DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
April 25, 2007
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, April 25 2007 at 6:00 pm.
Chairperson Paul Durand, Members Michael Blier, David Jaquith, and Glenn Kennedy were present. Kirsten Kinzer, CDBG Planner, and Andrea Bray, Clerk, were also present.
Durand opens the meeting.
Projects Under Review
Urban Renewal Area Projects
1. 118 Washington Street (Gulu Gulu Café) – Proposed outdoor café abutting Lappin Park.
and
2. 118 Washington Street (Gulu Gulu Café) – Proposed signage, lighting and exterior improvements.
Kinzer introduces Steve Feldman and Marie Feldmannova. Feldman presents the revisions to the café proposal including stanchions, seating, walkway and bench locations. Feldmannova describes the stanchion design and the main entry flanked by planters.
The members review the plans and photos for all of these installation items as well as stanchions, chains, planters, and benches.
Feldman discusses problems with snaking the lighting wiring through the inside of the building due to the stairway location. He proposes running a black pipe along the exterior of the building to enclose the wiring.
Durand states that this is a decent solution.
Feldman states that the sign over the sidewalk is much smaller than the proposed sign reviewed at the prior meeting. The sign on Washington Street is the same size.
Jaquith states that it helps to have a good drawing.
Blier agrees.
Durand states that the gauge of the chain should be at least 3/8? thick.
Feldman states that the Essex Street sign will be mounted on an existing bracket on the facade that will be relocated.
Blier: Motion to recommend approval of the outdoor café and of the signage, lighting, and exterior improvements with the condition that the gauge of the chain enclosing the outdoor café be at least 3/8?, seconded by Jaquith. All members vote in favor. (Passes 3-0)
3. 125 Washington Street (Eastern Bank) – Proposed signage.
Kinzer introduces Richard Batten of Batten Brothers Signs and states that this application is to replace 3 existing signs. She adds that the sign over the main entry was approved by the SRA in 1994.
Batten states that the reason for the change of these signs is because Eastern Bank is changing their logo from 3 lines to 2 or 1 line. He adds that they are proposing to replace the signs with new signs of the same materials.
Batten says that the sign above the doorway will be the same size and materials as the existing sign and the two new plaques by the doorway will be slightly shorter and wider than those now on the building, due to the change in layout.
Durand states that the new smaller signs should be positioned to cover as many holes left by the prior sign as possible and the applicant should repair any visible damage from the previous sign. He suggests that they restore the damaged brick that is exposed as a result of the replacement of the sign. It will be better to cover more holes with the new signs and have fewer patches.
Blier: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed signage with the condition that visible damage under existing signs will be repaired in a manner consistent with the historic nature of the building, such that no previous installations holes in the façade are noticeable, seconded by Jaquith. All members vote in favor. (Passes 3-0)
4. 10 Front Street (Beadworks) – Proposed signage
Kinzer introduces Allison Schmidt and Rachael Tatro-Evans. She states that Beadworks is a new store in Salem open in the storefront now occupied by Seed Stitch on Front Street.
Schmidt distributes paint and wood samples.
Kinzer inquires if Beadworks will be reusing the existing sign bracket.
Schmidt states that she is not sure if Seed Stitch is taking the bracket to their new location. If not, Beadworks will use this bracket or will install a similar bracket.
Jaquith states that he has no problem with the design but he thinks that the sign might be too small.
Durand states that this sign can be upscaled a bit and the members discuss the possibilities for enlargement of the letters.
Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed signage as submitted based on new dimensions provided to the Chair, with the following conditions: Reuse the existing bracket or replace with a similar bracket, increase the letter size to 4 or 5 inches in height and adjust the dimensions of the sign to incorporate larger lettering, seconded by Blier. All members vote in favor. (Passes 3-0)
5. 275 – 281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins Building) – Review of wireless facilities installed on the building.
Durand recuses himself from this issue because he is an abutter. He asks Jaquith to act as the Chair in his absence. Durand leaves the room.
Jaquith states that without a quorum the DRB can not come to a final vote.
Hartford responds that she talked to the applicant and asked him if he still wants to be heard with two members. The DRB has heard items in the past without a quorum. The applicant is willing to have the item move forward with two members but if at any point he wants to continue it until May, we can do that.
Hartford provides a background on this issue stating that these wireless facilities have already been installed on the CF Tomkins building. She adds that they were put up prior to approval and are coming before the DRB and SRA now for approval.
Carl Gehring introduces himself as a representative of Verizon and introduces Chuck Webberly of Verizon Wireless Real Estate. He then provides an explanation for the confusion over the application to the SRA and the prior actions by Verizon. Gehring shows photo simulations of by-right installations of various wireless facility designs and other installations within the Redevelopment Authority area. He states that Verizon does not want to be treated unfairly in comparison to other approved installations.
Hartford states that the photos shown may not have been reviewed by the DRB or SRA.
Blier states that none of the images shown include an antenna on the façade. All are located on the roof where this type of thing is more expected and acceptable. In this case, the antennas are located on the main façade. He expresses disappointment that the installation took place without approval and has resulted in a blemish on the building.
Gehring states that the façade mount is very common throughout the metro Boston area.
Jaquith reads a letter from David Hart regarding the applicant’s submission of the antenna installation design to the Salem Historical Commission into the record. The letter states that the images provided to the Historical Commission showed the installation as flush to the building and requests that the antenna be placed flush against the building as. Jaquith then asks Gehring if this is possible.
Gehring states that they could put the antenna closer to the building but not flush against it because the antennas must be angled to be functional. He offers to paint the jumper cable to match the cornice of the building.
Stanley Smith, a Salem resident, asks if these antennas can be removed when the technology changes and how the damage to the building will be repaired when the antennas are removed.
Gehring states that Verizon has a contractual obligation in their lease with the building owner to remove the antennas when they are no longer in use. The damage can be repaired at this point. He underscores that the antennas are just a temporary trade fixture that can be removed at any point, not a permanent alteration to the building. He agrees that Verizon can look at pulling the antennas as far back to the building as technologically feasible.
Smith states that this installation is relatively unobtrusive and could have been far worse than this.
The members clarify the recommendations, which include:
· The six panel antennas located on the building’s Essex Street façade should be pulled as close to the building as possible while maintaining the tilt required for antenna functionality.
· The jumper cable located on the Essex Street fascia should be painted to match the color of the fascia. This color will be selected through the review of the CF Tompkins building redevelopment by the DRB and SRA.
· The paint on all portions of the wireless facility visible from the street should be maintained by Verizon Wireless to prevent peeling or flaking paint. The paint color shall match the existing brick as closely as possible.
6. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail) – Review and approve construction plans.
Hartford introduces this item stating that the SRA approval requires DRB review and approve the final construction drawings.
The members review the plans.
Durand asks them to walk the Board through the issues that have changed.
Cindi Giugliano of Finegold Alexander + Associates provides an overview of the plan updates resulting from the comments and suggestions of the DRB. She states that the buildings have been named as follows: the Jail is the Bryant, the Jail Keepers House is the McIntire, the Carriage House is the Carriage House and the new building is the Alexander. The project name is 50 St. Peter.
Giugliano continues that at the Bryant, the most notable change is that the light cuts have been designed to be larger in scale. The granite and the brick will be chemically cleaned. David Hart has examined the amount of repointing necessary and the amount of slate that must be repaired, and they looked at the amount of work that must be done of the copulas for restoration. In the 1884 portion of the building the chimneys will remain and be capped with copper, in the 1813 portion the chimneys will need to be removed and rebuilt. One chimney on the north wing will not be kept above the roof but will be kept on the interior as a structural column. The egress door was originally shown as a cell door but this is not feasible. The chamfered surround at the jail entry will be lowered and granite will be placed at the top to make up the
height difference. All new lintels and infill will be salvaged material. The bars will be kept at the juliet balconies. The monitor that was the original exhaust system for the building is being used in the attic for the condenser air intake.
The McIntire has not changed since the prior review. One door has been added to the Carriage House for access to the domestic water tank. The Alexander has been modified most in response to DRB comments. The units are now true townhouses with a firewall between the units. There is now more verticality on the rear elevation. The only change to the site plan is that a garden terrace has been added off of the Carriage House.
Hartford inquires if the applicant plans to return to DRB with site signage.
Dan Ricciarelli confirms that site signage will be submitted in the future.
Durand thanks the applicant for the good work and the dedication to quality and states that the DRB will do periodic review on site.
Giugliano states that wall sections will be constructed on site which the DRB can review.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the amended plans, seconded by Blier. All members vote in favor. (Passes 3-0)
Blier: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith.
Meeting is adjourned.
| 
