DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
July 10, 2007
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 Wednesday, July 10 2007 at 6:00 pm.
Chairperson Paul Durand, Members Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, 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
1. 24 New Derby Street, Stall 4 (Artists’ Row) – Continued discussion of proposed signage.
Sara Ashodian and Elise Mankes present three different plans for the temporary sign. Ashodian explains that the plans updated sign design includes three-dimensional lettering for the word “art.” The three sections of the sign are connected with different types of metal links and bars.
Durand states that he prefers design #2 the best and the other members agree. They then review sign design #2.
DeMaio suggests using a similar type of link for the vertical and horizontal connections to the “ART” pendant.
Blier questions the need for the connecting bars on the two lower pendants.
Durand states that they would prevent the signs from bumping together. He suggests having the bars come across the face of the signs.
Glenn Kennedy arrives.
Blier asks the size of the links.
Ashodian states that they are about 1 inch long.
Kennedy suggests using bars instead of links to connect the signs vertically.
Durand states that he prefers the links for the vertical connection.
Blier agrees with Durand stating that the links will allow the sign to move more flexibly with the wind.
Kennedy suggests moving the words “gallery” and “studio” away from the edges of the sign and the other members agree.
Kennedy: Motion to approve design #2 as sumitted, seconded by Blier. (Passes 4-0)
David Jaquith arrives.
2. 93 Washington Street (City Hall) – continued discussion of amendment to approved Final Design Plans.
Architect John Seger displays the plans for the back entry for City Hall stating that this new design will eliminate the need for a ramp through a half-stop elevator entered at ground level. He states that a tree will be eliminated and a park bench will be relocated. He states that the base will be tinted concrete with a precast stone cap over it and aluminum clad windows in a neutral pewter color. He adds that the fenestration will be horizontal and the elevator shaft elevation will be brick veneer.
DeMaio states that there needs to be a bollard to protect the door from cars.
Jaquith asks if there should be some flashing of the roof into the brick.
Seger states that there will be flashing and he will add a bollard to the site.
Kinzer asks where the bollard will be located in terms of the property line.
Seger states that the bollard can not be located on the City Hall property.
The members discuss the location of the bollard and Kinzer states that the bollard could be placed on the adjacent property because it is also owned by the City. The members conclude that a bollard should not be required.
Durand suggests reversing the door swing and Seger agrees to this.
Durand asks about the height of the finished concrete base.
Seger states that the interior floor is higher so the concrete base is about 4 inches higher than the original base of the building.
DeMaio asks about the lighting.
Seger states that the interior lighting will be recessed cans and no lighting on the exterior.
Durand asks about the heating.
Seger states that there will be an electric heating unit mounted in the brick wall which will blow hot air.
Durand states that he does not want to see the back of the radiator unit through the glass. He adds that similarly, he does not want to see the back of an exit sign from the exterior of the building. He states that the exit sign should be a pendant hung from the ceiling. Durand asks about the handicapped signage.
Kinzer states that the sign must have brail.
Durand states that he wants to see an architecture that accommodates the required signage. He states that it could be screened onto the glass entry door.
DeMaio asks about the fascia and asks if it abuts the existing building or projects beyond the building line.
Seger says states that the fascia abuts the building and is drawn incorrectly in the elevation submitted.
DeMaio states that it must be clarified on the plan. He expresses concern with the white aluminum around windows stating that it is too stark.
Durand agrees.
The members discuss the color scheme.
Durand states that the store front could be silver and the fascia, sofit, roof cap, gravel stop and flashing could be champagne or pewter. He states that he wishes the mullions to be 6 inches wide.
Kinzer suggests that the color scheme be reviewed with the final construction drawings.
The Board reviews the recommendations which are:
1. Final construction drawings shall be reviewed by the DRB.
2. The final color selection shall be reviewed by the DRB.
3. Accessible entrance and emergency exit signage design and location shall be reviewed by the DRB.
4. The direction of the exterior door swing shall be reversed.
5. The back of the proposed heating element shall not be visible from the exterior of the addition.
6. The fascia shall stop at the edge of the existing building line.
Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval by the SRA with the above recommendations, seconded by DeMaio. (Passes 5-0)
3. 1 Harrison Avenue (Habitat for Humanity redevelopment) – Continued discussion of Final Design Plans.
Kinzer explains that DeMaio met with the architect Michael Sullivan and reviewed the plans. She adds that the plans have not yet been revised to reflect DeMaio’s suggestions.
Warren Sawyer explains that he is representing the Habitat for Humanity project because Michael Sullivan is unable to attend, but he is not an architect and has very limited knowledge design.
DeMaio recaps his findings from his meeting with Sullivan which include:
§ The site plan includes several small planting areas in the back, a paved parking area, and area of brick paving for sidewalks adjacent to the parking in the back and a dedicated trash area enclosed by a fence.~ The trash is screened with a pressure-treated wood fence.
§ On the west elevation an 8 foot high pressure-treated wood fence will be on the roof, and there will be a double-hung penthouse window.
§ On the north elevation another window will be added, and a there will be a horizontal band of trim made of 12? wide AZEK that will not project further than the window casing. The AZEK will have a wood grain texture.
§ On the south elevation the penthouse is drawn in the wrong location and the windows on both floors don’t agree with any floor plan. This elevation will be reworked.
§ Floor plans show no basement windows and Sullivan will research the code requirements for basement windows.
§ The 2nd floor plan shows no roof fence and the wall trim is not properly represented.
§ DeMaio recommends muttons on the windows are possible.
§ The open railings on the roof will be painted wood or AZEK.
§ The mailbox locations must be determined.
§ There will be surface mounted incandescent fixtures adjacent to the entrance doors and a ceiling mounted fixture under the overhang.
DeMaio states that the revised drawings should be completed for the meeting on the 25th.
Durand expresses concern with the locations of the windows on the elevations.
Jaquith expresses objection to the location of the horizontal band.
Durand asks about the location of the mechanical units.
Sawyer states that he doesn’t know where the mechanical units will be placed.
Durrand suggests continuing this public hearing.
Kinzer states that the architectural design is pro-bono and suggests that the members make any additional suggestions now so that this issue could be closed with just one more hearing.
Jaquith states that he has a concern about the horizontal band and the windows. He adds that he is not concerned with the pro-bono status of this project.
Durand states that the members could approve this at the next meeting if the new plans reflect all of the issues and suggestions from DeMaio and the other members tonight.
Jaquith: Motion to continue this hearing until the next meeting, seconded by Kennedy. (Passes 5-0)
4. 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins Building) – Discussion of Final Design Plans for the proposed redevelopment.
Attorney Jacob Segal states he is representing the developer because his partner, George Atkins, is unable to attend. He adds that the purpose of this meeting is to get an approval subject of the Final Design Plans.
Architect Keith Musinski displays the floor plans.
Durand suggests reorienting the door at the entry on Essex Street by reversing the location of the section angled at 45 degrees, switching the hinges and including glass storefront where the door is now located. Musinski agrees to do this.
DeMaio suggests recessing the hallway entry door.
Jaquith questions the location of the call buttons and door releases for each unit.
Musinski says that they will be at the Essex Street entry.
DeMaio expresses concern with the mixed-use elevator.
Durand states that the elevator could be key-restricted for the residential units.
Musinski displays the elevations and explains that the Cromby Street façade will be restored back to the 1900’s design.
DeMaio expresses concern with the slivers of masonry between the retail windows.
Jaquith agrees with DeMaio and suggests a taller fascia between the first and second floor to hold signage.
Durand confirms that the members favor the expanded glass storefront with a built-out fascia that more closely reflects the original sign band.
Jaquith suggests a continuous datum of horizontal exterior lighting as a design feature.
Blier states that this design has greatly improved from the original.
Kinzer states that a sign with vertical lettering will need specific approval.
Musinski displays the upper floor plan and describes the window placement.
DeMaio clarifies that the existing brick should be reused as much as possible.
Durand suggests the members review any new brick on site prior to use.
The members discuss the parameters for the signage. Kennedy suggests not using the copperplate font for the signage.
Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval by the SRA with the following conditions:
§ Final construction drawings shall be reviewed by the DRB.
§ If new brick is required, the selected brick shall be reviewed by the DRB.
§ A horizontal sign band shall be added to the building elevation in the expression of the original design, to better divide the retail and residential portions of the building.
§ Pending review of the horizontal sign band in the final construction drawings, retail signage shall be located in the sign band.
§ Only approval of the second floor location and vertical orientation of the residential project name signage is recommended. The final design of this signage shall be reviewed by the DRB.
§ The retail entry shall be revised.
The motion is seconded by DeMaio. (Passes 5-0)
Jaquith leaves.
5. 289 Derby Street (Coastal Gas Station Redevelopment) – Discussion of amendment to approved Final Design Plans.
Joseph Walsh states that the design was approved by the SRA in 2004 but the Chapter 91 permitting through DEP cause the project to miss the residential market. The design has been changed to limit the construction cost. He describes the main changes which include projecting balconies, the elimination of the sloped metal roof, the redesign of the cornices, the replacement of the blue canvas awnings with lead-coated copper awnings, and use of precast sills and lintels.
Durand states that the retail floor is now a better design but the top floor seems too tall.
Walsh states that it was made tall to screen mechanicals.
Durand suggests that it might be just a tone issue.
Kennedy expresses concern with the external balconies.
Durand states that each unit owner will customize his own balcony which will result in it looking too random. He suggests having the condo association regulate what is stored on the balconies.
Kennedy objects to the look of those balconies on that building in that location. He states that he has no objection to having balconies on the water side of the building.
Blier states that he doesn’t object to the balconies on the Derby Street side.
Much discussion ensues regarding the balconies.
Kinzer asks Walsh if he has checked with DEP about the projection of the balconies on the water side.
Walsh states that they haven’t checked with the DEP yet but they will once they complete the DRB approval process.
Walsh states that there will be exterior lighting under the awnings and the flat face of the awnings will be used for signage.
Durand expresses concern with the low height of the awnings which is only 8 feet from the ground. He suggests a minimum clearance of 9 feet.
Durand reviews the Board’s concerns:
· The projecting balconies.
· The awning height is too low.
Durand suggests blade signs instead of the signage on the flat side of the awnings. He adds that they might be able to totally remove the awning. He states that the balconies should be more delicate, perhaps only a 2' projection.
Kennedy: Motion to continue this hearing to the next meeting, seconded by Blier. (Passes 5-0)
6. 7 Lynde Street (Griffen Theater) – Discussion of temporary façade alteration.
Theater director Erik Rodenhiser distributes the design plans for the temporary façade which will be in place from mid-June through October.
Durand asks how this design integrates with the theater production.
Rodenhiser states that he wishes to show what Salem looked like in the mid 1600’s prior to the witchcraft trials.
Durand expresses concern that this design is precedent-setting and all witchcraft sites would want to have this type of design.
Much discussion ensues regarding the use of this type of façade. The main concerns voiced are the precedent that this project would set, the fact that the proposal sidesteps the Sign Ordinance while it is actually a giant sign and that as it is attached to the building façade, it alters our perception of downtown architecture.
Rodenhiser asks what is needed if he wishes to use a removable design which is the same as this, but can be taken down daily.
Kinzer states that he would need to return in two weeks with the new design.
Rodenhiser states that the only difference in the proposal is that a clause would state that this would be taken down daily.
The members continue to discuss this design and all members express concern about the precedent-setting nature of an approval of this plan.
After much discussion the members encourage Rodenhiser to seek another idea for attracting customers to the site.
DeMaio: Motion to deny approval of this application, seconded by Blier. (Passes 4-0)
…
Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by DeMaio. (Passes 4-0)
The meeting is adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
| 
