Loading...
2025-07-23 Meeting MinutesDRB July 23, 2025 Page 1 of 6 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, July 23, 2025, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Leeann Leftwich, Kate Martin, Marc Perras, Sarah Tarbet, and Catherine Miller DRB Members Absent: Elizabeth Murray Others Present: Stephanie Owens, Senior Planner Recorder: Christine Petryszyn The meeting was called to order at 6:02pm. Roll call was taken. Signs in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 75 Washington Street: Dire Wolf Tavern A-frame Monica Hauenstein was present to discuss the proposal: • The applicant reviewed the A-frames they wish to use including a generic sign with a chalkboard background they could use for what they would be promoting at that time. • They want to place the A-frame close to the front door. • Ms. Leftwich recommended screening back the image of one of the designs a bit more to allow for more readability of the type. • The applicant shared the A-frame with logo border. The A-frame is a corrugated weatherproof plastic with a border that can be swapped out. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to approve as presented. Seconded by Leftwich. Roll Call: Leftwich, Martin, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 2. 281 Essex Street, Unit C3: The Good Witch of Salem Ashley Tina was present to discuss the proposal: • Images of the sign were shared, which is die cut. • All the experience-based retail is being moved to this space, including birthday parties. • There is an existing bracket, which will remain and the new sign, which is 40” wide, will be attached. • This would be the only sign on Crombie St., which is otherwise residential. There are no other signs to match. • An application will be forthcoming for an A-frame. There were no comments from the public. DRB July 23, 2025 Page 2 of 6 VOTE: Ms. Martin made a motion to approve. Seconded by Perras. Roll Call: Leftwich, Martin, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 288 Derby Street: Small Project Review – Review of proposal to modify the rear façade by adding faux storefronts with display windows. Request to continue to the next DRB meeting on August 27, 2025 2. 292 Essex Street: Small Project Review – Review of Salem Housing Authority’s proposal to replace the roof. Deborah Tucker, Salem Housing Authority, and Andy Brock, were present to discuss the proposal: • Ms. Tucker reported that that the Salem Housing Authority owns the top two floors and that the roof is in very poor condition. • Mr. Brock reported that the building forms the corner of Essex St. and Sewell Street and that it is a 10,000 sf low slope roof. • The roof has a high point in the middle which slopes towards Essex Street. • The existing roof consists of a gravel bond coat which sits on a wood deck. There is no insulation on the roof. • Photos of the roof and building were shared, including detailed photos of the existing conditions and a detailed plan for the replacement of the cornice. • In order to comply with energy codes, 5” of ridge insulation will be added to the existing decking, along with a ½” cover board and tapered edge strip. After covering there will be a 12” high fascia. • The Historical Commission requested a higher set back, which will be 4-5 inches. • The fascia panel will be white, similar to what is there today. • The roof will be a modified bitumen on top of the insulation. The roof will be white. • There are a series of roof drains along the perimeter. No additional drains or scuppers will be added. • The skylights will be raised 6” to accommodate the new roof. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve as presented. Seconded by Martin. Roll Call: Leftwich, Martin, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 3. 246 Essex Street, Unit B: Small Project Review – Review of proposed façade painting for Witch City Broom, Co. Micah Hapworth was present to discuss the project: • Ms. Hapworth said that she is seeking approval to change the exterior color of the building to Gentlemen’s Gray by Benjamin Moore. It is currently a faded black color, and has been for many years. • Images of the building were shared. DRB July 23, 2025 Page 3 of 6 • Ms. Hapworth said she had also been seeking to add a grid pattern to the windows, but they have withdrawn that portion of the request. • A rendering was shown, but the color was not completely accurate. • The blues on the sign will match. The sign has already been approved with the new color. • Ms. Miller noted that she was a little torn on having the storefronts not be all the same color, but that she did like the proposed color. • Ms. Hapworth noted that she included a letter from the condo association and abutters who plan to seek approval for the same color in the future. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve as presented. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Leftwich, Martin, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 4. 76 Lafayette Street: Small Project Review – Review of proposed closure of parking lot entrance. Justin Sharkey, RCG, was present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Sharkey reported that they are seeking to close off the entrance to the 76 Lafayette parking lot. • Images, including aerial photographs, were shown. • There is another entrance to the parking lot on New Derby. • The Fire Department, Police Department, and Traffic and Safety Department have all signed off on the proposal. • The curb cut will remain. • The raised concrete medians will be removed, and three more parking spaces will be created. • The fence will be replicated/filled-in at the closed entrance. • There is no plan to address the damaged sidewalk, but the applicant said he would look into it. • The New Derby entrance will be the only one into the parking lot. • The applicant feels one entrance will enable them to better manage the lot, i.e. no more people coming in for U-turns. • Ms. Tarbet inquired about the narrowness and potential safety issues of that street, but noted that it was likely a question for the City. The applicant said he did not have a plan to address those issues, but acknowledged it was a very congested area. • Ms. Tarbet will send an email to Ms. Owens outlining these concerns, and those about the sidewalk disrepair. Ms. Owens will make sure it gets into the right hands. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve as presented. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Leftwich, Martin, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 5. 301 Essex Street: Schematic Design Review – Review of residential units and interior building layout. The DRB previously recommended approval of exterior designs for the amendment, which consists of the ground floor as commercial space instead of a parking garage. DRB July 23, 2025 Page 4 of 6 Dan Ricciarelli, Mike Becker, and Charissa Vitas were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Ricciarelli reported that they attended the SRA meeting a couple of weeks ago, and the SRA sought feedback on the unit types and viability of the layouts. • This is primarily an interior review with some exterior impact. • Changes to the exterior of the building were made based on previous DRB comments, and there have been minor changes made to the façade. • The floor plans were shared. • There are 30 units being proposed, with the first floor being entirely commercial. • The 30 units are made up of 9 studios, 12 one BRs, and four BRs. The size of the studios range from 351 sf to 450 sf. The one BR units range from 400 sf to 709 sf and the two BRs range from 732 sf to 1,010 sf. • The applicant expects to attract varying demographics. The building includes bike storage. • The units all have kitchens, baths, etc. • Ceiling height is expected to be 9’1”. They are trying to allow for windows in bedrooms and living space. • Deck space is provided on some of the floors. • The parapet is 4 ft. • Elevation plans were shown. • Ms. Owens reported that the SRA would like the DRB to issue a communication that details how the proposed units meet the Boston criteria and if they do not meet certain criteria, how they are deficient. The SRA would then review the communication and work towards a vote on the project. She said that there are compact living guidelines in Boston that they are trying to use for a base. Ms. Owens drafted a matrix that includes the different elements to the guidelines to be used for comparison. • Mr. Durand added that the SRA’s main concern was around the livability of the units as they are small. He added that he reviewed the plans for that concern and he thinks they are livable, even the smallest units. He said there can’t be much furniture and only a fairly small or modest bed. • Ms. Martin agreed, and noted that it looked like there was one room where it might be difficult to fit a bed. • Ms. Miller asked about unit 22 and noted that living room looks more like a hallway. She said that was one item that came up in the request that furniture could be installed and create livable spaces. • Mr. Ricciarelli said he saw that concern but expected that through the design process that would be addressed. • Mr. Durand said that he thinks if the applicant shows them examples of furniture layouts in these units, they could answer the SRA’s question. • Ms. Miller noted that some of the units on the 5th floor don’t have a bathroom on the main floor. She felt that for livability that would be a good thing. • Mr. Becker said that for the 3rd and 4th floor there were two layout choices for the kitchen, but he said those are larger units. He said they did consider different layouts. • Ms. Miller and Mr. Durand agreed that a window facing a wall is better than no window. • Mr. Becker said they have increased the square footage of the smallest units by removing one unit since the last SRA meeting. DRB July 23, 2025 Page 5 of 6 • Mr. Perras was supportive of the concept and thinks the multiple size units and multiple demographics is a nice thing for Salem. He thought asking the DRB to review each unit was likely out of the DRB’s purview. • Mr. Becker said they have eliminated all the units that were under 350 sf, which is the maximum under the Boston criteria. • Mr. Durand said that he believes they need to see sample furniture layout to be able to testify that they are livable. He said he does think they are workable but is looking for something to be able to see to satisfy their question. He thinks the applicant should show every unit. • Ms. Owens said the SRA continued to have questions about the smaller units at their June meeting and again at their July meeting after the units were made bigger. She said there were questions about personal storage area, real time transit screens, etc. • Mr. Perras asked if there were any issues around building accessibility, door swings, turning radius, etc. Mr. Ricciarelli said the plan is schematic at this point, that they would have to do that as part of the development process. • Mr. Durand said seeing all that, furniture placement, door swings, proper clearance, etc. is what they would want to see. • Ms. Miller inquired whether this could be continued until they have ZBA and Planning Board approval. • Mr. Becker said they don’t intend to go before the ZBA without DRB and SRA recommendation. They would like to have a final product before going to ZBA. • The applicant did not receive the SRA’s memo. • Some of the units have mini split heating/cooling and the top units will have condensers on the roof. Mr. Becker reviewed the mechanicals on the floors. • Ms. Tarbet noted that the plan doesn’t show the height of the units so they can’t say the 8’10” height requirement is being met. She said the shared space is a minimum of 40 sf per unit at this size. She also said that storage is noted as something that should be provided. She echoed Ms. Miller’s comment regarding the windows, and that even a small window at the end of the hallway could add more life to the internal hallways. • Ms. Miller acknowledged the conundrum of the SRA facing something new and wanting to ask the DRB to weigh in. She said future projects may be easier, but this first one may be a struggle to get everyone on the same page but that it will be worth it in the end. • Mr. Ricciarelli said they would run some flip furniture and make some tweaks to the layout. • Mr. Becker said that other micro-units in Salem have been completed. • Mr. Perras said they will need to see the doors in all the units, including the penthouse units. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to continue. Seconded by Perras. Roll Call: Leftwich, Martin, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. Projects Outside the Urban Renewal Area There are no projects to review. DRB July 23, 2025 Page 6 of 6 New / Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: a. June 11, 2025 b. June 25, 2025 VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve the June 11th and June 2025 meeting minutes. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. Martin abstained. 5-0 in favor. 2. Staff updates, if any There were no staff updates. Upcoming Meetings 1. SRA: August 13th 2. DRB: August 27th Adjournment VOTE: Ms. Tarbet made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Miller. All in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:20PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033