Loading...
2026-04-22 Meeting MinutesDRB April 22, 2026 Page 1 of 7 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Daniel Estes, Kate Martin (joined at 6:09pm), Catherine Miller, and Sarah Tarbet DRB Members Absent: Elizabeth Murray and Marc Perras Others Present: Stephanie Owens, Senior Planner Recorder: Christine Petryszyn The meeting was called to order at 6:01pm. Roll call was taken. Storefront Improvement Program 1. 109 Bridge Street: New Market sign refacing Mr. Steer was present to review the sign. • The applicant noted that he is doing the sign rework for New Market. • The building frontage is 44’ 10”. The sign cabinet is in 4 sections 24’ x 2” (48 total). • The cabinets will be aluminum, polycarbonate faces, LED lighting. Primary letters will be 15.5”. Secondary letters will be 7”. They will be bolted to the wooden façade. • The cabinets will be removed, refreshed, and reinstalled in the same configuration. • The Coca-Cola advertisements are no longer allowed. A list of the items they sale will be included in its place. • Ms. Owens noted that the project doesn’t require a traditional vote as it is part of the storefront improvement program and outside of the downtown, but part of the process includes the DRB’s review. There were no comments or questions from the members of the public. • Mr. Durand noted that he didn’t have any improvements, that it was primarily a refurbishment. The DRB didn’t have any comments and can forward that information to the Planning Board. • The primary change was the refurbishment of the building. • Ms. Owens will provide a write-up for the Planning Board as part of the project’s application materials. DRB April 22, 2026 Page 2 of 7 Signs and Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 304 Essex Street: Signage & Small Project Review – Review of proposed signage and facade modifications at Wicked Ducks. Dr. Courtney Lobraico was present to discuss the proposal: • Dr. Lobraico reviewed the storefront image that was shared. She said the company, Wicked Ducks, makes luxury rubber ducks for high profile clients. They also have a charity and foundation called Ducks on a Mission. They make ducks for organizations to sell to raise money for charities. • There will be bubble decals in the windows. The hanging sign will be in the same bracket as the previous store. The same size was used. • An image of the proposed sign was shared. • In response to Ms. Martin’s question, Ms. Owens reported that the combined size of all the signs were under the square footage the requirement, this included the radius calculations for all the circles. • Ms. Miller noted that that storefront image was not to scale. • The Wicked Ducks sign will be placed in the middle. The Ducks on a Mission will be a little smaller, but on the same line or about a quarter of the way up. The bubbles could be shifted as needed. • Ms. Tarbet recommended that the fonts on the signs match. The applicant noted that the fonts will match. • Ms. Tarbet said she wasn’t a fan of the bubbles particularly as they are paired with the blue façade color. She inquired as to the top transom glass not being transparent and that bubble decals may really stand out. • Mr. Durand noted that bubbles are transparent so believes it will be subtle. Ms. Martin agreed and noted that they match the brand well. • The blue façade was shared. The color proposed is Paddington Blue (791), by Benjamin Moore. It is the same blue as the logo. • The decals are proposed for the outside. There were no comments or questions from members of the public. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to approve with the Wicked Duck sign staying as proposed and the Ducks on a Mission be lowered so that it is three quarters of the way down from the top. The sign is approved. The font will be consistent, and the blue color is approved. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Estes, Martin, Miller, Tarbet, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. 2. 128 Essex Street: Small Project Review – Review of proposed ADA accessible ramp entrance at the Gardner- Pingree House. Steve Gerrard, Steve Mallory, and Christopher Cole were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Gerrard described the project which includes bringing accessibility to the Gardner Pingree House, which is one of the most important historic houses within the Essex Street block and a treasure of the P.E.M. DRB April 22, 2026 Page 3 of 7 • An aerial and first floor plan was shared. The goal is to make the first floor, including the summer kitchen, be accessible through the inside back of the building. An image of the rear of the building was shared showing where the grade will be raised. The walkway will be reworked and feathered into the brick pavers. • The rear doorway will be the entrance for all tour groups. • A plan of the proposed ramp was shared. The paving will be brought up 12 inches which will provide access to the summer kitchen door. The walkway will be widened. A new bulkhead will be constructed. • Renderings of the proposed changes were shared. • The drains will be redone. All details of the walls will be done in granite. Planting beds and benches will be installed. Guardrails and handrails will be painted black. • The summer kitchen door will be replaced with something closer to what was original to the building. • The top handrail will be lit with illuminated disks. • Ms. Miller clarified that the brick path must be wide enough to get all the way to the back entrance because the gravel is not an ADA accessible material. She noted that Massachusetts requires an A1 foot level extension by law and that it was not shown on the drawings. Mr. Gerrard said they would add that. • The guardrail does not sit on the granite. • Ms. Miller noted that she thought the architecture would be stronger and cleaner if the planting bed did not exist. She said that unless it was irrigated, it would look like a mulch bed. Mr. Gerrard said it would be irrigated and it was the museum’s desire to have the planting bed. Mr. Cole reiterated that it was a request of the museum and that they have a very capable landscape/horticultural team. • Mr. Estes noted that there are at least five different types of guardrails in the area. Mr. Gerrard said the inspiration for the one they chose was inspired by an entrance gate. A photo of that gate was shared. There were no comments or questions from members of the public. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to approve with the handrail extensions. Seconded by Martin. Roll Call: Estes, Martin, Miller, Tarbet, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. Projects Outside the Urban Renewal Area 1. 8 Harrison Road, 9 Harrison Road and 262 Loring Ave, 266 Loring Ave: Smart Growth Overlay District - Design review of the proposed second phase of a multi-phase project known collectively as the Forest River Residences. The second phase includes up to 145 dwelling units through the adaptive reuse of the three existing Salem State University South Campus buildings (Harrington, Academic, and Alumni buildings) and the construction of one new four-story residential building along Harrison Road. No changes are proposed to the footprints of the existing buildings. Site improvements will also include approximately 159 off-street surface parking spots and a connective network of landscaped common areas and pedestrian paths. DRB April 22, 2026 Page 4 of 7 Ms. Owens noted that a 23B3 form for this project has been submitted to the SRA for Mr. Estes. Steve Senna and Derek Hanson with Winn Development, Bethany Moody and Matt Marotta with Icon Architecture, and Jen Ng and Mark Klopfer with Klopfer Design were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Senna noted that they have received many comments from the DRB and Planning Board on the Avalon and Winn project and have done their best to organize the comments based on those the DRB raised. He also touched on the site constraints including the grades, the riverfront setback and wetland buffers, design requirements for senior housing and affordability. Subsidy programs and historic tax credits also create another set of rules and constraints as do commitments to DCAMM, Salem State College, and the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. • Ms. Moody reviewed the April 9th presentation. She described the upper and lower campus and the adaptation of existing building and one new building. She noted that the historic entries and features will be redeveloped under the purview of NPS and MHC. Accessible connections will be made and modifications to existing buildings will be made to improve connections. • Ms. Moody reviewed the rehab work need to stabilize the buildings, protect its history, and ensure future occupant comfort. • Some of the mid-century modern structure components will be preserved. • An aerial of the site plan was shared that showed updates. • Modifications were made to the Harrington entry for accessibility. Updated renderings were shared. • The Home Depot downspouts will be removed from Harrington Hall and an appropriate drainage solution will be made. • A rendering of the full site was shared showing how the Avalon and Winn buildings will look together. • The material board was shared and samples will be provided. • Responding to comments from the Planning Board and DRB, the applicant has emphasized the masonry piers to better match the Harrington Building and treated the masonry opening with a lighter infill, and the canopy has been simplified. • The Harrison Building is sited so that it maintains the street front and defines the street edge per the Design Guidelines consistent with single family homes. Increasing the building setback will require more cut into the grade and impact to mature trees. • A rear-view rendering of the back of the Harrison Building was shared. A wood guardrail will be installed. • Ms. Tarbet noted that she appreciated the changes. She liked the corner, but said the triple stack was bothering. She inquired whether it would be better as a brick protrusion or brick volume. She thought the wood was nice but wasn’t sure it was needed as an additional material as the brick was quite warm. • The curtain wall is a gray bronze. • Ms. Miller noted that she appreciated that the awning is gone, but suggested it could be improved if it wasn’t red. • It was discussed that having the building look not old and dated, but also not trendy, will be a problem to solve. Mr. Senna suggested that a mock-up may be needed as it is an important decision. DRB April 22, 2026 Page 5 of 7 • Mr. Marotta said the bollards are not green, but a stainless material reflecting the green added to the rendering. • Ms. Tarbet noted that she appreciated the way Ms. Moody described the materiality for the projects, that they are complimentary, and that the characters are different and should be. There were no comments or questions from members of the public. • Ms. Martin noted that fewer materials may be better. She said she does like the red spandrel but acknowledged that Ms. Tarbet does like it. She agrees that fewer colors may be better or forgoing the wood. • Mr. Durand said he agreed with the comments from the Board. • The landscape plan was briefly reviewed. • Ms. Miller noted the previous discussion about the stairs into the common area. Mr. Klopfer reported that they took that to the Planning Board and the Board was comfortable with it as a redundant circulation. The primary path is accessible, but the secondary is not. They concluded it was better to have the stairs rather than have no outlet to those spaces. He said they also requested the trees to the left side of the gymnasium which are included in the site plan. • Ms. Tarbet inquired about the landscape plan and pedestrian pathways on the upper campus. Mr. Klopfer reported they replaced a lot of the pavement with landscape mitigation. A rendering was shared. He reviewed the accessible ramp and existing stairs to the Harrington building. • Ms. Tarbet noted that she was waiting for a more detailed, illustrative plan. Mr. Klopfer said a full planting plan was provided to the Planning Board. Ms. Ng shared a more detailed landscape plan. • Mr. Senna noted that they are trying to keep pace with the Avalon project and hoped for a referral back to the Planning Board even if there is further work and consultation needed. Ms. Miller said they send Avalon back with a list and that it felt reasonable. Mr. Durand agreed. He noted that it would be helpful to see a mock up of the corner cube. • Ms. Tarbet noted that the DRB wanted to see the material palette before finalizing comments. Mr. Senna said in that case a continuance would work. Ms. Owens reported that the next meeting is May 20th. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to continue. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Estes, Martin, Miller, Tarbet, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. 2. 170 North Street: Entrance Corridor Overlay District – Review of proposed site improvements. Sanir Lutfiya was present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Lutfiya shared and reviewed the site plan which consists of an 8-unit building. • Site improvements include restriping, covered bike storage, and an additional window large enough to be egress able and safe. • The entire building will have sprinkles. • DRB review was triggered because the of the amount of units and its location within the entrance corridor overlay district. There were no comments of questions from members of the public. DRB April 22, 2026 Page 6 of 7 VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to approve as presented. Seconded by Martin. Roll Call: Estes, Martin, Miller, Tarbet, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. New / Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: a. March 25, 2026 b. April 9, 2026 VOTE: Ms. Martin made a motion to approve the February 19th minutes. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Estes, Martin, Miller, Tarbet, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. c. February 25, 2026 VOTE: Ms. made a motion to approve the February 25th minutes. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Estes, Martin, Miller, Tarbet, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. 2. Staff updates, if any Ms. Owens reminded members that the May meeting is on May 20th to account for the holiday. She also asked if there were ideas for graphic designers who may be interested in serving on the DRB as Ms. Martin will be leaving soon. Any suggestions can be made to Ms. Owens. Ms. Owens also discussed enforcement tracking. She said there is a section of the minutes that includes enforcement details that arise. Ms. Miller said that she would be happy with a running list that could be updated in the minutes. Ms. Miller reported that the window slicks at Pamplemousse are gone. Ms. Owens said that she had reached out to them about that issue. Ms. Martin noted that this is very likely her last meeting and said that it has been an honor serving with the DRB. Upcoming Meetings 1. SRA: May 13 2. DRB: May 20 Adjournment VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by: Tarbet. All in favor. DRB April 22, 2026 Page 7 of 7 The meeting adjourned at 7:33PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033