DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
August 22, 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, August 22, 2007 at 6:00 pm.
Members Michael Blier, David Jaquith, and Glenn Kennedy were present. Kirsten Kinzer, CDBG Planner, and Andrea Bray, Clerk, were also present.
Jaquith opens the meeting.
Projects Under Review
Urban Renewal Area Projects
1. 322 Derby Street (Rouge Cosmetics) – Discussion of amendment to approved signage
Ann Massey presents the lighting design and explains that the lighting will be installed adjacent to the existing bracket and electrical wiring will be hidden from view.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the lighting, seconded by Blier. (Passes 3-0)
2. 2 East India Square (Museum Place Mall, Suites 113-119) – Discussion of proposed façade alterations
Kinzer introduces Brett Marley and states that this proposal been approved by the SRA subject to DRB approval.
Jaquith states that it looks similar to what is now there.
Marley states that there will be three new doors identical to the existing doors.
Blier asks if there will be a threshold.
Marley states that there will be threshold.
Jaquith asks if any sidewalk bricks will be cut.
Marley states that there are no plans to cut the sidewalk bricks.
Jaquith states that if it becomes necessary to cut the bricks, the any new or replaced brick must match the existing herringbone pattern.
Blier: Motion to approve the façade alteration with the condition that any new or replacement sidewalk brick must match the existing herringbone pattern, seconded by Kennedy. (Passes 3-0)
3. 155-189 Washington Street (Salem News Building) – Discussion of Schematic Design Plans for the proposed redevelopment
Matthew Picarsic, Architect with RCG, states that they received approval for partial demolition from the SRA, and a waiver of demolition delay from the Salem Historical Commission. He displays the contextual rendering and the schematic design and says that there will be 8 residential units per floor (total 24) in the new building and 7 units in the existing building. He describes the parking and entry points for the complex.
Kennedy explains that the DRB will examine this design while taking caution to avoid being cornered into accepting future project designs with such things as unacceptable parking accommodations.
Kinzer reads the attached letter from Barbara Cleary, President, Historic Salem Inc, dated August 22, 2007 into the record.
Jaquith expresses concern about the breaking up the datum line of the cornice, stating that he would like to see it continue around the whole building. He adds that he isn’t sure that the breaking up the areas of brick helps the design. He states that he agrees with the opinion of Historic Salem Inc. that Front Street could have more continuity.
Blier asks about the entry door on the east, stating the there appears to be no room for the door there.
Ron Lamarre from Opechee, states that the plan is preliminary and they intend to place a door in this general location but it depends on the final layout of the retail space.
Blier states that the Front Street lot is an obvious site for future development. He adds that if trees are planted, it might be difficult to gain approval for the removal of the trees for development. He states that the proposed parking is an improvement over the existing parking and that there is an existing alley behind the building. This alley will probably be used for trash and therefore must be screened from the parking lot.
Picarsic states that they will clean up this area, which is currently a mess. He adds that the housing will be rental units initially but will be designed for conversion to condominiums.
Jaquith predicts that residents will use the parking bays for storage and suggests shifting the bay location to provide more space for storage.
Blier asks about the angle of the northeast side of the building.
Lamarre states that the plan is a preliminary design and can be changed if they prefer.
Kennedy states that he approves of the schematic site plan in concept but the design of the building is not strong enough for such an visible corner site. He adds that the building will look old when it is complete but not in an historic way. He states that it needs more character.
Picarsic states that he appreciates the feedback from the Board.
Kennedy states that this design will influence future development and that it should make a stronger statement.
Blier states that the design feels institutional, perhaps due to the darkness of the storefronts.
Kennedy states that the massing and site plan concepts meet the concerns of the Marketplace Redevelopment Committee review process and the encourages RCG to challenge the Board.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the massing and site plan concepts of the schematic design, subject to further evaluation of the specific design elements, seconded by Blier.
4. 90 Lafayette Street – Discussion of proposed façade alterations
Picarsic states that this is the “Dracula’s Castle” building. He states that there will be 2 retail entrances and an entrance for new residences on the second floor. He adds that they will restore the brick and the cornice line, create a sign band and replace the second floor windows. Picarsic states that they will match the existing brick as closely as possible and create as much glass a possible at the street level. He describes the location of the signage. He states that the appearance of the signage will be similar to Beverly Cooperative Bank, with gold lettering on a black background.
Jaquith states that the signage doesn’t work well for the Beverly Cooperative Building. He expresses concern with the current design for the signage. He adds that it is not a deal breaker.
Architect Michael Rubin arrives and presents a revised design.
Picarsic states that they could limit the extent of the lettering.
Much discussion ensues about the sign band location and the brick lintel.
Rubin suggest returning to the DRB for specific signage approval. He describes the canopy as a contemporary box-like structure.
Kinzer states that the sign approval for the child care can be done next month and it will be a separate agenda item.
Jaquith reviews the issues which include the sign band and the awning. The awning design needs to be refined, including lowering the top and employing more interesting materials. He adds that he likes the shape of the blade signs and the number of lights on the band.
Jaquith: Motion to continue until the next meeting, seconded by Blier. (Passes 3-0)
5. 75-87 Washington Street – Discussion of proposed façade alterations
Architect Michael Wtrzykowski describes the modifications to the façade which include:
1. Replace the existing sign board and storefront.
2. Replace the exterior doors to match the existing door at 77 Washington Street.
3. Install new sign bracket mounted light fixture.
4. New lettering on the sign band on black background.
5. Replace existing hanging signs with new hanging signs
6. Replace all of the windows with aluminum clad double hung, two-over-two windows.
7. Pressure-wash the building.
8. Refurbish and expose the stained glass windows and install energy panels in front of the windows.
9. Illuminate the Washington Street façade with uplighting.
10. Paint existing windows to match new windows
11. Remove of 6 trees to improve visibility and replace them with brick planters
12. On the alley side, remove the service elevator and add storefront window and light the alleyway at night
13. Paint and clean blocked windows in alley to match existing windows.
14. Paint existing wrought iron in alley black(approved)
15. Locate an outdoor café in the rear of the building (Blier states that the pine trees in the back of the building should be removed because it is too dark and dead back there, but if they remove any trees from the front it will set a dangerous precedent)
16. Paint existing metal bulkheads.
17. Remove existing vent grill on rear elevation and replace with glass. (Jaquith has some reservations)
18. Infill the elevator shaft in alley way with brick.
Steve Goldberg states that there is a tremendous amount of detailing in this building and they want to present it in the best light.
The members raise no concerns about items one, two, three, seven, eight, ten, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen and eighteen.
The members raise no concerns about items four and five but Kinzer states that in both cases, individual tenants must have their signs approved by the SRA and this review process will only establish design parameters for the building signs.
Jaquith states that in regard to item six, the windows must be two over two and must completely fill the existing opening.
Kennedy states that building lighting, item nine, and the applicant will need to return with a specific lighting proposal. The members support the general concept of building lighting.
Jaquith expresses concern regarding item seventeen, because the vent grill is part of the building’s history. He suggests there may be a way to add glass to the existing grill and allow light inside without replacing the grill.
There is a great deal of discussion regarding the removal of street trees.
Steve Goldberg states that this is what he believes his tenants will desire because the trees block views of the building signs, block light into the second floor windows and make it difficult to see the beauty of the building. He adds that they are willing to listen to suggestions for alternative plantings in those spaces.
Kinzer states that they need to provide a proposal for replacing the trees with landscaping or trees in other locations to start the conversation about how the tree removal will be mitigated.
Blier suggests that one option may be to cut down the existing trees and replace them with smaller trees.
Jaquith asks if there are any locations downtown that are missing trees in which the applicant could plant replacement trees.
Michael Lutrzykowski of HH Morant Architects asks if removing three trees would be acceptable.
Kennedy states that removing three trees would too many but he can understand removing the trees in front of the building entries, which are the first and sixth trees or replanting with new trees that are better spaced. He suggests that four trees might be a possibility, framing the center of the building.
Blier states that new trees should be at least 4 ½ to 5 inches in caliper.
Jaquith: Motion to continue until the next meeting, seconded by Blier. (Passes 3-0)
6. 33 Church Street (Law Office of Lance I. Layne – Discussion of proposed signage
Kinzer introduces Lance Layne and she presents the color samples.
Layne states that this sign will be unlit.
Kennedy suggests shrinking the lettering to create negative space around the outside edge of the sign which will increase the readability. He adds that the sign may be too big for the bracket and recommends that it be located at least 1’-6” away from the Vernon Martin sign. He agrees to make a site visit to determine the exact location of the sign.
Kennedy: Motion to conditionally approve the sign design subject to determination of location, seconded by Jaquith. (Passes 3-0)
7. 285 Derby Street (Count Orlok’s Nightmare Gallery) – Discussion of proposed signage
James Lurgio presents his new sign design stating that the building has been empty for a long time. He adds that the lighting is already in place and the sign will go in the existing sign band. He states that the design will not appear precisely as submitted and that the monster face shown on the submitted design will not be on the sign. He then shows the members a design for the gallery name to be used for publicity that he likes but can’t use in the sign band due to the shape of the design.
Kennedy suggests that the sign be redesigned to more closely match this design. He suggests that Lurgio consider using this font and including the green goo spilling from the sign. He also suggests that the there are too many words in the second sign, leaving too little space around the letters.
Lurgio states that he knows this but can’t shorten the tag line. He also states that he would like to get the sign up by October if possible.
Jaquith: Motion to continue until a special meeting, seconded by Kennedy. (Passes 3-0)
8. 118 Washington Street Rear (Upper Crust Pizza) – Discussion of proposed signage
Owner Michael Buchhalter presents his sign design stating that the band will be the same color as the entry wood doors.
The members agree that the sign is well designed and the proposed lighting is tasteful.
Kenndey: Motion to approve the sign design, seconded by Jaquith. (Passes 3-0)
9. Approval of Minutes – May 23 meeting
Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes for the May 23, 2007 meeting, seconded by Kennedy. (Passes 3-0)
…
Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. (Passes 3-0)
The meeting is adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
| 
