DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
February 28, 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, February 28, 2007 at 6:00 pm.
Members Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand David Jaquith, and Glenn Kennedy present. Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Andrea Bray, Clerk, were also present.
Hartford begins the meeting.
1. 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins Building): Review of the Schematic Design Plans for the proposed redevelopment
Hartford says that Verizon will be coming in to get approval for the equipment on the roof of the building. She reminds the members that tonight the discussion will be on the renovation of the building. She also states that the SRA wishes to see renovation on the street level.
George Atkins, attorney for the applicant, says that Verizon received a building permit before installing the equipment and they plan to come in to get approval from the SRA. He introduces the other attendees including Steve Tompkins, the current owner of the building, Ted Richard, real estate agent for Tompkins, Jeff Holleran, the buyer and developer for the building, and Keith Musinski, and Dan Skolski, the architects and the design team for the renovation. Atkins states his client has looked into a renovation for the first floor exterior but a design has not been finalized. He adds that it is a financial issue.
Musinski and Skolski show the drawings of the new design while Musinski explains that the three upper floors will each have 6 units, four 2-bedroom units and two 1-bedroom units. He adds that the first floor will have 3 retail units and 2 residential units. Musinski says that the building has 2 elevator shafts, one of which was taken over by Verizon, and one still exists. He describes the work to be done to the Cromby Street side noting that they will remove the staircase on that side and regularize the fenestration to give the façade a more uniform look and provide light to the residences. There will be repointing and reconstruction of some of the brick work, and commercial grade aluminum windows will be installed. On the cornice some painting and restoration work will be done.
Durand says that the reconstruction brick work must match the existing brick so that it doesn’t look patched-in. He adds that taking care to do this will make it look like it was never adjusted and it is not easy to do. He states that the developer must find the exact brick or reuse some of the existing bricks which are removed.
DeMaio agrees and states that repointing must also be consistent all over the building.
Durand states he might like to see windows on the alley wall, even if it is only on the corner of the building.
Musinski states that it is difficult to stage that.
Durand says that it could be done. He adds that the retail entrance on Essex Street doesn’t work because of the intermediary vestibule, making it “Class C” space.
DeMaio asks where the main entrance for the residences is.
Kennedy arrives at 6:15 p.m.
Musinski states that the entrance for the residences will be on the Cromby Street side, and points to the entrance on the plan.
Durand states that by changing the entrance to the retail space it will have greater value. He adds that in the future it would be great if there could be one large retail space.
Atkins asks if Durand is suggesting separate entrances for each retail unit.
Durand says that he is, in fact, suggesting that because the common entrance degrades the retail units.
DeMaio asks about the smaller retail space on Cromby Street. He states that the facade does not draw attention to the retail space because the windows are the same there as on the residences. He also agrees with Durand in stating that it would be nice if the whole floor space becomes one big retail space.
Durand agrees with the recommendation from the SRA to restore the retail space façade back to the post-fire design.
Jaquith arrives at 6:25 p.m.
Durand states that the façade needs to be more elegant at the retail level in order to satisfy the concern from the SRA.
Blier asks if there has been any exploratory work behind the plywood.
Musinski says that the building hasn’t been sold yet, so they have not had the opportunity to do that.
DeMaio asks about plans for the penthouse.
Musinski states that they were not going to do anything with it.
DeMaio asks if there will be more rooftop units.
Musinski states that there may be after the building is finished.
Jaquith states that they should forfeit the mushroom windows.
DeMaio states that it looks like there is a continuous piece of steel around the window.
Durand states that the original look of the windows is better but is more expensive.
Kennedy asks what the retail level is doing on the side alley.
Musinski states that there is no retail on the side alley.
DeMaio asks about parking plans.
Musinski states that the residents will use municipal parking.
Durand asks if there is anything else.
Kennedy asks if the plan is correct, showing access to one room is through the bathroom.
Musinski states that it is correct.
Durand says that this project meets the criteria for schematic design approval, and requests a motion for a recommendation to the SRA.
Jaquith: Motion to make a recommendation to the SRA to obtain a schematic design with the following conditions:
1. Storefronts should be restored or opened up;
2. Bricks should be reused on the Crombie Street facade, where possible, and the reconstruction of the brick must match the existing building exactly;
3. Historical preservation specification for repointing, must be included;
4. Entry point for the retail unit(s) and egress for the residential units should be reconfigured;
5. Storefront on the Crombie Street facade should be looked at and redesigned;
6. Roof plans must be submitted; and
7. Residential entry point along Crombie Street should be more prominent.
The motion is seconded by DeMaio. All members are in favor. The motion passes 5-0.
Adjourn
Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. All members are in favor. The motion passes 5-0. The meeting is adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
| 
