DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
January 24, 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, January 24, 2007 at 6:00 pm.
Members Ernie DeMaio, Michael Blier, David Jaquith, and Glenn Kennedy were present. Tania Hartford, Economic Development Director, and Andrea Bray, Clerk, were also present.
Projects Under Review
Urban Renewal Area Projects
1. 265 Essex Street (Salem Chamber of Commerce) – Review of Proposed Signage
Rinus Oosthoek of the Salem Chamber of Commerce speaks about the design of the sign.
Hartford explains that the Chamber’s existing sign is not legal so this new sign has been designed to replace the existing one.
The members discuss the new sign and ask for clarification on some of the design components.
Oosthoek describes the sign and explains that one sign will be in the window and another will be next to the door. The existing sign will be removed. The sign bracket will be replaced. The sign will be hung just below the second floor window sill. It will be a carved blue sign with gold leaf.
DeMaio: Motion to approve the sign design, seconded by Kennedy. All members vote in favor. The motion passes 4-0.
2. 272 Essex Street (Feed you Head Books) – Review of Proposed Signage
Harford explains that this shop is across the street from the Chamber of Commerce.
Shop owner Randie Farmelant explains her plans for this sign.
DeMaio asks Hartford for some information about the sign.
Hartford explains that this sign is slightly larger than what is allowed by the Board.
Kennedy asks for clarification about the color.
Farmelant says that the sign will be orange, not red, or red-orange.
Kennedy states that he likes the design but the sign seems big for the space.
Blier agrees with Kennedy saying that he is concerned about the size of the sign.
DeMaio asks about the bracket.
José Nieto, who designed the sign and the bracket, shows a picture of the bracket and explains that he wishes to keep the bracket simple.
Blier states that the bracket design seems consistent with that building and that the area could absorb the design.
Hartford states that there is a bracket on the other side of the building which is more ornate.
Jaquith suggests reducing the size of the sign and cautions that the width will be challenged if the height is brought down to 3 feet, unless the sign is squatter. He suggests bringing the width down to 2' - 6".
Hartford suggests that the Board also approve the vinyl graphics which are currently in the window.
José Nieto states that the vinyl graphics will be taken down, so it will not be necessary for the Board to approve them.
DeMaio: Motion to approve the design of the sign with a width of 2' - 6", seconded by Jaquith. All members vote in favor. The motion passes 4-0.
3. 17 Front Street (J. Mode) – Review of Proposed Signage
Hartford states that SRA does note allow for vertical lettering, but she recommends that the DRB go ahead with this review so the applicant can follow-up later with the SRA.
Janet Barsanti, owner, explains the design as a cut-through sign. She shows a sample of the bracket and picture of other signs on the street.
Jaquith states that he likes the sign and he has no problem with the vertical lettering if the word is short, as it is with the proposed sign.
Kennedy states that the bracket seems a little too weighty for the sign, and that it needs to be more delicate. He suggests using the same type of bracket as with the “Feed your Head Books” store.
Blier asks Barsanti for the dimensions of the sculptural dress form. He expresses concern about the possibility of collecting snow which will add weight.
DeMaio states that this is the type of sign that the Board is always hoping for because it is very creative and differs from a two-dimensional sign.
Blier asks what determines the location of the wall sign.
Barsanti explains that the sign is centered above the two stores windows.
DeMaio asks if the mounting bolts will be visible.
Barsanti says that the mounting bolts will be concealed.
Kennedy says that he is not in favor of the proposed location of the wall sign.
Jaquith agrees with Kennedy and states that he would prefer to see the sign lower than and to the right of the proposed location.
Blier says that the proposed location of the sign would not precisely identify the location of the shop.
DeMaio suggests aligning the top of the sign with the bottom of the stone lentil on the window.
Hartford states that it would be too low to conform to the sign ordinance.
Kennedy asks if the bottom of the sign could be aligned with the bottom of the stone lentil. He then suggests that the sign be slightly smaller to fit the space better.
DeMaio asks Hartford if the Board will need to see the wall sign again.
Hartford says that it would not be necessary if the Board assign a representative to follow-up on the design and location of the wall sign.
The members agree that Kennedy will represent the Board and follow-up on the correct size and location of the wall sign.
DeMaio recaps the Board’s recommendation to approve the design of the hanging sign including the vertical lettering, and approve the wall sign with the changes discussed, with the condition that the attachments for the wall sign are concealed.
Jaquith requests that Hartford advise the SRA that the DRB strongly suggests accepting the vertical lettering on this sign.
Hartford agrees to pass that recommendation on to the SRA.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the signs with the conditions that the bracket of the hanging sign be modified to be lighter than what was proposed; the wall sign be moved to the area closer to the building edge and aligned so that the bottom of the sign aligns with the bottom of the stone lentil of the windows; and the mounting bolts for the wall mounted sign be concealed, seconded by Blier. All members vote in favor. The motion passes 4-0.
North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) Projects
4. 28 Goodhue Street – Review of the proposed development plans for a new four-story mixed-use structure at 28 Goodhue Street.
Hartford updates the Board on the progress of this project by listing all of the issues brought up at the last meeting. These issues include the fence (it can’t be chain link), the landscaping plan, the look of the storefronts, the roofing materials, the finishes, the color palette, and the articulation in the bay windows. She adds that the Board wishes to see the unit layouts.
Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing North River Canal LLC, and Tom Galvin, architect, Joseph Riggs Associates, explain the plans.
Correnti states that they will not use a chain link fence and because the fence will stretch for 400 feet along the North River, this will be a huge expense.
Much discussion ensues regarding the look of the fence.
Blier states that he likes the look of the old wall along the canal and would not like to see the fence on top of it.
Correnti says that the fence will not go on top of the wall, but on the property side of the wall.
DeMaio asks how this fence will relate to other fences.
Hartford states that currently there are no other fences there.
DeMaio expresses concern about having a hodgepodge of different fences along the canal.
Martin Imm of 174 Federal Street, Co-Chair of the Federal Street Resident’s Association, states that there will be a public way along the canal, and the public storage facility will soon be doing work there.
DeMaio suggests recommending that the Planning Board consider the fence in the broader context of the entire canal redevelopment plans, and that this developer comply with the Board’s decision about the fence.
Correnti explains the plantings.
Blier explains that the Maples are not necessarily a good street tree and that Cornus Florida (Dogwood) need to be treated every year, making it expensive to maintain.
Correnti makes a note of Blier’s comments.
Correnti describes the new design for the storefront windows, stating that the building’s base has some recessed panels painted the same green color as that on the upper level. He goes on to describe the complete color scheme of the exterior. He shows the fiberglass roofing material known as “shangles” which resembles slate.
Jaquith states that he feels that the base of the building has improved since the last meeting, and expresses his desire for the recessed panel divisions to be in line with the windows’ muntin lines.
Correnti makes a note of Jaquith’s suggestion.
DeMaio asks if the ground floor commercial space has flexibility to be redesigned based on future tenants’ demands.
Correnti says that the ground floor space is flexible.
DeMaio expresses concern with the material used on the base of the building stating that it will not hold up over time. He adds that the materials work well from a distance, but are challenged up close.
Correnti makes another note.
Jaquith asks about the type of ownership for the building.
Correnti states that there will be a combination of resident condominium space and commercial rentals.
Blier states that he feels that the new design is much improved.
Jaquith asks about the lighting.
Correnti shows the Board the exterior lighting plan. He comments on the bay articulation, stating that there will be balconies on the back and left.
Jaquith asks about the four units on the right and suggests adding balconies to those units as well.
DeMaio asks about services for the residential units.
Correnti states that the owners are obliged to take out their own trash.
Jaquith reminds Correnti and Galvin to think about recycling.
Much discussion ensues about the size and location of the dumpster area.
Blier asks about the viability of the original brick structure.
Correnti states that it will go away because it serves no function to the development.
Blier reminds Correnti that the structure was previously described as an amenity.
Galvin says that there are currently no plans for the brick structure, but that it will probably stay there, and maybe it could be an enclosed garden.
Martin Imm, of 174 Federal Street, comments on the plans. He says that the façade on Goodhue Street is monolithic and wishes that there was more variation in the planes. He expresses his displeasure with the chain link fence across the canal on Bridge Street. He encourages the Board’s efforts to see that the design be first rate and to really say “Salem”, stating that is will be a keynote building in the area.
Darrow Lebovici, of 122 Federal Street, echoes Imm’s statement and says that he is looking forward to other development projects. He compliments the Board on the work that was done on the Gateway Center. Lebovici expresses disappointment with this building, stating that it doesn’t say “Salem” and that it doesn’t say anything to him. He asks that the Board to find ways to reflect and honor the industrial buildings in the area.
Jaquith disagrees with Lebovici’s statement that this is not a Salem-type building, and acknowledges that it is not and industrial building. He adds that the trim will break-up the monolithic look somewhat, and the exterior lighting design will make the building look like retail space. He suggests adding two more bays on the front elevation.
Imm sites a Cambridge building that has more variety in the façade which enhances the streetscape.
DeMaio states that his issue is what is at the street level, specifically the very bold color, which he describes as not pedestrian-friendly.
Jaquith reminds the group about some conditions that have not yet been addressed. Of note are the end panels which need some work. He agrees with DeMaio about the base color being too strong.
Galvin asks if there is a color pallet that the Board would suggest.
DeMaio suggests breaking up the base color, or playing with different shades of the same color.
Kennedy states that the other color is so strong that it takes the base color down a bit.
Galvin asks if the Board is recommending working with different shades of this color.
DeMaio suggests more than one color to take a bit of the curse off the mass of the building.
Imm asks when the perspective drawings will be updated.
Correnti states that they will be ready next week for the Planning Board meeting.
Galvin asks if the DRB will recommend to the Planning Board that the DRB maintain jurisdiction over the design.
Hartford states that it is possible to do this, and the Planning Board can approve the application pending DRB approval.
Galvin expresses his concern for attaining a timely approval.
Hartford suggests having a special meeting before February 15.
Jaquith agrees that another meeting is in order and says that it is better if the Board spends the effort now because this is the first project in this area.
Darrow Lebovici suggests making the entryway more prominent.
Blier states that that will be possible with landscaping and understory plantings rather than architecture. He mentions that the developers will need to make a stronger case for the shangles.
DeMaio suggests bringing the colors that are above down to the ground.
Kennedy suggests adding a bay to the end unit on the south elevation, or possibly another element in the Second Empire style.
Blier asks about the location of the heating and cooling systems.
Correnti explains that they will be on the roof and concealed behind a parapet wall. He adds that the hidden roof will have a base of rubber.
Hartford recaps the desire for a special meeting and asks if the Board wants them to reconsider the materials.
DeMaio states that he has a problem bringing those materials down to the ground.
Jaquith states that he wishes to see articulation in the elevation
Hartfort recaps some of the Board’s decisions, including amending the landscaping at the entryway and clearing up the planting schedule. She adds that the Board will continue the discussion on the fence.
DeMaio states that he wishes to put the fence issue to the Planning Board.
Hartford asks about the detail on the edge of the parking lot.
Correnti states that there is precast concrete curbing at the edge of the parking lot.
Jaquith asks for further information about the trash.
There is a discussion about the possible dates for the special meeting.
The parties agree to meet on Tuesday, February 6, 1007, at 6:00 p.m.
Blier: Motion to continue, seconded by Jaquith. All members vote in favor. The motion passes 4-0.
Other Business
5. Approval of minutes
Hartford agrees to defer the approval of the previous meetings’ minutes until the next meeting.
Adjourn
Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith. All members vote in favor. The motion passes 4-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
| 
