CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Wednesday, February 27, 2008
LOCATION: 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith,
Glenn Kennedy
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Daniel, Economic Development Manager
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order.
Projects Under Review
1. 93 Washington Street (City Hall): Review and approval of construction plans
Architect John Seger states that they wish to eliminate the handicapped ramp and replace it with a ground level entrance into a vestibule with an elevator. Other changes he mentions include the door swing, an additional vestibule door, and an entrance mat. He adds that there will be no heating elements blocking the view through the windows. He points out the handicapped sign design and says there will be a sign on the front of the building advising of the handicapped access in the back.
Other issues Seger discusses include the new louver on the upper wall and the relocation of the existing louver to the rear wall. He adds that a temporary ramp entrance will be used during the construction, and later can be converted to a window or brick-filled. He points out the fire escape on the roof plan and states that it will be on the alley-side. He says there will be a storm water drain for the roof that will drain down a corner behind the rear entrance.
Regarding the color, Seger says he prefers the anodized aluminum, which is flatter than the metallic finishes.
Durand states that Seger has addressed most of the board’s concerns. He says he likes the window in back instead of the brick infill.
Blier asks if the window would be of the vocabulary of the old windows, and Seger states that it will.
DeMaio says that overall this is very nice. He says that he prefers that the louvers be painted a darker color, and that the ceiling mounted unit should be flush to the ceiling. He says that the egress door area would need protection with bollards. He states that he likes the color of the aluminum but would prefer something warmer, perhaps champagne.
Blier asks about ownership of the area behind the bank.
Kirsten Kinzer of the Planning Department states that it is public property and some of the land is owned by Salem Five. She adds that they could place a bollard there.
Durand states that a bollard would not be necessary because there is a lack of travel and because the door swing has been adjusted. He agrees with DeMaio’s comment about the color of the louvers.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the construction plans with the following conditions:
§ the louvers shall be painted a darker color;
§ the ceiling unit shall be flush;
§ the exit sign shall be clear; and
§ a window shall replace the temporary ramp egress and will correspond to the historic windows,
seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.
2. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Discussion of proposed schematic design modifications
Daniel states that the SRA sent this to the DRB for recommendations.
Penn Lindsay explains that the market conditions have changed their plans. He says they had a two-prong approach, (1) the applied for federal and state historic tax credits for the original buildings, so they would rent the units in them for 5 years and then convert them to condos, and the duplex units in the jail would now be flats, and (2) they expanded the new building (Alexander building) to add 5 units, so the entire development went from 29 units to 36 units. With these new modifications, Lindsay claims they were able to make the numbers work.
Architect Dan Ricciarelli states that they will use all of the same materials but the Alexander building will have an elevator and a new “L” with parking available under the “L”. He says that they lost some parking spaces in this area of the site and added other spaces elsewhere on the site. He displays the elevations and explains each. He states that there will be parking on the ground level of the “L” and flats on levels 2 and 3. To beautify the parking area in the “L”, Ricciarelli states that there will be glass windows along the façade.
Jaquith states that the window line on either side of the access way looks weak and Ricciarelli agrees to look at this.
Ricciarelli states that the services will use the Bridge Street access.
Blier states that the way this has evolved has made it a better project.
DeMaio says he thinks that this is an improvement but he objects to the exterior materials with the granite on the courtyard side and the brick on the street side. He requests that Ricciarelli consider how these elements come together.
Jaquith states that the stairway in the junction in the back of the “L” presents an interesting challenge.
Durand states that DeMaio has made a good point. He adds that he likes the current design.
Daniel states that SRA/ HSI has expressed support for the concept.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the schematic design, seconded by DeMaio. Passes 5-0.
3. 155-189 Washington Street (Salem News Project, Central House renovation component): Discussion of Final Design Plans for the proposed redevelopment
Durand and Blier recuse themselves from this item and leave the meeting.
Daniel states that there was a request to see historic photos and they are included in the members’ packets, as well as a letter from Historic Salem.
Matthew Picarsic states that the Salem News building will be reviewed in two parts, (1) the renovation of the existing building, and (2) the construction of the new building.
He states that he wishes to provide some more detail of the design features such as the corner detail and the rear elevation.
Kennedy states that the canopy on the back, over the doorway, will help make it look like an entranceway. The doors would be improved with the addition of four-lite windows.
DeMaio objects to the treatment of the windows on the second floor on the Washington Street façade stating that they do not relate to the third floor, so the second and third floor seem totally disconnected. He says that the windows on the second floor do not resemble the historic photos.
Jaquith and Kennedy agree with DeMaio.
Kennedy adds that adding detail above the second floor windows, similar to that above the third floor windows, could help a lot.
Other options were to put two smaller windows in that aligned to those on the third floor, or stretching the second floor windows to align with those of the third.
Picarsic states that he will look into how this will affect the floor plan and the costs of reframing. He adds that building is in bad shape with some leaning walls and it might need to be reshaped, so the reframing might be necessary anyway.
Jaquith agrees with Kennedy about dressing up the service doors in the back. He expresses concern with the fence stating that the openings should be treated with some elements that will define them as openings.
DeMaio agrees and states that the vertical slotted screening is not in keeping with the building and looks cheap.
Jaquith agrees with DeMaio and says that it could have a cap and be painted a soft grey. He suggests using tongue and groove.
DeMaio would like to see greater detail on the rooftop screening perhaps including trim and a cap.
Jason Plais, with Opechee Construction, says that the living space on the second floor demands big windows.
The members agree that the color scheme is acceptable.
Picarsic shows a sample of a window.
Jaquith objects to the muntins being on the inside. He recommends using “Trimline” windows stating that they might be less expensive.
Kennedy suggests that he also check into “Eagle” windows.
Emily Udy from Historic Salem asks about the material on the corner boards.
Picarsic states that they are wood.
Walter Power of the Planning Board states that the main foot traffic will come through the market stalls. He expresses concern about the appearance of the back elevation.
Jaquith states that it is difficult to get some organization to the structure back there.
Kennedy says that they will address the service doors in back to make them look more like entryways, and the detailing and landscaping around the parking lot will also be addressed. He adds that when it is cleaned up it will look much better.
Picarsic says that the detail of the fence will improve the pedestrian experience. He summarizes the items discussed including the detailing of the fence, the dressing-up of the service doors with windows and a canopy, the detailing of the vertical screen, and on the front elevation they will examine other options for the size, type and pediment of the second floor windows. Additional detail on the roof screening is also needed. He commented that the Board seemed to feel the corner treatment and color were fine.
Kennedy states that they could look into the lighting around the service doors in the back. He adds that the detail around the second floor windows would be his first priority, followed by a different brand of window, followed by a different window size.
Picarsic states that they work on these items and return next month.
DeMaio: Motion to continue this item until the next meeting, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 3-0.
4. 155-189 Washington Street (Salem News Project, new construction component): Discussion of Final Design Plans for the proposed redevelopment
Durand and Blier had recused themselves from this item and were not present.
Picarsic mentions the items of detail that will be presented tonight including, potential treatments at the corner, screening or fencing along Artist Row and brick samples.
Daniel states that there is a letter from Emily Udy of Historic Salem Inc.
Jaquith reads that letter into the record.
Udy clarifies that she would like the cornice line at the top of the third floor to continue around the corner.
Jaquith agrees with the comments from Historic Salem regarding the cornice line.
DeMaio states that he had originally liked option 3. He adds that the plane of the fourth floor is set back from the plane of the third floor. He says that if the planes were contiguous it would help the corner. He says that in scheme 2 the third-floor windows are not as wide as the fourth-floor windows.
Jaquith agrees with DeMaio.
Kennedy draws a design and shows it to Picarsic and much discussion ensues regarding the cornice. Jaquith states that, after hearing DeMaio’s comments, he agrees with him about not carrying the cornice line around the corner.
Jaquith asks if the glass is coming down to the floor at the storefront.
Picarsic states that the design intent was to pull the outside inside.
DeMaio states that the grade change presents a problem with bringing the glass all the way down. He suggests using a material that ties into the storefront as the base, and it will vary with the grade change.
Kennedy objects to the green color for the storefront, suggesting black, brown, gray, silver, bronze or several other colors instead of the green.
DeMaio refers to the suggestion from Historic Salem to add lintels or columns to the brick façade. He points out the inconsistencies between the hand drawn design and the computer drawn design. In the hand drawn design, the windows appear larger than the brick space between them. This is preferred. Smaller windows would need detailing around them.
Jaquith objects to the garage doors stating that there is another line that will show up in that design.
DeMaio asks about the color of the fourth floor, the bays.
Jason shows the color samples stating that it will be white.
DeMaio expresses concern about using too much white on the building. He suggests using a warmer neutral color.
Jaquith and Kennedy agree.
Emily Udy states that she would prefer a neutral color.
Picarsic agrees to bring color samples to the next meeting.
DeMaio asks about the step at the corner.
Jaquith suggests carrying the granite around.
DeMaio says that it would be better without any step there at all. DeMaio states that the top of the roof screening should be as high as the top of the roof equipment—no equipment should show. He adds that the galvanized roofing at the bay windows should be painted the same color as the trim work to make it look neat.
Picarsic says that scheme 3 with the window height from 4 seems to be preferred.
Kennedy says that comments of the SRA lean in the direction of getting more glazing on that corner, so number 3 fits best with the comments.
Picarsic states that the 3-5-3 pattern of windows at the corner seems to be preferred. Additional detail work is needed for the windows, the storefront windows relationship to the ground, the step, and the color.
DeMaio suggests they examine the window colors carefully.
The members review the site plan.
The lamp selection is supported by the Board.
Picarsic asks for suggestions of the wrought iron fence.
Udy says that straight lines would be preferred.
Kennedy suggests looking at the design of the property on Essex Street, across the street from “The Old Spot” as a good example for the combination of wrought iron and wood fencing.
DeMaio says that the fence should have some base, perhaps brick.
Jaquith: Motion to continue this item until the next meeting, seconded by DeMaio. Passes 3-0.
5. 211 Washington Street (Hawthorne Building): Discussion of proposed alteration to approved awning scheme
Durand and Blier had recused themselves from this item and were not present.
Picarsic states that Starbucks would like to place lettering on their awning. The members review the design.
Jaquith states that he has no problem with the lettering.
Daniel states that the original approval states that there will be no text on the awnings.
DeMaio states that the lettering should appear only on the hard-framed valance of the awning, not on the sloped portion.
The members express concern about setting precedent with this approval for lettering on the awning.
Kennedy says that the lettering should be a maximum of 5 inches tall.
DeMaio: Motion to approve the lettering (name only, no contact information) on the hard-framed valance portion of the awning. The letters will be a maximum of 5 inches tall. The motion is seconded by Jaquith. Passes 3-0.
6. 90 Lafayette Street: Discussion of proposed lighting scheme
Durand and Blier had recused themselves from this item and were not present.
Picarsic shows an example of the goose-neck light and states that the lights only come in white, black, green, or silver.
The members agree that their first choice would be silver and their second choice would be black.
DeMaio states that one light should be centered over the left door and the others evenly along the front.
DeMaio: Motion to approve the lighting with the above suggestions, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 3-0.
7. 247 Essex Street (a/k/a 118 Washington Street; Gulu-Gulu Café): Discussion of proposed window decal sign
Owner Steve Feldmann states that the tree line hides the sign on the Washington Street side. He states that he wishes to solve this challenge with a decal on one of the windows which would be in black and white.
Kennedy states that the decal seems a little too big. He says that the image fits.
Durand states that the bigness is the thing.
DeMaio states that the Gulu-Gulu is trying to deal with a problem that was created by the developer which is the location of the stairs. He states that a better solution would be to brighten up the window up a bit and add a display box.
Durand states that the stair is a mistake but it is there and the decal would distract from the stairs.
DeMaio says that he has no problem with the sign but it might not be completely effective.
Blier states that the text is redundant and the dog is great.
Durand adds that the text is more like a border.
Kennedy suggests using the yellow sign color for the lettering on the decal, and the others agree.
Kennedy: Motion to approve this sign design provided it will be 90% of the originally proposed size, and have yellow lettering, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
8. 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins Building): Update on sign band
Daniel states that this issue came up at the last meeting. He calls attention to the photos of the sign band, and the members review the photos. They agree that the sign band is acceptable.
Daniel states that no action is necessary.
9. Approval of Minutes – December 19, 2007, January 23, 2008, and January 24, 2008 Meetings
Voting members present for these approvals are Durand, DeMaio, and Blier.
DeMaio: Motion to approve the amended minutes for the December 19, 2007 meeting, seconded by Durand. Passes 2-0. Blier abstains because he as not present.
DeMaio: Motion to approve the minutes for the January 23, 2008 meeting, seconded by Blier. Passes 3-0.
DeMaio approves the minutes for the January 24, 2008 meeting. Durand and Blier abstain because they were not present.
Voting members present for the adjournment are Jaquith, DeMaio, and Kennedy.
Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, seconded by DeMaio. Passes 3-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:15 PM.
| 
