DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 7, 2006
A special 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 Tuesday, March 7, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.
Members in attendance were Christos Christoudias, Paul Durand, David Jaquith, and Glenn Kennedy were present. Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, was also present.
PROJECT REVIEW
50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail) – Continued review of the Schematic Design Plans for the redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail Complex continued.
The developer said that they had reviewed the comments from the DRB meeting held February 23, 2005 meeting taken them into account for their schematic redesign. Dan Riccarelli, project architect, reviewed the changes with the Board. He explained that the light monitors were slimmed down, the width of the doors on the North Elevation was scaled down, and additional architectural elements were added on the South Elevation. The roof was kept the same because a traditional roof did not work with the building.
Stanley Smith, member of the public, asked about the light monitors. He noticed that there were horizontal muntins on the rear and vertical on the front. He thought that it was important to keep the dimensional proportion of some aspect of the monitors be consistent with the similar dimensional proportion of other aspects of the building so that it reads in a unity rather than being separate with no relationship to anything else. He further commented that if they were to turn the monitors 30 degrees so they clearly look different to be a modern statement, if might create a nice element. He compared them to a restaurant in Faneuil Hall. He thought it would create a little interest so that they would be achieving an objective of proportionality by making certain that the glass size would correspond to the
glass size in other parts of the building.
The developers liked the idea and noted that Mr. DeMaio had brought up the idea of having the monitors different sizes and perhaps even different designs. Mr. Riccarelli said that when they tried that in the drawings, the building seemed to “busy” and did not work well with the site. Cindy Giugliano, project archietct, noted that the vertical elements are symmetrical.
Mr. Kennedy thought that the drawing looked a whole lot better. Mr. Jaquith agreed.
Mr. Jaquith asked about the asymmetrical gable. The developers said that the actual shape was addressed making it symmetrical would increase the elevation of the lines and didn’t look right. Mr. Durand thought that whether it was asymmetrical or not he thought it makes it unique and communicates correctly. That façade, he thought was a little mannered and the small window on the gable was not strong enough.
Mr. Durand asked about the scale of the window on the brick façade. He liked the composition but didn’t want it to get too thin and lack detail. He said that he appreciated the modern composition and thought that the proportions were good. He thought that it needed some detail and articulation. Mr. Durand thought that if along the side if it were recessed it might look like more of a thick brick wall with windows set into that. It would help with the energy code. He thought that the cornice needed to be stronger. Mr. Durand did not know if the top header aligned with the vertical window and fenestration.
Mr. Durand recommended that a window dormer would make it an architectural feature. He thought there needed to be a stronger statement. He thought that the roof was doing a different thing and was calling attention to it. It needed proper weight.
The materials were reviewed including granite, metal pickets and posts, metal trellises, lead coated copper. The trellises may be taken from the cell doors as a nice way to break up the mass. Mr. Durand thought that the materials were nicer than anticipated. There may be some glass in the garage doors. Mr. Durand thought that the garage doors were important and added that the light monitors looked a little thin.
Mr. Durand stated that the developer needed a little more attention to the back of the building with maybe a little more prominence. The Juliet balconies may be made of the jail bars as well and it would tie into the iron fencing.
Mr. Kennedy said that with the reduction of the size of the windows, the light monitors got smaller. He thought that they look a little small now. He said that the outside corners would look nice with the granite front. He had been interested in seeing the window size reduced and the corner becoming more prominent. Mr. Durand thought that this was a final design issue.
Mr. Durand reviewed the turnaround plans on the site plan. He thought that it would work itself out. He said that if it was hard to use then it won’t be used much and if it is available when you need it to use it, it was fine. Mr. Durand thought that it was a condominium control issue. Mr. Kennedy said that he was in France and there was something similar and the biggest issue was the size of the cars that were in there. Mr. Durand said that Salem was a very pedestrian oriented City and this was a pedestrian oriented design. The developer reminded the board that no one will be parking in the spot for more than 30 minutes or so. Mr. Durand said that it was a nice garden spot.
Mr. Durand moved that the DRB recommended schematic approval of the design plans for the redevelopment of the Old Salem Jail as presented to the SRA. For final design plans the DRB recommended that the developer look at and work on the light monitors, the roofline, and more detail on the fenestration and other details, such as the railing design. All members were in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the board, the meeting was adjourned.
| 
