DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 1, 2006
A regular meeting of the Salem Design Review Board (DRB) was held in the third floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 6:00 pm.
Members Michael Blier, Christos Christoudias, Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand, and Glenn Kennedy were present. Tania Hartford, Staff Planner, and Debra Tucker, Clerk, were also present. David Jaquith joined the meeting in progress.
Ms. Hartford introduced the three new board members Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, and Glenn Kennedy.
PROJECT REVIEW
1. 71 Washington Street (Salem Five Bank)
Jeffrey Sara presented plans for new signage for the new Salem Five Bank located at 71 Washington Street. Mr. Sara stated that the Salem Five had recently acquired the Heritage Cooperative Bank, which has been located downtown for 150 years. As a result the bank will be renamed and requires new signage. The projecting sign at the corner will be moved for better visibility.
Michael Blier asked if any of the signage or the existing clock would be lighted. Mr. Sara replied that they both are, but that the existing clock is not internally illuminated. Ernest DeMaio asked how they would be lit. Mr. Sara answered that there would be both up lighting and down lighting but that the lighting source would not be seen.
Mr. Kennedy stated that he thought that the sign lettering appeared too crowded in the space and out of proportion and thought that it could be brought forward.
Mr. Sara explained that the proposed sign is 24” by 30”. Mr. Durand thought that it protruded into the arch too far and was ill fitted. Mr. Christoudias asked if Mr. Sara was sure of the proportions. Mr. Sara replied that the window was 11 feet at the widest point. The current sign is 134”. He stated that he could not distort the logo. He suggested that if he reduced the height to 18” he could lengthen the lettering within the blue space.
Mr. Kennedy commented that this might give balance to the sign. Mr. Christoudias asked if there were plans to paint the sills below. Ms. Hartford noted that any color change would have to be brought to the Planning Board. Bank officials stated that they had not determined the color scheme.
Mr. DeMaio asked if the electrical feeds would be concealed. Mr. Sara replied that they would be and fed through support tubing.
Ms. Hartford recapped that the wall sign lettering would be shrunk and made more proportional. She requested that the revised plan be provided to her quickly for inclusion on the SRA agenda.
Mr. Sara said that the three cast bronze plaques along the side of the building will be changed to Salem Five. Mr. Durand recommended keeping the masonry line rather than overlapping the sign. He thought that it would look better. Mr. Sara agreed. Mr. Durand asked that the elevations and dimensions be provided and added that photos are not accurate.
The board unanimously approved these plans with the proposed changes.
2. 6 Central Street (Wicked Goodz)
Keith Linneras presented proposed signage for Wicked Goodz of 6 Central Street. Mr. Linneras said that the sign is similar to two other signs on the building and would be consistent by having the same shape. All signs are at the ten-foot height. A new bracket that matches the others will be installed.
Mr. Durand noted that the colors proposed were striking. Mr. Linneras stated that they are the colors of the shop. He added that it is a dark street without a lot of light. Owner Betty Bouchard said that the colors are those of her logo, store walls, and bags. She said that her store is geared towards a younger and trendier crowd. Ms. Bouchard said that she could tone the colors down some. She stated that she has two other shops already selling souvenir items and fun gifts for teens and young adults and that is why she chose fairly trendy colors.
Mr. Blier stated that the colors were similar in intensity and were hard to read. Mr. Christoudias added that it was almost over designed and does not stand out. He suggested maybe adding some negative space somewhere. Mr. Durand proposed a border of color and said that the intricate lettering with bold color was competing with the message and the wording was floating off.
Mr. Kennedy added that a border would pick up the architecture of the windows and there would be more visual draw and pick up on the framework. Mr. Durand stated that in the past a similar sign had been recommended for approval to the SRA and that it was the only time one of the DRB’s recommendations had been overturned. He added that the SRA has the ultimate authority.
Mr. Jaquith joined the meeting.
Mr. Durand thought that they should balance the amount of strong color, but that it was a design issue. He thought that the shape was fine. Mr. Blier said that the sign had a flat two-dimensional feeling and that maybe there should be a shift in the intensity level. Mr. Durand added that it needed to be balanced.
Ms. Hartford instructed the owner and Mr. Linneras to redesign the sign. Mr. Durand stated that they might want to submit a few designs. Mr. Linneras said that he would email the changes.
3. 103 Washington Street (Modern Millie)
Ms. Hartford presented proposed signage submitted by Modern Millie of 103 Washington Street. The sign is a hanging sign that will be located in the same space as the former store. The same bracket will be used.
Mr. Kennedy noted the white background. Mr. Durand felt that the sign lettering was too tight to the edge. He suggested shrinking the lettering to 90% size. Mr. Kennedy suggested that the black color on the oval sign be reduced to a more gray tone at about 70%.
The board unanimously approved these plans with the proposed changes.
4. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail)
Jim Alexander of Finegold Alexander presented the revised schematic design plans for the redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail complex.
Project Manager Penn Lindsey of New Boston Ventures presented the conceptual plans for the overall site and the new building. He reported that they had met with Mass Historic, Historic Salem Inc., and the Salem Historic Commission in order to get feedback on their plans.
Mr. Alexander described the plan to re-establish the fore court, wall, and fencing as well as the steel arch at the entrance. The developers are planning a conservative approach for the Jail Keeper’s building, a federal building. Mr. Alexander reviewed the plans of the current site for the benefit of the new board members. He noted that the pattern of granite on the Jail is simple and beautifully proportioned. The plans for parking and access to the courtyard were reviewed.
The main access will be from St. Peter Street. There will be parking under the new building. A public path will have circulation through the site to the museum and restaurant. There will be a small exhibit of the former Jail as the museum.
Dennis Gray, landscape architect, addressed the board. He reviewed the plans for parking, courtyard, and lower terrace. There will be minimal landscaping without a lot of planting added. Mr. Gray envisioned shade trees such as honey locust located between the church parking lot and the site. His plan calls for putting back a privet hedge along the cemetery in order to provide a green edge rather than a fence.
Brick paving and granite are planned for the inner courtyard and car turnaround/drop off area. There will be a simple wall at the corner of St. Peter Street and Bridge Street. Terraces are planned from the walk as the grade drops off. Evergreens and boxwood will be used. There will be shade trees at the restaurant area.
Ms. Hartford reminded those in attendance that the presentation was for discussion of the schematic plan. The developer will keep talking about the access from Bridge Street; however, many parties including the State are involved in that item.
Mr. Alexander stated that they were looking at a more contemporary approach with the new building. Plans for a masonry façade with light monitors, asymmetrical gables, and granite and brick was presented. The new building will not just replicate a federal house. The buildings will frame the courtyard.
Cindy Giugliano discussed the preliminary floor plans. The new building will house eight units in a 44’ by 80’ box. Parking will be at the rear of the building. The front façade will have terraces off the master bedrooms. There will be two main entrances to the eight units at the front and back of the buildings. There are raised decks over the garages and four Juliet balconies as well.
Dan Riccardelli noted that the eave line follows the Jail eve line and the plan is to match it to the height of the Jail. The windows will be similar to the Jail’s with Juliet balconies and spandrels. He added that the light monitors take their cues from the chimneys and cupolas of the Jail and mimic the coursing. Granite will wrap around the base. The roof will be asymmetrical. A scale model was presented for DRB viewing.
Mr. Christoudias commented that the new building looked more contemporary and more elements are being incorporated rather than replicated. Mr. DeMaio asked if there would be passage through the site, what the courtyard would become. Mr. Alexander answered that the courtyard would be accommodating a lot of activity. Cars would enter for drop off. The public will be encouraged to walk through. Mr. Alexander noted that the area was not totally solved yet, especially landscaping. Mr. Gray said that there is a question of how many people would be coming through the space. Mr. Alexander stated that the museum would not be a large one.
Mr. Kennedy said that the assumption appears to be that there will be access from Bridge Street. He asked about the parking. Mr. Alexander said that there would be valet parking.
Ward Two Councilor Mike Sosnowski stated that access from Bridge Street was becoming a hot topic and that Howard Street residents are concerned about traffic if the valets go up St. Peter Street to the garage and down Howard Street back to the site. Ms. Hartford stated that the project is not at that point. The Planning Department would be the place to discuss that matter. Mr. Alexander added that a traffic consultant will be brought in on the matter and noted that the valet service can be instructed as to what streets to use.
Mr. Blier asked about the courtyard turnaround. Ms. Giugliano answered that there is 80 feet between the buildings. Mr. Alexander said that the turnaround is intended as a resident turnaround and drop off. Mr. Durand asked if they anticipated any problem with mixing cars with pedestrians. Mr. Gray answered that they did not. Mr. Christoudias noted that that mix does not work on the Essex Street mall, but does work at Harris Place in Chelsea.
Mr. Durand stated that the condominium documents should cover who owns the courtyard and how it works as well as how long cars are allowed to stop there. He noted that it would be prone to abuse. Mr. Blier stated that the use of materials would be important so that when there are no cars on the spot, it has a pedestrian feel. Trees would help and the developer should make it inconvenient for a car to stay parked there.
Mr. Durand asked about the front granite wall and the fence and whether it would be retained. Mr. Alexander said that there the iron fence at the front of the property would be replicated around the site.
Mr. Kennedy commented that he thought that the new building feels out of place in that the windows and light monitors feel big. He suggested a bigger corner and smaller windows.
Mr. DeMaio noted that they are picking up cues from all of the surrounding area. He thought that the plan was done very well and liked the playfulness. One area that he thought should be looked at was the side elevation of the new building, which he felt looked like it had a “hat” on it. Mr. DeMaio referred to the roofline bands as well. Mr. Alexander said that they might have tried too hard to get away from the traditional form.
Mr. Jaquith said that he liked the transition from granite to brick and the window. He noted that there might be a way to use a true gable. He mentioned the north elevation entryway widths and asked the developers to take a look at them. Mr. Jaquith stated that the south side windows at the ends seem too close to the edges. He also asked that they take another look at that the railings at the balconies.
Mr. Kennedy asked about the front courtyard and its perspective. Mr. Alexander answered that there is a slight rise in elevation. Mr. Durand asked if it would be possible to screen the back of the building and the parking garage area. He thought that there was a carport feel to it with the garages lined up. Mr. Alexander thought that the edge could be landscaped. He said that it is a tough spot. The intent is for nice-looking garage doors and added that they could take a look at a more solid and interesting railing.
Mr. Blier said that it is an important elevation since there is no real back of the building. He added that it should receive great light. Mr. Blier asked about the service and location of dumpsters. Mr. Gray answered that the plan was for them to be located near the restaurant for access and service.
Ms. Hartford asked for public comment. There was none.
Ms. Hartford stated that her notes on the board’s comments on the project included requests to look again at the light monitors, a larger corner and smaller or less windows, review of the side elevations and the gable end of the roof and the roof cap. Other comments include reviewing the entryways at the north elevation and the parking lot landscaping plan as well as service for the building. The south side windows were thought to look institutional
Mr. Durand said that the DRB should review the project again before it goes before the SRA. He asked if the landscaping was sprinklered. Mr. Gray said that it was.
Ms. Hartford suggested a special meeting for March 7th at 9:00 a.m. The next DRB meeting will be held on March 22nd and the SRA meeting will be April 12th.
Barbara Cleary, member of the public, asked what the roof color would be. The developer answered that it would be a lead coated copper color. Mr. Christoudias commented that the developers’ attempt to blend the historical with contemporary was pretty impressive.
5. 90 Lafayette Street
Mr. Durand recused himself from the matter.
Mark Meche of Winter Street Architects presented the revised schematic design plans for the redevelopment of 90 Lafayette Street into a mixed-use development for review. He reviewed the plan in detail for the newer board members.
The proposed plan consists of rebuilding the structure to house 30 condominium units with retail space on the first floor. There will be 6 units per floor, five 2 bedroom units and one 1 bedroom unit, constructed in the five story building with 31 parking spaces located inside the building and at the rear of the property.
Mr. Meche presented drawings. He noted that his client liked the industrial look of the recent Derby Lofts project. The plan calls for a tower in the corner and the first floor will house retail storefronts and a canopy with lettering. Materials discussed were glass for the tower and windows, and brick and a stucco product such as simstone. Mr. Meche noted that they would avoid yellow colors as recommended at the last DRB meeting. He said that since he is at the schematic phase, actual materials would not be presented until the next meeting.
Mr. Meche stated that a tertiary material such as simstone, a relatively new product, would be a good durable product suitable for a high-rise building. The materials must be affordable. Mr. Meche said that he is using some of the simstone on his Crombie Street project. He stated that he is trying to make the building a fairly green building in order to meet the energy star requirements, although it will not be LEED.
There will be mullion relief to give some depth at the brick. The windows will be either fiberglass or aluminum. Mr. Jaquith noted that it would depend upon the scale. Ms. Hartford said that materials and windows would be determined at a later date.
Mr. Blier asked about the surface parking behind the building. Mr. Meche said that the area would be paved. Mr. Blier asked about deeded roof rights as well as the storm water collection. Mr. Meche replied that roof decks could be built over the rubber roof. Water will be collected and sent to the storm drains.
The board discussed possible development of the neighboring buildings.
Mr. Kennedy noted that the drawings have come a long way, that the windows are nicer, and that the building looks a lot better. He said that he was not sure about establishing such a strong corner as the tower and said that it did not feel right and seemed arbitrary. Mr. Jaquith agreed and thought it seemed arbitrary as well. Mr. Blier stated that he appreciated the boldness and was alright with it. He thought that it could be the threshold in the Point area. Mr. Christoudias added that he thought the plan was very distinct, but didn’t seem to fit. He did like the tower though.
Barbara Cleary, member of the public, cautioned the board that they might be setting a precedent. She said that there is a scale there and that other owners will want to do something similar. She noted that the buildings on either side are historic. Ms. Cleary said that this would be a very big building.
Mr. Jaquith said that Mr. Meche was looking at the relationship to other buildings done by his firm Winter Street Architects and he worried that they should be looking at it from a more residential point of view. Mr. Meche stated that he would be going before the Board of Appeals for variance in order to take down the existing building. He noted that the zoning is B5 and calls for a five-foot setback. There will be one parking space per unit.
A member of the public questioned the “window real estate” with respect to the adjacent Strega building. He stated that the building is very large for a very small site. Mr. Meche said that he could build up to the side and windows and that the plan qualifies with respect to air and light.
The member of the public said that this should be disclosed in the condominium documents and represents a huge risk to the developer. He thought that the building was one story too tall and said that he thought that the developer could fix the existing building. Mr. Meche referred to Derby Lofts and the fact that the developer was willing to take a risk concerning closing a wall off with no windows.
The member of the public then said that a 10-foot alley was not much and that there was really not a front and a back to the site. Mr. DeMaio stated that it was inappropriate at this point to now comment on the size and that he would refrain from commenting. He said that if the project goes forward, there is going to be a large building.
Mr. DeMaio said that large structures in a neighborhood are usually courthouses, steeples, etc. He said that the building looked like it could be anywhere such as Lynn or Malden and wondered what it had to do with Lafayette Street, an important street in Salem. Mr. Meche said that he was not looking too deeply for reference. He was hoping for a bit of departure and statement and said that this was the design that he wanted to put forward.
Ms. Hartford said that they were now ready to go to the SRA with changes as recommended. Mr. Christoudias said that this project was handed down to the DRB for review. He wondered if this building shouldn’t go there, what should? Mr. Jaquith stated that the Zoning Board dictates that and that the developer is meeting that envelope. The rest, he said, was a design issue.
Mr. Meche said that it is not an industrial building and he hopes to add more sparkle. He noted that the Strega building is uncharacteristic for that whole street. Mr. Meche said that he thought his plan was a pretty good design.
Mr. Jaquith added that the neighborhood is a mixed bag with Wendy’s, Winer Brothers, Strega, and the two hotel buildings. Mr. Meche noted that the building changes grade. Mr. Christoudias added that the building is that last at the very edge of the SRA district.
Ms. Hartford asked if the DRB was recommending the project as designed to the SRA for approval. Mr. DeMaio said that in fairness and since this had already been a process, the developer had done what was asked of him. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Blier agreed. The other members agreed to recommend the project for approval at the Schematic Design Review at the next SRA meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Mr. Durand returned to the meeting.
Ms. Hartford distributed contact information forms for new members. She stated that her primary contact with the members would be through email communication. Ms. Hartford requested more formalization for the board and recommended electing a Chair and Vice Chair. She suggested that formal votes be taken on matters and encouraged the new members to share their opinions and to express dissension when necessary.
Board members Mr. Blier, Mr. Christoudias, Mr. DeMaio, and Mr. Kennedy decided that Mr. Durand should serve as Chair and Mr. Jaquith should serve as Vice Chair.
Mr. Jaquith welcomed the new board members. Mr. Durand added that they and their expertise were needed.
Ms. Hartford announced that there would be a press conference by RCG at 3:00 p.m. on March 2nd concerning development plans for the Salem News building block, the Marketplace, the Delande Lighting building, and the municipal parking lot at the corner of Lafayette, and Front Streets.
Ms. Hartford reported that the walkway plans along the South River were still underway.
MINUTES
Minutes from the February 7, 2006 meeting were presented and accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the board, the meeting was adjourned.
| 
