2016-03-23 DRB MinutesDRB
March 23, 2016
Page 1 of 12
City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 6:00 pm
Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room
Members Present: Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia David Jaquith, Glenn
Kennedy, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan
Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio
Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner
Recorder: Colleen Anderson
Vice Chair David Jaquith, acting as Chair, calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
1. 139 Washington Street (Eastern Bank): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of
signage
*Chair Paul Durand arrived during the discussion of this item.
The submission under review includes: a signed permit application, signage design with
dimensions, existing and proposed condition photos, a map of building location. Mr.
Richard Batten (of Batten Bros. Sings & Awnings), was present to discuss the proposed
signage at their new branch at 139 Washington Street.
Batten requests approval on one sign, a 18”H x 10’L wall sign with a white background and
blue border (blue - Eastern Bank’s corporate color). The sign would have blue fabricated
raised lettering with halo white LED lighting – the blue lettering would remain dark and only
the white background would be illuminated at night. The border is flat, painted, and would
not be illuminated. The lettering is 2” deep, there is 2” gap behind the lettering, and the
sign backer is 4” deep.
Sullivan questioned whether the halo lighting would illuminate the cavity of the letters.
Batten replied that it would not. Kennedy added that only the area around the lettering
would be illuminated.
Batten added that they are also requesting approval on an 18”Hx42”W projected sign that
will utilize the existing steel bracket. It has raised 1/4” thick lettering, the sign is 1 1/2" thick,
and external illumination might be requested.
Kennedy questioned whether the external illumination would come from the exterior wall.
Batten stated that it would, and his tendency would be to use a small 2-3” diameter can
lights, that has been incorporated at other branches.
Kennedy questioned how the power will get to the light. Batten responded that would come
through the wall through an exposed conduit.
Kennedy suggested the address oval be entirely blue and the address number be white to
eliminate the competing ovals and make the sign easier to read, similar to the Eastern Bank
symbol. Mr. Durand suggests that the oval be eliminated entirely leaving just the address
number. Kennedy & Durand agreed that either suggestion would be fine. Batten replied
that he would propose both suggestions to Eastern Bank.
Shapiro added that a lighting specification be added before the SRA meeting. Shapiro
requested that the projected sign be hard wired and not powered through an exposed
conduit. Shapiro added that the sign design should also be revised, with either of the
suggested DRB options, before the SRA meeting.
Jaquith opens public comment. No public comments.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the proposed wall sign as-is, and to approve the projected sign
with either change of removing the oval surrounding the address or making the address
oval blue and the numbering white, and that the lighting specification be reviewed by a DRB
designee (Glenn Kennedy) prior to being reviewed at the SRA meeting.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0.
2. 28 Norman Street (Gold Dust Gallery): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of
signage
The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, sign design with
dimensions, proposed condition photos, and proof of insurance forms. Ms. Kristin Welch,
one of the owners of Gold Dust Gallery, was present to discuss the proposed signage.
Welch stated that they would like to add vinyl signs, one attached to the building above the
entrance, and window decals at the main entrance vestibule window and on their entrance
door that also include a decal with their hours.
Shapiro questioned whether the vinyl sign attached to the building, over the entrance, was
going to have light. Welch replied that only the bottom sign in that group of signs has ever
lit up, and she has no issue with it being just a vinyl sign.
Sides stated that the first four letters appear very close together and the last 2 letters
appear spaced out. Kennedy added that the first four of letters are very tall thin and the O’s
are very round, and that is because of the choice of font. Kennedy stated that the first three
letters should be spread out – increase the kerning, and last three letters should be brought
closer together – reduce the kerning, to make the sign more readable.
Kennedy added that the lettering in the lower “We Are Open” portion is competing with the
“Tattoo” lettering above it, and simpler san serif would make the lettering above stand out
more.
Kennedy questioned whether the exterior building sign was the only position available.
Welch replied that it was the only space made available to them.
Jaquith opens public comment. No public comments.
Kennedy: Motion to approve with the suggestion that the flat wall sign have a spacing
adjustment between the T’s and the O’s (tighten them), and for an alternate/simpler font at
the lower “We Are Open” portion of the signage on the window.
Seconded by: Dynia, Passes 6-0.
3. 25 Front Street (Lobster Shanty): Discussion and vote on outdoor furniture, lighting, and
fire feature
The submission under review includes; a design statement from the Kontseptual Architects,
proposed lighting, furniture, & fire feature images, floor Plans, and elevations. Ms.
Alexandra Peterson of Kontseptual Architects was present to discuss a proposed deck
addition.
Peterson stated that there will be 6’H posts surrounding the deck and on each deck there
will be jelly jar style light fixture and occasionally string lights will be added. The outdoor
table and chairs will be mesh to match the existing outdoor furniture, and existing to the
outdoor seating in and around Salem. There will be 3 or 4 (seasonal) outdoor heaters on
the patio, the standard triangular commercial style with glass tubes that are powered by
propane heaters. To keep the relaxed atmosphere, red Adirondack style chairs and tables
will also be added. The chairs will surround a fire feature, with a protective glass surround
that the Salem Fire Department will approve.
Kennedy and Jaquith mentioned that several outdoor fire features have been added to the
Market Street Shopping Center in Lynnfied, and those also has a glass enclosure. Sides
stated that if a glass enclosure wasn’t a requirement she would make it a requirement.
Shapiro added that he brought the file on the previously approved deck for review by the
Board.
Durand opens public comment. No public comments.
Jaquith: Motion to approve as presented.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0.
North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review
4. 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street (Gateway Center): Continued discussion of
proposed mixed-use residential and retail development with City’s Community Life Center
The submission under review included a slide show presentation. Mr. Chris Semmelink, of
The Architectural Team (tat), and Harry Gunderson of Gunderson Associates were present
to discuss the proposed construction of the Community Life Center and the proposed
residential building on the corner of Bridge and Boston Streets.
Semmelink stated that they are returning to present a revised design and that he would
speak to the mixed-us building. The first change visible on the site plan is the larger
proposed footprints that show both the original and currently proposed buildings. The
original layout had two long lanes to travel through the parking lot and a separate area for
parking at the other end of the site. In mid-2015 a plan was presented that opened the
corner near Goodhue and Boston Streets. Concerns were made at that time as to whether
the space would be large enough and access to sunlight in an area that is mostly in the
shade.
Semmelink added that the latest building code calls for the building to be raised up another
foot for floods, which created even more of a barrier to Bridge Street. These recent
changes have led them to made additional revisions.
Semmelink stated that the latest parking layout consists of two lanes of travel and the
separate parking area, for the CLC and residential units, has been moved to the middle of
the lot.
Semmelink noted that the most recent change was that the original building was four story,
58’ high office building - which has a higher floor-to-floor height, and the current building is
now four story, 50’ high residential building. The construction of the housing portion is as-
of-right. This change also allowed the parking to be broken up which allowed a single lane
of traffic to be created with two raised cross walks to slow the vehicle traffic. Semmelink
added that the entrance to the proposed CLC building also has a slowed traffic pattern.
Semmelink added that the number of units has remained, however; the footprint has
increased, and some of the parking had to be sacrificed.
Semmelink displayed an in-progress landscaping plan and stated that the civil engineer is
working with the DEP and MEPA, and making minor alterations to the plan. Semmelink
added that the landscaping plan shows the most recent layout of the CLC building. The two
buildings are 168’ apart. They are now being treated as two separate projects and are no
longer working as a composition.
Semmelink displayed several images of Salem that were used as inspiration for this project,
since this project will be a gateway into Salem; stone bases, patterning in concrete, tile,
gable ends, coloration, and the breaking up of materials. These images led their office to
their previously proposed design; a stone base, granite blocks, and protruded gabled forms
with blue coloration. The prior consensus was that the proposed structure was “loud”,
which led them to develop an alternative design with subdued colors.
Semmelink introduces Gundersen to speak about the proposed CLC building.
Gundersen stated that at the previous meeting, the reorientation of the CLC building was
discussed, turning the building 90 degree and placing it along the East end of the property,
and that created three issues.
1) The site entrance would need to occur closer to Boston Street which could
create a traffic back-up at the intersection of Boston & Bridge Streets
2) Dead-end parking aisles will be created at the East end of the site if parking was
located at the front of the building
3) The CLC requires service and therefore a road to access the building and that
would require a second curb-cut off of Bridge Street.
Gundersen added that these reasons lead them to not reorient the building.
Gundersen stated that the overhead power lines along Bridge Street will be placed
underground. For safety reasons, the high voltage overhead line required the building to be
16 feet away from the lines, plus 6 feet for scaffolding. By using underground power lines,
the buildings can now been moved closer to Bridge Street and the CLC building can be
moved further east. The shifting of these building gives more room to the front of the
building/parking lot, west end of the CLC building – outside the Great Room, and more
open space and landscaping zones at the front of the building.
Gundersen stated that the ground floor plan has also been reconfigured to make it more
efficient; mainly the CLC administrative has transitioned from closed office space to an
open office, as well as relocating the stairs and toilet core. The reconfiguration has allowed
the entrance to be recessed, and add a canopy which will provide a covered seating area
for the café, especially during the summer months.
Gundersen added that previous comments were made about no glazing in the Great Room.
The current arrangement places glazing at the west end but no glazing at the south end. A
non-lit background would be best for entertainment purposes, seating, or presentations
along that end of the room. Glazing at the west end and spill over lighting from the
entrance will provide plenty of light to the room.
Gundersen added that the relocation of the stairs and toilet core provided even more usable
space to the flexible multi-purpose rooms on the Second Floor, as well as some storage
spaces.
Gundersen stated that the ground/floor level of the building was raised, which eliminated
the direct entrance off of Bridge Street.
Gundersen stated that the building elevations have also changed. A prior suggestion was
that exterior material look less residential, so the siding has changed from a hardi plank to a
vertical siding on the lower level. A smooth cement plaster is planned for the upper level
façade.
Gundersen added that the glazing type is a more accurate reflection of what will occur at
the interior.
Gundersen added that the Landscape architect will discuss the plantings and materials at a
subsequent meeting.
Semmelink noted that there is also a pedestrian path across the property. The path starts
on Boston Street, moves through the site and over a raised crosswalk in the parking lot, to
the CLC building, and then exits onto Bridge Street. Gundersen added that there are
several raised crosswalks that will also slow the vehicular traffic.
Durand questioned whether there was a left turn option to enter the side off of Boston
Street, when traveling south? Gundersen replied that there would be a right-in and right-out
option only at that entrance, although it would be possible for a vehicle to make that turn.
Durand stated that the plan and design of the CLC have improved. Durand questioned
whether one of the egress stairs needs to directly exit the building. Gundersen replied that
the current design is possible in a two story building.
Jaquith stated that the overhang in the rendering and elevation differ. The overhang is very
dramatic in the elevation and understated in the rendering, and his preference is for a
decreased overhang in the rendering. Kennedy and Sullivan stated that they also prefer
the rendering overhang. Durand stated that he prefers the larger elevation overhang.
Jaquith stated that he prefers the current window pattern and Durand agrees.
Dynia questioned whether the entrance could be more defined if the canopy were raised up
and projected out past the façade of the building. Gundersen replied that he would look
into that modification but that the canopy is already deep. Gundersen stated that the
deeper the canopy gets the shadier the area becomes, which reduces the amount of light
that can enter the building. A couple openings in the canopy roof are also being proposed
to allow for more sunlight.
Sullivan questioned whether skylight will be placed in the roof of the Great Room.
Gundersen replied, no, although the CLC needs to be questioned on how they intent to use
the space. Many similar spaces are windowless boxes with artificial light only, because the
rooms are used for presentation purposes.
Kennedy questioned the vertical material on the elevations. Gundersen replied that Boral
siding, (70% fly ash and 30% glue), will be used. The siding is large scale and comes in
10” wide boards with a 1” reveal.
Kennedy questioned the proposed color of the boards. Gundersen replied that the
proposed siding is currently a warm grey with white above. Kennedy stated that the
selection of finishes; materials, colors, and how they are applied, will determine whether the
structure looks like a utility building or a community center, and you could get to a point
where the building doesn’t fit within the context of the area.
Gundersen added that the intention is to provide plantings between the First Floor
administrative and the road. Sides added that a lot will be learned in the details in the
future; how the projects are attached, the materials and their transition, material samples,
colors, etc. Kennedy stated that what those materials are and how they are used will be
key. Jaquith agreed and added that the texture, trim, and a full palette, will be very
important. Durand and Kennedy agreed.
Sullivan questioned whether the band across the middle of the building was a relief.
Gundersen replied that it was a form of a relief but the section through it has yet to be
determined.
Jaquith questioned whether anything was to be placed on the roof. Gundersen replied that
rooftop units and screening is shown on the elevations but haven’t been designed yet.
Sullivan questioned whether the square windows were offices. Gundersen replied that the
office area is on the First Floor and program rooms were on the Second Floor. Sullivan
suggested that the windows of the open office area be treated differently which will create
some variation on the façade.
Sullivan asked for a description of the vertical joints of the façade. Gundersen replied that
the joints were a 1” wide and 3/8” to 1/2” deep reveal in the material. Mr. Kennedy
questioned if the material came in sheets. Gundersen replied no.
Dynia questioned the step shown on the plans between the First Floor and grade.
Gundersen replied that the transition is being developed but that there will be a gradual
slope in grade and not a step off as shown.
Durand questioned whether the parking lot will have granite curbs and what the parking lot
edging would be. Semmelink replied granite curbs.
Durand opens public comment on the CLC building.
Mr. Ken Wallace of 172 Federal Street. Wallace stated that the street view is bland, the
parking lot view is better, and suggests the materials changing in pattern or color to
enhance the view from Bridge Street. This project needs to be sold to the public and right
now it is not.
Ms. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street. Twohey stated that she is disappointed in the
design, it resembled a DPW building, it takes its inspiration not from the McIntyre District
but from the industrial buildings across the river. There is no life on the street side of the
building, it is not inviting, the window are just openings, the parking lot side gives you a
more welcoming feeling, and the building doesn’t relate to this area.
Ms. Emily Udy of 8 Buffom Street. Udy agrees with public comments, particularly the street
side. The building could be passed many times before one can figure out what it was. The
landscaping frames the building corners and, and people will come from all sides so the
entire streetscape should be addressed with substantial landscaping. The fact that it’s
moved closer to Bridge Street also eliminates the amenities that could be added – benches
to invite the public to notice the building. The building lacks a civic presence. Using
modern materials to make it a “cool building” wouldn’t fit in the context and there needs to
be something that ties it into the context. She also prefers the bigger overhang which
makes a statement.
Ms. Jan Eschauzier of 15 ½ River Street. Eschauzier agrees with the streetscape
comments. Believed that one of the objectives of the NRCC was to present building with
their face to the street so that the pedestrian experience would be essential, so there
wouldn’t be just a building and a streetscape, they would be somehow connected through
amenities or landscaping. She is concerned with the blank wall, the window aren’t
welcoming, the entrance is confusing, and the building resembles a warehouse. Materials,
landscaping, and lighting are essential as this area is a corridor to the MBTA station. If
Salem wants to be a walkable, transient oriented City, these things need to be kept in mind
and this building is a cornerstone of that experience.
Durand stated that the building has 4 sides and no side is being treated like the back of the
back of a building. Durand agrees with Kennedy that the details will be important - how the
openings are cased and the materials used. The buildings being closer to the street
creates a hard edge, which an urban solution as opposed to setting the building back,
which is a suburban solution. The previous building had front doors on Bridge Street that
would never be used. This building placement forces a corridor to direct pedestrian traffic
to the MBTA station and parks. This building is true to what it is, a modern community
center, not a house, so it has to stand on its own. Bridge Street has signage to direct and
predominant entry to vehicular traffic will know where to enter, and the buildings pushed to
the edge will screen the parking lot.
Kennedy stated that the long building doesn’t create a view that someone would want to
walk into but added a door along Bridge Street would create a pick-up and drop-off location
which would stop traffic for the intersection at Boston and Bridge Street. Durand added that
the security of two issues will also be a concern.
Durand questioned whether there was a rendering of the Bridge Street view. Gundersen
replied no, but all view of the building from Bridge Street would be a perspective – as
people travel down the street. Kennedy added that is an important perspective to consider.
Durand questioned how wide the sidewalk would be along Bridge Street. Gundersen stated
8 feet.
Sullivan stated that not having an entrance along Bridge Street is an advantage and
questioned where the pathway through the site ends. Durand added that plantings or
screening will need to be placed at the parking area between the two buildings to keep
people from trying to exit the site at that location. Semmelink stated that in the North River
valley, which rises and falls, is requiring the building to have a certain flood plain height,
and an escarpment towards Federal Street is also pushing the buildings up considerably
above the sidewalk. The CLC building is at the lowest elevation and at the middle part of
the parking lot there is a drop to get down to the sidewalk. There is a potential plan with the
DEP to create an opening for overflow water in that area. The initial plan was to continue
the path to the east side of the CLC building and exit onto Bridge Street.
Sullivan questioned whether a bike lane was in the works for Bridge Street. Semmelink
replied that he did not know where that stands.
Jaquith stated that there could be more transparency at the Great Room. Jaquith added
that signage and lighting could be the cool/modern touch to the project. Udy, Durand, and
Kennedy agreed.
Ms. Barbara Clearly of 104 Federal Street. Clearly mentioned that the rooftop units on the
CLC roof will be seen from the Federal streets, since Federal Street is higher than Bridge
Street, and perhaps higher rooftop screens can be designed. How the raising of the flood
plain will be seen at the sidewalk and how high is the ground next to it? Gundersen replied
that the sidewalk is at its highest point at the Boston Street corner, then steadily drops
towards the center of the property line along Bridge Street, and then gradually rises towards
the CLC building. The First Floor level at the CLC building is about 3 feet above the
sidewalk, when next to the CLC building. Clearly questioned what was below the first floor.
Gundersen replied that the grade will slope up towards the base of the building and planting
will be placed on that slope.
Ms. Sides stated that what has been gained with the current placement of the buildings is
the greenspace on the usable side of the buildings, which is a great improvement on this
project. That space can be used by the inhabitants of the building. The orientation of the
sun will create a nice gathering spot that is not confined to the street.
Mr. Tim Jenkins of 18 Broad Street. Jenkins stated that is a much more attractive building,
in terms of the entrance and greenspace. The canopy over the entrance is inviting and will
provide protection from inclement weather. He liked the simplicity of the West end the
prairie style of the building. The east end of the Bridge Street side is busy and the portion
that extends out does break up the façade.
Durand opens board comments on the mixed-use building.
Jaquith noted appreciation for aspects of both of schemes, but prefers the base in the
second scheme and the movement in the first scheme, but the material could be more
natural in the metals. Semmelink noted that the plan is to angle the blue protrusions
slightly, to break up the long line of the façade and provide alternate views from inside
rather than just straight on. Durand questioned the materials of the outstanding features.
Semmelink replied hexagonal metal shingles.
Jaquith commented on have the pieces that extend above the roof be functional within the
top floor units – using it as a screen. Semmelink stated that they are looking to making the
extension portion a plane and bringing the color of the top band that is between them, down
as a side finish to make the extensions stand out, as opposed to making them a pop-up.
Utilizing that space becomes a dollar issue for the developer.
Jaquith noted that the units have gone from rentals to condominiums. He admires what
they are trying to do but they are not yet there. The building should move because it is a
long building. The vehicles passing have a kinetic feeling coming down the street.
Sullivan questioned the new design team and the process that led them from one scheme
to the other, which he doesn’t see. Semmelink replied that the second scheme was a
reaction to the previous comments to quiet the building. Kennedy stated that it seems like
an overreaction. Sullivan added the first scheme had exciting characteristics and the
second scheme looks like a completely different project – there is no consistency.
Semmelink replied that the second scheme used the same footprint but included larger
window openings making it less formal while the first scheme had more classic window
proportions and was meant to be modern and memorable gateway. Durand added that it is
a large building and the adornments made it interesting despite it not fitting within the
Federal neighborhood.
Kennedy added that he liked the first scheme. A smaller version on Derby Street would be
great but it does not fit in this location. A slightly scaled back version could fit in.
Ms. Katie Braaten of 141 Federal Street. Braaten is in favor of the first scheme, and it
makes a statement about the sea and Salem. If the white were less white and it were more
tone on tone with the top colors, the blue would work. Subduing it a bit would enhance the
wave look.
Kennedy stated that the corner is disappointing. Previous schemes did something more
with the corner but now it is a flat white wall. Semmelink stated that some of the decorative
portions could move closer to the corner. Durand added that some relief to break the
plane. Kennedy added something strong and proud at that corner that starts to fade away
as you move towards Federal Street should be included. Imitating the tower design by
having the corner step inward would also break up the corner.
Sides stated that she was anxious to hear the Board comments this time but the project has
drastically changed. The project needs to continue to impress for a long time, not just in the
short term. The first scheme was dramatic in the color, the angles, and the massing, and
the suggestion was to tone it down and make it feel like it would last, and the latest plan is
thin. The Board spoke of more natural colors – using natural/organic colors in the metals –
that will work with the neighborhood but also make a statement in its newness. The second
scheme is too shocking.
Kennedy stated that from a pedestrian standpoint this is a long building that is higher than
the sidewalk. Sides added that there was also a band that ran along the back of the
building on the ground floor in the first scheme. Kennedy agreed and added that the
missing band is what connected the pedestrian to those spaces a bit. Semmelink replied
that at the corner of Boston Street the first floor is 5 feet above the sidewalk and space
between the building and the sidewalk at that corner may be kept low and densely planted
to provide greenspace along the street.
Kennedy states that the rendering could be adjusted to alter the grade in scheme one. The
percentage of materials on the building shown in the student housing building slide could
be increased and incorporated into the second scheme. The design of the second scheme
could work but it needs to be push further. Durand added the second scheme is too
massive block. The first scheme helps scale it to the neighborhood but there is enough
variety that it appears to be townhouses. Kennedy added that scheme two is headed down
the path of the Archstone Apartments in Cambridge and that is not the path they want
version two to take.
Durand questioned if the ground floor corner unit was a condominium. Semmelink replied
yes, and they are considering raising the floor up off the sidewalk. Durand questioned
whether the storefront glass could wrap around at that more prominent corner for a loft feel
that would highlight the morphing of the two building uses.
Durand requested to view the slides of the aerial view to see the scale of the buildings.
Semmelink added that the Goodhue building was not added to the aerial view but is
approximately 1/3 of the size of the multi-use building.
Sullivian questioned the opportunity to incorporate public art into the project/site.
Semmelink suggested the area at the retaining wall.
Durand opens public comments on the mixed-use building.
Ms. Katie Braaten of 141 Federal Street. Braaten stated that she likes the protrusion along
the bottom portion of scheme two, and asks if that also occurs with the blue waves in
scheme one. This design breaks up the monotony of the corner and the proportion is more
comfortable with the stripe along the top, especially if the bottom is raised. That protrusion
in a tone-on-tone softer color would visually reduce the length of the building. Braaten
added that making the blue panels in scheme one appears to dive into the building would
have a nice effect and would add some dimension.
Mr. Ken W allace of 172 Federal Street. Wallace stated that the corner looks like the prison.
This corner is start and doesn’t fit.
Ms. Jan Eschauzier of 15 ½ River Street. Eschauzier stated that the panels resemble the
façade at Kings Bowling.
Ms. Suzie Welden of 106 Federal Street. Weldon stated that she doesn’t like the color,
which doesn’t relate to the historic colors of Salem. The bright blue and white doesn’t feel
like Salem. This has always been an industrial corner and her preference would be for
more earthy colors. This is too contemporary and should complement the neighborhood it
is sitting next to. Same material and design, just different colors.
Ms. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street. Twohey hates the design. The corner should not
be the entry corner into Salem. What happened to the older drawings that were approved?
This plan is so monolithic and has no change in height. If this project is done wrong it will
be a disaster that Salem will have to live with.
Mrs. Joyce Wallace of 172 Federal Street. Wallace stated that they are abutters to the CLC
building. The previously brick building that the residents helped design had a much nicer
corner. Will rain gardens be installed? Semmelink replied that there are some
geotechnical issues because of the high water table right along Bridge Street. Recharge to
get rid of surface water is a goal but it cannot be done with the dirt that they have.
Mr. Tim Jenkins of 18 Broad Street. Jenkins stated this building has the potential to make a
huge statement but it reminds him of a large ship with too much on it and it lacks the
simplicity of the CLC building. A prison-like structure should not be the first thing you see.
Ms. Barbara Clearly of 104 Federal Street. Cleary understands the desire for this building
to have some cool factor. The larger window on the second scheme will make it more
marketable. Cleary has no problem with the fins but believes it will be dated quickly. Over
the years many designers come to Salem, take photos of the water, and push for a water
theme to their projects, but it doesn’t translate well into real buildings. The corner has most
recently been industrial is use and industrial materials with a warm feel should be used, and
the project can relate in scale to its surroundings.
Ms. Katie Braaten of 141 Federal Street. Braaten stated that the colors of scheme one are
stark. The corner is abrupt and beige, and the materials/colors should wrap around the
corner.
Ms. Emily Udy of 8 Buffom Street. Udy state that the corner resembles a stair tower. She
participated in the other meetings and a lot of thought was put into that corner, but there are
three corners that will be seen my people every day. There is an opportunity for some wow
factor and a more subdued residential condo. Udy stated that you can see movement of
the building in scheme two because there aren’t colors distracting you and the heavy base
of scheme one has merit. The heavy field stone base in scheme one isn’t work the hassle
with such a modern building. The intent of this North River corridor was to allow people to
live in a neighborhood and many of these buildings don’t allow you to do that. People who
live here will take the train and walk towards the parking lot, around the building and down
to the street. Was there any consideration to providing street access through stoops or that
could be tucked into the façade? Semmelink replied that there is a flood plain, accessibility
and security issue with creating private entrances and Bridge Street is not pedestrian
friendly. Udy argues that Bridge Street will become pedestrian friendly; walking next to
something interesting will encourage pedestrians. Whatever is built here allows it to
become a pedestrian street. Don’t make it so it can’t be a pedestrian street because of
what is there.
Ms. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street. Twohey questioned the proposed width of the
sidewalk. Semmelink replied that it would be the same width but without the poles. The
ground dimension is 8 feet the walk dimension could be less.
Sullivan questioned if any trees will be placed on the sidewalk. Semmelink replied that the
proposed trees would be placed on the property and not on the sidewalk because it is so
narrow and right on the street.
Ms. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal Street. Arlander questioned the distance between the L
part of the building on the eastern side and the property line closer to Federal Street.
Semmelink replied more than 100 feet.
Ms. Suzie Welden of 106 Federal Street. Weldon questioned if there would be balconies.
Semmelink replied no.
Mr. Tim Jenkins of 18 Broad Street. Jenkins stated that units with direct access to the
outside is what he is trying to find for his mother but he has had no luck, and it would be a
good selling point if it was offered and would make it feel more like your own.
Durand closes the public session.
Jaquith: Motion to continue.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0.
Shapiro added that he received a notice from Attorney Joe Correnti who is representing the project
to schedule a special meeting the week of April 11th. Semmelink questioned if the next meeting
would be a continuation of this meeting. Shapiro replied yes.
Old/New Business
Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the February 24, 2016 regular meeting.
Sullivan: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Durand abstains, Passes 6-0.
Adjournment
Kennedy: Motion to adjourn the meeting.
Seconded by: Sides. Passes 7-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 8:15pm