Loading...
2024-05-22 Revised DRAFT Meeting MinutesDRB May 22, 2024 Page 1 of 11 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, May 22 2024, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting SRA Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Leeann Leftwich, Catherine Miller, Marc Perras, Sarah Tarbet SRA Members Absent: David Jaquith, Elizabeth Murray Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner Recorder: Beth Forrestal Signs in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 137 Essex Street: Peabody Essex Museum ‘Ghost Box’ Pop-Up Retail Space Leeann Leftwich recuses herself from this application due to her professional relationship with the Peabody Essex Museum. Mia Alcovar and Julie Diewald from the Peabody Essex Museum were present to discuss the proposal. Planning to use 135 Essex to celebrate temporary exhibitions with pop-up retail space and information on the temporary exhibits. A temporary sign will be on the façade facing Essex Street and two smaller signs are proposed for the doors. Mr. Durand asks about the position of the sign and Ms. Alcovar says that they are proposing a mural in the future for the larger space and including the columns/alcove. Ms. Newhall-Smith shares that the PEM wants to use this space for popup retail and they are trying to designate a space to feature temporary art that will always go in the proposed space. Sign applications will be reviewed each time the exhibit changes, but the idea is that the mural will not be reviewed each time. Ms. Newhall-Smith proposes that the board consider the mural location as well as this will allow for timeliness in obtaining the vinyl wrap. Ms. Miller wonders how this doesn’t set a precedent for other businesses on Essex Street. Ms. Newhall smith says that determining the allowed extent of coverage can keep this equitable. KNS Ms. Newhall-Smith says that determining the extent of coverage can keep it equitable. Ms. Miller asks when this becomes an architectural feature on the building and suggests that maybe a panel above the door would be more appropriate without encompassing the pillars and inside walls. Ms. Tarbet likes the architectural aspect of it; as does Mr. Durand and believes this provides more connectivity with PEM. Ms. Miller believes that the board will need to see the elements of the wrap. Board members discuss the proposed artwork for the mural. They view the artwork as advertising, acknowledging that the art isn’t advertising something contemporary, but it presents as an advertisement. Members discussed modifying the proposed artwork so that the text is removed and also asked the applicant if there are other options that do not include text. They discuss this application as precedent setting and could impact how other businesses along the pedestrian mall and the downtown treat their facades. DRB May 22, 2024 Page 2 of 11 Due to Tthe board’s has concerns about the text on the proposed wrap and the precedent setting nature of this proposal, . Ms. Miller, with the agreement of her fellow board members, would like to see a revised proposal and also ensure that the Board will see future mural proposals to ensure that they do not present as advertising. Ms. Miller states says that while the wrapping of the building is appropriate and impactful, the SRA and the DRB will need to review artwork as this is setting a precedent. Members agree that they would like to see the artwork proposed each time it changes rather than a blanket approval for building coverage as proposed by the applicant. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the signage as presented. Seconded by: Miller. Roll Call: Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 4-0 in favor. Members request that their comments be shared with the SRA, Ms. Newhall-Smith confirms that she will share their concerns and comments with the Authority in advance of their review of the mural proposal. 2. 32 Church Street: Henley Interior Design Studio Ken McTague, Concept Signs, was present to discuss the proposal. Hanging sign plus ¼ inch thick brass lettering on the door/address. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the signage as presented. Seconded by: Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. 3. 270 Essex Street: Texture A-Frame Sign John Korpusik, owner, was present to discuss the proposal. Ms. Leftwich would like the A-frame sign to mimic the hanging sign. Miller says make sure it isn’t in the space where the yellow line is. Perras says to keep it accessible. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. DRB May 22, 2024 Page 3 of 11 Public comment is closed. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the signage with the following conditions: use the same business logo on the A-Frame that is on the existing projecting sign, place the A-Frame sign on the sidewalk so that it complies with all accessibility requirements, and ensure the sign does not encroach on the gold Heritage Trail that is painted on the sidewalk. Seconded by: Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 30 Federal Street: Review of 100% Design Drawings for Phase 1 – Review of plans for the installation of a new south entry door, a railing modification, and relocation of existing, previously approved tenant sign. Michael Becker, owner, was present to discuss the project. Ms. Newhall-Smith updates the board on what happened at the SRA meeting. Mr. Becker wants to do the project in multiple phases and the SRA agreed. Mr. Perras asks if the sunken courtyard will remain. Ms. Miller asks if the news sidewalk slopes. Mr. Becker says that it will be wheelchair accessible, but there is a difference of a few inches right now as the sidewalk slopes uphill. Ms. Miller sees this as a tripping hazard and thinks they should have a clear curb and then ramp from there. She also states the need to create adequate space for push space inside the building. Public Comment: Pam Broderick, 28 Federal Street Asks about the original entrance and if the museum visitors will access through this way? If yes, then what happens with the A-frame in the space? The concern is that it would be right on Washington street. Mr. Becker says that the A-frame will be close to the entrance door and they will have use for existing door, but not the primary. Ms. Newhall-Smith says that A-frames need to be within ten (10) feet of the entrance. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. Ms. Tarbet reminds that the ramp curb should be four inches (4”) minimum high on the ramp side. VOTE: Miller made a motion to accept the 100% design drawings for Phase 1 of the project, with the following conditions: to add a curb along the outer edge of the sloped sidewalk, to ensure that the curb and the sloped sidewalk meeting accessibility standards and regulations, to ensure DRB May 22, 2024 Page 4 of 11 that the entrance meets accessibility codes for its operation, and to place the permitted A- Frame sign to be placed on the subject property at the Federal Street end of the sloped sidewalk. Seconded by: Perras. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. 2. 1-7 Central Street: Small Project Review – Removal of existing brick wall on the back and side of the building from the second floor to the roof line and rebuild of same using salvaged bricks, repair chimney and fire escape bracket. David Pabich, owner, was present to discuss the proposal. Mr. Perras asks what the percentage of bricks being removed is. Mr. Pabich doesn’t know but there are five (5) windows total and the project will be done bit-by-bit. Mr. Perras confirms that this is not public facing. Mr. Pabich has allowed the contractor to regrout/repoint as needed across the façade. Mr. Perras asks if they will truly salvage the bricks? Mr. Pabich says no, but they will match. Ms. Newhall-Smith shares what the Preservation Planner recommended for the mortar and brick. Mortar should be historically appropriate that matches. And new brick should be incorporated with salvaged brick. Ms. Miller recommends Mr. Pabich check out Morin in Maine. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. Mr. Perras wants to know how to determine the best match? Mr. Pabich asks if the board is amenable to work beginning but having a test patch done and reviewed. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the proposal with the following recommended conditions: for the applicant to create a mockup or repoint a small area on the building using the proposed mortar and bricks and, via the Principal Planner, share this work with the Board for review and approval by a board member. Seconded by: Miller. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area – Outdoor Dining 1. 227 Essex Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Rockafellas. Kevin Marchino, co-owner, was present to discuss the project. Mr. Marchino says that the fabric paint he attempted to use to cover the logo was not a great success. He can recanopy the umbrella instead. Board prefers the latter idea. Regarding the planters on Essex Street, each end has kick planters for accessibility. DRB May 22, 2024 Page 5 of 11 Ms. Tarbet asks where the Essex Street exit is. It is the side door. People can exit onto Essex Street. Mr. Perras says that he doesn’t see accessible tables. Mr. Marchino says that they do have accessible tables. The planters are all black. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. VOTE: Tarbet made a motion to approve the proposal with the applicant to recanopy the umbrellas with plain black fabric. Seconded by: Perras. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. 2. 2 East India Square: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Red Line Café Aristidis and Juliana Tzavaras, owners, were present to discuss the project. Black chain around the tables and aligned the signs with the tables. Planters added as well. One accessible table is by the door. Mr. Perras asks about the vehicular traffic, should there be something more substantial for protection? Ms. Newhall-Smith is unfamiliar with the pedestrian mall traffic numbers. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment is closed. Ms. Tarbet wants to know if anyone is commenting on vehicular safety of outdoor dining? Ms. Newhall-Smith says that Police and Traffic and Parking can review this. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the proposal as presented. Seconded by: Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. 3. 2 East India Square: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining on Church Street for Thai Place Sophon Naulpring of Thai Place was present to discuss the project. Same set up as last year. Ms. Miller asks if there is a curb cut. There is an entrance that is level. Mr. Perras would like to have all chains, not a combination of stanchions and chains. Ms. Tarbel asks about the tables by the windows. They have already been approved. The umbrellas have had the text removed, not covered. Ms. Tarbet thinks the umbrellas should be recanopied. Public Comment: DRB May 22, 2024 Page 6 of 11 No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public Comment is closed. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the proposal with the following recommended conditions: the applicant may use the existing orange umbrellas with the logo removed for the 2024 outdoor dining season but must return to the Board once the season is over to review how the umbrellas have faded and if the text is still visible; and with black stanchions and chains rather than the fabric ribbon. Seconded by: Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. 4. 282R Derby Street – Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Paprika Grill Umut Bekler, owner, was present to discuss the project. Fencing has been removed. Accessible area will be level (brick). Deck area is currently not on level ground. Mr. Bekler is thinking a deck solution but open to other ideas. Mr. Bekler also proposes a sign on the corner of the brick building “Paprika Patio” as there is a business between the restaurant and the patio area. Ms. Tarbet likes the idea of a platform but thinks by having an actual entry that it will help to delineate it as an establishment. She would be in favor of a small sign on the entry rather than on the brick façade. Is the platform flush from the back area to the deck area? It is not. Ms. Tarbet wants the platform to be even everywhere. The concrete remains but the platform is level with the concrete. Ms. Miller is concerned that there are trees in the space and if things are built then the trees will die. Mr. Bekler says that will give the tree space. Mr. Perras would like to understand the details of the decking. Also thinks signage is appropriate and agrees with Ms. Tarbet. Mr. Durand thinks that there should be tree wells for the tree’s safety and a paver system for safety. Ms. Newhall-Smith will reach out to DPS to improve this issue. Wonders if we can move the project forward and come up with solutions after the outdoor dining season. Public Comment: Russ Tanzer, employee of South Harbor Holdings, 281-287 Derby Street Is in favor of the project and would like it to move forward. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Public Comment is closed. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the proposed new dining area at grade that allows for accessibility, to allow the use of the existing landscaped area for this season to give the City time to review that area and how it could be improved, and a small sign indicating the area is for DRB May 22, 2024 Page 7 of 11 Paprika Grill customers to be placed in a planter at the entrance to the space. Seconded by: Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. 5. 283 Derby Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Witchside Tavern Mazen Mouhiddin, owner, and Brianna Mason were present to discuss the project. The setup is the same as the last few years. The patio has been permanent the last four years. Two high-tops are being replaced with café tables. Ms. Miller asks if they will be doing umbrellas. Ms. Mason says that have put up plain black umbrellas. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public Comment is closed. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the proposal as presented. Seconded by: Leftwich. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. 6. 203 Essex Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Hotel Salem Zachary Trznadel was present to discuss the project. Proposing to put table on the right side of the front of the building to add four more tables and twelve more chairs. Mr. Perras asks the color of the umbrella. It is navy. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment period is closed. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the proposal as presented. Seconded by: Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. 7. 120 Washington Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Gulu-Gulu Café Steve Feldmann, co-owner, was present to discuss the project. Mr. Perras asks if it is a shared dining space with Flying Saucer. It is not shared. Mr. Perras does not see one at Flying Saucer – there is one. Ms. Miller asked about the additional step. Mr. Feldman said people were falling. Accessible access is from Essex Street. Public Comment: DRB May 22, 2024 Page 8 of 11 No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment period is closed. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the proposal as presented. Seconded by: Leftwich. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. 8. 120 Washington Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Flying Saucer Pizza Company Steve Feldmann, co-owner, was present to discuss the project, which was presented in conjunction with the Gulu Gulu patio. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment period is closed. VOTE: Tarbet made a motion to approve the proposal as presented. Seconded by: Perras. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. 9. 76 Lafayette Street: Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed outdoor dining for Howling Wolf Ross Thereault, owner, was present to discuss the project. Same set up as last year, minus logo umbrellas. Ms. Miller discussed that the board would like lattices to be wood structured and painted black. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment period is closed. VOTE: Perras made a motion to approve the proposal with the following recommended conditions: all of the woodwork that forms the fencing around the dining area shall be painted black on all sides, and the applicant shall recanopy the umbrellas with plain black fabric. Seconded by: Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. Projects Outside the Urban Renewal Area DRB May 22, 2024 Page 9 of 11 1. 75 North Street: North River Canal Corridor – Design review of four-story, 60-unit multi-family residential building on approximately one-acre of land at the corner of North and Commercial Streets. Chris Koeplin, Beverly Crossing, Dan Skolski, DMS Design, Bob Uhlig, Halverson Tighe & Bond were present to discuss the project. Mr. Koeplin recaps the project’s progress so far. Mr. Uhlig, landscape architect, shares planting updates. Have developed a plan to incorporate tree species to comply with the city’s tree manual. Removing trees that are not in good shape as well as invasive species. Removing 68 caliper inches and adding 105 caliper inches. On the north side, a composition of trees. Have moved a walkway to the edge of site to allow for more plantings. On the south side, powerlines are an issue here too. There will be a variety of plants here as well. All trees on south side are on the city’s flood tolerant tree list. Mr. Skolksi, architect. Mr. Skolski shares that they have expanded the office retail space and made the shape more useful. Mr. Skolksi shares the new façade with adjustment to windows and coloring. A dark metal panel has been added to the vertical windows. Additional brick has been added to the exterior on Commercial Street. Mr. Perras thinks the project has gotten better but wonders if they have looked at rotating the short wing so it is perpendicular with Mason Street rather than at an angle as current angle is creating pinch points? Mr. Skolksi says that the 90-degree angle pinched the parking. Mr. Koeplin adds that the 90-degree angle didn’t work with the parking. Perras on elevation and materials is substantially better. Mr. Perras finds the fenestration pattern is overly repetitive and asks if the spandrels are opaque metal; Mr. Skolksi says that they are an aluminum frame with an aluminum composite material. Ms. Miller asks the color of the trim. Mr. Skolksi say is either dark gray or black. Ms. Miller likes the gray on the other panels and wonders if the gray might be more subtle than stark black. Ms. Tarbet would like to make the entry to the commercial space more commercial looking, maybe by wrapping the canopy around? Regarding the spandrels, she appreciates brick in this space and would like to see the applicant apply a more tectonic rhythm, if it worked with the interior layout to get more of a mill building look. She wonders if the electrical room is positioned best from a resiliency standpoint. Doesn’t like the brick striping. Mr. Skolski say that they may be able to make the striping wider. Ms. Tarbet says it feels too deconstructed right now. Ms. Miller asks if there is a way to make brick striping to make it feel like an end wall on to mason? Not all the way to Mason Street, but the depth of the middle part of the building. Mr. Skolksi say that they could play around this a little bit. Ms. Miller ask if they could remove the patch of green in front of the retail space. Additionally, she would like to see more ground covering plants rather than mulch as mulch adds significant DRB May 22, 2024 Page 10 of 11 nitrogen into water. Mr. Uhlig says that it is a commitment to maintenance. Ms. Miller say that even ivy would require less maintenance. Mr. Uhlig confirms that the front, on North Street, are free standing planters, not in-ground plantings. Mr. Perras likes the spandrel idea of Sarah’s. Do they need the lower cornice above the first floor? Mr. Skolksi says that they have some brick detailing but to rework it for more brick. We did have brick before. Mr. Koeplin says that you could band just over the retail and entrance to highlight the active space. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. Public comment period is closed. Ms. Newhall-Smith asks if they have looked at rooftop mechanicals and meters. And what about the meters? Mr. Koeplin responds that the meters will be indoors and the mechanicals are likely to be shielded by the brick cornice. VOTE: Tarbet made a motion to continue the review to the June 26, 2024 meeting. Seconded by: Perras. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, Durand. 5-0 in favor. New / Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: a. April 24, 2024 VOTE: Miller: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: Perras. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand were in favor. Passes 5-0. 2. Sign Manual Update Project – Update on Project Status Ms. Newhall-Smith thanks Leeann for her work on the manual, her diagrams and formatting. She confirms that she will be reviewing the draft with Tom Daniel in the next few weeks with the goal of bringing the draft to the full board at the June meeting. 3. Staff Updates, if any: Ms. Newhall-Smith shares that there is a new planner coming on board in mid-June who will likely be taking over DRB. Ms. Miller notes that the PEM’s Bat Box pop-up has signs in the windows. Ms. Newhall-Smith says that it was good that they presented this evening as they can now work towards compliance. Mr. Durand concurs and was disappointed that the wrap was more “witch” stuff. Mr. Perras is glad that Ms. Miller brought up that this will set precedent. DRB May 22, 2024 Page 11 of 11 Adjournment VOTE: Miller: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by: Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand were in favor. Passes 5-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:30PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033