction to the revised plans, as follows: a) Mrs Pierson: an improvement over the original proposal;' b) Mrs Haskell: an improvement over the original proposal; ci Mr Xanthaky: no comment, since as a new member of the Board he was without background as to the nature of the original proposal; d) Mr Little: felt progress had been made in developing the plans; e) Mr Small: felt that progress had been made in developing the plans, but cautioned against the selection of trees of too large caliper; ' f) Mr Smith: felt that the plans were more refined and easier to understand; g) Mr Boulger: recommended another foot reduction in the height of the raised seating area and cautioned against the use of trees which may grow to large size and present maintenance problems. • It was the sense of the meating that the plans be returned to the Authority with a recommendation to procead with further design development with the stipulation that the plans would be returned at a later date for the Board's review of specific items of street furniture selected for installation. 7) Mr Kerr presented a progress repo.-t on the development of the designs for the exterior treatment of the Central Fire Station, illustrating his report with the latest drawings of the exterior treatment proposals (elevations of north, south, eost and west facades). The Board offered the following commentary on the current proposals: a) the elevation drawings, as presented, seemed to be a retrogression from the earlier preliminary sketches which the Board had returned to the Authority without comment; b) the Design Review Board feels that the proposed exterior treatment as sub- mitted is genera!ly inappropriate in terms of the functional nature of the structure and the time and place of construction; c) the Design Review Board is anxious to see the plans completed and construction commence on the Central Fire Station; however, the Board feels that the exterior treatment proposals should be greatly simplified. 8) Motion: to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 PM. Action: seconded and so voted. • Respectfully submitted, Philip C.F . Smith PCFS/RJK2/e9 Secretary t. HERITAGE PLAZA-EAST ' _ SALEM - �-= RETT REDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. DIRECTOR 1626 '.'a ExecunvE DIRECTOR ''' AUTHORITY HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM*MASSACHUSETTS ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE-CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALL, JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. McGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given the next meeting of the Design Review Board will be held Tuesday, April 139 1971 at 8:00 P.M. at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority 60 Washington Street, Salem, Mass. • If for any reason you are unable to attend said meeting, please notify the Redevelopment Authority at your earliest convenience. Philip C. F. Smith Secretary Notice of meeting and minutes of March meeting Sent to all members of the Board _314111 Sent to Mrs. Abigail Burns (new member) Sent to Mrs. Kerr • Minutes, Design Review Board, Salem Redevelopment Authority, Salem, Massachusetts 9 February, 1971 • 1) The meeting was called to order at 8:05 PM, there being a quorum present. 2) Members present were: Mr Boulger, presiding, Mrs Haskell, Mrs Pierson, Mr Little, Mr Small and Mr Smith. Mrs Frothingham was the only member absent, there being two vacancies on the Board. Also present were Mr Barrett, Exec Director, SRA, and Mr Kerr, Professional Advisor. 3) The Chair called for the reading of the previous meeting held on 8 December, 1970. Motion : to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the December 8th meeting, accepting them as written, all members having previously received copies of said minutes. Action: seconded and so voted. 4) There being no Old Business carried over from previous meetings, the Chair called for New Business to be presented, noting that the Agenda called for presentation and discussion of the 20th scale plans for the development of the pedestrian mall system within the Heritage Plaza-East Urban Renewal Project. a) Mr Kerr presented the plans prepared by The Urban Design Group, Inc. and summarized the comments on the plans which had been offered by Mr Braun of The Planning Services Group, Whitman and Howard, consulting engineers and • Chief Brennan of the Salem Fire Department. He stated that further comment would be sought from the Authority's real estate consultant, Mr Roger Foster. His comments, along with those of Mr Braun, Whitman and Howard, Chief Brennan and the Design Review Board, would be transmitted to the Authority for its background and information on the suitability and appropriateness of the plans for development of the pedestrian mall system. Mr Kerr pointed out that the Design Review Board was being asked to comment specifically on the aesthetics of the proposal, since planning comment had already been requested from Mr Braun, engineering comment had been requested from Whitman and Howard, comment on fire safety and emergency access had been requested from Chief Brennan and comment on the impact on real property values and merchandising potential would be requested from Mr Foster. b) Mr Kerr noted that certain changes would be made in the plans as a result of comments already received from Mr Braun, Whitman and Howard and Chief Brennan. These changes would include the following items: 1- access for emergency vehicles to Derby Square from Essex Street would be improved; 2- access for emergency vehicles to Central Street from Essex Street would be improved and service access for shops fronting on Essex Street from Central Street to New St Peter Street would be improved in the Central Street area; 3- the raised seating area at the junction of the Arcade and Essex Street would be lowered in height and reduced in size to provide better visual and physical access to the Arcade; 4- the Derby Square area would be elaborated to suggest provisions for market operations; Minutes, DRB, 9 Feb,'71 p.2 5- suggestions would be made showing the potential for use of open • areas along Essex Street for such activities as.sidewalk cafes and related retailing; 6- the relative size of paving panels (reinforced) would be increased from 5'x5'x2" to 5'x5'x3", on the recommendation of Whitman and Howard. c) The Board's comments, developed in the course of discussion, seemed to reflect a general concern for a number of questions not directly related to matters of aesthetics, including concern for the matter of maintenance responsibility, cost, and the disposition of parcels adjacent to the mall area. The members of the Board did express a concern that the design as presented appeared "cluttered" and suggested that an attempt be made to simplify the proposal . Mr Boulger suggested the possibility of demolition of the Dana property at the head of Derby Square in favor of construction of a covered passageway from the parking structure to the Arcade. Comment was also offered that the preparation of the plans for the development of the pedestrian areas appeared to be an academic exercise, in light of the lack of definitive allocation of disposition parcels bordering the pedestrian areas. Mr Kerr and Mr Barrett pointed out that to the contrary, a great deal was known about the character of uses bordering the mall area. • The Board's general reaction to the plans as presented suggests that another review session be held after modifications, as indicated in Paragraph 4-6, above, have been made. 5) Mr Kerr reported on the progress of the experimental design assistance effort being developed for the Alamo Cafe and Salem Hardware. He indicated that Mr Bofne was making sufficient progress with his sketches that the Board might receive a set of sketches for each building for review and discussion at the March meeting. 6) Motion: to set the date for the next meeting for the second Tuesday of March (the 9t and to adjourn the meeting of 9 February, 1971 at 10:15 PM. Action: seconded and so voted. Respectfully submitted, Philip C.F. Smith Secretary PCFS/RJK2/eg • H , 26- • Trustees STEPHEN WHEATLAND Honorary Trustees P,.,de.t A FRANCIS BACON LOTHR STEPHEN PHILLIPS RALPH LA Vice Pendent s: - QOND SANGER WILKINS WALTER MUM WHITEHILL ® ^� ALFRED PORTER PUTNAM v;r ' s[maary LEVEREIT 14 SALTONSTALL &: � AUGUSTUS PEABODY LORING ii r mr i3 LAWRENCE COOLIDGE RUSSELL WALLACE KNIGHT Q[ f. p Trcarnrn FRANCIS USE HIGGINSON,JR. HENRYSC� HOF RERNEST STANLEY DODGE MAR INCRRR V®WV'V'V°VV`l+.'ci"®'a+RF� Director Founded by the East India Marine Society 1799 GO ��w e LFEB C � IVE • 24 1971 f : ROBERT J. KERR, II . . . PLANNING CONSULTANT 26 THAMES STREET • NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND 02540 TELEPHONE (401) 549-2541 • 19 February, 1971 Mr John W Barrett, Exec Director Salem Redevelopment Authority 60 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear John: Enclosed please find the minutes of the 9 February meeting of the Design Review Board and a print of the site plan for the area adjacent to the Alamo Cafe and Salem Hardware for Mr Borne's use. Would you be kind enough to send the drawing on to him, since I do not have either his office or home address? I have attached a note to the drawing asking him to have something ready for discussion by the Design Review Board at their meeting on March 9th. I think that it might be a good idea to have him present at the meeting and to schedule his presentation early on the agenda. What do you think? I suspect that Chad Smith may want to modify my draft of the minutes of the 9 February meeting. If so, I have no objections since I don't feel that I can do justice to the Board's comments (or lack thereof). • I have yet to hear from Mr Dana's architect. I hope that this does not mean that he will try to come in with his drawings "cold turkey" . Let me know if you hear from him. Regards, o ert J Kerr l l enc: 1) drawing, Mr Borne 2) draft, minutes of the 9 Feb, '71 DRB meeting RJK/cg RECEIVED • FEB 24 1971 Wo I&Idwagat Aut. H$RITAGE PIAZA-EAST SALEM REDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. BARRETT 1:1 , 1 �J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR n AUTHORITY HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM*MASSACHUSETTS ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 4 rw 60 WASHINGTON STREET • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 • TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE-CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALL. JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. MCGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given there will be a meeting of the Design Review Board Tuesday, March 9, 1971 at 8:00 P.M. at the • office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. If you find you are unable to attend said meeting, please notify the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority at your earliest convenience. Philip C. F. Smith Secretary • 1 ; HEi TAGE PLAZA-EAST €• SALEM REDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. BARRETT _ Ib26 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SALEMMASSACHUSETTS AUTHORITY HAROLD J. CORCORAN • Assr. Ex EcvnvE olREcroR ' 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE'744-6900 ' FRANKLIN A. HEBARD - �yyI CX AIRMAN _ it FELIX A. KULIK i( VICE-CN AIRMAN H CHANNING BACALL. JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. MCGRATH _ ASSISTANT TREASURER F' FRANCIS J. GRAY I NOTICE OF MEETING f Notice is hereby given there will be a meeting of the F' Design Review Board Tuesday, March 9, 1971 at 8:00 P.M. at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, }, • Salem, Massachusetts. If you find you are unable to attend said meeting, please notify the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority at your earliest convenience. i Philip C. F. Smith f . Secretary e t c I I 2/25/71 Sent to all members of the Design Review Board Sent to Mr. Kerr F Sent to Members of the Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority fi t 1 i ,p t I. HERITAGE PLAZA-EAST SALEM JOHN W. BARRETT REDEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1626 S i HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEMAMASSACHUSETTS AUTHORITY ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE-CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALL. JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. MCGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the • Members of the Design Review Board will be held on Tuesday, February 9, 1971 at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts, at 8:00 P.M. If for any reason you are unable to attend, please call the Redevelopment office at your earliest con- venience. James Boulger Chairman copy to: Mr. James Boulger, 150 Washington St. • Mr. Philip C. F. Smith, Peabody Museum Mrs. Marion Pierson, 374 Essex Street Mrs. Theodore Frothingham, 215 E. 68th St. , New York, N.Y. Mr, Edwin W. Small, 9 Phelps Street Mr. David Little, Essex Institute Mrs, Paul Haskell, 3581 Essex St. Mr. Robert Kerr, 26 Thames St. , Newport, R.I. HERITAGE PIAZA-EAST -� _ SALEM . REDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. BARRETT 1626 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR A_x ' AUTHORITY HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM*MASSACHUSETTS ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE-CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALL. JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. MCGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY SECRETARY (PRO-TEM) TO: MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: John W. Barrett DATE: December 4, 1970 • SUBJECT: Meeting of the Board Notice is hereby given there will be a meeting of the Design Review Board Tuesday evening, December 8, 1970 at 8:00 P.M. at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Mass. • IV MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY., • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS, 8 DECEMBER , 1970 1) The meeting was called to order at 8:05 P,M, , there being a quorum present. 2) Members present were: Mr. Boulger, presiding, Mrs. Frothinghem, Mrs. Haskell, Mrs, Pierson, Mr, Little, Mr, Small and Mr. Smith. The only member absent was Mr, Cummings. Also present were Mr. Barrett, Executive Director, SRA and Mr. Kerr, Professional Advisor. 3) The Chair called for the reading of the minutes of the previous regular meeting of the Board, held on 10 November, 1970 and of the special meeting held on 24 November, 1970. Motion: to dispense with the reading of said minutes of the previous regular and special meetings, accepting them as written, all members having received • copies of said minutes. Action: seconded and so voted, 4) Under Old Business, the Chair received and read the letters transmitting the Board's recommendations regarding the preliminary design proposals for the Charter Street Elderly Housing Project to the Salem Housing Authority, The Board requested that the text of the letter of 7 December, 1970 to SHA be clarified as follows: a) Par. 2, page 2: note that stone or brick were intended to be considered as alternatives to the use of exposed concrete; b) Par. 6, page 2: note that the reference to the use of bronze anodized aluminum referred to balcony railings, rather than to balconies, per se. • l Page 2 5) Under New Business, the Chair received and read the letter of iesigna- 1 • tion from Mr. Cummings, a copy of which is attached as Addenda 1 to these minutes. Motion: to recommend that the Authority accept Mr. Cummings' resignation with regret and that a suitable letter of acceptance, expressing these R regrets be sent to Mr. Cummings. Action: seconded and so voted. 6) In light of Mr. Cummings' resignation and the earlier resignation of Mr. Sadoski, Planning Board representative, it was the Sense of the meeting that the Authority be asked to fill these vacancies as soon as possible. 7) Motion: to set the next meeting of the Board for Tuesday, 12 January, 1971, subject to 7 days notice of cancellation if no business is to come before the Board; in such case, the first meeting of the Board in 1971 would be held on Tuesday, 9 February, 1971, unless otherwise notified at least 7 • days in advance of the proposed meeting. Action: seconded and so voted. 8) Motion: to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 P.M. Action: seconded and so voted. Respectfully submitted, Philip C. F. Smith, Secretary PCFS/RJK/ew - •PRESIDENT F a" h[ DIRECTOR Charles F. Batchelder \ Abbott Lowell Cummings TREASURER a'• ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR • William B. Osgood •,yr, }(P George L.Wrenn III THE SOCIETY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF NEIN ENGLAND ANTIQUITIES December 4t 1970 Mr. James Boulger Chairman Salem Redevelopment Authority Design Review Board 150 Washington Street ' Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. Boulger: t ' After very careful reflection I have decided that ,. it would be wise to tender my resignation as a. member of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority. My reasons are two fold: First of all , you are well aware , I 'm sure , that from the time of my ap 'ointmen.t until the meeting of Pdovember 24ib, I found it literally imr'ossible to take any effective part in ' ' • your" prOCee_dinrjL . My extracurricular duties here at Society pluE outside lecturing emrr.itments and i t:, . ring re�sponsibi-litie J-0- Bo:tOn University make it inc.-easingly difficult to schedule evening meetings. Second and more iIr ortant , however , is the :E ac _ th":t I rIo rant ',-,el t'-at design rev:ew is : n area for hi_c? S have ,ny r_-al i-ar_kground or pre-,-ration, I E }cce* ted tr an^ointment on tha =r.parently mistaken assumption that fund-imentzi questions of prese.rvati.on , fcr which I am professionally trained , would form an inevitable part of .our discussions. The meeting on 24t'I made it perfectly cl-,ar that such is not , the case. Concerning the plans under discussion, showing proposed housing for th- elderly at the inter- section of Charter and Liberty Streets , being Project No. 667-5 , I must point out once again as I hav€ in the past , both as an individual architectural historian and as Director and Corresponding Secretary of this Society, th- t it is virtually incomprehensible to me why such an historically important city as Salem continues to endorse P. pr.oc,r�im dedicated to the consistent erosion of her HARRISON GRAY OTIS HOUSE 141 CAMBRIDGE ST. BOSTON, MA. 02114 (617) 227-3956 �3 1 • historic street patterns and individual early buildings. The parking space shown onSheet1 of the plan submitted ,. obliterating as it does <a portion of historic Liberty Street and sweeping away the fine three-story late 18Th century house standing between the Pickman House and the Cemetary, does , in my opinion, so much violation to this important neighborhood, located but a block from the Essex Institute and the Peabody ruseum, that the question of desiqn suitability is no longer relevant. I would very much prefer not to be a=,sociated with any further aspects of its formal approval . I hone you realize that this letter .is prompted from basically constructive motives and is written with full knowledge of the Executive Committee of my Board. I have felt it only fair to let you know that any further involvement of mine in the Desiqn Review Board would t, necessarily bring, with it a strong veto of all such developments as those illustrated in the plan for the Housing for the Elderly Project. 1 Sincerely yours , Abbott L. Cummings 11 Director 1 ALC/mm S 4 LE �. i Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Design Review Board, Salem Redevelopment • Authority, Salem, Massachusetts, 24 November, 1970 I . The meeting was called to order at 8:OO PM, there being a quorum present. 2. Members present were: Mr Boulger, presiding, Mrs Haskell , Mrs Pierson, Mr Cummings, Mr Little, Mr Small and Mr Smith. The only member of the Board who was absent was Mrs Frothingham. Also present were Mr Barrett, Executive Director, SRA, and Mr Kerr, Professional Advisor. The Chair noted that the reading of the minutes of the previous regular meeting would be waived due to the fact that this was a special meeting of the Board, convened to review preliminary design concepts for the proposed Carter Street elderly housing project. 4. "i he Chair identified the concepts for discussion as those drawings prepared by Robert Charles Associates, Inc. for the Salem Housing Authority for Project 0667-5, Identified as Exhibit II-A, sheets 1-6, dated 22 Sep't '70 and requested the reading of the extract of the minutes of the 13 October,. 1970 meeting pertaining to Narlier discussions regarding the Elderly Housing Project. The extract (Par 11 of ;aid minutes) was duly read by Mr Kerr. For further background, Mr Kerr also read extracts of correspondance received by Mr Barrett in regard to the Elderly Housing Project and matters of interpretation of the contents of the Urban Renewal Plan from Mr Braun, the planning consultant who had prepared the Urban Renewal • Plan, from Mr Alvin W Harding, Project Architect and from Mr Kerr. Copies of subject correspondance are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4. 5. After some discussion of the question of interpretation of the contents of the Urban Renewal Plan, particularly Paragraph 9.2, the Chair directed that the Board's review of the proposal should deal in sequence with a) the matter of building height, b) the matter of building siting, c) the matter of exterior treatment, and d) the matter of landscape treatment. 6. The Chair followed a procedure of opening discussion on each item, polling the members of the Board, and finally, putting each matter to a vote. The following were t?.e motions presented and actions taken for each item in 5. , above. a) building height: Motion: to accept the proposal for a high-rise (12 storey) structure in preference to the alternative of a lower (8 storey), but more massive, structure. Action: seconded and so voted. b) siting: Motion: that the proposal showing the building oriented with its short side parallel to Charter Street be accepted. Action: seconded and so voted. c) exterior appearance: k E C f: I V E • Motion: that the Board preferred a combination of materials (i.e. , red brick and stone) consistent with the materials set forth in Parag phNOV 2 5 1970 Salem Redevelopment Auth. Minutes, 24 Nov'70 Special Meeting, Salem DRB p.2 9.2 of the Urban Renewal Plan and recommending to the Authority that • the Project Architect be requested to submit drawings of alternative types of surface treatment, utilizing materials set forth in Paragraph 9.2 of the Urban Renewal Plan. Action: seconded and so voted. d) I andscaping: Motion: to defer discussion of the matter of landscaping pending receipt of a more definitive landscape plan, consistent with the requirements set . forth in the Urban Renewal Plan. Action: seconded and so voted. 7. The additional question of the configuration and location of the complex of transformer, electrical room and receiving and storage area was discussed. Motion: that the matter of the configuration and location of the complex of transformer, electrical room and receiving and storage area be referred back to the Project Architect, with the statement that the Board would prefer to see this complex integrated within the basic mass of the structure, if such an adjustment can be readily made. Action: seconded and so voted. 8. During the course of the discussion of matters covered in 5.,6., and 7., above, Mr Cummings reminded the Board of the outstanding architectural and historic heritage of the City of Salem and the Board's responsibility for the preservation of • these values. As a corolary to this responsibility, Mr Cummings noted the Board's obligation to insure that new construction should result in the production of contemporary buildings and environments of such quality as to enhance the City's architectural and historical significance. 9. In response to the Chair's call for other business which should come before the Board, Mr Barrett presented the proposal for a sign for the Fraternity Building on Central Street, pointing out that the sign design met the code requirements on location and size. The sign would consist of a wooden fascia board with routed. letters in Old English type face. The ground of the sign would be red to match the facade color of the uilding, with letters picked out in brown or gold. Motion: to approve the design for the sign for the Fraternity Building, as submitted. Action: seconded and so voted. 10. Motion: to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 PM. Action: seconded and so voted. Respectfully submitted, Philip C F Smith, Secretary PCFS/RJK/ew Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Design Review Board, Salem Redevelopment • Authority, Salem, Massachusetts, 24 November, 1970 1 . The meeting was called to order at 8:00 PM, there being a quorum present. 2. Members present were: Mr Boulger, presiding, Mrs Haskell, Mrs Pierson, Mr Cummings, Mr Little, Mr Small and Mr Smith. The only member of the Board who was absent was Mrs Frothingham. Also present were Mr Barrett, Executive Director, SRA, and Mr Kerr, Professional Advisor. 3. The Chair noted that the reading of the minutes of the previous regular meeting would be waived due to the fact that this was a special meeting of the Board, convened to review preliminary design concepts for the proposed Charter Street elderly housing project. 4. The Chair identified the concepts for discussion as those drawings prepared by Robert Charles Associates, Inc. for the Salem Housing Authority for Project #667-5, identified as Exhibit II-A, sheets 1-6, dated 22 Sept '70 and requested the reading of the extract of the minutes of the 13 October, 1970 meeting pertaining to earlier discussions regarding the Elderly Housing Project. The extract (Par 11 of said minutes) was duly read by Mr Kerr. For further background, Mr Kerr also read extracts of correspondance received by Mr Barrett in regard to the Elderly Housing Project and matters of interpretation of the contents of the Urban Renewal Plan from Mr Braun, the planning consultant who had prepared the Urban Renewal • Plan, from Mr Alvin W Harding, Project Architect and from Mr Kerr. Copies of subject correspondance are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4. 5. After some discussion of the question of interpretation of the contents of the Urban Renewal Plan, particularly Paragraph 9.2, the Chair directed that the Board's review of the proposal should deal in sequence with a) the matter of building height, b) the matter of building siting, c) the matter of exterior treatment, and d) the matter of landscape treatment. 6. The Chair followed a procedure of opening discussion on each item, polling the members of the Board, and finally, putting each matter to a vote. The following were the motions presented and actions taken for each item in 5., above. a) building height: Motion: to accept the proposal for a high-rise (12 storey) structure in preference to the alternative of a lower (8 storey), but more massive, structure. Action: seconded and so voted. b) siting: Motion: that the proposal showing the building oriented with its short side parallel to Charter Street be accepted. Action: seconded and so voted. REICE c) exterior appearance: C • Motion: that the Board preferred a combination of materials (1.e., NOV 2 5 1970 red brick and stone) consistent with the materials set forth in Paragr ph Am Redevelopment A& Minutes, 24 Nov'70 Special Meeting, Salem DRB p.2 9.2 of the Urban Renewal Plan-and recommending to the Authority that • the Project Architect be requested to submit drawings of alternative types of surface treatment, utilizing materials set forth in Paragraph 9.2 of the Urban Renewal .Plan. Action: seconded and so voted. d) I andscaping: Motion: to defer discussion of the matter of landscaping pending receipt of a more definitive landscape plan, consistent with the requirements set forth in the Urban Renewal Plan. Action: seconded and so voted. 7. The additional question of the configuration and location of the complex of transformer, electrical room and receiving and storage area was discussed. Motion: that the matter of the configuration and location of the complex of transformer, electrical room and receiving and storage area be referred back to the Project Architect, with the statement that the Board would prefer to see this complex integrated within the basic mass of the structure, if such an adjustment can be readily made. Action: seconded and so voted. 8. During the course of the discussion of matters covered in 5.,6., and 7., above, Mr Cummings reminded the Board of the outstanding architectural and historic heritage of the City of Salem and the Board's responsibility for the preservation of • these values. As a corolary to this responsibility, Mr Cummings noted the Board's obligation to insure that new construction should result in the production of contemporary buildings and environments of such quality as to enhance the City's architectural and historical significance. 9. In response to the Chair's call for other business which should come before the Board, Mr Barrett presented the proposal for a sign for the Fraternity Building on Central Street, pointing out that the sign design met the code requirements on location and size. The sign would consist of a wooden fascia board with routed letters in Old English type face. The ground of the sign would be red to match the facade color of the building, with letters picked out in brown or gold. Miotion: to approve the design for the sign for the Fraternity Building, as submitted. Action: seconded and so voted. 10. Motion: to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 PM. Action: seconded and so voted. Respectfully submitted, Philip C F Smith, Secretary PCFS/RJK/ew • a.4 r4ov. IR70 _ O u Philip Chadwick Foster Smith � CURATOR OF MARITIME HISTORY _. MANAGING EDITOR, THE AMERICAN NEPTUNE PEABODY MUSEUM Salem, East India Marine Hall Massachusetts,U.S.A. v _ •. Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Design Review Board Salem Redevelopment Authority, Salem, Massachusetts, 24 November, 1970 • 1. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 PM, there being a quorum present. 2. Members present were: Mr. Boulger, presiding, Mrs. Haskell, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Cummings , Mr. Little, Mr. Small and Mr. Smith. The only member of the Board who was absent was Mrs. Frothingham. Also present were Mr. Barrett, Executive Director, SRA, and Mr. Kerr, Professional Advisor. 3. The Chair noted that the reading of the minutes of the previous regular meeting would be waived due to the fact that this was a special meeting of the Board, convened to review preliminary design concepts for the proposed Charter Street elderly housing project. 4. The Chair identified the concepts for discussion as those draw- ings prepared by Robert Charles Associates, Inc. for the Salem Housing Authority for Project #667-5, identified as Exhibit 11-A, sheets 1-6, dated 22 Sept. 170 and requested the reading of the extract of the minutes of the 13 October, 1970 meeting pertaining to earlier discussions regarding the Elderly Housing Project. The extract (Par. 11 of said minutes) was duly read by Mr. Kerr. For further background, Mr. Kerr also read extracts of correspondence received by Mr. Barrett in regard to the Elderly Housing Project and • matters of interpretation of the contents of the Urban Renewal Plan from Mr. Braun, the planning consultant who had prepared the Urban Renewal Plan, from Mr. Alvin W. Harding, Project Architect and from Mr. I:err. Copies of subject correspondence axe attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4. 5. After some discussion of the question of interpretation of the contents of the Urban Renewal Plan, particularly Paragraph 9.2, the Chair directed that the Board's review of the proposal should deal in sequence with a) the matter of building height, b) the matter of building siting, c) the matter of exterior treatment, and d) the matter of landscape treatment. 6. The Chair followed a procedure of opening discussion on each item, polling the members of the Board, and finally, putting each matter to a vote. The following were the motions presented and actions taken for each item in 5. , above. a) building height: Motion: to accept the proposal for a high-rise (12 storey) structure in preference to the alternative of a lower (8 storey) , but more massive, structure. Action: seconded and so voted. b) siting: Motion: that the proposal showing the building oriented with its short side parallel to Charter Street be accepted. Action: seconded and so voted. • c) exterior appearance: Motion: that the Board preferred a combination of materials (i.e. , red brick and stone) consistent with the materials ' Minutes, 24 Nov. 170 Special Meeting, Salem DRB p.2 • set forth in Paragraph 9.2 of the Urban Renewal Plan and recommending to the Authority that the Project Architect be requested to submit drawings of alternative types of surface treatment, utilizing materials set forth in Paragraph 9.2 of the Urban Renewal Plan. Action: seconded and so voted. d) landscaping: Motion: to defer discussion of the matter of landscaping pending receipt of a more definitive landscape plan, con- sistent with the requirements set forth in the Urban Renewal Plan. Action: seconded and so w.ted. 7. The additional question of the configuration and location of the complex of transformer, electrical room and receiving and storage area was discussed. Motion: that the matter of the configuration and location of the complex of transformer, electrical room and receiving and storage area be referred back to the Project Architect, with the statement that the Board would prefer to see this complex integrated within the basic mass of the structure, if such an adjustment can be readily made. Action: seconded and so voted. 8. During the course of the discussion of matters covered in 5. , • 6. , and 7. , above, Mr. Cummings reminded the Board of the outstand- ing architectural and historic heritage of the City of Salem and the Board's responsibility for the preservation of these values. As a corolary to this responsibility, Mr. Cummings noted the Board's obligation to insure that new construction should result in the production of contemporary buildings and environments of such quality as to enhance the City's architectural and historical significance. 9. In response to the Chair's call for other business which should come before the Board, Mr. Barrett presented the proposal for a sign for the Fraternity Building on Central Street, pointing out that the sign design met the code requirements on location and size. The sign would consist of a wooden fascia, board with routed letters in Old English type face. The ground of the sign would be red to match the facade color of the building, with letters picked out in brown or gold. Motion: to approve the design for the sign for the Fraternity Building, as submitted. Action: seconded and so voted. 10. Motion: to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 PM. Action: seconded and so voted. Respectfully submitted, • Philip C. F. Smith, Secretary PCFS/RJFC/ew 1" Exhibit # 1 , Minutes of the 24 Nov`70 Meetin , Salem DRB zdiT GROUP , INC . 18 Eliot Street • Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 • UNiversity 8.7300 MEMORANDUM To: John Barrett Dater From: Morton B. Braun October 14, 1970 ,I Subject: Proposed Housing Project for the Elderly on Parcel H-1 At your request I have reviewed the two Proposals dated Septem- ber 22, 1970 prepared for the Salem Housing Authority by Robert Charles, Associates. These Proposals relate to the Housing for :3 the Elderly proposed for Parcel H-1. Our conclusion is that although the Redevelopment Authority has been given two choices, they are not the only choices which are available, even working within the basic building layouts recommended by the architect. I suggest that the matter be reviewed further with the Housing Authority and its architect, so as to reach agreement on a site plan which is accept- able to the Hous.ing Authority, and which also more nearly meets the requirements of the Urban Renewal Plan. Our second conclu- sion is that the Renewal Plan will have to be modified to permit j a building taller than that now allowed in the Urban Renewal Plan. In addition, there may be other minor changes as discussed in detail below. Proposal #1 calls for a building whose basic dimensions are 64' x 92' with an attached wing at its southwest corner, abutting the _ property lines. The building in Proposal #1 is to be 12 stories and 110' high. This Proposal does not meet the requirements of the Urban Renewal Plan in several ways. The Plan limits buildings to seven stories of 70'. However, as noted earlier, I would recommend that this limitation be changed. The Proposal shows a front yard of 6' along Charter Street whereas 15' is required in the Plan. The Proposal shows no rear yard whereas 30' is required. Moreover, 1 the Plan calls for a screening or trees or shrubs where residential x uses adjoin non-residential uses, and the proposal does not meet that requirement. I believe the front and rear yard requirements could be met entirely or very nearly so if the basic 64' x 92' building were rotated on its axis about 750 so that it paralleled either the rear t property line or Charter Street. Such a rotation might mean re- ` orientation of some of the rooms proposed for the ground level, so • that, for example, the common space could relate to the outdoors .j as it does in the present Proposal 3 9 a Exhibit # 1, p.2 The architect is to be commended for providing a substantial amount of landscaped area around the Pickman House-. This landscaped area is unbalanced in the Proposal with a larger area shown to the west of the building as compared with the east. I believe the reason for having done so is because of the location of parking spaces and the exit drive. However, I do not believe the Proposal would suffer if one parking space to the east of the Pickman House were sacrificed for a larger landscaped area. As 4 I will discuss below, I believe the "lost" parking space can be made up in another way. i The Proposal shows 35 parking spaces which are in excess of . the 22 spaces which would be required if the controls in the Plan Fz were followed strictly. I would certainly support the Authority `" in its effort to provide more than the minimum specified in the ie Plan. The Plan requires a minimum of 9' for the width of parking spaces. The Proposal shows 10'. The architect should consider id using the lesser width, or a dimension in-between, thereby picking up a few spaces, one of which would compensate for the additional landscaped area suggested for the Pickman House. Another point needs to be made with respect to the parking area. The Proposal shows an entrance drive and an exit drive, with arrows which ap- pear to indicate one-way circulation. However, the width of the two drives is 20' whereas the Plan requires a minimum of 12' for one-way use. In other words, the Proposal would permit -- perhaps • encourage -- two-way traffic. Consideration should therefore be given to narrowing the width of these drives. One other point con- cerning the parking area: the Proposal does not comply with Para- graph 9. 9. 7 of the Plan concerning landscaping in the interior of F a parking area, which specifically excludes using landscaping along the perimeter of a parking lot, as part of the 516 requirement. <;4 Proposal # 1 is in accord with the requirements of the Plan in so far as the maximum lot coverage is concerned. It also complies / with the requirements of the Plan for landscaped open space and usable open space. Indeed, the Proposal is commendably generous in its provision.of an outdoor yard, and balconies for each apartment. The Proposal also complies with the Plan's requirements for side yards. It does not comply with the Plan regarding distance between buildings. Finally, the Proposal slightly exceeds the controls of the Plan .insofar as maximum density is concerned, per Paragraph 14. 5. That paragraph permits a maximum of 120 dwelling units per net acre. a The Disposition Plan, as most recently revised, shows Parcel H-1 to contain 37, 494 square feet, which area would allow 103 units using ' the maximum density stated in the Plan. The building .in Proposal #1 `s • shows 11 floors with 10 units each for a total of 110. The difference is insignificant, and it can certainly be maintained that the larger number SfA +;s serves a social purpose. A modification of the Plan is therefore in order. u ,. 2 Exhibit # 1 , p..3 To sum up for Proposal #1, there are a few modifications which the architect can make easily in order to satisfy the Urban Renewal Plan; there are a few minor modifications which k • the Redevelopment Authority can make to accommodate the Proposal, including an increase in the permitted height of the i, building. I again suggest, however, that the building be rotated in order to allow for larger fro&t and rear yards. Proposal #2 poses many of the same questions as does Proposal s #1. I will not go into all the details for Proposal #2 since many of the applicable questions were raised above. My principal point, t: again, is that the Redevelopment Authority has not been given the additional choices using the same building layout, which would . better reflect both Authorities' objectives. r' The basic building in Proposal #2 measures 4216" x 101. The architect has attempted to come close to the height limitation of the Plan in a building 75' high, with 8 stories in 2 wings. The same building shape and floor layout could be utilized by increasing,the height of the building so as to maintain the same total number of dwelling units while eliminating a wing. In that way, building t � coverage, which even under the present Proposal does not exceed the maximum set by the Plan, would be decreased so as to provide e , for more parking and more landscaped area. The narrower build- ing in Proposal #2 as compared to Proposal #1 would certainly meet ?i • the front and rear yard requirements of the Plan. As stated pre- viously, I am confident that with very little change to its site plan, and with an increase in the maximum height of the building, the Housing Authority will be able to achieve its economy of scale, but within the controls of the Plan. Ea Proposal #2 complies with the Plan with respect to parking, coverage, front yard, side yard, screening, landscaped open space, and usable open space. It does not comply with respect to the rear yard (although it does to a greater extent than Proposal #1) height, density, and landscaping within the parking area, as well as distance between buildings. t' z The dimensional requirements in the Urban Renewal Plan for Parcel H-1 are the same as those in the Density Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance for the R-3 District, with the single exception of the required distance between buildings (25' in the Plan; 40' in the t ordinance), However, the Zoning Ordinance specifically states that w its Density Regulations do not apply to "elderly housing projects --- etc. " Fes;. v • G,. Tw x; i . _::,, , ,•bas e"9 • wd ' !. ROBERT J . KERR, If . . . PLANNING CONSULTANT rir exAt "1 est �f+�' 26 THAMES STREET • NEWPORT, .RHODE 'S LA : ' '�� T6LEPHON6 [4011 84912841 apt Exhibit. 2, Minutes of the 24 Nov 70 Meeting,--81e_ --DRB Li ex .. 4 5 fs, i A&j°�• `14 6'Ct ber, 1970 N t --John r n "'; .`# t��, ' » S {• tk ct `. '7} 'E x IT a 'r In reference to m diSCtlSSi�Orl wt#h of the teim "elite for walls", tw0 Other definrti afe pertinlrlt, n:, dt fi „Dfctlorld` of Architecture , Henry H Saylor; John Wiley & Sods, ew , o on a ydney, 1965, a spcndrel beom fs ds£itNse�ds aa - x K fall a Ibgum designed to support the:w�rndow ar w�r�dowsda,a s < t ' 2 3kk wall of 6 rnxey height between:neighborfng'upright colee umns" iomr� }_,[at11e SOUfCO a,'iw011"i5 - a vertfcaf member of on enciasute!"..1 n ye F a�f3 rt 4`'� ; f 3kt DTcfiona of--Bulldfng, John FSeott,'Penguin lSgoltt, Btrltimore, ' fit' .�,. a S' q,wa pone 1 toed as "... back WaliC ar ofhrr Wallah fa ;`� f j e , Fr 3 C 3G skeleton`constructlon. it'll restrained by the'°builclirti on at feast ttaee of it4 four edg�,`;CarTJ@5 only r.Vwn Wefght, and i$ Carded at each, °s nfhls describes the-coratruefronsystem indicated-in tali fiitmitte[r3h` >r ° ' by SHA and Would seem, support the Tnterpretafilon''of the wbr trig of { � , xf s 'the Urban (tenewa) Plan that exposed concrg11, tepndn+�fibealits ai1d ixtumnt� ".r t ; ,s+., 5 ? 'Would be 6116Wed «•< p � •t4 t`,l�,fi",`r'"�k w w x rx3��C,x �o '�4 #, x t YS b ,�`vfi 5" 3k{f 1^v P� S-y y' ,-N�n tl ['. suY,yvntd^ 3 I, d ��• ., Also, the Pian refers to " Curtain walls of glass,"p`pacaiarryised rnetcl, W}f ij $�, 5 alumrl mgr steel. " as.beirig-prohibited�,but iq go vv r dpi <tho l sr „fie c .t ` - restrict the use o£brick wall pmlels within c1"encloyre fo _bjr�lld '` r¢ ktk #g .atlLCrtU1T11 frame _ , __ t x ,.. i }''�.✓ "'�'r i,fit fiY' x �� ++ '`�,,rye'G it }�x.W5,ex r Hope this helps to clarify the qu1l .on of the use of eXposed eoncrete f w r e structural members I have sent the:°draft of the imnuf6i off, p Mt mEtl� l i '; ` a�l4 so you should be hearing from �Iirrt by the'end of they"4` z>mfi� :� t " J V p( )tiXM 41 J{4 if S i ljf , Hastily, .,. ;� 'pt `/ 4�aai+ �j F r A 3c>K S x F .�. `" t• ,'. as f � � r x e 'f♦3 K' RECtiU� p €A � x w„! x A '/'5 F 4 IdtOCT '1: 5 1970 Qp������,,, kyr �,.,,,��,t}} +c 1 a`' a :'•a } y s ' Pit r - .. . - �. rk �: i o - � G E`er d ;i,4• � �i. !yry"�<r:1t'y4."""„�`.�;,t�,.:F'L'(xc�i'ie',r?.x'�_ .r , aft r'<�'� .. -,r?"t'�`Y'��"N`� aq•y��a4 Fi4 s �ti.: :� w Exhibit # 3, Minutes of the 24 Nov'70 Meeting, Salem DRB „s 0 THE PLANNING SERVICES GROUP, INC. •tot.6177868-7300 t 16 Eliot Strad • Cambridge, Mossochasetts 02138 October 19, 1970 �. ; f: Mr. John Barrett Executive Director Salem Redevelopment Authority 60 Washington Street Salem Massachusetts Dear John: Your letter of October 14, 1970 requests.our interpretation of Paragraph 9. 2 of the Urban Renewal Plan; and specifically, whether exposed concrete spandrel beams should be considered as part of the exterior wall. The question has been raised because of the, pre- liminary plans submitted to the Redevelopment Authority by the Salem Housing Authority for its proposed development of Parcel H-1. Underlying our response to that question, as well as to other questions of interpretation of the Urban Renewal Plan, is the basic c tact that no such Plan can be so complete as to,anticipate every, ' situation that might arise. The Plan, therefore, states broad ob- jectives and intents, detailing only so much as is absolutely necessary. a The .intent of the Urban Renewal Plan for Heritage Plaza-East was not to pre-design new buildings by restricting architectural creativity, t nor did it intend that new buildings should be carbon copies of the old . ones. Imaginative design can provide outstanding contemporary buildings while using materials or structural elements which link the 1 past to the present. Mr. Whitehill expressed the point well, when he stated some time ago that Heritage Plaza-East should not be another ;i Williamsburg. Quincy House at Harvard is, in our opinion, an excellent k example of a building which is a product of our .time yet clearly reflects its nearby antecedents. Our intent in Paragraph 9. 2 was to avoid the all-concrete or the all-glass or the all-porcelainized spandrel building. Park Avenue would not be appropriate on Essex Street. But exposed concrete `r spandrel beams outlining large areas of brick, as shown on the Hous- ing Authority's drawings would not, in our opinion, violate the intent of the Urban Renewal Plan. The sketches we prepared several years 1 eA Exhibit # 3, p.2 w for the model of the Propject, and the model itself, show that a sensitive and judicious application of such beams would provide a contemporary touch and at the same time, a relationship to ty. • older buildings in the area. We apologize for the length of our reply. The matter seemed important enough to warrant a detailed discussion. And, since ^' questions of interpretation are likely to come up more frequently in the future, it also appeared desirable thatwe state generally the underlying concepts involved. -'Si erelyvQalrs, •& orton B. Braun << MBB: cw it w' pt x ±t �l P� ROBERT CHARLES ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 3S SARATOGA STREET • BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 TEL. C6173 669.4660 Exhibit # 4, Minutes of the 24 Nov'70 Meeting, Salem DRO November 10,. 1970 Mr. John W. Barrett, , Executive Director Salem Redevelopment Authority 60 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Project 667-5 Housing for the Elderly Charter Street Salem, Massachusetts Dear Sir: • in reply to your letter to this office dated October 28 , 1970 , we have discussed the possibility of rotating the building as sugaes-.ed by the Planning Consultant. The building as now, situated on the site affords sunlight to a maximum number of rooms . There are ten apartments on a typical floor. Only one of these apartments faces north (Charter Street) . This apartment will have very little sunlight . If the building is rotated, as suggested, four of the ten i apartr,ez, ts on a typical :loor will have a northern exposure . We feel that orientation to the sun in as many rooms as possible is desirable to the tenants . This. is our basic reason for placing the building on the site as now shown. Sincerely yours , 1 1 Alvin W. Harding, _ ----- , Project Architect R E C �.- t V E ® I AWH:kem • cc : Mr . Stephen Zisson I Salem 8edevelo .eni ui f MINUTES OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, NOVEMBER 10, 1970 A meeting was held at 8:15 PM, there being a quorum present: Mrs. Haskell, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Little and Mr. Boulger. The meeting was called to order. Minutes of last meeting _- a motion made and voted not to read the minutes. New Business -- Elderly Housing Plans -- motion made and voted to postpone to next meeting, December 8, 1970. No other business brought up. Motion made and voted that the next meeting would be December B. 1970, second Tuesday in December. Motion made and voted to adjourn meeting at 8:30 PM, November 10, 1970. • Submitted, James Boulger, Chairman Acting Secretary • A) _ -4&U - - - - - - - GCS.`„-� -------- - ----- --------------- EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD —OCTOBER 13, 1970 • 11. Under New Business, the Board received one copy of the Salem Housing Authority's alternative proposals for construction of an elderly housing project on Charter Street. The following comments were made by the Board as advisory opinions and do not constitute a formal approval of either proposal. Formal review will be subject to receipt of the Architect's preliminary drawings for a specific design in seven copies. a- The Board unanimously favored the proposal for a 12 storey structure over the more massive, but Lower (8 storey) alternative, noting that the 12 storey structure seemed to be better suited to the site, would provide for a greater reservation of open space and would better protect the scale and setting for the restored Pickman House. b- The Board expressed its concern for proper landscaping, particularly in the parking area and around the Pickman House. Mrs. Frothingham requested preservation of large caliper trees where possible and provision of an • attractive surface for the parking sarea. Mr. Boulger noted that a careful review of landscape proposals would be required, with particular attention to the area of the Pickman House. Use of large caliper trees and saturation planting of shrubs and other plant materials in clusters was discussed for this critical area of the site. c- The proposed exterior treatment of the structure was discussed. Mr. Boulger felt that the use of exposed concrete spandrel beams and columns would be prohibited by the Urban Renewal Plan restriction over the use of any materials other than brick or stone for exterior walls. Mr. Kerr suggested that the planner who had prepared the controls (Mr. Braun of the Planning Services Group) be consulted for an interpretation of the term "exterior walls". He indicated that he felt that the Board could consider the term "exterior walls" to consist of the space between structural members (i.e. , spandrel beams and columns). Mr. Boulger pointed out that if exposed concrete spandrel beams and columns were to be allowed, the surface should be bush-hammered to achieve a granite effect. • -2- d- In recognition of the fact that the preferred proposal violated the front and rear yard requirement and the height limit, the Board discussed a suggestion by Mr. Braun that the building be rotated on the site to be oriented on a diagonal to the street to minimize the conflict with the yard requirement. It was the sense of the meeting that the orientation shown in the drawings (i.e. , consistent with the axis of Charter Street) would be more desireable for aesthetic reasons. In this context, Mr. Boulger suggested the use of a collonade or gallery on the Charter Street (north) frontage of the building as a means of meeting the front yard requirement, allowing the use of the air-space above the front yard for building construction. • • i Minutes of the Design Review Board, Salem Redevelopment Authority, Salem, �- �y lassac usetts, cto er, 970 • 1 . The meeting was called to order at 8:10 P.M., there being a quorum present. 2. Members present were: Mr Boulger, presiding, Mrs Pierson, Mrs Frothingham, Mr Little, Mr Small, Mr Smith; absent were Mr Cummings and Mr Sadoski. Also present were Mr Barrett, Executive Director, SRA, and Mr Kerr, Professional Advisor. 3. The Chair called for the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 15 September, 1970. 4. Motion: to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the meeting of 15 September, 1970, accepting them as written, all members of the Board having previously received a copy of said minutes. Action: seconded and so voted. 5. Under Old Business, the Chair called for nominations for election of a Chairman to serve until September, 1971 . 6. Motion: to nominate Mr Boulger for re-election to a'second term as Chairman of the Design Review Board. Action: seconded. • 7. Motion: to close the nominations. Action: seconded and so voted. B. Motion: to elect Mr Boulger to a second term as Chairman of the Design Review Board to serve until September, 1971 . Action: seconded and so voted. 9. Acting under its perogatives, the Chair, with the agreement of the Board, appointed Mr Smith to serve as Secretary of the Design Review Board until September of 1971, it being understood that Mr Kerr would prepare the draft of the minutes of each meeting for submission to Mr Smith for review, revision if necessary, and transmittal to SRA for distribution to members of the Board. 10. Under Old Business, the Board received a report from Mr Kerr covering the actions taken on the proposal for exterior rehabilitation of the space to be occupied by Edward's Shoe Store in the Naumkeag Block. Although drawings were not available due to a death in the proprietor's family, Mr Kerr presented the content of the meetings held with the property owner, tenant, building inspector and the tenant's contractor. Agreement has been secured from the owner and tenant to restore the spirit of the architectural integrity of the first floor shop fronts to an earlier system of granite posts and lintel. Three of the original granite posts will be refurbished, as will the lintel, and three additional • granite veneer posts will be-installed, as nearly as possible on the line of the Minutes, 13 October '70 Meeting. Salem DRB p,2 • original columns. The bulkhead below each glazed area will be faced with granite veneer panels. The entrance way will be set back from the line of the public way sufficiently to allow a three foot wide door to swing outward without encroachment on the public way. The matter of sign treatment was discussed. Mr Boulger recommended the use of anodized aluminum letters, fixed to the granite lintel, rather than cut-out wood letters. Mr Kerr noted that the sign could not engross an area greater than 33.5 sq ft. The Chair commented that the Board's operating procedures provided for review of the tenant's drawings by the Board's professional member (the Chair) and Mr Kerr in the interim between meetings. If the drawings conformed to the intention of the Board's recommendations to the tenant and owner, conditional approval could be given by the professional member and Mr Kerr, subject to submission of the drawings for record at the meeting of the Board next following. Otherwise, the drawings would be held for review by the full Board. 11 . Under New Business, the Board received one copy of the Salem Housing Authority's alternative proposals for construction of an elderly housing project on Charter Street. The following comments were made by the Board as advisory opinions and do not constitute a formal approval of either proposal . Formal review will be subject to receipt of the Architect's preliminary drawings for a specific design in seven copies. a- The Board unanimously favored the proposal for a 12 storey structure over the more massive, but lower (8 storey) alternative, noting that the • 12 storey structure seemed to be better suited to the site, would provide for a greater reservation of open space and would better protect the scale and setting for the restored Pickman House. b- The Board expressed its concern for proper landscaping, particularly in the parking area and around the Pickman House. Mrs Frothingham requested preservation of large caliper trees where possible and pro- vision of an attractive surface for the parking area. Mr Boulger noted that a careful review of landscape proposals would be required, with particular attention to the area of the Pickman hbuse. Use of large caliper trees and saturation planting of shrubs.and other plant materials in clusters was discussed for this critical area of the site. c- The proposed exterior treatment of the structure was discussed. MF: Boulger felt that the use of exposed concrete spandrel beams and columns would be prohibited by the Urban Renewal Plan restriction over the use of any materials other than brick or stone for exterior walls. Mr Kerr suggested that the planner who had prepared the controls (Mr Braun of the Planning Services Group) be consulted for an interpretation of the term "exterior walls". He indicated that he felt that the Board could consider the term "exterior walls" to consist of the space between structural members (i.e., spandrel beams and columns). Mr Boulger pointed out that if exposed concrete spandrel beams and columns were to be allowed, the surface should be bush-hammered to achieve a • granite effect. Minutes, 13 October '70 Meeting, Salem DRB p,3 d- In recognition of the fact that the d erre refproposal violated the P front and rear yard requirement and the height limit, the Board discussed a suggestion by Mr Braun that the building be rotated on the site to be oriented on a diagonal to the street to minimize the conflict with the yard requirement. It was the sense of the meeting that the orientation shown in the drawings (i.e. , consistent with the axis of Charter Street) would be more desireable for aesthetic reasons. In this context, Mr Boulger suggested the use of a collonade or gallery on the Charter Street (north) frontage of the building as a means of meeting the front yard requirement, allowing the use of the air-space above the front yard for building construction. 12. At the request of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, Mr Kerrpresentedthe concept for: fie the development of the Pedestrian Mall System and matters of design policy for the Board's review and comment. The Board was asked to discuss each policy item with Mr Kerr and to advise the Authority of its recommendations. Mr Smith was asked to prepare the Board's commentary for submission to the Authority and for attachment as an addenda to these minutes. 13, Motion: to set the date for the next meeting of the Board for 17 November, 1970 (the 3rd, rather than the 2nd Tuesday of the month). Action: seconded and so voted. • 14. Motion: to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 P.M. Action: seconded and so voted. Respectfully submitted, Philip C.F. Smith Secretary PCFS:RJK/ew • P . TC� r . ' • • • • 1 ♦ • •.► • r • • i 1 I G • • 1 t • . r , , . , . 1 1 1 I ' � nl . 1 I � ♦' • I --------- ----------------- - _ I _. - - -- - --I'� ---- ---- ---- � 1 1 � . : . . •. . . • 1 . . . . ' : r� �w..l a_.�•. .. 1= i 1 � I • 1 � i ----------- ---- --- --- ----- - --------------- - -------- -- - -- - - = - --- - t i ! „ r. ROD 9 I I . 1 i i �� --- -- ------------ -- - ------- F- - - i - - ---- - -- - ------ i - --- - - -- I'- - i -- - -- -- -- i I i' I { ( u, nom,►-k_VY-ee-- uuoL_-o_]�-cc�-AD-__ ,� - -- -- ;-- �� - - � --- -- - - � -� I APPENDIX TO MINUTES OF 13 OCTOBER 1970 Mr. Kerr, acting on a memo to the SRA dated 25th September 1970 relative to policy matters concerning the design of the Essex Street Mall, discussed the concepts currently pro- posed by referral to the project area model in the SRA offices. The North Mall, he suggested, might be considered a superblock with a major pedestrian interchange at the intersection of the mall and the Derby Square complex. Paving patterns should be varied for ornamental purposes as well as to define individual spaces. Street furnishings should be grouped in saturation clusters for varied spatial experiences. There should be an attempt made to establish visual targets along the mall by use of furnishings to establish spaces. In each cluster, furnishings might best be identical in design yet spaced or arranged in different patterns. One aspect of the street architecture should not be overpowered by another -- the whole should be heterogeneous. In response to the specific questions posed in the memo of September 25th, before referred to, the Design Review Board • made the following preliminary comments: 1. The concept of "breaking up" the mall area into a number of distinctive spatial environments. Query: Does the Authority agree with this design concept of "fragmentation" (within an overall unified design) , according to the primary functional dualities of each space? Answer: The Design Review Board is generally sympathetic to this approach but reserves final opinions pending submission to the Board of detailed studies of the area. 2. The concept of organizing the spatial environment through a varied arrangement;:of a limited inventory of street fur- nishings, developing thereby an individualistic treatment of each functional area. Query: Does the Authority agree with this design concept of unified design of street furnishings, but varied arrange- ment? Answer: The Design Review Board is generally sympathetic to this approach but reserves final opinions pending submission to the Board of detailed studies. 3. The concept of selection of items of street furnishings of good, conservative contemporary design to provide a proper back- ground or setting for a generally varied and heterogeneous archi- tectural character. Query: Does the Authority agree with this concept of the use of street furnishings of contemporary design as a means of establishing a unified setting for the area's varied architecture? • • P age 2 Answer: The Design Review Board reserves final opinions pending submission of detailed, studies, but at present underlines the desirability of selecting well designed conservative, contemporary street furniture guaranteed for wear and durability. It stresses the point that Salem, in essence, is not a museum city to the ex- clusion of all else and should express the contemporary 20th century scene. 4. The concept of emphasizing man-made items of street furnishings and low maintenance plant materials arranged in satura- tion plant clusters to shape and organize the spatial environment. Query: Does the Authority agree with this emphasis on the use of man-made items of landscaping, arranged in saturation clusters? Answer: The Design Review Board is generally sympathetic but reserves final opinions pending submission of detailed studies. The area of the mall is an urban space with attendant maintenance problems. Furnishings, equipment, and landscaping should be compatable with minimal maintenance. Upon submission of more detailed schemes, the installed and maximum growth - height of trees should be presented. 5. The concept of the use of a mixture of brick, paving block and pre-cast aggregate paving panels as the surface materials • for the mall, limiting the use of brick and paving block for orna- mental or decorative purposes. Query: Does the Authority agree with this materials list and the emphasis to be placed on the ornamental and decorative use of brickand paving block? Answer: The Design Review Board reserves final opons pending submission of detailed studies. It does express concern over the use of an aggregate due to inherent deterioration qualities. It suggests variety of usage along the mall as well as possibility of reverting in some areas to the extant cobbled (or Belgian block)paving under the present Essex Street road surface. 6. The limitation on sign graphics to prohibit the use of national advertising brands or trademarks. Query: Does the Authority agree with this limitation? Answer: The Design Review Board is sympathetic and would consider any or all signs proposed for use within the project area to be subject to review by the Design Review Board before installation. Philip Chadwick Foster Smith Secretary, Design Review Board • Minutes of thb Dosign Review Board, Salem, Massachusetts, 15 September, 1970 J 01 . The meeting was called to order at 8:10 P.M. , there being a quorum present. 2. Members present were: Mr Boulger, presiding, Mrs Pierson, Mrs Frothingham, Mr Little, Mr Sadoski, Mr Small, Mr Smith, all members of the Board, and Mr Barrett, Executive Director, SRA, and Mr Kerr, Professional Advisor. Mr Cummings was absent. 3. Mr Kerr, acting as Secretary Pro-tem, read the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 14 July, 1970. 4. Motion: that the minutes of the meeting of 14 July, 1970 be approved as read. Action: seconded and so voted. 5. Under Old Business, a request for change in the color of the exterior stain for the Fraternity's building on Central Street was received and discussed. Mrs Frothingham suggested that a paint, rather than a stain, might be more historically accurate and appropriate. After some discussion, Mr Boulger pointed out that questions of repair and maintenance probably justified the use of a stain. 6. Motion: to approve the use of Cabot Stain #OV-85 "Pipestone Red"as the exterior finish for the Fraternity's building on Central Street. Action: seconded and so voted. • 7. The Chair entertained nominations for the election of a Chairman to serve until September, 1971 . Mr Sadoski was nominated by Mrs Pierson, but declined, due to personal reasons. After discussion by the Board regarding appointment of a re- placement for Mrs Meier and the desireabil ity of ful I Board representation at the election of a Chairman, no further nominations were offered. 8. Motion: to postpone the election of a Chairman until such time as the Board is at full strength and to set the date for the next meeting as Tuesday, 13 October, 1970. Action: seconded and so voted. 9. The proposal for exterior rehabilitation of the space on the first floor of the Naumkeog Block to be occupied by Edward's Shoe Store was received and discussed. It was the sense of the meeting that the proposal as submitted failed to achieve the project goal of preservation of architectural values evidenced in the surviving aspects of the late 19th Century character of the structure. In order to avoid future hardship on the owner and tenant, it was felt that photographic materials documenting earlier appearance should be sent to the tenant's design consultant with an accompanying letter suggesting the direction in which the Board would like to see the rehabilitation designs developed for re-submission. In the meantime, work on the interior of the building could proceed, subject to the issuance of proper permits by the Building Inspector. 10. Motion: to return the drawings to the design consultant, indicating recommendations by • the Board as to a more compatible treatment of the building, accompanied bhoto_-Y A graphic evidence of earlier appearance. [Salem z t- Action: seconded and so voted. L C �. 6 V L D t SEP 18 1970 Redevelopment liuih_ i Minutes, 15 Sept, 70 Meeting, Salem DRB p.2 11 . In general discussion, the following matters were considered by the Board: a, the need for a photographic file on all buildings to remain where exterior re- habilitation will be required (Mrs Frothingham to assemble information on the availability of photo documents, according to a list of NTBA properties to be provided by Mr Barrett); b. the need to determine the status of the City's sign control ordinance and whether the Authority's sign controls are more or less restrictive than the City's present controls. 12. Motion: to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 P.M. Action: seconded and so voted. Respectfully submitted 00, Robert JJ Kerr If Secretary Pro-tern • Copies mailed to Membevs of the Board of the SRA - 9/18/70 Copies mailed to Members of the Board of the DRB - 9/18/70 r\ • Minutes of the Design Review Board, Salem, Massachusetts, 14 July 1970 1 . The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m., there being a quorum present. 2. Members present were: Mr. Boulger, presiding; Mrs. Pierson; Mr. Smith; Mr. Small; Mr. Sadoski and Mr. Little. Members absent were Mrs. Frothingham, Mrs. Meier and Mr. Cummings.- Also present were Mr. Kerr, Professional Advisor and Mr. Barrett, Executive Director, Salem Redevelopment Authority. 3. In the absence of the Secretary, Mrs. Pierson was asked to read the minutes of the previous (May) meeting, and Mr. Kerr was appointed Secretary Pro-tem by the Chair. 4. Motion: that the minutes of the previous meeting be accepted as read, excepting • that they be corrected to show Mr. Sadoski present at the May meeting. Action: So voted. 5. Mr. Boulger read correspondence from SRA regarding the Fraternity Buildings and Pickman House. 6. Motion: That the Design Review Board recommends the use of a deep, warm brown stain on the exterior of the building, such as Cabot Creosote Stain 0250 (Seal Brown) or'equal (N.B. Brand Name and product number are for color reference only). Action: So voted. 7. General discussion followed concerning future redeveloper submissions and the spirit within which these submissions should be reviewed. F ECEIVED - , JUL UL 16 1j70 Weuelopment Auth. _ 2 _ • 8. Mr. Kerr presented the background of the design concepts being developed for the Essex Mall . Items discussed included selection of street furnishing, design of segments of the mail and lighting. Messers Boulger and Sadoski expressed par- ticular concern over the levels of illumination which would be provided. It was agreed that the lighting plan should provide sufficient illumination to make the area safe, convenient and comfortable under all conditions and at all times of the night. 9. Motion: That the August meeting be dropped, unless urgent matters are presented for Board action. Action: So voted. 10. Motion: That the September meeting be held on Tuesday, September 15th. • Action: So voted. 11 . Motion: To adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Action: So voted. I � ° ECLIVED JUL Z { LIAM RQd velupmed AOL 1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD • MAY 12, 1970 The monthly meeting of the Design Review Board was held May 12, 1970 at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority. Present were: Mrs. Meier, Mrs. Frothingham; Messrs. Boulger, Small, Smith and Mr. Kerr of the Urban Design Group. Absent: Mrs. Peirson Before the meeting was called into session at 8:15 P.M. Mr. John Barrett presented Mr. David Little who will serve at the request of the Salem Redevelopment Authority in the place formerly held by Mr. James Ballou. Mr. Barrett also announced that Mr. Abbott Lowell Cummings will join the Design Review Board at the next meeting to serve in the place formerly held by Mr. Walter Muir Whitehill. The Chairman expressed for the • Board their appreciation of the willingness of Mr. Little and Mr. Cummings to participate in the work of reviewing the designs for buildings in Heritage Plaza-East. The secretary's report was read and accepted. The first order of business was consideration of the Pickman House. Mr. Kerr, acting for the committee of two, as requested at the April meeting (Mr. Cummings being absent), presented copies of the letter from the Salem Redevelopment Authority to Mr. Budrose and the letter of Mr. Budrose's response written by Mr. Koleman. The letter of Messrs. Budrose and Koleman was accompanied by a set of drawings. Before the action by the Design Review Board on each item in the letter of Messrs. Budrose and Koleman, Mr. Kerr gave to the Board consulting information touching upon these facts: a. The difference between renewal and restoration and retaining restora- tion b. The matter of historic integrity maintained in the attempt to retain MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 2 • the form, not necessarily by use of original materials; c. If a submittal aims to achieve the spirit, though not giving and educational original, latitude (e.g. use of plywood) should be allowed; d. The Design Review Board deals only with the exterior of a structure; e. The Piclanan House is not to be acquired (NTBA) therefore, its use is restricted to R#3 - residential, (see map #6 of the Plan); Secondary uses deal with options to the redeveloper; f. In a close fire district a redeveloper agrees to fire retardent and the Design Review Board advises the Salem Redevelopment Authority with regard to the exterior - to insure conformity to codes. If the Salem Redevelopment Authority desires to change the interior treatment it must buy a property and com- pensate the owner's rights; • g. Map #1 shows the Pickman House as sub-standard, therefore, the restorer must meet the property standards for a building not to be acquired (19.3.1 of the Plan) Guided by Mr. Kerr's review of the submission and plans, the Design Review Board acted upon each item in the letter of Mr. Koleman and Mr. Budrose in order: I. Motion: that the chimney be restored by fixing the existing chimney (from 1720 fifty years after the house was built) - motion carried II. Motion: that dig be accepted - Motion carried III. Motion: that the Design Review Board request that cross-section details be submitted, the Board suggests that applied moulding is inappropriate detail. Wood gutters and downspouts are acceptable on condition that detailing of location of downspouts and the manner in which runoff is to be carried to • MINUTES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Page 3 • dry wells on the property (not across public way) be submitted for approval. Please detail any exterior section of the dry well. Motion carried. IV. Motion: That the Design Review Board reserve comment on the matter of the windows. Motion carried 04) V. Motion: That the Design Review Board ask for the lay-up of a dry stone wall, including material, height, and size. Motion carried (re #5) VI. Motion: That the Design Review Board reserve judgment .in the matter of the door and its details until Mr. Cummings' views are available. Motion carried (re #6 and #7) VII. Motion: That #8 be unanimously accepted. Motion carried. With regard to 1-4 on page two of the Koleman-Budrose letter Motion: That #1 refers to motion IV above. Motion carried. • Motion: That dig refers to motion IV above. Motion carried. Motion: That the Board agrees as approved by the Building Inspector. Motion carried. Motion: That #4 be accepted. The vote being 5 to 1 with the Chair opposed. Motion: That the Boafd recommend that the existing doorstep be retained. Motion carried; the vote being 5-2. The second business before the Board was the matter of the property of the Salem Fraternity on Central Street. The following comments were made: a. The Design Review Board requests a response to the questions raised in the last communication and not answered by the drawing. b. The Board approves the siding, roofing, flashing, chimney reconstruc- tion, gutters and downspouts. c. The Board suggests removing the existing sash and glazing and replacing • with double-hung sash. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ' Page 4' • d. The Board requests detail of trim of the window framing and doors and the cornice detail; also the cross section through the roof cornice. e. The Board asks that the drawing indicate connection of conductors to drains and would like to have the drawings submitted to the Members of the Board by June 1st. for review prior to the next meeting. The question was raised as to whether it is possible to use eight-over- eight windows on the first and second floors. In the letter of the Authority to the Fraternity, the Design Review Board suggests that referring to the Front 111,2,3,4, be approved; in the case of 115,6, and 7 - see above; for 8 and 9 make suggestions; 1110 is accomplished; for 1111 the Board asks more information. Referring to the Side 111,2, and 3 be approved; 114 covered in drawing note; 4r5,6,7 and 8 a response is needed from the Fraternity. Motion: That the above comments and suggestions regarding the Salem Fraternity property are voted by the Design Review Board. Motion carried. The third item of business was the matter of the Fire House. The front and side elevations and the Lafayette Street facade were reviewed. Motion: That the Design Review Board has received the preliminary drawings of the Fire House and returns them to the Salem Redevelopment Authority without com- ment or action. Motion carried. ;Subject to change, the Design Review Board will meet on Tuesdays. The next meeting will be Tuesday June 9, 1970. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • Louise M. Meier Secretary PICKMAN HOUSE 1. SRA TO OWNER: Is the chimney to be completely changed or restored as is? Reply: The chimney is to be partially restored to conform with 17th • century design. The existing flues are to remain unchanged. Please refer to page A-5 of the new plans for chimney elevation. Design Review Board Comments (DRBC) That the chimney be restored by fixing the existing chimney (from 1720 - fifty years after the house was built) 2. SRA TO OWNER: What type of material is to be used for exterior flashing? Reply: All exterior flashing will be lead of heavy gauge. DRBC: Accepted 3. SRA TO OWNER: What is the detail for the eaves and cornice? (Profiles) Reply: Profiles for eaves and cornice are given in Detail A, page 5 of the new plans. DRBC: The Design Review Board request that cross-section details be submitted, the Board suggests that applied moulding is inappropriate detail. Wood gutters and downspouts are acceptable on condition that detailing of location of down- spouts and the manner in which runoff is to be carried to dry wells on the property (not across public way) be sub- mitted for approval. (Please detail any exterior section of the dry well. 4. SRA TO OWNER: What is the detail of the windows, including type and sizes? Reply: For detail of windows and sizes, please refer to page A-5 of the new plans. The type of window is to be leaded, diamond paned • window of 17th century window design and constructed from antique glass. DRBC: The Design Review Board reserve comment on the matter of the windows. 5. SRA TO OWNER: Please show detail of fence, including material, height and size. Reply: There is no fence presently planned for the Pickman House. DRBC: That the Design Review Board ask for the lay-up of a dry stone wall, including material, height, and size. 6. SRA TO OWNER: Please show detail (profile) of the molding of the pediment over the front door; also show detail of the front door and door frame. Reply: Please refer to page A-5 of the new plans, Detail B. for the profile of the molding of the pediment over the front door. See also plans, page 5, section 2-2 for detail of original door frame and reproduced door. DRBC: That the Design Review Board reserve judgment in the matter of the door and its details until Mr. Cummings' views are avail- able. • PICKMAN HOUSE ,i -2- 7. SRA TO OWNER: Please indicate plans regarding the oval window on the east side (Liberty St.) of the entry way. Reply: Oval window on east side (Liberty St.) of the entry way is to be eliminated. DRBC: That the Design Review Board reserve judgment'.: n the matter until Mr. Cummings' views are available. 8. SRA TO OWNER: Please note that utility service from Liberty Street will be discontinued since street will be closed; all service to the Pickman House should be taken from Charter St. Reply: All utility service will be taken from Charter St. DRBC: Accepted Comments regarding other municipal codes and ordinances: 1 SRA TO OWNER: Is the building to have gutters connected to a drainage system (drywell or connection to storm drain) carrying away the water from the structure and preventing dripping upon the public way? If so, please indicate design detail. Reply: Gutters for Charter St. side (over public way) will carry away water from the structure and are to be connected to a drainage system consisting of a drywell located in the front yard of the house. Detail of the gutter is shown on page A-5 of the new plans, Detail A and the material used is to be treated with a fire retardent coating. • DRBC: The answer to this is reflected in 463 on page 1. 2. SRA TO OWNER: Will the first floor windows on Charter Street be fixed or will windows be allowed to open outward, thereby placing a safety hazard in the public way? Reply: The windows on the first floor on Charter St. side will be fixed in place. DRBC: The answer to this is reflected in 464 on page 1. 3. SRA TO OWNER: Have provisions for proper treatment for fire retardance for exterior wood siding, roofing, and trim been made? This is of particular concern to the Building Inspector and Fire Dept. since the structure is located in a Fire District. Reply: Exterior siding shall be wood, clapboard of Koppers Mfg. and pressure treated for fire retardents. Exterior roofing material shall consist of Koppers pressure treated fire retardent wood cedar shingles. All wood trim shall be treated with a fire retardent coating. DRBC: That the Board agrees as approved by the Building Inspector. • PICKMAN HOUSE -3- 4. SRA TO OWNER: Has the use of plywood sheathing for roof and walls been approved by the Building Inspector? Reply: Plywood sheathing for roof and walls shall exceed require- ments of local building code in thickness and shall be exterior grade. DRBC: The Design Review Board accepted - vote 5-1 (Chair opposed) • • FRATERNITY • No written comments from the Fraternity-changes were reflected on revised drawings only. Front Elevation SRA TO OWNER: Indicate lead flashing for chimney to roof Design Review Board Comment (DRBC): Approved SRA TO OWNER: Roof shingles DRBC Approved SRA TO OWNER: Indicate material of gutters DRBC: Approved SRA TO OWNER: Indicate material of downspouts DRBC: Approved SRA TO OWNER: Connect downspouts to storm drains DRBC: The Board asks that the drawings indicateaconnection of conductors to drains and would like to have the drawings submitted to the Members of the Board by June 1st for review prior to the next meeting. SRA TO OWNER: Indicate color selection for building and also for trim. • DRBC: The Design Review Board requests a response - not answered by drawing SRA TO OWNER: Submit sign drawing for approval to scale, showing material and color of sign, how illuminated if any. DRBC: The Design Review Board requests a response - not answered in drawing SRA TO OWNER: Substitute two (2) 12 over 8 lights sash in lieu of each large fixed multi-light sash indicated. DRBC: The question was raised as to whether it is possible to use eight- over-eight windows on the first and second floors SRA TO OWNER: Remove the small existing window between the two front doors, this style is not compatible with period of the building. Show appropriate sash and frame. DRBC: The Board suggests removing the existing sash and glazing and replacing with double-hung sash. SRA TO OWNER: Doors indicated on light not acceptable. Prefer door similar to the one indicated at the wing at the far left. DRBC: Accomplished SRA TO OWNER: Submit large scale details of windows and door trim, including edge moulding, patterned after the period of the original building. DRBC: The Board requests detail of trim of the window frame and doors and the cornice detail; also the cross section through the roof cornice. FRATERNITY BUILDING -2- 1. SRA TO OWNER: See note No. 1 above on roof-chimney flashing lead sheet. DRBC: Approved 2. SRA TO OWNER: See notes above on gutters and downspouts DRBC: Approved 3. SRA TO OWNER: See note on weathered wood type shingles DRBC: Approved 4. SRA TO OWNER: Indicate the nature of material behind the billboard to be removed DRBC: Covered in drawing note 5. SRA TO OWNER: Wall fans blowing out over the side property line is not acceptable. All kitchen ventilation fans must be through ducts running up through the roof and turning down in a 'r gooseneck DRBC: The Design Review Board requests a response not covered in drawing 6. SRA TO OWNER: Indicate any louver grilles on side of the building DRBC: The Design Review Board requests a response not covered in drawing 7. SRA TO OWNER: Show location of air conditioning equipment, if any. Show location of any roof top units. DRBC The Design Review Board requests a response not covered in drawing 8. SRA TO OWNER: All equipment on roof must be screened with appropriate material to be compatible with the period of the building. (Wood railing with closely spaced balusters, etc.) DRBC: The Design Review Board requests a response not covered in drawing. • , MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - APRIL 13, 1970 • The regular monthly meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority was held Monday, April 13, 1970. Those present were: Mrs. Frothingham, Mrs. Meier; Messrs. Boulger, Small and Mr. John Barrett attended in the absence of Mr. Robert Kerr. Mrs. Peirson and Mr. Smith were excused from the meeting as noted in the minutes of the March 1970 meeting. Chairman Boulger called the meeting to order at 8:20 p.m. The report of the Secretary for the March 1970 meeting was read and accepted. The Chairman directed the Secretary to place on the record a copy of the By-laws, Preamble and Guide to Developers as approved by the Authority. Copies of the By-laws ano Procedures, as prepared by the Authority • office, were given to each member of the Board present and shall be mailed to those absent. A letter was read from Mr. Smith's Secretary stating that he will of necessity be absent from the meeting until after May 8, 1970. A letter of resignation was received from Mr. James Ballou. Motion: That the resignation of Mr. Ballou from the Design Review Board be accepted with regret and that a letter be sent to Mr. Ballou. Motion carried. For the files of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, Mr. Ballou's letter was given to Mr. Barrett. Motion: That the next meeting be held on Tuesday, May 12, 1970 at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried. • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1970 Page 2 • The matter of the Pickman House was considered. The consensus was that many specific problems can be solved if Mr. Abbott Lowell Cummings and Mr. Kerr can meet with the Design Review Board at the next meeting. The Board directed the Secretary to compose a letter to be sub- mitted to the SRA and sent to Mr. Budrose, owner of the Pickman House (copy to Mr. Koleman) - the letter to include the following: "Inasmuch as the original submittal did not include details, and further, plans have not been submitted to the Design Review Board since the March letter, the Board asks the following questions: 1. Is the chimney to be completely changed or restored as is? 2. Is the building to have gutters (round wooden) to prevent water from dripping upon the public way? (See regulations of City of • Salem) 3. What type material is to be used for exterior flashing? 4. What is the detail for the eaves and cornice? 5. What is the detail of the windows? Type? Manufacturer? Sizes? The drawings do not show the following facts, however, they should be indicated: The first floor windows bordering Charter Street should be fixed to avoid injury to 'passers-by. All material for the exterior of the building - trim, mouldings, clapboards, windows and window frames, gutters, conductors, doors and roofing - should be properly treated to be fire retardent with approved material which meets the fire code of the area. Conductors should be connected with drains. • Fence detail should be shown, including material, height, and size. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 13, 1970 Page 3 The Design Review Board calls attention to Item 21.11 of the Heritage Plaza-East Documents in reference to obligations imposed on k redevelopers regarding utilities. Service to the Pickman House will be brought in from Charter Street, Liberty Street will be eliminated and its utilities discontinued (See Land Use Plan - Map ll2). The Design Review Board wishes to see detail of the moulding f of the pediment over the front door. Please indicate plans regarding the oval window on the east side of the entry way. (Liberty St, side); also detail of the front door and door frame. The plywood sheathing for the roof and side walls is not acceptable. Taking the position that the building is an important historic . dwelling; the Design Review Board wishes to expedite the restoration of i the Pickman House and insure its validity." Motion: That the foregoing letter be sent to the SRA asking that the owner be contacted. Motion carried. A motion was made and seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Louise M. Meier Secretary • I r �- a t � r�,i / �� � ..�, � �� � r � � • .tl?. 14. E �-44.E-. `/�(�^�'^�n� �2" LzA IP Le. r "er P�c __Q Aare-2-4- s:' • t •- Y III. � � � .�� .�.� �L �� __ — -.��-a..�� � � �� � . -- - - - _ �� � - --��� /�/ _/C_ l � _._aye �?. // _ -_ L/// _ /D�— ___ �l -LzS'-�("cQ-'?iu`='._il-n_._� __JAI _ .cc¢� V - - ( - ��� D - - . —_ � r � �, . �v+-��.. -�Lt/-n� G�ervv�i�Gc�v�-�f- ��l � � � — ..�¢['��ivt!i✓c�C.. � / �"'�- .O�L�x� LLP-_ U`� — .... � ll ll .���-ems feu- �ic�v�3�.c�ri-a'� -� � ��/ -- �� ' �� _ �, ,.. �- I r .- � �J�/ ��,Y' �c�. .�v<i7-z'��c-�t.2 ._ate%Gr�e.e!c/.. I �% //%J_ _V// 0_ � ._ � - - wf- lD ; 1z � . rm �- _ - `� � _ - � . .::., _ � ..� - - - �_ • �.._. a.Y _. . _ - _ � _ _ � • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MARCH 9,___1970 The regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelop- ment Authority was held March 9, 1970 at the office of the Authority. Present: Mrs. Peirson, Mrs. Meier; Messrs. Ballou, Sadoski, Chairman Boulger and Mr. Barrett (in the absence of Mr. Kerr). Absent: Mrs. Frothingham, Mr. Small and Mr. Smith Chairman Boulger called the meeting to order at 8:09 p.m. The Secretary's report was read and approved. The letter was read from Mr. Barrett for the members of the Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority stating the By-Laws and Procedures had been reviewed and accepted by the Salem Redevelopment Authority with changes out- lined on an attached sheet. There was discussion of the philosophy underlying the existence of the • Design Review Board and its specific contribution to the total effort in redevelopment. The Design Review Board voted to request changes in the preamble to the Procedures. Motion: That in the final paragraph of section three of the resolutions in the addendum of the letter from the Salem Redevelopment Authority as of March 9, 1970 a period should be placed after the word "character", the following eleven words be deleted (without through consequently), the word "It" begin the following sentence to read: "It is the Authority's intention that adherence to the authenticity of architectural detailing be required wherever possible." Motion carried. Motion: That a letter be sent to the Chairman of the Salem Redevelopment • Minutes of the meeting held March 9, 1970 Page 2 • Authority, Mr. Franklin A. Hebard, referring to the letter of March 9, 1970 addressed to the Chairman of the Design Review Board containing the resolution giving amendments to the By-Laws. Motion carried. Motion: That the matter of the Fraternity building be tabled for the time being. . During discussion of the Pickman House, Mr. Ballou requested that he be relieved of participation in the matter. Request granted. The plans of the Pickman House, as submitted, were considered at length. Motion: That the Design Review Board does not accept plans of the Pickman House as preliminary plans because of inadequate description of materials to be used on the exterior of the building. Motion carried. Motion: That the meeting be adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Motion carried. • Respectfully submitted, Louise A. Meier, Secretary HERITAGE PLAZA-EAST SALEM u JOHN W. BARRETT REDEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ' AUTHORITY HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM*MASSACHUSETTS ' ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR i 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE-CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALL, JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. McGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY SECRETARY (PRO-TEM) NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given the next meeting of the Members of the p Board of the Design Review Board will be held Neada7, lp�r_- 3, 1970 at the office of the Salem, Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts, at 8:00 P.M. • If for any reason you are unable to attend, please call the Redevelopment office at your earliest convenience. Lo e' ec • 2 XZ,---- -- -_-. ..�- (--�.G�a«..,�.._r.,�._-�u-2�a�"'—i• „' �—'t�'—'---i-v+-�z�'���,•,.--�s--.�.zrJLe�ceJ�__�_0 9 -p�lY!-, ._ - -- -------- -- - - — —-/�' ctL2�Ci.-L6-�.�-•c-"�Lsv� ---fit _ ��u-_ �a--�c��- - -�L4;� �LGG�-v�e(/� _. _ �2�.� Dom. ✓�� . ��,.pro-��0 .� �ie��-.-ter-sem�,-.._� ��,'-./�- z4�. ���¢.� ��e�r.' �r�+z.1�.• � • X -- /-`-�-ci�L� ^I i _l-���—�G. .�2�.�L.r-�i�,��a-�<t..�L.z�G•-'---.C,_ .GL�e.e���-��� -�.�_ (�. d2�� '- - __l "_/�f�.a_-yc-_./!-e-'G� c�-.--��ir �LG _u-e.-.-/Z.�-�cL-✓-��_.. - -- -- - --'-`"`` - �- . ___.____--.. ._._- - _��?.e'�.�7�4',�5w___ ���yi�.[-qa,L✓_ - �(L-C%-.iLr�¢.d�l O-u� • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - MONTHLY MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 1970 The regular monthly meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority was held February 9, 1970, at the office of the Authority, beginning at 8 :10 p.m. Present : Mrs . Pierson, Messrs . Ballou, Sadoski, Small, Smith, Chairman Boulger, and Mrs . Meier. Also Mr. Barrett and Mr. Kerr. Absent : Mrs . Frothingham. The secretary's report was read and accepted. Mr. Ballou asked for a short time to voice his reactions to the letter from the Design Review Board , relative to the request of the Salem Fraternity for making useful the eighteenth century, wooden frame building abutting its property on Central St. He pointed out the financial problem to • the non-profit organization, emphasizing that the building might be a complete loss unless made useful at minimum expense. In a discussion it was noted : a ) that the stipulation of materials in the letter reached beyond the purview of the Design Review Board . b) that the problem really resulted from the necessity of adjusting to the Building Codes of the City, not to the regulations of the Design Review Board . c ) that the building is within the area subject to the controls of the Design Review Board and also to the fire regulations for a closed district (even though it abutts a brick and a granite building) . d ) that if the work to be done is only normal maintenance the • matter should not be considered by the Design Review Board; however, the issuance of a Building Permit m@ins that a decision must be made regarding the request of the Fraternity. 2 • e ) that in extensive repairs there must not only be compliance with the regulation of the Office of Building Inspection and of the Fire Department, but also with the Design Review Board for acceptance of the aesthetics of the exterior of the building. f ) that the Salem Redevelopment Authority should act in the matter of securing agreement from the office of the Building Inspector and from the Fire Department. g) that the matter of hardship when a redeveloper tries to meet the visual standards for a building of historic and architectural value should be presented to the Salem Redevelopment Authority for consideration and action. Motion : That the Design Review Board recommend to the Salem Redevelopment Authority that tht Authority consider the acquisition • of such rights to any property not to be acquired under the plans for the Heritage Plaza East project as may be necessary in order to insure the preservation of historic and architectural values ; and that the minutes of this meeting dealing with the Fraternity property be provided to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. Carried. In answer to the hypothetical question as to whether the Salem Redevelopment Authority would then be acquiring rights to all other properties of historic and architectural values , it was the concensus that the factor of historic value would be a workable limitation. Motion : That the Design Review Board request action by the Salem Redevelopment Authority to provide for the treatment of non- conforming buildings of historic and architectural values within Heritage Plaza East. In case of the preservation of buildings of • architectural and historic values , the Design Review Board asks that 3 discretion be allowed in the choice of materials where original • materials do not conform to project regulations . Carried. The suggestion was made that the Design Review Board submit to the Salem Redevelopment Authority a redraft of the summary of the matter of the Salem Fraternity building. Mr. Kerr made suggestions regarding the Guide to Redevelopers , presently about to be completed by the Design Review Board . Motion : That Paragraph 4 in the current Guide to Redevelopers be deleted and the wording as suggested by Mr. Kerr be inserted as Paragraph 4. Carried. 4. Applications shall be submitted for review at three different times during the development of plans : 1 ) after initial design development • 2 ) when preliminary drawings and outline specifications are completed 3 ) when final working drawings and specifications are completed. In the case of the second of the required submissions , if there are no significant changes to the original submission, the professional advisor shall so notify a standing committee of the Design Review Board , appointed for this purpose by the Chairman of the Board , recommending that formal review be waived . If the standing committee does not concur with the professional advisor's recommendation, these plans shall be held for consideration at the next scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board, otherwise the interim review requirement shall be waived. The submission of final working drawings and specifications , • however, shall be reviewed at a regular or special meeting of the Design Review Board . The Board will recommend approval, disapproval, 4 or modification to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. • Motion : That the By haws and the Guide to Redevelopers be accepted as written, including the insertation of paragraph 4 by Mr. Kerr. Carried. The By Laws and Guide to Redevelopers , after presentation to the Salem Redevelopment Authority, are ready to be printed. In explaining the ' scope of his work as consultant, Mr. Kerr described his areas of responsibility as dealing with matters of: 1 ) Retaining structures in the area of the Town Hall. 2 ) Preparing the Urban Design concept (the Mall, pedestrian areas , and public facilities ) , including street scape proposals and the manual of materials to be used in the public area . 3 ) Providing consultant services to the Design Review Board and to the Salem Redevelopment Authority especially regarding language of stated policies and recommendations . Motion : That the meeting adjourn . Carried. When it became apparent that absenses might affect the quorum at subsequent meetings because Mr. Smith must miss meetings in March, April, May and June, the meeting was reconvened by Chairman Boulger. Motion : That the quorum for the meetings in March through June, 1970 be four. Carried. Motion to adjourn at 10 :05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Louise M. Meier Secretary • To the Salem Redevelopmett Authority : A summary of the request of the Salem Fr?ternity regarding its • its property on Central St. The Salem Fraternity owns an 18th century wooden-frame building adjacent to its property on Central Street which it wishes to fix up and make water tight in order to use. The Fraternity is a non-profit organization and wishes to make the property useful at the least expense. Properties in the area are aubject to the fire ilegulations in effect for the site. (Sec. 19-3-1 of Salem Redevelopment Authority Plan, page 8 ) and the Fraternity has secured a permit from the office of the Building Inspector;;. It would appear, therefore, that the Fraternity is correct in presenting a request to the Design Review Board for action on its plans for the exterior of the building. The building is of historic value and has much of architectural value in • its interior above the ground floor. Sec. 9-2 (page 3 ) of the Salem Redevelopment Authority Plan rules out the use of wooden clapboards , the original material of the building. The use of the specified materials would not only work financial hardship to the Salem Fraternity, but also would result in adverse aesthetic treatment of the exterior of an historic building. Therefore, the Design Review Board presents this addendum to the report of the secretary for the February 9, 1970 meeting, hoping that the Salem Redevelopment Authority will give specific direction to the Board in this matter, realizing that such action may serve as a precedent in any like circumstances . Respectfully yours , Louise M. Meier • Secretary, Design Review Board 4. Applications shall be submitted for review at three different times during the development of plans: (1) after initial design development (2) when preliminary drawings and outline specifications are completed .f and (3) when final working drawings and specifications are completed. r s In the case of the second of the required submissions, if there are no significant changes _o s 1 to the original submission, the professional advisor shall so notify a standing committee of the Design Review Board, appointed for this purpose by the Cbairman of the Board, G `T recommending that formal review be waived. If the standing committee does not concur V with the professional advisor's recommendation, these plans shall be held for consideration • at the.next scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board, otherwise the interim review requirement shall be waived. The submission of final working drawings and specifications, however, shall be reviewed at a regula�eet" ing of the Design Review Board. The Board will then recommend approval, disapproval or modification to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. 5. The Design Review Board may confer with the applicant and his architect during review and may hear expert testimony on the changes in question. 6. Prior to approval or disapproval of an application for change or a new building, the Design Review Board may make recommendations to the applicant for the changes or new construction. The applicant may withdraw his application for the purpose of making such changes without • penalty but must re-submit them to the Salem Redevelopment Authority before the Design Review Board shall re-open its review of the proposal . 7. If the Design Review Board should disapprove the application, it should state its reason for be disapproved by the Authority, the application shall be returned to the applicant , • with the statement that said proposal has been disapproved and stating reasons. 8. In case of disapproval of the application, the applicant may re-submit his application with appropriate changes. • • r A • i, MTNUT$S OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW YOARD • JANUARY 12, 1970 MEETING # 10 The first regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority for the ,year 1970, was held January 12, at the office of the Authority beginning at 8 :07 p.m. Present : Mrs . Frothingham, Mrs . Peirson, Messrs . Sadoski , Small, Smith , Chairman Boulger, and Mrs . Meier. Messrs . Kerr and Barrett were present as consultants . Absent : Mr. Ballou The secretary read the report of the meeting of December 8, 1969, with the communication regarding the property of the Salem Fraternity on Central Street. • Motion : That the secretary's reports of the meeting of November 12 and December 8, 1969 be accepted ; motion carried. During discussion of the stipulation on the drawings for the Fraternity, the sug7estion was made that the shield for the air- conditioning equipment be "boarding enclosure" rather than "close balusters " . The Committee will await suggestions by the Fraternity. 4 The definition of the term "year" was discussed . Motion : That the chairman of the Design Review Board be elected annually in September; motion carried . (This statement to be added to Section A ) Mr. Kerr presented advisory comments for consideration of the Design Review Board in its adoption of a Guide to Redevelopers . His comments were based upon information gleaned at the December 8th • meeting. He suggested that the question of responsibility should be -2- coordinated in the provisions of the Salem Design Review Board 's • Procedures . Reference was made to Paragraph 20 - its sub items 1 , 2, 3 ; to Paragraph. 21 .4; and to Paragraph 21 .10. Relative to 21 . 10, note was made that the work of the Building Inspector does not lie within the purview of the Design Review Board. Discussion followed as to the value of the work of the Design Review Board unless the matter of correlation is clear regarding the enforcement of the Codes of the city. 41ees Kerr pointed out th-t there should be correlation from the Design Review Board with the intent of the Salem Redevelopment Authority on the exterior drawings only. The Salem Redevelopment Authority haff the responsibility to enforce. The province of the Design Review Board is the continuous referral of the plans for the exterior of the buildings to be • redeveloped. The Salem Redevelopment Authority will refer to the Design Review Board in the case of a change in the exterior of a. building. To secure harmony in procedures , the Design Review Board should make specifications as toV-�hat should be submitted and when it should be submitted. After discussion of submission requirements relative to the number of times the Design Review Board should see the exterior sketches , a policy statement was adopted . Motion : That redevelopers shall observe the following procedures : Submission requirement Redevelopers shall observe the following procedures : The plans of the exterior shal.l be presented to the Salem Redevelopment Authority; the Authority shall refer the plans to the • Design Review Board , in the following stages : -3- 1 . Design development 2. Preliminary drawings and outline specifications . If there are no changes suggested by the professional advisors , the Design Review Board will accept the drawings on concurrence by a standing committee of the Design Review Board appointed for the purpose by the Chairman of the Board. If the standing committee does not concur with the preliminary drawings , these plans shall be held for consideration at the next meeting of the Design Review Board . 3 . Final working drawir_gs and specifications . The Design Review Board recommends approval, disapproval, or modification to the Salem Redevelopment Authority of these final drawings . Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted , • Louise M. Meier, Secretary • -70 M v . b� 1 - - - J-42e- M ....._ .. _, -76 - _zz,-_ -- ( - I z - � � - --- - - - - -- -- -- -- - - G,b� — -- -- — ---�� - —- -- —�'�_ -L U s_/4 �1 —- - -- -- -- - — --------- �hSerf 12 -- r 'I .. ___- --_ . _. - - - - _ _ _ _ _ � _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ I - - _ - — -cls-- �� �-�'� � G►9s���- -- - VA - -�-c�P/c�wL t s__� '��.✓�f _ _INI�-- -� - Die_ f7r - -- LY� aF -b — - — — --- — G 3•- -Q v_��-�o.t2 _ '(�1 �_, - Ev�►�.I�Fr�f' �-_ �; %�-�.�ec_a..� !, �-, � c-�c ,. _ -n.4LUCr for 44- �W) {'LCL Mag ( c c K.icz►-►t �c7 �9peg wr#Az d + �gym{ L S�o a -- (?—casnl A--�ci_aS�VSL_("�'1'j �0� Ivy �py� �, Q �.R•�.R (t�iScIIa-r �� ��F � �-�-�,n_�E �u(s S. '�f9�e-/�-fJ-� L�y�t c_d.r�__� ,��e C C_•y�,_ .—_W N t Coll etM,--�r�Al2+� 'Liz N �01� ��-r�_Q� -� DQo_s��l a1�T.�k1�_s�. _ c 1J_ �2x Dve . W,to s�e fA61k*04 It �- _• �-[�11J_�.-S�4QrZ�r�`� p_� —� �v h.e�_4K�4-S.--�-moi ►ie.ly r�- — _ 'u$ — 'ula— aLGv�rc wiz! ---- —— f'urL+— �P/1.ss�.t_ert c�_�t.c�u_� /�Y► 4 -�-Y-'v-A+-�i��21l�DlL4s.i - �j__ - - --- - � -----P�t.�.t-cam-[✓-1-- —` - _5�.�.��1� ��-a �� -�t�_.�ia��til 4_ &aLL -- ��_ (--_��R.�. c�u.►. d�u� � _�j-�n.d--��. 1r�u_r-cam<_ C�c�o�i�i�� iedC- ^3CLL- sw ---- -QLi& MAC — -------- -- — •—__ K.— P 7440n,- �w S! ►� /,�cn_� '� �H.1t�n,C wu Or'� 7� �'J►dtG �2Cb�Lt�_t-/L--- . . 7� MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD • NOVEMBER 12, 1969 The Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority met at the office of the Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Mass. at 8:00 P.M., November 12, 1969. Present: Mrs. Peirson, Messrs. Ballou, Boulger, Smith and Sadoski Absent: Mrs. Frothingham, Mrs. Meier and Mr. Small Also attending: Mr. John Barrett of the Salem Redevelopment Authority In the absence of the Secretary, Mr. Sadoski was appointed acting secretary by the Chairman. Next the Chairman announced that the next meeting will be at 8:00 P. M. on December 8, 1969 at the Authority office. Mrs. Peirson requested that in the future any change in the meeting dates • be promptly issued as a notice to all members. The Chairman stated that in the future any regularly scheduled monthly meeting which falls on a holiday will automatically be moved forward to the next (followings day. Mr. Smith explained that the Museum is preparing a brochure for fund raising purposes. The funds will be used for expansion. The Authority and Board are advised that the brochure will include tentative plans not previously reviewed by this group. This action was necessary due to time factors and because final plans will depend on the outcome of the fund campaign. In answer to Mrs. Peirson's question, Mr. Smith stated that any final plans would of necessity incorporate changes dictated by the Authority and Board. All members present indicated their tacit agreement with the action taken by the Museum. By motion duly made and carried, reading of the minutes of the previous meeting was waived. • Design Review Board Meeting - November 12, 1969 Page 2 • The Board then proceeded with the completion of proposed by-laws of the Design Review Board. Mr. Barrett advised the Board the Mr. Daniel O'Brien, City of Salem Building Inspector, would be willing to discuss the participation of the office of the Building Inspector in the Board's procedure after all the by-laws have been adopted. The discussion then turned to the proposed Rules of Procedure sub- mitted by Chairman Boulger under date September 18, 1969. Specific attention was given to individual articles under Section G, Design Review. Motion was duly made and carried that all references to "renewal ordinance" shall be changed to "urban renewal plan text." Article 1: Motion made and carried; • Add the following sentence: Parcels owned by the Salem Redevelopment Authority are exempt from design review. Article 2: Motion made and carried; Place a period after "Design Review Board" in line 5. Strike out the remainder of line 5, 607,8,9, and through the word applicant in line 10. The third sentence will begin with the word "Application," - continue as written. Article 3: Motion made and carried; Delete the 1st sentence - continue as written Article 4: Motion made and carried; Accept article as written. Article 5: Motion made and carried; Accept article as written • Design Review Board Meeting - November 12, 1969 Page 3 • Article 6: Motion made and carried; Delete the last part of the first sentence beginning with the word "but" in line 3 - continue as written. Article 7: Motion made and carried; Article shall read: If the Design Review Board should disapprove the application, it should state its reason for such disapproval in writing to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. Should the application be disapproved by the Authority, the application shall be returned to the Building Inspector with the request that said application be refused. Article 8: Motion made and carried; Article shall be terminated with the "changes." • Article 9: This article shall be redrafted by Mr. Boulger. This action concluded work on the Proposed by-laws. Mr. Barrett was requested to have the complete text of proposed by-laws prepared from the minutes submitted. Mr. Barrett also provided elevation and perspective plans of the new fire station. Said plans included changes as made by the architect. General comments were favorable. Motion made and carried that the meeting be adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Theodore Sadoski, Acting Secretary • HERITAGE PLAZA-EAST - SALEM JOHN W. BARRET. REDEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR K1626_ HAROLD , 1 �JAVTHORIT 1�/ J. CORCORAN SALEM-MASSACHUSETTS qr ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE-CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALL. JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. MCGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY SECRETARY (PRO-TEM) NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given the next meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority will be held Monday at 8;00 P.M., January 12, 1970 at the office of • the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. If you are unable to attend this meeting, please advise this office as early in the day as possible. Louise A. Meier, Secretary January 9, 1970 • b , , i � � � � --- - - �- '�-' � �� i ,` ,�..-- % � / � - �� .- � �G' � � r i a / / _ // _ �� J',,r � ,I �� ♦ i �� _ � _ � - �� • ��, � ' � � _ i o� _/ . / a.._:.� � �i _� �� � � /> . � J � � �� �' I i ,._ / / i / �i �` � f t F � / J �/ � / � � � .�/ � � �. / I /� _ i � � � '" _ / � � i ' �/ t ' / / i � _ �� e - � / / i �. � i _ i i -- - --- -- N O _- - --- -------- -- ---- - – - 40 :OL'207 1,116,1109 CA -- u — -mss -.-,..�. /t) �•-� � --�" r 3 e -- — ---- ---- _<alt= s xe- 14 } MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD • OCTOBER 14, 1969 The regular monthly meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority was held Tuesday, October 14, 1969 at the office of the Authority. At 8:09 p.m. the meeting was called to order. Present: Chairman Boulger, Mrs. Frothingham, Messrs. Ballou, Small, Smith and Mrs. Meier Absent: Mr. Sadoski and Mrs. Peirson The typed report of the meeting of September 8, 1969 was distributed and read by each member. Before the motion was made to accept the report of the Secretary the following corrections were made in the mimeographed report of the work session of September 22, 1969. 1. Page 1. This section to read as does the last paragraph of the • Draft, Design Review Policy and Procedure of April 30, 1969 from the Urban Design Group with rewording: "The Board will confine its judgments and recom- mendations to exterior aspects of the proposed changes and to interior arrangements and changes which affect exterior appearance.." Note should be made that approval was given on September 22, 1969 to the material in the Draft of the Design Review Policy and Procedures of April 30, 1969 through page three, line one of the copy used at the work session. Motion: that the corrections be incorporated in the Secretary's report of the work session of September 22, 1969 and that the minutes be approved as corrected. Motion carried. A statement was made by Mr. Smith regarding the plans of the Peabody Museum: "Due to the necessity of convincing all the Trustees of certain minor • interior design factors, the Museum deems it advisable to postpone the presenta- tion of the preliminary proposal to the Design Review Board until later." • -2- Motion: that the date of the next regular monthly meeting be Wednesday, November 12, 1969. Motion carried. Mrs. Frothingham is officially excused from this meeting by the Chair. In his absence, Mr. Barrett left a note reporting that he had spoken to the Building Inspector, Danield O'Brien, about the recommendations and that Dr. Dirlam is working on an alternate plan for the fire station. Resuming the work on the Rules and Procedures at the point after line 1 of page 3 of the Draft of the Urban Design Group, the Committee considered the typed material submitted by Mr. Boulger dated September 18, 1969. Motions were duly made that the following sections be accepted with exception as noted: 1. Officers and Duties: A. Accepted as written - exception; strike comma in line 4 after word "prodedure" insert comma in line 6 after word "Board" • B. Vice Chairman shall be changed to "Acting Chairman" An Acting Chairman shall be elected by the Design Review Board to serve in the absence of the Chairman. C. Secretary; accepted as written - exceptions, line 7. .....which when approved by the Board shall be given to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. line 12......indicating the names of members present or absent. 2. Meetings A. Regular Meeting That the regular monthly meeting be held on the second Monday of the month at 8:00 p.m. in the Salem Redevelopment Authority office. B. Special Meeting - accepted as written Exception; line 2....by the Chairman plus one other member and at.. .. line 4....cross out "Secretary or" and add plus one other member after the word "Chairman" line 6 ---strike out "11" • I -3- C. Attendance; accepted as written Exception - line 4 .....majority of the meetings in a calendar year......... D. Quorum - accepted as written E. Conduct of Meetings - accepted as written after striking out the first sentence. F. Voting - accepted as written Exception; line 3 - strike out the word "participate" and insert the word "vote" line 4 - strike out the word "personal" and insert the word "professional" At the next meeting of the Design Review Board work will continue of the Rules and Procedure after Section F. Motion: that the Design Review Board request the Chairman or the Executive Director of the Salem Redevelopment Authority to call to the attention of Commissioner Julian Steele the need for naming a successor to Mr. Whitehill on • the Design Review Board. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Louise A. Meier, Secretary • II HERITAGE PLAZA-EA$T SALEM 1 REDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. BARRETT • w 1626 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR �1 HAROLD J. CORCORAN nLeu n+nssncl.,u'sErrs AUTHORITY ASST. EXECVTI VE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 •TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A.'HEBARD CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE-CHAIRMAN 'CHANNING BACALL. JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. MCGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY SECRETARY (PRO-TEM) NOTICE OF. MEETING Notice is hereby given the next meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority will • be held Wednesday, November 12, 1969 at 8:00 p.m. at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. If for any reason you are unable to attend said meeting, would you 'please call the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority as soon as possible. - 1. Louise A. Meier, Secretary N ` MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OCTOBER 14, 1969 • The regular monthly meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem ,.'Redeve;lopment Authority was held Tuesday, October 14, 1969 at the office of the Authority. At 8:09 p.m. the meeting was called to order. Present: .Chairman Boulger, Mrs. Frothingham, Messrs. Ballou, Small, Smith and Mrs. Meier Absent: Mr. Sadoski and Mrs. Peirson The typed report of the meeting of September 8, 1969 was distributed and read by each member. Before the motion was made to accept the report of the Secretary the following corrections were made in the mimeographed report of the work session of . September 22, 1969. 1. Page 1. This section to read as does the last paragraph of the • Draft, Design Review Policy and Procedure of April 30, 1969 from the Urban Design Group with rewording: "The Board will confine its judgments and recom- mendations to exterior aspects of the proposed changes and to interior arrangements and changes which affect exterior appearance. ." Note should be made that approval was given on September 22, 1969 to F the material in the Draft of the Design Review Policy and Procedures of April 30, 1969 through page three, line one of the copy used at the work session. Motion: that the corrections be incorporated in the Secretary's report of the work session of September 22, 1969 and that the ,minutes be approved as corrected. Motion carried. A statement was made by Mr. Smith regarding the plans of the Peabody Museum: "Due to the necessity of convincing all the Trustees of certain minor • interior design factors, the Museum deems it advisable to postpone the presenta-- tion of the preliminary proposal to the Design Review Board until later." -2- • Motion: that the date of the next regular monthly meeting be Wednesday, November 12, 1969. Motion carried. Mrs. Frothingham is officially excused from this meeting by the Chair. In his absence, Mr. Barrett left a note reporting that he had spoken to the Building Inspector, Danield. O'Brien, about the recommendations and that Dr. Dirlam is working on an alternate plan for the fire station. Resuming the work on the Rules and Procedures at the point after line . 1 of page 3 of the Draft of the- Urban Design Group, the Committee considered the typed material submitted by -Mr. Boulger dated September 18, 1969. Motions were duly made that the following sections be accepted with exception asnoted: 1. Officers and Duties: A. Accepted as written - exception; strike comma in line 4 after word "procedure" insert comma in line 6 after word "Board" • B. Vice Chairman shall be changed to "Acting Chairman" An Acting Chairman shall be elected by the Design Review Board to serve in the absence of the Chairman. C. Secretary; accepted as written - exceptions, line 7'... . ...which when approved by the Board shall be given to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. line 12. .. .. .indicating the names of members present or absent. 2. Meetings A. Regular Meeting That the regular monthly meeting be held on the second Monday of the month at 8:00 p.m. in the Salem Redevelopment Authority ° office. B. Special Meeting - accepted as written Q Exception; 'line 2. . . .by the Chairman plus one other member ,and at.... line 4. .. .cross out "Sec"retary or" and add plus' one other member after the word "Chairman" line 6 ---strike out"'ll" c ' ° o -3- C. Attendance; accepted as written Exception - line 4 . . ...majority of the meetings in a calendar • year......... D. Quorum - accepted as written E. Conduct of Meetings - accepted as written after striking out the first sentence. F. Voting - accepted as written Exception; line 3 - strike out the word "participate" and insert the word 'vote" line 4 - strike out the word "personal" and insert the word "professional"' At 'ther.next meeting of the Design Review Board work will continue of the Rules and Procedure after Section F. Motion: that the Design Review Board request the Chairman or the Executive Director of the Salem Redevelopment Authority to call to the attention of Commissioner Julian Steele the need for naming a successor to Mt. Whitehill on • the Design Review Board. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Louise A. Meier, Secretary r I _ !' PJ HERITAGE PLAZA-EAST �• SALEM S JOHN W. BARRETT REDEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1626 f= _P:.. 1 t �J ^• AUTf-IORIT I�/ HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM+MASSACHUSETTS ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARO CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE-CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALL. JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. MCGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY SECRETARY (PRO-TEM) NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given the next meeting of the • Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority will be held Wednesday, November 12, 1969 at 8:00 p.m. at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. If for any reason you are unable to attend said meeting, would you please call the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority as soon as possible. Louise A. Meier, Secretary • WORK SESSION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - SEPTEMBER 22, 1969 • A work session of the Design Review Board was held at 8:00 p.m. Monday, September 22, 1969 at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority. Present: Messrs. Barrett, Boulger, Sadoski, and Smith Mrs. Frothingham, and Mrs. Meier Absent: Mr. Ballou, Mr. Small, and Mrs. Peirson After long discussion of the philosophy of the Design Review Board and its operational procedures, Chairman Boulger formally convened the meeting. Motion: made by Mr. Smith, second by Mrs. Frothingham, the Design Review Policy and Procedures of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, as of 30, April 1969, as annotated in the Statement of Policy and Operation Procedures, up to and including line 5 page 3, be accepted with the following changes: Page 1: The Board will confine its judgments and recommendations to exterior aspects of the proposed changes and or to insofar as interior arrangements and changes which may affect exterior appearance. . Page 2: omit second paragraph, lines 1,2,3, and 4. Page 2: Operating Procedures The Salem Redevelopment Authority shall cause all proposals for new construction or change to existing structures or areas within the boundaries of the Heritage Plaza-East Urban Renewal Project to be referred to the Design Review Board for its review and recommendations as to appropriateness and acceptability of the proposed new construction or change. All such referrals shall be made to the Board no less than two weeks prior to the regular meeting of the Design Review Board on the second Monday of each month,, in the disposition process or as early as possible in the rehabilitation process. It is the objective of the Design Review Board to minimize possible conflicts and avoid economic hardships for the developer. All prospective redevelopers and/or property owners intending to • -2- DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1969 rehabilitate their properties shall be notified that all plans for new construction or rehabilitation within the urban renewal project area shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Motion carried. It was agreed that Mr. Barrett will send Zerox copies of Mr. Boulger's notes to members of the Design Review Board for consideration at the October meeting. Mr. Barrett will, meanwhile, confer with the Building Inspector regarding the policy and procedure and their coordination with his office. Mr. Smith alerted the Board to the fact that the proposal of the Peabody Museum will come before the Board at the October meeting. Respectfully submitted, • Louise A. Meier Secretary • HERITAGE PIAZA-EAST SALEM z a = � REDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. RABBET: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1626 U. _ HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM-MASSACHUSETTS AUTHORITY ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE-CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALL. JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. MCGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY September 12, 1969 SECRETARY IRRO�TEMI TO: MEMBERS OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD At the recent meeting of the Design Review Board held September 8, 1969 it was decided that a work session shall be held Monday, September 22, 1969 at 8:00 p.m. at the office of the Auth- ority. This meeting will be a work session to discuss guidelines. For your information it would be wise that you review a copy of the Design Review Policy and Procedures dated April 30, 1969 as prepared by the Urban Design Group of Newport, Rhode Island and distributed to each member of the Board at an earlier meeting. Any comments you may have to make, with respect to these procedures, should be noted so that we can have an open discussion on the matter so that we can develop guidelines which can be presented to developers for their guidance. Please refer to minutes and comments relative to guidelines as noted in past meetings as additional material for review. In the event you do not have available any of these materials, please call the Redevelopment office and copies will be forwarded to you as quickly as possible. Louise A. Meier, Secretary • Sent to each member of the Design Review Board 9/12/69 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SEPTEMBER 8, 1969 MEETING #6 The Design Review Board met on Monday September 8, 1969 at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority with six members present: Chairman Boulger, Messrs. Ballou, Barrett, Sadoski, and Small and Mrs. Meier. The meeting was called to order at 8:09 p.m., absent were Mrs. Frothingham, and Mrs. Peirson and Mr. Smith. Upon the request for waiving the reading of the minutes of the meeting of August 11 Mr. Sadoski asked that the first sentence of the paragraph at the bottom of page three be worded as follows: "Mrs. Peirson, Messrs. Ballou, Small and Sadoski agreed that in the Board's guidelines it should be recorded that the Board would not like to see many buildings • designed with a pseudo-Colonial approach." Mr. Ballou asked that the first sentence of the last paragaph on page one read: "Mr. Ballou opened the discussion by expressing his wish-to be put on record as stating that as the fire station in question was to be built in a non- historic district, why could it not be designed externally as a contemporary 20th century functional structure?" Mr. Ballou opened the discussion by expressing the wish to be put on record as follows: 1. That the City of Salem is the client commissioning the proposed new fire station, not the Design Review Board. 2. That the Design Review Board is to review plans, etc. , and make recommenda- tions to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. -2- 3. That communication with the architect should be through the Salem Redevelopment Authority. 4. That Mr. Ballou feels it is not necessary for the architect to attend a Design Review Board meeting, now, or in the future unless the architect requests a hearing by the Design Review Board. Motion: that the report of the Secretary be accepted as mailed and corrected; motion carried In a letter to the Salem Redevelopment Authority on August 29, 1969, Mr. Ballou suggested that the Salem Redevelopment Authority request Commissioner Julian Steele to appoint a replacement for Mr. Walter Muir Whitehill on the Design Review Board. He also suggested that Mrs. Frothingham be asked whether or not she will find attendance at the Design Review Board possible. He asked that the Design Review Board establish standards of design, a basic philosophy, and a statement of expectations, goals, and intent. A brochure containing these tenets as taken from past discussions and motions can be issued to prospective redevelopers and their architects. Motion: that Mr. Barrett be asked to write to Mrs. Frothingham as to whether or not she will be able to attend meetings of the Design Review Board, and if she is not able to attend, if she will consider resigning; motion carried. There was a full discussion of the technique of handling designs submitted for the redevelopment of Heritage Plaza-East. It was agreed that Mr. Barrett should be able to give a redeveloper a statement of philosophy as well as the controls of a parcel. It was also agreed that style and harmony should not be restricted but guided, it should be made clear to the redeveloper that reasonable and useful structures are desired. Guidelines should tell the architect what the Design Review Board wants him to observe and should • give him a time-table. -3- • Motion: that on September 22, 1969 a work session of the Design Review Board be held to write a statement of philosophy, list guidelines, and give possible time schedules; motion carried. In response to the reading of a letter from the SRA to the Design Review Board asking the intent of the suggestions about the blinds, cupola, and pediment on the Fire Station, the consensus was the refinements in window and tower treatment be incorporated in development plans for a further submittal for review at the regular meeting of the Design Review Board on October 14, 1969. For the benefit of the non-architects in the group, the usual five stages in the creation of a building were discussed. The five stages are: 1. Schematic 2. Preliminary (here preliminary costs are available) s 3. Design development or intermediates (here budget costs are available) • 4. Contracts 5. Construction Meeting adjourned 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Louise A. Meier, Secretary ib?) JV)INJTLS � L)2a. IZw. (3d.g3 $y �T K (3 ) rx__ 7tol, . meq, 5 6 Yom_• `�e a 9u eu.Sr A . c� � U to ��J 0,41 e � 'Q' r:14��- 4 `-e- �e�%v �- �� .err-a�-c ��'�e� © �► �- - �s �-e� ��� �- �� � • ���� 3• � /\_ R -EAST o �� i SALEM r REDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. BARRETT � . 1626 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AUTHORITY HAROLD J. CORCORAN M SALEM* ASSACHUSETTS ASST. Ex en un vE olREcroR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN' FELIX A; KULIK VICE�CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALLI JR., it TREASURER - .� FRANCIS H. MCGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER . " FRANCIS J. GRAY SECRETARY (RRO-TEM) NOTICE OF MEETING Notice is hereby given the next meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority will . be held Monday, September 8, 1969 at the office-of the Authority, • . 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts at 8:00 p.m. If you are unable to attend this meeting would you please advise this office at the earliest opportunity. i Louise A. Meier Secretary AugtE;t 28, 1969 Salem, Massachusetts 1 3 i I • ' it IIMINu.Tm- oF THE. MEETING OF-THE MSIRN-REVIEW BOARD -OF- T44E J 15ALEM . REDE\/ELOPMEMT Auvio21Ty- 11 AUCTUST 19(09_ . - -. Q- - -- "nn 4lak0.U2.Q517m0!nT -wreu . iD..A",QI..1. I Cir ia69 _c,r i9 _cs -u-q7P wuA -COA&&4-0 &JJA_aT--8 , 5--P.M . )_AA. 13oQ&n_ CQaAn. �11Q/rY15etJ1.S .-lam :_.lVV1�...JYI¢ - ✓�vis._`F'LO�FAriRr) m An,2.VYlaSI1C.__ _ _ -0. m +0 1 mamm"_rsBP,n,1-.WPna.� V : . A. TeQ,w Bavtit, *jw-c4 j mom_-_�t�,,,�„.., ama --- -- i f —•�. � - ctmnaumc�._-t�a.1-a .�Car).. .�cn�re.�--- - - 4o - - - --_ . a3lul k_+n 0. - aarisx-> sem- la-40."t- X-C mpt fic.-Cmptad 04_dAotn d --vno�Ioy-.._cwvuad-. - - - �VlviaW_aPok_F-u ' u.n rrt"_ conco-un--- t6 ' „�,�-►� dO,O�,R�r� �- -per - - _ _ i! - - I -�- ---- -- - - - - --- '�I - - - - �-- - -- -�-- -- - -- --- _ � - r - --- ��-- - • is • - n �i„�la wv o v+tivt d_ 40 lie_-�n onaM at- u o-- - - S"C4--L _sem d fix-- _fCLk, a waa. b. 'sLl - -- .oxb-mac tlf)1R-coni �6ian�S2_sruk w,o_ ? - -t _ �— � --- — - - Qak- 4o - -- - Al SIA" �O _WP"a -- 1t- MW n�.o�-0.`�_unc n�,d..,�n .„. --- -- \KS2 WQL�.N�.._ trCQYI� -• nV Sea _J ac 0.(COrQM a -.It -- t. - _ �- I --- - - - - - - - � --� - I - � - - --- - - - -I - -- - i - - - -- -- �� -tom dt�a�r• r1�_ , ,- `t_ __ � _ .6-�,�.Q..- -tr U oLt a�,l�dl11JCI�e� _�W�tl-um� (am LA,0._ nv�rcArwnr"'-4P42, - to 1�a..'�.�.�;,�P-�ci�h„� 44MJ1C Nµ}Q -MI�Q rvv - - wel.aIpa t fA - t-.� Q, rq n 421c rns�- - - -- f +a4mbaAamur .LO -VIc, M-�Lct ,- 0. CkGIL4 _. _ _ - _ - .� '6e_.714.F6u�r�a�•-e'�_em�sl'U,t�d anm�nd - - - "-spac�ic_.SULCCY�a_�t"-Cam.Qema�O � 1 . - --- -- , ,_ &VA �04 - , - QL -ana.a-tea_&-aca"- ,. - i - �- -- - �- - - � - - - - i -- -- I I - - - �- - ---_._ _ -__ _ ---_- - 1 _ • • pass;�a._d,we�ma�n'"r'"_nau.�_ -ccna�dan�d. .�--d.Q.4eQspectis--- _ _ 1 - --- - - . umb-nor Y%kuAtwul_v'nu sin�Q Sr.w� �s�_. GL�FaA i n 0 I _!n2rL Vi w J a prapoSe d �kuza _-sta�-z ar` Lo-a4 no_17 - _ . _._ -- _ _ �ic:v�fir� ave_pr-a�o�e�•-sl�u,�ae-ctnld CeuSld_�_vr_�a�a ._- . ------ - -- -- - - -- AA, LW� - ' I • . _ _ - .�'. `� Pry 2) UG�Q w-r-cYpri tak2-_bm.1.►Ti(��YUf.1-A el CutAA anted.-3)--_W1l as e _ t_35 -PWVIA -- -- A. �34 �O-16 CaYlxa�L .o fFr"-._ Aaq L t/J_0. . U - en.eaz--- i -- ---------------- ', � - - -- j - - -- - - - ----- - ------ - J,; -- - _ I� -- - it -- i T _ i --__- - �� i 1 r . / / • J I • . I r �- �I � • � I I r • / r 1 . • / � ' I � . 1 , Ir ,• I • � • � / 1 . • . /� � � � ��� � � � i / J 1• • b • / � • • e r i i � � ► ► � • 1 . : �` .I • �� I � � � i � � , 1 �• . . � 1 � / � l.. � � , . r . . ... � . . . -, , . r �' � . . ,, . .1 � � � � �. , , I i � � � i r �. . . 11 • . ( . � • . r ► • . • ►r �i � •./ I r •' • . �' • • / • 1 •• • I 1 • / • /� r ♦ r ./ �r • I r i ♦ .'rte � �• / • . rI I r � 1 ' 1 I / � 1 , 1 r / / ' ' � r / � �:i I' • n __. C�e�w.c�c��t.���_cW'/��dpp..C--Q^S�S�.►a�__uMA/Ytl/t(Y.�Y�L. w���/�.�__-__. ___._,_.._�_-_.-._�.__-_A. _.__ -. _ -__ - -- --- --- - -- - -- - - �. _ � . --------------------- -- - --- -- - i -- ------- -- --- - t- - - • -------- -- - - - ---- - I i I MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE • SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - AUGUST 11, 1969 MEETING #5 The regular monthly meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority was held Monday, August 11, 1969 at the office of the Authority. The meeting was called to order at 8:15 p.m. , Mr. Boulger in the Chair. Members present: Mrs. Peirson, Messrs. Ballou, Boulger, Sadoski, Smith Members absent: Mrs. Meier, Mrs. Frothingham, Mr. Small In addition to the members present were the following persons: Mr. John Barrett, Fire Chief James Brennan, and architect, Dr. Arlan Dirlam. Mr. Barrett announced that a letter had been received from Walter Muir Whitehill asking to be relieved of duty on this board due to the inability to attend meetings regularly from the distance of Andover. • Mr. Barrett requested ue members h q s d th t a e bers of the Board who are unable to attend meetings advise his office at the earliest opportunity. In the absence of the Secretary, Mr. Smith was asked to serve temporarily in that capacity. Motion: that the minutes of the July meeting be accepted as distributed - motion carried. In view of the discussions at previous meetings concerning the design of the proposed fire station, the architect, Dr. Arlan Dirlam - was invited to be present at this meeting. Mr. Sadoski suggested that those portions of the previous minutes touching upon the invitation be read for his benefit, which was done by Mr. Boulger. Mr. Ballou opened the discussion by expressing his feeling that as the • fire station in question was to be built in a non-historic district, why could it not be designed externally as a contemporary 20th century functional structure? -2- Dr. Dirlam replied that his client instructed him to design a fire • station which would be compatible with the best architecture in the City of Salem. He had felt challenged by this requirement and believes that his design in entirely functional and reflects the internal plan on the exterior. In his opinion this design will stand the test of time. Chief Brennan explained to the Board how much study and thought had gone into the interior design. He considers it very functional for the uses to which it must be put but leaves the aesthetic exterior considerations to the architect. There followed a lengthy discussion of the exterior treatment. Mr. Ballou reiterated his previous remarks, adding that there will be many new structures constructed within the bounds of the redevelopment area including high-rise housing for the elderly for which a "colonial" or "traditional" approach cannot be applied. Furthermore, he failed to see why everything had to reflect a "colonial" design. • Dr. Dirlam suggested that the proposed fire station will recall the design of the present Salem Post Office, principally by the use of red brick, white trim, and a pediment. He believed one needed recall of past architectural designs to tie in with existing structures. In addition, no one knows what people will think of "contemporary" architecture in fifty-years' time, whereas, the more traditional approach should be equally acceptable then as now. Mr. Boulger noted that the architect has been expressing the wishes of his client, the. City of Salem, and that the Design Review Board should only guide the design, not over-ride it. Mrs. Peirson stated that the objections of the Design Review Board during past meetings centered about the belief that the fire station design is not, in fact, a colonial one in a pure sense. Further discussion ensued which repeated and expanded upon the remarks • already made. Mr. Sadoski said he would be opposed to any building designed in sharp contrast to its surroundings. The Board should now refresh its memory about -3- the buildings to be retained or constructed around the fire station so that • specific recommendations can be made by the Design Review Board to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. Mr. Barrett complied with a description of the plans for the surrounding area and a cursory discussion about possible development now being considered by developers in the vicinity. Mrs. Peirson repeated that "faked" colonial architecture was not necessarily in the best interests of Salem and that in her view the proposed fire station was not a link between existing and proposed structures and could be made better. Mr. Smith stated he was unalterably opposed to the view that all buildings to be built within the project area had to reflect a colonial atmosphere by necessity. He pointed out to Dr. Dirlam that the three principal objections to • the fire station design have been 1) the use of a false pediment; 2) the incom- patible treatment of the cupola and 3) the windows shown in the renderings which appear to be out of proportion with the scale of the buildings. Dr. Dirlam replied that the rendering was still in a formative stage and was essentially schematic. He believed the scale of the windows to be correct and that the pediment gave an identification to the structure which could not be achieved in any other way. He would like to refine the tower if an answer can be found. At 9:35 p.m. Dr. Dirlam and the Fire Chief left the meeting. Mr. Sadoski expressed his strong feeling that in the Board's guidelines it should be recorded that the Board would not like to see many more buildings designed with a pseudo-Colonial approach. There is a definite danger that within the renewal area too many people might be inclined only toward the • more traditional answers. `y "i , -4- ., • Mr. Barrett, when asked what the time-table regarding the fire station is, replied that there was not too much time left for the Board to make its initial recommendations. Mr. Smith suggested that as there has been so much discussion about the pediment on the fire station, it might be worth strongly considering the possibility of harmonizing the structure more with the nearby existing Police station than with the more remote existing Post Office. This might include a flat roof with the circumferential employment of a white ballustrade parapet. Motion: that the Design Review Board recommends to the:Salem Redevelopment Authority that the Design Review Board has reached basic agreement on the plan for the fire station but with certain refinements to the exterior design of the structure. Further, it notes that the site plan should incorporate appropriate parking facilities for the employees as well as the required landscaping within • the guidelines of the approved plan of the Salem Redevelopment Authority. Motion made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Ballou, and carried unanimously. Motion: that the Design Review Board recommend that the Salem Redevelopment Authority send a copy 6f the minutes of the meeting of the Design Review Board on July 14, 1969 to Dr. Dirlam, architect of the proposed fire station. Motion made by Mrs. Peirson, seconded by Mr. Sadoski, and carried unanimously. There being not further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Philip C. F. Smith Secretary pro tem • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW • BOARD OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JULY 14, 1969 MEETING #4 The regular monthly meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority was held Monday, July 14, 1969 at the office of the Authority. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m, by Temporary Chairman Mr. Ballou after the committee, on suggestion of Mr. Small, designated Mr. Ballou to serve until Chairman Boulger's delayed arrival. Present at 8:05s Mrs. Pierson and Mrs. Meier, Messers. Ballou, Small, Smith and Sadoski • Absent: Mrs. Frothingham, Mr. Boulger, and Mr. Whitehill. Mr. Clement Connelly, a member of the SRA staff, was present in Mr. Barrett's office as his representative. Motion: that the minutes of the June meeting be waived - motion carried. Motion: that the minutes of the June meeting be accepted as distributed - motion carried. At the request of Mr. Small for a resume of the discussion of the last meeting, Temporary Chairman Ballou responded. He emphasized the need for the Design Review Board to provide a guide to architects,.- and rchitects,and developers to explain to the developers the policy of the SRA's Design Review Board. • -2- - - Mr. Smithfeltthat the architects need to submit more detail • to the Design Review Board. The City Clerk has appropriated no money for the fire station; therefore, the question as to the posture of the Design Review Board has arisen in this matter. It was pointed out that Mr. Barrett had stated at the first meeting of the Design Review Board that such funds would be forthcoming. Regarding the submitted plans, the Temporary Chairman pointed out that there is a need for parking areas for cars of firemen. Mrs. Pierson felt that the plans for the interior are acceptable, if sat- isfactory to the Fire Department; she felt the exterior was the matter to discuss. Mr. Ballou pointed out that the exterior should be the s "envelope" for the function and should harmonize with the surroundings. 9 He felt the tower, the planned windows, and the pediment, were not in • ralationship to the use of the building. Mr. Small suggested that the Design Review Board establish the principle that no specific design be required. This suggestion resulted from the reported assignment to the architect for a "Colonial" theme for the fire house. On the arrival of Mr. Whitehill at 8:30 p.m. there was a resume of opinions expressed thus far in the meeting. There was a discussion of the form that the Guidelines should take so that the Design Review Board could initially convey to the developer that he is under no compulsion to follow a specific traditional design but that the exterior should express what the interior does. • At 8:40 p.m. Chairman Boulger arrived and after hearing a resume • by Mr. Ballou, Mr. Boulger presided for the remainder of the meeting. During an analysis of the problem of proper communication with developers .and their architects at the beginning of redevelopment plans, an idea was voiced that a functional building which must be pla ed near architectural treasures should be a simple and as inconspicuous as possible. It was pointed out that the Design Review Boar should not sanction the attempt to "match" the traditional surroundings; such "matching" results in loss of architectural harmony. Motion: that the Design Review Board offer "Guidelines" for the consideration of the SRA, indicating agreement on architectural policies and principles. Motion made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Pierson, carried unanimously. Motion: that the developer and architect be briefed on the Guidelines in the early stage of the design. Motion made by Mr. Ballou, seconded by Mrs. Pierson, carried unanimously. Motion: that the prime consideration in the approval of any building be its harmony in mass, materials, and color, with its surroundings. Motion made by Mr. Whitehill, seconded by Mr. Smith, carried unanimously. During the discussion of the previous motion Mr. Whitehill left (9:10 p.m.) . Motion: that the Design Review Board will not accept for recommendation to the SRh a design that is, in its opinion, unnecessarily contrived to emulate a past architectural period. Motion made by Mrs. Pierson, seconded by Mr. Ballou - motion carried with the Chairman expressing opposition because the motion is"too restrictive." • �• .:; -4- Motion: that the Design Review Board will take due consider- ation of the economics involved in a plan and its alternatives, as related to practical options of the area. Motion made by Mr. Sadoski, seconded by Mr. Small, carried unanimously. Turning to the matter of the fire station, which is not to be affected retroactively by the Guidelines, opinions were expressed as to how the submitted pians should be processed. At 9:55 p.m. Mr. Ballou left. Motion, that the SRA be requested to invite the architect of the fire station to attend the next meeting of the Design Review Board inasmuch as there is considerable division of opinions among the members of the Design Review Board regarding the exterior of the fire station. It is hoped that mutual expression of views will result in early approval of the fire station design. Motion made by Mr. Smith, • seconded by Mr. Small, carried unanimously. Motion was made to adjourn 10:10 p.m. , motion carried. The next regular meeting of the Design Review Board will be held August 11, 1969 at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Louise Meier, Secretary • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW . BOARD OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY . JULY 14, 1969 MEETING #4 The regular monthly meeting of the Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority was held Monday, July 14, 1969 at the office of the Authority. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Temporary Chairman Mr. Ballou after the committee, on suggestion of Mr. Small, designated Mr. Ballou to serve until Chairman Boulger's delayed arrival. Present at 8:05p Mrs. Pierson and Mrs. Meier, Messers. Ballou, Small, Smith and Sadoski • Absent: Mrs. Frothingham, Mr. Boulger, and Mr. Whitehill. Mr. Clement Connelly, a member of the SRA staff, was present in Mr. Barrett's office as his representative. Motion: that .the minutes of the June meeting be waived - motion carried. Motion: that the minutes of the June meeting be accepted as distributed - motion carried. . At the request of Mr. Small for a resume of the discussion of the last meeting, Temporary. Chairman Ballou responded. He emphasized the need for the Design Review Board to provide a guide to architects:; . and developers to explain to the developers the policy of the SRA's Design Review Board. I t { .. -2- Mr. z-Mr. Smith felt that the architects need to submit more detail j j . to the Design Review Board. The City Clerk has appropriated no money for the fire station; a I itherefore, the question as .to the posture of the Design Review Board has arisen in this matter. It was pointed out that Mr. Barrett had stated at the first meeting of the Design Review Board that such funds would be forthcoming. i t Regarding the submitted plans, the Temporary Chairman pointed j out that there is a need for parking areas for cars of firemen. Mrs. i Pierson felt that the plans for the interior are acceptable, if sat- j isfactory to the Fire Department; she felt the exterior was the matter 1 to discuss. Mr. Ballou pointed out that the exterior should be the "envelope" for the function and should harmonize with the surroundings. i He felt the tower, the planned windows, and the pediment, were not in ralationship to the use of the building. Mr. Small suggested that the Design Review Board establish i the principle that no specific design be required. This suggestion resulted from the reported assignment to the architect for a "Colonial" i theme for the fire house. On the arrival of Mr. Whitehill at 8:30 p.m. there was a resume of opinions expressed thus far in the meeting. i There was a discussion of the form that the Guidelines 0 should take so that the Design' Review Board could initially convey to the developer that he is under no compulsion to follow a specific traditional design but that the exterior should express what the interior does. J i .. -3- At 8:40 p.m. Chairman Boulger arrived and after hearing a resume • by Mr. Ballou, Mr. Boulger presided for the remainder of the meeting. During an analysis of the problem of proper communication with developers and their architects at the beginning of redevelopment plans, , an idea was voiced that a functional building which must be plced near architectural treasures should be a simple and as inconspicuous as jpossible. It was pointed out that the Design Review Boar should not sanction the attempt to "match" the traditional surroundings; such { "matching" results in loss of architectural harmony. Motion: that the Design Review-Board offer "Guidelines" for 1 the consideration of the SRA, indicating agreement on architectural 1 policies and principles. Motion made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. i f� Pierson, carried unanimously. Motion: that the developer and architect be briefed on the • Guidelines in the early stage of the design. Motion made by Mr. Ballou, seconded by Mrs. Pierson, carried unanimously. Motion: that the prime consideration in the approval of any building be its harmony in mass, materials, and color, with its surroundings: Motion made by Mr. Whitehill, seconded by Mr. Smith, carried unanimously. During the discussion of the previous motion Mr. Whitehill left (9:10 p.m. ) . Motion: that the Design Review Board will not accept for recommendation to the SRA a designthat is, in its opinion, unnecessarily contrived to emulate a past architectural period. Motion made by Mrs. Pierson, seconded by Mr. Ballou —motion carried with the Chairman expressing opposition because the motion is"too restrictive." e i -0- Motion: that the Design Review Board will take due consider- ation of the economics involved in a plan and its alternatives, as • related to practical options of the area. Motion made by -Mr. Sadoski, seconded by Mr. Small, carried unanimously. Turning to the matter of the fire station, which is not to be affected retroactively by. the Guidelines, opinions were expressed as to how the submitted plans ,should be processed. At 9:55 p.m. Mr. Ballou left. . Motion, that the SRA be requested to invite the architect of the fire station to attend the re xt meeting of the Design Review Board inasmuch as there is considerable division of opinions among the members of the Design Review Board regarding the exterior of the fire station. It is hoped that mutual expression of views will result in early approval of :the fire station design. Motion made by Mr. Smith, • seconded by Mr.. Small , carried unanimously. Motion was made to adjourn 10:10 p.m. , motion carried. The next regular meeting of the Design Review Board will be held August 11, 1969 at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Louise Meier, Secretary i I i i i • 0w � 4 /OIL- � C 7� -� � ��wti � � ����� f ,� _ z�- �- -.ems,--�,`�' ����4 � �z�� � �-<- � �- - � � ,� �` � .�"`� �� � � � �� � . cd ` 4, . 0 i lazl sP --6 - �� �-� ; ��- -� �-.-.r � �- --�`i ��� 'G-�-1 - ����-- �-�� -�- � �vv��v-vim� la'v�t�`�'u�a-E�� �`'`� ��� .tib- .� ,��- ,�_ 4�et�.,d'. z T6 sl a o 6p . ct� � D i MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD • JUNE 9, 1969 MEETING #3 The Design Review Board for Heritage Plaza-East met at the office of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, 60 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts on June 9, 1969 at 8:00 p.m. . The ❑eeting was called to order at 8 :10 p.m. and the following answered present: Mrs. Peirson; Messers. Boulger , Ballou, Sadoski, and Smith. Absent from the meeting were Mrs. Frothingham, Mrs. Meier , Messers, Small and Whitehill. Attorney George P. Vallis was requested to take note of the • meeting. A motion was made , seconded and unanimously voted to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting since copies of the minutes had been mailed to each Board Member prior to the meeting. A motion was duly made, seconded and unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 12, 1969. A. motion was made by Ted Sadoski that all Board Members of the Design Review Board be requested to study supplementary documents which have been presented to the members of the Design Review Board and that all members participate in the formulation of the by-laws. A request was made that the Salem Redevelopment Authority assist the Board by obtaining similar by-laws used by other redevelopment agencies. Mr. Smith suggested that here and after all material being • reviewed by the Board should be mailed to all members at least sten days prior to meeting. rr -2- MEETING #3 Mr. Ballou expressed his hope that in the future preliminary plans of projects would be submitted prior to definitive plans so that the Board could work with architects. He stated it would be difficult, if not unethical , to criticize the architect if plans were shown to the Board in later stages. The Board discussed briefly the rendering of the fire station building. It was the general consensus of opinion that the design of the building was bad. Mr. Ballou felt that the new fire station should not necessarily be "Colonial" . He expressed his desire to see a building erected in a more contemporary style. • Mr. Boulger had no objection to a fire station of colonial design providing it was done with taste. Mrs. Peirson expressed her opinion that since the fire station was to be outside the historic area, serious consideration should be given to it being of the best type of modern design. Mr. Sadoski commented that the material for the fire station, as presented, had not been submitted as requested in that ample time was not given to properly review the material before the meeting. It was decided that further discussion on the fire station would be tabled until the next meeting. Further comment was made that the Board would like to have an idea as to how the fire station would look with respect to the parking garage on Front Street and the surrounding area. • A suggestion was made that photographs be taken of the area around the proposed fire station. _3_ • MEETING #3 A motion was made by Mrs. Peirson, seconded and voted that all members of the Design Review Board be contacted that the next meeting would be devoted to determining what style of architecture would be acceptable in each part of the project area. It was decided the next meeting would be scheduled for the Design Review Board to meet on Monday, July 14, 1969. Meeting adjourned 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Notes on the meeting were supplied by Attorney George P. Vallis in the absence of Secretary, Mrs. Louise Meier. • • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - MAY 12 , 1969 MEETING #2 The Design Review Board of the Salem Redevelopment Authority met in the Authority office at 6:00 p.m. , May 12, 1969 Present: Messers . Barrett, Boulger, Sadoski, Small, Smith, and Mrs . Meier As the meeting began, two motions were passed concerning the time and duration of future meetings . Motion: that the next meeting be scheduled for 8:00' p.m.. - motion carried • Motion: that the duration of meetings not exceed two hours - motion carried The report of the Secretary was corrected (page 2, beginning with line 3) to read: "Mr. Boulger recommends that the redeveloper submit transparencies of plans to the Salem Redevelopment Authority so that the Salem Redevelopment Authority may print copies and forward same to each Board member in order to accelerate the work. " A discussion amplified the statement regarding interior plans leading to a consensus that in most cases only the design of the exterior will be examined but in cases where the proper exterior design is affected by interior plans the Board may wish to see the interior design. The Secretary' s report was then approved. Since the acquisition of property and other factors bear upon Design Review Board - Page 2 • the relocation of the Fire Station, the matter will come before the Board at the meeting June 9, 1969. Copies of Design Review Policy and Procedures and of suggested by-laws will be sent to members of the Board by Mr. Barrett' s office. In preliminary analysis of .the Policy and Procedures the question was raised as to the length of time allowed between submission of a project for review and action by the Board on the proposal . Tentatively 35 or 60 day period was considered; the matter was left for later discussion. Motion: that the draft of Design Review Policy and Procedures • be accepted as matter of record and be used by the Board for consideration at the next meeting together with the draft of by-laws - motion carried. It was agreed that the Secretary' s record of meeting report only conclusions on any topic, especially when plans are considered. Inasmuch as the Board will first consider the plans of the Fire Station, the Board wishes to request the Salem Redevelopment Authority to communicate with the Fire Department to ask for scale drawings of the site plan, elevations , and sections on ozalid or diazo transparencies. Meeting adjourned, 7: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Mrs . Louise Meier, Secretary V _ z I � .�_ - - ---- - - - -a---��.. /�/�U S --- —=�--1/--- -- ------ Z�� ` C/��- - - _���, . � . — - - - - .y_.�c�4--.`tom-��i�c.2=1----�c_�_ e_�.o------- ,�C�... .CV -c,/?-<Jvl- .mow— - _ _ • _ .. _ r• I G;Z7 7 60 • -- _ - - i _ _ _ _ _ I _ - -� - �- �_- _ .��- ^ - �'�- � --�--L-e--`�'--- - - - - - /. r --- - - --j���, ----Lv`L�-C - ---�---� --- - -�-y�� -- _C_��� - -. �- -- -- - - - - -�-�--- . -�-- ��� "� i • �-�1 --�' � �-�^-��-- �-�o-..�-��..P mar-�--�-�-a��,., I � � ♦ � � �YY�GL�c ti<-cz.eo R e, • HERITAGE PLAZA-EAST SALEM REDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. BARRET EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1626 _ e HAROLD J. CDR CORAN SALEM-MASSACHUSETTS AUTHORITY ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE-CHAIRMAN CHANNING SACALL. JR. TREASURER FRANCIS H. McGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY SECRETARY (PRO-TEM) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - APRIL 22, 1969 AGENDA • 1. Welcome - introduction of the members by Mr. Small 2. Election of permanent Chairman and Secretary (Secretary should be prepared to take minutes of the meeting from this point on) 3. A discussion of duties of the Design Review Board as spelled out in the Plan 4. A discussion of procedures that should be set up - committee assignments, frequency of meetings, etc. 5. General discussion 6. Adjourn lU\ 1/1-,"� � � ISI/,, n J (������/����"�' �c���• lull V �/j�( . jq j �L/��-vn.6 \•Uvi C-6YYa�cVQ�..C�'„"F-j rni[bo�a_P�-O j /� ` o ee ll n � , ,�����, ..ems• o � r r • - ham_ _ - ��� �-�- • ✓���-ems,_ - �� .�P Lj��- // � .� �a G ct�n �w �H�' ,ate��� _ ,� —�-�(`�. � /xv�a�.-�r� cru- �a.��,Co���z�P ��� '�-�- -fie rmav`��� � `�- ��-� j77wr ...cfz— � .�-�- �� - �' - � . -tib --�--�- .���-�•�-� ��. xt� l` f x April 18, 1969 I Mr. Edwin W. Small 9 Phelps Street; , Salem, Massachusetts ' ,.: Dear Mr. Small: F Z ;would like to submit to You a tentative'. suggested, agenda for the meeting of Tuesday, April 22, 1969. Z have taken the liberty to invite any member of the Authority .' • •_ who might be available that evening and would like to meet the members of ;the Design Review Board. AGENDA , 1. Welcome and introduction of the Members by Mr. Small. .. 2 Election of Permanent Chairman and•Secretary: (Seoretary should -be prepared to take minutes of the meeting .from this point an � . 3. A discussion of the duties of the Design Review Board, ., -as spelled out in the Plan 4.. . Procedures that should be set'u - - P committee assignments U recommended 5 Frequency of meeting 6: General-discussion' fu 9. Adjourn 4 f .. a :. . .. Cr a Mr.:Edwin'W.' Small -2- April 18, 1969 " I have asked Mr. Robert Kerr of.-the Urban 'Design Group, Newport, ,r Rhode Island, who is presently engaged by the Authority to do a study of the Town Hall are% to attend themeeting in the event"he might lend assistance to the discussion"since he has-worked with Design Review'. . procedure in other communities. - I shall beat home all weekend (744-J4781) if you have any questions- to ask or suggestions t6 make.. . Please feel free to call me. The office will be"closed Monday and shall be open Tuesday. , : , Sincerely''yours, John W. Barrett, s d Executive Director J'WB/ec R 3 HERITAGE PLAZA-EAST SALEM w LR EDEVELOPMENT JOHN W. BARRTT S ' ExecurlvE olREcEoR ' "•1626r__ HAROLD J. CORCORAN SALEM+MASSACHUSETTSUTHORITY ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 60 WASHINGTON STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE 744-6900 FRANKLIN A. HEBARD CHAIRMAN FELIX A. KULIK VICE.CHAIRMAN CHANNING BACALL. JR. TREASURER April 15, 1969 FRANCIS H. McGRATH ASSISTANT TREASURER FRANCIS J. GRAY SECRETARY (PPO-TEM) TO: MEMBERS OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FROM: JOHN W. BARRETT A meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 22, 1969 • with the members of the Design Review Board. If any member of the Board wishes to attend, he would be most welcome, as I feel it would be beneficial that members of the Authority meet with members of the Design Review Board since we shall all be working together for the good of the project. John W. Barrett JWB/ec • �• *A, . -. 1. - • '. - n _. April 11, 1969 Mr.' Edwin Wf Small' 9 Phelps Street Salem, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Smalls° r " This Is to advise you that all members of the Design 'Review Board have been notified that an organizational meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, Apr1II 22f 1969 at 6100 p.ms in the Hawthorne Room at the Hawthorne Motor Hotel. A dutch treat cocktail hour will be held 606 to 600 p.m. .' Dinner will'.be served at 630 p.m. during which time the members of the Design Review Board x111 have the opportunity to become acquainted.' Afterdinner there .will be a discussion as to'duties and procedures that should be followed with respect to activities" of`the,Design Review Board. I sincerely hope that you will be able to accept this Invita- tion and if"for any reason you are unable.to attend, would you be kind enough-to call the office (744-6900). Sincerely yours, ' . y John W. Barrett r JWB/ea y April 11. 1969 Mr, Theodore Sadoski 5 Orchard Terrace - Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr, Sadoskib T ' ' After conversation with Mr. Edwin Small, Temporary Chairman of the Design Review Board, an,organizational meeting .has4been scheduled for Tuesday, April 220 1969 at, 6:00 p.mo in the Hawthorne Room at the Hamthorne. Motor Hotel. J ` A dutch treat cocktail hour will be held 600 to 6:30 p.m; Dinner will`be. served at 6:30 during which time the members of the Design Review' Board will have the opportunity to become ac- quainted. After dinner there will be a discussion as to duties and procedures that .should be followed with respect to activities• :. of,,Lhe Design Review Board. • I sincerely hope that you will be able to`aocept this invita- tion and 'if fol-any reason you are unable to attend, would you be _. kind enough to call the office (744-6900). Sincerely yours, , .. John W. Barrett w " R April 11, • 1969 • Mrs* Freder ck•A. Meier 35 Loring Avenue Salem, Massachusetts 01970 ... . Dear Mrs*, Maier: After conversation with Mr. Edwin Small, Temporary Chairman' • of the'Design Review Board, an organizational meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 22.1969 at 6:00'peme in the Hawthorne Room .at the Hawthorne.,Motor Hotel* , A dutch treat cocktail hour will beheld b:00 'to 6:30 p.m. , Dinner will be served at 6:30 during which time the members of the Design Review Board will have the opportunity to become ac. + quaintede After dinner there will be- a' discussion A as to duties and procedures that should be followed with respect ;to activities of ,the Design Review Boards , xncerely hope that you will be able to accept' th sis. 'invitae and if,for any reason you axe unable to attend, would you be kind enough to call the office (744.6900). Sincerely yours, John.We Barrett z . JwB/pw . 11 , � A E April 119 1969 We Philip Ce Fe Smith 11 Orae Square .Salems Massachusetts 019701 Y +., Dear Mr. Smiths After conversation with Mr. Edwin Small, Temporasy .Chairman ., of the Design Review Board, .an organizational meeting has been • scheduled for Tuesday, ;April 220 1969' at 6:00 p.m, in the•Hawthorne Room -at the Hawthorne-Motor Hotel. A dutch treat cocktail hour will be held 6:00 to 6:30 p.m, e 'Dinner will be served at6:30 during which time the members of� the Design Review Board_will have the opportunity to become ac. quainted. After dinnes •theie will be a discussion as to duties ; , and"procedures that should be followed ..with respect to activities of the'Design Review Board. I sincerely hope that you will be able to accept this invitae tion'and •if for any reason you are unable to-attend,. would you be ' kind enough to call the office .(144-6900), a. Sincerely yours, . John We Barrett yt ._ 4� a µr. .. t t .•� ..' r 't .fir ' - • . April 11,. 1969 . � ,•� Mr. James H. Boulger x ; 12 Monroe Road t.` , . Salem,..Massachusetts Dear Mr. Boulgeri .," After conversation with Mr. Edwin Small, Temporary Chairman of the Design-Review Board, an organizational meeting has been scheduled for Taesday, April 22, 1969 at 6,o0 p.m. in the Hawthorne Room at the Hawthorne Motor Hotel. A dutch' treat cocktail hour will beheld 6f00 to.6s30 p,m.., 'y,Dinner will be 'served at_600 during which time the'members of ', the Design Review Board will have the opportunity to become ac- quainted.- After dinner there will be a discussion as to duties and .procedures that should be followed with respect to activities ,-of the Design Review Board. I sincerely hope that you will be able to accept this invita- tion and if for,any reason you are unaal.e to attend, would you .be- kind enough to call the office (744-6900). ' Sincerely yours,4 . . • John W. Barrett + u : April 21, 1969 Mrs. Theodore rko'thingham III "'215"East 68th Street New York, New York 10021 Dear Mrs. Fivathinghamp A£ter•converaation with Mr. Edwin,Small. Temporary Chairman r •, of :the Design Review Board, an organisational meeting has been. ^ -scheduled for Tuesday., April 22, 1969 at 6r00 .p.m. 'in the Hawthorne - . Room at the Hawthorne Motor Hotel. A dutch'treit cockisil hour,will be held 600 to`600 p.m. . Dinner will'be served at 6030 during which time the members of - the Design Review Board will have the opportunity to become ac- quainted, After dinner there will be a discussion ae,to duties and procedures that should be followed with respect to activities of the Dear Review Board. I sincerely hopes that`,you will to able to accept this invite- tion and it for any reason you are unable to attend, would you b4 kind enough to call the office , (744-69o0). Sincerely yours, .. John W. Barrett . JNB/ec r . ` cc; 35 Chestnut Street Sa•lem,=.Mases, 01970 A K 3 April 11, 1969 1. n • . • _ _ 4 Mr• James H. sallow - .. 14 Cambridge Street ` Salems Massachusetts,,01970 Y Dear Mr. 'Ballon! ..After conversation with Mr. Edwin Small,, Temporary Chairman of the Design Review Board, an organizational meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 220 1969 at 6:00 p.m, in. the Hawthorne; .~ Room at, the Hawthorne Motor Hotel. d -' A dutch"treat cocktail hour will be held,6:00 to 6:30 pm. Dinner.•will+be; served at 6:30 during which time 'the members of r . the Design Review-Board will have the opportunity to become ac. 1. ',,quainted After dinner there"will be -a.discussion as to duties and procedures that should be.followed with respect to activities ' _ ' of .the,'Design Review Board. I sincerely hope that you will be able to accept. this invita- tionand if for any reason you are unable to attend, would you be kind enough. to call the office (744-6900): Sincerely, yours, J e John W. Barrett JWB/pw ' y ' r Y April 11, 1969 g Mrs. Edward L. Peirson ' 374 Essex Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mrs, Peirsonr. ..After conversation with Mr. Edwin Small, Temporary Chairman of the Design I Review Board, an organizational meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 22, 1969 at 6t00 p.m: in the Hawthorne . Room at the'Hawthorne Motor Hotel. z A dutch treat cocktail hour will be .held 6tO0. to 6130 p.m. Dinner will be served at 6t30 during which time the members of ` - the Design Review Board will have the opportunity to become ac quainted, After dinner there x112 be a discussion as to duties and procedures that,should .be followed with respect to activities :of the Design Review Board. • ` I sincerely hope that you will-be able to accapt;this invita- tion and if for,any reason you are unable to attend, ,would you be kind enough to call the office (744-6900). ` Sincerely yours, . a F .: John W. Barrett Jw /eC Y April 11, 1969 Mr, Walter Muir .Whitehill Library.,of the Boston Athenaeum 10* Beacon Street M, Boston, Massachusetts ' Fear Mr. Whitehilis w After `oonversation with Mr.' Edwin Small," Temporary Chairman of the Design Review Board; an organitzational meeting has been scheduled for•Tuesday, April 22, 1969 at 6100 p,m, 1n the Hawthorne .d. Boom, at the Hawthorne Motor Hotel...• a + fi A dutchItreat.,cocktall hour will be held 6s00 to 6130 p,m. Dinner will•be served"at 6130 during which time the members of the Design Review Board will have the opportunity to become ac- quainted: After dinner there will be a discussion,as to duties and procedures that should be followed with respect_.to activities of the Design Review Board. ' { I sincerely hops that you will be able to attend. If for any reason you are uneble to accept our invitation, would;you be kind enough to call the office (74-6900).. . Sincerely yours, John W. Barrett ti JWB/ec r M e. April 30 1969 Mr. James H6 Boulger t ' 12 Monroe Road Salem, Massachusetts 5 Dear .Mr. Boulger. , • .!, Enclosed you will find the report of the Design Review . Board meeting as submitted,.to the members of the Salem: Redevelopment Authority at its meeting.held April 2, 1969. Please be advised that.it 'will be recorded in the records r of the meeting that the Authority accepts the report as submit- tied and the recommendations will be carefully reviewed; Sincerely, A John W. Barrett JWB/ec Enc.' Jam . : .. .. Y • r April 30 1969 . Mrs. Edward .Peirson 'i - £ ♦ 374 Essen Street Salem, Massachusetts Dear Mrs: Peirsonz' 4 Enclosed:you will findthereport of the'-Design Review 'Board meeting as submitted to the members of the Salem . Redevelopment Authority at its meeting held April 2, 1969.," It will be recorded in the records of the meeting that the :Authority accepts the report as submitted and the recbmmen. dations will''be`csrefully reviewed. -Sincerely, .' John W. Eairett . Enc... s t a ��t ..fi & ."T .. ✓•�.F e _ Yf F _ April'3, 1969 Mr. James He Ba11ou." ; 1Q.Camblcidge Street`: Salem;, Massachusetts Dear Mr.. Ball6u. .. Enclosed you will find the Yeport of the Design Review ` Board ,meeting as submitted to the members' of the-Salem Redevelopment Authlprity at'its meeting held April 2, 1969. Please be advised"that,it' wii be recorded-in the recoids 4,of the meeting that the Authority accepts the report as submitted and the recommendations will be carefully reviewed. ti Sincerely,` John W, Barrett JWB/ec Enc. 4 a - April 30 1969 Mr. Theodore' Sadoski . 5 Orchard Terracer ' Selemp Massachusetts DOA r Mr. Sadoski L Enclosed you will find, the report of; the Design.Review • Board meeting as submitted-to the members of the Salem Redevelopment Authority at its meeting held April 21969 Please be adgised that, it will be recorded in the records of- the meeting that the Authority acceptsthereport as. submitted and the recommendations will be carefully a reviewed. Sincerely, John W. Barlett, JWB/ee` . M. Enc. • April 2, 1969 TO: Salem Redevelopment Authority MEMOa Report of Meeting of Design Review Board SUBJECT: Background information of proposal for change in exterior of 203-209 Essex Street REVIEW OF BUILDING 203-209 Essex Street on street level has as tenant Newmark's. Present vacancy in building (formerly Kennedy's) has been leased to Mr. Louis Bokron of Quality Coffe Shop and Mr. Arthur Coon of Coon's Card Shop, who • are presently located in property at 235-241 Essex Street respectively, owned by the City of Salem and slated for demolition by the City to accomplish a street widening on Essex Street at its south westerly intersection with Washington Street. The proposal as submitted calls for the use of weathered brick ad- jacent to Newmark's to a height of 9 feet 3 inches; for a 1 foot 3 inch bulkhead below proposed window in area to be occupied by Coon's; for a 9 foot three inch height by an 8 foot width on the recessed front wall ad- jacent to the existing right of way. Proposal further calls for a foyer with 2 Kawneer bronze and glass doors as well as bronze trim around windows. A post, presently inside the vacant Kennedy store, would be exposed and • -2- a wrought iron barrier installed from said post to recessed front wall. Above the window line the proposal calls for the use of a material, anodized bronze. This area (6 feet 6 inches in height along the front of the building and the right of way) would replace existing glass above entrance way and along the adjacent right of way. The building was constructed in 1881 and the exterior material above the ground floor area is yellow brick for two floors. The front of the Newmark's store is constructed of dark gray slate. The intent of the renewal plan is to achieve harmony in existing exteriors slated to be retained under the plan and that the scale and texture of new construction be such that the architectural features of the existing buildings and the new construction will blend. The exterior rehabilitation • program is scheduled for a later point in execution. However, since an expenditure on the exterior is being made, it is felt that a review of the proposal made at this time would be beneficial to all concerned. After review and discussion ;a number of recommendations were made. The use of brick as proposed would not be aesthetically desirable. The weathered brick would be too great a contrast with the existing slate storefront. The introduction of the yellow brick would result in even a greater contrast. In the following recommendations the use of the term slate shall mean of the same color and texture of that presently used on Newmark's front. • • na., Recommendations of the Design Review Scazd: 1. That thence be no bYi,:k r .laste:: adjacent to the Md,!rmarkts slate and that the window be e'_- nnC vd to the slate. The introduc- tion of brick vk�uld be toe great a contrast, 2. That the bulkhead b_ivu ^.e ur.ndows be constructed of slate ins_ead of Jricka B, That the slzte bullebcad be extended on either side of the doo-cvay that would serve as the entrance to the Qulity Coffee Shop, 4. That the recessed front well, as proposed, be constructed of slate, 5. That a planter, cor_st-ructed of siate, or a slate box with a blaestone cap be used to reple,ce the wrought iron barrier as proposed. 6. That the pole be encased in slate to add appea_ance of strength as pole shovm - free standing - does not indicate same. Said enclosure could be part of suggested planter. • 7. That thsre be no change in the area above the window frame to allow flexibility at a later: date. TSe sign designatirg "AM's", a former tenant, should be removed exposing lintel, Hre7ever, if the tenants desired to add slate at this time above the window line, there would be no objection. 8, The Design Review Board would like, if possible, to view the proposed signs, • There is no objection to the use of bronze doorways or window framing as proposed. However, the use of the anodized material above the windows would not be consistent with the design objectives. This proaosal, as indJ_cated, was reviewed earlier than would be normal under the process due to the immediacy of the problem. The character of the area, period of the building, etc. , was discussed. Present at the meeting were the following members: Mrs. Marion Peirson Mr. James H, Ballou; Mr. James Boulger; and Mr. Theodore Sadoski. The undersigned took the proposal to Mr. Walter Muir Whitehill at the Boston Athenaeum and discussed the matter thoroughly with him. Due to the urgency of the situation, Mr. Edwin Small, temporary chairman of the Design Review Board, suggested the procedure that was followed. Mr, Small, Mr. Smith, • Mrs. Frothingham, and Mrs. Meier were unable to be present at the meeting. • rJ�F RUCTGS LIBRARY OF THE BOSTON ATHENjEUM J • • cmi� p0 ,� WALTER MUIR WHITEHILL,Director and Librarian gTHEN�' 101/z Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 18 February 1969 Dear Mr. Barrett: I am glad to have your letter telling me that the Salem Redevelopment Authority has completed its selection of the members of the Design Review Board. I hope that there may be a meeting in the not tooAistant future so that we may learn something of the progress of plans for Heritage Plaza East. In the meantime if you have any printed material that you could send me, I would be glad to have it. Yours sincerely, John W. Barrett, Esq. Salem Redevelopment Authority 60 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 �y f 4