DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 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, December 6, 2006 at 6:00 pm.
Members Michael Blier, Paul Durand, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith and Glenn Kennedy were present. Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, was also present.
PROJECTS UNDER REVIEW
1. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail)
Ms. Hartford introduced Penn Lindsey of New Boston Ventures, LLC and their architects, Dan Ricciarelli and Cindy Giugliano of Finegold, Alexander + Associates, Inc. Ms. Giugliano went through the list of outstanding issues the Board had with the project.
Ms. Giugliano presented the plans for the trash receptacles at the Jail. Mr. DeMaio asked the color they would be painted. Ms. Giugliano said that it was to be determined but most likely grey and they would be built into the building.
Mr. DeMaio asked why they were attached to the building. Ms. Giugliano replied that it was to avoid articles from getting stuck behind them.
Mr. Jaquith asked if the receptacles would be use for only trash or if they would also include recycling bins. Mr. Ricciarelli replied that they typically have the residents recycle in their units and take their bins to the curb each week.
Mr. Durand asked the number of units in the Jail that these trash receptacles would be servicing. Mr. Ricciarelli stated there were 17.
Mr. Jaquith asked who would pick up the trash. Mr. Lindsay replied that it would be a private company picking up the trash.
Mr. Blier asked if they were water tight. Ms. Giugliano replied that they were not. Mr. Blier stated that it was a good reason to keep the recycling indoors.
Mr. Durand asked how the barrels would be assigned and whether one could be used for recycling. Mr. Jaquith stated that one would not likely be enough. Mr. Ricciarelli stated that the intent was for the receptacles to all be used for trash and each individual unit be responsible for recycling. Mr. Durand stated that it was an operational issue and adding an additional pick-up would take care of any issues.
The Board agreed that they had no issues with the receptacles. Mr. Ricciarelli said that they would address the recycling issue later when they figure out a trash program for the building.
Ms. Giugliano stated that the next item for review was the sample of the window for the Jail Keeper’s House with 5/8th inch muttons.
Mr. Jaquith asked who was making the window. Ms. Giugliano stated that Eagle was making the windows and they would have a bronze spacer bar.
The Board agreed that the window was fine.
Ms. Giugliano noted that she found another sample of material for the new building that had the aggregate that the Board liked and was a better match than the material the Board originally agreed on. She presented the material.
Mr. DeMaio stated that the problem was really the aggregate and this sample looks good, although he was not as sure about the color. Ms. Giugliano stated that the color was a better match.
Mr. Durand asked if the size presented was the size that the blocks would be. Ms. Giugliano replied that it was not. The size the blocks that will be installed are 16 x 24 but it was too large for a sample.
The Board agreed to the sample change for the new building.
Ms. Giugliano presented the next item, which was the requirement to show the proposed lights on the rendered drawings. She presented the rendering to the Board.
Mr. DeMaio asked if there would be lighting on the cupolas. Mr. Ricciarelli said that they looked at it but did not think it would work because its actual living space.
Mr. Durand asked if there would be internal lights in the cupolas. Mr. Lindsay said that there would.
Mr. DeMaio asked if they had any other discussions on lighting with the other Boards. Mr. Ricciarelli said that they had met with the Planning Board and they were okay with the lighting choices presented.
Mr. Durand said that with the lights happening in the building it was most likely enough. He said that they did not want to light the building like a monument.
Ms. Giugliano noted some building lighting, which accentuated the granite. Mr. Ricciarelli also noted that they would have path lights on the site.
The Board agreed that they were okay with the lighting plan.
Ms. Giugliano presented the final design plans for the Barn. She said that they looked at making the Barn more traditional and tried to look at older photos to determine where the windows existed. She also noted that the new design has two bi-parting doors as opposed to one sliding door. Mr. Ricciarelli added that David Hark, their preservation consultant, was doing a paint analysis to determine the original color.
The Board agreed that they were okay with the Barn redesign.
Ms. Giugliano stated that the Jail Historic Review team asked that the second portico on the Jail Keeper’s House be more suspended so that it did not compete with the main entrance portico. She showed the rendering with the suspended portico.
Mr. Jaquith said that it looked good.
The Board agreed that they were all okay with the redesign of the second portico.
Ms. Giugliano said that the last item they were to look at was to add some verticality to the rear elevation of the new building. She presented the plans. She said that she is trying to make it have more of a townhouse feel but they are still working on it. Mr. Ricciarelli said that it was better but not quite there yet.
Stanley Smith, member of the public, asked if adding drain pipes or playing with the masonry might help with the problem.
Mr. Durand stated that a change in plane is what they need.
Mr. DeMaio offered that they could even make a change in the brick bond.
Mr. Smith stated that they could add a narrow tall window above the second floor doorways. Mr. Durand replied that he thought it would clutter the doorway too much. He offered that a higher doorway might be nice. He said that a slight change in plane is really all they need; something subtle.
Mr. DeMaio noted that a bond of brick that accentuates the vertical would work well and be subtle.
Mr. Durand stated that they do not want to over decorate it too much.
Mr. Durand stated that they needed a recommendation. He emphasized that the design team understands the design intent of the Board and should incorporate that into the construction drawings, which they will review.
Ms. Hartford read through the recommendation: recommendation of approval of the Final Design Plans for the construction of a mixed-use development at 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail) taking into consideration the design intent discussed with the DRB on the final modifications to Building D and with the following conditions: The final site construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to a building permit being issued. They must conform to the plans submitted and approved by the DRB; and the signage plan must be submitted to the DRB for review prior to installation.
Mr. Kennedy moved to recommend approval with the conditions mentioned. Mr. Jaquith seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0).
2. 85 Lafayette Street (New Dimensions in Technology)
Ms. Hartford provided the Board with an overview of the project. She stated that at the last meeting, the Board asked the owner to reduce the number of lights at the project from five to three. She said that the owner reviewed the Board’s suggestion with his electrician and sign company and both agreed that three lights would be too few. Ms. Hartford stated that she looked at other signs that were the same size or smaller in the downtown and many have more than three lights, such as the Dunkin Donuts on Washington Street, which has four lights on a smaller sign.
She said the Board also asked for more true renderings and scaled drawings/specifications of what would be installed. She explained that Mr. DeMaio reviewed the submittal and thought it was a better rendering and was satisfied with what was submitted.
Mr. DeMaio stated that this business would not be open all the time like Dunkin Donuts and would not require the same degree of lighting.
Mr. Durand stated that he thinks four lights are okay. He said he does not feel he needs it but is willing to compromise.
Mr. Jaquith said that he thinks that with three lights there would be some spots on the sign that would not be lighted.
Mr. Jaquith moved to recommend approval of the revised lighting package to reflect four (4) gooseneck lights being installed, as opposed to five. Mr. DeMaio seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0).
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Kennedy stated that the windows at 17-21 Front Street look great. He extended his “kudos” to the Board for making this project better than what was presented.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the board, Mr. Kennedy moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Jaquith seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0).
| 
