Loading...
2021-06-23 Meeting MinutesCity of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board – Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Remote Participation via Zoom DRB Members Present: David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Catherine Miller, Marc Perras, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan DRB Members Absent: Chair Paul Durand Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith Recorder: Colleen Brewster Acting Chair Sides calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM. Roll call was taken. Signs in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 51 Charter Street: Charter Street Cemetery Informational/Rules Signage, continued from 4/28/21 Patricia Kelleher, Salem’s Preservation Planner, was present to discuss the project. Kelleher stated that she used DRB feedback to create two options for review, the preferred option due it its uniform appearance, they eliminated the serif lettering for easy readability, and it is a close match to the one at Salem Common. The material will be the same fiberglass metal used at Salem Common but without a white border. The Charter Street sign will be attached to the fence next to the main gate and the Liberty Street sign, next to the Witch Trials Memorial, will be double-sided and attached directly to the gate since there stone walls on either side of that entrance. Both will be hung with brackets. The Board discussed creating more space around the seal, centering all text and graphics, and eliminating the ruled dividing lines. Kelleher agreed to adjust the scale, text placement, and to reduce the size of the seal so the text can be spaced out. Miller noted that if the goal is for all City signage to match, the wayfinding signs are a more vibrant blue. They should determine the previous color blue and use the same color on these two proposed signs. She also asked if the ADA coordinator has reviewed the proposed signs. Kelleher replied yes. Perras stated that the words “result of time &” should be moved to third line so both lines of text are evenly spaced. Jaquith stated that the text may be too much information to read, and visitors may choose not to read it all. Kelleher replied that they based the sign off what is used at Boston Common. Acting Chair Sides opened public comment Ken McTague of Concept Signs. McTague stated that he has had problem matching the existing sign color in the past, he has determined a close match, and he requested the Pantone color be sent to him for future use. He recommended adding bullet points to the Cemetery Rules portion of the sign for readability. Kelleher noted that the use of City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes serif text felt more historic, although it is used at the Salem Common sign which can be difficult to read. McTague replied that adding ruled lines will also help break up the text. Miller noted that the guidelines do call for the use of serifs. Acting Chair Sides closed public comment. The Board agreed to Kelleher’s first sign suggestion. Miller: Motion to approve with the Charter Street Cemetery sign to have a serif throughout, to adjust text spacing, add thin rules between each section, the color to match Salem wayfinging signs, and to provide the Pantone color to Concept Signs. Seconded by: Jaquith. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan in favor. Passes 6-0. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 73 Lafayette Street: Schematic Design Review – Redevelopment of 73 Lafayette Street and 9 Peabody Street through the construction of mixed-use structures for affordable elderly supportive housing, compact residential units, the North Shore Health Center, and additional space for non-profit organizations, continued from 3/24/21, request to continue to September 22, 2021 Jaquith: Motion to continue to the September 22, 2021 regular meeting. Seconded by: Perras. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan in favor. Passes 6-0. 2. 234 Bridge Street: Small Project Review – Installation of cellular infrastructure on existing decorative light pole, continued from 2/24/21, request to continue to July 22,2021 Jaquith: Motion to continue to the next July 28, 2021 regular meeting. Seconded by: Perras. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan in favor. Passes 6-0. 3. 278 Derby Street: Small Project Review and Sign Review – Painting, light installation and new signage for Bit Bar, continued from May 26, 2021 Gideon Coltof, one of the Bit Bar owners, was present to discuss the project. Coltof stated that multiple concepts have been proposed. Option 1: LED strip lighting around the door, teal lighting around the panels above secondary doors, and the patio wall could be solid teal with the cap painted black and they provided a color sample on plywood for review. Option 2: The lower half of the patio wall would be painted black and the upper half teal. Option 3: The patio wall would be painted a pearlescent black. Option 4: The patio wall would be painted a metallic copper. City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes The copper accents on the entry columns could be either a reverse chevon around the relief in the concrete façade, a copper strip up the wall and over the relief detail, or to paint the two areas pearlescent black. Copper accent paint is still proposed at the web of the patio beams and the brick uplighting could be repurposed and painted either teal or white. Torchier wall sconces are proposed at either side of the entry door Sullivan noted his preference for copper insets at either side of the entry door, a teal front wall, and an overall wash of light on the brick façade rather than spotlights. Jaquith agreed and noted that he has no issue with copper on the patio steel beams although painting the walls copper takes away from the building. Sides noted her preference for a thin teal line just below the cap of the wall only, which would mimic the teal LED light around the window. She was in favor of the torchiere lighting and suggested eliminating the teal up lighting on the brick above the cornice. Sullivan agreed. Perras agreed and noted his preference to eliminate the uplighting, he liked the torchieres, and suggested painting the entire relief at either side of the door to fill the frame because it will be hard to accent it easily. Kennedy stated that the teal paint color should not be used on the patio wall, the accent paint on either side of the doorway should be copper, he had no issue with the patio beams being copper, teal LED strip lighting and teal at the upper façade should be the color teal lighting to create a simplified color scheme. Coltof noted that the colored lighting would only be used at night. Kennedy replied that teal paint does not work well on these types of historic buildings against the red brick, but it does work well as lighting. Miller stated that she would have no issue with copper accent paint on either side of the door if it incorporated the relief detail which would have a dramatic effect. Kennedy requested a revised image of the proposed scheme with the changes. Sides stated that copper at the patio wall would draw attention while the black would be less noticeable, but it may not weather well. Miller added that a black patio wall would give the importance back to the building. The Board agreed to a panelized patio wall that matched the panels of the façade. Coltof agreed to provide a full-scale mock-up with painter’s tape of a panelize patio wall to match the panels on the front façade. Jaquith agreed to assist with the paneling layout. Acting Chair Sides opened public comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Acting Chair Sides closed public comment. Miller: Motion to approve the used of LED lights, copper paint at the full pilasters on either side of the entry door including the relief, copper patio beams, and to continue the discussion on the patio wall discussion, lighting, gas lighting and for the applicant to provide revised concept images. Seconded by: Jaquith. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan in favor. Passes 6-0. 4. 285 Derby Street: Small Project Review – Façade modifications to rear tenant space, including creating new entry doors, murals, exterior lighting, and the construction of a City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes paved walkway along the side of the building in the easement area of Charlotte Forten Park Attorney Scott Grover, Ken McTague of Concept Signs, Steve Livermore Architect, Bill Golden from Real Pirates, and Russell Tanzer, representing the property owner, were present to discuss the project. Atty. Grover stated that Real Pirates has leased a space in the building next to Charlotte Forten Park, next to the SATV offices. The new museum would be at the rear of the building, they would create new openings to the park along that side façade through the SRA’s easement to activate the building and the park. Golden noted that this space would be a discovery laboratory with historic items, and they would touch on historic stories of Samuel Bellamy and Barry Clifford. Livermore stated that two new aluminum and glass storefront entrances are proposed and would be clear anodized to match the storefront opening recently added to the façade, one would be in the middle of the façade and another towards the far end near the water. They would add new panels and lanterns down the façade of the building, as well as between the windows on the rear of the building. The new windows will be bronze. Five exit-only egress doors will be added to the east façade within recessed paneling at the existing overhead door and window locations. Sullivan noted that the proposed door layout is not repetitive. Livermore replied that the doors need to align with the interior elements. Sides asked if there will be an even level of light along the façade. Livermore replied that the gooseneck signage will illuminate the entries and exhibit related art applied to the façade. Sullivan asked if the lights could be reduced from 3 to 1 gooseneck per bay. Golden replied yes, although the lights will also provide light to the park due to activity at night. Golden noted that the museum will be 8,300 square feet and is located at the rear 5 bays of the building facing the South River. Livermore added that the front two bays will be a bakery, and the other bays are SATV. Livermore stated that they are still discussing whether to add a rear ramp could be 1:12 rather than 1:20 as currently proposed. The infill on the alley side will be stucco after some repairs are made. The new doors on the East façade will be dark bronze and painted to match the new insulated doors. The lantern style light fixtures will be antique bronze finish while the goosenecks are flat black. Perras noted his concern with the mix of light finish colors. The Board discussed whether the goosenecks were too industrial for the intended use vs. the style of building and a potential mix of finishes. Livermore noted that the additional lights help them meet the Ch. 91 requirements at the park. Miller agreed with maintain some of the industrial character of the building and black finish could be used. She supported the use of LED lighting but noted that the rendering should be 3,000 kelvin which provides a warmer light. Perras stated that he is not in favor with the use of stucco which is not preferred in this climate. Sides agreed and noted that this facade would be highly visible as the backside of Notch and should have a better treatment. City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Signage: McTague stated that the Main Entrance would be along the park, the square aluminum tube frame sign would have a gold anodized border, with the jolly roger logo in white applied vinyl, and center letter in raised gold leaf. A blade sign is proposed at the front and rear entries. Miller noted that the proposed rear lighting should be level. McTague noted that at the front and rear entries, a 3-foot x 4-foot blade sign with black and gold leaf, flat graphics, hanging from the existing black scroll bracket with LED spotlights at either side is proposed. Miller suggested the sign be flat black and to not have a satin finish. McTague replied that a flat black would look grey. He added that the proposed bakery signage will be flat and applied directly to the building. McTague noted that at the rear elevation the name would be painted on the brick façade with two lanterns at either side, both 9-feet above grade. Miller noted that the pole lights at the rear will also provide light. Sides requested a cutsheet of the proposed fixture. Livermore noted that it would be approximately 19-inches high, and the wiring would come directly through the façade. Perras suggested that the rear painted lettering be raised higher. Kennedy stated that all elements of the blade sign are oversized and should be reduced so there’s space around the sides of the sign, he suggested a minimum 10% reduction. He added that the skull and cutlasses be raised up so no longer look off-center and the “1717” on the two side signs be raised up. The skull and cutlasses on the blade sign should be reduced by 15-20% so the cutlasses are inside the ends of the top curve, lower the “Real Pirates” name to bring it closer to the arrow, reduce the size of the arrow by 15-20%, but keep “1717” the same. All the proposed changes will help with visibility and balance. Sullivan suggested eliminating the “1717” from the blade signs so they are not mistaken for the address. McTague replied that the client would like to keep it for marketing and history purposes. Miller noted that there does not appear to be room for the gooseneck lights with the size of the sign that’s proposed. McTague replied that the bracket has LED spotlights built in. Acting Chair Sides opens public comment. No one in the assembly wishes to speak. Acting Chair Sides closed public comment. Miller stated that the ramp railing is not shown. Golden replied that the city will determine if the ramp works. City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Miller stated that outdoor furniture will also require DRB approval. Golden replied that they will return for review and approval. Newhall-Smith stated that the applicant will submit a separate application for an access walkway. Sides requested an alternative to the stucco inserts on the East façade since there are so many different size openings to infill. Livermore requested suggestions. Tanzer noted that the existing condition is overhead doors and with passage door inserts. Perras suggested metal panels like Notch. Golden thanked the Board for their commentary and assistance. Sides stated that since the light fixtures might change sizes that item should also be continued. Golden noted that they would seek consistent finishes for the light fixtures. Sides noted her preference for all black fixtures. Miller: Motion to recommend approval of the signage with revisions as stated, two doorways at park side, and exit only egress door on the alley, and to continue the lighting and the infilled openings on the alley façade, to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan in favor. Passes 6-0. Projects Outside of the Urban Renewal Area 1. 4 Franklin Street: North River Canal Corridor and Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts – Construction of a business office and ambulance facility with associated employee parking area, utilities, landscaping, and harbor walk path along the North River, continued from 4/28/21 David Stockless of Icon Architecture and Attorney Kristin Kolick of Correnti and Darling were present to discuss the project. Stockless stated that the plans were revised based on comments received at the May meeting relating to the use of a board and batten look and not using paneling. In response they have added masonry at grade, cementitious panels above, with a concrete cap. At the North Street entry, the canopy now matches the façade color to it blends into the façade, and the sign was moved to the above the bays. The cementitious panels would be wood-like, in the same light and dark grey color palette, and would be placed at all sides of the office building. The bay would have cementitious lap siding, so all metal paneling has been eliminated. Sides appreciated the applicant’s responsiveness and the revisions made. Miller noted that two different looks are proposed, the board and batten over the panels, and asked if they will match. Stockless replied yes. Jaquith stated that the modifications still do not fit in the neighborhood or with HSI’s comments and Morrif Schopf’s comments at the previous meeting were spot-on. This is not a good building for this location. Stockless noted that the metal panels look like the cementitious panels. Perras disagreed with Jaquith and noted that the mix of neighboring buildings make it hard to take queues from City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes them. The design is appropriate for the type of the building. Sullivan noted that he is okay with the direction of the building he wants to see it in relation to North Street. Newhall-Smith added that the city property and parking lot at North Street will remain for the time being. Miller noted that the modifications are an improvement. Perras agreed. Sides noted the improvements and change in materials, but just because brick is a historic material it does not mean it should be used on this building, it’s not appropriate to this type of building. Ordinances that refer to historic materials can be difficult to deal with today. This is a commercial building, but this is more attractive than the Jiffy Lube and Salvation Army across the street, but there aren’t many things to draw from other than people’s expectations that the building should look as if it’s been there all along. The façade should not be brick because it’s not a civic building and there are not many things to draw from and make it appear as if it’s been there all along. Sullivan agreed and noted that the overhang on the lower building is twice the size and looks overstated compared to the much smaller overhang on the higher building. Stockless replied that he relied on the vocabulary of the garage portion and toned down the roofline. Miller noted that most people will see the building from North Street. Stockless replied that the higher overhang doesn’t stick out as far as projection at the rear entry paneling. Acting Chair Sides opens public comment. Newhall-Smith stated that they’ve received the following letters on May 25, 2021 by 4PM 1. HSI, 9 North Street, submitted a letter dated May 20, 2021. 2. Colleen Downy, 12 School Street, submitted a letter on May 25, 2021. 3. Jane Stauffer, 1 Washington Street, submitted a letter on May 25, 2021. 4. Mary Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, submitted a letter on May 26, 2021. Newhall-Smith stated that they’ve received the following letters as of June 23, 2021 by 4PM 1. Ann Sterling, 29 Orchard Street, June 23, 2021 2. Kathleen McDonald, 34 Walter Street, June 23, 2021 3. William Ewing, 34 Walter Street, June 23, 2021 4. Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, June 23, 2021 5. Megan Twohey, 122 Federal Street, June 23, 2021 6. Sarah D’Ambrosio, 5 Walter Street, June 23, 2021 7. Lara Fury, 126 Federal Street, June 23, 2021 8. Milo Martinez, 78 Washington Square, June 23, 2021 9. Barb Taylor, 5 Monroe Street, June 23, 2021 10. HSI, June 23, 2021 Letters received after 4PM, haven’t been seen by the Board yet. 11. Jeff Cohen, 12 Hancock Street, June 23, 2021 12. Richard Lindeman, 113 Federal Street, June 23, 2021 13. Deborah Prentice, 16 Harvey Street, June 23, 2021 14. Kelly Baldassari, 19 Washington Street, June 23, 2021 15. Jane Stauffer, 1 Washington Street, June 23, 2021 16. Lisa DuBreuil, 28 Upham Street, June 23, 2021 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Public Comment: Caroline Watson-Felt, HSI President. Submitted a letter that highlighted the building’s location making this a unique opportunity to reflect a high standard of design that aligns with the Design Guidelines. The changes are minimal, the applicant either lacks understanding or is disregarding the intent of the NRCC. She is concerned with the dismissal of the neighborhood since North Street has a collection of buildings that could guide the design of this building and the NRCC should knit neighborhoods back together. She encouraged working HSI working with the design team and urging this be sent back to the drawing board. Jackie Seland, 1 Walter Street. Lived in the neighborhood for 13 years, that has mostly stucco, brick, clapboard, and cement. The color palette should be revised because the design looks cold and uninviting. Arthur Sharp, 29 Orchard Street. Lived in this neighborhood since 1996, urged the designers to follow the NRCC guidelines so the building looks like it belongs, they didn’t take the location into account, and a corporate design doesn’t mean it has to be ugly. Goeff Molar, 29 Boardman Street. Passes this site multiple times a day, although he doesn’t fully understand the guidelines of the NRCC, but the neighboring buildings fit in with the guidelines. The proposed building has no roof slope unlike other building. This property should be held to the same standards. Anne Sterling, 29 Orchard Street. Questioned the ratio of those Board members in favor vs. not in favor. Agreed with Jackie Seland, that the grey color and the cementitious panels resemble metal panels even though they are different materials giving the building a gloomy fortress effect looming over the pedestrian path. This design doesn’t rise to the level of the design at the Valvoline or the Salvation Army. She encouraged the DBR to work with the design team and urged them not to approve it. Victoria Ricciardello, 5 Foster Street. The proposed building doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood and it belongs in a corporate industrial park. This is one building by itself and they still don’t know what will be designed on the river side of the property, which may clash. Councillor Meg Ricciardi, 23 Orchard Street. Thanked the design team for their reconsideration, but gray isn’t in the correct spirit of the NRCC which stated that the historic or unique character should be maintained. It’s also along the entrance corridor and across from the courthouse and they appear to be following the commercial design standards. This is a key location, and the design should be continued and revisited, and she appreciated HSI being willing to meet with the design team. Pat Murphy, 27 Foster Street. Has lived here since 1980 and her husband has lived in Salem for 73 years. There have been many changes to the neighborhood, and she agrees with many of the callers including David Jaquith. She appreciates the work that went into the design, as a corner stone of Salem, but the design is business-like, and the color palette is dark and foreboding and sets a precedent. The color scheme should City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes match the neighborhood and she is concerned that the design will clash with the design of Phase II. It should not take too much work to improve upon the current design. Acting Chair Sides closed public comment. Sides stated that a color change is a good idea and will easily transform the building so it is softer on the eye although significant changes in building material may not be necessary. A lot of responsibility has been put on the owner to “become the gateway to Salem” but this is a small business that is not open to the public, and as an office with ambulances that leave in the morning and return at not, it is not an active space but it has very high standards to meet. She noted that the Valvoline and Salvation Army buildings being referred to may pre-date the NRCC. Stockless stated that the color scheme has not changed since the start of the building, they’ve addressed the material changes, and grey brick felt better on the building than red. They may have a conditional PB approval as well as others before it can be built. He does not think any other color palette would work better and questioned what could fit better as they approach the downtown where many buildings also have panelized elements Newhall-Smith stated that the DRB offers a recommendation not an approval, the PB will review the design and seek DRB feedback. Suggestions can be made in writing regarding what elements can change for the PB to consider. Delaying this further puts the applicant into September, jeopardizing the viability of the project. Miller suggested also including comments from the public, white paneling rather than grey, a smaller scale clapboard design that is in keeping with North Street, and a color change that doesn’t resemble a concrete sidewalk would move this project along. This is an office building with a garage, but it needs a change of materiality to fit in. Jaquith noted that part of the building is more residential / office, and the right side is a garage, so the clapboard suggestion is a good one. Sides stated that that it doesn’t need to be a distinctive color but to use a warmer tone with less contrast since different materials don’t need to always be different color. He was hesitant to apply residential scale clapboards but in favor of Newhall-Smith’s suggestion of moving this to the PB with advice to move forward. Perras stated that the proposed building is not very large, but the applicant should provide an image of this building with other buildings for context. A similar color building is diagonal from this site, but this design elevates the other. Sullivan agreed with seeing the building with context. Newhall-Smith stated that the recommendation could be specific with a condition of the PB for a revised design to return to the DRB. Sides agreed with Perras and noted that specifics can be related to the sense of scale and realistic elevations. The applicant has done their due diligence Atty. Kolick stated that the design has gone through several iterations with the PB and DRB, the architect has been responsive to the changes requested, a relocation of the building on site, and the materials have been changed. The PB schedule doesn’t align with the DRB’s and another continuation will put its next review in September. She advocated for the compiling of comments for the PB to review. City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Perras: Motion to recommend to the PB with a recommendation that the massing, material strategies, and siting be approved and for the applicant to return to the DRB for review of details. Seconded by: Sullivan. Roll Call: Jaquith not in favor, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan in favor. Passes 5-1. New/Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: Continued to the next regular meeting. a. April 28, 2021 b. May 26, 2021 2. Staff Updates, if any Newhall-Smith stated that Governor Baker extended some of the rules and virtual Zoom meetings could possibly continue until December 15, 2021. Adjournment Miller: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by: Jaquith. Roll Call: Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan in favor. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 9:15PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-203