Loading...
2015-PRESENT DRB MEETING MINUTES �r y y 4 k e4 ; W ® DRB MEETING MINUTES e -. 2015-PRESENT Salem Redevelopment 119 PH 15i 'M Authority "OCT •CITY CLERK. Design Review Board SALEM. MASS Meeting Agenda (Revised) Wednesday, October 25, 2017 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMain Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 5 Central Street (Aroma Sanctum): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign • 2. 143 Washington Street (Oak + Moss): Discussion and vote on proposed window signage 3. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street, and 231-251 Washington Street (Hampton Inn, Mixed-Use Development Project): Discussion and vote on proposed revisions to final design Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the September 27, 2017 Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on OCT 1' 9 2011 at,S!// PH in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Salem Redevelopment � Authority ail OCT is 2= �n° so CITY CLERK Design Review Board SALEM. MASS Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 143 Washington Street (Aroma Sanctum): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign • 2. 143 Washington Street (Oak + Moss): Discussion and vote on proposed window signage 3. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street, and 231-251 Washington Street (Hampton Inn, Mixed-Use Development Project): Discussion and vote on proposed revisions to final design Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the September 27, 2017 Adjournment Know your rights under the,Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" • City Hall, Salem, Mass. on OCT 18 2017 at Z;6-0 7PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. I Salem Redevelopment �►►Tsp2 . P Authority car SqLEM- p sw.zt, MASSDesign Review Board Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 27, 2017 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 75 Washington Street (Mr. Crepe): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of . signage. North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 2. 16-18 Franklin Street (Juniper Point Investments): Discussion and vote on proposed multi-family residential development. Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the August 23, 2017 Adjournment Know your'rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Saic:m, Pass. on St�rr..km(ur ao/Jvr3- at 3,, �.g,�r� in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Salem Redevelopment �t1'AU6 li 1111111-0fB' Authority CITY CLERK Design Review Board SALEM, MASS Meeting Agenda (Revised) Wednesday, August 23, 2017 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 125 Washington Street (Ledger): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 2. 55 Lafayette Street(Mark Your Spot): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 3. Artists' Row: Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 4. 1 Washington Street (Church Court Condo Association): Discussion and vote on proposed replacement of roof shingles, siding, decks, and windows (small project review). North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 5. Mayor Jean A. Levesque Community Life Center: Discussion and vote on roof plan construction documents. Old/New Business 6. Discussion regarding Commercial Design Guidelines and their applicability to projects that could require review in the Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts. Minutes Approval of minutes from the July 26, 2017 joint (with SRA) and regular meetings. •Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AUG 17 W at //!/& � in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. 4 4 Salem Redevelopment - M7 AUG 1,6 PM'2i'S Authority CITY CLERK Design Review Board SALEM. MASS Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 23, 2017—6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 125 Washington Street (Ledger): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 2. 55 Lafayette Street (Mark Your Spot): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 3. Artists' Row: Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 4. Mayor Jean A. Levesque Community Life Center: Discussion and vote on roof plan construction documents. Old/New Business 5. Discussion regarding Commercial Design Guidelines and their applicability to projects that could require review in the Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts. Minutes Approval of minutes from the July 26, 2017 joint (with SRA) and regular meetings. Adjournment • Know yotir rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on AU6 16 2017 at Z: 5Z PH in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 1845. DRB • August 23, 2017 Page 1 of 8 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Ernest DeMaio, Glenn Kennedy, Chris Dynia, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan DRB Members Absent: None Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Colleen Brewster Chair Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:OOPM. Roll call was taken. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 125 Washington Street(Ledger): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. Brett Danahy of Ledger was present to discuss the proposed signage. • Danahy stated that front entrance signage will be a hand painted 23K gold leaf applied directly on the black wood transom above the double main entrance door. Kennedy asked why this particular font was selected. Danahy replied that it matches interior signage. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve proposed signage. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. 2. 55 Lafayette Street(Mark Your Spot): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. Eric Deininger of Mark Your Spot was present to discuss the proposed project. Deininger stated that the sign will fit into a bracket already in place. It is a 28"H x 37"L custom blade sign made out of reclaimed wood, mounted with metal black brackets, with raised lettering and it is encased in aluminum. Shapiro noted that a vinyl sign is . also proposed on the glass door. Deniniger noted that the sign lettering will be silver with black trim. The glass door sign will have a slight black outline but no raised DRB . August 23, 2017 Page 2 of 8 lettering. The 1'x1' vinyl decal affixed to the window of the front door entrance, centered on the upper half of the door. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve signage as submitted. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. 3. Artists' Row: Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. Rick Rawlins faculty director of the student team that worked on the project was present to discuss the proposed signage. Rawlins stated that buildings have been painted, select windows and doors have been added, and there is some additional painting that will be done next season. The DRB's concerns regarding the barn door and entrance signs were revisited. The barn door is in place and its surface has been painted with chalkboard paint. Vendors can add their • activities list to the door/sign surface with chalk as they are scheduled. The overall signage has quieted down and is more consistent throughout. Rawlins noted that when Artists' Row is open the barn doors will be open and the door will cover the written calendar. Rawlins added that the color of the numerals will match all of the entrance signs to help tie all of the signage together. Shapiro noted that the approved signage has been slightly revised and the barn door itself has been approved. The second trim color to be removed and each building will have two accent colors. The approved signage for walls did change. Sullivan arrived. Kennedy noted that the revised proposal is cleaner and less sporadic. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve installation of signage. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 7-0. 4. 1 Washington Street(Church Court Condo Association): Discussion and vote on proposed replacement of roof shingles, siding, decks, and windows (small project . review). DRB • August 23, 2017 Page 3 of 8 Jim LaPointe, one the Board of Trustees members at the Church Court Condos, was present to discuss the proposed project. LaPointe stated that the 16 unit building is managed by three trustees. The building envelope has failed; the lack of window flashing has allowed the wood to rot and they are seeking a cost effective way to repair the exterior damage, since 10 of the 16 units are occupied by retirees on fixed incomes, and two are Arc units. They hoped to use vinyl siding since one section of the building already has vinyl installed. Azek trim boards and CertainTeed monogram vinyl trim boards are proposed and samples of both, as well as pavers, railings, etc. have been provided. LaPointe noted that all siding will be removed, the sheathing repaired, and new Harvey windows installed. DeMaio asked about the thickness of the window casing, Azek trim boards and proposed corner installation. Thomas Daniel of Crosby Services replied 5/4 trim Azek PVC corner boards with rabbited corners, cortex screws and plugs, and butt jointed window corners. The Harvey windows have an integrated 5/4 PVC as part of the window assembly. An Intex railing system is proposed because it is the only composite product available with an aluminum reinforced core that can make the 12 foot space and doesn't require a center post. Jaquith noted that he is in favor of the roof shingles and railing. The siding should be Hardie not vinyl siding within the downtown area, smooth vinyl is more susceptible to fire and can melt, and it also cups. Azek is okay but the Harvey muntins should be no bigger than 5/8". DeMaio noted that when trimmed with Azek vinyl is only noticed when up close to it. Corners wrapped in Azek will be acceptable. Dynia and Sullivan agree with DeMaio. Chair Durand stated that trimmed edges solves many of the problems with vinyl siding. Jaquith asked if J strips will be installed. Daniel replied yes, at deck transitions and at the undersill where it dies into the soffit. Sides noted that the seams highlight the thinness of the material. LaPointe replied that they will use extended length vinyl (25 feet) to minimize seams. Daniel added that the gable ends are brick and will have no vinyl seams. Hardi plank boards would change the look of the building. Kennedy asked how many runs are longer than 25 feet. Daniel replied a couple but the seams could face away from street to make it less obvious. Sullivan asked if the seams would overlap. Daniel replied yes. Sides asked about the deck ceiling material. Daniel replied an Azek beaded composite ceiling. Daniel presented the Everlast system sample and noted that it is a quartz based product vs. cementitious. The 12 foot long panels has two available profiles, 4'/2" and • 7". Unlike Hardi plank it doesn't absorb water and can have rabbited PVC for lowered maintenance with cortex crews and plugs. DRB August 23, 2017 Page 4 of 8 LaPointe noted that they are providing two options, but are requesting vinyl because the Everlast will be a strain on the community. Kennedy, Sides, and DeMaio agree that they prefer the heavy shadow line of the Everlast LaPointe noted that the Everlast is $60,000 additional, totaling over $500,000 for the entire building envelope and site work. Chair Durand opens Public Comment. Jane Stauffer. Noted that she and her husband are about to move into unit 404, and she is speaking for 2 other first floor owners. They are in favor of wood not vinyl. Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street. Asked if any other properties under SRA approval have vinyl. LaPointe replied yes, 26 Lynde Street. Twohey noted that she is in favor of Everlast and the vinyl sets a precedent to the district and City. Kent Wallace, 172 Federal Street. Noted that the price difference is minimal. LaPointe replied that not all of the mostly retired residents can easily afford that additional cost. Jennifer Firth, Historic Salem Inc. President. Not in favor of the vinyl which will set a precedent. The price difference per unit for the Everlast composite is minimal. • Steve Pelletier, Board of Directors member. Noted that a vote was taken, the owners were asked and 80% preferred that vinyl be used. DeMaio noted that long term maintenance costs are a factor that should be considered. LaPointe replied that the maintenance between both would be about the same. Tim Jenkins, 18 Broad Street. Asked about the age of the current siding. LaPointe replied that it was installed in 1986 but it was a poor installation job. Jenkins noted that painting would be an ongoing cost and he would prefer wood with regular maintenance. Daniel noted that the Everlast can be painted and the product is 8-12 years old. LaPointe added that there is a class action suit against Hardi Board and there is no cellulose in Everlast. Steve Pelletier, one of three Condominium Board trustees, stated that he is in favor of the Everlast product that would provide a better look. Maintenance on wood would be a hardship for their 10 retired tenants and 80-90 year old owners. Chair Durand closes public. Chair Durand stated that he is concerned with precedents set by approving vinyl but comfortable with Everlast to protect the sanctity of the district. Sides agreed and noted that wood would be less appropriate due to cost of the long run and the size of building. Prefers a newer material, the Everlast in combination with Azek. Jaquith stated that there should be a 4'/" exposure and suggests a higher priced • shingle be installed for a lower maintenance costs. LaPointe noted that the color selected is called Flagstone. DRB August 23, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Kennedy stated that he is in favor of the Everlast and not want to set a precedent with approval vinyl. Kennedy: Motion to approve replacement of roof shingles, siding with Everlast composite product with a 4'/�' exposure, decks, and windows. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 7-0. North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 5. Mayor Jean A. Levesque Community Life Center: Discussion and vote on construction documents. Dan Skolski, managing principal of DMS Design, LLC was present to discuss the project. Skolski stated that roof info was not provided at the last meeting. Documentation provided show rooftop units with screening, elevator penthouse, Solatubes, and photovoltaic panels. Skolski stated that there will be 4 RTU (rooftop units) on the main building and 1 on the • single story, 1 elevator penthouse, and Solatubes for natural light at the interior of the one story space. The 5 RTU's will be screened on all four sides with metal panels mounted on a framework mounted directly to the unit, so there will be no additional roof penetrations. The second floor RTU's are less than 3 feet tall and the first floor RTU is less than 5 feet tall. The elevator penthouse will not stick up past the height of the roof plane. The photovoltaic panels are 39'Wx69"L, will stick up less than 2 feet and sit at a 20 degree angle mounted on a pedestal system. The updated renderings show that no RTU's or their associated screening can be easily seen from 100 feet away but they can be seen from 200 feet away. The photovoltaic panels and Solatubes and not be seen. Endless Energy designed the mounting system for the panels and a cut sheet has been provided. The horizontal Envisor rooftop screening system can be easily removed for maintenance. The buff color and model RVE has been selected. Sullivan asked if the RTU's could be grouped to minimize the screening. Skolski replied yes but only at one area. Skolski noted that the RTU's were shifted towards street to make them further away from residential neighbors. Sullivan noted that the screening is larger than units, which compounds the problem. Chair Durand noted that units rust. Sides stated that she would prefer the Dark Bronze. Jaquith and Chair Durand agreed. DeMaio noted that the unit on single story will be visible from street. • Shapiro noted that elevation difference on Bridge Street may not make it visible. Skolski replied that it will be noticed from further away. DRB . August 23, 2017 Page 6 of 8 Chair Durand opens public comment. Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street. Concerned with effects on the national register historic district and screening for the mechanical units from residential neighbors, is in favor of the darker screening, is concerned with the visibility of the angled panels on roof, and asked about the proposed roof color. Skolski replied white. Twohey asked who owns the CLC condo and when the other portion of the project will be built. Shapiro replied that Highrock Development has hired a contractor to build the building, The City of Salem owns the CLC, and the start date for the other building is unknown. Ken Wallace, 172 Federal Street. Lives approximately 100 feet away from building and asked what will stop the noise of the RTU's, and if the panels will reflect back at their homes. Skolski replied that the panels will be reflective when the sun changes. Sides noted that the panels will be more absorbent than reflective and suggested that site sections be revised to show the proposed angles and the neighborhood. Sullivan noted that there will be trees and screening. Kennedy noted that these panels are installed next to the highway and they would be not placed if they were too reflective. Durand noted that the sound levels from RTU's drop off dramatically at great distances. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street. Asked what percentage of roof will be covered with panels on the white roof and noted that her neighborhood is having ongoing HVAC • sound and screening issues at Temple Shalom. Skolski noted that the panels will rise above the 10" high parapet. The panels are butted together will appear in long dark strips. Sides recognized and applauded a City building making energy efficient efforts. Wallace suggested that the retaining wall and fence above it could be raised. Twohey asked when the fence will be installed and asked if they requested that it be installed at this stage. Shapiro replied that the fence is not part of this project review but the Planning Board approved it. Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner for the City of Salem, noted that the phasing of the fence was not discussed. Kennedy suggested that the building be constructed first to determine if there are any issues. Wallace asked who owns retaining wall. Shapiro noted that he does not know and that the DRB can't decide ownership at the meeting. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sides stated that the building will cut down the street noise for the residents. Sullivan noted that the photovoltaic panel and the cool roof is an improvement. Sides: Motion to approve the construction documents with dark screening at the RTU's. • Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 7-0. DRB August 23, 2017 Page 7 of 8 Old/New Business 6. Discussion regarding Commercial Design Guidelines and their applicability to projects that could require review in the Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts. Amanda Chiancola, Staff Planner for the City of Salem, was present for the discussion. Shapiro noted that there is a potential zoning change for the DRB to review projects within the entrance corridors. Any project over 10,000 SF would automatically be referred by the Planning Board to be reviewed by the DRB, similar to what has been done with the North River Canal Corridor projects. Any projects between 2,000 and 10,000 SF would come to a vote of the Planning Board for a review and vote and the DRB also. The City's Community Design Guidelines are referred to for DRB reviewed projects but it needs to be determined if they should be used for entrance corridor projects, and if items should be revised, added, or eliminated. Chiancola stated that the City Council adopted an amendment to include a portion of Vinnin Square on Paradise Road and Jefferson Avenue to the entrance corridors. Those two streets have not been added to the Design Guidelines. • Sides noted that it should be clear whether the 10,000 SF includes the existing building. Shapiro replied that it is unknown whether the SF would include the existing building. Chiancola noted that it many more projects would be under DRB review if that were the case. DeMaio questioned the effectiveness of the document if they have to stick to the guidelines to ensure proper follow through. Many of the items refer to maintaining the historic buildings and districts and restoration vs. renovation. The character of each entrance corridor is different and these guidelines could discourage creativity for potentially significant buildings. Some of the adopted standards haven't been adhered to and the guidelines can quickly become secondary, but he applauded the City for wanting to involve them DRB more. Shapiro replied that they are guidelines not standards and are used for reference, there should be a good reason to deviate from them, and the reigns could be loosened to encourage creativity. Chair Durand noted that imitating doesn't relate to modern designs. Shapiro noted that there are no immediate plans to rewrite the guidelines. Sullivan stated that it would be great for the DRB to have some control in the designs constructed on the entrance corridors. Sides noted that the DRB having this level of oversight would slow their process. Jaquith noted that the Secretary of the Interior Standards give an architect enough room to meet the standards that DRB's are concerned about and the Salem DRB is not afraid to set a well-deserved precedent. Chiancola noted that the staff is drafting a letter to present to the City Council now. Sides asked if the DRB will be adjunct to SRA. Chiancola replied yes and the NRCC . has the DRB. DRB August 23, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Shapiro asked if any immediate removals were suggested. DeMaio noted that the guidelines should have a broader view and not just a historical reference. It should encourage creativity. Chiancola agreed that the guidelines should promote good design and transparency. Chair Durand stated that the size and complexity of the project should be a factor is whether it an appropriate projects for the DRB to review. Kennedy suggested that the document should be digital and not a PDF. Chair Durand opens public comment. Jennifer Firth, Historic Salem President. Agrees but appreciates new design. Some items are stifling. Tim Jenkins, HS. Agrees that the guidelines are stifling. Highly developed entrance corridors exist with little space for new developments. Not all corridors are historic, it seemed to be an out of date document. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Individual comments from the DRB will be sent to Shapiro. • Minutes The minutes from the July 26, 2017 joint(with SRA) regular meeting were reviewed. Kenned: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:50PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • Salem This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" Redevelopment City Hall, Salem, Mass, on -11 a-e ?10-- at 434m in accordance witl MGL Chap. 30A, -egg Authority Sections 8-25. 2011 JUL 20 PM 4�3�► CITY CL n Review Board and Salem Redevelopment Authority Agendas SALEM.M lls Joint Meeting And Design Review Board Regular Meeting (Revised) Wednesday, July 26, 2017- 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Joint Meeting Roll Call David Guarino Grace Harrington Christine Madore Dean Rubin Russell Vickers Roll Call (DRB) Ernest DeMain Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith 1. 32-50 Federal Street (Superior Court and County Commissioners Building): Discussion and vote on proposed mothballing procedure Adjournment Design Review Board Regular Meeting Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 10 Derby Square, Unit NB (Derby Square Architects): Discussion and vote on • proposed installation of blade sign. 2. 10 Derby Square, Unit S1 (Sperling Interactive): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of blade sign. 3. 125 Washington Street (Ledger): Discussion and vote on proposed enclosure for dumpsters. 4. Mayor Jean A. Levesque Community Life Center: Discussion and vote on construction documents. 5. 65 Washington Street "Salem District Court" (Diamond Sinacori, LLC and Urban Spaces, LLC): Continued discussion and vote on schematic design review for proposed development project. New / Old Business Minutes Approval of minutes from June 28, 2017 regular meeting Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §236 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. Salem Redevelopment Authority Design Review Board and Salem Redevelopment Authority Agendas Joint Meeting And Design Review Board Regular Meeting Wednesday, July 26, 2017 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Joint Meeting Roll Call David Guarino Grace Harrington e ' Christine Madore Dean Rubin D� Russell Vickers rn-.< 3n w Roll Call (DRB) Drn Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy CCA= Paul Durand Helen Sides Q3 Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith 1. 32-50 Federal Street (Superior Court and County Commissioners Building): Discussion and vote on proposed mothballing procedure Adjournment Design Review Board Regular Meeting Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 10 Derby Square, Unit NB (Derby Square Architects): Discussion and vote on • proposed installation of blade sign. 2. 10 Derby Square, Unit S1 (Sperling Interactive): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of blade sign. 3. 125 Washington Street (Ledger): Discussion and vote on proposed enclosure for dumpsters. 4. 65 Washington Street "Salem District Court" (Diamond Sinacori, LLC and Urban Spaces, LLC): Continued discussion and vote on schematic design review for proposed development project. New / Old Business Minutes Approval of minutes from June 28, 2017 regular meeting Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • This notice poste! "Official B Iletin Board" City Hall, Salem a. on /9, D17at P30� I i? ,j_cordance wit MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. DRB • July 26, 2017 Page I of 9 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board &Salem Redevelopment Authority, Joint Meeting Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room DRB Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, Glenn Kennedy, Chair Paul Durand, Chris Dynia, David-Jaquith, J. Michael Sullivan DRB Members Absent: Helen Sides SRA Members Present: Chair Grace Harrington, Christine Madore, Dean Rubin, Russell Vickers SRA Members Absent: David Guarino Others Present: Tom Daniel —Director of Planning and Community Development Recorder: Colleen Brewster SRA Chairperson Grace Harrington calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken. Projects Under Review • 1. 32-50 Federal Street(Superior Court and County Commissioners Building): Discussion and vote on proposed mothballing procedure Daniel stated that when the mothballing of the Superior Court and County Commissioners Building was discussed by the SRA in 2014, the SRA requested that the DRB have an opportunity to review the plans. Given the new SRA board members, tonight's meeting was an opportunity for SRA members to review of the mothballing plan as well. Gail Rosenberg, DCAMM Project Manager, was present to discuss the project and is updating the feasibility study for the property. Rosenberg stated that the buildings are unoccupied. A different project manager is managing the construction and the design is almost complete. Jim Kelly-Rand, the project architect from Perry Dean Rogers provided an overview of the project. The exterior study from 2012-2013 completed by Perry Dean determined that the exterior brick was spalling, sheering, and cracking on both buildings. The exterior woodwork also showed signs of deterioration due to the weather and lack of maintenance. Study results called for exterior repointing and replacing the exterior cracked brickwork, however; the spalling bricks do not warrant replacement at this time. The mothballing will entail closing up the windows to protect the existing woodwork and keeping the site secure from break-ins and damage. The downspouts will be replaced and the storm lines will be cleaned out to the street and closed up. David Jaquith arrived. • • The proposed site enclosure will be a 6 foot high perimeter security fence set 3 feet inboard of the existing walls and curbs, with fence options of either black PVC coated chain link or a black aluminum picket fence. Rosenberg stated that contractors will install a temporary fence and the buildings will be occupied by security personnel from 7PM-7AM; there will also be personnel that drive by the property during the day, 7 days a week. Tom Daniel noted that work will commence in fall of 2017. DCAMM is seeking comments on the type of fence, boarding up of the windows, and tuck-pointing of brick. DeMaio asked if the buildings were heated and if they had sprinklers. Rosenberg replied yes the buildings are heated and but that there are no sprinklers, however; there is a standpipe in the main stairwell. Vickers asked about the source of the heating. Rosenberg replied that there is a furnace and the heating was separated from the Family and Probate Court. DeMaio asked if the buildings had any exterior lighting to help with security and safety, and noted that the exterior brick repair mortar should match the existing mortar. Rosenberg replied that exterior lighting is unknown at this time. Sullivan asked what the temporary window design would be. Kelly-Rand replied that a shadow line of the faux window will be painted onto the plywood. • Glenn Kennedy arrived. Madore asked if the fence was necessary and noted that it will impact the street space and the fence should be given as much attention as the faux window design. She asked if another fence in downtown Salem is worth the visual impact. Rosenberg replied that it is a policy for DCAMM to add perimeter fencing but she will determine if it is necessary. Sullivan noted that this is an opportunity to improve the condition of the sidewalk and suggested the fourth fence type that DCAMM is proposing, although stone pylons in the first propose fence will also fit in Salem. Vickers noted that some structures without perimeter fencing have had fires in the past. Durand suggested that fence be in line with the front face of the building and not at the street edge to maintain the street scape. Madore asked if there are existing security cameras. Rosenberg replied yes, although it is unknown if they are functional and who monitors them. Vickers asked why there are exhaust fans in windows. Rosenberg replied that there are humidistat fans to prevent mold growth. Durand asked if an existing alarm system was in place. Rosenberg replied yes, it is linked to the DCAMM Central Office and reiterated that there will be security on site between 7PM and 7AM. Vickers noted that the Salem Police should be added to emergency alarms due to their proximity. Rosenberg replied that she will determine if there is night sight lighting, she will make sure the repair mortar color to matches, and will determine if a fence is necessary. • Daniel noted that Gail Rosenberg's responses to all questions will be sent to all Board members. Regarding the separate feasibility study, he stated that when it is completed it will be presented to the SRA. • Chair Durand opens public comment. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street. Suggested that the fence be tighter to building, the City should plant more trees on the block, the Salem Police should provide their input on that street and the security risk the building poses, and foot traffic during the day and night should lower the risk of any problems. Steve Immerman, 20 Federal Street. Noted that there are visual concerns to the City with such a long term redevelopment. Daniel noted that the revised DCAMM report is due back in September but the redevelopment could last 4 years. There may be clarifications to the legislation needed as well. Tim Jenkins, 18 Broad Street. Asked about the current condition of roofs. Kelly-Rand replied that the County Commissioners building copper roof requires some minor repairs and there is no sign of leaking. Some EPDM being replaced at top of Superior Court building to ensure it stays dry and some missing slate pieces will be replaced. Jenkins also noted the landscaping: weeds and overgrowth will require maintenance. Vickers replied that a maintenance plan will be submitted to the SRA. As a State project, it is not subject to SRA approval; however, the comments were welcomed. As no approval was being sought, no vote was taken. Chair Grace Harrington: Motion to adjourn the joint meeting. Seconded by: Glenn Kennedy • Regular DRB meeting commenced. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 10 Derby Square, Unit NB (Derby Square Architects) and 10 Derby Square, Unit S1 (Sperling Interactive): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of blade signs. Richard Griffin of Derby Square Architects and Michael Sperling of Sperling Interactive were present to discuss their respective projects. Griffin stated that two tenants are eligible for signage. The condo building had guidelines to follow that would require the DRB needs to approve. The original approved sign had a portrait orientation, however; both tenants now want a landscape orientation. The sign will consist of a brushed aluminum plate with etched text and an anodized aluminum backer fastened to wall with expansion bolts. The bottom of sign will be at 8 feet above grade and top will align with the buildings masonry headers. Sullivan asked if the sign will be the same size. Griffin replied yes. Kennedy asked if the awnings would be removed. Sperling replied yes. Chair Durand opens public comment. . No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. • Jaquith: Motion to approve installation of two blade signs. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. 2. 125 Washington Street(Ledger): Discussion and vote on proposed enclosure for dumpsters. Brett Danahy of Ledger was present to discuss the proposed dumpster enclosure. Danahy stated that the most durable fence would be black chain link with steel post and black slats. Cedar will provide for 100% screening, however; chain link would work best for their budget. Photos have been provided that show the two sides of planter remaining to provide additional support for the new fence. Ledger has switched to 100% kiln dried wood to eliminate the scent of smoke for its neighbors and all wood will be stored inside. Kennedy noted that he prefers cedar which would need to be stained and treated yearly. Danahy noted that the rear entry sidewalk needs to be redesigned to provide proper handicapped accessibility and to make it easier to move trash bins in and out of the building, which was mentioned in the cover letter provided. DeMaio noted that the cedar calls more attention to itself although the fence near Red's is barely visible because of its dark stain. Chair Durand opens public comment. • Daniel read a letter from Kathy Lique who would prefer a cedar fence. Jodie Salasny of 141 Washington Street, Unit 7. Preferred a cedar fence because they have a view into from the back alley. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve cedar with dark stain. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 6-0. 3. Mayor Jean A. Levesque Community Life Center: Discussion and vote on construction documents. Dan Skolski, managing principal of DMS Design, LLC was present to discuss the project. Tom McGarrigle representing High Rock and Peter Terrat from DSM Design were also present. Skolski stated that they were taking over the design process for this building and are 80% complete with the Construction Documents. New utility lines are being installed underground on Bridge Street to maintain construction equipment accessibility on site. The floor plans and elevations have been submitted and changes from the previously submitted plans are; one door was moved on the East elevation to change a stair egress, flashing detail over a covered entry, and three windows lost 6" in height on the West elevation. The footprint, massing, height, colors, materials all have not changed. The City has requested • small changes to the floor plan in relation to the code review, such as moving partitions. There has been minimal settling on their side of the site and they hope to start the foundation work in August. • Sullivan asked for the cornice depth. Skolski replied approximately 3 feet. Jaquith asked if there will be rooftop equipment. Skolski replied 5 units, 4-5 feet high, will be placed towards the center of the structure. Some 4 foot high photovoltaics will also be placed on the roof, the quantity is not yet known. Their locations have been determined but not finalized and they are installed at a low angle. Sullivan noted that they have an angle of 20 degree maximum Jaquith noted that neighbors will have screening concerns as they have in the past. Skolski noted that an 8-10" high cornice will help conceal all rooftop equipment and the 4-5 foot high elevator penthouse. DeMaio noted that cut sheets for all building and site lighting will need to be submitted. Sullivan asked if the large box near the street is a transformer. Skolski replied yes, it will be placed on a pad and screened on street side. Dynia asked if there is bicycle storage. Skolski replied no. Chair Durand stated that revised plans showing rooftop units and screening need to be provided and asked for a proposed timeline. McGarrigle replied that the intended start date is mid-late August depending on National Grid schedule to place wiring underground. They will file for a permit within 2 weeks. Foundation permit has been submitted and they are awaiting approval and the anticipated duration of construction is approximately 9 months. • Chair Durand opens public comment. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street. Asked about the parking lot size, asked if bollard will be placed between the sidewalk and the building along Bridge Street for safety. Skolski replied that 30% of overall parking lot is meant for the CLC building and the need for bollards will be determined. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy suggested that the arborvitaes should be spaced out because their large size may overwhelm the space. Chair Durand suggested the Board approve what they can so the design can move forward and have a special meeting to review missing items when the design is 100% complete. McGarrigle reiterated that they will submit for a permit ASAP. Chair Durand: Motion to approve design as submitted pending review of photovoltaic equipment, rooftop equipment, and screening, elevator height, and lighting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. 4. 65 Washington Street "Salem District Court" (Diamond Sinacori, LLC and Urban Spaces, LLC): Continued discussion and vote on schematic design review for • proposed development project. Steve Tise, Architect, and Jeff Hirsch, Project Manager, of Tise Design Associates were present to discuss the proposed project. • Tise noted that the Board has previous concerns with the base of building that was overly traditional, too opaque, and out of character with remainder of building. They've looked for a different style and treatment, the storefront facades have been modified, and the planter design has been revised to lessen the visual access into the storefront. Changes to the projecting cornice were studied but it has not changed. A traffic study is being conducted. Hirsch noted that there have been no changes to the program or unit count. The foundations will still be reused for parking. Ground floor treatment; 2 benches were added to Federal Street fagade, 24" square brick piers have been placed at the entrances and corner Washington & Church Street corner, all other steel columns have been enclosed with metal. The storefront entrance facade has been extended further down Washington Street towards Federal Street and the sidewalk at the retail entrance has been widened from 5 to 13 feet. The trash area has been placed in corner at Federal and Washington Streets and the brick courses at that corner are periodically recessed. An 8" stone lintel has been added at the second floor, the upper floors have not changed except for minor detailing at the roof terrace. The proposed awning color has changed and the boxed awnings are now in a slimmer blade style. The glazing at the entrances has been made more visible. Tise noted that in addition to the 24" brick columns the intermediate columns are galvanized and 16" deep. The planters have a 24" wide, 12" deep, and the top is at 42" above the finished floor, with iron pickets below. The parapet is a signature element that they kept and the brackets may become structural. • Durand asked if the window treatments will be legislated by condominium. Hirsch replied that they exterior panels will be uniform/standard and the interiors can be determined by occupant. Sullivan suggests that the openings at the garage remain but that the material change. Tise replied that the recessed panels at the garage will be enclosed but they can be backlit. The fencing returns at each bench location and the condominium will be responsible for maintaining the strip of land along Federal Street. Sullivan asked if the rear fagade will receive the same cornice overhang. Tise replied no, the rear is all bathrooms and kitchens which have minimal windows. Tise noted that the brass or bronze medallions remain in the facade between window openings at each floor. Sullivan asked why the window layout is different on each side of the Washington Street fagade. Tise replied that the corner unit towards Federal Street has a different layout which adds a third window between the bays as opposed to the 2 windows between the bays towards Church Street. The exterior corner of the living room at Federal Street will be glass. Daniel read 6 comments/emails submitted to the DRB. • Donna Burnam, Pickman Street. The structure is too big and doesn't conform or fit into Salem. • • Steve Caron, Cousins Street. The design is not attractive or in keeping in architecture of the surrounding buildings. The building should be evocative to the history of Salem. • • Patricia Donohue—The proposed structure doesn't reflect Salem's historic architecture, it ruins the streetscape, it will be a disservice to Salem if it moves forward, it is overpowering and out of place. • Deborah Prentice of 16 Hardy Street. It doesn't work with the architecture in Salem, it is out of scale, looks cheap, doesn't fit with built environment and will be around for years to come. Why did Diamond Sinacori switch the design. This project was granted on the original rendering which is not what is currently proposed. If they can't do it someone else can. Please reject proposal because it doesn't work here. • Stan Franzeen of 34 Daniels Street. The design is inconsistent with character of city, it should be less obtrusive to the surrounding buildings and church. It should be reduced in height, the flat roof should be replaced with 3 pitched roofs. • Nina Cohen of 22 Chestnut Street. Designing a building that fosters an inviting pedestrian environment at the street level is key. Planning should underscore this goal. Schematic design for a building with parking on the ground floor must enhance the pedestrian environment on Washington St., Federal Street and Church St. One solution is to require the developer to create space on the first floor for restaurants or cafes. At a minimum, the proposed development should not be approved absent a design that includes 1,000 sf or restaurant or retail space on the building's Washington St fagade. Sidewalk width is another key issue, particularly given the height of this development. Fifteen to 20 feet of sidewalk setback is required to ensure the sidewalk is wide enough to accommodate flow traffic into downtown, seated cafe patrons and people entering the condo building. This setback is consistent with other new developments in downtown. DRB should mandate shade and rain canopies on Washington St that are continuous and uninterrupted, and the • same on Federal and Church St. sidewalks. Every new residential complex must provide bicycle racks for residents that are protected from the rain. These can be inside the first-floor garage or under a canopy. Tise replied that the project has 3,000 SF of retail and there will be bike storage in the garage. Kennedy note that replies to those comments should be included into their review. Jaquith stated that he is bothered by roof overhang which draws one's eyes up, some of the letter comments submitted are zoning issues, the building should be designed for a 2017 building, and the base changes are an improvement. Dynia agrees. Dynia noted that brick at the Federal corner seems too continuous and has no visual interest; there should be a tie-in of the metal cladding to create visual interest. Sullivan and Dynia agree that brick will make that corner extremely dark at night if not lighting is added. Kennedy stated that the revised base coloring is an improvement as are the materials. More glazing is good as the entrance should be more contemporary to fit upper floors, the materials should be pushed further, and the material at the Washington & Church Streets corner make it feel slick and like there is more glazing. It forces your eye up. Tise noted that the solid corner at Washington and Federal Street anchors the corner and helps make that transition into commercial. • Jaquith suggested that high windows be added at the trash area to break up the all brick facade at that corner. Kennedy suggested more of material change. Kennedy noted that the parking needs to remain and to keep that first level layout at 2 feet above grade the parking must be raised 2 feet above sidewalk level so the base will be large. Tise added that 1-1 parking is best for marketing so that need to keep that ratio. Tise noted that they need to move past the Schematic Design phase so the other details can be determined. DeMain understands purpose for the brick at the corner, wished the motif was carried around the corner, is in favor of the transparency at the base, but doesn't understand the columns between retail spaces. Tise responded explaining the material choices and approach. Tise noted that there will be a Site Plan Review soon. There will be rooftop screening but 4 different types of units are currently being reviewed. Sullivan is in favor with lower floor changes, encourages historic building corner treatment research, and the three sides overhang is troubling on what will be one of the tallest buildings in the neighborhood. Tise noted that eliminating the overhang brackets made it look ordinary and historic buildings have overhangs, the cornice visually increases the height, and other buildings put cornices on a floor lower or set back the roof area which is what they have somewhat achieved with so much glass at top level. An easement with the Church street abutter will be needed and he has offered to work with them. Chair Durand is in favor of the three sided overhang. Chair Durand opens public comment. • Jessica Herbert, Salem Historic Commission. The Historic Commission will meet on August 2nd to review the project and they will submit their comments to the DRB. She is concerned with the penthouse mechanicals, agrees that the window treatments should be under condominium jurisdiction, and with the placement of artwork on the corner of Washington and Federal Streets. Tise noted that those details will be determined and the corner artwork will be determined. Tim Jenkins, 18 Broad Street. Commends the extension of and moving the retail facade to the building edge. The Federal Street corner needs some treatment and the banding helps but suggests that older details be applied. The overhang at the backside could be overdone and should be worked out. The streetscape on Federal Street seems too suburban and fencing limits access which will make it accessible and inviting. Tise replied that the Washington Street has storefronts and a repetitive look and they are looking to liven up the Federal Street wall. Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street. Relationship with building is with the brick and it doesn't fit and neither does the cornice. It doesn't look like it belongs in Salem when looking down Washington Street from MBTA station. Respect what has been here to make it feel welcoming. Consider the pedestrian and vehicle experience. Bill Uhouse, 28 C Federal Street. Resides in the units in the building across Federal Street. This design is overwhelming for his building. Courtyards are behind their fence and its intended to soften and be sensitive to the surrounding buildings. Agrees with many of the comments submitted and believes those comments should be considered. The cornice • treatment alienates this building from Salem and another treatment should be sought. Overall design should pay homage to downtown Salem and Washington Street. Is in favor of the brick mass to anchor the Federal Street corner. Would like to see a revised shadow study with the current model and how the shadow lines will affect their side of Federal Street. Projects don't have to be completed according to what zoning says. Jaquith replied that massing is a zoning ordinance that has not been changed. Daniel noted that the DRB will make a recommendation to the SRA. After SRA approval it will also go before the Planning Board for the PUD. Chair Durand closes public comment. Durand suggests that they continue to review ground floor. Kennedy: Motion to approve Schematic Design and continue Design Develoment material/detail to the next regularly scheduled meeting -to discuss ground floor, cornice, signage, materials, (mass and footprint will not change) Seconded by: Jaquith. Minutes The minutes from the June 28, 2017 regular meeting were reviewed. Kennedy: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 4-0. • New Business Daniel distributed the Commercial Design Guidelines given to members. As was discussed at a prior DRB meeting, the Planning Board has been considering expanding the role of the DRB to site plan review in the Entrance Corridors. Paul Durand was part of a recent discussion where the potential thresholds were discussed. The proposal is that new nonresidential construction of 10,000 square feet or more in an Entrance Corridor would require DRB review before the Planning Board took action. For new nonresidential projects 2,000-9,999 square feet, the Planning Board would decide if DRB review was needed. Residential development of 6 or more units would also be referred to the DRB. Mayor Driscoll is supportive of the change. The Commercial Design Guidelines would be used when reviewing projects in the Entrance Corridors. Staff would like to have the DRB review the Guidelines and provide comment on any gaps or areas for improvement. The expanded role of the DRB would need to be made through a change to City ordinances. Adjournment Kennedy: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:45PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. Salem Redevelopment _ Authority 2011 JUN 21 PM's tib CITY CLERK Design Review Board SALEM. MASS Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 28, 2017—6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 203-209 Essex Street (Hotel Salem): Discussion and vote on proposed cafe permit (outdoor seating area), signage, and lighting. 2. 120 Washington Street (Peabody Block LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion and vote on proposed replacement of windows, new roof deck, trash enclosure, and entryway improvements. 3. 65 Washington Street "Salem District Court" (Diamond Sinacori, LLC and Urban Spaces, LLC): Discussion and vote on schematic design review for proposed development project. Old/New Business This notice posted on "Offici-IBulletin Brd" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JJUU 017 at 2 ;Ag P in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A. Minutes Sections 18-25. Approval of minutes from the May 24, 2017 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 49 2-028 through 2-2033. DRB June 28, 2017 Page 1 of 8 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy, and, Ernest DeMaio Members Absent: J. Michael Sullivan and Christopher Dynia Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Andrew Shapiro Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 203-209 Essex Street(Hotel Salem): Discussion and vote on proposed cafe permit (outdoor seating area), signage, and lighting. Paul Durand recused himself from hearing and discussing this item. He left the room. • The submission under review included a cover sheet, and plan set showing signage, outdoor seating, specs/samples, and drawings/renderings. Annette Popp of Winter Street Architects and Rich Cooper of Lark Hotels were present to discuss the project. Popp moved through a presentation as she discussed the proposal. She noted the schedule that the hotel is on and what type of permitting it had received. She noted that the project would not be seeking MA Historic Tax Credits because the roof deck addition made the project ineligible for such credits. Popp showed an old picture of the building and explained that certain design elements were incorporated into the signage and other features of the fagade that would reference what had once been on the building. Popp showed the previously approved rendering versus the one with updates that would be discussed this evening. Three forms of signage are being proposed. The first is a sign above the entrance to the hotel that would have two foot brushed stainless steel typeface over curved steel bars. That sign is 29 square feet. Sign number two is the blade sign. It has been reduced from 5'x'5 to 4.5'x4.5 in order to get the total amount of proposed signage to less than 60 square feet, which makes the proposal compliant with the City's ordinance. It will be housed in a custom made bracket with light fixtures above it. A third sign will be vinyl affixed to glass next to the entrance. It will resemble the blade sign • and show the hotel and food service offerings. Popp moved onto exterior lighting showing the proposed fixtures to be used, which have both up and down lights. They are 14 inches tall and three inches wide. Downlights are • shown for egress doors and string lights would line the alleyway. Locations of lights were shown. Popp then showed the proposed outdoor seating plan. She noted that there are 35 seats. A five foot aisle would be left to walk by the seating area. Pictures of the furniture and material samples were presented. The side entry would allow for wait staff to come in and out of the building. The chairs would be stackable and are a blue color to match branding. Other furniture is black. Popp pointed out that a/c units would be mounted above the seating area in the alley. It was the only feasible location due to the roof being too far to run the conduit. The units should be fairly quiet. Seating would stretch into the alley. Popp showed lighting fixtures that would be mounted on the rear of the building, replacing existing fixtures. She noted that neighbors had expressed concerns about that area being well lit. Popp explained that the hotel would like to utilize the area on the upper side of the building that currently houses the ghost sign, to mount a temporary banner sign that would signify the grand opening of the hotel and food service establishments. Sides commented that everything looks great and was happy to see that the banner would only be temporary. Shapiro noted that he had conferred with the Planning Director regarding the banner. He explained that there is no mechanism in the sign ordinance that would allow approval of a • temporary sign as shown. Temporary signs are typically not permitted, and are confined to only small signs to be posted in windows (advertising sales, specials, etc.)for a maximum of 14 days. The department will not support this aspect of the proposal. Sides asked how the sign would be mounted and how long it would remain. Cooper responded that it was only for the grand opening and would probably remain for a month or so. He said that it would be mounted in a frame from the roof. The ghost sign would not be harmed. DeMaio expressed positivity regarding the overall proposal. One concern expressed was the up and down lighting shown on the rear of the building. He asked that only downlights be used in this location so as to limit the amount of ambient light in the area that could be problematic for neighbors in surrounding buildings. Cooper said that he would not mind making that change. DeMaio also expressed a concern about how the outdoor seating area projects into the pedestrian way. He noted that given the amount of people who walk down Essex Street during certain times of the year, and that people tend to walk on the building side of the street (rather than down the middle), he suggests removal of the two sets of tables and chairs that project into the street. Kennedy understands the concern regarding the outdoor seating area expressed by DeMaio. • Jaquith said that he does not have a problem with the breakup of the linear border of the seating area. • Kennedy questioned the use of"the" as part of the name of the hotel. Cooper noted that the hotel is branded that way. Kennedy also asked about the potential of using a marquis sign as previously shown. Cooper said that it was simply too big to implement. Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed cafe permit (outdoor seating area), signage, and lighting at 203-209 Essex Street(Hotel Salem), conditional upon the following: 1. That the four-top and two-top tables of the proposed outdoor seating area be eliminated so as to "square off' the seating area. 2. That any and all building lighting on the rear elevation of the building is down lighting. 3. If the temporary sign is to be approved, that it remain on the building for no longer than ninety days after opening. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. 2. 120 Washington Street(Peabody Block LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion and vote on proposed replacement of windows, new roof deck, trash enclosure, and entryway improvements. Paul Durand returned to the meeting. • The submission under review includes a cover letter and plan set with photos and specifications showing proposed improvements. Andrew Zimmermannn and David Steinbergh of RCG LLC were present to discuss the proposal. Zimmermannn explained that this project was being brought forth due to a by-right conversion of office space within the building to rental residential. The project received sign plan review approval from the Planning Board. The project is mostly interior in nature, but the elements being discussed this evening are exterior. Zimmermannn began by running through existing uses in the building, noting first that the first floor retail uses would remain. The area on the right side of the building (north side) on the second floor will be vacated by the City and remain office. The area to the left on the same floor is currently private offices and will remain that way. Floors three and floor will go from being City offices to 14 residential units (7 two beds, 5 one beds, and 2 three beds). A roof deck is proposed for the interior corner of the building overlooking Lappin Park. With respect to parking, Zimmermannn noted that there are at grade spaces and basement spaces. One space will be lost due to a proposed installation of a dumpster enclosure. There will be 21 total spaces, which exceeds the required 19 spaces. Zimmermannn explained that new condenser units would be placed at least 15 feet back from the roofline for the new residential units. They will not be visible from the street. Showing the new proposed trash area, Zimmermannn noted that an eight foot high white . stained wood fence with gate would surround a dumpster and compactor. The current trash capacity will be doubled. Moving onto the proposed deck, Zimmermann explained that there would be a full screen six foot high wood fence in between it and adjacent residential units. The deck itself is 720 square feet and would be bordered with a white railing that will be designed to match the appearance of what is shown for the existing railing on the Barton Square elevation of the building. The horizontal deck surface would be an Azek "Arbor Series' product. Zimmermann explained that there would be would be wall mounted downlights with minimum foot candles in the deck area. The Planning Board recommended looking at having string lights on the deck, and a proposed specification for those are shown. In terms of windows, Zimmermann noted that four new windows would be punched in the rear of the building. They would have arched tops to resemble window openings that had been there in the past. Windows will be replaced on floors two through four. The windows will be a Harvey Tribute Series white vinyl with aluminum reinforced sashes, double glazed. Grid configurations would match existing conditions. Zimmermann explained that there is a material transition from concrete to tile at the entrance of the building. Their intent would be to replace the tile with concrete meant to be a seamless transition from the sidewalk. The rail would be refinished. Durand asked whether the parking in the basement was existing and how it is ventilated. Zimmermannn noted that it currently exists and that it is wall vented Jaquith remarked that there should be a more prominent opening to the deck that worked better with the interior of the building, like a French door. The railing should be more of a balustrade railing that would provide more privacy. He asked whether the windows had a • good exterior muntin. Zimmermann responded noting that the window would have a 5/8" putty glazed muntin. They are applied to the exterior, and there are interior ones as well with a spacer in between. Jaquith noted that the entryway should be defined from the existing concrete sidewalk, but the entryway can be concrete. Sides questioned whether the trash enclosure should be white. It might draw too much attention to itself. A dark brown stain could work better and draw less attention. Detail needs to be provided as to where exactly the railing sits. As shown, it looks like it is right along the roof line. How high does the deck come up? Zimmermann responded that the deck is approximately 12 inches off of the roof surface, and the guard rail is 42 inches high after that. Sides noted that she would like to see detail on this and agrees with Jaquith that the rails seem inadequate in profile. Kennedy noted feeling as though the screen shown for the deck can be stained a dark color, and not be white. Sides said that the railing should be pulled back from the edge and to perhaps even not be white so as to be less visible. Also, it would be nice to have the rear elevation cleaned up. Right now there are several PVC pipes showing. . Durand opened public comment. Steve Immerman of Federal Street expressed that he strongly concurs with the Board's conclusion that the railing style is inappropriate. He raised the issue of lighting in the deck area. Durand, Sides, and Jaquith noted that they feel the string lights are not appropriate and encouraged the applicant not to seek that path. Durand: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed replacement of windows, new roof deck, trash enclosure, and entryway improvements at 120 Washington Street conditional upon the following: 1. That the applicant returns to the DRB for review and approval of detailed final drawings of the proposed deck area (deck, railing, and lighting). 2. That dark stain is used for the trash enclosure; not white. 3. That the front entry area be made to look different than the existing sidewalk area (i.e. concrete as presented may be used, but for instance, it should stamped in a different direction than the existing sidewalk). Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. 3. 65 Washington Street "Salem District Court" (Diamond Sinacori, LLC and Urban • Spaces, LLC): Discussion and vote on schematic design review for proposed development project. The submission under review included a revised set of plans with elevations, floor plans, and renderings. The applicant showed a PowerPoint presentation. Merrill Diamond and Greg Winter of Diamond Sinacori LLC, Jeff Hirsch of Urban Spaces, LLC, Betsy Merry of Merry Fox, and Steve Tise and Giulia Sauer of Tise Design Associates were present to discuss the project. Diamond noted that this is the second appearance of this project before the DRB. The project will seek state funding through the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP). Prior to seeking local support at the City Council, they are looking for an endorsement of the design by the DRB and SRA. He then turned it over to Steve Tise of Tise Design Associates. Tise took the Board through a presentation of the revised design. The program includes 61 dwelling units (down from 62), 10 of which are three bedroom units (up from three). The front entranceway now has a recessed second floor area that better announces the entrance to the building and reduced the unit count by one. The amount of blank wall running down Washington Street from the Federal Street corner has been reduced, the lobby has been reconfigured, corners of the building have been redesigned to be more distinctive, and the rear inner courtyard has been enhanced: Tise noted that the existing foundation of the building is being used so as to minimize excavation and the need to deal with dirty soils. That puts pressure on distribution of parking. There will be a total of 88 parking spaces on site; some of them will • unconventional. 61 of those spaces (1-1 ratio)will be conventional spaces (some will be compact), with additional tandem spaces and parking lifts to provide additional parking. There will be room for thirty wall mounted units of bicycle storage. Tise showed the ground floor plan, noting where retail will be located (Washington Street and turning the corner at Church Street). The lobby elevation needs to be 24 inches above grade. Handicap access arrives at two points (one on Church, one on Washington), which are recessed; they conceal the ramps with rails and planters. The recesses have been made as shallow as possible so as to still be code compliant. Tise then showed the proposed parking layout, noting the curb cut on Federal Street, and landscape strip along Federal Street. They will maintain landscaping there even though it is owned by the City. There are areas demarcated for public art along the wall on Federal Street, which should improve the appearance of that fagade. The lower level of parking is where there are tandem spaces. Tise showed a section of the building and noted that it is 69'4" high,just shy of the 70' height limit. There is an amenity space on the second floor that opens to a terrace. Tise noted again that the blank wall spaces along Washington Street (toward the Federal Street corner) has been foreshortened and that a brass plaque announcing the name of the building is being contemplated for that area. The basic materials of the building primarily include brick, a prefinished aluminum siding material called Iongboard" for the bays (with another version of that material acting as an accent next to the windows), a cast stone veneer for the base of the building, and a granite veneer from the floor level to the sidewalk. Tise showed the Federal Street base elevations, noting again the locations where public art can be installed. There are recessed panels along the street level that could house installations, and the corner could also present an opportunity. • Shapiro noted that there have been meetings held between the City and developer to discuss public art opportunities in this area. The City's Public Art Planner is engaged in this process, as is Steve Immerman of Montserratt College of Art, and an art consultant that the developer has hired. The ultimate installation may not be fleshed out before the DRB needs to make a recommendation on the schematic design of this project. Tise then showed the amenity spaces and the courtyard area on level two of the building. There will be balconies for the interior units facing the courtyard, and some shallow balconies for top floor units above the bays that face out onto Washington Street. Tise noted the proposed projecting cornice at the top of the building that would be up lit with LED lighting. There are a couple of potential flag pole scenarios that could be considered. One with one flag pole —an American flag. Another with two flag poles with nautical pennants, representing the number six and five. Durand discouraged the flags due to the issue in having to maintain them. Jaquith agreed. Sides noted that she doesn't mind the single flag. Diamond noted liking the two flag configuration because of its celebratory nature and that it announces the entrance to the building well. Durand expressed concern with the ground floor elevation needing rise two feet; that can be detrimental to retail. That said, the retail being on the corner of Church and Washington with a lot of glass most likely works. Durand also expressed not liking the ground floor • material; it looks too solid. He also wavered as to whether he liked the dental work on the cornice. Jaquith agreed with Durand about the dental work. He suggested smoothing it out. In regards to the "65" sign, he said that it should be dropped down and lined with the top of the base of the building. Durand said that he does not mind where the "65" is. Sides said that perhaps there needs to be more connection between the base material and what is happening above; maybe there is currently too much contrast. She likes that the base is heavy. Perhaps the color needs to be adjusted. Diamond said that they would take a look at the color of the banding between the base and the rest of the building. It could end up acting as a sign band for the retail. DeMaio noted that he agrees with much of what has been said so far. He said that earlier versions of the design trended more contemporary, whereas the more recent versions are more classical. The building seems to be struggling between the two. There are lingering contemporary pieces and the identity of the building is not quite there yet. Eroding the corners and the use of glass gives the building a contemporary feeling, but the way the building is rendered indicates that it's being pulled in different directions. The smoother cornice that was previously shown was a fresher approach than the current cornice with dental work. DeMaio continued by noting that it is unfortunate that the building does not have more of a relationship with the street. The retail being elevated is a factor. The ramp for the retail • limits the amount of retail that goes down Church Street, which is a loss. Having a display window does not replicate good retail. There should be more effort given to making the corner as transparent as possible. That corner is extremely important. Tise pointed out that it's not the ramp that is displacing the retail on Church Street; it's the parking. DeMaio said that the recessed ramp to the left of the entrance to the building on Washington Street could be a less than hospitable place, given the screening of it with planters. People could duck into there. Perhaps it should be more visually open. Having the building move in a more contemporary direction would not be a bad thing. Kennedy agreed that seeing the building trend more contemporary would be good. He likes the dental work on the cornice as it is; perhaps it could be heavier. Durand cautioned that the future public art proposal needs to be thought out carefully. It could make or break the building. He then opened public comment. Anya Wilczynski of Historic Salem Inc. commended the DRB. She said that public art needs to be handled carefully at the corner of Federal and Washington Street. At the moment, Federal Street seems like dead space. It should be thought out further. Some Board Members felt that the colors as currently shown are a bit too dramatic. Morris Schopf of Cambridge Street emphasized the importance of the location of this building and how exposed it is. The "baseball cap" of the building could be heavier, because it's making reference to a big copper and wood cornice. This building has • sophisticated neighbors in that they are beautifully detailed in granite and brick. They are not exotic, but they are beautifully done. There seems to be a layer of detail that is currently missing from this building. If money is being saved by not redoing the foundation of the building, then money can now be be spent on the detailing of the building. • Durand: Motion to continue to a future date. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the June 28, 2017 regular meeting. Durand: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0. Adjournment Kennedy: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:31 PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • Salami Redevelopment 2911 MAY 17 AN u' th rityCITY CLERK SALE*MASS Design Review Board Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 24, 2017 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 184 Essex Street (Omen): Continued Discussion and vote on proposed new paint color for top of awning. • 2. 221 Essex Street(Freaky& Elegant): Discussion and vote on proposed painting of storefront, and installation of lighting and signage. 3. 76 Lafayette Street (T-Mobile): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 4. 1 Sewall Street (YMCA): Discussion and vote on proposed improvements to playground area —small project review. 5. 302 Essex Street, Suite B (Moon Baby): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and painting of existing sign band. 6. 302 Essex Street, Suite A (Witch City Wicks): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and painting of existing sign band. Old/New Business Minutes This notice posted on "Off' al Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on�/7, o?G/7 Approval of minutes from the April 26, 21f7 �` ul r HM %accordance t MGL Chap: 30A, Sectigns 125. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. DRB May 24, 2017 Page 1 of 8 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy, J. Michael Sullivan, Ernest DeMaio Members Absent: Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Colleen Anderson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 221 Essex Street(Freaky & Elegant): Discussion and vote on proposed painting of storefront, and installation of lighting and signage (item was taken out of order). • The submission under review included; a signed application, sign dimensions, proposed signage drawings, and contextual photo of existing conditions and of an example storefront serving as inspiration for the design. Yuliya Abene (Owner) was present to discuss the proposed signage and paint color. Abene explained that she wanted to paint her storefront matte black, and have raised gold letters as signage, matching the "Bank Plaza" sign above. The letters would be 12" high and 6"wide, per letter. Gooseneck lighting fixtures were also proposed to be installed over the signage. Sides inquired as to whether the Bank Plaza sign was part of the building. Shapiro remarked that it is. Sides, Shapiro, and Abene discussed where the proposed black paint for the storefront might begin and end (how high it would go on the fagade). Sullivan asked what the other colors of the building are. Shapiro explained that the building had brick and a fagade painted white above the storefront that is currently multi-colored. Sides asked where the lights would be mounted. Abene said they would need to be mounted just below the Bank Plaza sign. Shapiro asked whether conduit for the lighting would be exposed. Abene said that the landlord would be responsible for installation and that she expects that they take care to do a "good job." Board members expressed a desire to better understand how the conduit would be run and whether it would be exposed. Sullivan explained that the photo showing a storefront that serves as inspiration for the proposal, shows a small storefront with a great deal of articulation in the fagade elements. Therefore, the black works well there. He expressed a concern that the Bank Plaza sign could get lost in the black color. Sides said that she would like to see a photo with a larger portion of the building shown, to better understand how the proposed design would fit in with the building in full. She encouraged the applicant to see whether all three panels where signage was currently being shown, were needed for displaying signage, or if another arrangement might work better. Sullivan noted that perhaps a blade sign would be appropriate in this location. Abene noted that an existing sign bracket had been broken and they do not plan on replacing it. Kennedy noted that it might be better to use a warmer toned calor, like a deep slate gray, for the fagade, instead of black. DeMaio painted out that the signage drawings are not to scale and that a future drawing should be to scale. Shapiro confirmed some additional information that the board was seeking in order to be able to make an informed recommendation for the project: a stepped back image showing the fagade in context, a scaled drawing, paint samples, details on mounting the lighting (conduit) • Kennedy: Motion to continue the proposal to a future date. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. 2. 184 Essex Street(Omen): Continued Discussion and vote on proposed new paint color for top of awning. The submission under review includes a cover letter, photoshopped image of the storefront with the proposed paint color shown on the awning, and specifications about the paint to be used and the method of application. Tim Reagan, Assistant Manager, was present on behalf of the applicant. Shapiro explained the status of the proposal. That signage had previously been approved by the DRB, but that the issue of painting the top of the awning had been continued for two or three meetings. Dynia asked whether the applicant had inquired with any other tenants of the mall, as to whether they would also like to paint their awnings. Reagan noted that they had reached out to other tenants, but there was no interest. Sides announced that she is still not in favor of the proposal, as a one-off project to paint one portion of one awning structure. She feels that the awning reads as part of the building; it would be strange to isolate a single piece of it. Durand said he is in favor of it. It shows what can be done with storefronts in this location. Sullivan said he is intrigued by the proposed new color. He noted being in favor of the proposal and that it provides an opportunity to see what other colors look like along this building. iDurand acknowledged that there is a risk in granting this proposal, but that he does not like the status quo either. Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed new paint color for top of awning at 184 Essex Street (Omen) as presented. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-1 (Sides voted No). 3. 76 Lafayette Street(T-Mobile): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage The submission under review includes a sign permit application, design of the proposed signage, and a photoshopped image showing where on the building signage would be mounted. Scott Suleski of Divine Signs was present on behalf of the applicant. Durand said he is fine with the proposal. Shapiro asked for confirmation on there being no window signage, other than a small decal shown on the proposal that indicates the owner of the T-Mobile shop. Suleski said that he is not charged with putting any window signage in, other than what is shown. Shapiro inquired about the color of the letters. Suleski said that they would be white. They will be lit from behind with a "halo effect." Shapiro asked Suleski to convey to his client that any additional window signage should • come before the DRB for approval. Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed installation of signage at 76 Lafayette Street (T-Mobile) as proposed. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 7-0. 4. 1 Sewall Street(YMCA): Discussion and vote on proposed improvements to playground area —small project review. The submission under review includes; a cover letter, drawings, photos, and renderings. Pete Avila, Project Manager for the YMCA of the North Shore was present on behalf of the applicant. Avila noted that the YMCA had recently undergone interior renovations, and as a result, they dismantled the play area for use as a staging area. They would like to provide a green space for kids to play. Sullivan asked for more information about the landscape plan. Avila noted that most of the space would be artificial turf. The ramp would be made to be ADA compliant. A small storage shed with trusses for shade would be added. A black aluminum face would replace a current chain link fence. A new tree would be planted. Plantings would be planted between the fence and the play area. Sides asked if the trellis would be white. Avila did not know. Sides recommended that the whole shed structure be uniform. • DeMaio commented that there was some information that was missing about the shed structure. Is it wood? What kind of wood? PVC? He pointed out that it appears that the Sstructure will be painted. Avila confirmed that it would in fact be painted and made of wood. Brackets would be galvanized and painted. Jaquith said that Azek could be a good material to use for the shed structure. Kennedy said that he feels that there should be bollards installed in front of the area. Shapiro explained that the Building Department would need to weigh in on the issue of how to protect the play area. Glenn noted that perhaps the curb in front of the parking area could be raised even more than it currently sits. Shapiro said that the landscape scheme could be approved, the trellis could be continued, and the recommendation could be contingent upon conferring with the Building Department on an acceptable solution to protect the property. Sides: Motion to recommend approval of the landscape plan contingent upon working with the Building Department to address any ways to improve safety in front of the play area, and to continue the review of the trellis structure to a future date (more info needed: materials, connections, paint, etc.). Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. 5. 302 Essex Street, Suite B (Moon Baby): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of • signage and removal of existing sign band. The submission under review includes a cover letter, sign permit application, photos showing existing conditions, design of the signage, and photoshopped images showing the location of where signage will be mounted. Liz Frazier of Witch City Wicks was present on behalf of the applicant. Shapiro pointed out that the proposal calls for both a blade sign and a window graphic. The window graphic will be placed on a window closest to the applicant's entrance. Frazier noted that the existing sign bands will be removed. Kennedy and Sides said that they agree with that decision. Sullivan asked whether the entrance to the shop would be underneath the blade sign. Frazier said that it would not. Kennedy and Sides said that the sign would need to be placed over the entrance, otherwise it would be confusing. Frazier said that the planned entrance could change to be underneath where the blade sign is currently shown. DeMaio inquired about the height of the bottoms of the blade signs from the sidewalk. Shapiro noted that he requested that they be 10 feet from the sidewalk. Frazier noted that once the existing sign bands are removed, that the brackets holding the signs can be mounted in order to meet that standard. DeMaio emphasized that the brackets be mounted at the same height. Sides: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed installation of signage and removal of existing sign band at 302 Essex Street, Suite B (Moon Baby). • Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. 6. 302 Essex Street, Suite A (Witch City Wicks): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and removal of existing sign band. • The submission under review included a cover letter, sign permit application, photos showing existing conditions, design of the signage, and photoshopped images showing the location of where signage will be mounted. Liz Frazier of Witch City Wicks was present on behalf of the applicant. Kennedy noted that this proposal called for only a blade sign. Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed installation of signage and removal of existing sign band at 302 Essex Street, Suite A (Witch City Wicks). Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. 7. Artists' Row: Discussion and vote on new paint color scheme, windows/doors, and signage scheme. The submission under review included designs/drawings of proposed fonts and signage, colors, and photos. City of Salem Public Art Planner Deborah Greel was accompanied by Leslie University student Zachary Johnson to present the proposal. Johnson explained that this proposal was developed as a result of a class project for a community design class. The goal was to redesign and reimagine how Artists' Row is viewed. Greel explained that she was introduced to the idea of this project by the class' professor, Rick Rawlins, who also is a business owner in Salem. There is two phase to this project. Phase one is the institution of a new color palette on Artists' Row. • Johnson said that they are proposing to make the primary color of each building a slate gray, but perhaps a bit lighter. The masonry would also be painted and the roof would remain the same. Pops of color would maintain a cohesive system, but allow for individuality and expression of each individual artist. There will be two trim colors, for window and door frames. Large super graphics would be either painted on or applied in vinyl to one side of each shed, indicating the number of the respective sheds. The other side of three of the sheds would have a large super graphic spelling out R-O-W(as in "artists' row"). The numbers will allow for easy wayfinding. Johnson noted that the new proposed windows and doors will provide improved visibility into the stalls, given that they will have fewer mullions blocking views inside. Sides remarked that better lighting inside the stalls would also be an improvement. Sides noted that the presentation lacks a marked out plan. Greel noted that the current tenants of Artists' Row are resistant to the idea of the proposed blade signs because they look too similar. DeMaio asked what the inspiration was for the chose fonts. Johnson said that the use of DIN works well in large format. The sheds have an industrial feel and the DIN combined with Sentinel works well with that idea. DeMaio pointed out the inconsistency of the fonts for"Artists' Row' as shown on the barn door versus the sign painted on the outside wall. He emphasized the need to be consistent for branding purposes. DeMaio asked if there was intent to be "retro' with the use of super graphics, noting that this type of font was used • often in the seventies; he emphasized that this was not a "good" or"bad" thing, but just an observation. Johnson said there was no attempt to be retro, but rather just be readable. • Kennedy suggested eliminating the second trim color from the proposed palette. He expressed liking the various pops of color. There is too much going on with the bathroom barn door and needs to be simplified. Sentinel is not the best choice with DIN. There are better choices for italic serif fonts. Be more modern, but still a bit retro. Look at the Blue Note Records fonts and their use of contrasting fonts; that will be good reference. Sides asked Kennedy if he liked the idea of uniform signage for the artists' stalls. Kennedy said that it could be successful, but it might be difficult to implement when artists have varying preferences. Johnson noted that there was a thought to having uniform blade signs, but allowing tenants to have individually branded building signs. Greel inquired as to whether the Board would accept painting both the wood walls and masonry on each stall. The color would be uniform. Board members expressed willingness to allow that. Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed new paint color scheme, windows/doors, and signage scheme, conditional upon the following: 1. That the barn door graphics/typeface be revised and reviewed again in the future (the barn door itself is approved). 2. That the second trim color be removed (each building is to have two colors). Seconded by Jaquith. Passes 7-0. • Old/New Business Shapiro noted that the DRB's presence was being requested at the next regular meeting of the SRA on June 14'", in order to have a joint meeting of the two boards. The purpose would be to review and discuss the design progress of the parcel at 289 Derby Street, which will in the future be a City park. Landscape architect CBA would be present and this would be the only opportunity for the two boards to formally review and discuss the project. A community focused engagement process is ongoing. Sides raised the issue of potentially expanding the purview of the DRB to also include select projects in the City's entrance corridors. She noted that the Planning Board has been discussing this possibility. She went on to say that the Department of Planning and Community Development recommends that projects 10,000 square feet or more be subject to DRB review. She disagrees with this recommendation and feels that almost anything non-residential should be reviewed. Kennedy asked for clarification on the Planning Department's recommendation. Sides said that there is a thought that the process will be too onerous for developers and that the Planning Board has design review capabilities that it can employ for smaller projects. Jaquith remarked that generally, design review is not onerous for developers. Sides said that she has requested examples of projects 10,000 sf or above that would have triggered DRB review in Entrance Corridors. She noted that the "F.W. Webb project"went through . an extensive process that would require the project to go before the DRB if it triggered site plan review at the Planning Board. Because the project has been reduced in size to less than that, it will not being coming before the DRB. • Shapiro noted that perhaps the F.W. Webb situation presented a need to consider a lower threshold for design review, but that it might not be the norm. He said that getting an idea of what kind of projects would be triggered at a 2,000 square foot threshold versus a 10,000 square foot threshold would be helpful in evaluating how to handle this proposal. He noted that there is not resistance to a lower threshold, but perhaps a desire to start with a higher threshold and see how it works. It can always be adjusted later. Sides reiterated her desire to see a lower threshold. She said that now is the right time to implement this change. DeMaio asked what are the boundaries of the DRB's current purview. Shapiro explained that it includes any exterior facing projects that would need to be reviewed and approved by the SRA, as well as projects requiring site plan review in the NRCC. The Urban Renewal Area (SRA jurisdiction) is most of the downtown, from Washington/Bridge Street to Washington/Canal Street. Sides pointed out that at the time the Urban Renewal Area was being renewed, it was a rushed process that did not allow for much discussion on the idea of expanding the boundaries a lot further. Shapiro explained that in many cases, projects that are less than 10,000 square feet are owned by general property owners, rather than developers with designs on a large and expensive project. • Sides expressed not liking the process of being the sole representative on the Planning Board conducting some level of design review outside the formal structure of a full meeting, and then having to report back to the full board. Jaquith noted that if a project requires relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals, it may help its case if it receives a positive recommendation from the DRB. The majority of the people who have come before this board would say the DRB has helped them. DeMaio pointed out the investment that has been made in entrance corridors with respect to new streets, sidewalks, and lighting. He asked why the City would make that investment if it weren't willing to also allow a process to facilitate better design of projects in those locations as well. Durand asked if Shapiro would take this information to the Planning Department and if it might have an effect on the ultimate decision. Shapiro indicated that he would have further discussion with the department. DeMaio said that the location of a project is more of an issue than how large the project is. A 2,000 sf project in a prominent location could be critical. Durand suggested that perhaps zoning designation could be the primary criteria to determine whether design review is required (i.e. that industrial would not require design review, but commercial would). Shapiro thanked the board for its comments and said that he would relay information back to the Planning Department, and that he looked forward to further discussion on the subject. • Minutes Approval of the minutes from the April 24, 2017 regular meeting. Kennedy: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0. Adjournment Kennedy: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:59 PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • • Salem Redevelopment Authority an IPR 19 PH llill Design Review Board CITY CLERK Meeting Agenda SALEM,MASS Wednesday, April 26, 2017—6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 7 Central Street(New England Dog Biscuit Company): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. • 2. 311 Derby Street (Flatbread Company): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. 3. 184 Essex Street (Omen): Continued Discussion and vote on proposed new paint color for top of awning. 4. 125 Washington Street (Ledger): Continued discussion and vote on proposed cafe permit / outdoor seating area, installation of signage, and installation of trash enclosure and ventilation ducts. Old/New Business This notice posted on ,official Bulletln.Bpard" lB Minutes City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 11 99 ZZ0O1u� at ,iin accordance with MGL Chess. 30A, Approval of minutes from the March 22, 201spe Ah'feLYfig. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections • 2-028 through 2-2033. DRB • April 26, 2017 Page 1 of 5 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Christopher Dynia, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy Members Absent: Paul Durand, Ernest DeMaio, J. Michael Sullivan Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Colleen Anderson David Jaquith calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 7 Central Street(New England Dog Biscuit Company): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. The submission under review includes; a signed application, sign dimensions, proposed • signage photos, and a site plan. Kimberly Barnes (Owner) was present to discuss the proposed signage. Shapiro stated that the applicant had previously placed a 2 foot wide x 3 foot high white plastic a-frame sign outside her store and she is now is seeking approval for it. It is within 10 feet of the entrance but in the planter across from the store. Barnes noted that the walkway/sidewalk is 7 feet wide and if the sign is placed on the sidewalk there would still be 5 feet clear for pedestrians. Barnes noted that the planter is not being taken care of by the City of Salem and the sign is placed in an arched rock area within the planter. Sides and Kennedy state that they would both prefer the sign to be placed on the sidewalk if the planter had the proper upkeep. Jaquith opens public comment. Heather Famico, 195 Essex Street, Ward 2 Councilor. Councilor Famico stated that in the past year neighboring businesses have added their own plantings to the planters in front of their businesses. Neighboring businesses should follow the same guidelines regarding placement to keep the signage uniform for those with vision impairments. She also prefers that signs remain on the sidewalk. Shapiro added that the raised tree planters were removed from Essex Street but those on Central Street remain in place. The business owner should be able to use common sense and be given some flexibility regarding its placement. • Jaquith closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve the existing location of the a-frame sign until the City of Salem begins upkeep on the planter. • Seconded by: Sides with an amendment that this a-frame sign and Modern Millie's sign be aligned. Passes 4-0. 2. 311 Derby Street(Flatbread Company): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. The submission under review includes; a signed application, sign dimensions, proposed signage photos, and a site plan. Kristin Nakis (Manager of Flatbread Company) was present to discuss the proposed signage. Shapiro stated that the proposed a-frame sign exceeds the allowable a-frame sign dimensions but a new sign will be reduced to 2 feet wide x 3 feet high. Nakis stated that the sign will be placed to the left of the driveway when looking at the building. Shapiro noted that the existing sidewalk is 9 feet across so a 2 foot wide sign would leave 7 feet clear for the sidewalk. Kennedy asked what the sign material would be and suggested that it match the wood on the building's fagade with the matching chalkboard paint. Nakis replied that the sign was going to be the same wood as the pervious sign but they could make the new sign match the building materials. Nakis asked if the sign could also be placed on the left side of the building in front of the new bowling alley. Kennedy replied yes, as long as it meets the signage location requirements. • Jaquith opens public comment. Heather Famico, 195 Essex Street, Ward 2 Councilor. Councilor Famico suggested that all signs be placed on the meter side of the sidewalk for consistency and clear accessibility. Jaquith closes public comment. Sides: Motion to approve a 2 foot x 3 foot wide a-frame sign at two possible locations to be placed along the meter side of the sidewalk. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 4-0. 3. 181 Essex Street(Omen): Continued discussion and vote on proposed new paint color for top of awning. The submission under review includes; paint color and specifications, paint application method, and revised existing and proposed perspective views. Timothy Regan (Mgr.) and Kimberly Branche (Asst. Mgr.) were present to discuss the proposed project. Shapiro noted that the sign was approved at a previous meeting but there was no consensus regarding whether the awning could be painted with metallic copper (Copper Penny) paint. Regan noted that they are not currently occupying the space but they will be soon. • Dynia noted that he prefers the proposed copper color to the existing green. Kennedy noted that the awning would stand but other store owners may want their other colors which could be problematic. The building owner should make the decision on awning colors. Dynia states that he is in favor of the copper color. Sides agrees and adds that she does not like the color singled out but painting all of the awnings would no longer allow Omen to stand out. Kennedy added that not approving a change in pant color could eliminate a future opportunity for business owners in the building to want to paint their awning which would improve the look of the fagade, but approving it will also make it greatly stand out. Dynia noted that approving the same green paint color would also make it stand out because the other green awnings have faded. Sides stated that it could be approved with the condition that the building owner could call for the painting of all the awnings within a certain timeframe. Regan noted that the building owner would make painting the awnings the business owner's expense which they may not all want to do. Shapiro noted that SRA could approve of the project even if the DRB recommends denial, however; not all four present DRB members are in favor and four votes are needed for approval. The discussion could be continued so the applicant can attempt to gain the votes of the remaining 3 DRB members before the next regular meeting. Regan and Branche agree. Sides suggested that the applicants also approach other business owners before the next meeting. Sides: Motion to continue until a future regularly scheduled DRB meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 4-0. 4. 125 Washington Street (Ledger): Continued discussion and vote on proposed cafe permit /outdoor seating area, installation of signage, and installation of trash enclosure and ventilation ducts. • The submission under review includes; a signed application, sign dimensions, existing and proposed signage photos, proposed cafe seating plan and furniture photos, and proposed trash enclosure and ventilation duct images. Brett Danahy from Ledger was present to discuss the proposed signage, seating, trash enclosure, and ventilation ducts. Matt O'Neil of Ledger and Bob Dunham building owner were also present. Danahy noted that brand imagery has been decided upon and the custom logo will be placed on the existing clock; a black background with white lettering. The front facing of the clock will be the 'Ledger' logo and the left and right faces will have additional lighting. The clock logo dimensions will be 33.75" wide x 44.25" high with an overall text dimension of 22.5". The proposed metal plaque signage is on hold as of now. Danahy stated that the SRA had previously mentioned altering the proposed gate, however; the metal work at the front patio was pre-ordered by the building owner. A revised layout moving the stanchions further away from the building will allow servers remain within the confines of the outdoor seating without crossing the pedestrians on the sidewalk. The pedestrians will still have 5 feet clear to walk. Sides noted that the step off the front of the new entrance can be left open. Shapiro noted that the Building Department had no comment on the front facing step. Dunham noted that the new granite entry is ADA compliant and the bricks will be reset and leveled back to the curb. Kennedy and Jaquith noted that they have no issues with the front facing step if the Building Department is okay with it. Danahy stated that the proposed furniture scheme has been revised; the tables will have • custom mahogany tops on steel frames, 24" x 30". The umbrella material has been provided; however the material has changed and they will be higher. Danahy stated that at the trash enclosure, totes are being considered rather than dumpsters, and there will be daily pick-ups; trash, recycling, and compost. Wood for the fire grill will also need to be stored outside. Trash handling in the City could use improving and they want to handle it the right way, which has not yet been determined. Totes don't need an enclosure but one may be wanted, Sides agrees. Dunham provide photos of how trash is handled at neighboring buildings using totes and dumpsters without an enclosure, most notably at Rockafellas the neighboring restaurant. Shapiro stated that he has had a conversation with Councilor Famico regarding speaking to the Building, Fire, and Health Departments regarding this matter. Shapiro provided some photos of the exterior work has been completed and asked if the rear planter is being demolished. Danahy replied it was but that hasn't been determined. Dunham noted that the far left hand side wall may need to remain, with a chain-link fence with slates placed on top, to keep the totes from rolling away. Shapiro notes that he received 3 e-mails regarding this project from neighbors and Mike Sperling of Sperling Interactive, a business behind Ledger, had some objections and Councilor Famico has responded to a letter from Mike Sperling. Danahy requested that totes be used for the time being and a time frame given so the trash enclosure can be studied and income can be generated to fund the construction of a proper enclosure. O'Neil stated that the totes are an eyesore and will not be effective for their needs. Sides stated that order and containment to make the trash disappear will work better than a mass of totes. The ducts should have an industrial look and be painted matte black, slats in the fence will help conceal the trash, and the Health Department should address the all the trash concerns; cleanliness, smells, etc. Kennedy agrees and added at the ducts could be • black or brown and the enclosure at the rear entry roof should be designed to allow proper airflow,to keep the units energy efficient. The roof concealing treatment should be studied and it should complement the treatment at the trash area. Danahy added that the units will be very quiet so noise shouldn't be a concern. Jaquith proposed a 90 day to study and proposed a design for the enclosures. Dynia asked if a maintenance rail was needed around the perimeter of the rear roof where equipment has been placed. Dunham replied no, a tie-off is sufficient for worker fall protection. Jaquith opens public comment. Heather Famico, 195 Essex Street, Ward 2 Councilor. Councilor Famico noted that the City Ordinance and SRA Regulations state only require dumpsters to be screened. A chain-link fence around a dumpster similar to Dunkin Donuts on Washington Street will be more of an eyesore for Sperling Interactive, a 90 day timeline would be appropriate, the screening should allow people to look-in and see their sustainability practices, appropriate screening will enhance the alley and help activate the space, and composting with smaller totes would make spills less likely. Mike and Becca Houlihan, residential neighbors. All residents are concerned with how the trash would be handled but it is clear that appropriate steps are being taken and asked about trash pick-up times. Danahy replied 9:30AM on weekdays and 10AM on weekends. • O'Neil stated that residents will hear the trash trucks backing down the alley daily, trash pick-up with multiple totes would take longer and create a more noise for the residents. Trash pick-up would be must faster with two dumpsters. Chemicals and proper drainage in the summer will eliminate any smells. Jaquith closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve signage, seating, rear ducts painted matte black or dark brown, 90 day grace period on approval of screening of HVAC units, no trash totes - dumpsters without screening and a 90 day grace period on approval of trash enclosure, removal of planter, and allowing a wood holder with a cover at the rear of the building. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 4-0. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the March 22, 2017 regular meeting. Sides: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 4-0. Adjournment Kennedy: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 4-0. • Meeting is adjourned at 7:25 PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. Salem Redevelopmenty Authority57 CITI CLERK. � t Design Review Board SqLtft Meeting Agenda (Revised) Wednesday, March 22, 2017— 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMain Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 125 Washington Street(Ledger): Discussion and vote on proposed cafe permit/ outdoor seating area, installation of signage, and installation of trash enclosure and ventilation ., ducts. 2. Town House Square (Town Pump Fountain): Discussion and vote on staining of fountain base. North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 3. 70-92 % Boston Street (River Rock Residences): Discussion and vote on construction documents for mixed-use residential and retail development. Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the February 22, 2017 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • This notice posted on ,Official Bulletin Board" City Hal;, Sale"'. lAa' s.. on f1wd-i /3-/ at -4', y-9-ftM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Salem Redevelopment, _. Authority MISR IS �+M CITY CLERK Design Review Board SALEM. MASS Meeting Agenda Wednesday, March 22, 2017 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 125 Washington Street (Ledger): Discussion and vote on proposed cafe permit /outdoor seating area, installation of signage, and installation of trash enclosure and ventilation • ducts. 2. Town House Square (Town Pump Fountain): Discussion and vote on staining of fbiihtain base. 3. 65 Washington Street/ Salem District Court Property (65 Washington Street, LLC c/o Diamond Sinacori, LLC): Continued discussion and vote on schematic design review for proposed development project. North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 4. 70-921/2 Boston Street (River Rock Residences): Discussion and vote on construction documents for mixed-use residential and retail development. Old/New Business Minutes This notice posted on "Offic. I Bulletin Board" Cit Hall, Salem, Mass. on Z 7 Approval of minutes from the February 22,C � re �II r meetingordance with MGL Chap. 30A, ..411w , Sectio l$-25. Adjournment . Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. DRB • March 22, 2017 Page 1 of 5 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan, Glenn Kennedy Members Absent: Christopher Dynia, Ernest DeMaio Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Colleen Anderson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 125 Washington Street(Ledger): Discussion and vote on proposed cafe permit/outdoor seating area, installation of signage, and installation of trash enclosure and ventilation ducts. • The submission under review includes; a signed application, sign dimensions, existing and proposed signage photos, proposed cafe seating plan and furniture photos, and proposed trash enclosure and ventilation duct images. Brett Danahy from Ledger was present to discuss the proposed signage, seating, trash enclose and ventilation ducts. Danahy stated that minimal work is proposed, 1)the new logo (33 1/3 inches wide x 43 1/3 inches high) with a whitish background and black ledger style font would be placed at the three panels below the existing grandfathered clock and they would be backlit from within the clock/sign housing. 2) A metal plaque (3 feet wide x 1 1/2 feet high) with metal lettering and no lighting would added by the entrance. 3) The existing Salem Savings Bank logo and incorporation date will remain on the facade. Shapiro added that the reuse of the backlit sign is allowed but the commercial signage design guidelines recommend that the paneling be dark and the logo white. Kennedy noted that the proposed logo is reminiscent of a ledger, which ties with the name, and an aged parchment panel color should be used. Sullivan noted that the logo is horizontal and the panel is more vertical so the logo will have to be slightly altered. Danahy agreed and added that if the 'Restaurant & Bar" lettering would be use at the plaque only for readability. Danahy noted that hours of operation signage will be added, possibly to the door. Danahy stated that the accessible sidewalk that was reviewed and approved by the Board was used to develop the cafe seating plan. There is approximately 9 feet 6 inches from the curb to the end of the brick and the proposed seating will surround the accessible entry. There will be 13 tables for 26 people, with 2 foot by 2 foot tables with table top lighting, and zinc planters at the perimeter. Sullivan noted that a waiter would need to use the sidewalk to serve customers. Danahy replied that opening up the new side railing at the side step • might need to be reconsidered. Shapiro noted that an existing light pole to the left of the entrance could be problematic space wise and no dimensions are shown in plan. Durand added that the clearance below open umbrellas would also be a concern for pedestrians and noted that a second step should be added to the side of the new entry with a gate for • customer and server access. Danahy replied that the umbrellas can be made taller and smaller so there is less of an overhang. Shapiro noted that the previous plan was approved without seating to highlight the potential conflicts were at least 4 feet of space is needed. Danahy stated that custom grey washed wood table tops will be produced and the large planters are optional. Kennedy stated that the color combination of the outdoor tables and chairs should be the same tone. Danahy stated that the majority of the exterior walls will remain untouched, however; new exhaust ducts will be run up the exterior of the back wall, above the rear vestibule, and up to the roof. The ducts can be painted or screened and walls be built up above the roof of the vestibule to help shield it from the direct line of sight. Danahy stated that an existing rear planter will be replaced with a new trash enclosure 12 feet x 10 feet x 6 feet high and it can be screened. The waste management company will be consulted on its final design. Durand suggests early morning trach pick-up. Shapiro noted that a City Councilor has voiced some concerns with the use of this much rear sidewalk, however; the sidewalk up to the planter is the property of the building. Durand recommends that the applicant submit a keyplan to show the extent of the alley, how the building will relate to the enclosure, an HVAC plan showing the vents leading to the makeup air unit on the roof, a plan of the proposed screening at the top of the vestibule roof, and samples of the slat material color. Sides and Durand suggest a matte slate grey vinyl enclosure slats and black paint on the ductwork. • Jaquith: Motion to continue until the next regular meeting on April 26, 2017. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. 2. Town House Square (Town Pump Fountain): Discussion and vote on staining of fountain base. The submission under review includes; existing plans and proposed color samples. Steve Watt of Landworks was present to discuss the proposed project. Shapiro stated that there are maintenance concerns with the accumulation of dirt on the white concrete fountain base. Landworks has been contacted regarding having the sub- contractor Durastone stain the existing base and clean the bronze reliefs. Shapiro noted that the base will still be boarded up during the winter months to protect it from snow plows. Watt stated that the dilution rate creates the difference in the intensity of the stain. Sides asked what the material was behind the bronze reliefs. Shapiro replied concrete and noted that the Planning Department involved in the project preferred a high color contrast. Sides stated that she would prefer a lighter color with a speckle. Durand stated that he would prefer a grayer tone to help conceal dirt. Board members agreed to select color CL 9505 and to allow Landworks to select any dilution between 3-1 and 15-1. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. • Chair Durand closes public comment. • Durand: Motion to approve the staining of the fountain concrete and the color CL 9505 and to allow Landworks to select any dilution between 3-1 and 15-1. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 5-0. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 3. 70-90 Yz Boston Street (River Rock Residences): Discussion and vote on construction documents for mixed-use residential and retail development. The submission under review includes; existing conditions plan, proposed site plan and details, illustrative landscape plan, schematic floor plans, elevations, sections, and perspective views. Tanya Carriere of Khalsa Design was present to discuss the proposed project. Anthony Roberto, Owner, and Tim Nickerson, Landscape Architect from Verdent Landscape Architecture, were also present. Carriere stated that the Planning Boards comments on the Schematic Design have been applied to the latest plans. At the Garage level the garage door has been moved to the end wall as opposed to the front wall, for easier access. The trash room has been placed inside the building as opposed to in an attached one story structure, and a dumpster with an enclosure is now proposed. The Goodhue Street walkway has been simplified and the transformer will be moved closer to the main panels and not in the dog park area. Carriere noted that the parking spaces have been reduced from 108 to 96 spaces, which • the Planning Board approved and additional green space has been added. The stairway from the circle to Boston Street was removed because over 100 feet of ramp would be needed to make it accessible and greenspace was added in its place, and a continuous walkway to Boston Street will now be located at the Boston Street entrance with an onsite crosswalk. A small one story Sprinkler Room has also been added to the townhouse building and will be slightly concealed into the hill. Carriere stated that on the Goodhue Street elevation a penthouse to house a stair to the roof has been added where there once was a roof hatch. The penthouse cladding will match the elevator, a patinaed copper metal. One elevator and the associated penthouse has been eliminated leaving just one elevator because one is adequate for this building size. The address and entrance sign colors have been changed to Autumn Tan to match the siding color with a dark brown background. The building and entrances now have additional details and the front doors have been rearranged for a better flow. The retail space still faces Goodhue Street as well as a Fitness Room, Lobby, and Trash Room. The sparking spaces on that level have been reduced from 46 to 41. The first floor houses the Main Lobby, Community Room, and 14 one and two bedroom apartments. The second and third floor house 15 one and two bedroom apartments and the third floor also has balconies facing Goodhue Street. Mechanical equipment is located on the roof and the penthouse stair for maintenance as previously mentioned. Carriere noted that each townhouse still has their one private garage and outdoor parking spot at the rear of the building, and individual front porches and walkways facing Boston Street with fenced in yard. Bedrooms will be placed at the upper levels of the townhouses with no equipment on the roofs. • Carriere stated that the lighting was previously contemporary but that has been changes to more traditional style and will be located as shown on drawing C-4. Lighted bollards and building lighting have been added to both buildings in several styles to enhance the entries. Nickerson stated that the entry walkways at the townhomes were concrete but will now be concrete unit pavers and the color hasn't been selected. Shrubs were added next to the circle due to the elimination of the stairs and ramp up to Boston Street and a tree was added next to the townhomes. Three ornamental trees at the Boston Street entry have been changes to evergreen shrubs to create more visibility for vehicles and the proposed signage. The elimination of parking near the Boston Street entrance has allowed for additional evergreens and plantings and a tulip tree to continue the street edge. Nickerson noted that the Beaver Street entrance an existing pedestrian walkway will be continued to connect from the sidewalk to the main entry. Additional trees, lawn space, and shrubbery have been added in this area and one tree will be shifted slightly due to the relocation of the transformer from the dog park. The Goodhue entry walks have been simplified to contain, a walkway, a small retaining wall, and a 2 rail guardrail matching the railings of the building, and plantings to soften that entrance. All retaining walls will be cast in place concrete with a pre-cast concrete cap to mimic stone and a guardrail on top. Nickerson stated that the dog park size will increase with the removal of the transformer and pea stone will be used in lieu of lawn. Sides asked if the white picket fence at the townhomes on Boston Street will be wood. Nickerson replied white vinyl. Shapiro noted that the DBR has previously recommended the use of a natural fence material. Carriere noted that the Planning Board did recommend that other fence options at the townhomes be considered and added that the Owner would have no issue installing a wood fence. Nickerson added that the fence would be flat top, 30 inches high and painted white. • Jaquith asked if bike racks will be placed on site and near the retail space. Nickerson replied yes, multiple racks are proposed at both entrances. Carriere added that storage units, 4 feet deep x 9 feet wide are at each parking space and can also be used to store bikes. Sullivan asked if a location for public art has been determined. Charriere replied no. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve the construction documents with the use of a wood fence, painted white, at the townhomes along Boston Street and submitting a sign application permit for the project. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the February 22, 2017 regular meeting. Sides: Motion to approve the minutes. • Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. Adjoumment Sides: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:20 PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • • Salem ® Redevelopment Authority Design Review Boards EMM . Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 22, 2017—6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 21 Church Street Salem (National Grid): Continued and vote on installation "switchgear" equipment. • 2. 184 Essex Street (Omen): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and new paint color for awning. Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the January 25, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on Fp 4 j 017 at /L.'/3 PH in accordance w+ G hap. 30A, Sections 18-25. DRB • February 22, 2017 Page 1 of 3 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, and Ernest DeMaio Members Absent: J. Michael Sullivan, Christopher Dynia, and Glenn Kennedy Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Andrew Shapiro Chairman Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 184 Essex Street(Omen): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and new paint color for awning.* • *This item was taken out of order from how it was presented on the agenda. The submission under review includes; a signed application, a sign package including; dimensions, and existing and proposed elevation photos. Ken McTague of Concept Sign was present on behalf of the applicant. McTague provided additional information that was not included in the member packets, showing that window graphics along the top and bottom of the additional storefront window of the project would continue in the same way as existing window graphics. Shapiro explained that the application was fairly straightforward, that the application is in compliance with the City's sign ordinance and commercial design guidelines, and that member Glenn Kennedy provided his comments on this project via email just prior to the meeting. Durand expressed a desire see more of the building and existing surroundings. Shapiro noted that Kennedy recommends approving the sign proposal, but expresses reservations about painting the awning. Durand said that he is fine with the signage. DeMaio concurred with Durand. With respect to painting the awning, Durand expressed a reservation and a hope that the property owner could present something more comprehensive. McTague said that he has been in contact with the property owner, who may entertain the idea of painting all of the awnings. • Durand then noted that the execution of the painting of the awning is crucial. What is "good paint?" It needs the right prep and product. • McTague explained that he had pointed out to the property owner that an oil based paint would need to be applied to the metal awning, and to use a spray for application. Durand said that he would like to know more about the process of painting the awning. Shapiro asked the Board if they had any reservations about one awning having a different color (in this case copper/gold), than all of the others. If so, would they also be okay with other applicants coming before the Board to request painting their respective awnings different colors? Sides did not agree with the idea of one store owner painting one awning. The building is much larger and has several elements. The property owner should present a comprehensive plan. DeMaio expressed that he felt the opposite of Sides' stance on the subject. The applicant would be painting only one field. If the building did not have awnings on it to begin with, store owners could install awnings of varying colors, which is the case on several buildings elsewhere. Every project should be considered on a case-by-case basis, which means that the Board can allow this project to proceed without feeling compelled to approve future projects if it does not seem that they will be well executed. He added that this change in color could be refreshing for a building that has remained much the same for the better part of 25 years. Durand agreed with DeMaio, noting that the new paint color would add variety to the • streetscape and could compel other storeowners to do something similar to their awnings. Sides held firm to her belief that what was proposed to be painted was not an awning per se, but part of the building's structure. Jaquith noted that his only concern would be how the paint is applied to the awning structure. Shapiro suggested that the Board could consider approving the painting of the awning, conditional upon the applicant returning to the Board for approval of the product to be applied and the method for application. Durand agreed that that could be an acceptable path forward. He reemphasized that more context along the street could be helpful to see in a future submission. Observing that Sides still did not feel comfortable enough with the proposal to paint the awning Durand suggested that perhaps the Board would have to consider continuing that portion of the application to a future meeting when more Members would be present. Sides said that she likes the way the copper makes the sign band pop, but she is concerned with the method of application and how the result will make the rest of the building look. She expressed wanting to see a perspective showing more of the building with the proposed copper awning shown in context. Jaquith: Motion to approve with the proposed signage and to continue the proposal to paint the top of the awning. • Seconded by: Durand. Passes 4-0. • 2. 21 Church Street Salem (National Grid): Continued discussion and vote on installation of "switchgear" equipment. The submission under review includes; existing and proposed plans and existing and proposed elevation photos. Daniel Cameron of National Grid was present to discuss the proposed new switchgear project. Shapiro explained that a site visit for the Board had taken place the week prior. The DRB Members present at the site visit eventually expressed support for the current proposed configuration of having a manhole installed at the first parking space, which will not result in the permanent loss of a parking space, nor will it require the planting area to expand in size. Existing plantings in the planting bed would need to be removed to make way for the installation of the 3' high switchgear that is painted green. New plantings would need to be provided and planted by the applicant. Cameron reiterated that they would do whatever necessary to properly screen the unit, so long as it would still be accessible. A gate or fence could also perhaps be installed. They have a certified arborist on staff who could inform the planting strategy. Durand: Motion to approve the proposal conditional upon the applicant returning to the Board for approval of plantings to screen the switchgear. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 4-0. • Minutes Approval of the minutes from the January 25, 2017 regular meeting. Sides: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 4-0. Adjournment Durand: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 4-0. Meeting is adjourned at 6:24 PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • Salem Redevelopment Authority - itY SiatLEM. MA �. : Design Review Board Notice of Site Visit' Thursday, February 16, 2017 —8:00 am 21 Church Street The City of Salem Design Review Board (DRB) will hold a site visit at 21 Church Street (City/SRA owned parking lot in between Salem Five building and 11 Church Street condominiums)on Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:00 a.m. The purpose of the site visit is to better understand the site and its constraints in order to respond to a proposal submitted by National Grid to the DRB to install an aboveground "switchgear." Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on FS 0 8 2017 at jy`¢!P PHin accordance with MGL Chap, 36k Sections 18-25. • ,c Salem Redevelopment Authority + ` �tTY C ERK Design Review Board $ L �� ASS. Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 25, 2017 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 99 Washington Street (Honey Dew Donuts): Discussion and vote on installation of signage • 2. 21 Church Street Salem (National Grid): Discussion and vote on installation "switchgear" '' equipment. 3. 65 Washington Street/ Salem District Court Property (65 Washington Street, LLC c/o Diamond Sinacori, LLC): Discussion and vote on schematic design review for proposed development project Old/New Business This notice posted on "Offi al Bulletin Board" Minutes City Hall, Salem, Mass. on �� 0617 at J.'46Pin accordand�with MGL ChIIP. 30A, Approval of minutes from the December 20, 2R regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. DRB January 25, 2017 Page 1 of 6 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: David Jaquith, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan Christopher Dynia, Glenn Kennedy, Ernest DeMaio Members Absent: Paul Durand Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Colleen Anderson Helen Sides calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 99 Washington Street (Honey Dew Donuts): Discussion and vote on installation of signage The submission under review includes; a signed application, a sign package including; dimensions, existing and proposed elevation photos, and proposed lighting. Bart Steel of Viewport Sign &Awning was present to discuss the proposed signage. Bart Steele stated that one proposed sign is a 5 square feet (2 feet high x 3 feet wide) blade sign, hung from a 42 inch long x 13 inch high black scroll bracket. The second sign will be a flat wall sign, 21 inches high and will be centered within the 68 inch long fascia board. The lettering will be 1/2 inch thick PVC lettering. Both signs will not have illumination. A 10" high x 20 inch wide vinyl decal logo will be applied to the entrance door. 2 vinyl window graphics; one 6 inches high x 74 '/2 inches long and one 6 inch high x 78 '/2 inches long applied to the top of the glass at the two large windows. Steele noted that there was 3/4 inches of space between the top and bottom of the fascia board mounted sign. Sullivan noted that there should be more space to make the sign feel less crowded. Kennedy suggests that a horizontal sign to make better use of the space if the lettering were smaller. Steele noted that the corporate office would prefer to maintain their logo shape. Sullivan suggested that the blade sign height be raised so that the sign is centered on the raised panel instead of the bracket being centered, which causes the blade sign to hang below the bottom of the cornice. Kennedy suggests a bracket be used in lieu of a blade bracket and that it be centered within the space within the panel trim. Steele noted that a heavier bracket will be needed to support the back-to-back sign. DeMaio noted that the image of the brand should remain. Kennedy added that 1 inch of space should be both above and below the wall mounted sign. Jaquith: Motion to approve with sign reduction to allow 1" of space above and below the wall mounted sign and a centered side mounted support bracket for the blade sign. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. - I t 2. 21 Church Street Salem (National Grid): Discussion and vote on installation "switchgear" equipment. The submission under review includes; existing and proposed plans and existing and proposed elevation photos. Daniel Cameron of National Grid was present to discuss the proposed new switchgear project. Cameron stated that Salem's electrical wiring in underground and in need of an upgrade that National Grid is doing statewide. The breaker is currently located in a confining underground manhole using old technology. The latest technology uses above ground switching covered by a green box: 5 feet 7 inches wide x 3 feet 8 inches high x 5 feet 1 inch deep, that sits on top of a collar that is open to a below grade 14 feet long x 7 feet wide manhole. The green box makes no noise, has double doors on two sides, to make it safer for the techs to operate. A situation affected this area 18 months ago which has made this a target area to upgrade, which will also provide a back-up service for the condominium building at 10 Church Street. A meeting with Mayor Driscoll has led them to the proposed landscape area at the entrance to the property that is owned by the SRA, between the existing curb and low brick wall. Cameron noted that the original proposed condition would require removing one handicapped parking space, which would require a submission and meeting with the Parking Board and City Council because they would be removing a revenue generating property. The secondary proposed condition would leave the curbing in place. A small circular manhole would be required to allow workers to access the large open manhole below the green box and that smaller manhole can be located in the existing parking space, although closing off a parking space or having a car removed so their workers can access a manhole is not their typical practice. 5 feet of clearance on the two door sides of the green switchgear box is preferred. Cameron noted that a couple bollards to protect the switchgear on the driveway side are also proposed. Sides asked if the box can be a candidate for the painted boxes around the city. Shapiro replied that usually City owned boxes can be candidates. Kennedy asked if the City owned the fence. Shapiro noted than an easement needs to be executed with the SRA, as well as the Parking Board. DeMaio added that the Parking Board should determine if this is the right spot for a handicapped spot. Dynia asked if the switchgear could be rotated. Cameron replied no, due to the swing of the doors. DeMaio noted that this area is also used for snow storage is located. Shapiro stated that he has to determine the timeline and roll of City Council on this matter while understanding that it is a service quality issue for National Grid that will benefit the customers in Salem, and the DRB will not be reviewing this project. Jaquith stated that he is concerned with issues that may arise while matters relating to this location are investigated and suggests they hold off on a vote. Sullivan asked if the fence could be altered or moved to help conceal the switchgear possibly with different screen. Cameron suggested that the wall be moved to help with screening with a new side wall and the only thing lost is some shrubbery on the street side of the wall. Sides in is favor of additional concealing methods. Shapiro noted that the shrub line is a continuation of the condominium walls and shrubbery and that should be factored into the proposed design. Kennedy stated that the issues needs to be further discussed by the Board and their recommendations sent to National Grid at a later date. Shapiro will schedule a DRB on-site meeting with Daniel from National Grid, representation from the Mayor's office, and the Director of Parking and Transportation. Sides: Motion to continue the discussion until the next regularly scheduled meeting on February 22, 2017 until the DRB members have had an on-site meeting. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 6-0. 3. 65 Washington Street/Salem District Court Property(65 Washington Street, LLC c/o Diamond Sinacori, LLC): Discussion and vote on schematic design review for proposed development project Merrill Diamond, Jeff Hersch, and Greg Winter (Project Manager)of Diamond Sinacori, and Steve Tise and Julia Sauer of Tise Design Associates, were present to discuss the proposed project. Diamond stated that the plans have been refined to ensure that the building looks as if it belongs in Salem by drawing on neighboring elements and are seeking endorsement for the general direction of the design. Tise stated that their firm has replaced the original architects. The plans have been further refined since its review by the SRA. The original proposal required excavating the entire site and locating 82 cars completely below grade which is an extreme economic challenge due to hazardous materials and soil conditions, etc. The current design reuses the Courthouse Basement after demolition and enclosing the remaining spaces at grade level so soil does not have to be removed. That resulted in a parking ratio of 1 car per condominium unit and the developer is making a commitment to lease spaces up to 1.5, required by zoning, from the city garage. Backlit laser cut plans are being considered to conceal the parking. Tise stated that the building will go directly to the lot line The property boundary will go directly to the lot line goes up to the landscaped strip along Federal Street is owned by the City. Easements currently exist at the rear service area accessible through a Church Street curb cut. Tise stated that the base of the building will have a stone veneer, with 4 stories of brick and projecting bays and cornice treatment. The structure is currently six stories, with steel construction on the ground floor and wood frame construction on the upper floors. The top floor is now 3 three-bedroom penthouses with a continuous window wall. The reused garage level means that the first floor, residential and retail entrances, will be two feet above grade. The bays material hasn't been determined but the siding will be a simulated wood rain screen. Tise stated that the final number of units is 62 reduced from 63 which has eliminated the one parking space and allowed them to relocate the handicapped access closer to Federal Street and to open up more of the Washington Street fagade. Handicapped ramps are concealed on the exterior with planters on Washington and Church Streets. The main entrance has stairs and the retail space can be bifurcated into two spaces. The previously designed shared roof deck made the building a high-rise which is not allowed. The current isplan has a shared open landscaped terrace at an interior U-shaped courtyard at the rear of the building next to the shared library and exercise room. Shallow balconies have been included but are limited to the three penthouses. Tise stated that a shallow simulated storefront window has been placed at the far corner of Church Street and next to it is a second accessible ramp to the retail space. The elevator will provide access to the Basement and secondary egress door will exit from the Basement near the display window. A bicycle storage area and new general storage in the Basement is being discussed. Eliminating 1 parking space has added 300 square footage making it 3,300 square feet. The parking garage entrance will be from Federal Street with a roll up garage door. The garage will be screened along the Federal Street side which is behind the City's landscaped area. Sides asked about the height of the building. Tise replied 68 feet high, zoning limits the building height to 70 feet or less. From the first floor level the floor to floor height is 13 '/2 feet. Sullivan asked what the treatment would be at the building and the recessed ramps. Tise replied that the base of the building would be a cast stone base and lintel, brick that matches the stone color but coursed like quoins although the pattern hasn't been determined. The inset portions at the ramps would be a granite tile. Sullivan asked how the corners would be treated. The developer is proposing awnings and other projecting elements to pronounce the retail space and add character to the ground floor. The fagade at the upper levels will be brick to match the character of the City, floor to ceiling glass at the penthouses, and the treatment at the bays will be a metal rain screen clad in a simulated teak wood. Jaquith asked where the building will stop along Church Street. Tise replied that it would stop right next to the neighboring Church Street building and the neighboring buildings owner, Peter Pitman has encouraged them to build up to it. Sides noted that the Federal &Washington Street corner is the most visible, is the most closed off, and needs further study and/or a corner treatment. Diamond replied that the SRA agreed and it will be studied. Sullivan added that the full height of the corners and entries need to be improved to de-emphasis the mass of the building. Sides added that the recessed ramps are not pedestrian friendly and separate the building from the streetscape. DeMaio noted that the retail space of the previous scheme wrapped the corner and gave life to the streetscape while keeping the stairway access point within the building. Kennedy added that the entire first floor is not as open as the previous scheme and the Washington & Church Street entrances and retail areas are far from the actual retail space. Tise replied that continuing the retail space eliminates the parking spaces that are in demand. Winter noted that corner glazing to open the corner has also been considered. DeMaio added that retail on the ground level should extend as far as possible for urban design purposes. Tise replied that the ramps are the minimum distances required and planter boxes between the free standing columns at the ramps have been considered to liven up the space, as are overhangs and awnings but they haven't been designed yet. DeMaio noted that the proportion of the building makes the base feel compressed, the treatment and height of the base should be explored; perhaps bring the base up to the underside of the second floor bays, and signage will also help the facade. Sullivan noted that the window bay widths vary. Tise replied that the second floor sill height has been raised to heighten the base. The first floor column lines do line up with the floors above but the details haven't been finalized. DeMaio asked where the HVAC units will be placed. Tise replied that the systems haven't been determined but it will be screened and it will be placed on the roof. Tise added that It fireplaces and skylights are expected for the penthouse units and will add another element to the roof. The projecting parapet will have LED up lighting for night illumination. Sullivan asked why the need for such a large projecting parapet. Tise replied to cap the building, provide daytime shading, and an illuminated nighttime feature. Tise noted that a sculpture could also be placed at the landscaped area corner along Federal Street rather than. Sullivan replied that the livening up of that comer of the building shouldn't rely on a piece of art. Kennedy and Sullivan agree that that corner of the building still needs further study. Jaquith opens public comment. Councilor Tom Furey, Salem Councilor-At-Large. Councilor Furey stated that being along an entrance corridor, this building will be a window on Washington Street, and he believes this will be a nice fit for Salem with the input of the DRB. Tim Jenkins, agrees with Councilor Furey's statement to make the building a showcase, and the details and the DRB's input will be important. Elements of Salem that will be remembered should be implemented into this design like with the last PEM project. Jaquith closes public comment. Tise noted that the budget does put constraints on the design and they plan to keep the building simple so money can be spent on the details. Diamond noted that they will meet with the PEM board to generate ideas and possible display ideas for this building. DeMain noted that he would prefer great retail over display windows and asked how the one way direction of parking will affect traffic in the area. Shapiro replied that the number of spaces has been reduced and a traffic study will be conducted. Diamond added that the condominium units will be geared towards empty nesters that will create less traffic than anticipated. Sullivan noted that providing fewer spaces in such a densely populated area is the best option. Shapiro noted that a Variance would not be required for having less than the required parking because the PUD (Planned Unit Development) permit process allow the applicant to work with the Planning Board to set the parking ratio and zoning requirements don't need to be strictly adhered to. Kennedy: Motion to continue the discussion of the project to a future meeting date. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the December 20, 2016 regular meeting. Sides: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. Discussion by Board members on the project review process. Adjournment Kennedy: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:20 PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. Salem Redevelopment Authority 1916 DEC 13 P 31 38 Design Review Board FILE # Meeting Agenda CITY CLERK,SALEM, MASS. Tuesday, December 20, 2016 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMain Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion and vote on 100% construction documents (final design review) North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 2. 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Ext., and 23 Mason Street: Continued discussion and vote on proposed four building, 29 unit residential development. Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the November 15, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Offick of tip Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 11C� i 1 2U10 at 3.'3,0 ,'PFJ in accordance with MGL Chap,3W DRB December 20, 2016 • Page 1 of 7 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, Christopher Dynia, Glenn Kennedy Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio, J. Michael Sullivan Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Colleen Anderson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion and vote on 100% construction documents (final design review) The submission under review includes; site plans showing possible locations for public art, • revised perspectives, building section vignettes, and signage. David Steinberg and Andrew Zimmermann of RCG, LLC were present to discuss the 100% construction drawings and a signage concept. Kevin Burke of Burke Plus Designs was present to discuss the proposed signage. Steinberg stated that the Board questions have been answered since the September presentation and site/street work is nearing completion. They will close on the City parcel near the end of 2016/ beginning of 2017. RCG, LLC has a purchase and sale agreement with the Hotel Group and should close on that deal in February of 2017. Zimmermann stated that part one of the presentation will focus on the final construction plans and part two will focus on the different types of proposed signage. The previously discussed items were; 1) the flared stair between the hotel and mixed-use building, 2) alternative materials at the underside of the decks, 3) alternate location for the building directory, 4) revised lintel color on the Mill Hill Building, 5) possible public art locations, and 6)Washington Street sidewalk materials. Zimmermann stated that three locations for public art have been narrowed down to two, A) at the Washington & Dodge Street corner and B) between the two buildings. Location B is on their land and location A is not, however; they are open to either although location A would have a bigger impact. The content of the art is unknown and a call to artists will be issued in the future. Commemorating the history of the site is also a possibility along Washington Street near the intersection of Canal Street, through engraving on the pavement or a plaque mounted in the landscape, although this is only a concept. • Zimmermann displayed the building section elevations/vignettes with additional detailing that had not been determined at the 50% review. Section 1)West Building: showed the retail facades and nichiha paneling. Section 2) Building Connector at the residential Lobby: showed a two story curtain wall, apartments at the upper level with cembrit panels and • nichiha panels, proposed sunshades at the top level deck, and brushed metal window frames protruding from the fagade. Section 3)the Mill Hill building: showed the granite base, storefront at the retail spaces, cembrit and nichiha paneling, a traditional brick fagade, cembrit panels at the recessed top level, and a revised lintel color. There will be black framed single hung Anderson windows and black railings at the balconies. The underside and walking surface of all the decks will be Azek—Arbor Collection. The building transformer will be concealed with a permanent corten metal screen, in lieu of bollards painted yellow, that will double as signage. Zimmermann noted that the building address will be on the face of the metal screen and in cut-out form on top of the entry canopy. A blade sign building directory listing the retail tenants and direction to the parking entrance has been relocated to above the storefront window rather than in the storefront window to make it visible to vehicle and pedestrians. The Dodge Street streetscape paving will have perpendicular banding, concrete on the City property for easy maintenance and pavers on the private property for a rainwater infiltration system. Kennedy suggested that two public art locations be left open to either or both locations depending on the art proposed. Durand and Sides agreed. Kennedy suggested using either the Heritage or Vintage collection of Azek decking which resembles natural wood. Jaquith suggested the use of a plaque for historic commemoration purposes as opposed to site paving. Durand and Kennedy agreed. Durand opens public comment. . No one wishes to speak. Durand closes public comment. Shapiro stated that this is the last time this Board will review documents for this project, and this Boards recommendation will be given to the SRA. Proposed building and tenant signage, any substantial changes, and the hotel project, are the only items left for the DRB and SRA to review. Kennedy: motion to recommend approval of the submitted 100% construction development documents, conditional upon the following: 1. The development shall be constructed in a manner that corresponds to plans reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, dated December 1, 2016 2. All future additional or changed proposed signage for the building and tenants shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Salem Redevelopment Authority. Signage shall go through the proper permitting channels and comply with the City of Salem's sign ordinance.' 3. Any changes later made to the project deemed to be substantial in nature shall be submitted to the Design Review Board and Salem Redevelopment Authority for review and approval. Correspondence with the City of Salem's Director of Planning and Community Development shall lead to a determination of whether a proposed change is substantial. Seconded by: Jaquith. Sides abstained. Passes 4-0. • Exterior Conceptual Signage . Zimmermann introduced Kevin Burke of Burke Plus Designs to discuss the proposed conceptual signage. The branding, locations, and sign types are they leaning towards for the exterior signage. Burke stated that there are 3 aspects to the exterior signage package. 1) Main Building identification - building name and address 2)Wayfinding 3) Retail Burke stated that there are minimal graphics for the exterior because it is a residential building that should fit into the neighborhood, however; the streetscape will be livened up where appropriate. There are 5 types of signage proposed. 1-The main building identity centralized to the pedestrian entrances to the residential building. 2- Directory signs such as the wayfinding sign at the flared stair between the two buildings and the large high sign at the Washington Street corner. 3- Retail signs along Washington Street. 4- Live/work retail signage. 5- Other public signage. Burke noted that sign type 1 is the corten steel wall around the transformer that provides an opportunity for signage, such as laser cutting the address numbers and logo from the steel panels and reusing the cutouts above the entrance canopy. Branding signage will also be placed at the doors. Sign type 2 is on the opposite side of the building where there is an entrance to the residential parking deck and office parking possibly with its own Lobby where additional branding style signage will be used. Signage at both entrances will be different. The proposed location for the directory sign near the Washington Street corner is • now above the storefront to maintain visibility for the retails space below. Its public parking aspect will be helpful for wayfinding so vehicular traffic can easily see it; it will highlight the retail tenants, and indicate the name of the building. It will be a double-sided perpendicular blade with external illumination with lighting in the top and bottom support bars to shine light onto the sign, and the tenant names will be replaceable panels. A freestanding pedestrian wayfinding sign will be placed in the garden at the bottom of the flared stair between the two buildings. Sign type 3 &4 is the retail signage. Each retail and live/work tenant will have an address for easy fire department location as well as plate mounted blade style signage brackets with concealed bolts and light fixtures aimed at the signage. Each tenant will have guidelines to follow in terms of the design of their individual signage and the need for City approval of their proposed signage will be explained in their lease. Sign type 5 is the way finder at the rear to highlight the commercial and residential parking entrances. The commercial vehicle entrance will have a blade sign and the residential entrance a wall mounted sign. Durand noted that sign type 1, the corten steel sign, is free standing. Shapiro noted that freestanding signs are not allowed within the Urban Renewal area, but inquired as to whether the corten screen wrapped to touch the building. Zimmermann noted that the corten steel sign does abut the wall and bench that enter into the residential Lobby. Based on that, Shapiro explained that he would not consider this to be a freestanding sign. Durand and Sides expressed approval of the sign as is. Shapiro added that directional signage is not a concern with this project because it is does not act as an advertisement. Sides asked if the corten steel sign will be lit. Zimmermann replied that it would backlit to highlight the numbering and lettering at night. Kennedy noted that this is a well-executed back-lit sign. tBurke discussed sign type 2, the panel signs attached directly to the wall from the parking area into the building. The residences will have a black sign and the office a white sign. Both will be flat aluminum signs. Burke noted that the logo design and name are not 100% developed. Kennedy noted that the look of the "M" is a different type face, reads very light, • and should be heavier on the black on white sign. Kennedy is in favor of this look and added that the three different wayfinding signs look somewhat similar, but not similar enough to read as a completed logo, although the logo has a nice look. The sign design concept needs to go further. The simplicity of the directional sign at the bottom of the flared stair works although a tab on the arrow would complete the look. Burke noted that the san serif lettering is easier to read. Sides stated that should would prefer the "M" logo to be more different than the remaining text to make it more distinct. Kennedy agreed and noted that the spacing should allow the logo to read as two distinct words despite the enlarged "M." Jaquith and Kennedy stated that they are in favor of the name. Durand stated that the large directory sign near the Washington Street corner is high. Shapiro noted that this sign would require a variance, since signs cannot be higher than the top of the sills of the 2nd floor windows. The ZBA and SRA would also need to approve it. The larger building warrants a higher sign, especially since it will direct vehicular traffic toward the public parking lot. All Board members are in favor of the larger and higher sign. Burke noted that there will be no lighting within the sign but at night there will be street lighting adjacent to it. All Board members are in favor of sign types 3&4, the blade signs at the retail and live/work areas. Shapiro asked if any further refinement would be happen to the signage package. Zimmermann replied that the sign package presented will be a part of the bid package and RCG will be providing the power and the brackets for them. Shapiro added that the total amount of square footage, other than the blade sign for retail signage for each tenant would need to be confirmed. Burke replied that there will be a double-sided blade sign, building mounted sign, the corner retail space will have two, on the doors the store hours and credit card stickers will be allowed. The address decal is a fire department • requirement and doesn't qualify as retail signage. A packet on promoting their retail environment will be given to each tenant and signage within the store but within a certain rage of the glass will be allowed. Tenant will need to present to the Board individually to get approval on their retail signage. Shapiro noted that an approval from the Board would be for a signage approach/concept only and any refinements to the plan would need to be reviewed by the Board. Durand: Motion to recommend approval approval of the submitted signage plan for the building, which includes retail tenant placeholders, directional signage, and building signage. This recommendation is subject to the applicant seeking and receiving a variance from the City of Salem Board of Appeals for placement of the parking and tenant directory sign in the proposed location, which is higher than the City of Salem Sign ordinance allows. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 5-0. North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 1. 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Ext., and 23 Mason Street: Discussion and vote on proposed four building, 29 unit residential condominium development. The submission under review includes; project overview packet with NRCC statements, and a full set of revised building plans; site development survey, landscape plan, floor plans, elevations, and existing & revised proposed renderings. Ryan McShera, Architect, from Red Barn Architecture and Mark Tranos of Jupiter Point were present to discuss the proposed project. • Shapiro introduced a letter to the Board from resident Nina Cohen regarding the proposed residential development. McShera reviewed the Planning and DRB's comments regarding the modifications to the existing concrete building; the revised stair tower with its curtain wall and Alucobond panels, the massing and proportion of the proposed third floor addition, the eave lines, and the pitched roofs over the old loading docks which have been changed to flat roofs that are more harmonious with the overall building. The 3D rendering has been revised to show a light grey wash over the concrete with a charcoal and dark grey/black metal panel work. McShera noted that the landscape plan has been revised to show additional vegetation and now coordinates with the civil and architectural plans. The corner of one loading dock patio was clipped to accommodate vehicular traffic and the South entry door and walkway now exit west. Trees and planting beds have also been called out on the site and the plan is now 75-80% completed. Shapiro noted that the Planning Board has a landscape architect that can conduct an in-depth review of the Site Plan. Durand stated that he is in favor of the additional greenspace on the Site Plan. Jaquith stated that there should be more greenspace in front of the buildings. Kennedy asked if the transformer was still located at the entrance. McShera noted that it will be concealed with shrubbery and trees as the Board suggested. Kennedy asked if it was an existing transformer and if it could be moved. Tranos replied that there is an existing transformer on site, however; it has been located for service convenience and to keep it in a higher elevation because the site is in a flood zone. Jaquith noted that there should be bollards to protect it as well. • Shapiro asked if identification signage has been designed. Tranos replied that signage has not been designed or included in the submission. Shapiro noted that review and approval of signage by DRB will be a recommendation passed to the Planning Board. Jaquith noted that the elevations and renderings still need some coordination. McShera stated that an alternate metal paneling material was suggested by the Board but they believe the Alucobond paneling is appropriate because a new material will emphasis that it is a new building. Durand replied that the new aspects seem too high-tech and not industrial. Jaquith stated that the division wall at the third floor deck on top of the stair tower differs between the architectural plans and the renderings. Lowering the wall to a mullion line of the windows would be a better height. Durand and Kennedy agreed. McShera stated that the wall material is proposed as a horizontal cedar clapboard / rain screen system in a thin metal frame. Dynia asked if there will be railing around the third floor decks. McShera replied that the decks will be 1-2 steps down from the third floor level and the surrounding half wall is acting as the railing and the diving wall could be lower than what is shown. Jaquith added that a small landing/deeper first step, rather than exiting the door and immediately stepping down. Shapiro noted this project has been through all other procedural reviews and that the Planning Board is waiting for the DRB's recommendation; he suggested applying conditions to the project for future revisions and/or issues and a final review of construction documents. . Concrete Buildinq Review: Jaquith suggested that the 3'd floor dividing wall be no lower than 6'-6" and with a metal frame and the clapboard should be a natural toned wood. Sides and Durand are in favor of the design of the two new entrances. Dynia noted that the canopies over the first floor deck project beyond the edge of the decks. Kennedy stated • that the edge of the canopy should be in line with the edge of the deck at a maximum. Jaquith, Durand, Sides, and Kennedy agree. Building 2 Review: Jaquith noted that the vertical boards need to be added to the rear elevations. Building 3 Review: Jaquith noted that the vertical boards need to be added to the rear elevations. Building 4 Review: Jaquith asked how the Kitchen hoods are being vented. Tranos replied the venting of hoods and microwaves hasn't been determined. Transformer Review: Tranos stated that they can look into relocating it. Shapiro reiterated that the Planning Board must also approve the Site Plan. Tranos noted that a sign could be placed in front of it to conceal it. Shapiro noted that Nina Cohen's letter referenes site circulation and mandating pedestrian access to the train station. The site could be redesigned to address these issues to review once it's been revised and it could be included in their recommendation to the Planning Board. Dynia noted that the site is landlocked. Shapiro added that neighboring land owners would need to agree upon river access to the park along the river. Sides added that the park does provide an alternative route to the train station. Shapiro added that the City would need to handle that matter and the City owned a parcel within the train station area. Tranos noted that he is trying to work with direct abutters to provide access. Kennedy: motion to recommend approval of the proposed project at 9 South Mason Street, . 3A Buffum Street Ext., and 23 Mason Street as modified by the applicant in plans presented at the meeting (landscape plan dated 12/20/16; floor plans dated 12/2/16). As part of its recommendation, the DRB requests the following: 1.The partition walls between units on the third floor of building 1 (the concrete building) shall be lowered as much as possible so as to still provide adequate privacy, but shall be no lower than six(6)feet. 2.The canopies on the first floor of building 1 (the concrete building) shall project no further than the end of the decks over which they are installed. 3.All black and white plans/drawings shall align and match with the color renderings. 4.The applicant shall submit final construction plans to the Design Review Board (DRB)for its review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit. 5.All plans, materials and color samples shall be in accordance with those submitted to and approved by the DRB on December 20, 2016. 6.All future proposed signage shall be approved by the DRB prior to issuance of sign permits. The signage for the buildings and the site shall conform to the City of Salem's Sign Ordinance and NRCC zoning code. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the November 15, 2016 regular meeting. • Kennedy noted that changes have been made to the proposed Kokeshi signage; the storefront has increased by 8 feet since they have acquired another portion of the building which increased their square footage and frontage totals, the painted doll sign will be moved to the left of the garage door along with a vertical Kokeshi sign. The colors have also changes from blue, yellow, and white to red, white, and blue to match the interior. Kennedy: Motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0. Adjournment Sides: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Durand. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:00 PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • x Salem Redevelopment ® Authority 701h Nov -e A 11-- 41 Design Review Boari FILE # Meeting Agenda CY CLERK,SALEM, MASS. Tuesday, November 15, 2016— 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 41 Lafayette Street (Kokeshi): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and new garage doors. • North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 2. 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Ext., and 23 Mason Street: Continued discussion and vote on proposed four building, 29 unit residential development. Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the October 26, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Officigfullgtip �Oardo$ • City Hall, Salem, Mass. on II��UU I ZZo at ,,,'41AfV in accordance with MGL Chap.'3OA, Sections 18-25. „ Salem ® Redevelopment Authority 1016 OCT 18 AIt, US ; Design Review Board Meeting Agenda FILE. # CITY CLERK. SALEM. MASS: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 234 Essex Street (Army Barracks): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of window signage. • 2. 300-302 Essex Street: Discussion and vote on proposed installation of new windows and doors (both front and rear elevations), and replacement of siding (rear elevation only). North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 3. 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Ext., and 23 Mason Street: Discussion and vote on proposed four building, 29 unit residential development. Old/New Business This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board” City Hall, Salem, Mass. on OCT 18 2016 at in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Minutes Sections 18-25. Approval of minutes from the September 28, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections • 2-028 through 2-2033. DRB October 26, 2016 • Page 1 of 4 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio, Christopher Dynia, Glenn Kennedy Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Colleen Anderson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:10 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 234 Essex Street (Army Barracks): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of window signage. The submission under review includes; a signed application, sign dimensions, and photos showing the proposed signage. Sean Linguos of Army Barracks was present on behalf of • the applicant. Shapiro stated that the proposed low vinyl window decals will match the existing awnings mounted on the storefront in both background and font color. The signs will be placed on windows along Essex Street only. The decals will be 6.25 inches high and 41 and 44 inches wide and will replace the existing decals, which were erected without permission. Shapiro noted that the signs are compliant with both the signage code and commercial design guidelines. Jaquith asked if the proposed colors were standard colors that match their Saugus location. Linguos replied that all 7 locations use the same colors. Durand noted that the font size/width changed due to the longer words used. Kennedy suggested using just the priority words and rearranging the words on the sign so they will fit using the same text size. Durand agrees. Jaquith: Motion to approve the proposed signage as long as the font is kept the same. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 4-0. 2. 300302 Essex Street: Discussion and vote on proposed installation of new windows and doors (both front and rear elevations), and replacement of siding (rear elevation only). Shapiro noted that the applicant has requested a continuance. Jaquith: Motion to approve the continuance request to a future date. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 4-0. • North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review f 3. 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Ext., and 23 Mason Street: Discussion and • vote on proposed four building, 29 unit residential development. The submission under review includes; project overview packet with NRCC statements, and a full set of building plans; site development survey, landscape plan, floor plans, elevations, and existing and proposed perspectives. Ryan McShera, Architect, of Red Barn Architecture and Mark Tranos of Jupiter Point were present to discuss the proposed project. McShera stated that the site includes one (1)three-story three-family structure and an existing concrete structure in the middle of the site. The site is in an area that transition from the surrounding commercial properties to the adjacent residential area further along Buffum Street. Vehicular access to the site exists and large portions of the site have been developed or paved. McShera stated that the existing concrete building will be redeveloped to include 10 units, a mixture of townhouses and flats. The other three buildings will be townhouses with similar details. An addition will be added to the end of the existing three-family, and the second building will be new construction added on to an existing structure. A third will also be new construction but will be L-shaped. The detailing of the new facades will resemble the details of the existing residential neighborhood with; 2 '/2 - 3 stories, doghouse dormers, box bay window, protruding gable ends at the front facades. McShera stated that the existing concrete structure in the center of the site is slightly higher and the proposed design has changed since it was initially submitted to the Planning Board for review. Planning challenged them to keep this structure unique and find details of it to accentuate. A study of similar building styles was done to determine what would be best to • keep. It was determined that it would be best to; maintain the overall industrial nature of the building, keep the oversized windows and grill pattern, thin the eave/parapet, and to mimic the look of the loading dock and create outdoor space for all of the first floor units. New building elements will consist of; new stair towers whose look will mimic that of the existing building, new stucco and repairs to the existing CMU, and to highlight the new third floor addition in a different material. The new third floor will become the upper levels to townhouses that begin on the second floor and the first floor will be flats. Sullivan asked if it was important the exterior wall of the new third floor match up with the walls of the existing wall below. McShera replied that that hasn't been determined but they could be reduced to include third floor patios. Sullivan noted that the mass of that building is boxy and upper level patios would provide some relief to the mass of the structure and added that he is in favor of the look of this building over the look of the others. Tranos replied that the building, which was a former ice cream factory, was originally re-designed with third floor outdoor space but they wanted the input of the various Boards before including it. Sullivan noted that the lack of greenspace around it doesn't help to separate it from the other buildings on the site. Durand noted that lack of greenspace will help its industrial character stand-out. Kennedy noted that the color is trying to tie into the other buildings too much and the yellow could be an accent color. A difference in color will accentuate its boxiness and make it stand out. McShera noted that a metal panel is proposed for the top level which would help differentiate it from the other buildings. Kennedy noted that the grill of the third floor windows could also vary to break up the facade. Durand suggested that using a more industrial/modern glass to lighten the look of the third floor would work. Jaquith asked how many parking spaces there would be per unit. Shapiro replied that is 1 • '/2 spaces because part of the parcel is industrial, which is outside of the NRCC so fewer 1 1 • than 2 spaces per unit is allowed. Tranos noted that less than two is preferred because it will allow for more greenspace. Sullivan asked if there was an easement for access to the water side of the site. Tranos replied that they are trying to but it would also become a liability issue that would result in a decrease in land value. Sullivan asked if there would be parallel parking spaces next to the central building. McShera replied yes and bollards would be used to protect the building. Jaquith asked about the amount of greenspace around the central building. Jaquith stated that there appears to be too much snow storage. The portico over the doors, dormers, and break lines could be varied to break up the very repetitive fapade. Jaquith asked how much of the existing three-family will remain. McShera replied that it would be taken down to the studs but the finished product will match the proposed fapade. Jaquith stated that the end units could also be varied, but not necessarily symmetrical, to also break up the repetitive fapade. Sullivan asked what the new siding material will be. McShera replied hardiplank clapboards and hardiplank shingle at the dormers. Sullivan asked for more detail at the stairs leading up to the townhouse. McShera replied that they will consist of composite columns, composite stairs, traditional style handrails, and latticework below the stairs. Sullivan stated his concern for vehicles approaching those stairs, although there is some buffer with the walkways, but also with the parallel parking next to the central industrial building. McShera replied that bollards will be placed around the central building and there is also a 2 foot planting bed between the walkways and the townhouses. Sullivan asked if areas for bikes storage. McShera replied that the Planning Board mentioned it but it hasn't been included yet. Durand suggested moving some of the parking to the greenspace areas to get them away from the central building. Tranos replied that it has been considered. • Jaquith asked if the transformer would be relocated away from the entrance. Tranos replied it is the proposed location but it could be relocated. Shapiro asked if a landscape plan would be developed. McShera replied Kurt Reader from the Planning Board has made suggestions and they will continue to develop it. Shapiro noted that The DRB could leave it for the Planning Board to review. Shapiro asked about site lighting. McShera replied that lighting has been included on the civil drawings to include; post lights, wall sconces, and recessed lighting under the portico entries, but no other building lighting will be proposed. McShera replied that it cut sheets on lighting can be provided. Shapiro stated that signage would also need to be reviewed by the DRB at a future meeting. Jaquith: Motion to continue the discussion until the next regularly scheduled meeting on November 15, 2016. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 4-0. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the September 28, 2016 regular meeting. Durand: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 4-0. Adjournment • Durand: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 4-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:00 PM • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • • Salem Redevelopment Authority Design Review Board PQJb SEP 23 A 1I= 12 Meeting Agenda(Revised) F LE_# 00 CLERK SEAL^EM,:hIASS; Wednesday, September 28, 2016—6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMain Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 318 Derby Street(Turtle Alley Chocolates): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and a- frame sign. 2. 212 Washington Street/ Riley Plaza (Marina's Newsstand): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. 3. 311 Derby Street(The Donut Experiment): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. . 4. 172 Essex Street(Witch Pix Costume Studio): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 5. 53 Charter Street: Discussion and vote on proposed restoration of exterior 6. Discussion and vote on Downtown North (in front of Old Salem Jail)and South (Riley Plaza) interpretive sign panels 7. 217 Essex Street(Brew on the Grid): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage +small project review: proposed new outdoor cafe seating area, new door and windows, and fagade improvements. 8. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street(Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Review and discussion of 50%construction documents 9. 209 Essex Street(Hotel.Salem): Small Project Review: Discussion and vote on proposed fagade and building improvements, as well as rooftop restaurant. 10. 90 Washington Street: Small Project Review: Discussion and vote on proposed fagade and building improvements Old/New Business This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on �pp�, ,3) del ra Minutes at �I .I JL- Ppcordanc t in ace %kith MGL Chap. 30A, Approval of minutes from the August 24, 2016 regcl9pM9cyh)g� 25. Adjournment • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2- 2033. Salem Redevelopment Authority 1616 SEP 22 q q 42 Cfi Y CLERK LE # Design Review Board SAtErI•MASS Meeting Agenda (Revised) Wednesday, September 28, 2016—6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 318 Derby Street(Turtle Alley Chocolates): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and a-frame sign. 2. 2500 Washington Street(Marina's Newsstand): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. • 3. 311 Derby Street(The Donut Experiment): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 4. 172 Essex Street(Witch Pix Costume Studio): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 5. 53 Charter Street: Discussion and vote on proposed restoration of exterior 6. 217 Essex Street(Brew on the Grid): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage + small project review: proposed new outdoor cafe seating area, new door and windows, and fagade improvements. 7. 9-11 Dodge Street,217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street(Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Review and discussion of 50% construction documents 8. 209 Essex Street(Hotel Salem): Small Project Review: Discussion and vote on proposed fagade and building improvements, as well as rooftop restaurant. 9. 90 Washington Street,: Small Project Review: Discussion and vote on proposed fagade and building improvements Old/New Business Minutes Th- notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" Approval of minutes from the August 24, 2016 r(Qr r"tir§alem, Mass. on �Q -r aa, aC)6 . Adjournment at 9.H& bM in accordance With MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. Salem Redevelopment • Authority 11116 SEP 2'F` P -03 f/TY CLERKS # Design Review Board ALEM•MASS: Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 28, 2016 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 318 Derby Street(Turtle Alley Chocolates): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and a-frame sign. 2. 2500 Washington Street(Marina's Newsstand): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. • 3. 311 Derby Street(The Donut Experiment): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 4. 172 Essex Street(Witch Pix Costume Studio): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 5. 217 Essex Street(Brew on the Grid): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage+ small project review: proposed new outdoor cafe seating area, new door and windows, and fagade improvements. 6. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street(Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Review and discussion of 50%construction documents 7. 209 Essex Street(Hotel Salem): Small Project Review: Discussion and vote on proposed facade and building improvements, as well as rooftop restaurant. 8: 90 Washington Street: Small Project Review: Discussion and vote on proposed facade and building improvements Old/New Business This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, (Mass. on at ^^� d'i, dT) !" Minutes )-b3 frt in accordance With MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Approval of minutes from the August 24, 2016 regular meeting. • Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. DRB September 28, 2016 • Page 1 of 11 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio, Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Colleen Anderson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:05 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 318 Derby Street (Turtle Alley Chocolates): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and a-frame sign. The submission under review includes; a signed application, sign dimensions, elevation • photos, and a plan showing a-frame sign location. Hallie baker(owner)was present to discuss the proposed signage. Baker stated that they are moving to Derby Street and are requesting a 26"wide x 35" high blade and an a-frame sign. Shapiro noted that the signs are compliant with the sign code and commercial design guidelines. There is a 20% threshold for the amount of window space to be covered by signage. The current bubble design takes up approximately 23% but the negative space between some of the bubbles lowers the window coverage to approximately 20-21%. Kennedy asked if the blade sign would utilize the existing bracket and to confirm that no window signage is proposed on the clerestory windows. Baker replied yes, the existing bracket will be used and no signage will be placed on the upper level windows. Sullivan asked if the previously approved a-frame would be used at this location. Baker replied yes and noted that the same fonts and colors would be used on the new signage. Kennedy noted that the three signs read as very different and suggested that changes could be made to help tie the three signs together. Durand opens public comment. No one wishes to speak. Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve the proposed signage and a-frame sign as submitted. • Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 2. 311 Derby Street (The Donut Experiment): Discussion and vote on proposed installation • of signage. The submission under review includes; a sign application, signage dimensions, elevations, existing and proposed photos. Peter Brown (owner's representative)was present to discuss the proposed signage. Brown stated that this store is a franchise, which will be located in the same building as Flatbread Pizza. Shapiro noted that a blade sign —4 feet in diameter and 15" deep, a vinyl decal above the door, and a vinyl decal at the top of the window—6 feet long x 1'-9" high, are proposed. Shapiro noted that the signs are compliant with the sign code and commercial design guidelines, and noted that the signage doesn't go over the 20% threshold for window coverage in the downtown. Kennedy asked if the donut sign was three-dimensional. Brown replied yes, 3" thick. Dynia asked if the sign would be illuminated. Brown replied no and there is no plan to illuminate it. Kennedy asked what the hours of operation would be. Brown replied 5AM to 12 Noon. Brown noted that the signs are used at the two other franchise locations, Florida and South Carolina. Kennedy: Motion to approve the proposed signage. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. 3. 172 Essex Street(Witch Pix Costume Studio): Discussion and vote on proposed • installation of signage. The submission under review includes; a signed application, signage dimensions, elevations, existing and proposed elevation photos. Hope Hitchcock (business owner) was present to discuss the proposed signage. Hitchcock stated that she purchased the 14 year old Salem Vintage Photography studio in early summer and it is undergoing a name change. They will continue to do witch themed dress-up photo shoots for tourists. A new 76" long x 7" high sign is proposed for the fascia over the door, and seven 23" x 31.5" small window vinyl decals at the top of the windows. Sullivan asked if the neon open sign would remain over the door. Hitchcock replied that it would remain but will be centered. Kennedy asked if the current width of the fascia sign was 16 feet long. Hitchcock replied yes, 16" high x 16 feet long. The new sign will be 24 feet long. Sullivan asked if curtains will be placed over the lower windows. Hitchcock replied that pictures are in place and she will replace them with curtains. Shapiro noted that current photos in the window were not approved but were most likely needed because it is a photography studio. Shapiro noted that he had a discussion with Ms. Hitchcock about blocking the light internally rather than applying something to the outside of the windows, to control the natural light. Kennedy noted that he would prefer the entire length of the fascia band be MDO painted • black, that can be removed if necessary, to unify the storefront. Other businesses have done that along the Essex Street Pedestrian Mall and it has been successful. Hitchcock replied that she would have to ask the landlord but will be more costly to her. • Sides: Motion to approve the proposed signage as submitted with an approved scheme to add black painted MDO the entire length of the stores fascia if the applicant chooses. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 4. 53 Charter Street: Discussion and vote on proposed restoration of exterior The submission under review includes; historic and existing photographs and proposed elevations. Walter Beebe-Center of Essex Restoration was present to discuss the proposed project. Beebe-Center noted that cement siding has been removed and the intention is to repair or replace areas/parts as required to be in keeping with the house as it would have been around 1800. Sullivan asked what the corner condition would have been. Beebe-Center replied wooden block quoins and those will be replicated. Sides asked if the windows would be true divided light. Beebe-Center replied they will be Marvin double pain, simulated divided lights—muntins on the outside, middle, and inside, and there will be no storm windows. Jaquith asked if there will be properly mounted shutters. Beebe-Center replied yes, protruding on an angle and not fastened to the siding. Durand asked if the garage will stay. Beebe-Center replied that it will stay and its proposed use is unknown. His company will do the exterior renovation only but the interior is in fairly good shape. • Durand opens public comment. Jennifer Firth, Historic Salem. Firth asked if there were Construction Documents and a timeline to review. Shapiro replied no. Beebe-Center noted that there were only elevations with notes to replace/ repair to match as required and it will be repainted the original paint color. Durand closes public comment. Sides: Motion to approve the proposed restoration project. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 5. Discussion and vote on Downtown North (in front of Old Salem Jail) and South (Riley Plaza) interpretive sign panels The submission under review includes; details on proposed panels, and photos and map of two proposed locations. Patti Kelleher, Staff Planner for the City of Salem Planning Department was present to discuss the proposed sign panels. Kelleher stated that two proposed panels will be funded and installed with an Essex National Heritage Commission grant. Two of the five proposed panels will be installed within the urban renewal area. The Downtown South sign will be installed by the plaza and the Downtown North one will be installed in front of the Old Salem Jail. The locations were • selected based on visibility and to keep them out of the flood plain. Shapiro noted that the panels were designed when Planning was developing other interpretive signs in 2012-2013 that have already been installed. The DRB needs to vote on a proposed location. Kelleher noted that a couple of minor changes will be made to the signs prior to their • installation and once their located the "You Are Here" arrow will be property placed on the panel and "Funded by Essex National Heritage Commission"will be added to the bottom of each panel. Kennedy asked when the panel would be installed and when the parking lot will be constructed. Kelleher replied that they have until June 2017 to install the panels and they will be fabricated and ready for installation by early spring. Shapiro replied that parking lot will be completed by November. Kennedy noted that the Downtown North sign location should be reviewed again to determine a location that works with the flow of the completed parking lot and walking paths. Durand noted that the DRB's approval would be for the general placement. Durand opens public comment. Jennifer Firth, Historic Salem. Firth noted that this was an exciting project and asked to see the content and design prior to the fabrication of the panels. Kelleher replied that she would e-mail it to Firth. Durand closes public comment. Shapiro suggested that only the North panel return to the DRB for review prior to its installation. Kennedy: Motion to approve the signage panels with a recommendation that the DRB review the Downtown North sign prior to fabrication and after the parking lot completion. • Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 6. 217 Essex Street(Brew on the Grid): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage + small project review: proposed new outdoor cafe seating area, new door and windows, and fagade improvements. The submission under review includes; existing and proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations, photos, proposed signage, and patio details. Frank Peace (owner) and Susannah Cramer-Greenbaum of EMBARC Architecture & Design Studio were present to discuss the proposed project. Peace stated that this would be the second iteration of an establishment that he currently owns in Worcester. It is an artisanal coffee restaurant that will also serve pastries and craft foods. Craft beer and wine are offered at the Worcester location and they hope to do the same in Salem in the future. Cramer-Greenbaum stated that the building is in good shape, an existing rear louver would be reused and no new louvers are proposed, and two new condensers will be added to existing rooftop dunnage which will not be visible from the street. The existing planting bed along the elevation leading to Derby Square will be replaced by a new outdoor brick patio that will meet grade along Essex Street and have several steps down along the Derby Square side. A portion of an existing window will be replaced with a door to provide patio access and create a second means of egress. An existing bench would be removed and another relocated to closer to Derby Square. Two existing vaults towards the rear of the first floor and the change in grade prevent the rear door from being the second egress. An easement is underway with the City of Salem to use the planting bed as a patio. A portion of the Basement will be used to house a food cooler and for food prep. The patio door will • Shapiro requested asked for clarification from the Board that if the existing clock does not get restored that it would find it acceptable to have it removed. Durand replied that it was clear and that the recommendation to move it inside was an acceptable suggestion. Sides: Motion to approve the proposed signage package with; 1) moving the corner blade sign to the other side of the window bay to not block the bank emblem and 2) place the logo on 2-3 umbrellas maximum Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 7. 212 Washington Street/ Riley Plaza (Marina's Newsstand): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. The submission under review includes; a signed permit application, existing signage photos, and dimensioned image of proposed signage. Nicholas Padovani, business owner, was present to discuss the proposed signage. Shapiro stated that the newsstand is located in Riley Plaza. They were using non- compliant signage including a plywood a-frame sign that lists newspapers. It is larger than what would normally be approved but they are proposing to use a new 2 foot x 3 foot sign frame and remove the logos from a new sign that would be fabricated to fit the frame. The sign will remain in the parking lot which is wide open so pedestrian access is not an issue. Sides suggested that the fonts of each paper be used to make it more recognizable since logos cannot be used and the overall sign would have a nicer look. Kennedy requests that the sign be white, and that the frame be either all white or all black. • Jaquith: Motion to approve the proposed a-frame sign conditional upon painting the frame either all white or all black, and no usage of logos on the new sign. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. 8. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Review and discussion of 50% construction documents. The submission under review includes; utility plans, site plans, floor plans, and previously approved and revised perspectives. Matthew Zimmermann of RCG, LLC and Jai Singh Khalsa of Khalsa Design Inc. (Architects) were present to discuss the proposed revisions. Zimmermann stated that the last presentation was for the Design Development review and tonight the Board will be updated on the progress and changes that have been made since the Board's previous comments. They have submitted a permit package to the City that is a precondition of the land purchase. The building has been demolished and debris is still being hauled away. The design team has progressed beyond the 50% review that was submitted to the Board. Shapiro noted that the DRB is not voting on this submission and are simply checking on the progress of the Construction Document development and final materials and finishes. Khalsa stated that the permit set submitted is for the garage and building foundation only and the threshold of the set they needed to submit to meet the bank and City requirements to transfer the property. The permit plans submitted show the three garage levels up to the • deck of foundation up to the deck level of the mixed-use building. Khalsa noted that they met with the hotel owners last week and they will execute a contract for a Hampton Inn. be mahogany to replicate the existing six lite wood front door which will be sanded to • restore the natural mahogany finish. Cramer-Greenbaum noted that two 30"wide x 30" high blade signs are proposed with two black 2" light fixtures on either side for illumination. The signs will be brown matte color with white lettering. The third piece of proposed signage would be lettering on the entablature of the building, which will be cleaned. Shapiro noted that refacing the time and temperature clock was included in the package but that proposal would not be permitted per the sign code; instead, removing it and making a second blade sign was suggested as an alternative. The clock's position above the second floor window sills and regulations in the sign code, are preventing its recommendation for approval. Shapiro noted that the future of the time and temperature clock would require further discussion within the Planning Department, but the DRB could recommend approval with a preference to reface the existing clock. Kennedy added that getting the time and temperature clock working again could also be a possibility. Cramer-Greenbaum and Peace replied that that could be a possibility. Sullivan stated that this time &temperature sign wasn't intended when the building was constructed and from a preservation standpoint his preference would be to have it removed, unless the steps were taken to restore it. Either way, the building has a cleaner look without it. Sullivan also noted that the proposed blade sign on the corner conceals the bank emblems above the Derby Square & Essex Street corner windows and suggests that the blade sign be moved to the opposite side of the Derby Square side bay. Durand agreed that restoring it could make it iconic and from a preservation point of view • that may mean restoring it instead of removing it. Sullivan added that he finds restoring it and using it to say"Brew on the Grid" problematic. Kennedy suggests that the sign could also be placed within the space and Jaquith agreed. Sullivan noted that the patio design is good. Cramer-Greenbaum noted that the patio surface and face will be brick and concrete to match Derby Square. The patio furniture will be black steel tables and chair with five black umbrellas. Sullivan asked if night lighting was proposed. Cramer-Greenbaum replied that they have considered two-way sconces, to light the building and the patio, but that has yet to be determined. Sides and Kennedy agreed that light along the patio would illuminate what is currently a dark area. Kennedy asked if signage was proposed on the patio side. Cramer-Greenbaum replied that the existing bank vault sign would remain. The logo will be added to two sides of the five umbrellas on the patio. Kennedy suggested that the logo be added to 2 or 3 of the umbrellas and not all of them. Durand opens public comment. Jennifer Firth, Historic Salem. Firth noted that this is an exciting reuse of the space and asked if the window would be kept intact. Cramer-Greenbaum replied that the windows are in good very shape and will remain. Durand closes public comment. • Khalsa stated that at their previous meeting several suggestions were made by the Board. 1)widening the connector stair between the hotel and the West building and flare the end of the stair at the entrance to it which was done, 2) an alternate material at underside of decking—Trex composite deck, 3) re-examining directory signage on the South building — Bert Plus Design of Marblehead does projects of this magnitude and was hired to create wayfinding signage but no concepts have been created yet and the directory has been removed from the presentation images, 4) using the lighter lintel and sill color to contrast with the upper level cembrit fiber-cement panels—which has been done, 5) examining a location for public art—they and Andrew Shapiro have been in contact with Deborah Greel to determine the suggested locations, 6)the paving pattern will remain but on the city property it will be cast-in place concrete with alternating colors as requested by the DPW for durability, and on the private owned property permeable pavers in the same color pattern. All of the presentations have been updated to reflect these changes. Khalsa noted that the other changes were that the raised cross walks in the Dodge Street area have also been eliminated after the City's engineering department review and input. The window trim at the building connector has change and their proportion has been scaled down to a more comfortable size. The Trex deck will be used both at the deck and at the underside of the deck with concealed fasteners. Kennedy noted that special attention should be paid to which of their products is used, some look like plastic and others resemble wood texture from a distance. The signage has been removed from in front of the retail areas, which opens up the windows at that level and the signage consultant will determine the best signage and locations for the project. 5 potential locations, A through E have been proposed for public art and location A is preferred. Corten steel will surround the transformer and will also be used for building name signage, with the laser cut-out • letters which will be back-lit. The cut-out letters will be used on the building and will also be lit from behind. The nichiha panels will be used on inside of the West building facing out. The Mill Hill building the brighter head and sill color will be used. The windows will be black and casement windows will be used in the West building, both made my Andersen. Kennedy stated that significant thought should be given to the art given the number of people that will now use the space. Traffic flow may be geared towards Dodge Street and leading to Artist's Row. Khalsa noted that it will draw attention and will be used for wayfinding in the City. Shapiro noted that the Public Art Commission will ultimately make the determination on public art. Zimmermann stated that they hope to return with their final design at the November DRB meeting. Shapiro noted that the projects have been separated in terms of their review process. Sullivan asked if both projects will be constructed at the same time. Zimmermann replied that the hotel will not finish construction until after the garage has been constructed. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the August 24, 2016 regular meeting. Jaquith: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review (continued) Durand announces a conflict of interest and recuses himself from participating in the final two agenda items. He leaves the meeting. 9. 209 Essex Street (Hotel Salem): Small Project Review: Discussion and vote on proposed • facade and building improvements, as well as rooftop restaurant. The submission under review includes; historic photos, photos before demolition, elevations, and aerial views of the rooftop terrace. Mark Meche of Winter Street Architects, and Rich Cooper(owner/partner)were present to discuss the proposed plans. Shapiro noted that the Salem Historical Commission submitted a letter to the Board stating that they reviewed the project and are endorsing this project that is seeking Historic Tax Credits from the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Meche stated that he presented before the Board approximately one year ago and exterior improvements were the only items being reviewed; they requested that the outdoor cafe and signage review be on hold. That design was submitted to Mass Historic for historic tax credits, and the latest presentation incorporates the Mass Historic comments. Some cafe tables and signage will be in the presentation but they are again requesting that they again not be under review at this time. The demolition of the building interior is 95% complete and the design team is has reached approximately 90% completion with the Construction Documents. Meche stated that the design changes began with a study of the storefront as it was when first construction. Four cast iron columns and large pieces of transparent polished plate glass were used at the storefront. The basic building exterior scope is brick repairs, stone cleaning and repairs, cornice repairs and painting, new storefront, a new pressed zinc band in the same location, and possible secondary signage in a classic lettering style on the new • sign band. The new central sign will be similar to the original Talbots sign. All restoration work will be done within the standards of historic rehabilitation. The proposed storefront will be insulated Low-E clear glass but in smaller sections divided by to show the new first floor restaurant. The new curtain wall will be either silicone glazed or tab connected; tab connected is currently the preferred choice and the flange will be visible from the exterior. The glass will be a PPG solar ban type and should have minimal color shading. The cast iron columns will be painted dark grey to compliment the buildings buff color scheme. Meche stated that a cable rail system will be installed at the perimeter of the rooftop deck and will be moved far away from the buildings edge, the previously proposed smaller rooftop units at the front of the rooftop will now be reduced to one chilled water system will possibly be screened by reclaimed flat board siding in a shiplap pattern towards the rear of the rooftop; however, all other rooftop equipment will be screened in a louver style. The AC system is spec'd to be 47 dB at 30 feet away and the units will be at a level higher than neighboring buildings so sound from it should not be a concern. The windows on the East facade are being replaced and most of the existing windows will remain. The replacement windows will be double-hung wood windows at the request of the MHC to mimic what was originally in place. Meche stated that at the South facade (rear) a new interior egress stair will be installed and guest room patio will be added. On the West facade (Derby Square)three windows will be replaced, the existing roof framing will be reused and the roof level improvements will float over it with Bison deck pedestals. Due to the additional rooftop equipment, three overflow scuppers and a painted gutter will be added to the West facade and that water will connect to a drain inside the building. Sides and Jaquith state that they are in favor of the changes/improvements. Kennedy asked about the rooftop deck capacity. Meche replied 180 people. Cooper noted that that • would only be for special events and those events would end by 7PM and no bands would be allowed. Shapiro noted that capacity and use in not within the purview of the DRB. Sullivan asked if the lighting at the first floor had been determined. Meche replied that exterior lighting will be incorporated into the signage and that has yet to be determined but an interior plan has been developed but is not part of the presentation. Cooper noted that interior lighting at the first floor restaurant will be soft for ambiance since it will be visible though the curtain wall. Cooper noted that lighting (on dimmers) has been a top priority in all of his previous hotel projects and it will be in this project also. Jaquith opens public comment. No one wishes to speak. Jaquith closes public comment. Shapiro asked how much of the roof deck will be visible from the ground. Meche replied that MHC requested photos taken from a distance with a railing height mock-up in place and although it can be seen from a narrow angle it does not dominate the view when looking from grade. The high rooftop screening will be more visible. Shapiro also asked if there were plans to restore the painted "Newmark' sign on the West side of the building. Meche replied that there are no plans to restore or remove either sign at this time, there is a painted sign both the East and West facades. Sullivan asked how the curtain wall is attached to the existing columns. Meche replied that • the existing cast pipe columns had a quarter-round cast into the side of the columns to receive the glazing. The new glazing will be placed in the same location. Sides: Motion to approve the proposed facade and building improvements, and rooftop restaurant, subject to the applicant returning to the DRB and then SRA for review and approval of signage, building lighting, and the ground floor outdoor seating area. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 5-0. 10. 90 Washington Street: Small Project Review: Discussion and vote on proposed fagade and building improvements The submission under review includes; historic photos, proposed floor plans and elevations. Mark Meche and Dana Weeder of Winter Street Architects, and George Vernet& Peter Bolan (co-owners)were present to discuss the proposed plans. Shapiro noted that a letter from the Salem Historical Commission submitted a letter to the Board stating that they reviewed the project and are endorsing this project that is seeking Historic Tax Credits from the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Meche stated that this building used to be the Salem Food Land grocery store and will be the new home to the Salem City Hall Annex. A Schematic Design was done earlier in 2016, the lease was signed in August and approved by the City Council, and historic tax credits are being sought. Salem Historic Commission has reviewed and endorsed this project. No comments have been received from the MHC but there is very little that can be changed • because so much of the existing building elements are still in place. The plans have been approved and the project is scheduled to be complete by October 2017. Meche noted that the building is across from City Hall, the rear entry opens to a municipal . parking lot, a right-of-way is directly outside of the rear entry although the property does not belong to the building. The building entry is on the far left side at Washington Street. The three -first floor tenants have their own entrances so there will be no shared access/common area. The meeting rooms are on the ground floor and a stair leads to the 2nd floor Public Services level, although there will be elevator access. Sides asked if the rear entry will be open. Meche replied that that would be up the City to decide although it would be a great secondary access point. The large meeting room will hold 100 people and the smaller 40 plus board members, and both will be modern with state of the art equipment. Meche noted that the City Council has requested a concierge/help deck on the first floor to direct people. The building will undergo a complete internal demolition and there will be new building systems, ADA complaint, gender neutral single stall restrooms—one with a shower, and bicycle storage. Meche stated that the second floor has 17 foot high ceilings and will house a new conference room addition at the rear, a rear egress stair, the clerestory windows will provide natural light to the core over top of the 9 foot high new shared meeting rooms and various internal walls, although the majority of the floor will be an open office. The third floor will house other small city departments, possibly a deck, another conference room addition, and each floor will also have a coffee station. Meche stated that the fagade is masonry, steel sash Hope windows were used and black granite bands and medallions are the full depth solid black granite. Half of the original aluminum storefront is gone. The brick will be restored and the windows will be replaced • with thermally broken Hope windows. The sign band above the storefront will be restored. At the rear of the building facing Sewall Street, the two different kinds of hope style windows will be replaced. Weeder stated that a flat lock horizontal copper cladding ranging from 14-18"widths will be used at the addition and the vertical elements at the glass curtain wall are snap caps that can be angled as necessary to eliminate the afternoon glare. Meche noted that the existing taller openings in the fagade are doors to the fire escape and their consultant's recommendation was to no infill the bottom of the enlarged openings with brick to not confuse the historical record of its use. If it was to be filled in, it should be done so with some differentiation. Meche noted that from the front the entire building appears to be three stories, but the third level of wall at the far right of the building is exposed element on both sides. Weeder noted that MHC is requiring that replacement glass be installed in that area also and the Sewall Street side of that wall will be the location of the prosed deck at Mayor Driscoll's request. Sides asked if the rear entry would be recessed for cover. Meche replied that there was a 20" projection over the rear property line, which is at the rear of the building, so it cannot project far. Meche noted that MHC doesn't find the rear fagade as important as the front fagade although it shows its mid-century modern character which is rare. Sides noted that there is a grocery store on Broughton Street in Savannah with the same fagade; SCAD may have documentation on its design. Sullivan asked if the new copper fagade will start at grade and how far the bands will stick out. Meche replied that the copper will only be at grade the sides of the rear door and the bands will stick out 8-10". The addition elements will be pulled away from the corners to • make it reversible if necessary and a few openings on the brick fagade are being enlarged for new windows. Weeder noted that there is existing copper flashing at roof edge and that encouraged the use of it at the addition. Sullivan asked if the roof edge copper at the top of • the masonry wall would be reused since it has the green patina. Weeder replied that it could be reused. Shapiro asked if the transformer shown in the rear elevation is existing. Meche replied yes. Sides noted that it will be nice for the rear to have a future since it seems neglected and dismal. Jaquith opens public comment. Jennifer Firth, Historic Salem. Firth noted that this is a cool project that is growing on people. Jaquith closes public comment. Shapiro noted that the applicant will return for approval of signage, exterior lighting, and any changes requested by MHC. Sides: Motion to approve the proposed fagade and building improvements conditional upon the applicant returning to the DRB and then SRA for review and approval of signage and building lighting. Seconded by: Dynia. Passes 5-0. Adjournment • Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:30 PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • jwL Salem Redevelopment Authority x01b sl I P. �a CI?Y C N_' . Design Review Board Meeting Agenda (2"d Revision) Wednesday, August 24, 2016 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Cali Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 6 Central Street(Emporium 32): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage 2. 125 Washington Street: Small project review: Continued discussion and vote on proposed • modifications to main entry to allow wheelchair access 3. 55-57 & 59 Federal Street: Small project review: Discussion and vote on proposed exterior renovations 4. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Discussion and vote on proposed loading dock area improvements (enabling phase of Museum expansion project) 5. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Discussion and vote on final design review (proposed design revisions to previously approved plans for Phase II of"Old Salem Jail' redevelopment project—new multifamily housing development.) Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the July 27, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass, on AUG 18 2016 at eP/'b di¢6y in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. DRB August 24, 2016 • Page 1 of 8 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia, David Jaquith, J. Michael Sullivan,Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy Members Absent: Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Andrew Shapiro Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 6 Central Street(Emporium 32): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage The submission under review included a sign permit application, designs for the proposed signs, and a photo of the existing building showing where signage will be installed. Store owners Jillian and Nick Perry were present. • N. Perry explained that he and his wife have been vending their wares in Salem for two years and are now opening up a bricks-and-mortar location on Central Street. He noted that he has a background in graphic design and designed the signage himself. Kennedy inquired whether the text shown on the door has a shadow effect. J. Perry responded noting that it does. She also noted that the text on the door would be 19 inches wide by four and a half inches high. Shapiro noted that the signage being proposed complies with both the City's sign ordinance and commercial design guidelines. Sides inquired about the type of products the applicants were selling. N. Perry explained that they sell primarily jewelry and leatherwork. Kennedy asked for the applicants to confirm that the gold being used for the text would contrast more sharply from the background than what was being presented. N. Perry confirmed that the contrast would indeed be sharp; a metallic gold against a deep/forest green background. Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval as submitted. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 7-0. 2. 125 Washington Street: Small project review: Continued discussion and vote on • proposed modifications to main entry to allow wheelchair access The submission under review includes an architectural drawing showing and rendering of the proposed new entryway. Building owner Bob Dunham was present to discuss the • proposal. Dunham pointed out that the proposal has been revised to show that a railing would close off one end of the entryway where there would be a stepdown. Durand noted that he feels the new design is a good solution. Shapiro remarked that he showed the plans to the Building Department and that they had no issue with what was being proposed. Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval of the small project as presented. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 7-0. 3. 55-57 & 59 Federal Street: Small project review: Discussion and vote on proposed exterior renovations The submission under review included a set of plans with a site plan, elevations, drawings, photos, and renderings. Architect John Seger was present to discuss the proposal. Seger explained that the two buildings that make up the extent of the proposal are going to be converted from offices with some residential uses, to nine residential units. The project is seeking historic tax credits that would be in effect for five years. Seger remarked that the two buildings are connected by a breezeway. The existing site • has paved parking. There are a series of bulkheads; two of these will be removed and one new one will be added. A brick path on the site will be extended to a back entrance. A one story bay window will be added in the back of 55 Federal Street. The footprint of the buildings will not change. He noted that a couple of sets of stairs would end up being replaced. Seger continued by noting that the main scope of work is to restore the exterior of the properties; the front windows facing Federal Street will be restored in kind, whereas the windows on the sides and back will be replaced (both frames and sashes). All of the shutters will be repaired. The roof was recently replaced and will remain. Seger then explained that they are proposing to add two dormers in the attic space on one of the buildings, as well as to provide a second story addition in the rear of the property with a balcony on top of it. DeMaio questioned whether the set of plans that he had, when looking at the proposed rear addition, corresponded with the set that the applicant was showing the Board. Seger acknowledged that the plans had been revised since his submission. DeMaio commented that there should be more pitch for the gable ends of the dormers shown; that it would be more in keeping with the rest of the building. Jaquith noted that he agrees with DeMaio's comment, that the pitch of the dormers should match the roof pitch. In regards to the addition, he noted that the rendering shows two over • two windows, and the elevation shows six over six windows. It would be more appropriate to be two over two throughout the whole building. Seger acknowledged Jaquith point and noted that they would carry the two over two • windows throughout as shown on the rendering. DeMain inquired about what the space in the addition would be used for. Seger responded that it would be a kitchen. Kennedy commented that the connector piece between the two buildings feels like it could use something added, like a window. Seger commented that a design change like that would need to be approved by the park service in order to obtain the tax credits they are seeking. Jaquith said that he agrees with Kennedy and that the space needs a small window. Sides asked for confirmation about whether the shutters would be on both the front and side portions of the house. Seger noted that the shutters would indeed be in front and wrapped around the corner of the building. Sullivan observed that the shutters may have been added on well after the building was built because of the substantial nature of the trim around the windows. Sides asked about the composition of the windows proposed to be replaced. • Seger responded by noting that they would be all wood with simulated divided light. The idea would be to only replace the sashes with new sash packs, instead of also replacing the trim. DeMaio remarked that the arrangement of windows shown on the west elevation of the proposed addition seemed unresolved, given that there are different sized windows on the second floor and that there are three windows above only one. Other members of the Board voiced their agreement with DeMaio's comment and Sides then suggested that one additional window could be added underneath the proposed addition. Durand: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed small project subject to review of further revisions by Board Member David Jaquith. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 7-0. 4. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Continued discussion and vote on proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) The submission under review included a full set of plans including a site plan, elevations, floor plans, sections, renderings, and a landscape plan. A slide presentation was shown. Robert Monk of the PEM, Molly McGowan of Ennead Architects, and Thomas Woltz and Mark Streeter of Nelson, Byrd, Woltz (Landscape Architect)were present on behalf of the applicant. • s Monk started out by noting that the Museum is at the end of its design development phase. He noted that they were seeking approval of this submission and that they would return • when construction documents are developed. McGowan started by covering some issues that had been raised in past meetings. She noted that the new building is presented as"another house,"which is why there is a reveal on either side of the fagade; the focus is meant to be on East India Marine Hall. Street trees have been added in front of the building. In terms of streetscape enhancements, efforts were made to lighten the ground level portion of the fagade, as well as to brighten the base. The fagade now presents a kink to run with the curvature of the street. McGowan then noted that Gingko trees would be introduced in front of the new building, as well as down along the Dodge wing of the existing building. These trees have more of an architectural presence and will not overly mask the Museum. Signage and wayfinding is currently being explored in an effort to devise ways to better activate the streetscape. Those details will come at a later date. On the upper portion of the fagade, split-faced Chelmsford Granite will be used. Granite is being considered for the mullions on the windows, but that approach may change to steel. Steel mullions are used elsewhere in the project, which gives a much slimmer profile. If steel proves too costly, the project would revert to an aluminum mullion, which has a thicker profile. The glass being used on the fagade was chosen for its low reflectivity given that the building faces north, which will allow for better visibility into the building from the street level. McGowan then introduced Thomas Woltz, Landscape Architect with Nelson, Byrd, Woltz to discuss details regarding landscape treatments. Woltz began by noting that the proposed • interior garden would be 3,700 square feet. He showed examples of other outdoor spaces that provided more context for how big/small this space would really be. The garden is meant to be a place of discovery, where one can walk through and discover different aspects of it, much like they would inside the various galleries of the Museum. Woltz walked through plans, images, and renderings of the proposed garden area, first pointing out transparent screens that would be installed within the space to provide some form of separation between areas of the garden, which will separate into three distinct areas. A recess within a limestone wall would have a cascade of water falling down it. He pointed out certain species of plants and trees that would be planted in areas of the garden, including Serviceberry and Gingkos. On another perspective, Woltz pointed out a proposed meandering path that would be made of stone, cut into the pavement, which would move all around the garden. This feature has been consistently maintained through different iterations of the landscape plan. Inside the central garden area would be a raised bed, with colorful perennials. A"poetry fountain"would also be a feature within the raised bed, with water running from one side to the other; benches would be on either side. Woltz moved on to the loading dock area. Street trees would be introduced along Charter Street. A perennial bed would be planted within a planter in between the Museum and the private property next to it in order to provide screening and separation. A low lying hedge would run along the property in front of the loading dock area. McGowan then concluded and pointed out that at this time, there would be no access to the • garden from the Charter Street side for the public. DeMain expressed that he appreciates the level of thought put into the project. He then pointed out that the project was described as infill for a "missing tooth,"where a beautiful garden will have stood. Now the new garden will be semi-privatized. There is a good effort being made for transparency at the ground plane. With that said, he wondered aloud whether some type of gesture for a garden-like or green area could be made on the Essex Street side, to both bookend with the new garden and provide a reminder of what had stood approximately there in the past. He referenced a potential green or living wall. Monk expressed an understanding of needing to mitigate the effect of a "big blank wall." He explained that signage options are being investigated, which could incorporate the cantilevered second level of the Dodge wing. These details would come at a later date and much still needs to be worked out, especially in terms of coordinating interior and exterior signage. Public art and lighting are also being considered for the outdoor space along Essex Street. Sides noted that the project has come a long way and was well presented. She remarked that the garden seems to contrast sharply from the interior gallery spaces, in that it's very confined. Can it handle the number of people that will be coming out of the galleries? Monk responded that the largest gallery they have is 2,000 square feet. The new garden would be close to 4,000 square feet. Visitor traffic ebbs and flows, and there may be times when the area is congested. Woltz explained that the central planting bed with fountain was considered for removal, but they discovered that it really enlivened the space and did not want to remove it. • Jaquith inquired about the visibility of the garden from inside the museum and from upper levels. McGowan pointed out that there are a series of bridges running through the upper floors of the building. There is a platform that provides an overhead view of the garden. Sullivan questioned whether actual art pieces or displays, such as sculptures, would be installed in the garden. Monk said that there would not be art displays in the garden. Woltz remarked that the differing species of plants and trees is meant to provide an artistic experience in and of itself. Sides remarked that there is a lot going on in the garden space and that it could be simplified. Jaquith praised the architects and Mr. Monk for listening to comments from the Board. In referencing the review process, he said, "this is how it's supposed to work." The project has come a long way, and there has been a lot of improvement at every step of the process. Kennedy asked whether the planned Gingko trees in front of the building would be maintained by the Museum. Monk responded that the Museum would indeed maintain them. • Kennedy then remarked that sometimes Gingkos can get a bit"gangly." He said that they need to be well maintained. Durand then opened the meeting to public comment. Jennifer Firth of Historic Salem Inc. remarked that"the evolution has been amazing." She remarked that Gingkos are present in a lot of areas close to where new trees are being proposed. There may be an overuse of that type of tree. Woltz commented that perhaps Charter Street is an opportunity to mix in other species found in Salem, such as Oaks. Durand remarked that perhaps the Gingkos on Essex Street don't need to be there. It may obscure the building to some extent. The trees seem a bit forced. Monk acknowledged that trees had been removed as part of the enabling phase from a couple of years back, and that new trees had not yet been planted. The Museum is committed to replacing the presence of trees along its Essex Street fagade. Other boards overseeing the review process, such as the Planning Board, will most likely also address the issue of trees. Shapiro then suggested some language to be included in an ultimate recommendation to be considered by the Board, noting also that a final design with construction drawings would still need to be approved by the DRB and SRA. The language suggested included the following: 1.) A detailed plan for site and building lighting, to include both specifications and locations of lighting fixtures, shall be provided for review and approval by the DRB and SRA prior to issuance of a building permit or as part of final design review. 2.) All final plans, materials and color samples shall be in accordance with those submitted to and approved by the DRB on August 24, 2016 in plans dated August 24, 2016. 3.) Any changes thought to be substantial to the approved schematic design plans shall be first reviewed by the City Planner, and if deemed to be substantial in nature, shall then be subject to review and approval by the DRB and SRA. 4.) A signage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the DRB and SRA as part of final design review, or prior to issuance of any sign permits Shapiro acknowledged that there could be some deviations in the materials presented, given cost constraints or logistics. Flexibility should be afforded for minor changes to be made. Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval of schematic design, incorporating the conditions referenced. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 7-0. 5. 50 St. Peter Street(Old Salem Jail): Discussion and vote on final design review (proposed design revisions to previously approved plans for Phase II of"Old Salem Jail" redevelopment project—new multifamily housing development.) The submission under review included; a full set of construction documents in plan set, including site plan, floor plans, exterior elevations, renderings, and a landscape plan. Architect Dan Ricciarelli and Steven Feinstein of Symes Associates were present to discuss the project. Ricciarelli oriented the Board with a site plan. He noted that a five foot buffer of grasses • and Honey Locust trees would be planted along St. Peter Street. Two trees are being removed as part of the project. Private patios would extend out from garden level apartment units. Generally speaking, the landscape plans has been updated, but does not deviate dramatically from the original plan that was approved in 2006. Sides remarked that Boxwoods should be reconsidered if they are planned for this site because they have been dying when planted elsewhere. The primary materials seen on the building are lead coated copper, light grey nichiha panels, metal panels, fiber cement clapboard, faux stone, and faux slate for the roof. All balconies are set into recesses. There is a cedar screen for the parking area under the building. Material samples were handed out for the Board to examine. The corner boards are three and half inches. Feinstein indicated that they had shown the plans to current residents of the Old Salem Jail property. Jaquith inquired about the manufacturer of the window. Ricciarelli noted that they would be Jeld wen. Shapiro confirmed suggested that the following conditions be considered with the recommendation. 1. Construction/Building Materials —The construction and building materials shall conform to the materials presented to and approved by DRB on August 24, 2016 in plans dated March 4, 2016. • 2. Exterior Elevations—The exterior elevations shall conform to the plans submitted to and approved by the DRB, dated March 4, 2016. 3. Site Plans—The site shall conform to the plans submitted to and approved by the DRB, dated March 4, 2016. 4. Lighting —A final detailed lighting plan indicating specifications and locations of proposed lighting fixtures for the building and site shall be reviewed by the DRB prior to installation. 5. Signage Plan —The signage plan shall be submitted to the DRB and SRA for review and approval prior to installation. All signs shall conform to the City of Salem's sign ordinance, Commercial Design Guidelines, and Design Guidelines with the Downtown Renewal Plan (2011). Jaquith: Motion to approve final design revisions with conditions noted. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 7-0. Old/New Business Approval of minutes from the July 27, 2016 regular meeting. Jaquith: Motion to approve. . Seconded by: Sullivan, Passes 6-0 (Sides abstained). Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Dynia. Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:10 PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • • j Salem Redevelopment Authority Ztlb JUL 20 A il: 04 Design Review Board CITY Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 27, 2016— 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 125 Washington Street: Small project review: Discussion and vote on proposed modifications to main entry to allow wheelchair access • 2. 288 Derby Street(Sambolina): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of blade sign 3. 87 Washington Street(Opus): Discussion and vote on proposed alley lighting and shade sale installations for outdoor seating area 4. 90 Lafayette Street(Adea's Mediterranean Kitchen): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage (including A-Frame sign), and outdoor seating area 5. 9-11 Dodge Street,217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion and vote on Design Development submission Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the June 22, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Offic' I B Iletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ao J at :pl{ RM in accordan( ith L Chap. 30A, . Sec ons 18-25. __ 1 DRB July 27, 2016 obPage 1 of 7 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia, David Jaquith, J. Michael Sullivan Members Absent: Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Colleen Anderson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 125 Washington Street: Small project review: Discussion and vote on proposed modifications to main entry to allow wheelchair access. The submission under review includes; plans, elevations, existing and proposed photos. Dennis Gray of Gray Architects, Inc. was present to discuss the proposed wheelchair access. Gray stated that the proposed plan is to modify the existing front bank entry and provide handicapped access by extending a level landing away from the building and slightly pitching a new walk downward to meet the existing pitched sidewalk on the left side, as well as placing two steps up on the downhill side on the right. A decorative wrought iron fence will be placed at the outside edge of the extended landing. The proposed materials are a granite and concrete. The red line (Salem Heritage Trail Guide)will be relocated around the new entry and continue up the hill to be reconnected. The Trail Guide currently runs along the concrete sidewalk in front of the building. Jaquith noted that the proposed railing has minimal presence from the side and passers-by not paying attention could walk into it. The slight turn at the ends could be increased to make it more visible and it should be done at both ends of the rail. Bollards could also be added. Gray replied that the granite will also wrap the ends to help visually highlight the change in material. Sullivan asked if the granite turns at the outside edge of the landing to meet the brick and agrees with Jaquith in that something should be placed at the end of the railing to deter skateboarders. Gray replied that on the first step the granite turns to meet the brick and the second (higher) step it is set 14" back and suggests a post to highlight the ends of the railing. Durand asked why the proposed entry was 6'-9" deep. Gray replied that it aligns with the brick and allows for a 14" deep step. Jaquith stated that he understands the need for the railing. Gray added that although it is not required, it provides some protection so wheelchairs don't roll off the end. Durand asked if the apron is necessary and considers it a possible tripping hazard and asked for the step heights. Gray replied approximately 4"each and noted that the railing could be installed at the bottom step. Sullivan suggested the step be moved closer to the door to allow for a single step. Gray noted that they were trying to bring the step to meet the existing recessed entry at the front of the building and added that the landing could be pitched slightly to lower the end step height. DeMaio agreed with Jaquiths' comments and suggested ramping from the sidewalk straight up to the entry. Gray replied that a 5' level landing is required at the entry so the pitch cannot start at the threshold. DeMaio suggested the right side pitch start from the alcove further along the building to eliminate the need for any step(s). Gray replied that because the sidewalk slopes down, the pitch might increase to 5% or more which would require a handrail. DeMaio noted that that pedestrian flow tends to stay in with the building and this design could be seen as an annoyance when a change in plane happens where they are not expecting it, when coming from either direction, especially given the way that ADA encourages traffic flow along buildings. A contrasting color or sign could also be used to call attention to it, especially at night. Gray noted that moving of the red line would also help with traffic flow but that is not guaranteed. Durand asked if sloping both sides has been considered. Gray replied the left only needs to extend until it meets the sidewalk that already is sloping up. Durand stated that a 4" high granite edge with or without a railing could eliminate a tripping hazard at the edge and keep people from falling off. DeMaio stated that Durand's suggestion would be better than having steps in the path of travel. Durand suggested reducing the ramp width to 5 or 5'-6". Gray replied that this space will become the front door of a restaurant and a wider ramp to allow for traffic flow would be preferred. Sullivan noted that the railing adds to the elevation and highlights the entrance, but it needs more study. Jaquith: Motion to continue discussion until the next meeting. Seconded by: DeMaio. Passes 5-0. 2. 288 Derby Street(Bambolina): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of blade sign The submission under review includes; a signed permit application, dimensioned image of proposed signage, existing photo showing proposed location of signage, bracket attachment image and mounting method, and materials specification. Tim Haigh, business owner, was present to discuss the proposed signage. Haigh stated that their location on Derby Street makes it hard for their existing sign to be seen unless someone is across the street. He has proposed a 4' blade sign on the left side of the building that is just over 11 feet above grade. Shapiro read Kennedy's previously submitted notes for the record, noting that he felt that the signage dimension seems long but will fit the space well. No lighting is proposed and he assumed that that will remain the case. DeMaio stated that the frame and all fasteners need to be painted black instead of galvanized. Jaquith: Motion to approve with the frame and all fasteners painted black. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 5-0. 3. 90 Lafayette Street(Adea's Mediterranean Kitchen): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage (including A-Frame sign), and outdoor seating area The submission under review includes; a signed permit application, letter from the business owner, existing elevation, existing photos, furniture layout, elevation with proposed signage and furniture, signage drawing, plan of propose seating, proposed wood A-frame sign image, and furniture specifications. David Winer, business owner, was present to discuss the proposal. Winer stated that his restaurant is easy to miss and he would like to add outdoor seating for customers, as well as to call attention to the business. The wall sign will be mounted to the existing metal paneling above the storefront with raised 1/4"thick acrylic letters and one inch pins, approximately 27" high x 70" long. Shapiro stated that this signage meets both the design standards and the City ordinance for signage. Shapiro read Kennedy's previously submitted notes for the record; that the signage and seating look good, that the wood of the A-frame seems to clash with the rest of the signage and furniture, and that he would prefer the sign be black, silver, or red to match chairs. Sullivan asked whether an A-frame would even be visible from Derby Street and suggested a blade sign. Winer replied no, but specials will be listed on the sign to get people's attention. DeMaio noted that an adjacent canopy shown in the photos would conceal the blade sign unless it was up high. Durand stated that the outdoor seating will also allow people to recognize it as a restaurant from afar and the A-frame signs are typical for restaurants. Jaquith: Motion to approve the package with the recommendation that the A-frame sign either remain as presented, or be painted black, red, or silver. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 5-0. 4. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion and vote on Design Development submission The submission under review includes; utility plans, site plans, floor plans, and previously approved and revised perspectives. Matthew Picarsic of RCG LLC made an opening statement and introduced Jai Singh Khalsa and Michael Roper of Khalsa Design Inc. (Architects)to discuss the proposed revisions. Picarsic stated that multiple presentations throughout the design phase were requested by the Board to see the project's progression. Only the exterior materials and various interactions with the mixed-used component of the project would be presented —the Lobby, footprint changes at the South-East face of the building /open air parking lot entry with the addition of a 160 Sq. Ft. overhang, various material options and decisions that they are recommending. The Hospitality Group has their own design standards where the hotel design is concerned and it will also need approval from Hilton before it comes before the DRB. The mixed-use building and garage will take longer to construct than the North building and that is why it is up for review by the DRB first. Shapiro noted that the Board can make a determination 40 after the presentation as to whether this project requires a vote at this stage. Khalsa stated that submitted set of plans has increased by 30 pages and adjustments have been driven by 1) increasing community space within —adding 40 Sq. Ft. on floors 3, 4, & 5, and 2) pricing and budget in terms of material finishes. The new overhang is protecting several handicapped spaces. At the open air connector will have a cembrit fiber-cement panel rain screen at the higher floor held in place with surface applied rivets on extruded aluminum channels and cast cement nichiha panels on the lower floors. The cembrit panels (color: pearl white) will be 2'x10' max, installed vertically, and their rivets are galvanized and painted and will be spaced approximately 2' apart. They will be color matched to the panels, whose color will run the entire depth of the panel, and will not surface applied. The nichiha panels will alternate between and smooth and a textured finish as well as a change in color tone. Corner piece will match one of the panel colors. The railing system will be powder coated aluminum (color: black). Sullivan noted that the stair tread and riser differ. Roper replied that the landscape architect has not yet determined the treatment at the stair. DeMaio noted that there was previous discussion regarding the stair flaring at the base to give it a civic feel and that should be considered. Khalsa stated that along the Washington Street scape more cembrit fiber cement panels and nichiha panels will be used. Durand asked how corner details are handled with the cembrit system. Khalsa replied that the corner detail has yet to be determined. The base material proposed is still a cast stone to be used as a water table up to the powder coated windows sills of the retail space (color: black) before transitioning to the nichiha panels. Khalsa stated that at the Lobby the biggest change is the transformer placement. The previous scheme showed glass railings and the newly proposed scheme shows a 2"x2" wire mesh railing system because the owner felt they would last longer and be easier to maintain. DeMaio asked what finish deck material will be. Khalsa replied that it had not yet been determined but possibly a pultruded fiberglass decking as the finish material on top with a wood frame and akez finish below. They will be solid but not a material that can be seen through. Sullivan asked if they will drain off the edges. Khalsa replied yes, but they could also have and internal drain. Khalsa stated that at the stair wall corten steel with back-lit cut-out numbers cut is proposed as the project identity sign. This wall will screen the transformer and transition into a wall and bench with stabilized corten that won't allow rust to rub off on clothing. This wall and bench seating will extend through the glazing and into the hotel Lobby to become a feature wall. The Lobby has been opened up with a staircase leading to the upper level and connects the two levels of public parking. The Lobby will also house a ceramic feature wall and the railings will be powder coated aluminum. The pavers will be a cement based simulated bluestone material that will last longer than actual bluestone. Khalsa stated that along the South Building/ Mill Hill Building, the floor to floor levels have been increased but the overall height is less than 65' high. The additional height allowed the structure to extend from the exterior wall to the corridor wall with an open web wood truss. The flooring system is deeper but now fits the mechanical ducts without needing soffits throughout the residential areas. The cembrit panels will continue at the higher finish materials (color: graphite), the windows and railings will continue in the powder coated aluminum (color: black). The veneer will be a ''/i'think red thin set brick system (color: traditional red) on a metal backer and Greystone window head and sills. The thinner brick is individually field applies and will allow them to construct the building using wood studs as opposed to the steel studs and relieving angles at each floor to support the weight of traditional brick. The masonry has the same cost but the wood substructure will be less to expensive. The thin brick has full corner pieces and will require continuous control joints every 30 feet. The bay width will not require control joints will be visible but soft joints will be seen horizontally at the lintel relieving angles every two stories. Khalsa stated that in the interior courtyard view the nichiha panels will alter from light to dark at grade and the cembrit panels will be used in and around the balconies. DeMain asked if the thin nichiha panels will be carried to grade level. Khalsa replied that there will be a 2 '/z" gap between the bottom of the panel and grade for drainage purposes. Khalsa noted that the Mill Hill cembrit color was selected to match the color of the previously selected metal finish material. DeMain noted that the lintel and sill color in the brick areas shown in the newly proposed view is almost the same color as the upper story panels and do not match the color shown in the previously approved image. He would prefer a color difference with the lintels and sills rather than a color match. Durand agreed and added that a lighter will make them pop and give them a more human scale feature. Exterior Color Palette Summary Balcony Doors &Windows: Andersen 200 metal clad window Single hung or casement—fiberglass interior (Color: Black) Storefront& Connector Pieces: Kawneer 1200 or 1600 system (Color: Black) Veneer: McNear— FastBrick (Color: traditional red brick) Cast Stone: Arriscraft Fiber Cement Panel: Cembrit high density panels (colors: pearl white & graphite) Architectural Wall Panel: Nichiha Railing System: Powder Coated Aluminum (color: black) Connectors at Bays: Azek Roof System: TPO or EPDM (color: off-white) Mechanicals: Split System with condensers Khalsa stated that suitcase sized condensers (1 per unit) will be centrally located to conceal them from the street view as much as possible although the elevators and stairs pop-ups will be seen from the street view. Sullivan asked if the fresh air units were larger than the condensers. Khalsa replied that non ducted splits will be used and no rooftop units will be used in the common areas and notes that this is a change in plan since the previously approved project. Sullivan asked if there was a concern with the vents for the future restaurant possibly being visible from the street. Khalsa replied that they are pre-planning to bring a welded duct up to the roof with corridor access at each floor for maintenance and the fan tops shouldn't be very high. Other restaurant equipment locations are also being laid out in advance. DeMaio stated that the decks and the underside of the decks are visually important, will be seen from below, and questions the use of azek at the underside and at the connector trims and will not fit the more elevated palate on the remainder of the building; an alternative material should be considered for those surfaces, and suggests another fiber cement board with some texture. Khalsa replied that he would explore a cast slab bolted into the building. DeMaio noted that a slatted wood product was shown in one of the perspectives and would better fit the style of contemporary balconies. Dynia suggests a maintenance free PVC teak with a clipped rain screen type attachment method. DeMaio noted that a directory was shown at the retail space and there was a previous discussion and resistance from the Board regarding placing it in front a retail space and a suggestion of alternative locations and types of directories, such as freestanding to maintain the visibility for the retail spaces. Picarsic replied that although it is still shown in the presentation images it has yet to be re-examined. Sullivan stated that the ceramic feature wall that transition from the outside space and into the Lobby could be a possible location for commissioned piece of public art. Picarsic replied yes and they plan to speak with Deborah Greel on that matter. Durand: Motion to approve Design Development submission drawings with the applicant giving consideration to 1)widening the connector stair, 2) re-examining material used at underside of decking, 3) re-examining directory signage on the South building, 4) using the lighter lintel and sill color to contrast with the upper level cembrit fiber-cement panels, 5) examining a location for public art next to the Lobby, and 6)approval of the materials presented and the changes suggested at this meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 5-0. 5. 87 Washington Street(Opus): Discussion and vote on proposed alley lighting and shade sale installations for outdoor seating area The submission under review includes; lighting specifications, prayer flag images, firefly lighting specification, shade sail ties, and sculpture image. Mark McDonough, business owner, was present to discuss the proposed installations. McDonough stated that he wanted to highlight the alleyway and his rear seating area with brightly colors flags and sails. Shapiro noted that the alleyway lighting and flags would require several connections to the exterior wall of City Hall and the Mayor's Office has no problem with this proposal. Shapiro read Kennedy's previously submitted notes for the record; He is in favor of the concept, apprehensive of the variety of shade sail colors— blue, gold &green —could be scaled back to 1 or 2 or change one of them to white. The laser lights have a large number of lights and owner should be mindful of where they are projected to—other windows. As long as the light cast is controlled it should be OK and could have a cool effect. Sullivan stated that he felt there was a lot going on with this proposal and it could look too busy. Shapiro noted the addition of existing conditions photos of the rear patio area in the Boards packets. Shapiro stated that the DRB should not comment on art installations. The SRA would need to vote to approve an art installation concept and the Public Art Commission would need to approve the art. Sullivan asked why there were three options for the alleyway. McDonough replied that they each require a different number of new connections to the side of City Hall which will also change the prayer flag layout. Sullivan asked if this is intended to be a year round installation. McDonough replied that the flags and lights would wrap around a guide wire, and would be taken down in the winter. DeMaio noted that a new planting bed is proposed at the Washington Street start of the alleyway next to City Hall. McDonough replied that that planter would be eliminated. Sullivan and Durand agree that the plan is a great way to highlight the alleyway. Shapiro reiterated Kennedy's comment regarding the aiming of the firefly light. Durand noted that the firefly lights are adjustable. McDonough noted that it will be aimed up at the tree towards Salem Five at night only and will not shine into any offices. The string and firefly lights will be hard wired with sensors to turn them off and on depending on the amount of daylight. Jaquith: Motion to approve the presentation with the removal of the proposed planter at Washington Street. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 5-0. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the June 22, 2016 regular meeting. Jaquith: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Sullivan, Passes 5-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Dynia. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:40 PM Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. . ��gONDITq�' CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL 120 WASHINGTON STREET * SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Tr.T.E:978-745-9595 ♦ FAx:978-740-9846 MAYOR Notice of Decision At a meeting of the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals held on Wednesday,February 15,2017,2016 at 6:30 p.m. at 120 Washington St.,Salem,MA,the Zoning Board of Appeals voted on the following item: Petition of LEE DEARBORN, seeking a Special Permit per 3.3.5 Nonconforming Single and Two-Family Residential Structures of the Salem Zoning Ordinance to reconstruct, extend, or structurally change the existing structure and a Variance per Sec. 5.1.8 Table of Required Parking Spaces to allow parking within five (5� feet of the street line at 32 BUFFUM STREET (Map 25,Lot 255)(82 Zoning District). Decision: Granted Filed with the City Clerk on March 1,2017 This notice is being sent in compliance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Sections 9 & 15 and does not require action by the recipient.Appeals,if any, shall be made pursuant to Chapter 40A, Section 17, and sball be filed within 20 days from the date which the decision was filed with the City Clerk. This notice posted on "gffir.'sa! Bulletin Board" Salem City Hail, Salem, Mass. on J,M iii aol(o f at �;3a fm in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 1a-25. Redevelopment Aufttity 2916 JUN 15 P 1: 33 CITY YiFti .',,. h!. ii CITY �� Design Review Board Meeting Agenda . Wednesday, June 22, 2016 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. City Property in Front of Old Salem Jail (50 St. Peter Street): Continued discussion and vote on installation of proposed City-owned surface parking lot. ! 2. Downtown Locations: Discussion and vote on proposed installation of new trash and recycling receptacles. • 3. 90 Lafayette Street(Adea's Mediterranean Kitchen, LLC): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of exterior air vent. 4. 7 Crombie Street(Blue Stone Alley Condominiums): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of rooftop vents. 5. 311 Derby Street(Salem Flatbread, LLC): Discussion and vote on proposed signage, outdoor cafe (seating area), and exterior improvements. 6. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Continued discussion of proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) a. Discussion and vote on proposed loading dock area improvements North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 7. 70-92 % Boston Street(Boston Street Residences and Retail): Continued discussion and vote on proposed mixed-use residential and retail development �Y Old/New Business ro Minutes Approval of minutes from the May 25, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. DRB June 22, 2016 • Page 1 of 20 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Colleen Anderson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 24 New Derby Street(Artists' Row): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. a. Unit#4 (Grace and Diggs) [David Jaquith was not present for presentation or vote on the first item] • The submission under review includes: a sign permit application, a description and image of the proposed signage. Linda Mullen (business owner)was present to discuss the proposed signage. Shapiro stated that Mullen's business requests to mount one blade sign (a free standing pole sign hung in the style of a blade sign) onto an existing black bracket. The sign will be wood and will measure 42"x28". Eye hooks and carabiners will be used to fasten the sign to the pole. Kennedy inquired if there was a sample of the proposed sign color. Linda replied that the temporary vinyl banner she requested should have been pin/blush color but was printed in a raspberry color, which she now prefers and wants to use. The final sign would be wood with a charcoal grey border. DeMaio requests that all fasteners be black in color. Kennedy: Motion to approve sign in new raspberry color with charcoal grey border using all black fasteners. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. b. Unit#5 (Kay's Stained Glass Studio) The submission under review includes: a sign permit application, a description and • image of the proposed signage. Aleksandra Nowak (business owner)was present to discuss the proposed signage. Nowak stated that they plan to use W PVC board as a sign base, and she will hand- • paint the sign wording and design. Buckles will be used to attach the sign to the posts. The sign will be double-sided, will measure 24"x24", and will be in the colors shown. Kennedy inquired if the sign will be square and if there will be a border. Nowak replied square and there will be a border but they are open to not using a border. Sullivan inquired if the border colors will be as shown, if she will hand paint the entire sign, and how thick the border is. Nowak replied yes but the colors could be adjusted, she will hand paint the sign, the border will be less than V thick. Sides stated that the lettering is hard to read. Nowak stated that she spoke to her graphic designer about eliminating the grey shadow behind the letters, the word "studio"will be slightly enlarged. Sides inquired if the word "studio'could be eliminated. Nowak replied that she wants to keep the gothic lettering because it is part of the company name. [Jaquith arrives at 6:10 PM] • DeMaio suggested having more space around the word "studio'to allow it read better. His objection to the readability of it was the grey shadow. Sullivan stated that the spacing of the word "studio' and the use of all caps is throwing it off. Nowak replied that the letter can be changed to lower case. Kennedy suggested that the changes be made and sent for further review without the need for a continuance to the June DRB meeting. Shapiro inquired if the Board was in favor of Kennedy reviewing the signage on their behalf. The Board stated that they were. Shapiro stated that he would get the revised signage to Kennedy for review and to the SRA for their review upon Kennedy's approval. Sides: Motion to recommend approval subject to Kennedy's review and approval of the revisions. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. • • 2. 281 Essex Street(Life Alive): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, a letter from the tenant/sign owner, proposed signage photo, a dimensioned sketch showing the location of the proposed signage. Udaya Odururu was present to discuss the proposed signage. Shapiro stated that the proposed a-frame sign will have a graphic as shown in the packet. The applicant originally proposed a larger sign but the sign was reduced in size to meet the portable sign ordinance standard. Sides stated that she was surprised by 1)the proposed sign location right outside of the entrance and that it was too tight with the bike rack and sidewalk traffic. 2)The content of the sign, a job posting, but is in favor of it. Oduru stated that the sign would be in front of the tree and not at the bike rack outside the entrance. Jaquith stated that there is too much information on the sign that will not be read. Sullivan stated that the information will be read, it hadn't been done before, but it would be a good way to hire new employees. Durand noted that it will double as an advertisement and people will understand that. • DeMaio stated that it is graphically pleasing although there is a lot of information that may not be read. Approving a job posting sign will set a precedent. Sullivan inquired if the image in the packet was a photograph of an existing sign and if so, where it was located, and how it is working so far. Oduru replied yes, Cambridge, it has been excellent and has brought in a lot of applicants, and are paying employees more. The sign was also placed in Lowell and they've hired 4 employees within the last 2 weeks. Kennedy stated that this precedent could go either way and should be handled properly. Shapiro inquired how often the sign would be on display. Oduru replied that for now the intent is to keep the sign on display because employees will move onto higher positions and their old positions will need to be filled. DeMaio inquired if the applicant would have to return for future approvals if the pay for employees changes and the signs needs to be changed. Shapiro replied that if the sign was kept in the same format it should not require Board approval each time the pay scale changes. Other businesses that use white boards or chalkboard signs have been given that flexibility to post food specials and sale information that changed daily. Durand stated that he was unsure of this sign but it shows prosperity and success and it is • a great advertisement. It is a very successful ad and more than a help wanted sign. It might be hard to read but the important points will catch your eye. DeMain inquired if a simpler sign directing them inside to find out about employment • opportunities would be as successful. Where will the line be drawn context wise, if the Board establishes this precedent? Jaquith stated that the Board shouldn't be concerned with precedent because every case is different and should be judged separately. Kennedy: Motion to approve as submitted. Seconded by: Sullivan. Opposed by: DeMaio. Passes 6-1. 3. 21 Front Street (Office of Congressman Seth Moulton): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. The submission under review includes; a sign permit application and a proposed signage photo with dimension description of one blade sign, two window signs, and one door sign. Rick Jakious, District Director for Congressman Moulton, was present to discuss the proposed signage. Jakious stated that the imagery in the packet is self-explanatory and he can answer any questions for the Board. Kennedy stated that the hooks should be painted black. Kennedy: Motion to approve with the hooks and mounting brackets painted black. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 7-0. 4. 221 Essex Street(Freaky Elegant): Discussion of proposed installation of signage • The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, proposed sign image with dimensions and proposed condition photos. Mike Abene was present to discuss the proposed signage. Abene stated that the proposed blade sign is very similar to the sign already in place. The words "masquerade" and "gifts'will be spelled out and applied to the panel above the storefront windows with plastic. The high storefront panels will be repainted in the same colors. Shapiro noted that the letters would be formed raised plastic. Kennedy inquired if the storefront lettering would be raised and if the "masquerade" portion of the blade sign would be applied. Abene replied that the storefront lettering would be raised and the blade sign would be one piece with nothing applied. Sullivan inquired if the letters were individually raised. Abene replied yes. Sides inquired if the sign was rectangular or cut out in an oval shape like the existing sign. Abene replied it will be similar to the existing sign. . . Jaquith: Motion to approve as submitted. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 7-0. 5. 283 Rear Derby Street(Notch Brewing): Discussion of proposed installation of signage (including a-frame sign)and lighting. Durand announces a potential conflict of interest and recuses himself from participating on this agenda item. The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, letter from the business owner, proposed perspective, elevation, and site plan showing proposed signage and lighting, and lighting specifications. Chris Lohring, business owner, was present to discuss the proposed signage. Lohring stated that he is seeking approvals for exterior signage which includes an a-frame sign, and lighting. Shapiro stated because the zoning enforcement officer deemed the frontage of the building to be Derby Street, that frontage which is also occupied by Brother's Deli, took up the sign allowance for the whole building. Lohring was granted a variance for 103 square feet of signage by the ZBA. That signage in the current package totals more than the allowable 103 square feet of signage, so the red "NOTCH" lettering shown on the fence in one of the perspective drawings will be eliminated from the signage package. • Lohring noted that visibility from Derby Street is limited and having lettering on the building is more important. The a-frame proposed along Derby Street will help take the place of the eliminated proposed fence lettering. Shapiro stated that the business location warrants an a-frame sign so people can locate the business. There are a couple unregulated a-frame signs already in that location that the City needs to address and the Board needs to decide if they want/will allow more than one a-frame sign in this location. Shapiro suggested to the applicant that he discuss the Owner providing a multi-business sign listing all of the tenants. Kennedy inquired that the location of the a-frame sign is OK at that end. Shapiro replied that usually the distance is 10 feet from the business but the Board has discretion if there are extenuating circumstances that warrant placing is further than 10 feet away. DeMaio inquired how the frontage of the building be considered Derby Street and the a- frame sign be on Derby Street and have it be considered more than 10 feet away from the business if that is the front of the building. Shapiro replied that the frontage is on Derby Street but the front of the business corresponds to the storefront entrance, which is down the side of the building. Kennedy stated that he would prefer a sign on the wall that points down the driveway to their business. Sullivan agreed. • Sides stated that she is in favor of the a-frame sign. Lohring stated that it will be a hand painted wood a-frame and the building signage will be • hand painted onto the brick. Shapiro noted that two lighting spec was also part of the package that DeMain helped Lohring select. Lohring stated that the gooseneck fixtures would have a black conduit and a black shade and a new LED fixture will be black with black conduit was submitted, that will shine down and not out, to light the parking lot only. Sides: Motion to approve package as submitted including the a-frame sign. Seconded by: Dynia. Passes 6-0. 6. 50 St. Peter Street(Old Salem Jail): Continuation of discussion and vote on proposed design revisions to previously approved plans for Phase II of"Old Salem Jail' redevelopment project—new multifamily housing development. The submission under review includes; a narrative of changes from the last submission and revised elevations. Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects was present to discuss the proposed revisions. Ricciarelli reviewed Board concerns from the previous meeting. a. Juliette balconies —They were previously located on he outside the face of the exterior wall have been brought inboard to within the window slots. • b. Window slots —Reinforced the window slots and recessed the windows and projecting them up into the gable ends. c. Dormer—One Board member felt their proportion was large so the dormers were minimized. The sill was lowered and the window opening was raised to enlarge the window openings to maximize the natural light for the top floor units. d. Siding — Nichiha Fiber cement panel that is blind fastened so there will be no exposed fasteners. That material will occur at all the recesses including the gable recesses and the remainder of the fagade will be standing seam lead coated copper(LCC) DeMain inquired for clarification on what was LCC and where it occurs. Ricciarelli replied that the LCC occurs on several vertical areas on the South and West fagades, the dormers, within the gable ends, and at the elevator shaft, and the hardi plank siding is staying with 7 weather exposure. The Nichiha cement panels are being used because it has cleaner details. The base material will remain the Eldorado stone. e. Elevator Lobby—Questions were also raised regarding the new Lobby entrance. It has been aligned with the neighboring window to highlight the area and they will do some more design work with the canopy over the entrance. The lobby has also been enlarged. f. Balcony railings—To work with the railings that exist on site, the proposed railings will be a flat bar top and bottom rail, all welded. g. Recessed doors—The pocket doors have now become regular functioning doors and windows. h. Door proportions—The previously selected pocket doors were larger and they have changed to Jeldwin doors. Ricciarelli reiterated the proposed materials; faux slate roof, LCC on dormers and gable ends, Nichiha cement panels in the recesses, hardi clapboard and corner boards, and an Eldorado faux stone base on the main facade and the base perimeter. Kennedy stated that he approves of the look of the recessed windows and panels. Ricciarelli replied that they were recessed even more which is a challenge at the sills. Sullivan inquired if the color selection had been made and if there were any color samples. Ricciarelli replied that the only sample he had to present so far was the Eldorado stone. The stone and the LCC were a silvery-grey and there would be a grey palette throughout the remainder of the building. Jaquith inquired where the window plane was in relation to the stone and if the jointing of the base material was random. Ricciarelli replied that the faux stone would be an applied base, the exterior wall would be 2x6 studs and determined that the window would be set back approximately 3 '/z". The base is in 1'x2' sections so the base could be a running bond pattern and there will be no lintels. Durand inquired how the material will return at the recess. Ricciarelli replied that the material also comes pre-shaped to fit various conditions, such as • returns. Jaquith inquired if the chimney height has been changes. The wide gable at the North elevation doesn't look correct and doesn't match up with the other gables but it could just be the paneling. Ricciarelli replied that they have been raised up after prior concerns to the chimneys looking too low. He will look into the design of the large front end gable but it was designs that way because of the top floor units. Dynia noted that reducing the 4 foot overhang will make it not as steep. Shapiro stated that the applicant has a permit but would like to move forward with the foundation and utilities for the project. Condition items such as; review of CD's with color and material details, and a mock-up could be added to the motion, lighting fixtures, signage. Sides replied that a CD set will provide the level of detail the Board needs to review the project. Jaquith stated that he is disappointed with the vague presentation and lack of floor plans to review. At the next presentation he hopes to see a full package with landscaping. Sullivan stated that is hard to see the changes on two dimensional drawings and the perspectives would help with that next time, despite them already being somewhat familiar with the conceptual design. . Durand: Motion to approve schematic level drawings and reserve the right to review the construction documents for details and material finishes. Plans are dated 5/17/16 (on the cover). The recommendation recognizes that the applicant had a building permit in place for a previously approved site plan and may begin work on its foundation. All other elements above the foundation are subject to the following review prior to installation: 1. Construction Plans—The final project construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the DRB and SRA prior to installation of exterior elements. The plans, including exterior elevations and details, site plan, roof plan, and materials must conform to the plans submitted and approved by the DRB, dated 5/17/16. All changes to the plans must be presented to both boards and approved. 2. Fixtures and finishes—Any additional details with respect to fixtures and/or finishes of materials—colors, size, placement, etc. —shall be reviewed by the DRB and SRA prior to installation. 3. Signage Plan —The signage plan must be submitted to the DRB and SRA for review and approval prior to installation. All signs shall conform to the City of Salem's sign ordinance, Commercial Design Guidelines, and Design Guidelines with the Downtown Renewal Plan (2011). Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 7-0. 7. Charter Street Cemetery: Discussion and vote on proposed cemetery restoration to include landscape improvements, fence and path restoration, and installation of lighting. The submission under review includes; a letter from the Salem staff planner, an assessment of the existing landscape conditions and the proposed treatment recommendations from the Landscape Architect, existing site plan, site preparation plan, • layout& materials plan, grading plan, planting plan, lighting plan, details, and an illustrative site plan. Erin Schaeffer, Salem Staff Planner, and Martha Lyon, Landscape Architect, were present to discuss the proposed restoration and landscape improvements. Schaeffer stated that this project is to update the cemetery, improve access, circulation, replace some of the trees, restore and replacing the perimeter fencing, providing opportunities for visitors to rest throughout the grounds. The cemetery is in rough condition as described in the packet. The City is working with stone distributors and Monument Conservation Collaborative. MCC is currently working with Lyon to restore the headstones that is occurring separately from this project. Lyon stated that this is a historic property with historic fabric/features, including the stones and other ornamental features. Lyon's goal is to preserve the historic features as best as they can but to make improvements has some contemporary elements. The number of visitors had increased over the years and aspects of the property have become very worn. Lyon stated that the property is surrounded by Charter Street on the North, Derby Street at the South which had a large retaining wall, Liberty Street to the East which is closed to vehicular traffic, and a parking lot and commercial buildings to the West. The Witch Trials Memorial is along the East also and the goal is to make the two areas meld so they reflect one another. A private home is also along the North-West property line. Lyon stated that one of the goals was to make the space accessible and upgrade the • entrances. There is an entrance at Charter Street, the Witch Memorial, and one behind the • wax museum. The site is not steep and can be easily navigated, however; the pathway is in a state of disrepair. Currently the Charter Street has one vehicular gate and two pedestrian gates. The proposal is to close both pedestrian gates and use the vehicular gate as the main entrance for both vehicles and pedestrians. Lyon stated that there is a lot of wear on the pathways and the edges are ill-defined and the bases of the tombs there have eroded. The proposal is to narrow the pathway, secure the edges, and grade up against the tombs to secure their bases. The Witch Trials Memorial is currently not accessible because it has steps, but the proposal is to remove the steps and create a gently graded slope to lead visitors into the cemetery. The proposal is to also install a series of bollards connected with steel chains to line both entry walkways and announce the two entrances. Lyon stated that within the property they have created a pathway that will loop visitors through the cemetery and skirt the tombs. Wear paths have been created over time and the monument restoration company is concerned with the wear on the tombs and headstones, so the plan is to eliminate any future wear and keep people on the path, especially where some of the headstones are within the pathways. A site survey was done so the location of all of the headstones was documented. The pathway material is a decomposed granite, a stable durable surface that is not as messy as stone dust, and is semi-permeable, so the pathway will have to be graded so water doesn't collect on it. It is a better option than bituminous paving which would require digging or concrete pavers which • are too modern. Benches will also be added along the walkway and recycled granite is the proposed bench material. Schaeffer noted that benches were being proposed at the Mayors request, to stop people from sifting on the headstones and tombs. This is a new element and wouldn't normally be included in a preservation project. Sides inquired if the sitting on the tombstone had to do with the hours of operation for the cemetery, and if this occurred at night, during the day, or both. Sides also inquired if there security there when it is open. Schaeffer replied that she has seen it consistently during the day. There is security during the hours it is open. Sullivan inquired if the granite blocks were similar to the large blocks at the train station. If so, would they be places as is or carved in the back to create a bench. Schaeffer replied that there are a few of those large blocks left over but there are other granite bench options. Lyon replied that they might be similar to what is at the Witch Trials Memorial where there are inscriptions in the stone "rest", "remember', "reflect", etc. • Lyon stated that there is a mix of fencing at the perimeter of the site. Derby Street has a high retaining wall. Charter Street has wrought iron gates that are in need of repair, as well as a wrought iron fence doweled into a granite base that is in fair condition. Restoring the . fence will be complicated, will needs to be done on site and the paint is most likely lead based. The alternative to that is to remove the fence, recreate it, and place is behind the existing wall, however; a metal specialist will need to make a final determination. A similar version of the steel picket fence exists along the Witch Trials Memorial perimeter. Because this new steel picket fence is already being intrOduruced, it will be matched at all of the other open areas of fencing. In areas where buildings abut the cemetery black chain link will be used and plant English ivy vines. Lyon stated that they are proposing to close the entrance in the paved parking area behind the Wax Museum because it is not complaint and the City cannot monitor it. Sullivan inquired if there would be a picket fencing along the top of the Derby Street retaining wall. Lyon replied no, the wall is high enough to serve as its own barrier. Sides inquired if the pathway through the cemetery was plotted to work with the key at the Charter Street entrance that shows where the notable headstones are located, to keep visitors from veering off the path. Lyon replied that she will verify if that is the case. Schaeffer added that the new pathways are following the wear paths but that is something to consider. Lyon noted that urban • cemeteries that are historic in nature all have this problem. She will recommend ground cover over any other wear paths that will not become part of the final path, and will act as a deterrent. Lyon stated that there are several mature trees in the cemetery and five that should be removed, three of them are oaks. Those five trees have either huge cavities, which are in indication of a decline in the health of the tree, are diseased, or have been damaged. Most of these trees are oak trees so their health will fail at about the same time. With those five removed new native species of trees can be intrOduruced and spaced accordingly to diversify the palette. The site preparations plan indicates the trees to be removed and the proposed trees are in the packet. The large oak in the middle of cemetery needs to be pruned but can remain. Evergreen plantings can be added along the perimeter to screen the neighboring buildings and a back drop of flowering trees along the Derby Street wall to provide some color in the Spring. Lyon stated that she was inquired to look at lighting options. A cemetery at this age would not have been lit, so any lighting intrOduruced needs to be discreet. There are some indirect pole lights that provide ambient light. If the interior of the cemetery were to bit lit she recommends in-ground flood up-lighting placed along the interior of the Charter Street and Derby Street wall edge. Another option is in ground directional lighting to illuminate the central oak tree which could be a feature at night. • Schaeffer noted that lighting is being included for security reasons along the back wall of the cemetery and it allows the police to see in at night. A camera will be installed onto the housing authority building to keep watch over the cemetery. Sullivan inquired about the proposed species of trees. The selection of trees in graveyards can be beautiful and bring color and life to the cemetery and show visitors that the space is being cared for and is important. Lyon replied that the two proposed shade trees are a tulip tree and turns a brilliant yellow in the fall. The second is a red maple tree and turns a brilliant red in the fall. A smaller flowering tree is a shablow serviceberry which has a history of being associated with cemeteries, because it blooms in the spring and had a berry that when it bloomed signified that the ground had thawed. The eastern redbud is a pink or white bloom that turns a rust color in the fall, but is one that seems to lack longevity. The jack pine and scots pine were the two evergreen recommendations. Durand stated two concerns; 1)The old fence that is doweled into the granite is historic and rustic, and replacing it will cause it to lose its charm. The existing should be restored rather than adding a new one behind it. 2)The old trees are also charming. They both add to the character of cemetery. Defined pathways, new trees and lighting are important to include. Sides noted that there is a safety concern with the older trees along the road or people. • Durand inquired is something happened to cause the trees to decline in health or if they were not being cared for. Durand stated that he has been told that urban environments can be stressful on trees and these tree don't get the care that other trees in parks/garden receive. Lyon replied that one has a large cavity; another may have been hit by a piece of equipment because it is leaning at a 45 degree angle and also had a cavity. The reason for the decline of two of the others is unknown. There is a lot of compaction around the roots and the proposal is to aeration. Sides inquired if they were included in the city survey of trees. Schaeffer stated that she was not sure. Shapiro stated that speaking to Durands point, there is a cost issue with fence restoration may not be cost prohibitive where their financing is concerned. Schaeffer replied that the project is being looked at as a long range and sees no problem with including restoring the fence as a condition. Durand stated that the condition needs to be looked at and the cheapest plan could be to • do very little to it. His thoughts don't need to be conditions but thought should be given to the character to the features of the cemetery. The neighboring memorial is a somber space and this project should be a continuation of that. Sullivan is concerned with the up-lighting on the trees which will act as an advertisement. Lyon replied that conduits would need to be put in with the walkways but it can be a last addition or eliminated. DeMaio stated that tasteful signage placed periodically on the walkways to remind people to stay on the path could be included. Durand: Motion to approve as submitted with a recommendation to preserve the character of the site and a strong recommendation to maintain the existing fence or leave it as is, and the inclusion of signage to remind visitors to stay on the path. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 7-0. 8. City Property in Front of Old Salem Jail (50 St. Peter Street): Discussion and vote on installation of proposed City-owned surface parking lot. The submission under review includes; grading, construction, detail, and landscape and plant listing plans. Merrick Turner and Chris Lupino of Beta Engineering, and the David Knowlton, Salem's City Engineer, were present to discuss the proposed parking lot. Knowlton stated that the City is looking to add a 17 space parking lot in front of the Salem Jail. Access will be from the access road off of Bridge Street and up towards the future restaurant. Beta Engineer is the firm that the City has selected to design this parking lot. • Turner stated that the Bridge Street access and a turn-around would be utilized in the proposed design. The City would like to achieve 17 spaces, 16 regular and 1 handicapped. Eight on one side of the lot and nine on the opposite side. Disruption to the site will be as minimal as possible. The flood plain line exists on the site and they will go before the Conservation Commission to discuss, so they are keeping the site as compact as possible. The cemetery and the wall between them will not be impacted. The utilize the parking a vehicle would enter onto the access road, park on either the left of right sides of the lot, and would need to utilize the turning circle at the end to turn around and exit the lot. Continuations of the existing sidewalk would be placed being the vehicles on the right side of the parking lot. Some existing trees will need to be removed but others will remain and be used as screening. 3 foot high evergreens will be added for additional screening, as well as 8 evenly spaced inkberries and red maple shrubs, to shield the view of the cars. There is one mature tree on the lot and a series of new plantings along Bridge Street that could be replanted. Knowlton stated that a parking kiosk still needs to be located so it is not currently shown on the plans. There is also a potential for some public art towards the street corner or an alternative location, and they are working with Deborah Greel, Salem Public Art Planner, to locate an appropriate location on the site. Sides inquired what the accessibility was from the proposed parking lot to the restaurant. How do the handicapped access the restaurant from the lot? • Turner replied that the entire driveway is accessible and no slops exceed 5% and a walk across could also be utilized. The existing grade at the throat of the entrance to the restaurant is steep, and that cannot be addressed in this part of the project without addressing the retaining walls. Knowlton replied that there are some parking spaces up the driveway on the other side of the retaining wall, or people can walk around and go up to the courtyard. Sullivan inquired if cars will be able to drive over the walkway. Knowlton replied that the existing concrete pad/path will remain. The roadway will be enhanced to include parking on either side. Jaquith inquired if this was a two way road and if vehicles could only be parked when entering the lot. Knowlton and Turner replied yes. Jaquith noted that vehicles who miss a spot would need to leave the lot and enter again. Durand added that they could also back into parking spots. Dynia inquired if wouldn't be better to do one sided parking, so when vehicles loop around at the end they can also access parking spaces on their way out of the lot, to keep people from needing to exit and enter the lot if a spot opens after they've passed it. • Turner replied that a couple spaces will be lost if the spaces on the other side of the lot are angled to face out. They last two would hit the existing retaining wall. Sullivan noted that it would a safer way to park in the lot so a vehicle wouldn't need to cross over on-coming traffic to park. Turner stated that turn-over wouldn't be very high in this lot, so that condition could occur but it wouldn't be frequent. Durand stated that this idea would have made the commercial/retail aspect to the building more successful had this parking lot happened sooner. DeMaio stated that there should be an accommodation for cyclists and the Bicycle Committee should be consulted on the number of spaces to provide. Sullivan inquired if there was a more thoroughly developed landscape plan. Pedestrians shouldn't have to walk through the parking lot. There is opportunity to create a nicer pathway for pedestrians. Kennedy stated that the plantings could be spread out in more of a natural landscape plan and not just shrubs lined up as screening. Sides added that the green edge could become more park-like and include the pathway and move the trees towards the road to ask as a buffer. The park would have more of a chance for longevity if it was protected from the roadway. Sullivan stated that with the addition of landscape design and public art, the City will pay more attention to and utilize this site. Durand opens the public comment session. Dan Ricciarelli, Salem resident. Agrees with the board, the landscape design should be more organic. Cars backing out of spaces and into the walkway could be problematic and a path outside of the parking lot would be ideal to activate that space. Jennifer Firth, President of Historic Salem. Is in favor of the parking lot to support the commercial space in the jail. Many residents felt that the park would be lost, but the proposed plan is a nice compromise. Durand closes the public session. Kennedy: Motion to continue discussion with the inclusion of bike racks, a relocated pathway, and a landscape enhancements. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. Shapiro stated that this project also has to go before the Planning Board with City Council approval and the Conservation Commission because the lot will be in a flood zone. 9. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Continued discussion of proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) The submission under review includes; site plan, building plans &sections, Essex Street • elevation, perspective views, garden design, Charter Street design, existing context photos, and a proposed schedule. Bob Monk of the PEM and Stephen Chu of Ennead Architects were present to discuss the proposed museum expansion. Monk stated that over the course of the schematic design phase they've determined that they need to break away a portion of the project. The design of the loading dock, in conceptual form, and its appearance from Charter Street will be part of the focus of tonight's presentation. The loading dock work will need to be completed prior to the start of the major construction to keep the museum operational. The hope is to return in June and present and get approval for the loading dock, so they can proceed to the SRA and to pull a building permit in August or September. Shapiro stated that if the Board sees fit to approve the conceptual loading dock plans, it would become its own separate project, while the rest of the project would continue to develop. Monk added that they are hoping to get approval of the major project in November. Chu stated that he will point out the changes and remaining building design in his PowerPoint presentation. Chu stated that the landscape architect recently began • addressing the garden plans, and the landscape on both Charter Street and Essex Street. The updated section renderings cut through East India Marine Hall. The skylight will turn • and continue around the addition and head towards the garden. New openings for bridge elements that will connect to the addition. Some of the existing openings along that fagade will either be reopened or closed up. The balconies will highlight the end of the building and the skylight will be a source of light. Chu stated that regarding the Essex Street elevations, the Board made some comments regarding the compressed look of the addition at the underside of that building plane. The stone material will be a Chelsmford granite, the original stone to Marine Hall and it will come from the same quarry. In the Essex Street elevation the 1900's gateway will be moved to the other side of the Marine Hall. Chu stated that the second floor granite elevation of the addition has been raised approximately 18". To keep the two second floors aligned, it cannot be raised any further without exposing the steel, because the building structure is so deep. Ground level glazing will have butt glazing vertically and channel glazing at the top and bottom. One design item being explored is angling the addition where Essex Street turns slightly. Another design idea being explored is having the storefront in-line with the axis of Marine Hall and the upper level in line with the remaining buildings along Essex Street, so both the storefront base and upper level addition scissor slightly. The sides of the new structure have been pushed back to let the addition sit proud. To accentuate the verticality of the granite panels, each panel is made up of smaller closely jointed panels and wider joints between them. They are exploring using different finishes of granite to break up the monolith look of the • Dodge Street addition. Chu stated that concept landscape plans have also progressed. The building orientation of the addition will carry through into the garden. The garden is approximate 4-5,000 square feet and the various scale of its elements are still being designed but diverse and intimate areas is the current concept. It will flow seamlessly with the addition, trees will be planted, and a water element within the stone fagade is a possibility. There will be opaque screening/walls at the perimeter walls to allow for some visibility into and through the space. Sides inquired if the squiggly line throughout the garden was an edge or a change in material. Chu replied material change. Possibly a different stone or some of the Chelmsford granite but it will transform as it moves through the garden. Monk stated that the museum goer have commented on how the museum has changed/evolved over time. The garden will offer some elements of surprise and cannot be seen entirely from the museum, it will have to be experienced as people walk through. The garden could be used for intimate performance spaces, etc. Chu presented the Charter Street loading dock and landscape concept images. The loading dock surround would be a shop finished aluminum rain screen enclosure with open • joints, possibly in a warm grey tone. The design will be simple to not compete with the rectilinear design of the PEM fagade. It will provide some shielding for the museum items. Some trees, a low 4-5 foot high hedge and gate are planned for the Charter Street perimeter, to act as filter and provide some screening. The hedging will taper off towards the YYT end of the museum. Jaquith stated he agrees with the toned down loading dock. Dynia inquired about design elements on the proposed gate. Chu replied that is hasn't been designed. Monk noted that for larger truck deliveries the proposed gate may need to stay open. Sullivan inquired for additional information on the compactor. Monk replied that it would stay in place next to the loading dock and will be a sealed unit with screening. Shapiro inquired for the proposed plan for the transformer on the lawn and other equipment on site. Monk replied that the transformer was temporarily placed on the lawn but it and the switchgear will be moved back to its permanent location, to the left of the loading dock, after the expansion completion. They will be screened by the proposed low hedge. Kennedy inquired if Chu had a sample of the stone to see the varying textures. • Chu replied samples of all the proposed materials will be presented at the next meeting. Sullivan inquired if they were concerned with the metal material being damaged at the loading dock. Chu replied that bollards will be placed around it. Monk noted that the metal panels will be 1/4" or 3/8" plates with a copper or zinc finished surface will act as a rain screen and water will run down behind it. Kennedy stated that the squiggle line in the garden seems forced and the loading dock color should be more grey than white. Monk replied that the central squiggle will be a water feature. DeMaio inquired if the granite line up above the Essex Street was the second floor line. Could that line be raised up any higher because the first floor still seems compressed. Chu replied the second floor levels line up, the granite line above is the underside of the building structure and if it were raised any higher the steel would be exposed. Not all the • renderings have been updated so they may still show the previous design. • Khalsa stated that the building is a mix of brick and clapboard with a mansard roof, barrel vaulted and gable end ceilings. Traditional wharf style end walls with punched windows have been added as a nod to the neighboring canal and the character of Salem. The perspective view from Goodhue Street looking South shows the bend in the larger building, the upper floor brick bays and top floor balconies, with a clapboard infill in between the brick bays, and a brick building base. Screening with vines will be placed over the open ventilation areas to conceal the lower level garage and a trash enclosure will be next to the buildings garage entry. Plantings are mixed in with the retaining walls and a feature design is underway in the planter at the central entrance portico. A variety of paving styles are also intended around the building. Khalsa stated that six row style townhomes are proposed along Boston Street and their design was chosen based on the neighboring Boston Street structure (gables, front porches, proportions, etc.)The main townhouse entrances are off of Boston Street and they have a secondary entrance and 1 car garage parking underneath and additional parking in the rear lot. The end units have entrances along the side of the building and all units will have rear decks. From the front, there townhouse building has three story gable ends. Khalsa displayed a material sample board. Red brick is proposed for the main building, a white Azek trim, metal cladding on the top floor bays with painted trim boards at the top. Cast stone heads at the windows. The owners are proposing an upgrade of materials from their previous building across the street while picking up on aspects of the neighborhood, so the two buildings relate to one another. The brick ends will also frame the central entrances of the building. iKhalsa stated that one car per unit parking is within the garage which complies with the zoning requirements, except for the ratio of square footage per dwelling on the lot, and they are requesting a higher density than allowed, similar to the Goodhue project. Additional tenant storage is provided at the end of each parking spot in the garage. A variety of unit square footages are provided in the building with a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units— 1,100-1,200 SF for two bedroom units and 800-900 SF for one bedroom units. The townhouses are approximately 17-18 feet wide. There are a variety of dormer types; single, double, and arch tops that are clad in the middle. The proposed signage will be similar in style to the Goodhue building and will placed at each entrance. The proposed development name is `River Rock". Landscape Hynes stated that there are 4 primary components to the landscape. 1) Streetscape development along Boston and Goodhue Streets 2) Residential living for townhouses and the apartment building 3) Planting near the abutting residences to mitigate the presence of the apartment building 4) Access and functionality Streetscape—A series of trees are proposed along Boston Street. The land leading up to the turnaround is the same grade as the Boston Street vehicular entrance and grade will rise above to Boston Street, so a retaining wall and an iron fence will be places at the edge • of the parking with some shrubberies. The streetscape in front of the townhouses will be picket fence enclosed gardens to provide an urban feel. A big part of the Goodhue Street streetscape is taken up by the City parking that also connects to Beaver Street. The strong Durand opens the public comment session. Jennifer Firth, President of Historic Salem. In favor of the project. This addition will change the large open area of the mall alone Essex Street and sound will reverberate off the long hardscape. The garden will become a private space and no longer a public garden, which will upset the public when it disappears. There is an opportunity to clean up the existing fountain area and add some of the green space that will be taken away. Durand closes the public session. Kennedy: Motion to continue discussion of proposed museum expansion and loading dock. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 10.70-92 '/2 Boston Street (Boston Street Residences and Retail): Discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development The submission under review includes; existing conditions plan, proposed site plan and details, illustrative landscape plan, schematic floor plans, elevations, sections, neighborhood and perspective views. Jai Singh Khalsa of Khalsa Design Inc., Blair Hynes of Blair Hynes Designs (Landscape Architect), and Jean of Lar Properties, was present to discuss the proposed project. Architecture • Khalsa stated that the property is near the corner of Boston and Goodhue Street and there are some existing buildings on the site. The site is diagonal from where the same developer constructed a 45 unit mixed-use rental building at 20 Goodhue within the past 5 years. This property has fronts on two streets and an approximate 20 foot grade change from one street to the other. 6 row style townhomes and a 44 unit structure with a small commercial component is also proposed. The 44 unit structure will be built into the existing hillside with underground parking accessed from an existing Beaver Street curb cut and 8- 10 uncovered parking spaces. Stairs and longer sloped walkways will provide access to the Goodhue Street entrance without the need for handrails. A main vehicular entrance is along the low(South-West) end of the site along Boston Street next to an approximate 5 foot high retaining wall that extends over to the townhouses. The garage retaining wall is approximately 17 feet high will pick up some of the grade changes. A central entrance portico/drop off location has been added with a circular area to aid in the flow of vehicular traffic. The small City parking lot at the corner of Goodhue and Beaver Streets will remain. A dog park is proposed along the South side of the structure on Goodhue Street. Khalsa stated that the Planning Board felt it was more appropriate to switch the function rooms along the Goodhue Street building entrance with the proposed commercial space at the Boston Street side. The proposed awning shown would not be necessary if the commercial space is placed on the Goodhue side, because the long flat arches will draw attention to that area. There will be heavy tree buffers at the parking lot perimeter. There is an approximate 15 foot difference in the parking areas between the additional townhome parking and the building parking off of Beaver Street, separated by a series of terraced • landscape areas. The grade change makes the building appear as a 2 '/z story building from Boston Street and a 3 '/:story building from Goodhue Street. streetscape will be developed up to the Goodhue and Beaver Street entrances of that city lot. Residential living —The townhouses will have their gardens along Boston Street and will be unified by the picket fence. A central planting island at the turnaround will help create a parking courtyard with flowers and ornamental grasses and trees. The turnaround keeps the parking at Boston Street from becoming a dead-end. The use of special pavements will break-up the areas and highlight the entrances. The relocation of the commercial spaces to the Goodhue side of the buildings will allow them to add more greenspace to the Boston Street fagade which could create some outside space for the building. The building has two front entrances and a 30" difference in grade from the street level at Goodhue and the Goodhue building entrance. They will take advantage of the space by adding retaining walls, long walkways, seating, flowers, and bike parking, to create a pleasant entrance. The treatment at the Boston Street parking area behind the townhouses will be the top level of the stepped retaining walls, plantings and a 6 foot high wood fence along the West property line to help shield the neighboring property. The turnaround will help mitigate the alleyway parking area created at that end of the site. Drivers moving around the turnaround will be able to see if there are any spots available without having to drive down to the end of the lot. Jaquith inquired about how pedestrians can access the site from Boston Street, asked if the bays were also brick. Jaquith stated that at the 44 unit building there was too much variation in the window sizes at the notch which seems out of place, and the railing return at the Boston Street entrance should be looked it since it appears to end at windows above it. The townhouses also appear to have varying window sizes and the trim seem oversized. Fascias don't get as big as they are shown in buildings of this architectural style; they should be closer to 8 or 10". Khalsa replied that a stair case is being proposed leading from Boston Street down to the turnaround. There is about 16" of trim between the band board and where it steps back towards the building and the soffit is 12-14" above the band board. Sides inquired if the greenish facade shown in perspective was actually the yellow sample color. If so, it is a lot of yellow, it is not the correct color for Boston Street or scale. Khalsa replied yes, it is yellow. Khalsa replied a wheat-like color was originally chosen that the manufacturer discontinued but they can use another manufacturer. DeMain suggested that the buildings closer to Boston Street should have been the location of the commercial space, as a continuation of the neighboring commercial spaces. Sides replied that that was the proposed location by the Planning Board but the developer preferred to place it across from the commercial spaces in their Goodhue building to help activate the commercial use on that street and along the corridor. Moving the commercial portion to the Goodhue side will give it some visibility. DeMaio stated that the townhouses have a strong vertical feel and the larger building is much lower, so one building feels very tall and the other will feel very short. The different rooflines help accentuate the differences between and make the townhome building feel massive. The roofline of the neighboring Goodhue building helps bring it down the scale. DeMaio also agrees with Jaquith that the brick and different window types above the Boston Street entrance seem out of place. The Boston Street vehicular entrance could create a hazardous condition on the street if a car entering the lot has to stop for a car backing out of one of the parking spaces at the entrance to the lot. DeMaio suggests rearranging the parking plan to minimize any back-ups at the Boston Street entrance. Sullivan stated that relocating those first few cars would also create a nicer entrance. The use is brick at the notch is a problem, it should be used at end walls and fire walls, but a lighter material should be used at the bays and notch. A purposeful material should be used, especially with so much going on at the facades. The retail is better suited to Goodhue Street than on the Boston Street side of the 44 unit building, but it still doesn't seem like a successful location. Khalsa replied that the construction on this site, the neighboring Goodhue building, and the proposed Gateway Center will increase enough of a critical mass that could increase the success of these commercial units. There is only one retail tenant in the Goodhue building. There is some logic to adding commercial spaces to Goodhue Street. Much of the Goodhue Street land is not their property but the commercial spaces on that side of the building could be lowered to the street elevation and possibly extended out from the building, the landscape redeveloped, and a plaza created for that area for seating to utilize that yard. Sullivan inquired as to whether there was a bike room and suggests including a location for public art—possible within the turnaround. Sides replied that the only bike storage was outside. Khalsa replied that racks could be added at the end of the parking spaces and public art could be incorporated. Jaquith: Motion to continue the discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the April 27, 2016 regular meeting. Sides: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 7-0. Adjournment Durand: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 9:15pm Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. r _y Salem • Redevelopment Authority 201b MAY I q A 8: 30 Design Review Board Meeting Agenda (Revised) 11,E t CITY CL h ` tt°a:! Wednesday, May 25, 2016 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMain Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 24 New Derby Street(Artists' Row): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. • a. Unit#4 (Grace and Diggs) b. Unit#5 (Kay's Stained Glass Studio) 2. 281 Essex Street(Life Alive): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. 3. 21 Front Street(Office of Congressman Seth Moulton): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 4. 221 Essex Street(Freaky Elegant): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage 5. 283 Rear Derby Street(Notch Brewing): Discussion of proposed installation of signage (including a-frame sign) and lighting. 6. 50 St. Peter Street(Old Salem Jail): Continuation of discussion and vote on proposed design revisions to previously approved plans for Phase II of"Old Salem Jail" redevelopment project—new multifamily housing development. 7. Charter Street Cemetery: Discussion and vote on proposed cemetery restoration to include landscape improvements, fence and path restoration, and installation of lighting. 8. City Property in Front of Old Salem Jail (50 St. Peter Street): Discussion and vote on installation of proposed City-owned surface parking lot. • 9. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Continued discussion of proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 10. 70-92 % Boston Street(Boston Street Residences and Retail): Discussion ofro osed P p mixed-use residential and retail development Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the April 27, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. Th -; notice poste(I .tfic�Bulleti �p ard" c::,, _is 1, Salem, PA, on ) clD at $,30 An' w ac-ordance wit GL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • at in accordance with MGL Chap. 36A, Sections 18-25. Salem • Redevelopment', Authority 1016 MAY 18 , A 11: 41 FV t, !TY Design Review Board Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 25, 2016 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 24 New Derby Street (Artists' Row): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. • a. Unit#4(Grace and Diggs) b. Unit#5 (Kay's Stained Glass Studio) 2. 281 Essex Street(Life Alive): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. 3. 21 Front Street (Office of Congressman Seth Moulton): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. 4. 283 Rear Derby Street(Notch Brewing): Discussion of proposed installation of signage (including a-frame sign) and lighting. 5. 50 St. Peter Street(Old Salem Jail): Continuation of discussion and vote on proposed design revisions to previously approved plans for Phase II of"Old Salem Jail" redevelopment project—new multifamily housing development. 6. Charter Street Cemetery: Discussion and vote on proposed cemetery restoration to include landscape improvements, fence and path restoration, and installation of lighting. 7. City Property in Front of Old Salem Jail (50 St. Peter Street): Discussion and vote on installation of proposed City-owned surface parking lot. 8. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Continued discussion of proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) • North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 9. 70-921/2 Boston Street(Boston Street Residences and Retail): Discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development • Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the April 27, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • This notice posted On "Official Bulletin Board" City tial.. S;,Iwn, Mia-ns. On I '� I >0u at I1'.LOr a,n in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. • DRB May 25, 2016 • Page 1 of 20 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Ernest DeMain, Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Colleen Anderson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 24 New Derby Street (Artists' Row): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. a. Unit#4(Grace and Diggs) • [David Jaquith was not present for presentation or vote on the first item] The submission under review includes: a sign permit application, a description and image of the proposed signage. Linda Mullen (business owner) was present to discuss the proposed signage. Shapiro stated that Mullen's business requests to mount one blade sign (a free standing pole sign hung in the style of a blade sign) onto an existing black bracket. The sign will be wood and will measure 42"x28". Eye hooks and carabiners will be used to fasten the sign to the pole. Kennedy inquired if there was a sample of the proposed sign color. Linda replied that the temporary vinyl banner she requested should have been pin/blush color but was printed in a raspberry color, which she now prefers and wants to use. The final sign would be wood with a charcoal grey border. DeMaio requests that all fasteners be black in color. Kennedy: Motion to approve sign in new raspberry color with charcoal grey border using all black fasteners. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. b. Unit#5 (Kay's Stained Glass Studio) • The submission under review includes: a sign permit application, a description and image of the proposed signage. Aleksandra Nowak (business owner)was present to discuss the proposed signage. Nowak stated that they plan to use W PVC board as a sign base, and she will hand- • paint the sign wording and design. Buckles will be used to attach the sign to the posts. The sign will be double-sided, will measure 24"x24", and will be in the colors shown. Kennedy inquired if the sign will be square and if there will be a border. Nowak replied square and there will be a border but they are open to not using a border. Sullivan inquired if the border colors will be as shown, if she will hand paint the entire sign, and how thick the border is. Nowak replied yes but the colors could be adjusted, she will hand paint the sign, the border will be less than 1" thick. Sides stated that the lettering is hard to read. Nowak stated that she spoke to her graphic designer about eliminating the grey shadow behind the letters, the word "studio"will be slightly enlarged. Sides inquired if the word "studio'could be eliminated. Nowak replied that she wants to keep the gothic lettering because it is part of the company name. [Jaquith arrives at 6:10 PM] • DeMain suggested having more space around the word "studio"to allow it read better. His objection to the readability of it was the grey shadow. Sullivan stated that the spacing of the word "studio" and the use of all caps is throwing it off. Nowak replied that the letter can be changed to lower case. Kennedy suggested that the changes be made and sent for further review without the need for a continuance to the June DRB meeting. Shapiro inquired if the Board was in favor of Kennedy reviewing the signage on their behalf. The Board stated that they were. Shapiro stated that he would get the revised signage to Kennedy for review and to the SRA for their review upon Kennedy's approval. Sides: Motion to recommend approval subject to Kennedy's review and approval of the revisions. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. • 2. 281 Essex Street(Life Alive): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign. The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, a letter from the tenant/sign owner, proposed signage photo, a dimensioned sketch showing the location of the proposed signage. Udaya Odururu was present to discuss the proposed signage. Shapiro stated that the proposed a-frame sign will have a graphic as shown in the packet. The applicant originally proposed a larger sign but the sign was reduced in size to meet the portable sign ordinance standard. Sides stated that she was surprised by 1) the proposed sign location right outside of the entrance and that it was too tight with the bike rack and sidewalk traffic. 2)The content of the sign, a job posting, but is in favor of it. Oduru stated that the sign would be in front of the tree and not at the bike rack outside the entrance. Jaquith stated that there is too much information on the sign that will not be read. Sullivan stated that the information will be read, it hadn't been done before, but it would be a good way to hire new employees. Durand noted that it will double as an advertisement and people will understand that. DeMaio stated that it is graphically pleasing although there is a lot of information that may not be read. Approving a job posting sign will set a precedent. Sullivan inquired if the image in the packet was a photograph of an existing sign and if so, where it was located, and how it is working so far. Oduru replied yes, Cambridge, it has been excellent and has brought in a lot of applicants, and are paying employees more. The sign was also placed in Lowell and they've hired 4 employees within the last 2 weeks. Kennedy stated that this precedent could go either way and should be handled properly. Shapiro inquired how often the sign would be on display. Oduru replied that for now the intent is to keep the sign on display because employees will move onto higher positions and their old positions will need to be filled. DeMaio inquired if the applicant would have to return for future approvals if the pay for employees changes and the signs needs to be changed. Shapiro replied that if the sign was kept in the same format it should not require Board approval each time the pay scale changes. Other businesses that use white boards or chalkboard signs have been given that flexibility to post food specials and sale information that changed daily. • Durand stated that he was unsure of this sign but it shows prosperity and success and it is a great advertisement. It is a very successful ad and more than a help wanted sign. It might be hard to read but the important points will catch your eye. DeMaio inquired if a simpler sign directing them inside to find out about employment • opportunities would be as successful. Where will the line be drawn context wise, if the Board establishes this precedent? Jaquith stated that the Board shouldn't be concerned with precedent because every case is different and should be judged separately. Kennedy: Motion to approve as submitted. Seconded by: Sullivan. Opposed by: DeMaio. Passes 6-1. 3. 21 Front Street(Office of Congressman Seth Moulton): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. The submission under review includes; a sign permit application and a proposed signage photo with dimension description of one blade sign, two window signs, and one door sign. Rick Jakious, District Director for Congressman Moulton, was present to discuss the proposed signage. Jakious stated that the imagery in the packet is self-explanatory and he can answer any questions for the Board. Kennedy stated that the hooks should be painted black. Kennedy: Motion to approve with the hooks and mounting brackets painted black. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 7-0. 4. 221 Essex Street (Freaky Elegant): Discussion of proposed installation of signage • The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, proposed sign image with dimensions and proposed condition photos. Mike Abene was present to discuss the proposed signage. Abene stated that the proposed blade sign is very similar to the sign already in place. The words "masquerade"and "gifts'will be spelled out and applied to the panel above the storefront windows with plastic. The high storefront panels will be repainted in the same colors. Shapiro noted that the letters would be formed raised plastic. Kennedy inquired if the storefront lettering would be raised and if the "masquerade" portion of the blade sign would be applied. Abene replied that the storefront lettering would be raised and the blade sign would be one piece with nothing applied. Sullivan inquired if the letters were individually raised. Abene replied yes. Sides inquired if the sign was rectangular or cut out in an oval shape like the existing sign. Abene replied it will be similar to the existing sign. . • Jaquith: Motion to approve as submitted. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 7-0. 5. 283 Rear Derby Street(Notch Brewing): Discussion of proposed installation of signage (including a-frame sign)and lighting. Durand announces a potential conflict of interest and recuses himself from participating on this agenda item. The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, letter from the business owner, proposed perspective, elevation, and site plan showing proposed signage and lighting, and lighting specifications. Chris Lohring, business owner, was present to discuss the proposed signage. Lohring stated that he is seeking approvals for exterior signage which includes an a-frame sign, and lighting. Shapiro stated because the zoning enforcement officer deemed the frontage of the building to be Derby Street, that frontage which is also occupied by Brother's Deli, took up the sign allowance for the whole building. Lohring was granted a variance for 103 square feet of signage by the ZBA. That signage in the current package totals more than the allowable 103 square feet of signage, so the red "NOTCH" lettering shown on the fence in one of the perspective drawings will be eliminated from the signage package. • Lohring noted that visibility from Derby Street is limited and having lettering on the building is more important. The a-frame proposed along Derby Street will help take the place of the eliminated proposed fence lettering. Shapiro stated that the business location warrants an a-frame sign so people can locate the business. There are a couple unregulated a-frame signs already in that location that the City needs to address and the Board needs to decide if they want/will allow more than one a-frame sign in this location. Shapiro suggested to the applicant that he discuss the Owner providing a multi-business sign listing all of the tenants. Kennedy inquired that the location of the a-frame sign is OK at that end. Shapiro replied that usually the distance is 10 feet from the business but the Board has discretion if there are extenuating circumstances that warrant placing is further than 10 feet away. DeMaio inquired how the frontage of the building be considered Derby Street and the a- frame sign be on Derby Street and have it be considered more than 10 feet away from the business if that is the front of the building. Shapiro replied that the frontage is on Derby Street but the front of the business corresponds to the storefront entrance, which is down the side of the building. Kennedy stated that he would prefer a sign on the wall that points down the driveway to their business. Sullivan agreed. • Sides stated that she is in favor of the a-frame sign. Lohring stated that it will be a hand painted wood a-frame and the building signage will be • hand painted onto the brick. Shapiro noted that two lighting spec was also part of the package that DeMaio helped Lohring select. Lohring stated that the gooseneck fixtures would have a black conduit and a black shade and a new LED fixture will be black with black conduit was submitted, that will shine down and not out, to light the parking lot only. Sides: Motion to approve package as submitted including the a-frame sign. Seconded by: Dynia. Passes 6-0. 6. 50 St. Peter Street(Old Salem Jail): Continuation of discussion and vote on proposed design revisions to previously approved plans for Phase II of"Old Salem Jail' redevelopment project—new multifamily housing development. The submission under review includes; a narrative of changes from the last submission and revised elevations. Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects was present to discuss the proposed revisions. Ricciarelli reviewed Board concerns from the previous meeting. a. Juliette balconies —They were previously located on he outside the face of the exterior wall have been brought inboard to within the window slots. • b. Window slots—Reinforced the window slots and recessed the windows and projecting them up into the gable ends. c. Dormer—One Board member felt their proportion was large so the dormers were minimized. The sill was lowered and the window opening was raised to enlarge the window openings to maximize the natural light for the top floor units. d. Siding— Nichiha Fiber cement panel that is blind fastened so there will be no exposed fasteners. That material will occur at all the recesses including the gable recesses and the remainder of the fagade will be standing seam lead coated copper(LCC) DeMaio inquired for clarification on what was LCC and where it occurs. Ricciarelli replied that the LCC occurs on several vertical areas on the South and West facades, the dormers, within the gable ends, and at the elevator shaft, and the hardi plank siding is staying with 7"weather exposure. The Nichiha cement panels are being used because it has cleaner details. The base material will remain the Eldorado stone. e. Elevator Lobby—Questions were also raised regarding the new Lobby entrance. It has been aligned with the neighboring window to highlight the area and they will do some more design work with the canopy over the entrance. The lobby has also been enlarged. f. Balcony railings —To work with the railings that exist on site, the proposed railings will be a flat bar top and bottom rail, all welded. g. Recessed doors—The pocket doors have now become regular functioning doors and windows. h. Door proportions—The previously selected pocket doors were larger and they have • changed to Jeldwin doors. • Ricciarelli reiterated the proposed materials; faux slate roof, LCC on dormers and gable ends, Nichiha cement panels in the recesses, hardi clapboard and corner boards, and an Eldorado faux stone base on the main fagade and the base perimeter. Kennedy stated that he approves of the look of the recessed windows and panels. Ricciarelli replied that they were recessed even more which is a challenge at the sills. Sullivan inquired if the color selection had been made and if there were any color samples. Ricciarelli replied that the only sample he had to present so far was the Eldorado stone. The stone and the LCC were a silvery-grey and there would be a grey palette throughout the remainder of the building. Jaquith inquired where the window plane was in relation to the stone and if the jointing of the base material was random. Ricciarelli replied that the faux stone would be an applied base, the exterior wall would be 2x6 studs and determined that the window would be set back approximately 3 '/2". The base is in 1'x2' sections so the base could be a running bond pattern and there will be no lintels. Durand inquired how the material will return at the recess. Ricciarelli replied that the material also comes pre-shaped to fit various conditions, such as returns. Jaquith inquired if the chimney height has been changes. The wide gable at the North elevation doesn't look correct and doesn't match up with the other gables but it could just be the paneling. Ricciarelli replied that they have been raised up after prior concerns to the chimneys looking too low. He will look into the design of the large front end gable but it was designs that way because of the top floor units. Dynia noted that reducing the 4 foot overhang will make it not as steep. Shapiro stated that the applicant has a permit but would like to move forward with the foundation and utilities for the project. Condition items such as; review of CD's with color and material details, and a mock-up could be added to the motion, lighting fixtures, signage. Sides replied that a CD set will provide the level of detail the Board needs to review the project. Jaquith stated that he is disappointed with the vague presentation and lack of floor plans to review. At the next presentation he hopes to see a full package with landscaping. Sullivan stated that is hard to see the changes on two dimensional drawings and the perspectives would help with that next time, despite them already being somewhat familiar with the conceptual design. • Durand: Motion to approve schematic level drawings and reserve the right to review the construction documents for details and material finishes. Plans are dated 5/17/16 (on the cover). The recommendation recognizes that the applicant had a building permit in place for a previously approved site plan and may begin work on its foundation. All other . elements above the foundation are subject to the following review prior to installation: 1. Construction Plans—The final project construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the DRB and SRA prior to installation of exterior elements. The plans, including exterior elevations and details, site plan, roof plan, and materials must conform to the plans submitted and approved by the DRB, dated 5/17/16. All changes to the plans must be presented to both boards and approved. 2. Fixtures and finishes—Any additional details with respect to fixtures and/or finishes of materials—colors, size, placement, etc. —shall be reviewed by the DRB and SRA prior to installation. 3. Signage Plan —The signage plan must be submitted to the DRB and SRA for review and approval prior to installation. All signs shall conform to the City of Salem's sign ordinance, Commercial Design Guidelines, and Design Guidelines with the Downtown Renewal Plan (2011). Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 7-0. 7. Charter Street Cemetery: Discussion and vote on proposed cemetery restoration to include landscape improvements, fence and path restoration, and installation of lighting. The submission under review includes; a letter from the Salem staff planner, an assessment of the existing landscape conditions and the proposed treatment recommendations from the Landscape Architect, existing site plan, site preparation plan, layout & materials'plan, grading plan, planting plan, lighting plan, details, and an illustrative site plan. Erin Schaeffer, Salem Staff Planner, and Martha Lyon, Landscape Architect, were present to discuss the proposed restoration and landscape improvements. Schaeffer stated that this project is to update the cemetery, improve access, circulation, replace some of the trees, restore and replacing the perimeter fencing, providing opportunities for visitors to rest throughout the grounds. The cemetery is in rough condition as described in the packet. The City is working with stone distributors and Monument Conservation Collaborative. MCC is currently working with Lyon to restore the headstones that is occurring separately from this project. Lyon stated that this is a historic property with historic fabric/features, including the stones and other ornamental features. Lyon's goal is to preserve the historic features as best as they can but to make improvements has some contemporary elements. The number of visitors had increased over the years and aspects of the property have become very worn. Lyon stated that the property is surrounded by Charter Street on the North, Derby Street at the South which had a large retaining wall, Liberty Street to the East which is closed to vehicular traffic, and a parking lot and commercial buildings to the West. The Witch Trials Memorial is along the East also and the goal is to make the two areas meld so they reflect one another. A private home is also along the North-West property line. Lyon stated that one of the goals was to make the space accessible and upgrade the • entrances. There is an entrance at Charter Street, the Witch Memorial, and one behind the wax museum. The site is not steep and can be easily navigated, however; the pathway is in a state of disrepair. Currently the Charter Street has one vehicular gate and two pedestrian gates. The proposal is to close both pedestrian gates and use the vehicular gate as the main entrance for both vehicles and pedestrians. Lyon stated that there is a lot of wear on the pathways and the edges are ill-defined and the bases of the tombs there have eroded. The proposal is to narrow the pathway, secure the edges, and grade up against the tombs to secure their bases. The Witch Trials Memorial is currently not accessible because it has steps, but the proposal is to remove the steps and create a gently graded slope to lead visitors into the cemetery. The proposal is to also install a series of bollards connected with steel chains to line both entry walkways and announce the two entrances. Lyon stated that within the property they have created a pathway that will loop visitors through the cemetery and skirt the tombs. Wear paths have been created over time and the monument restoration company is concerned with the wear on the tombs and headstones, so the plan is to eliminate any future wear and keep people on the path, especially where some of the headstones are within the pathways. A site survey was done so the location of all of the headstones was documented. The pathway material is a decomposed granite, a stable durable surface that is not as messy as stone dust, and is semi-permeable, so the pathway will have to be graded so water doesn't collect on it. It is a better option than bituminous paving which would require digging or concrete pavers which • are too modern. Benches will also be added along the walkway and recycled granite is the proposed bench material. Schaeffer noted that benches were being proposed at the Mayors request, to stop people from sifting on the headstones and tombs. This is a new element and wouldn't normally be included in a preservation project. Sides inquired if the sifting on the tombstone had to do with the hours of operation for the cemetery, and if this occurred at night, during the day, or both. Sides also inquired if there security there when it is open. Schaeffer replied that she has seen it consistently during the day. There is security during the hours it is open. Sullivan inquired if the granite blocks were similar to the large blocks at the train station. If so, would they be places as is or carved in the back to create a bench. Schaeffer replied that there are a few of those large blocks left over but there are other granite bench options. Lyon replied that they might be similar to what is at the Witch Trials Memorial where there are inscriptions in the stone "rest", "remember', "reflect", etc. • Lyon stated that there is a mix of fencing at the perimeter of the site. Derby Street has a high retaining wall. Charter Street has wrought iron gates that are in need of repair, as well as a wrought iron fence doweled into a granite base that is in fair condition. Restoring the fence will be complicated, will needs to be done on site and the paint is most likely lead based. The alternative to that is to remove the fence, recreate it, and place is behind the existing wall, however; a metal specialist will need to make a final determination. A similar version of the steel picket fence exists along the Witch Trials Memorial perimeter. Because this new steel picket fence is already being intrOduruced, it will be matched at all of the other open areas of fencing. In areas where buildings abut the cemetery black chain link will be used and plant English ivy vines. Lyon stated that they are proposing to close the entrance in the paved parking area behind the Wax Museum because it is not complaint and the City cannot monitor it. Sullivan inquired if there would be a picket fencing along the top of the Derby Street retaining wall. Lyon replied no, the wall is high enough to serve as its own barrier. Sides inquired if the pathway through the cemetery was plotted to work with the key at the Charter Street entrance that shows where the notable headstones are located, to keep visitors from veering off the path. Lyon replied that she will verify if that is the case. Schaeffer added that the new pathways are following the wear paths but that is something to consider. Lyon noted that urban . cemeteries that are historic in nature all have this problem. She will recommend ground cover over any other wear paths that will not become part of the final path, and will act as a deterrent. Lyon stated that there are several mature trees in the cemetery and five that should be removed, three of them are oaks. Those five trees have either huge cavities, which are in indication of a decline in the health of the tree, are diseased, or have been damaged. Most of these trees are oak trees so their health will fail at about the same time. With those five removed new native species of trees can be intrOduruced and spaced accordingly to diversify the palette. The site preparations plan indicates the trees to be removed and the trees are in the packet. The large oak in the middle of cemetery needs to be proposed P 9 rY pruned but can remain. Evergreen plantings can be added along the perimeter to screen the neighboring buildings and a back drop of flowering trees along the Derby Street wall to provide some color in the Spring. Lyon stated that she was inquired to look at lighting options. A cemetery at this age would not have been lit, so any lighting intrOduruced needs to be discreet. There are some indirect pole lights that provide ambient light. If the interior of the cemetery were to bit lit she recommends in-ground flood up-lighting placed along the interior of the Charter Street and Derby Street wall edge. Another option is in ground directional lighting to illuminate the central oak tree which could be a feature at night. • Schaeffer noted that lighting is being included for security reasons along the back wall of the cemetery and it allows the police to see in at night. A camera will be installed onto the housing authority building to keep watch over the cemetery. Sullivan inquired about the proposed species of trees. The selection of trees in graveyards can be beautiful and bring color and life to the cemetery and show visitors that the space is being cared for and is important. Lyon replied that the two proposed shade trees are a tulip tree and turns a brilliant yellow in the fall. The second is a red maple tree and turns a brilliant red in the fall. A smaller flowering tree is a shablow serviceberry which has a history of being associated with cemeteries, because it blooms in the spring and had a berry that when it bloomed signified that the ground had thawed. The eastern redbud is a pink or white bloom that turns a rust color in the fall, but is one that seems to lack longevity. The jack pine and scots pine were the two evergreen recommendations. Durand stated two concerns; 1)The old fence that is doweled into the granite is historic and rustic, and replacing it will cause it to lose its charm. The existing should be restored rather than adding a new one behind it. 2)The old trees are also charming. They both add to the character of cemetery. Defined pathways, new trees and lighting are important to include. Sides noted that there is a safety concern with the older trees along the road or people. • Durand inquired is something happened to cause the trees to decline in health or if they were not being cared for. Durand stated that he has been told that urban environments can be stressful on trees and these tree don't get the care that other trees in parks/garden receive. Lyon replied that one has a large cavity; another may have been hit by a piece of equipment because it is leaning at a 45 degree angle and also had a cavity. The reason for the decline of two of the others is unknown. There is a lot of compaction around the roots and the proposal is to aeration. Sides inquired if they were included in the city survey of trees. Schaeffer stated that she was not sure. Shapiro stated that speaking to Durands point, there is a cost issue with fence restoration may not be cost prohibitive where their financing is concerned. Schaeffer replied that the project is being looked at as a long range and sees no problem with including restoring the fence as a condition. Durand stated that the condition needs to be looked at and the cheapest plan could be to • do very little to it. His thoughts don't need to be conditions but thought should be given to the character to the features of the cemetery. The neighboring memorial is a somber space and this project should be a continuation of that. Sullivan is concerned with the up-lighting on the trees which will act as an advertisement. Lyon replied that conduits would need to be put in with the walkways but it can be a last addition or eliminated. DeMaio stated that tasteful signage placed periodically on the walkways to remind people to stay on the path could be included. Durand: Motion to approve as submitted with a recommendation to preserve the character of the site and a strong recommendation to maintain the existing fence or leave it as is, and the inclusion of signage to remind visitors to stay on the path. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 7-0. 8. City Property in Front of Old Salem Jail (50 St. Peter Street): Discussion and vote on installation of proposed City-owned surface parking lot. The submission under review includes; grading, construction, detail, and landscape and plant listing plans. Merrick Turner and Chris Lupino of Beta Engineering, and the David Knowlton, Salem's City Engineer, were present to discuss the proposed parking lot. Knowlton stated that the City is looking to add a 17 space parking lot in front of the Salem Jail. Access will be from the access road off of Bridge Street and up towards the future restaurant. Beta Engineer is the firm that the City has selected to design this parking lot. . Turner stated that the Bridge Street access and a turn-around would be utilized in the proposed design. The City would like to achieve 17 spaces, 16 regular and 1 handicapped. Eight on one side of the lot and nine on the opposite side. Disruption to the site will be as minimal as possible. The flood plain line exists on the site and they will go before the Conservation Commission to discuss, so they are keeping the site as compact as possible. The cemetery and the wall between them will not be impacted. The utilize the parking a vehicle would enter onto the access road, park on either the left of right sides of the lot, and would need to utilize the turning circle at the end to turn around and exit the lot. Continuations of the existing sidewalk would be placed being the vehicles on the right side of the parking lot. Some existing trees will need to be removed but others will remain and be used as screening. 3 foot high evergreens will be added for additional screening, as well as 8 evenly spaced inkberries and red maple shrubs, to shield the view of the cars. There is one mature tree on the lot and a series of new plantings along Bridge Street that could be replanted. Knowlton stated that a parking kiosk still needs to be located so it is not currently shown on the plans. There is also a potential for some public art towards the street corner or an alternative location, and they are working with Deborah Greel, Salem Public Art Planner, to locate an appropriate location on the site. Sides inquired what the accessibility was from the proposed parking lot to the restaurant. . How do the handicapped access the restaurant from the lot? Turner replied that the entire driveway is accessible and no slops exceed 5% and a walk across could also be utilized. The existing grade at the throat of the entrance to the restaurant is steep, and that cannot be addressed in this part of the project without addressing the retaining walls. Knowlton replied that there are some parking spaces up the driveway on the other side of the retaining wall, or people can walk around and go up to the courtyard. Sullivan inquired if cars will be able to drive over the walkway. Knowlton replied that the existing concrete pad/path will remain. The roadway will be enhanced to include parking on either side. Jaquith inquired if this was a two way road and if vehicles could only be parked when entering the lot. Knowlton and Turner replied yes. Jaquith noted that vehicles who miss a spot would need to leave the lot and enter again. Durand added that they could also back into parking spots. Dynia inquired if wouldn't be better to do one sided parking, so when vehicles loop around at the end they can also access parking spaces on their way out of the lot, to keep people • from needing to exit and enter the lot if a spot opens after they've passed it. Turner replied that a couple spaces will be lost if the spaces on the other side of the lot are angled to face out. They last two would hit the existing retaining wall. Sullivan noted that it would a safer way to park in the lot so a vehicle wouldn't need to cross over on-coming traffic to park. Turner stated that turn-over wouldn't be very high in this lot, so that condition could occur but it wouldn't be frequent. Durand stated that this idea would have made the commercial/retail aspect to the building more successful had this parking lot happened sooner. DeMaio stated that there should be an accommodation for cyclists and the Bicycle Committee should be consulted on the number of spaces to provide. Sullivan inquired if there was a more thoroughly developed landscape plan. Pedestrians shouldn't have to walk through the parking lot. There is opportunity to create a nicer pathway for pedestrians. Kennedy stated that the plantings could be spread out in more of a natural landscape plan and not just shrubs lined up as screening. Sides added that the green edge could become more park-like and include the pathway • and move the trees towards the road to ask as a buffer. The park would have more of a chance for longevity if it was protected from the roadway. Sullivan stated that with the addition of landscape design and public art, the City will pay • more attention to and utilize this site. Durand opens the public comment session. Dan Ricciarelli, Salem resident. Agrees with the board, the landscape design should be more organic. Cars backing out of spaces and into the walkway could be problematic and a path outside of the parking lot would be ideal to activate that space. Jennifer Firth, President of Historic Salem. Is in favor of the parking lot to support the commercial space in the jail. Many residents felt that the park would be lost, but the proposed plan is a nice compromise. Durand closes the public session. Kennedy: Motion to continue discussion with the inclusion of bike racks, a relocated pathway, and a landscape enhancements. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. Shapiro stated that this project also has to go before the Planning Board with City Council approval and the Conservation Commission because the lot will be in a flood zone. 9. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Continued discussion of proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) The submission under review includes; site plan, building plans & sections, Essex Street elevation, perspective views, garden design, Charter Street design, existing context photos, and a proposed schedule. Bob Monk of the PEM and Stephen Chu of Ennead Architects were present to discuss the proposed museum expansion. Monk stated that over the course of the schematic design phase they've determined that they need to break away a portion of the project. The design of the loading dock, in conceptual form, and its appearance from Charter Street will be part of the focus of tonight's presentation. The loading dock work will need to be completed prior to the start of the major construction to keep the museum operational. The hope is to return in June and present and get approval for the loading dock, so they can proceed to the SRA and to pull a building permit in August or September. Shapiro stated that if the Board sees fit to approve the conceptual loading dock plans, it would become its own separate project, while the rest of the project would continue to develop. Monk added that they are hoping to get approval of the major project in November. Chu stated that he will point out the changes and remaining building design in his PowerPoint presentation. Chu stated that the landscape architect recently began • addressing the garden plans, and the landscape on both Charter Street and Essex Street. The updated section renderings cut through East India Marine Hall. The skylight will turn and continue around the addition and head towards the garden. New openings for bridge elements that will connect to the addition. Some of the existing openings along that fagade will either be reopened or closed up. The balconies will highlight the end of the building and the skylight will be a source of light. Chu stated that regarding the Essex Street elevations, the Board made some comments regarding the compressed look of the addition at the underside of that building plane. The stone material will be a Chelsmford granite, the original stone to Marine Hall and it will come from the same quarry. In the Essex Street elevation the 1900's gateway will be moved to the other side of the Marine Hall. Chu stated that the second floor granite elevation of the addition has been raised approximately 18". To keep the two second floors aligned, it cannot be raised any further without exposing the steel, because the building structure is so deep. Ground level glazing will have butt glazing vertically and channel glazing at the top and bottom. One design item being explored is angling the addition where Essex Street turns slightly. Another design idea being explored is having the storefront in-line with the axis of Marine Hall and the upper level in line with the remaining buildings along Essex Street, so both the storefront base and upper level addition scissor slightly. The sides of the new structure have been pushed back to let the addition sit proud. To accentuate the verticality of the granite panels, each panel is made up of smaller closely jointed panels and wider joints between them. They are exploring using different finishes of granite to break up the monolith look of the • Dodge Street addition. Chu stated that concept landscape plans have also progressed. The building orientation of the addition will carry through into the garden. The garden is approximate 4-5,000 square feet and the various scale of its elements are still being designed but diverse and intimate areas is the current concept. It will flow seamlessly with the addition, trees will be planted, and a water element within the stone facade is a possibility. There will be opaque screening/walls at the perimeter walls to allow for some visibility into and through the space. Sides inquired if the squiggly line throughout the garden was an edge or a change in material. Chu replied material change. Possibly a different stone or some of the Chelmsford granite but it will transform as it moves through the garden. Monk stated that the museum goer have commented on how the museum has changed/evolved over time. The garden will offer some elements of surprise and cannot be seen entirely from the museum, it will have to be experienced as people walk through. The garden could be used for intimate performance spaces, etc. Chu presented the Charter Street loading dock and landscape concept images. The loading dock surround would be a shop finished aluminum rain screen enclosure with open • joints, possibly in a warm grey tone. The design will be simple to not compete with the rectilinear design of the PEM fagade. It will provide some shielding for the museum items. Some trees, a low 4-5 foot high hedge and gate are planned for the Charter Street perimeter, to act as filter and provide some screening. The hedging will taper off towards • the YYT end of the museum. Jaquith stated he agrees with the toned down loading dock. Dynia inquired about design elements on the proposed gate. Chu replied that is hasn't been designed. Monk noted that for larger truck deliveries the proposed gate may need to stay open. Sullivan inquired for additional information on the compactor. Monk replied that it would stay in place next to the loading dock and will be a sealed unit with screening. Shapiro inquired for the proposed plan for the transformer on the lawn and other equipment on site. Monk replied that the transformer was temporarily placed on the lawn but it and the switchgear will be moved back to its permanent location, to the left of the loading dock, after the expansion completion. They will be screened by the proposed low hedge. Kennedy inquired if Chu had a sample of the stone to see the varying textures. • Chu replied samples of all the proposed materials will be presented at the next meeting. Sullivan inquired if they were concerned with the metal material being damaged at the loading dock. Chu replied that bollards will be placed around it. Monk noted that the metal panels will be 1/4" or 3/8" plates with a copper or zinc finished surface will act as a rain screen and water will run down behind it. Kennedy stated that the squiggle line in the garden seems forced and the loading dock color should be more grey than white. Monk replied that the central squiggle will be a water feature. DeMaio inquired if the granite line up above the Essex Street was the second floor line. Could that line be raised up any higher because the first floor still seems compressed. Chu replied the second floor levels line up, the granite line above is the underside of the building structure and if it were raised any higher the steel would be exposed. Not all the • renderings have been updated so they may still show the previous design. Durand opens the public comment session. Jennifer Firth, President of Historic Salem. In favor of the project. This addition will change the large open area of the mall alone Essex Street and sound will reverberate off the long hardscape. The garden will become a private space and no longer a public garden, which will upset the public when it disappears. There is an opportunity to clean up the existing fountain area and add some of the green space that will be taken away. Durand closes the public session. Kennedy: Motion to continue discussion of proposed museum expansion and loading dock. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 7-0. North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 10. 70-92 % Boston Street(Boston Street Residences and Retail): Discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development The submission under review includes; existing conditions plan, proposed site plan and details, illustrative landscape plan, schematic floor plans, elevations, sections, neighborhood and perspective views. Jai Singh Khalsa of Khalsa Design Inc., Blair Hynes of Blair Hynes Designs (Landscape Architect), and Jean of Lar Properties, was present to discuss the proposed project. • Architecture Khalsa stated that the property is near the corner of Boston and Goodhue Street and there are some existing buildings on the site. The site is diagonal from where the same developer constructed a 45 unit mixed-use rental building at 20 Goodhue within the past 5 years. This property has fronts on two streets and an approximate 20 foot grade change from one street to the other. 6 row style townhomes and a 44 unit structure with a small commercial component is also proposed. The 44 unit structure will be built into the existing hillside with underground parking accessed from an existing Beaver Street curb cut and 8- 10 uncovered parking spaces. Stairs and longer sloped walkways will provide access to the Goodhue Street entrance without the need for handrails. A main vehicular entrance is along the low(South-West) end of the site along Boston Street next to an approximate 5 foot high retaining wall that extends over to the townhouses. The garage retaining wall is approximately 17 feet high will pick up some of the grade changes. A central entrance portico/drop off location has been added with a circular area to aid in the flow of vehicular traffic. The small City parking lot at the corner of Goodhue and Beaver Streets will remain. A dog park is proposed along the South side of the structure on Goodhue Street. Khalsa stated that the Planning Board felt it was more appropriate to switch the function rooms along the Goodhue Street building entrance with the proposed commercial space at the Boston Street side. The proposed awning shown would not be necessary if the commercial space is placed on the Goodhue side, because the long flat arches will draw attention to that area. There will be heavy tree buffers at the parking lot perimeter. There is an approximate 15 foot difference in the parking areas between the additional townhome • parking and the building parking off of Beaver Street, separated by a series of terraced landscape areas. The grade change makes the building appear as a 2 '/2 story building from Boston Street and a 3 '/z story building from Goodhue Street. Khalsa stated that the building is a mix of brick and clapboard with a mansard roof, barrel • vaulted and gable end ceilings. Traditional wharf style end walls with punched windows have been added as a nod to the neighboring canal and the character of Salem. The perspective view from Goodhue Street looking South shows the bend in the larger building, the upper floor brick bays and top floor balconies, with a clapboard infill in between the brick bays, and a brick building base. Screening with vines will be placed over the open ventilation areas to conceal the lower level garage and a trash enclosure will be next to the buildings garage entry. Plantings are mixed in with the retaining walls and a feature design is underway in the planter at the central entrance portico. A variety of paving styles are also intended around the building. Khalsa stated that six row style townhomes are proposed along Boston Street and their design was chosen based on the neighboring Boston Street structure (gables, front porches, proportions, etc.)The main townhouse entrances are off of Boston Street and they have a secondary entrance and 1 car garage parking underneath and additional parking in the rear lot. The end units have entrances along the side of the building and all units will have rear decks. From the front, there townhouse building has three story gable ends. Khalsa displayed a material sample board. Red brick is proposed for the main building, a white Azek trim, metal cladding on the top floor bays with painted trim boards at the top. Cast stone heads at the windows. The owners are proposing an upgrade of materials from their previous building across the street while picking up on aspects of the neighborhood, so the two buildings relate to one another. The brick ends will also frame the central entrances of the building. Khalsa stated that one car per unit parking is within the garage which complies with the • zoning requirements, except for the ratio of square footage per dwelling on the lot, and they are requesting a higher density than allowed, similar to the Goodhue project. Additional tenant storage is provided at the end of each parking spot in the garage. A variety of unit square footages are provided in the building with a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units— 1,100-1,200 SF for two bedroom units and 800-900 SF for one bedroom units. The townhouses are approximately 17-18 feet wide. There are a variety of dormer types; single, double, and arch tops that are clad in the middle. The proposed signage will be similar in style to the Goodhue building and will placed at each entrance. The proposed development name is "River Rock". Landscape Hynes stated that there are 4 primary components to the landscape. 1) Streetscape development along Boston and Goodhue Streets 2) Residential living for townhouses and the apartment building 3) Planting near the abutting residences to mitigate the presence of the apartment building 4) Access and functionality Streetscape—A series of trees are proposed along Boston Street. The land leading up to the turnaround is the same grade as the Boston Street vehicular entrance and grade will rise above to Boston Street, so a retaining wall and an iron fence will be places at the edge of the parking with some shrubberies. The streetscape in front of the townhouses will be • picket fence enclosed gardens to provide an urban feel. A big part of the Goodhue Street streetscape is taken up by the City parking that also connects to Beaver Street. The strong streetscape will be developed up to the Goodhue and Beaver Street entrances of that city lot. Residential living —The townhouses will have their gardens along Boston Street and will be unified by the picket fence. A central planting island at the turnaround will help create a parking courtyard with flowers and ornamental grasses and trees. The turnaround keeps the parking at Boston Street from becoming a dead-end. The use of special pavements will break-up the areas and highlight the entrances. The relocation of the commercial spaces to the Goodhue side of the buildings will allow them to add more greenspace to the Boston Street facade which could create some outside space for the building. The building has two front entrances and a 30" difference in grade from the street level at Goodhue and the Goodhue building entrance. They will take advantage of the space by adding retaining walls, long walkways, seating, flowers, and bike parking, to create a pleasant entrance. The treatment at the Boston Street parking area behind the townhouses will be the top level of the stepped retaining walls, plantings and a 6 foot high wood fence along the West property line to help shield the neighboring property. The turnaround will help mitigate the alleyway parking area created at that end of the site. Drivers moving around the turnaround will be able to see if there are any spots available without having to drive down to the end of the lot. Jaquith inquired about how pedestrians can access the site from Boston Street, asked if the bays were also brick. Jaquith stated that at the 44 unit building there was too much variation in the window sizes at the notch which seems out of place, and the railing return at the Boston Street entrance should be looked it since it appears to end at windows above it. The townhouses also appear to have varying window sizes and the trim seem oversized. Fascias don't get as big as they are shown in buildings of this architectural style; they should be closer to 8 or 10". Khalsa replied that a stair case is being proposed leading from Boston Street down to the turnaround. There is about 16" of trim between the band board and where it steps back towards the building and the soffit is 12-14" above the band board. Sides inquired if the greenish facade shown in perspective was actually the yellow sample color. If so, it is a lot of yellow, it is not the correct color for Boston Street or scale. Khalsa replied yes, it is yellow. Khalsa replied a wheat-like color was originally chosen that the manufacturer discontinued but they can use another manufacturer. DeMain suggested that the buildings closer to Boston Street should have been the location of the commercial space, as a continuation of the neighboring commercial spaces. Sides replied that that was the proposed location by the Planning Board but the developer preferred to place it across from the commercial spaces in their Goodhue building to help activate the commercial use on that street and along the corridor. Moving the commercial portion to the Goodhue side will give it some visibility. DeMaio stated that the townhouses have a strong vertical feel and the larger building is much lower, so one building feels very tall and the other will feel very short. The different • rooflines help accentuate the differences between and make the townhome building feel massive. The roofline of the neighboring Goodhue building helps bring it down the scale. DeMaio also agrees with Jaquith that the brick and different window types above the Boston Street entrance seem out of place. The Boston Street vehicular entrance could create a hazardous condition on the street if a car entering the lot has to stop for a car backing out of one of the parking spaces at the entrance to the lot. DeMain suggests rearranging the parking plan to minimize any back-ups at the Boston Street entrance. Sullivan stated that relocating those first few cars would also create a nicer entrance. The use is brick at the notch is a problem, it should be used at end walls and fire walls, but a lighter material should be used at the bays and notch. A purposeful material should be used, especially with so much going on at the facades. The retail is better suited to Goodhue Street than on the Boston Street side of the 44 unit building, but it still doesn't seem like a successful location. Khalsa replied that the construction on this site, the neighboring Goodhue building, and the proposed Gateway Center will increase enough of a critical mass that could increase the success of these commercial units. There is only one retail tenant in the Goodhue building. There is some logic to adding commercial spaces to Goodhue Street. Much of the Goodhue Street land is not their property but the commercial spaces on that side of the building could be lowered to the street elevation and possibly extended out from the building, the landscape redeveloped, and a plaza created for that area for seating to utilize that yard. Sullivan inquired as to whether there was a bike room and suggests including a location for public art—possible within the turnaround. Sides replied that the only bike storage was outside. Khalsa replied that racks could be added at the end of the parking spaces and public art could be incorporated. Jaquith: Motion to continue the discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the April 27, 2016 regular meeting. Sides: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 7-0. Adjournment Durand: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 9:15pm Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • WO OF oz Salem Redevelopment Authority 1016 MAY -3 P 2� 02 Design Review BoardiTYr.-L� SPECIAL Meeting Agenda Tuesday, May 10, 2016 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith • Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 50 St. Peter Street (Bit Bar Salem): Continued discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and sidewalk designs North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 2. 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street (Gateway Center): Continued discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development with City's Community Life Center This not9srr � ostod on "Official Bulletin Board" Old/New Business City Hall, Salem, Mass. on i(A, 3) X 4 at a%oaqwith in accordance ' th MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • Salem Redevelopment Authority 201b APR 20 P 12: 22 1;_I_ .. Design Review Board CITY Ca ` s - 1 I'; Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 27, 2016 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. Lappin Park: Discussion and vote on proposed installation of"Free Little Library" • 2. 9 Church Street(Remix Church): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage 3. 50 St. Peter Street(Bit Bar Salem): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage and sidewalk designs 4. 17 Central Street (Residences at Museum Place): Discussion and vote on proposed replacement of three sets of entry stairs 5. 283R Derby Street(Notch): Discussion and vote on proposed outdoor seating area (cafe permit review) 6. 168 Essex Street(Village Tavern): Discussion and vote on proposed lighting for outdoor seating area 7. 25 Front Street(Lobster Shanty): Discussion and vote on proposed design revisions to previously approved outdoor seating area/deck (cafe permit review) 8. 50 St. Peter Street(Old Salem Jail): Discussion and vote on proposed design revisions to previously approved plans for Phase II of"Old Salem Jail" redevelopment project— new multifamily housing development North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review • 9. 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street(Gateway Center): Continued discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development with City's Community Life Center • Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the March 23, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on APR 2 0 2016 at 12-!ZZ?i-> in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. DRB April 27, 2016 Page 1 of 19 • City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides Members Absent: J. Michael Sullivan Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Colleen Anderson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. Lappin Park: Discussion and vote on proposed installation of"Free Little Library" The submission under review includes: mission statement & history of the "Free Little Library", photos of previous libraries, library design with dimensions, and photos of three possible locations for the proposed library in Lappin Park. Deborah Greel (Salem Public Art Planner) and Salem resident Drew Meger(designer/builder)were both present to discuss • the proposed "Little Free Library" in Lappin Park. Greel stated that Meger had previously built one at the Carlton School. The spots in Lappin Park are being suggested and requests the DRB's input for the best location to place the library. Dig Safe has been contacted but they will not visit the property until a location for the library has been selected. Durand stated that the addition of this library should pull people in and activates the park. His preference is for option 2 or 3, which are more towards the middle of the park, as opposed to option 1 which is along the outer edge of the park which could cause people gathering there and block the sidewalk. Sides stated that she prefers option 2, because option 3 competes with and distracts from the "Samantha' statue. DeMaio stated that option 2 is the best. DeMaio added that the design should be altered to include signage on the back since it will be seen from both the front and back by people walking along the path. Greel added that she hoped it wouldn't become a bike rack. Durand stated it will become a beacon and will draw attention to itself. How it is angled will be important. Durand reiterated DeMaio's point of placing something on the backside since it will be seen from all sides. . Meger stated that the signage under the roof on the front can also be placed on the back. Greel stated that she hopes more can be placed around the Salem in the future. Shapiro questions whether the DBR is comfortable with the design of the schematic • drawings. DeMaio reiterates Greel's statement; hoping people will not use it as a bike rack, despite the fact that there are bike racks in the park. It is a popular area for people on bikes and bikes usually end up chained to trees. Sides: Motion to recommend approval of the little free library conditional upon it being installed in location No. 2 as discussed. Seconded by: DeMaio. Passes 4-0. 2. 9 Church Street(Remix Church): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, proposed condition photos, e-mail from the property owner allowing permission for the installation of the signage, description of the proposed signage, and a dimensioned photo of the exterior fagade. Pastor Gary Miller was present to discuss the proposed signage. Shapiro describes the sign as a vinyl decal to be applied to the face of the awning on the window and the "R" is raised lettering. Dynia questions whether the circle is vinyl and just the "R" is what is raised. Pastor Miller replies that the "R"will be raised W. Sides questions whether the "R" and name are a logo and if it the first of its kind or if it's • being used at another location(s). Sides also questions the spacing of the letters is also something they have used before/is it a part of their identity. Pastor Miller replies that the logo is the circle with the "R" and added that the spacing between the lettering is not a part of their identity. Jaquith arrives at 6:15PM. Sides stated that there should be more spacing between the "X" and the "C" but understands that this could also be intentional but it is legible ble so she has no problem with 9 it. Durand noted that the different text helps to differentiate the two words and separating the two words might not work because of the two fonts. Sides: Motion to recommend approval as submitted. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. 3. 50 St. Peter Street Bit Bar Salem): Discussion and vote o e onro osed installation of P P signage and sidewalk designs The submission under review includes; a map of the sign locations, proposed sign designs, images of previous signs used by The Great Escape restaurant and A&B Burger, a day- • time view with illuminated signs. Mr. Gideon Coltoff, Mr. Rob Hall, and Ms. Beth Swan (co- owners and co-designers of the signs)are present to discuss a proposed signage. • Kennedy arrives at 6:18PM. Swan stated that they are proposing signs of their logo and they have both a horizontal and square version of their logo. Swan added that they are proposing signs at three locations; a wall sign, a blade sign, and a small plaque on an existing granite post next to the St. Peters Street parking lot. Coltoff added that the color shown on the images appears to be 'rust' but is intended to be 'copper'. Swan stated that the Church Street parking lot provides no visibility for their restaurant. They are proposing a blade sign on the side of the building that will stick out and away from the building. It will be set back from the windows and the bottom of the sign will be 10 feet above grade. It will easily be seen from the Church Street parking lot as well as from train station. A second sign is proposed but will be a wall mounted sign that can be seen from the corner of Bridge Street and Sgt. James Ayube Memorial Drive. Along the side from the Church Street parking lot to the restaurant a third sign/brass plaque on a granite post at an opening in the existing fence, is proposed to direct people where to go once they are at the property. This will keep them from walking further down towards Bridge Street, where there is no break in the fence to allow them to enter the restaurant, and will also inform people of the handicapped accessible entrance. Swan added that many people who park in the Church Street lot don't know where the restaurant was because it's not visible. Previous signage was on the fence and only had the word "Restaurant". Coltoff added that residents of the building stated that people have entered in the lobby of the residences looking for the restaurant. • Swan stated that they are also proposing subtle guidance dots on the asphalt sidewalk to help guide people to their restaurant. The dots would be a glossy shade of black color that's darker than the asphalt. Swan stated that neighbors have complained in the past about spot lights at grade level shining up into their windows, so they are proposing energy efficient LED neon that will light only the lettering from behind. Hall added that many of the grade level spot lights get kicked and aren't repositioned. Hall stated that there is a question in the ordinance regarding allowing up-lighting because it creates light pollution. Swan added that up-lighting has been previously used on site. Swan stated that the proposed signs are to be metal and the lettering to be cut out with a copper effecting paint over the metal, because the copper color will blend with the brick and granite building fagade. Swan added that simple iron bars, reminiscent of the jails history, will support the signs. Permission from the landlord has been granted, should the DRB approve of the proposed signs. Shapiro stated that the guidance dots will not be permitted through their ordinance and noted that a neighbor also didn't want to see them included. Questions were made on the precedence of allowing a business to utilize a public sidewalk to direct people to their business. Shapiro asks that the guidance dots not be include in the proposal. Shapiro stated that the signage is compliant with the SRA design guidelines; in terms of • size, use of lighting, etc. Shapiro added that there is a standard in terms of height of the signs—the top of a sign cannot come above the second floor window sills and the proposed signs do rise above that level. Shapiro stated that signs of previous tenants of the property had been approved by the • DRB and SRA, and were granted sign permits without issuance of a variance. Those signs also rose above the second floor windows. Upon closer examination of the issue, the City is now asking that the applicant seek relief for being able to place signage above the second floor sills. Shapiro noted that he questioned the applicants on whether the top of the sign came above 25 feet and Coltoff previously assured Shapiro that that was not the case with either proposed sign. Durand questioned whether the ordinance specifically restricts directional signage. Shapiro replied that guidance dots on the sidewalk are prohibited. Kennedy stated that the simply designed proposed sign is easier to read than their other proposed signs—without the additional colors and imagery, so the more the signs are simplified the clearer they become. Kennedy questioned whether the white seen in the background was part of the sign or simulated lighting. Swan replied that it was simulated lighting. Swan stated that they have another version of the signs with a white border which may help the signs stand out. Kennedy replied that with the right contrasting colors the copper color should pop. Kennedy noted that the texture of the copper will not be seen from a distance,just the color and possible reflection. Kennedy stated that the DRB will question the text type, the sign itself, and whether it works • with and respects what the building is and what, and right now he's not sure that it does. Swan adds that they want the signs to fit their brand and the building. Durand stated that if the signs fit in too much they will blend in and not be noticed, so the signs needs a bit of contrast. Readability is less important than realizing that something is there. Kennedy added that the backlighting will help. Kennedy stated that the signs also need the height and to be placed above the first floor windows and the dimension will also help. Shapiro stated that recent photos of the building were taken and have been given to the DRB for their reference. Sides stated that the DRB has learned from the approval of the A&B Burger sign that it became to abstract that ultimately you didn't need to know what it said. Sides added that the signs are overworked, they blend together, and need to be simplified. Sides noted that it is hard to read but if it is repeated throughout the space it could be okay. Swan questioned whether using one solid color and not their brand colors would help with readability. Sides replied that a strong contrast could also help. Kennedy stated that increasing the bar size between the lettering will help the words to be • seen from a distance. Sides questioned whether the extra 'bits' on the sign could be eliminated. Coltoff replied • that they reference video games that those who play video games will understand the reference. DeMain questions both the scale and number of signs, but with revisions using the DRB's suggestions they could work. DeMaio stated that he has the least issued with sign 4. Signs 1 and 2 are well situated, and with the vista that most people see the building from the signs will be seen, but they are large in terms of scale. The signage is trying hard to overcome the visibility constraints of the site. DeMaio added that he as the most difficulty with sign 3 because it is located on another part of the building, is a far distance from the restaurant, and it is very large. By the time you get to sign 3 you've already passed the entrance for it. The complex is beginning to be "branded" by their proposed signs, but understands why they want them. DeMaio added that their request goes beyond the sign package that he would advocate for. Swan stated that they want signage visible from the St. Peters Street lot and that sign is placed as far as they can get it to their restaurant while still on that street. DeMaio noted that Village Tavern did something similar because their entrance was so far away from flow of traffic. Coltoff stated that they looked into moving the St. Peters Street sign closer to the parking lot but that would make the building appear branded by the BitBar, placing the sign there would put it too close to warden's house which the Historic Commission may not even be allow, and the they didn't want the sign visible by the residents when they arrive home. Coltoff added that placing it at the opposite corner makes it within eyeshot of St. Peters • Street and Bridge Street. Coltoff noted that there are no business in the area so people headed in that direction will more than likely be looking for the bar/restaurant and for signs to lead them too it. Kennedy stated that sign 3 is 102 inches which is very big. Swan replied that the 102 inch dimension is overall and includes 6 inches of air space and bracket space at the top and the bottom, but the sign itself is 8 feet high. Coltoff stated that the dimension from grade to the second floor is 18 feet and they are trying to maximize the space between the top and bottom allowable location for signage. Swan added that they made the top of the sign line up with the second floor windows. Hall added that the patio space is large and the proposed sign on the corner is close to the patio. Kennedy questioned whether the signage fits within the guidelines. Shapiro replied that this is a very large building, they are proposing signage on two frontages, and the building is set back from the street. Coltoff added that they are below the allowable signage square footage. Shapiro added that the ordinance is written for storefront spaces. Durand stated that the signs are huge and they seem out of proportion. Durand added that sign 1 needs to be big, sign 2 should possibly be near the entry— using the vertical format of sign 3 and scaling it down and placing it next to the door to draw people in and signify the entrance, and not have it on the corner which looks awkward in proportion to the building. Durand adds that he likes sign 4. • Sides stated that he prefers the vertical format over the square and questioned whether that should be the one that is repeated rather than having two different versions. Coltoff replied that their logo is the square sign and they prefer to stay true to their brand logo. Swan added that people will also be able to see that vertical blade sign from the T and the signage can protrude up for 5 feet away from the building. • Jaquith stated that a free standing sign would be better than hanging a sign off the building. Shapiro replied that a free standing sign would not be allowed by the SRA. A representative of the property owner, Symes Associates, who was present(Steve Feinstein) agreed with Jaquith but also stated that it was not allowed. Shapiro stated that if the DRB approved a stand-alone sign, that the ZBA& SRA would also need to approve it, and would take the DRB approval into consideration, but that also adds more to the process for the applicants. Kennedy stated that the solution is to reduce the size of the larger sign. Kennedy: Motion to continue the discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 6-0. 4. 17 Central Street (Residences at Museum Place): Discussion and vote on proposed replacement of three sets of entry stairs Tracey Rubin, James Warren, & Patrick Eddy— Board Members of 17 Central Street were present to discuss the replacement of the three entry stairs. Eddy stated that they are looking to replace all three sets of stairs that are concrete and are deteriorating. Eddy added that they currently do not meet code and they plan to replace them with granite and reuse the existing railings. Dynia questioned how the existing railing can be reused if the stairs do not meet code. Warren replied that at two locations the sidewalk has risen over time and so the first step up off the side walk is what doesn't meet code. Dynia questioned whether the first step off the side walk is what is going to be raised. Warren replied yes. Rubin stated that the granite stairs at the 52 Charter Street entrance, that were replaced approximately 10 years ago, has a rough face and they plan to install smooth face granite. Jaquith questioned who was providing the granite. Warren replied that that hasn't been determined. Shapiro added that the location of the granite is not known but they are using Abbott Construction and Landscaping of Boxford, MA. Jaquith questioned whether each step was an individual piece of granite. Warren replied yes. Sides stated that as long as the granite fits into the same spacing she has no issue with the • proposed stair replacement. Warren replied that it will be as close of a match as possible. Jaquith: Motion to approve as submitted. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. 5. 283R Derby Street (Notch): Discussion and vote on proposed outdoor seating area (cafe permit review) Durand announces that he will recuse himself from participating on this agenda item; he leaves the room. The submission under review includes: a letter from the owner with a description of the proposed outdoor seating area, a letter from the landlord —South Harbor Holdings, LLC stating that they approve of the proposed project, images of the proposed furniture, liability insurance certificate, proposed Site Plan, proposed furniture plan, existing and proposed condition fence photos, isometric and perspective views, and existing and proposed elevations. Chris Lohring owner/president of Notch Brewing was both present to discuss the proposed outdoor seating area. Lohring stated that there have been some updates since he last presented on the cafe permitting path. The former rear accordion door is now a roll-up door and new LED parking lot lighting will be placed on the Derby and Congress Street frontages. Lohring stated that the outdoor patio is being called "the Biergarten"will be located along the South River. The tables will have traditional hardwood tops with metal frames and are . collapsible for easy storage in the winter months and securing at night. Lohring stated that the fence separating the two parking lots areas from the Biergarten will be a 5' high metal framed fence with vertical cedar boards. The fence to separate the Biergarten from the river will match the black metal guardrail that currently stretches across the river. Sides questioned whether the wood fence has been used at a previous Biergarten. Lohring replied yes. DeMain questioned where there was a walkway between the guardrail and the river. Lohring replied no. The existing seawall is approximately 4 feet wide and the new guardrail will be placed in the top of that seawall. DeMaio questioned whether this project could trigger a public walkway on the water side of the property and whether the City is in the position to request one given that there currently is a path across the river, and the hope was to continue the walkway around the entire inlet. Shapiro added that if a project triggers the requirement for Chapter 91 providing for a public accommodation—a shared use path. If that were the case the DRB will ask that that accommodation be included, but that is not the case in this project. Shapiro added that there hasn't been a proposal to continue that path at this location at this time but that a bigger project may have triggered the requirement. • DeMaio stated that the DRB is recommending approval to the SRA on a scheme where they know the future intent is for a shared use path that has not been included. Shapiro replied that if the inclusion of a shared use path is not a requirement is something the DRB can ask for but the decision to include one is solely that of the property owner. DeMaio stated that the recommendation for approval of this project as presented may interrupt any future proposal for a continuous walkway. Kennedy and Jaquith agreed that it may come up in the future. Lorhing added that the neighboring building goes right up to the waterfront so the path in question would become an issue there as well. Lohring questioned whether The Grapeview encountered this issue in the past. Kennedy replied that there was a patio and a gap that was in consideration for a future path. DeMaio stated that the neighboring building has a pre-existing condition and this project does not. Shapiro added that he will mention and discuss the walkway at the next SRA meeting. Lorhing stated that signage has been removed from the plans and will require a separate meeting. Lorhing added that the gooseneck lighting shown in the plans will also be included in the meeting regarding signage. Lorhing added that black string bulb lights will be hung across the patio at night. • Kennedy questioned what the lights will be hung on. Lorhing replied that they will be strung from the building to the black poles at the back fence along the river. DeMaio questioned whether the parking lot light fixtures will be LED cut-offs that light down onto the parking lot and not out away from the building. Lorhing replied that he will come back with lighting specs for the DRB to review and requested a product recommendation from the DRB. DeMaio stated that he would provide the applicant with a light fixture recommendation. Shapiro questioned whether umbrellas shown are the proposed design and color. Lorhing replied that the umbrellas will be square and they are trying to get the fabric to match the maroon in the Notch logo and if not they will use a different color, not white, but they will all be the same color. Kennedy questioned whether the wood bench color will match the image provided. Lorhing replied that there are three color options; white, aged, and dark, and they will select white to match the furniture in the tap room which will contrast with the cedar in the fence. • Sides: Motion to recommend approval of the patio, layout, furniture and fence as submitted with the expectation that a new exterior light fixture will be proposed Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. 6. 168 Essex Street (Village Tavern): Discussion and vote on proposed lighting for outdoor seating area *Paul Durand returned to the meeting. The submission under review includes: a letter from the owner/general manager of Village Tavern describing the proposed work, sketches of the proposed new poles and lighting, proposed images of the outdoor lighting, photos of the proposed poles, anchor screws, cables, fasteners, and tension rods, photos of the propose string lighting. Andrew Ingemi General manager/owner of Village Tavern was both present to discuss the proposed lighting over the existing outdoor seating area. Shapiro stated that new poles and lighting to be strung across the poles and across the patio to above the awning is what is under review. Ingemi stated that 6 poles are proposed. Kennedy questioned whether the poles were metal and if they were black. Ingemi replied that they were metal but would be painted black to mimic the existing black lamp posts on Essex Street. • Kennedy stated that the submission package read as steel. Sides added that the paint on painted steel and fittings will wear away over time. Kennedy stated that he is not in favor of pieces that were made black and did not have to be painted which will require upkeep. Durand questions where the power will come from. Will it be exposed conduit or will it come through the exterior wall. Ingemi replied that each string of lights coming through the wall will have its own power source and there will be no exposed conduit. DeMain questioned whether the lighting poles will be placed on top of the low brick wall and who owned the brick wall. Ingemi replied that the low brick wall is the property of the mall and beyond that is City property. The low brick wall runs the entire length of the patio—80 feet. The plan is to put the poles into the brick wall. Sides stated that there is a lack of detail on how this will be constructed. Constructing and mounting posts and electrical connections through the wall could be more complicated than you think. DeMain added that adding connections through brick walls will require more detail. • Kennedy questioned whether the poles will sit on top of the brick wall or go into it the top of the wall. Ingemi replied that the polls will go through the top of the wall. Ingemi added that they will consult a structural engineer to make sure everything is secure. Durand stated that the wall is not a very tall wall and may not be reinforced and the pole will create lateral forces. Ingemi replied that the poles will be secured however the structural engineer requests it to be secured. Durand suggested that the poles should be anchored with a concrete foundation below the frost line and that Ingemi's architect should determine whether the poles should be installed on top of the low brick wall or on the interior face of the wall. Durand likes the overall concept but wants to make sure the details are designed; pole cap detail, connections, etc. and to make sure the design has been thought out structurally. Ingemi stated that he can provide plans for his Architect to the DRB prior to construction. Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval of the lighting concept conditional further review by the DRB of the architectural drawings and details on how the pole will be capped. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. 7. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Discussion and vote on proposed design revisions to previously approved plans for Phase II of"Old Salem Jail" redevelopment project—new multifamily housing development • The submission under review includes: a letter from Seger Architect describing the recent changes to the design, a full set of plans including; site plan, floor plans, elevations, and images of the proposed materials. Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects and Steve Feinstein of Symes Associates were both present to discuss the recent plan changes. DeMaio questioned whether the changes were a revision or an amendment of the previously approved plans. Shapiro replied that they should be considered an amendment. Ricciarelli stated that the new owners are looking to build a new residential building, the fourth building on the site. The project is fully permitted and the new owner is looking to make some changes, such as the addition of an elevator, but many of the details that have changed are similar to what the presented to the DRB approximately two years ago. Ricciarelli stated that the building will be L-shaped, residents will enter the site off of St. Peters Street, and parking will be both below the structure and in the surrounding parking lot. Ricciarelli stated that the building is somewhat split into two because of the difference in grade. The garden level units in the North building will be three to four feet below grade and are designed as townhomes, with the bedroom below and living space on the first floor above. The remaining units on the North building are a mix of townhomes while the South building units are flats. • Durand questioned whether the floor plans have changed. Ricciarelli replied that there have been a little bit of modification. Shapiro stated they were granted an insignificant change requests to add one additional unit. Ricciarelli added that the insignificant change was the division of one large unit into two and not a change in footprint. Ricciarelli stated that the elevator is off of the St. Peters Street entrance, where the separation between the two buildings is located. The elevator will provide access to some units but those without elevator access will have access from grade. Ricciarelli stated that the previously proposed base and main front facade was a ground face block, but will now be a large scale masonry material— EI Dorado Stone Veneer—in a 1'x2' running bond pattern. The proposed Hardiplank clapboard will have a 7" exposure to the weather. Corner boards will be used instead of mitered corners due detailing challenges and material costs. Dormers, gable ends, and the other areas of the facade will have lead coated copper cladding. Screening will be installed to conceal the parking below the building. Faux slate will be used on the roof. Balconies will have painted steel railings. DeMain requested the previously approved plans to compare to the proposed changes. Sides stated that the material change and the addition of corner boards dramatically alter the look of the facade. Ricciarelli replied that the corner condition was never finalized, and the proposed corner boards will be the smallest they produce and will be painted to match the clapboards. • DeMaio questioned the difference in scale between the previously approved elevations and the proposed elevations, especially the doors. Ricciarelli replied that the previous exterior door product by Solar Innovation, were 9 feet high pocket doors, and their function was not clear when in the open position. The proposed doors are now by Jeld-win, and the doors heads are now at 8 feet, which has changed some of the proportions. Ricciarelli added that the building is now stick built and no longer modular, so there is no longer a double thickness at the floors which has allowed them to gain more head height. The windows of the previous dormers were 5 '/z feet off the floor but those have been brought down to sill height. Now all of the space on the top floor is functional and the mass of the building has been brought down. DeMaio stated that the changes to the front facade now make the building read as three separate masses and the North East and South East facade read differently now. DeMaio questioned whether the water table material was the same. Ricciarelli replied yes. Dynia questioned whether the elevator was added as a convenience. Feinstein replied that an elevator would make the units for marketable. . Shapiro questioned if the units would be rentals. Feinstein replied yes. Jaquith noted that there was more emphasis on the balconies and changes in the fenestration. Ricciarelli replied yes, but in size. Durand stated that the presentation was confusing because it is difficult to tell what has changed. To expedite the approval the changes need to be clear. Durand added that the DRB spent a lot of time on the previously approved plans. DeMaio stated that the previous elevations had a contemporary feel and the feel of the current project has a New England style. DeMaio added that his favorite parts of the original project were the contemporary elements and those are the pieces that have changed the most—balconies, railings, sidings, windows. The previous dormers had more windows than wall and subtly popped up from the roof and now there is more wall space around them and the dormer reads as a mass, which feels like a significant change. Shapiro stated that the DRB should review the current presentation rather than compare the two versions and give their opinions on what direction the project should go from here. A new Architect is working on this project and the construction method has changed. Durand stated that this is a new project that is similar to the previous project. Jaquith stated that this building is very broken up and there is no unity. Kennedy stated that the building should have a more contemporary/modern feel. DeMaio stated that the middle portion of the North West facade is trying to literally to mimic • the jail across from it and that is dividing up the facade and causing it not to look unified. Jaquith stated that the Architect is working off the previous plans which is challenging. Feinstein stated that the height and massing were important throughout the planning process which is what they are trying to keep. Previously selected products didn't work in this area and they are trying to work with the other buildings on the site. A contemporary feel with oversized windows is nice but windows of a regular size that can be maintained is another. Ricciarelli questioned if the DRB's concerns are with the materials or the way they are treated. Jaquith replied that it is challenging to see how the materials work with one another in the computer elevations. Durand opens public comment. Emily Udy of Historic Salem. Questioned if the chimneys can be a stronger feature. Ricciarelli replied that they were lanterns. Jaquith noted that the dormers in the elevation vs. the perspectives do not match. Jaquith questioned the roof pitch and floor to floor height. • Ricciarelli replied that the roof pitch was 8/12 and the floor to floor height was 10 feet and they are trying to maintain a 9 foot high ceiling. • Durand stated that normalizing the previously approved contemporary design made it less successful. Durand suggested that they either redoing the design to make it more of a standard construction or to make it more contemporary. DeMaio suggested reconsidering how the window read in the fagade so they can look more contemporary. The balcony railings unified the fagade and now they have a builders punch-out feel. They could be address by changing what goes on around them. Sides stated that the previous plan was very clean and everything fit neatly and the railings were within the balconies and didn't overlap and tie into the face of the facade. That kind of detail takes away from the clean look of the fagade. The neatness of the previous plan is what made it so successful. Ricciarelli replied that executing that design was the problem but he understands that the DBR would like the building to be more streamlined. Shapiro questioned if the previous landscape plan was being used. Ricciarelli replied yes. Jaquith: Motion to continue the discussion at a future meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. • North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 8. 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street (Gateway Center): Continued discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development with City's Community Life Center The submission under review included a slide show presentation. Mr. Chris Semmelink, of The Architectural Team (tat), and Harry Gunderson of Gunderson Associates were present to discuss the proposed construction of the Community Life Center and the proposed residential building on the corner of Bridge and Boston Streets. Semmelink stated that plans have been refined. Some minor plan changes are being made for the planning board along Boston Street (the east fagade) at a more detailed level —to improve the Boston Street experience and flipping the planting with the sidewalk to make a more welcoming right turn entrance lane. There is now a path through the middle of the site to get to Bridge Street. The tree and planting requirements are being maintained and the lighting will be reviewed with a consultant tomorrow. Semmelink introduced a color coded floor plan that highlights the different use groups within the building. Semmelink stated that the design concerns from the previous meeting have been addressed, namely at the corner of Boston and Bridge Streets. The fagade is a mixture of fiber cement products - panels and lap siding. The window have larger surrounds to make them appear larger. The tan base is a board and batten style panel. The tan fagade on the upper levels is a mixture of 3", 5" & 7" lap siding in a repetitive random pattern. The window • surrounds are a cellular PVC trim that could change. There are panels between the windows. Semmelink noted that the building will be a 4 story wood frame with wood trusses. The building has been lowered and the mechanical equipment will be shielded by a screen placed 15 feet away from the building edge. Semmelink introduces Gundersen to speak about the proposed CLC building. Gundersen stated that questions were asked at the previous meeting, regarding how it would be detailed, materials, and color. Gundersen presented Boral siding in the proposed trim in scale and color. The colored trim has been added to the elevations, in the band that runs around the second floor level and on the lower level of the fagade. Gundersend stated that there was a previous question regarding the wall sections and how the building will be detailed. The view of the building from Bridge Street was also questioned. A perspective of that view has been added to the documentation. Durand stated that the DRB's comments would begin with the CLC Building. Jaquith stated that he is in favor of the improvements and would like windows included in the Bridge Street side of the Building. Sides stated that she is happy with the changes and the DRB's previous comments have been addressed. Dynia questioned whether the dumpster would be seen along that side of the building. Gundersen stated that"T" shown on the plan is a transformer not the trash. • Semmelink replied that that area will be screened with dense planting. Transformer will be placed at floor level and fencing options are being considered. Dynia questioned whether the transformer could be moved further away from Bridge Street because the transformer will be easily seen when traveling down Bridge Street. Semmelink replied moving it inwards is more costly. Gundersen added that this building does not have a back, it is seen from all sides, and where to place things has always been an issue. Kennedy stated that the contract between the two colors differs between the plans. Gundersen replied that the right color green has to work in contrast and some experimentation will be need to make sure the colors work. DeMaio questioned whether seniors took mass transit to the site and if there was a drop-off site at the CLC building. Gundersen replied that is was mostly a van service and many people drive. Gundersen replied that there is a drop-off site. • Semmelink added that T service was limited in this area and presently only comes to Boston Street but they do know how many people would use the T service. They would have to walk across the various paths from Boston Street to get to the CLC building. Jaquith stated that the storefronts have a large amount of glass and questioned whether the storefront will have horizontal sections so people will know where the doors are. Gundersen replied that they may put horizontals in the storefront or something can be placed on the glass. Durand questioned why the window pattern changes along Bridge Street and questioned if the far left window could be removed to help with the spacing. Gundersen replied that how the spaces are used inside the building changes but that window could be eliminated. Durand opens the CLC building to public comment. Shapiro stated that a letter regarding this project has been given to the DRB. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street. Questioned whether the refuse area was outside and screened. This area has a rodent problem. Trash storage should be considered. Semmelink replied that the mixed-use building has indoor trash storage that will only be placed outside on trash days. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal Street. Questioned if the transformer would make noise and • will that disturb people sitting on the patio. Arlander stated that many children will also use the building and questioned if there will there be bike racks and if the roadways will be more bike-friendly than they currently are. Arlander questioned if the pathway off the Boston Street between the parking lot and Federal Street will be inviting, clearly visible, and safe so people will want to take it. Semmelink replied that the planning board requested the walkway be moved towards the cars and made wider and to move the plantings closer to Federal Street. it would only create a minor hum and the traffic will . Joyce Wallace of 172 Federal Street. In favor of a more open pathway off of Boston Street, questions if there will be a planting buffer between the retaining wall further down the property. Semmelink replied that some drainage will be at the base of the retaining wall, plantings won't grow on top of the retaining wall but that area will be cleaned up. Boris Schopf of 1 Cambridge Street. Questioned the retaining wall height and the height should be known and the buffer area keeps being reduced. Questioned the finish floor height of both buildings and the sidewalk beyond. Questioned whether the temporary fill level is higher than the finished floor level. Stated that both buildings are too close to the street, there is not enough of a landscaping buffer throughout the site— it should be either bigger or smaller, car bumbers will overlap onto the sidewalk. No elevations are shown from the parking lot side, the saw tooth steped portions seem too large, the building is very long and should be broken up into groups with several entrances on the main floor to break • up the facade. The CLC building should be built as it was rendered. Semmelink replied the finish floor is at 12.11 feet, the sidewalk at Boston and Bridge Street is just under 12 feet and at its lowest point is approximately 7.5 feet. Semmelink replied that the temporary fill is a couple of feet higher than the finished floor level. Emily Udy of Historic Salem. In favor of the CLC building signage change. Some design element should be repeated along Bridge Street which is a plain. In favor of the paving/landscape outside the building. Durand closes the public session. Jaquith stated that he is not in favor of the vertical and horizontal elements on the facade of the mixed-used building. He agrees with Schopfs views on the steps along the Bridge Street side. The corners could be improved. He is not in favor of the brown siding or the windows. Sides stated that building differs every time they see it. Her favorite part of the building is the Boston Street view looking North, as opposed to the long elevation looking South West, because the building is more broken up. Semmelink replied that the Boston street elevation is short compared to Bridge Street. The steps in the building are placed where they are because as the building steps down it is also stepping away from the sidewalk. It allows them to jog the main corridor which lessens the length of the corridor and helps them create fire halls with doors midway in the corridor. It also gets them out of the Chapter 91 requirements. Sides stated that she prefers the Boston Street facade which has been broken up and has nicer proportions than the Bridge Street facade. There were strong elements in the scheme with blue that helped break up the facade and that is missing from this design. Kennedy stated that a larger break is needed on the Bridge Street side. Jaquith questioned whether the window pattern was developed from the floor plan and is not in favor of the skinnyvertical windows and doesn't think i t is a successful design. Semmelink replied that the larger windows are living spaces, and smaller windows Durand stated that the direction last time was to bring the two different schemes together, which was successful, but there is a muted color palate. The waves and angles are the same but it is a very long building. Kennedy stated that the building is dense and needs something to break it up like the Boston Street facade. Semmelink replied that the pattern of the windows was trying to break up the length of the building. It's a smaller pattern of window that are grouped with trim and panels to give it some vertical height. Dynia stated that the blue was lively and playful and the current elevation looks like campus housing. It went too far when it comes to taking the playfulness out of the project. Jaquith questioned the corner materials. Semmelink replied fiber cement paneling with an aluminum reveal. • Dynia requested more detail on the breaking up of the internal corridor and questioned if it would include the addition of an egress stair tower. Semmelink replied that the breaking up of the corridor has occurred midway down the corridor with a set of fire doors. Kennedy stated that that is the opportunity to provide a break in the facade with the metal panel used at the corner and have it wrap around that corner. Durand questioned whether this scheme reflects the neighborhood. Semmelink replied that is has some contrast but uses some lap siding in a familiar but unusual way. The "urban village"feel is on the Boston Street side which will breed better future projects. Durand introduces a letter that was given to the DRB just prior to the meeting that highlights several issues. 1. Path at the buffer zone and if it is required. Perhaps people can follow the sidewalk. 2. Refuse storage close to Bridge Street 3. Inadequate parking concerns. Durand questions the ratio per unit and states that if there is not enough parking people will not rent the units. 4. How will bicycles access the site, especially the CLC building? Semmelink replied 1. It minimizes the number of times someone has to cross the parking lot to get to the CLC building when coming from Boston Street. The existing sidewalk is almost ramp like and is in a flood zone. A Boston Street pathway entrance will be the most • comfortable. 2. The service area at the mixed-use building is a loading area only and trash is stored indoors with a chute system and a collection area for recyclables that will be rolled out for pick-up. 3. The client is satisfied with the number of parking spaces for the building. The ratio is less than 1.5, possibly 1.2. There is a balance between the different uses. The client is currently not assigning parking. 4. Sidewalks. The mixed-use building has a bicycle room. Gundersen added that bicycle racks can be added to the site at the CLC building. DeMain stated that with just a long fagade there is no opportunity to open more to Bridge Street and that is a loss. The vision of the master plan was to reconnect the neighborhood and breaking up the mass of the building with pass-throughs like the earlier schemes did. The proposed design is monolithic and impervious. Durand request specific recommendations from the DRB for proposed modifications. DeMaio suggested that the ground floor datum be raised so the first floor appears less compressed to help with the sidewalk experience. Kennedy suggested that the building be broken up and backed away from the street. Durand questioned whether 3 feet of depth can be removed from the building. Kennedy mentioned another point in the previously mentioned letter. • 5. Whether this building fits in with the neighborhood and the master plan. That is something the SRA needs to determine. r Semmelink replied that it has been squeezed already to provide more green space. The building also cannot get any closer to the street because of a piping that's being relocated along the property line. Shapiro stated that the DRB needs to be comfortable with the plan and feel that the proposal is congruent with the plan. Does this project constitute an "urban village" Is it a good start for future construction projects. Shapiro added that utility lines will be placed underground which will great a better public experience. The Planning Board conditions will include traffic calming conditions. Durand noted that the "urban village" concept is great but things evolve and that is better than having empty storefronts and commercial spaces. Durand added that this has been successful along Boston Street. The idea is to bring the people which will make this project successful. Durand opens the mixed-use building to public comment. Ken Wallace of 172 Federal Street. Requesting that the DRB pursue breaking up the long fagade on Bridge Street, and do something different with the various corners, possibly curved glass. Emily Udy of Historic Salem. Pathway through the site is not a substitute for the sidewalk, and hopefully be more reason to walk along the sidewalk in the future. Requests that more thought be given to the landscaping and possibly varying the width of the sidewalk to give the pedestrian an opportunity to notice the surroundings. Window placement is an improvement from the previously approved commercial building windows. Appreciates the idea that the parapets could being used as screening. • Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street. Requests that the DRB look into the color scheme, which resembles Salem State colors. Twohey is not a fan of the fins, believes this building is not appropriate at this location, and requests elevations of the parking lot side that will face Federal Street, which will also determine if the rooftop mechanical equipment will be visible from Federal Street. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal Street. Questions the two entrances ways. What happens when Bridge Street floods and Boston Street is the only entrance left which currently only allows for a right turn in and out. The residential and commercial spaces and the CLC building wanted 80 spaces, all have specific parking requirements and the numbers don't add up with the number of spaces they currently have. This version of the project has the least amount of parking spaces so far. Durand closes the public session. DeMaio stated that visibility may be a concern at the Boston Street entrance with planting concealingthose first few spaces. Cars pulling into that entrance that have to stop for cars P P 9 p as pulling in/pulling out of parking spaces could cause a backup onto Boston Street. Semmelink replied that this is not a retail parking lot so there will not be a lot of vehicular activity similar to a shopping center. Activity at the mixed-use building will be less than at the CLC building. Shapiro requests a special meeting in a couple weeks to continue the review of the • projects, the week of May 9, 2016. Jaquith: Motion to continue the discussion to the next available meeting. Seconded by: Durand, Passes 6-0. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the March 23, 2016 regular meeting. Jaquith: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 10:OOpm Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" Salem City Hall, Salem, Mass. on MAR 16 2016 at ?-P.l in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Redevelopme&ctions 18-25. Authority 2016 MAA I b P i` 09 Design Review Board =k _ Meeting Agenda CITY Wednesday, March 23, 2016 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 139 Washington Street(Eastern Bank): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage • 2. 28 Norman Street(Gold Dust Gallery): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage 3. 25 Front Street(Lobster Shanty): Discussion and vote on outdoor furniture, lighting, and fire feature North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 4. 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street(Gateway Center): Continued discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development with City's Community Life Center Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the February 24, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. DRB March 23, 2016 • Page 1 of 12 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Colleen Anderson Vice Chair David Jaquith, acting as Chair, calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 139 Washington Street(Eastern Bank): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage • *Chair Paul Durand arrived during the discussion of this item. The submission under review includes: a signed permit application, signage design with dimensions, existing and proposed condition photos, a map of building location. Mr. Richard Batten (of Batten Bros. Sings &Awnings), was present to discuss the proposed signage at their new branch at 139 Washington Street. Batten requests approval on one sign, a 18"H x 101 wall sign with a white background and blue border(blue - Eastern Bank's corporate color). The sign would have blue fabricated raised lettering with halo white LED lighting—the blue lettering would remain dark and only the white background would be illuminated at night. The border is flat, painted, and would not be illuminated. The lettering is 2" deep, there is 2" gap behind the lettering, and the sign backer is 4" deep. Sullivan questioned whether the halo lighting would illuminate the cavity of the letters. Batten replied that it would not. Kennedy added that only the area around the lettering would be illuminated. Batten added that they are also requesting approval on an 18"Hx42"W projected sign that will utilize the existing steel bracket. It has raised 1/4"thick lettering, the sign is 1 1/2" thick, and external illumination might be requested. Kennedy questioned whether the external illumination would come from the exterior wall. Batten stated that it would, and his tendency would be to use a small 2-3"diameter can lights, that has been incorporated at other branches. • Kennedy questioned how the power will get to the light. Batten responded that would come through the wall through an exposed conduit. Kennedy suggested the address oval be entirely blue and the address number be white to • eliminate the competing ovals and make the sign easier to read, similar to the Eastern Bank symbol. Mr. Durand suggests that the oval be eliminated entirely leaving just the address number. Kennedy& Durand agreed that either suggestion would be fine. Batten replied that he would propose both suggestions to Eastern Bank. Shapiro added that a lighting specification be added before the SRA meeting. Shapiro requested that the projected sign be hard wired and not powered through an exposed conduit. Shapiro added that the sign design should also be revised, with either of the suggested DRB options, before the SRA meeting. Jaquith opens public comment. No public comments. Kennedy: Motion to approve the proposed wall sign as-is, and to approve the projected sign with either change of removing the oval surrounding the address or making the address oval blue and the numbering white, and that the lighting specification be reviewed by a DRB designee (Glenn Kennedy) prior to being reviewed at the SRA meeting. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. 2. 28 Norman Street(Gold Dust Gallery): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, sign design with dimensions, proposed condition photos, and proof of insurance forms. Ms. Kristin Welch, one of the owners of Gold Dust Gallery, was present to discuss the proposed signage. • Welch stated that they would like to add vinyl signs, one attached to the building above the entrance, and window decals at the main entrance vestibule window and on their entrance door that also include a decal with their hours. Shapiro questioned whether the vinyl sign attached to the building, over the entrance, was going to have light. Welch replied that only the bottom sign in that group of signs has ever lit up, and she has no issue with it being just a vinyl sign. Sides stated that the first four letters appear very close together and the last 2 letters appear spaced out. Kennedy added that the first four of letters are very tall thin and the O's are very round, and that is because of the choice of font. Kennedy stated that the first three letters should be spread out— increase the kerning, and last three letters should be brought closer together—reduce the kerning, to make the sign more readable. Kennedy added that the lettering in the lower"We Are Open" portion is competing with the "Tattoo" lettering above it, and simpler san serif would make the lettering above stand out more. Kennedy questioned whether the exterior building sign was the only position available. Welch replied that it was the only space made available to them. Jaquith opens public comment. No public comments. Kennedy: Motion to approve with the suggestion that the flat wall sign have a spacing • adjustment between the T's and the O's (tighten them), and for an alternate/simpler font at the lower"We Are Open" portion of the signage on the window. • Seconded by: Dynia, Passes 6-0. 3. 25 Front Street (Lobster Shanty): Discussion and vote on outdoor furniture, lighting, and fire feature The submission under review includes; a design statement from the Kontseptual Architects, proposed lighting, furniture, $fire feature images, floor Plans, and elevations. Ms. Alexandra Peterson of Kontseptual Architects was present to discuss a proposed deck addition. Peterson stated that there will be 6'H posts surrounding the deck and on each deck there will be jelly jar style light fixture and occasionally string lights will be added. The outdoor table and chairs will be mesh to match the existing outdoor furniture, and existing to the outdoor seating in and around Salem. There will be 3 or 4 (seasonal) outdoor heaters on the patio, the standard triangular commercial style with glass tubes that are powered by propane heaters. To keep the relaxed atmosphere, red Adirondack style chairs and tables will also be added. The chairs will surround a fire feature, with a protective glass surround that the Salem Fire Department will approve. Kennedy and Jaquith mentioned that several outdoor fire features have been added to the Market Street Shopping Center in Lynnfied, and those also has a glass enclosure. Sides stated that if a glass enclosure wasn't a requirement she would make it a requirement. Shapiro added that he brought the file on the previously approved deck for review by the • Board. Durand opens public comment. No public comments. Jaquith: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 4. 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street (Gateway Center): Continued discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development with City's Community Life Center The submission under review included a slide show presentation. Mr. Chris Semmelink, of The Architectural Team (tat), and Harry Gunderson of Gunderson Associates were present to discuss the proposed construction of the Community Life Center and the proposed residential building on the corner of Bridge and Boston Streets. Semmelink stated that they are returning to present a revised design and that he would speak to the mixed-us building. The first change visible on the site plan is the larger proposed footprints that show both the original and currently proposed buildings. The original layout had two long lanes to travel through the parking lot and a separate area for parking at the other end of the site. In mid-2015 a plan was presented that opened the corner near Goodhue and Boston Streets. Concerns were made at that time as to whether • the space would be large enough and access to sunlight in an area that is mostly in the shade. Semmelink added that the latest building code calls for the building to be raised up another • foot for floods, which created even more of a barrier to Bridge Street. These recent changes have led them to made additional revisions. Semmelink stated that the latest parking layout consists of two lanes of travel and the separate parking area, for the CLC and residential units, has been moved to the middle of the lot. Semmelink noted that the most recent change was that the original building was four story, 58' high office building -which has a higher floor-to-floor height, and the current building is now four story, 50' high residential building. The construction of the housing portion is as- of-right. This change also allowed the parking to be broken up which allowed a single lane of traffic to be created with two raised cross walks to slow the vehicle traffic. Semmelink added that the entrance to the proposed CLC building also has a slowed traffic pattern. Semmelink added that the number of units has remained, however; the footprint has increased, and some of the parking had to be sacrificed. Semmelink displayed an in-progress landscaping plan and stated that the civil engineer is working with the DEP and MEPA, and making minor alterations to the plan. Semmelink added that the landscaping plan shows the most recent layout of the CLC building. The two buildings are 168' apart. They are now being treated as two separate projects and are no longer working as a composition. Semmelink displayed several images of Salem that were used as inspiration for this project, since this project will be a gateway into Salem; stone bases, patterning in concrete, tile, • gable ends, coloration, and the breaking up of materials. These images led their office to their previously proposed design; a stone base, granite blocks, and protruded gabled forms with blue coloration. The prior consensus was that the proposed structure was "loud", which led them to develop an alternative design with subdued colors. Semmelink introduces Gundersen to speak about the proposed CLC building. Gundersen stated that at the previous meeting, the reorientation of the CLC building was discussed, turning the building 90 degree and placing it along the East end of the property, and that created three issues. 1) The site entrance would need to occur closer to Boston Street which could create a traffic back-up at the intersection of Boston & Bridge Streets 2) Dead-end parking aisles will be created at the East end of the site if parking was located at the front of the building 3) The CLC requires service and therefore a road to access the building and that would require a second curb-cut off of Bridge Street. Gundersen added that these reasons lead them to not reorient the building. Gundersen stated that the overhead power lines along Bridge Street will be placed underground. For safety reasons, the high voltage overhead line required the building to be 16 feet away from the lines, plus 6 feet for scaffolding. By using underground power lines, the buildings can now been moved closer to Bridge Street and the CLC building can be moved further east. The shifting of these building gives more room to the front of the building/parking lot, west end of the CLC building —outside the Great Room, and more open space and landscaping zones at the front of the building. • Gundersen stated that the ground floor plan has also been reconfigured to make it more efficient; mainly the CLC administrative has transitioned from closed office space to an open office, as well as relocating the stairs and toilet core. The reconfiguration has allowed the entrance to be recessed, and add a canopy which will provide a covered seating area for the cafe, especially during the summer months. Gundersen added that previous comments were made about no glazing in the Great Room. The current arrangement places glazing at the west end but no glazing at the south end. A non-lit background would be best for entertainment purposes, seating, or presentations along that end of the room. Glazing at the west end and spill over lighting from the entrance will provide plenty of light to the room. Gundersen added that the relocation of the stairs and toilet core provided even more usable space to the flexible multi-purpose rooms on the Second Floor, as well as some storage spaces. Gundersen stated that the ground/floor level of the building was raised, which eliminated the direct entrance off of Bridge Street. Gundersen stated that the building elevations have also changed. A prior suggestion was that exterior material look less residential, so the siding has changed from a hardi plank to a vertical siding on the lower level. A smooth cement plaster is planned for the upper level facade. Gundersen added that the glazing type is a more accurate reflection of what will occur at the interior. • Gundersen added that the Landscape architect will discuss the plantings and materials at a subsequent meeting. Semmelink noted that there is also a pedestrian path across the property. The path starts on Boston Street, moves through the site and over a raised crosswalk in the parking lot, to the CLC building, and then exits onto Bridge Street. Gundersen added that there are several raised crosswalks that will also slow the vehicular traffic. Durand questioned whether there was a left turn option to enter the side off of Boston Street, when traveling south? Gundersen replied that there would be a right-in and right-out option only at that entrance, although it would be possible for a vehicle to make that turn. Durand stated that the plan and design of the CLC have improved. Durand questioned whether one of the egress stairs needs to directly exit the building. Gundersen replied that the current design is possible in a two story building. Jaquith stated that the overhang in the rendering and elevation differ. The overhang is very dramatic in the elevation and understated in the rendering, and his preference is for a decreased overhang in the rendering. Kennedy and Sullivan stated that they also prefer the rendering overhang. Durand stated that he prefers the larger elevation overhang. Jaquith stated that he prefers the current window pattern and Durand agrees. Dynia questioned whether the entrance could be more defined if the canopy were raised up and projected out past the fagade of the building. Gundersen replied that he would look into that modification but that the canopy is already deep. Gundersen stated that the deeper the canopy gets the shadier the area becomes, which reduces the amount of light that can enter the building. A couple openings in the canopy roof are also being proposed to allow for more sunlight. Sullivan questioned whether skylight will be placed in the roof of the Great Room. Gundersen replied, no, although the CLC needs to be questioned on how they intent to use the space. Many similar spaces are windowless boxes with artificial light only, because the rooms are used for presentation purposes. Kennedy questioned the vertical material on the elevations. Gundersen replied that Boral siding, (70% fly ash and 30% glue), will be used. The siding is large scale and comes in 10"wide boards with a 1" reveal. Kennedy questioned the proposed color of the boards. Gundersen replied that the proposed siding is currently a warm grey with white above. Kennedy stated that the selection of finishes; materials, colors, and how they are applied, will determine whether the structure looks like a utility building or a community center, and you could get to a point where the building doesn't fit within the context of the area. Gundersen added that the intention is to provide plantings between the First Floor administrative and the road. Sides added that a lot will be learned in the details in the future; how the projects are attached, the materials and their transition, material samples, colors, etc. Kennedy stated that what those materials are and how they are used will be key. Jaquith agreed and added that the texture, trim, and a full palette, will be very important. Durand and Kennedy agreed. Sullivan questioned whether the band across the middle of the building was a relief. Gundersen replied that it was a form of a relief but the section through it has yet to be . determined. Jaquith questioned whether anything was to be placed on the roof. Gundersen replied that rooftop units and screening is shown on the elevations but haven't been designed yet. Sullivan questioned whether the square windows were offices. Gundersen replied that the office area is on the First Floor and program rooms were on the Second Floor. Sullivan suggested that the windows of the open office area be treated differently which will create some variation on the fagade. Sullivan asked for a description of the vertical joints of the fagade. Gundersen replied that the joints were a 1"wide and 3/8"to 1/2"deep reveal in the material. Mr. Kennedy questioned if the material came in sheets. Gundersen replied no. Dynia questioned the step shown on the plans between the First Floor and grade. Gundersen replied that the transition is being developed but that there will be a gradual slope in grade and not a step off as shown. Durand questioned whether the parking lot will have granite curbs and what the parking lot edging would be. Semmelink replied granite curbs. Durand opens public comment on the CLC building. Mr. Ken Wallace of 172 Federal Street. Wallace stated that the street view is bland, the parking lot view is better, and suggests the materials changing in pattern or color to • enhance the view from Bridge Street. This project needs to be sold to the public and right now it is not. Ms. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street. Twohey stated that she is disappointed in the design, it resembled a DPW building, it takes its inspiration not from the McIntyre District but from the industrial buildings across the river. There is no life on the street side of the building, it is not inviting, the window are just openings, the parking lot side gives you a more welcoming feeling, and the building doesn't relate to this area. Ms. Emily Udy of 8 Buffom Street. Udy agrees with public comments, particularly the street side. The building could be passed many times before one can figure out what it was. The landscaping frames the building corners and, and people will come from all sides so the entire streetscape should be addressed with substantial landscaping. The fact that it's moved closer to Bridge Street also eliminates the amenities that could be added —benches to invite the public to notice the building. The building lacks a civic presence. Using modern materials to make it a "cool building"wouldn't fit in the context and there needs to be something that ties it into the context. She also prefers the bigger overhang which makes a statement. Ms. Jan Eschauzier of 15 Y2 River Street. Eschauzier agrees with the streetscape comments. Believed that one of the objectives of the NRCC was to present building with their face to the street so that the pedestrian experience would be essential, so there wouldn't be just a building and a streetscape, they would be somehow connected through amenities or landscaping. She is concerned with the blank wall, the window aren't welcoming, the entrance is confusing, and the building resembles a warehouse. Materials, landscaping, and lighting are essential as this area is a corridor to the MBTA station. If Salem wants to be a walkable, transient oriented City, these things need to be kept in mind and this building is a cornerstone of that experience. • Durand stated that the building has 4 sides and no side is being treated like the back of the back of a building. Durand agrees with Kennedy that the details will be important - how the openings are cased and the materials used. The buildings being closer to the street creates a hard edge, which an urban solution as opposed to setting the building back, which is a suburban solution. The previous building had front doors on Bridge Street that would never be used. This building placement forces a corridor to direct pedestrian traffic to the MBTA station and parks. This building is true to what it is, a modern community center, not a house, so it has to stand on its own. Bridge Street has signage to direct and predominant entry to vehicular traffic will know where to enter, and the buildings pushed to the edge will screen the parking lot. Kennedy stated that the long building doesn't create a view that someone would want to walk into but added a door along Bridge Street would create a pick-up and drop-off location which would stop traffic for the intersection at Boston and Bridge Street. Durand added that the security of two issues will also be a concern. Durand questioned whether there was a rendering of the Bridge Street view. Gundersen replied no, but all view of the building from Bridge Street would be a perspective—as people travel down the street. Kennedy added that is an important perspective to consider. Durand questioned how wide the sidewalk would be along Bridge Street. Gundersen stated 8 feet. Sullivan stated that not having an entrance along Bridge Street is an advantage and • questioned where the pathway through the site ends. Durand added that plantings or screening will need to be placed at the parking area between the two buildings to keep people from trying to exit the site at that location. Semmelink stated that in the North River valley, which rises and falls, is requiring the building to have a certain flood plain height, and an escarpment towards Federal Street is also pushing the buildings up considerably above the sidewalk. The CLC building is at the lowest elevation and at the middle part of the parking lot there is a drop to get down to the sidewalk. There is a potential plan with the DEP to create an opening for overflow water in that area. The initial plan was to continue the path to the east side of the CLC building and exit onto Bridge Street. Sullivan questioned whether a bike lane was in the works for Bridge Street. Semmelink replied that he did not know where that stands. Jaquith stated that there could be more transparency at the Great Room. Jaquith added that signage and lighting could be the cool/modem touch to the project. Udy, Durand, and Kennedy agreed. Ms. Barbara Clearly of 104 Federal Street. Clearly mentioned that the rooftop units on the CLC roof will be seen from the Federal streets, since Federal Street is higher than Bridge Street, and perhaps higher rooftop screens can be designed. How the raising of the flood plain will be seen at the sidewalk and how high is the ground next to it? Gundersen replied that the sidewalk is at its highest point at the Boston Street corner, then steadily drops towards the center of the property line along Bridge Street, and then gradually rises towards the CLC building. The First Floor level at the CLC building is about 3 feet above the sidewalk, when next to the CLC building. Clearly questioned what was below the first floor. Gundersen replied that the grade will slope up towards the base of the building and planting will be placed on that slope. Ms. Sides stated that what has been gained with the current placement of the buildings is the greenspace on the usable side of the buildings, which is a great improvement on this project. That space can be used by the inhabitants of the building. The orientation of the sun will create a nice gathering spot that is not confined to the street. Mr. Tim Jenkins of 18 Broad Street. Jenkins stated that is a much more attractive building, in terms of the entrance and greenspace. The canopy over the entrance is inviting and will provide protection from inclement weather. He liked the simplicity of the West end the prairie style of the building. The east end of the Bridge Street side is busy and the portion that extends out does break up the fagade. Durand opens board comments on the mixed-use building. Jaquith noted appreciation for aspects of both of schemes, but prefers the base in the second scheme and the movement in the first scheme, but the material could be more natural in the metals. Semmelink noted that the plan is to angle the blue protrusions slightly, to break up the long line of the fagade and provide alternate views from inside rather than just straight on. Durand questioned the materials of the outstanding features. Semmelink replied hexagonal metal shingles. Jaquith commented on have the pieces that extend above the roof be functional within the top floor units—using it as a screen. Semmelink stated that they are looking to making the extension portion a plane and bringing the color of the top band that is between them, down as a side finish to make the extensions stand out, as opposed to making them a pop-up. Utilizing that space becomes a dollar issue for the developer. Jaquith noted that the units have gone from rentals to condominiums. He admires what • they are trying to do but they are not yet there. The building should move because it is a long building. The vehicles passing have a kinetic feeling coming down the street. Sullivan questioned the new design team and the process that led them from one scheme to the other, which he doesn't see. Semmelink replied that the second scheme was a reaction to the previous comments to quiet the building. Kennedy stated that it seems like an overreaction. Sullivan added the first scheme had exciting characteristics and the second scheme looks like a completely different project—there is no consistency. Semmelink replied that the second scheme used the same footprint but included larger window openings making it less formal while the first scheme had more classic window proportions and was meant to be modem and memorable gateway. Durand added that it is a large building and the adornments made it interesting despite it not fitting within the Federal neighborhood. Kennedy added that he liked the first scheme. A smaller version on Derby Street would be great but it does not fit in this location. A slightly scaled back version could fit in. Ms. Katie Braaten of 141 Federal Street. Braaten is in favor of the first scheme, and it makes a statement about the sea and Salem. If the white were less white and it were more tone on tone with the top colors, the blue would work. Subduing it a bit would enhance the wave look. Kennedy stated that the corner is disappointing. Previous schemes did something more with the corner but now it is a flat white wall. Semmelink stated that some of the decorative portions could move closer to the corner. Durand added that some relief to break the plane. Kennedy added something strong and proud at that corner that starts to fade away as you move towards Federal Street should be included. Imitating the tower design by having the corner step inward would also break up the corner. Sides stated that she was anxious to hear the Board comments this time but the project has drastically changed. The project needs to continue to impress for a long time, not just in the short term. The first scheme was dramatic in the color, the angles, and the massing, and the suggestion was to tone it down and make it feel like it would last, and the latest plan is thin. The Board spoke of more natural colors—using natural/organic colors in the metals — that will work with the neighborhood but also make a statement in its newness. The second scheme is too shocking. Kennedy stated that from a pedestrian standpoint this is a long building that is higher than the sidewalk. Sides added that there was also a band that ran along the back of the building on the ground floor in the first scheme. Kennedy agreed and added that the missing band is what connected the pedestrian to those spaces a bit. Semmelink replied that at the corner of Boston Street the first floor is 5 feet above the sidewalk and space between the building and the sidewalk at that corner may be kept low and densely planted to provide greenspace along the street. Kennedy states that the rendering could be adjusted to alter the grade in scheme one. The percentage of materials on the building shown in the student housing building slide could be increased and incorporated into the second scheme. The design of the second scheme could work but it needs to be push further. Durand added the second scheme is too massive block. The first scheme helps scale it to the neighborhood but there is enough variety that it appears to be townhouses. Kennedy added that scheme two is headed down the path of the Archstone Apartments in Cambridge and that is not the path they want version two to take. • Durand questioned if the ground floor corner unit was a condominium. Semmelink replied yes, and they are considering raising the floor up off the sidewalk. Durand questioned whether the storefront glass could wrap around at that more prominent corner for a loft feel that would highlight the morphing of the two building uses. Durand requested to view the slides of the aerial view to see the scale of the buildings. Semmelink added that the Goodhue building was not added to the aerial view but is approximately 1/3 of the size of the multi-use building. Sullivian questioned the opportunity to incorporate public art into the project/site. Semmelink suggested the area at the retaining wall. Durand opens public comments on the mixed-use building. Ms. Katie Braaten of 141 Federal Street. Braaten stated that she likes the protrusion along the bottom portion of scheme two, and asks if that also occurs with the blue waves in scheme one. This design breaks up the monotony of the corner and the proportion is more comfortable with the stripe along the top, especially if the bottom is raised. That protrusion in a tone-on-tone softer color would visually reduce the length of the building. Braaten added that making the blue panels in scheme one appears to dive into the building would have a nice effect and would add some dimension. Mr. Ken Wallace of 172 Federal Street. Wallace stated that the corner looks like the prison. This corner is start and doesn't fit. Ms. Jan Eschauzier of 15 '/: River Street. Eschauzier stated that the panels resemble the fagade at Kings Bowling. Ms. Suzie Welden of 106 Federal Street. Weldon stated that she doesn't like the color, which doesn't relate to the historic colors of Salem. The bright blue and white doesn't feel like Salem. This has always been an industrial corner and her preference would be for more earthy colors. This is too contemporary and should complement the neighborhood it is sitting next to. Same material and design,just different colors. Ms. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street. Twohey hates the design. The corner should not be the entry corner into Salem. What happened to the older drawings that were approved? This plan is so monolithic and has no change in height. If this project is done wrong it will be a disaster that Salem will have to live with. Mrs. Joyce Wallace of 172 Federal Street. Wallace stated that they are abutters to the CLC building. The previously brick building that the residents helped design had a much nicer corner. Will rain gardens be installed? Semmelink replied that there are some geotechnical issues because of the high water table right along Bridge Street. Recharge to get rid of surface water is a goal but it cannot be done with the dirt that they have. Mr. Tim Jenkins of 18 Broad Street. Jenkins stated this building has the potential to make a huge statement but it reminds him of a large ship with too much on it and it lacks the simplicity of the CLC building. A prison-like structure should not be the first thing you see. Ms. Barbara Clearly of 104 Federal Street. Cleary understands the desire for this building to have some cool factor. The larger window on the second scheme will make it more marketable. Cleary has no problem with the Fns but believes it will be dated quickly. Over the years many designers come to Salem, take photos of the water, and push for a water theme to their projects, but it doesn't translate well into real buildings. The corner has most • recently been industrial is use and industrial materials with a warm feel should be used, and the project can relate in scale to its surroundings. Ms. Katie Braaten of 141 Federal Street. Braaten stated that the colors of scheme one are stark. The corner is abrupt and beige, and the materials/colors should wrap around the corner. Ms. Emily Udy of 8 Buffom Street. Udy state that the corner resembles a stair tower. She participated in the other meetings and a lot of thought was put into that corner, but there are three corners that will be seen my people every day. There is an opportunity for some wow factor and a more subdued residential condo. Udy stated that you can see movement of the building in scheme two because there aren't colors distracting you and the heavy base of scheme one has merit. The heavy field stone base in scheme one isn't work the hassle with such a modern building. The intent of this North River corridor was to allow people to live in a neighborhood and many of these buildings don't allow you to do that. People who live here will take the train and walk towards the parking lot, around the building and down to the street. Was there any consideration to providing street access through stoops or that could be tucked into the fagade? Semmelink replied that there is a flood plain, accessibility and security issue with creating private entrances and Bridge Street is not pedestrian friendly. Udy argues that Bridge Street will become pedestrian friendly; walking next to something interesting will encourage pedestrians. Whatever is built here allows it to become a pedestrian street. Don't make it so it can't be a pedestrian street because of what is there. Ms. Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street. Twohey questioned the proposed width of the sidewalk. Semmelink replied that it would be the same width but without the poles. The ground dimension is 8 feet the walk dimension could be less. • Sullivan questioned if any trees will be placed on the sidewalk. Semmelink replied that the proposed trees would be placed on the property and not on the sidewalk because it is so narrow and right on the street. Ms. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal Street. Arlander questioned the distance between the L part of the building on the eastern side and the property line closer to Federal Street. Semmelink replied more than 100 feet. Ms. Suzie Welden of 106 Federal Street. Weldon questioned if there would be balconies. Semmelink replied no. Mr. Tim Jenkins of 18 Broad Street. Jenkins stated that units with direct access to the outside is what he is trying to find for his mother but he has had no luck, and it would be a good selling point if it was offered and would make it feel more like your own. Durand closes the public session. Jaquith: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. Shapiro added that he received a notice from Attorney Joe Correnti who is representing the project to schedule a special meeting the week of April 11'". Semmelink questioned if the next meeting would be a continuation of this meeting. Shapiro replied yes. Old/New Business Minutes Approval of the minutes from the February 24, 2016 regular meeting. Sullivan: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Jaquith, Durand abstains, Passes 6-0. Adjournment Kennedy: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:15pm • i l Salem Redevelopment Authority T r m Design Review Board `O Meeting Agenda Wednesday, February 24, 2016 —6:00 pm _ 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room = �, Roll Call Ernest DeMaio - Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 10 Front Street(Curtsy): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of blade sign 2. 265 Essex Street(Fingerprint Innovations): Continued discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage 3. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Continued discussion of proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the December 15, 2015 regular meeting. Approval of minutes from the January 27, 2016 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-02f thro ,� Tip, no ice p�t�i � Official ulletin Board" City i IF•1i, Salem, Mass. on P� 1 J, 14& at tj��� in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. DRB February 24, 2016 Page 1 of 7 • City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan Members Absent: Paul Durand, Christopher Dynia Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Colleen Anderson Vice Chair David Jaquith acting as the Chair calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 10 Front Street(Curtsy): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of blade sign The submission under review includes: a signed permit application, sign design with dimensions, existing condition photos, neighboring existing condition photos, and a proposed conditions photo. Keith Barsanti, father and representative of Courtney Gibbs • (Owner of Curtsy)was present to discuss the proposed signage. Barsanti explained that the new store "Curtsy" (the former location of the Boston Bead Company) will be an upper-mid to high end accessory and gift store. Shapiro stated that the proposed blade sign, and pendant sign that will attach to the bottom of the blade sign, is compliant with the sign code. Barsanti added that the proposed blade sign will be attached to the existing blade sign bracket. Jaquith questioned whether there was any lighting on the existing sign. Barsanti responded that the current sign does not have lighting and the current street lighting is sufficient. Shapiro noted that the neighboring blade signs do not have lighting. Kennedy agreed and added that adding lighting would be disruptive. Barsanti questioned whether"Curtsy"would have to reapply if they wanted to add lighting and Jaquith responded yes. Sides: Motion to approve the proposed blade sign. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 4-0. 2. 265 Essex Street (Fingerprint Innovations): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, table of contents for attachments with color scheme &text details, sign design with dimensions, existing & proposed condition photos, and a sketched floor plan showing. Jennifer LePore of • Fingerprint Innovations, was present to discuss the proposed signage. .w LePore stated that since the proposed signage has changed since the 1-27-16 DRB meeting, that LePore previously attended. LePore added that the previous submission • proposed four(4) signs and the current signage proposal is for two (2) signs and a possible A-frame sign. Shapiro stated that the comments made at the 1-27-16 DRB meeting were; Fingerprint Innovations is a first floor tenant in an office building— not a traditional commercial space with a storefront, they have a need for signage &visibility given that they frequently have clients searching for their business, and that signage for their business will keep their clients from entering into the Chamber of Commerce office and asking for directions to their location. Shapiro added that they also need to advertise for their partners, ItendoGo. Shapiro stated that there is a detailed sketch of the proposed A-frame sign, and that the sign would be placed next to a landscaped area on their property, and not on the sidewalk. Shapiro added that typically A-frames are placed within 10 feet of an entrance, but the ordinance for A-frame signs does allow the board to provide leniency due to site constraints, and that this may be one of those cases. Kennedy questioned whether the building photos showing the proposed window signage were already in place. LePore replied yes. Kennedy questioned whether their clients need to be in the parking lot before they can see the signs. LePore responded that the signs can been seen from both the parking lot and the sidewalk on Essex Street. Patrick Delulis, the building Owner, stated that he is aware that his tenants clients have consistently had difficulty finding their business since they moved into the building. Delulis • added that the building orientation, and the building directory being setback at the main building entrance, make the building as a whole, is not easily identifiable as 265 Essex Street. Delulis noted that her business is more retail oriented business in terms of foot traffic instead of what could be considered normal office space. Delulis added that they chose to rent at this location due to the proximity of parking for their clients. Delulis stated that despite the fact that the leases for all tenants of the building do not allow window signage, he approved window signage for this tenant only because of the nature of her business. Delulis added that he is present to support their petition for window signage. Kennedy noted that being a business that leans more towards retail, the building orientation, and their location within the building, all provide them with tough signage options. Kennedy added that the usage of signage is unconventional, and there is no real place for their proposed signage, and that the issued with the building have to be considered. Sides questioned whether the fagade with the narrow window faces Essex Street (sidewalk view) and if the fagade with long horizontal band of windows faces the parking lot. Shapiro replied yes and LePore agreed. Sides questioned the need for two signs and asked LePore if she had two different businesses. LePore responded that the second sign is for their sub-contractor ItendoGo. LePore added that Fingerprint Innovations customers find their business through ItendoGo, • so signage for ItendoGo is needed as well. Sides questioned whether the two signs could be combined and/or repeated. LePore • stated that she is open to all signage placement options and suggestions. Sides added that she does not like temporary look of signage propped up within a window. LePore added that it was a temporary sign, and a permanent proposed sign is in the submission packet which satisfies their partnership agreement with IdendoGo. Sides suggested that the two signs be duplicated, placed one over top of the other(larger sign over top of the smaller sign). Sides added that the two signs be placed at the exterior corner of the windows (one set facing the street and the other set facing the parking lot), so the two signs look intentional and as if the two companies belong together. Kennedy suggested that the signs be made smaller and lowered to increase their visibility. Kennedy questioned LePore on whether the IdendoGo sign requires a white background. LePore replied that IdendoGo gave them six (6)different signs to use and the sign with the white background was selected because they felt that the previously selected sign was difficult to see. LePore added that she prefers that the two signs look similar. Kennedy suggests not using a white background but using similar text to simplify and unify the signs. LePore stated that seeing if the two companies can create one shared sign Jaquith stated his distaste for the A-frame sign. LePore replied that if alternative signage is approved, the A-frame sign can be eliminated. Sides: Motion to approve with the adjustment of: placing both signs in duplicate, 1/3 of the way down the exterior corner windows, with both signs having a clear background, and the • smaller IdendoGo sign placed below the larger Fingerprint Innovations sign. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 4-0. 3. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Continued discussion of proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) The submission under review includes; a slideshow presentation consisting of a Site Plan, Floor Plans, Sections, Elevations, Elevation renderings, aerial images, contextual photographs, proposed schedule, and a staging plan. Robert Monk of Peabody Essex Museum (PEM)and Stephen Chu of Ennead Architects, were present to discuss the proposed museum expansion. Monk stated that they have continued with the design process and that the design team is nearing the end of the Schematic Design phase. Monk added that they wanted to update the Board on the latest development since they last presented at the December 15, 2015 meeting. Monk introduced Stephen Chu, project designer with Ennead Architects. Chu noted that he will be reviewing the presentation previously reviewed at the December 15, 2015 meeting, but will indicate which aspects of the plans have been revised, in relation to the comments made by the Board at that previous meeting. Chu stated that the Site Plan shows both vehicular and pedestrian traffic surrounding the PEM complex as well as the proposed expansion. Chu added at the concept of the expansion is a house-like structure, which is in scale and keeping with the museum • complex, and whose experience is like that of the other areas of the museum - a house that one must move through and between in the various open spaces. Chu stated that the addition would act not just as a new gallery space but would create a • gathering/open/light space between the addition and the neighboring structure. Chu noted that the one change to the floor plan is that the addition has been moved North (towards the bottom of the page)to respect the street wall of Essex Street, as opposed to the previous floor plan where the building was further away from Essex Street. Chu stated that the handicapped ramp, which was previously outside the addition with a cantilevered Second and Third Floor above it, has now been placed within the addition. Chu noted that the Board had previously commented that a cantilever would create a dark area in what would typically be storefront. Chu added that the handicapped ramp is behind glazing with a low wall to hide it, and the gallery space would be behind the ramp. Chu stated that bringing the building closer to Essex Street created an "interior"area against the gallery space which would also provide a source of natural light. Chu noted that the intent was to liven up the street level to bring life & light to the space, unlike the blankless and non-engagement of Dodge on the other side of Marine Hall. Chu added that updated graphic of this area would occur later in the design process. Chu added that the intent is to celebrate East India Marine Hall. Chu stated that the adjacent buildings curve around Marine Hall, making it the centerpiece, and the facade of the addition will do the same. Chu noted that another change to the floor plan was to make the proposed grade and floor • elevations of the addition consistent with the existing grade and floor elevations of Marine Hall. Chu added that maintaining these elevations has been done through the complex. Chu stated that to keep the floor heights and keep the massing of the building low, the grade level was lowered to match up with adjacent garden grades, so the volume of the building can be pushed down so the height of the addition can closely match the height of the neighboring Boys Club Building. Chu added that this can be seen in the elevations. Chu stated that two bridge-like structures connect the new Second Floor of the addition with the existing second floor gallery space, as well as with Marine Hall. Chu added that these two connections have created an atrium space that exposes the West side of Marine Hall, which will be restored once the buildings attached to it have been removed. Chu added at the condition of that facade will require some exploration, and that the intent is to bring it back to its historic state—a free standing building. Chu noted the circulation of the spaces: A grand stair within the atrium connects the lower level to the Second Floor gallery space. Chu added that the Second Floor connects to the Third Floor gallery through a feature stair, on the North (front)side of the building. Chu noted that a large window at the Third Floor will offer a view of the plaza to the North, as well as the bridge on the Second Floor. Chu stated that a skylight over the interstitial space, is best compared to Liberty Atrium. Chu added that a skylight will be added over the North stair also, to provide additional light to that end of the museum. Sullivan arrives at 6:30 PM. • Chu noted that the North-South Building Section shown the heights of the proposed spaces as well as the heights of neighboring buildings. Chu added that the pop-up at the Third Floor roof, which has been set back from both the North and South facades of the addition, can be seen. Chu noted that on the Section Elevation, taken from Marine Hall and looking towards the addition, they are beginning to work out the structure and finishes of the addition, although no finishes have been finalized i.e. stone type,jointing, scale of the panels, and the finish stone fagade is still being explored. Chu added that a view to the new garden can also be seen from the atrium. Chu noted that the next Section Elevation, taken from the face of the addition and looking towards Marine Hall, shows the newly exposed side of Marine Hall, which will be the "main event" of the atrium space. Chu added that both Second Floor bridge connections can be seen, as well as how the natural light that will travel through the space. Chu added that this newly exposed fagade will also be seen from Essex Street, especially at night when the interior spaces are lit. Chu noted that the North Elevation shows the various heights of the museum structures as well as the heights of the neighboring buildings, with Marine Hall being the focal point. Chu added that another change to the plan is in regards to the existing entry gate along Essex Street. Chu stated that Ennead has been working with Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI)to restore and relocate it to the East side of the new addition, which will break up the glazing and add more visual interest to the North fagade. • Monk added that in 1924 there was a similar fagade along the East fagade of the Marine Hall (formerly Academy Hall)that also provided access through a gallery. Monk noted that this space was removed in 1974, prior to the addition of the Dodge wing. Chu stated the existing trees would be replanted along Essex Street. Chu stated that the horizontal datums seen in elevations, respect floor levels and facades of neighboring structures. Chu noted that the aerial view from Charter Street shows the new work at the loading dock, and does not show the boiler plant, which has already been demolished. Chu added that a landscape architect, Nelson Byrd Woltz, has been added to the design team, to provide either landscaping or architectural screens to help conceal the dock. Jaquith stated that the revisions are a major improvement from the previously proposed design. Jaquith questioned if the front (North)fagade of the addition reads as a floating plan over and surrounded by sections of glass. Chu responded that the intent was to incorporate various section of glass to offer a view back to the historic East India. Sides stated that the revisions looked great, however; the glass above the base at street level looks spindly when compared to the rest of the fagade, and perhaps something different could be done with the glass at the street level. Chu noted that adding more at the glass will take away from the ability to look through the glass and see the depth of the space beyond. Chu added that the glazing style also hasn't been determined but the intent • is to make it appear as if the plane/fagade above is floating. Kennedy questioned how the light from the Third Floor skylight is being carried through to the Second Floor below. Chu noted that the Second Floor is a two story space. Chu added that the large window at the front(North)fagade will provide additional light. Jaquith questioned whether the new entry between Marine Hall and the new addition would be used for school group. Chu replied that this entrance would be for school and other larger groups only, and not as an alternative main entry to the museum. Jaquith questioned whether the new entry to the right of the addition was an emergency entrance. Chu replied that it was, but it is also the entrance to the handicapped ramp. Sullivan questioned whether the coursing/joinery of the proposed fagade was in reference to the fagade pattern. Chu replied that it was, but added that the joints and scale have yet to be determined. Chu added that there will not be a montage of colors, but subtle differences in the fagade, to make it less monochromatic like the Dodge fagade. DeMaio stated that the treatment of the gallery wall, behind the first floor glass and the large window, will become almost like the front fagade. Kennedy added that it needs to be developed with as much emphasis as the fagade. DeMaio added that the more transparent the glazing the better, to reinforce the floating nature of the stone fagade, but to allow the eye to travel and see the depth of the building. DeMaio stated that the scale and strong horizontal lines of the addition are too literal when compared to the neighboring buildings, and that it makes the first floor seem squat, even with the incorporation of the glass. DeMaio added that the lines of the base and the cornice at the roof could be higher. Sides added that they should not to be stuck by the • neighboring building heights. Chu noted that the Third Floor roof line will be set back, which will create some variation in the height and will add to the floating feel of the front fagade. DeMaio noted that some differentiation will make the existing building stand out. Chu stated that the intent is to compliment what is there not recreate anything historic. Jaquith noted that this addition will create experiences as people move through the addition which is important, and that occurs in existing parts of the museum. Public Comment: Jennifer Firth of(HSI)commented that they are supportive of the expansion, have been have entered into an IOU with Mass Historic concerning this project. Firth added that she appreciated the green space on the Charter Street side of the addition. Emily Udy of(HSI) commented that she agrees with DeMaio regarding the squattheavy look of the base along the front (North)fagade. Udy added that the base stands out as a band and that the plain could be raised. Public comment was concluded. Sullivan questioned if the plinth could be used as seating. Chu responded that the image suggests that, but the design still needs to be studied and developed. • Monk stated that regarding the schedule—they are finalizing the Schematic Design and will • be moving into the Design Development and will incorporate the new comments from the Board. Sides: Motion to continue. Seconded by: DeMain, Passes 5-0. Old/New Business Approval of the minutes from the December 15, 2015 regular meeting. Sides: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. Approval of the minutes from the January 27, 2016 regular meeting. Jaquith: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Sullivan, Passes 5-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. • Meeting is adjourned at 6:55pm Salem Redevelopment Authority 201b JAN 20 P 1: 11 TILE Design Review Boardc.ITY Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 27, 2016 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 265 Essex Street (Fingerprint Innovations): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage • 2. 60 Washington Street(Melt Ice Cream): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage 3. 99 Washington Street: Continued discussion and vote on proposed roof deck (small project review) Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the December 15, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" . City Hall, Salem, Mass. on9a 1GC&.,�,} 01c2o I (o at 1 , 1' p rr) in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. DRB January 27, 2016 • Page 1 of 5 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Members Present: Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Christopher Dynia, J. Michael Sullivan Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Colleen Anderson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 265 Essex Street (Fingerprint Innovations): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, sign design, and existing • condition photos. William LePore and Jennifer LePore of Fingerprint Innovations were present to discuss the proposed signage. Jennifer stated that their unit is located on the first floor Salem Chamber of Commerce building, however; their unit is located in the addition to the building and customers have difficulty locating their office. Shapiro noted that this is a multi-story office building with multiple tenants. He also stated that their customers enter the Chamber's office throughout the day and need to be redirected. Durand questioned the nature of their business. Jennifer responded that they provide fingerprinting services for background checks in Massachusetts. Durand inquired as to whether their customers are walk-ins. Jennifer responded that their customers have scheduled appointments and are looking specifically for their office. Jennifer added that their customers inability to find their office location creates scheduling conflicts. Durand questioned whether the landlord provides signage. Jennifer responded that there is a building directory on the side window of the Essex Street entrance that provides unit numbers only. Jennifer added that the building Owner is only currently allowing them to place an A-frame sign within the buildings side entrance only. William noted that their customers are given the Fingerprint Innovations address through • their sub-contractors (ItendoGo)website, so their company has no way of directing customers directly to their location. Durand questioned whether ItendoGo currently has signage. William stated that they do. • Shapiro questioned whether their proposed signage was currently in place on the windows. Jennifer stated that is was. Shapiro stated that he had previously asked the Board to consider the removal of all other window signage and allow the Fingerprint Innovations sign only, but a discussion can be made to include signage for ItendoGo since it is an integral part of the business. Jennifer noted that their business is open Saturdays as well, and on that day the Essex Street entrance is locked, so their customers are ultimately given no direction. Jennifer added that they cannot monitor that entrance. Durand stated that if all tenants request signage the building could exceed the maximum signage allowed. Durand added that the building Owner should be handling this matter. Shapiro agreed that other tenants requesting signage is possible, but the Board can make decisions regarding building signage on a case by case basis. Sullivan stated that two signs are seen in the existing photos. Shapiro added that the photographs were taken by him earlier that day and that the proposed window signage is already in place. Jaquith questioned if the building Owner will allow a small graphic at the main entrance board directory. Jennifer stated that the Owner currently allows a sign at the directory instructing them to use the side door, however; many customers still cannot find them. Jaquith noted that this is not a building that currently allows or has a place for signage and approving this would set a bad precedent. • Durand noted that the Board typically reviews Owner requested signage at the main entrance to buildings. Jennifer stated that customers in wheel chairs cannot get to the Essex Street entrance to see the signage because of the step at the entrance, which is also a concern of theirs. Durand questioned whether there was visitor parking in their parking lot. Jennifer responded that there was street parking only. Durand noted that customers would be trying to find them from Essex Street only. Jennifer agreed. Sullivan added that if the Board did not approve their proposed signage they would be directing the Applicants to remove their current signage. Shapiro suggests either letting the Applicants keep the window signage in place, now that the Board is aware of their particular issue, or ordering the Applicants to remove the sign and directing to use alternative methods, i.e. giving customers directions via e-mail, providing directions or a map on their website, or asking the Owner to install exterior signage. Shapiro stated that if the second or third floor tenants were to also request window signage, that the ordinance does not allow signage above a certain height. Durand added that allowing window signage would not be in character with the historic setting of Essex Street, although the sign would also not be directly on the Essex Street facade. Dynia proposes the use of an alternative sign that will be in character with the building. Jaquith: Motion for a Continuance to allow the Board members to visit the site and come up with sign alternatives, and to have the building Owner or representative present at the next • meeting. Seconded by: Durand; Passes 4-0 I 2. 60 Washington Street(Melt Ice Cream): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. The submission under review includes; a sign permit application, sign design, and proposed photos. Dave and Christiana Kroondyk of Melt Ice Cream, were present to discuss the proposed signage. Kroondyk stated that they are the new owners of the Salem Screamery, formerly Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream. Kroondyk noted that they took over ownership last spring and are now seeking to change the signage to reflect the new name of their business. Kroondyk proposed changing the window, door, and ice cream cone blade signage. Shapiro added that although the signs are compliant with sign code, the signage as a whole was slightly over the square footage allotment. Shapiro stated that the Applicants agreed to reduce the size of their signage from 54 Sq. Ft. to 50 Sq. Ft. Christiana added that the door signage is slightly smaller than the window signage. Sullivan inquired how their proposed cornice sign compares to the neighboring Boston Hot Dog and Dunkin Donuts signs. Kroondyk responded that that particular sign will be the same length as the neighboring signs but will have their 'melted ice cream cone' image at the beginning of their sign, similar to Dunkin Donuts. • Durand suggested they lower the proposed door signage to below the sightline, to not block the view into the store. Kroondyk agreed. Dynia suggested they make the window signs the same size as the smaller door sign. All board members are in agreement. Jaquith: Motion to approve making the round ice cream window signs the same size as the smaller door sign and to lower the door sign. The melt images can stay the same. Seconded by: Durand, Passes 4-0. 3. 99 Washington Street: Continued discussion and vote on proposed roof deck (small project review). The submission under review includes; a full set of architectural plans and proposed photos. Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects, presented on behalf of the Owner, Lisa Steinberg, who was present, to discuss a proposed roof deck. Ricciarelli explained that this would be a dedicated roof deck, at the corner of Essex and Washington Streets, with access through a dayliter skylighttroof door assembly at the top of a new stair within the unit. Ricciarelli noted that the deck would be pulled away from all parapet walls and cornice edges, to include trees in planters at the perimeter of the deck, to provide a green edge and privacy, as discussed at the previous meeting. • Ricciarelli added that the roof and parapet edge tapers from 18" high to flush with the top of the roof. Ricciarelli noted that although they are still in the design stage, the roof deck assembly will be a pedestal system secured to new steel. Ricciarelli added that a parquet panel deck surface has been chosen. Ricciarelli explained that the roof has a high pitch, however; the deck surface with be level and will be in line with the skylight/door. Ricciarelli noted that they are considering planting: Hinoki Cypress or Juniper trees, and possibly installing a drip irrigation system. Sullivan inquired as to if the planters will be anchored. Ricciarelli responded that the pots they are in would be weighted down. Durand suggested the planters be anchored due to possible high winds. Ricciarelli agreed and suggested including a pipe rail to tie them all together. Ricciarelli explained the proposed use of a cable rail and post between the roof edge and the tree line that would barely be visible from the street. Ricciarelli added that the cable rail will also confine people to the deck, although there will be a gate to access rooftop equipment. Sullivan inquired about the fence posts. Ricciarelli explained that the posts will be Cedar and anchored to the roof deck. Ricciarelli noted that ambient light will be integrated into the posts to provide lighting on the deck surface only. Ricciarelli added that lighting is being proposed within the skylight/door to light the steps to the roof. Shapiro inquired as to whether the edge of the deck had been moved further away from • Washington Street. Ricciarelli responded that it had, for structural and sightline reasons. Jaquith questioned the height of the proposed railing. Ricciarelli responded noting that the railing was 36" above the deck surface and not 42" because the immediate drop off from the edge of the deck is less than 30". Dynia added that due to the fact that the roof deck is set back 5'-0" away from the edge of the building, a guard rail is not required. Ricciarelli acknowledges that he would confirm this with the Building Inspector. Sullivan questioned whether the plantings will stay during the winter months. Lisa stated that the planting were chosen because they would stay green year round. Jaquith added that there should be drainage holes in the bottom of the pots to allow water to escape and that the plantings should be able to withstand the heat. Lisa asked Jaquith if he could suggest an alternative planting. Jaquith responded that he would make a recommendation. Jaquith: Motion to approve the roof deck. Seconded by: Dynia, Passes 4-0. Old/New Business Minutes Jaquith: Motion to postpone approval of minutes from the December 15, 2015 until the next regular meeting. Seconded: Dynia, Passes 4-0. • Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Durand Meeting is adjourned at 6:44 pm. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • • Salem 4D a1M Redevelopment Authority '1015 DEC I Ll P 1= 21 SILL # Design Review Board CITY CLEAI(. SALEM,HA5 Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, December 15, 2015 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 28 Norman Street(E Market): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage • 2. 99 Washington Street: Discussion and vote on proposed roof deck (small project review) 3. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Discussion of proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) Old / New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the November 17, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall Salem, on 'be cern b e I4ao15 at j ' 3"7 ,p„) in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18.25. Salem Redevelopment Authority 1615 DEC —8 P I: 54 Design Review Board FIDE /t 9 eitY cLe>3ts. SALEM. MASS Meeting Agenda Tuesday, December 15, 2015 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 28 Norman Street(E Market): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage • 2. 99 Washington Street: Discussion and vote on proposed roof deck (small project review) 3. 94 Washington Street: Discussion and vote on proposed fagade improvements (small project review) 4. 161 Essex Street/ East India Square (Peabody Essex Museum): Discussion of proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) Old/New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the November 17, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall Salem, Mass. on DEC 0 8 2015 at sV in accordance with MGL Ci-tap. 30A, Sections 18-25. DRB December 15, 2015 Page 1 of 8 • City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday,December 15, 2015 at 6:OOpm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Glenn Kennedy, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, Christopher Dynia,Helen Sides, and J. Michael Sullivan Members Absent: Paul Durand Others Present: Andrew Shapiro,Economic Development Planner Recorder: Andrew Shapiro Helen Sides calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 28 Norman Street(E Market): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage The submission under review included a sign permit application, designs, a material sample, and photos of the proposed signage. Sign designer Mehmet Sabin of Falcon Graphics was present on behalf of E Market. • Sabin explained that the applicant seeks to install two 30"by 180" aluminum backed signs on either side of the building. He noted that the primary letters spelling"E" and "Market"would be a raised PVC material that he then passed around for the Board to inspect. The signs would have yellow, blue, red, and black throughout them. They would be affixed to the surface of the building using"L Brackets." Shapiro explained that there are two frontages for this property; one on Norman Street and one on Crombie Street. The Norman Street has an existing sign band where the 7- Eleven signage once was. The other facade contains brick and the 7-Eleven signage on that side once partially covered a vent that is there. Shapiro confirmed that the signage, as proposed, is in compliance with the City's sign ordinance. Sides asked whether this business has other locations, and if so,whether the proposed signage was used at the other locations. Sabin said that the store owner does have another location and that these were the same signs that were used. DRB December 15, 2015 Page 2 of 8 Sullivan remarked that it is unfortunate that the proposed sign as shown on Crombie • Street covers the vent. It would be nice if the sign could be above or below the vent. The vent is a nice feature of that elevation. Shapiro noted that the Crombie Street elevation provides less frontage; therefore a sign reduced in size in order to avoid encroaching upon the vent could very well be appropriate. Dynia asked whether the signs require the extra text shown along the sides. Sabin responded by noting that the applicant had requested that these words be used,but that certain text could be removed. Kennedy remarked that the sign is very busy and that no signs in the area contain that much text. Extra text could be moved onto an awning or in window space. If the words "E Market"are emphasized, with perhaps one border, then the sign becomes simpler and more elegant. "Open 24 Hr"can stay on the sign. I would recommend that the side elements be removed and that the bars at the top and bottom be reduced or eliminated. The top and bottom bars do not help readability. The 7-Eleven letters were simple three dimensional letters on the fapade and were much more readable. Shapiro asked Kennedy weather he would be willing to review any recommended revisions provided by the applicant, and to approve them prior to advancing the application to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. • Kennedy agreed that he could review the revisions. DeMaio asked whether additional signage would eventually be added to the windows or elsewhere. Sabin responded by noting that no other signage is currently proposed, but that he would explore the idea of moving some of the text from the currently proposed signage to the windows. DeMaio then noted that he agrees with others that the sign contains too much information and that the excess text would be better positioned if it were on windows. He also expressed concern about the apparent starkness of the sign; in particular using primary colors against a stark white background. He said that this could be a loud sign for this neighborhood and building. Kennedy said that he would prefer to see raised letters on the existing sign band, which could reduce some of the starkness. Sabin noted that he could use raised letters and light the sign with gooseneck lighting. s DRB December 15, 2015 Page 3 of 8 • Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval conditional upon the following (final review to be conducted by Glenn Kennedy): • Making the sign on the Norman Street side just dimensional letters with only"E Market" and"Open 24 Hr"using the color from the sign band in the background. • Adjusting the sign on the Crombie Street side so that it no longer interferes with the vent, which may require reducing its size—can be dimensional letters or have a backer/it should not have additional words—only"E Market" and"Open 24 Hr" • Remove the Red Stripes from all signage • Other words such as"Fresh food," "Lottery,""Keno", etc. should be placed on windows, preferably toward the bottom of each window. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0. 2. 99 Washington Street: Discussion and vote on proposed roof deck(small project review) The submission under review includes a full set of plans, drawings, and photos. Dan Ricciarelli of Segar Architects, Lisa Steinberg, and Kelly Wohlford were present to represent the project. Ricciarelli pointed out that the building sits at the comer of the Essex Street Pedestrian • Mall and Washington Street. The applicants own a condominium situated directly underneath a portion of the roof,upon which they would like to build out a roof deck. It's a membrane roof with a lot of HVAC equipment currently scattered around it. Ricciarelli showed some photos of the building from different vantage points. He noted that there was an 18 inch parapet at the top of the building around the roof. Ricciarelli then showed a plan for the roof deck area, noting that the applicants would like to build a stair case up to the roof from their unit. A photo showed an example of the type of walk out roof door that could be used. Parquet decking would be used for the roof deck itself, which would sit atop a pedestal system. Individual squares of decking could be pulled up to insert trees or other forms of landscaping. The deck would sit below the parapet and would not be seen from the street. It would be set 16 feet back from end of the building furthest from Washington Street, which means that it would require someone to be a considerable distance down Essex Street in order to see any part of the roof deck area. A cable rail system will border most of the deck, and be fairly transparent. A screen will be installed on the back of the deck area and will contain a green wall with plantings. Ricciarelli continued by noting that on the side closest to Washington Street, a feature wall would be installed with a recirculating water element. It would be made of a slate DRB December 15, 2015 Page 4 of S like material, rising about six feet high, and set back about four feet from the parapet. • Trees and other plantings may be planted along and around the deck to provide additional screening. Sullivan asked what would actually be visible from Lapping Park. Ricciarelli said that probably only the screen wall would be visible; probably the top edge of the water element. DeMaio asked whether any lights would be installed. Ricciarelli said that none are currently shown but that perhaps some low bollards would be appropriate. The feature wall may also get some up lighting. Jaquith commented that he would move the feature wall in a little bit more. Steinberg commented that she would be fine with moving the feature wall back some. Sullivan noted that he is somewhat concerned that only some of the features would be seen from the ground level, and that it may look strange seeing such a small piece of the larger picture. DeMaio commented that looking from Lappin Park and/or Barton Square, it would be important from those vantage points not to see too much of what is going on the roof, • therefore it would make sense to keep things relatively low. Sullivan said that it would be good to see an analysis of what one might see from Lappin Park. Kennedy noted that it would be good to see what it might look like with more greenery brought to the forefront. Sullivan: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0. 3. 161 Essex Street/East India Square(Peabody Essex Museum): Discussion of proposed museum expansion (schematic design review) The submission under review includes a cover letter and full set of plans with drawings, elevations, sections,photos, and renderings. Bob Monk, Director of Facilities for the Peabody Essex Museum, Richard Olcott of Ennead Architects Olcott began by showing a site plan, noting various paths of pedestrian and vehicular circulation. He pointed out that the museum's expansion would take place where the garden is currently situated,just west of East India Marine Hall. A new garden will be DRB December 15, 2015 Page 5 of 8 developed behind the commercial buildings that the museum owns directly next to the current garden. Improvements will be made along Charter Street, including a new loading area and various screening elements. Olcott noted that the new structure will be about 33,600 square feet. DeMaio asked whether the existing commercial buildings next to the current garden will figure into the plans for expansion. Olcott responded by noting that at the time they will remain as is, but that perhaps the museum will look to utilize some or all of the building space in the future for office space, or gallery space. Sullivan asked for more clarity on what would be happening on the Charter Street side of the buildings. Olcott noted that the boiler plant building has already been demolished and that there is now more room to better accommodate a loading/unloading area. Eventually, the mechanical elements on that side of the campus will also be screened. Olcott continued with the presentation, showing the configuration of the site. He noted that the proposed new building would be three stories of gallery space, surrounded by circulation space and an atrium. The side wall of East India Marine Hall will be restored • and will be visible from within and through the new proposed building. Olcott showed floor plans, noting that the first and second floors will line up the exact same way. The building itself will sit at the same height as the buildings that surround it on either side. Street trees will most likely need to be removed during construction, but they will be replaced. The idea will be to have more trees lined up continuously along the front of the buildings. One story extensions at the back of the commercial buildings on Essex Street will have to be demolished in order to make room for the planned new garden area. Sides asked whether the new building would have its own entrance. Olcott said that there will be an entrance to the new building and that it would primarily cater to school groups and other larger groups visiting the museum. A ramp would accommodate ADA accessibility because the building is set a few feet above grade. Sides questioned whether a restaurant was still being contemplated for the area being discussed because at one time there had been a plan to have a restaurant there. Olcott said no. • DRB December 15, 2015 Page 6 of 8 Sides asked whether there would be public access to the garden or if it could only be • accessed by museum goers. Olcott noted that there would be no public access to the garden and that it would only be accessible through the museum. DeMaio asked whether any schemes had been studied to have the stair go from level 2 to 3 in the atrium, as it does in the Sofdie building. Olcott explained that the stair is present in the atrium going from level 1 to 2,but goes along the front ftom 2 to 3 because the skylight comes up to just under the eve of East India Marine Hall; the stair went any higher it would rise above that eve. DeMaio noted that he was thinking of opportunities for visibility of the square when entering and leaving the building. Olcott noted that they had thought a lot about those opportunities. Kennedy expressed a concern that there is currently a lot of"dead space"between the East India building and the current entrance to the museum. He then noted that the new building has the potential to add to that environment if it does not connect well to the sidewalk. Olcott agreed that the existing building is very solid and long, and that they would seek to • avoid the same thing. The new building has a glass exposure and the idea would be to allow the public to see inside and for those inside to be able to easily look out onto the square. Monk clarified that the adjacent commercial buildings would remain retail on the first floor. Sullivan said that he feels that the ramp gets in the way and disrupts an otherwise elegant fagade. He encouraged the applicant to explore other ways to accomplish ADA accessibility. He then questioned what the square portion of the elevation shown would be. Olcott responded that it would be stone that would match the East India building, but that it would have a considerable amount of glass to let in light. These design details are still being fleshed out. On the issue of the ramp, ideas have been explored, including the use of a wall in front of it. It's important to the museum that flat floor gallery space be preserved, which is why they tried to avoid having the building begin at grade with a ramp inside. Olcott explained that the fence and the anchor in front of the East India Building would be removed to feature the building's prominence. DRB December 15, 2015 Page 7 of 8 Dynia asked if there was enough room to adjust the grade in front of the building. Olcott said that there was not. Sullivan asked about the use of the basement to house mechanical equipment. Monk noted that a new mechanical penthouse was constructed recently to accommodate some of the mechanical needs. The current building houses collections in its basement. The museum is searching for a site to construct a collection stewardship center that would house this collection and allow for the use of the basement for mechanicals in that space. Sides asked about the addition of a security building. Monk explained that security offices are now at 26 Charter Street. He added that in the future, the former Marine Arts Gallery could potentially host a high end restaurant, but there were no firm plans for that. Jaquith said that the fagade needs some work. The ramp is unfortunate. He would like to see the grade change take place inside or rethought on the outside. The ramp takes away from the architecture. There is a clash of vertical versus horizontal on the fagade,which affects its relationship with the street in a somewhat similar fashion as the Dodge Building does. • Olcott expressed appreciation for Jaquith remarks and noted that his firm tends to work from the inside out, and therefore,hadn't yet fully fleshed out the fagade. He expressed that there was no interest in making the new building a large blank mass like the Dodge Building. Kennedy suggested that perhaps the glass fagade could be brought forward to encapsulate the ramp. Olcott noted that that was considered but that they are trying to be careful about not extending beyond the East India building's fapade, so it's a challenge. DeMaio remarked that a lot of what the applicant was hearing was about how the building relates to the street, and that is an important take away from this meeting. Jaquith: Motion to continue the item. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the November 17, 2015 regular meeting. DRB December 15, 2015 Page 8 of 8 Sides: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, Seconded by DeMain. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:18 pm. • Salem Redevelopment Authority 2015 hip 10 P 3: 1'8 Design Review Board Revised Meeting Agenda CITY CLEi4 ,rR, Sr`��.Ehf. f� . Tuesday, November 17, 2015 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Medium Third Floor Conference Room (Room 314) Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 318 Derby Street (Salem Hotbox): Continued discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage • 2. 25 Front Street(The Lobster Shanty): Discussion and vote on proposed outdoor seating deck and fence for storage area (small project review) 3. 217 Essex Street: Discussion and vote on proposed revisions to Verizon rooftop wireless antennae installation Old / New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the October 28, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. . This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on NOV 10 2015 at 3.'i PSN in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Salem Redevelopment Authority 10I5 NOV 10 All: 46 FILE Design Review Board CITY CLERK; Meeting Agenda Tuesday, November 17, 2015 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Medium Third Floor Conference Room (Room 314) Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 318 Derby Street(Salem Hotbox): Continued discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage • 2. 25 Front Street(The Lobster Shanty): Discussion and vote on proposed outdoor seating deck and fence for storage area (small project review) Old/ New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the October 28, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Offigi8VB411oe 2015 Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on iiVV 11 • at //.4&/4& in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. DRB November 17, 2015 Page 1 of 6 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board,Regular Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday,November 17, 2015 at 6:OOpm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand, Glenn Kennedy,Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, Christopher Dynia,Helen Sides Members Absent: J. Michael Sullivan Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Proiects Under Review 1. 318 Derby Street(Salem Hotbox): Continued discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage. The submission under review includes a letter, drawings, and photos of the proposed • signage. Yadav was present on behalf of Salem Hotbox. Shapiro explained that after last month's meeting where an original proposal was shown, some communication occurred over email between him, Glenn Kennedy, Yadav, and Concept Signs (the applicant's sign designer). The applicant did not work with Kennedy on any revisions but the designer provided three new signage schemes,which are before the board this evening. Shapiro noted that the square footage of the proposed signage is in compliance with the City's sign ordinance and that the applicant has expressed a willingness to work with the DRB on an acceptable plan for signage. Sides commented that the proposed black and red signs are more legible. She commented that the black scheme with gold letters is her preferred choice. DeMaio asked whether the letters on the glass would be the same font as what would ultimately be chosen for the blade sign. Yadav responded noting that he would follow any format preferred by the Board. Jaquith commented that he agrees with Sides and that the proposed black and yellow sign is more legible than the red sign. The typeface could be cooled down a bit. Dynia agreed that the black sign reads best. • DRB November 17, 2015 Page 2 of 6 • DeMaio agreed that the black and yellow is the most promising scheme. He continued by noting that he would like the text on the glass to match the text on the primary blade sign/logo. He noted that he does not prefer the signs being centered on the doors the way they are currently shown. Kennedy noted that the proposed black signage is the most legible. Text on the window sign and the blade sign should all coordinate. The original design with the box without the red ring could be incorporated on the window if the text scales down a bit, or the box could be eliminated altogether and just the smoke graphic could be included. Window decals do not need the red backing. The letters located on the door could be scaled down a bit but should remain at eye level. Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval based conditional upon the following(final review to be conducted by Glenn Kennedy): • Use black and gold scheme. • Use smoke graphic without box from original deign and move it onto the black background, eliminate ring • Just yellow typeface located on windows (similar to"Salem"on black background design)with no red backing • Door typeface should be scaled down slightly Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. • 2. 25 Front Street(The Lobster Shanty): Discussion and vote on proposed outdoor seating deck and fence for storage area(small project review). The submission under review includes a letter, cut sheet, and drawings of the proposed seating layout and storage area. Lee and Diane Wolf, and architects Bill and Alexandra Peterson where present on behalf of Lobster Shanty. Diane Wolf noted that the restaurant recently signed a long term lease with the City, which requires that the restaurant make investments and upgrades to the building and Pg1' g exterior areas. She noted that the proposed design of the new outdoor seating area would make the area more visually inviting and would open up Artists' Row for more activity. The design utilizes the space located on the Front Street side by incorporating the addition of a deck. Alexandra Peterson noted that the design still maintains a rustic appearance but provides a more defined and open plan. The deck would provide a stronger connection to Artists' Row and its configuration would more easily enable emergency vehicles to pass through. Bill Peterson noted that the design incorporates three major components; 1.)the addition of a front deck with 2.) fixed railings and 3.) a wooden fence to conceal garbage on the end of the building closer to the center of Artists' Row. The deck would consist of pressure treated wood decking over concrete piers. He noted that they had consulted the • DRB November 17, 2015 • Page 3 of 6 City's Assistant Engineer to ensure that no sewer lines or other in ground infrastructure would be compromised. Peterson noted that a lamppost would need to be removed and an existing sign would be relocated. The design uses reclaimed wood planks to act as a screening material. The decking material would be "Timber Tech" composite in a weather grayed color. Wood posts would hang light fixtures, draped string-lights, and jelly jars. Shapiro asked if the architects had sought out the opinion of the Building Inspector on this project. Bill Peterson responded noting that he had spoken with the Assistant Building Inspector and that he was generally in favor of everything being proposed. He did ask that the plumbing code be adhered to. Shapiro also noted that he had forwarded the plans to the Health Department but had not yet heard any feedback. He also confirmed that a recently completed plan for Artists' Row, done by the Cecil Group, called for reorienting the Lobster Shanty's outdoor seating in a way similar to what is being proposed. Sides commented that she likes that it organizes the outside space. The existing space is very crowded and spilled out. Sides questioned if this design would leave space for the • farmers market. Diane Wolf responded by noting that the intention is to open up more space for fanners market vendors, including in an area across from the building that was being used for performances. The new deck will have a built-in space for performances. Sides questioned if the deck would be closed to the ground to keep critters out. Bill Peterson noted that a wooden skirt board would be used. Peterson then noted that the applicant would also like to have planter boxes around the deck in which to plant herbs. Jaquith noted that he thinks this design is great. Jaquith questioned if there is enough lighting. Diane Wolf noted that each raised pillar would have lighting along with stringed lights above the deck. Right now the patio area has no lights, so this would be an improvement. DeMaio noted that overall he really likes the scheme. He continued by noting that it is important to get more definitive about the appearance of proposed light fixtures, furniture, and the potential for umbrellas. The Board would need to review these items at a future meeting. DeMaio then questioned if signage of any kind would be located on the • screening or surrounding fence. DRB November 17, 2015 Page 4 of 6 . Bill Peterson noted that there would be no additional signage. Durand questioned if power to lights would be internal or through an exposed conduit. Bill Peterson noted that an exposed conduit would be used to create a rustic look. Diane Wolf added that they would also be considering options for outdoor seating, including perhaps one larger unit that would be hung above the seating area. Dynia questioned whether the rustic looking reclaimed wood could be brought down closer to the seating area in front, instead of the metal railings. Bill Peterson responded by noting that it was purposely not used because of durability issues, specifically with respect to snow removal and snow being pushed up against it in the winter. Sides: Motion to recommend approval conditional upon applicant returning to the Board for review of furniture, lighting,umbrellas, and additional heating equipment. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0. 3. 217 Essex Street: Discussion and vote on proposed revisions to Verizon rooftop wireless • antennae installation. The submission under review includes drawings of the proposed rooftop wireless antennae installation. Attorney Tom Hildreth and Liam Sewall was present on behalf of the applicant. Shapiro explained that the DRB and SRA had approved a proposal to installed exposed antennae on the rooftop last year,but that the local Historical Commission had asked that the antennae be shielded with a faux chimney. The Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC) asked that the issue be resolved by the two boards. Select members of the DRB and local Historical Commission were gathered to discuss the possibility of revisiting the idea of shielding the antennas with a faux chimney and with revisions being shown this evening, there was general agreement that this could be acceptable. Sides asked why the Historical Commission has oversight. Shapiro explained that the requirement for federal permitting with this project requires that MHC approves the project. MHC asks that the local Historical Commission provide comment. The project is being performed in a National Register Historic District, therefore these requirements apply given the involvement of federal permitting. • DRB November 17, 2015 Page 5 of 6 Hildreth noted that the installation includes 6 antennas with three faces,two antennas per face. Each face would be painted to match the brick to which they would be mounted. What are being presented this evening are two options for a faux chimney to be installed that would shield the identified four antennas - it would be square to the roof of the building. Option A Single faux chimney right up against building. A bit smaller than previously presented. Fiberglass brick and real brick meet in a plane that is very unnoticeable. Flush to fagade. Option B Faux chimney to sit back four inches to reveal existing flashing etc. Separating elements would be preserved. The Historical Commission was somewhat split on which option to select and were comfortable allowing the Design Review Board to make its preferred selection. Dynia raised the issue of whether the existing flashing could be removed and patched properly if option A was selected. • Sewall responded by noting that they could remove the flashing and properly patch it; no water would enter the building and compromise the existing masonry. Dynia then said that he felt that process was reason enough to have the chimney set back. Sides noted that fiberglass brick is not going to match the real brick below. The faux chimney should be set back and maintain the stepped back fagade. Sides questioned if the balustrade would be painted wood. Jaquith noted that the fiberglass brick would probably not match. Kennedy and Sides both expressed support for seeing the chimney set back. In regards to a proposed balustrade,Durand expressed that he thinks it is an improvement and that it helps screen what one does not want to see. Sides asked what the balustrade would be made out of. Hildreth responded that it would be made out of wood. DeMaio questioned what the cornice work on the rest of the building does and if it is painted in a certain way. The new balustrade should fit in with the rest of the existing building in regards to height and color. DRB November 17, 2015 Page 6 of 6 Shapiro noted that the drawings indicate that there is an existing balustrade on another portion of the building. Kennedy questioned whether four inches is enough of a setback. Jaquith noted that it is a normal amount. Sewall explained that any increased setback could compromise structural integrity. Shapiro noted that the decision rendered last year with regard to this project included a condition about having a planned gas run-up placed as close as possible to the two building portions' seams and that it should be painted to match the brick exterior. He expressed wanting to ensure that that portion of the decision would remain in force. Sides: Motion to recommend approval of setback chimney of at least four inches, balustrade scheme that matches the existing balustrade on the building, and maintaining the original decision regarding gas run-ups. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the October 28, 2015 regular meeting. Shapiro explained that he made some revisions to the portion of the minutes that discussed approval of minutes from the meeting prior. Durand: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, Seconded by Kennedy. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:00 pm. Salem Redevelopment Authority 2015 OCT 21 A ID 09 FILE y Design Review Board CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS Meeting Agenda Wednesday, October 28, 2015 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 140 Washington Street(Aurora): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign • 2. 148 Washington Street(The Merchant): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage 3. 318 Derby Street (Salem Hotbox): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage 4. 99 Washington Street (Salem Renewal LLC): Discussion and vote on proposed storefront fagade improvements (small project review) Old / New Business Minutes Approval of minutes from the September 23, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • This notice posted on "Offici Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on T 2 1 2015 at f(�',( qy� in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections''{{$$ 25. DRB October 28, 2015 Page 1 of 5 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board,Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday October 28,2015 at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand,Helen Sides,Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith,J. Michael Sullivan, and Glenn Kennedy Members Absent: Christopher Dynia Others Present: Andrew Shapiro,Economic Development Planner Recorder: Andrew Shapiro Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 140 Washington Street(Aurora): Discussion and vote on proposed a-frame sign The submission under review before the DRB included photos, a sign permit application, proof of liability insurance, and a plan for placement of the sign. Trang Tran was present on behalf of Aurora. Shapiro noted that the applicant had been before the Board in the past month and received approval for building signage. They are seeking a place a cherry wood framed portable sign outside of their storefront. The backing of the sign will be a black colored dry erase board. The proposal complies with the City's sign ordinance. Kennedy commented that he would like to see the name of the restaurant on the sign, preferably toward the top and in the logo typeface for the restaurant, but otherwise, no comments. Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval as submitted. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. 2. 148 Washington Street(The Merchant): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage The submission under review before the DRB included a design and photo. Todd Waller was present on behalf of The Merchant. Shapiro noted that the proposed sign will be installed on an existing sign post in front of the building. The post is about 10 feet tall. The proposed signage is in compliance with the City's sign ordinance. i DRB October 28, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Sullivan asked whether additional signs would be proposed in the future. Waller noted that no additional signs are planned for the building. Sides asked whether"a Salem MA hotel"was part of the logo's design. Waller noted that it is part of the logo. Kennedy noted that he feels that the design clearly was worked on by someone who spent a lot of time on it, but that he is unsure if it fits in the particular space it's intended for. It feels like it needs a little bit of tweaking,but it may also just be that the color is not coming through correctly on the print out. That being said, it's a good sign overall. Durand asked whether there were any plans for lighting the sign. Waller noted that there are no plans for lighting the sign. Durand remarked that ground lighting might work well. Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval as presented. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. 3. 318 Derby Street(Salem Hotbox): Discussion and vote on proposed installation of signage The submission under review before the DRB included designs,photos, and a sign permit application. The applicant was not present. The Board members generally agreed that there were too many issues to discuss with respect to the proposed designs and therefore would feel more comfortable continuing the proposal. Durand asked what type of business this is. Shapiro noted that the business primarily sells e-cigarettes and tobacco products. Kennedy offered his time to work with the applicant prior to the next meeting in order to refine the design. Sides: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. 4. 99 Washington Street(Salem Renewal LLC): Discussion and vote on proposed storefront fagade improvements (small project review) DRB October 28, 2015 Page 3 of 5 The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, drawings, elevations, and photos. David Pabich was present on behalf of Salem Renewal LLC. Pabich explained that the current storefront has a shared entrance via a lobby. The proposal would be to leave that entrance intact,but to remove a storefront window and replace it with an entrance from Washington Street dedicated to this storefront. The door, paneling, and all details would be the same as the other door on the same block. Pabich further explained that he thinks it will improve the space's appeal and function. Durand noted that he felt this was a good approach and solution to the issue. DeMaio expressed a preference to move the plane of the storefront as close to the inside of the existing column as possible, so as to minimize overhang of the door into the sidewalk as possible. Pabich agreed and noted that he would make that adjustment. Durand noted that perhaps the direction of the door swing should be reversed so as to better serve a right-handed individual. Pabich agreed. • Sides: Motion to recommend approval of project as submitted with suggested conditions of moving the door closer in line with the interior column and reversing the door swing. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0. Minutes: Approval of the minutes from the September 23, 2015 regular meeting. Durand asked whether there were any comments about the minutes. DeMaio expressed that he had a comment,not so much about the minutes as they were recorded, but about the discussion that took place during the presentation of the Hotel Salem project. During that discussion, DeMaio noted, some issues not related to the project itself were broached and that the minutes captured these comments. He continued by explaining that he feels it is important that members of the Board only comment on issues directly related to the project(s)being presented. DeMaio cited comments made by DRB Member Helen Sides about whether to open the pedestrian mall to vehicular traffic. The comments were recorded in the September 23, 2015 meeting and note that Sides said that the project would be"a good business advocate for vehicular access to the pedestrian mall." DeMaio said that he does not feel that it was an appropriate discussion for review of the hotel. Vehicular access was not being proposed by the applicant as part of that review. When issues like that are presented in the minutes, they can be misconstrued as positions of the Board. • DRB , October 28, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Kennedy noted that he feels it was an important discussion, and that it was valid for • inclusion in the minutes,but he agreed with DeMaio's point that it should not be expressed as an opinion of the Board. DeMaio said that asking the question of how the hotel will be accessed is valid. But DeMaio objected to a member of the DRB attempting to advance a position on a topic (opening up Essex Street to car traffic)that was outside the scope of the project under review, a topic that is the subject of substantial debate within the City, and a topic that was not raised by the applicant. Sullivan noted that he felt that individual Board member comments should be recorded as long as they are attributed to the Board member and not the entire board. Not doing so could limit the ability of Board members to express themselves on any number of issues. Sides noted that she feels the comments should remain in the minutes. The comments in question are attributed to her and they were said. She noted also that this is the nature of public meetings. Extraneous comments related or unrelated to a number of issues always come up. DeMaio emphasized that the minutes seem to have recorded the conversation correctly, but that they portray the Board as endorsing the notion of opening the pedestrian mall to vehicular access. Those comments were not challenged in the meeting, but it would have been inappropriate to do so because that issue was not being presented to the Board that evening. Sides again noted that conversations such as these, that are not completely related to the subject at hand, happen at public meetings all the time, and that the comments of one Board member should not be interpreted to represent the entire Board's view, because no vote on the issue was taken. Durand noted that the minutes do not need to be a reflection of all conversations during a particular meeting. It is important to capture information regarding projects that are being presented, as well as what is being voted upon. Shapiro explained that he tends to err on the side of providing more as opposed to less contextual information in DRB minutes, because recommendations of the DRB are going to the SRA. It is helpful to provide details and context about the position of the Board on projects to the SRA when they are considering a recommendation from the DRB. DeMaio again noted that despite the opinion on the issue that was raised, there may have been dissenting or different opinions that were not raised. He noted that he did not raise an issue about what was being discussed because he did not feel it was appropriate to do so, given that it was not what was being presented to the Board. Now that I see that these comments were memorialized in the minutes, I regret that I did not bring the issue up at • DRB October 28, 2015 Page 5 of 5 the time. My recommendation to the Board would be to only discuss the issue(s) at hand at future meetings. Kennedy noted that he feels it is a difficult issue. For example, with respect to considering an a-frame sign at the Museum Place Mall, the Board also had to consider what it might mean for placement of future signage. We have to consider how a given project might affect other separate issues. Shapiro pointed out that the Board had endorsed the notion of incorporating 1.5 parking spaces per unit for the Riverview Place project, and that a letter of recommendation to adopt those parking standards from the Chair was sent to the ZBA when the applicant sought relief for parking. Parking ratio itself is not necessary under the purview of the DRB, and that too is a controversial issue. DeMaio expressed that the parking issue was brought up by the applicant; therefore it was appropriate to discuss it. No one brought up the issue of vehicular access on Essex Street. Sides said that she was opposed to having the comments in question stricken from the minutes because the comments are appropriately attributed to her, and there is no indication that the Board unanimously endorsed the comments by vote or procedure. DeMaio said that he feels it is not appropriate for Board members to steer the conversation to a topic or issue that is not being presented to the Board by the applicant. Durand noted that he as Chairman would make an effort at meetings in the future, to reign in conversations that might not be relevant to projects being presented. Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes from the September 23, 2015 regular meeting as presented. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 4-0 (DeMaio and Durand abstain). Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 6:56 pm. Salem Redevelopment Authority 1015 SEP Ib P 1:.31 FILE N Design Review Board CITY CLERK, SALEM. MASS- Meeting Agenda Wednesday, September 23, 2015 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 144 Washington Street(Hauswitch Home and Healing): Discussion of proposed a-frame • sign 2. 320 Derby Street(Edward Jones): Discussion of proposed installation of signage 3. 209 Essex Street(Hotel Salem): Discussion of proposed fagade/building improvements (small project review), outdoor seating area, and signage Old / New Business Minutes Approval of the minutes from the July 22, 2015 regular meeting. Approval of the minutes from the August 26, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This noti -e posted on "Officiullegr�p1�ard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on 11 66 • at l',WPM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25 . ♦f DRB September 23, 2015 • Page 1 of 6 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board,Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday September 23,2015 at 6:OOpm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Helen Sides, Ernest DeMaio,David Jaquith,J. Michael Sullivan, and Glenn Kennedy Members Absent: Paul Durand Others Present: Andrew Shapiro,Economic Development Planner Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Helen Sides calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 144 Washington Street(Hauswitch Home and Healing): Discussion of proposed A- frame sign. The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, drawings, and photos. • Erica Feldmann was present on behalf of Hauswitch Home and Healing. Shapiro noted that Feldmann had been before the Board previously to have building signage for her shop approved. He explained that the proposed signage complies with the City's ordinance for portable signs. DeMaio commented that he has concerns regarding the location of the proposed sign. Street furniture, bike parking, and trees are currently located on the opposite side of the street. People tend to walk along the face of the building to avoid these items. DeMaio questioned if the board would want signage located on the opposite side. Currently pedestrian foot traffic travels through the area,which should be encouraged, especially for those with accessibility needs. DeMaio commented the he would recommend shifting the proposed signage over to align with the other side of the walkway(curb side). Shapiro commented that shifting the sign over to the other side of the sidewalk would align the sign with the other a-frame signs on the block. Feldmann noted that she would be amendable to moving the sign over per the DRB's comments. Jaquith: Motion to approve signage with the recommendation of aligning the signage closer to the curb. Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 6-0. • DkB September 23, 2015 Page 2 of 6 • 2. 320 Derby Street(Edward Jones): Discussion of proposed installation of signage. The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, drawings, and photos. Brian Brinkers was present on behalf of Edward Jones. Brinkers noted that existing signage located in the windows would be removed. The existing blade sign bracket is consistent with the surrounding stores and is existing. Brinkers noted that the proposal is simply to replace the actual sign not the bracket. The proposed signage would fill up the entire bracket. Jaquith asked whether the logo and typeface was part of the corporate standard signage. Brinkers responded noting that it is. Jaquith noted that he has no problems with the proposed signage. Sides asked about window coverage. Shapiro explained that the City's sign ordinance calls for no more than 30%of the window to be covered with signage, and that the City's Commercial Design Guidelines and Downtown Renewal Plan call for that number to be reduced to 20% for properties within the Urban Renewal Area. It is not entirely clear if this project exceeds that • proposed maximum,but the Board has deference to request a revision to how signage appears in the windows. DeMaio asked how website addresses are usually treated with respect to signage. Shapiro explained that there is no clear guidance in the Downtown Renewal Plan or sign ordinance, but that generally speaking,the Board and City have approved website addresses on secondary signs—not primary or prominent signs. Sides noted that she feels the signage looks good; that it looks understated. Sullivan questioned if the disclaimer is required by law to be placed on the window. Brinkers said that he did not know for sure. Jaquith: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 6-0. 3. 209 Essex Street(Hotel Salem): Discussion of proposed fagade/building improvements (small project review), outdoor seating area, and signage. The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, drawings, elevations, and a presentation. Mark Meche was present on behalf of Winter Street Architects. • t DRB September 23, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Also present were Rich Cooper and Shawn Shea of Lark Hotels. Cooper passed out brochures about the company to the Board members. He explained that the company started in 2012 with four hotels. The company is a New England based boutique hotel group, focused on design, amenities, and authentic service. The hotel in Salem will be 44 rooms. There will be more affordable rooms, as well as luxury and mid-tier priced rooms. Meche began to show a presentation and noted that the proposed building renovation is located in the B5 district. Exterior improvements are the focus for today. The outdoor cafe permit and signage review will be reviewed at a later date. Meche noted that the hotel is currently planned to open in October 2016. Meche explained that the building is a total of four stories,with three stories fronting Essex Street. There is a walkout basement located on the Derby Square side. The main lobby will be on Essex Street. Meche noted that entry to the building would be moved to the center of the front fagade with two flanking doors and a revolving door. The cafe, which would be located in the lobby toward the front of the building, would have operable doors for connections to • outside. Two story loft style units would be located on the first floor. Meche commented that the floor below the ground floor lobby would have a bar, seating areas, and a bowling alley. The second and third floor would contain a total of 10 micro rooms,which are a king size bed wide. A rooftop terrace would have also have a bar and lounge and will not be seen from the street. Meche noted that the building was built around 1890. The project is an adaptive reuse. Almost gut renovation on the interior. All masonry will be repaired and cleaned; the front is mainly sandstone and blond brick. A new aluminum glass storefront system with, new column cladding would be installed on the ground level of the front fagade. GFRC or some other type of cast stone would be used for the column cladding. A new marquee would be installed above the lobby entrance and would extend out about five or six feet. The south elevation facing derby square will have a balcony area for a room. Meche showed an example of furniture and umbrellas that might be an inspiration for the rooftop deck. Four units across Essex Street in another building may be able to look onto the roofdeck. The roofdeck will have a central bar area, awning, general seating, umbrellas,planters, and storage. A stainless steel cable rail will be used along the perimeter of the seating area. A copper shingle is being contemplated for use on the exterior of the small building on the top of the roof. • DRB September 23, 2015 Page 4 of 6 • Sides questioned if the design would have a red brick with lighting for the cafe and signage. Meche commented that four masonry openings would need to be enlarged to match the others. A new structure for the rooftop lounge and mechanical screen would be needed. Awning and planters would be placed on the rooftop terrace and copper shingles would be used but not visible from street. Jaquith noted that he knows the building well from having worked with previous owners and said that the design is a vast improvement. Sides commented that the design looks terrific. Sides questioned how people would be getting to the hotel. Cooper noted that the city garage is across the street. A number of spaces would be reserved for guests. Sides noted that access to the hotel is key. This would be a good business advocate for vehicular access to the pedestrian mall. This would bring nightlife and extend the season for the pedestrian mall. Valet parking could drop off guests at the front of the hotel. Dynia asked whether the rooftop restaurant and other dining/bar amenities could be • accessed by the public. Shea commented that they would be open for public access. DeMaio commented that the design is a great improvement for the area. The pick- up/drop-off problem creates the need for having things located at the ground plane. We will want to know how this will be treated. The hotel should create a reserved area for carts or bags, and would hopefully be contained within the hotel. Meche noted that bike rack parking and tweaking the bollards would be a possibility in regards to how the immediate outdoor area would be treated. Three trees may need to be replanted. One is robust and the other two are dead. Cooper noted that Lark created a locker area within one of their other properties for bags, and the system worked out quite well. They may attempt to create the same system for this hotel. DeMaio noted that the Holyoke Court side of the building could benefit from some elevated activity and that it has always been uninviting. The building's ground floor at this elevation could become more transparent, creating a nice streetscape. The cafe could activate this alleyway. DeMaio noted that the corner is very visible walking down Essex Street. 0 DRB September 23, 2015 Page 5 of 6 Sides commented that something could be done on the surface of the brick that would provide more of a light surface. Sides noted that she would be hesitant to destroy the fabric of the building, as it could be costly. A signage or an awning could be put on the facade. DeMaio noted that guests would probably wonder why there is no visual access to Essex Street on the terrace. If there were a way that hotel patrons or guests could visually get a glimpse of Essex Street it would be an amenity. DeMaio noted his concern about noise related to the Essex Condominiums. Meche noted that the storefront system along the Essex Street eleveation will be very transparent and that there will be an opportunity to wrap outdoor seating around the corner. Sullivan noted that consistency should be carried around the comer. Meche noted that the existing storefront used to be set back with the columns and had a sign banner. This location was dropped about 6"down. The canopy was located at this point. Meche noted that he anticipates a bit more signage. Sides questions if windows are operable on the sides. • Meche noted that all the existing windows located on the buildings sides are operable. The front fagade would keep the existing operable windows. Sullivan noted that he recommends thinking about carving out a place to drop people off near the cafe. Kennedy noted that he is least excited about the hotel's name. All other Lark hotels have something creative about their titles. Kennedy commented that the branding is very important. Branding and signage could be lower on the glass and not along the spandrel. Shea noted that they could give consideration to altering the name. Sullivan: Motion to approve exterior improvements and to bring back additions, outdoor seating, lighting, and signage components. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the July 22, 2015 regular meeting. Kennedy: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0. • DRB -. September 23, 2015 Page 6 of 6 Approval of the minutes from the August 26, 2015 regular meeting. Kennedy: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0. Adjournment Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:30 pm. • Salem Redevelopment Authority 2015 AUG 19 A 0 03 FILE # Design Review Board CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS. Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 26, 2015 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 281 Essex Street(Caramel): Discussion of proposed installation of signage • 2. 140 Washington Street(Aurora): Discussion of proposed installation of signage 3. 283 Rear Derby Street(Notch Brewing): Discussion of proposed fapade/building improvements (small project review), outdoor seating area, and signage North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 4. 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street(Gateway Center): Discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development with City's Community Life Center Old / New Business Minutes Approval of the minutes from the July 22, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Awl�ti� rd" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ALU TOO at /o:ob Q4 in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. DRB August, 2015 Page 1 of 10 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board,Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday,August 26,2015 at 6:OOpm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand, Glenn Kennedy, David Jaquith, Christopher Dynia,Ernest DeMaio,Helen Sides and J. Michael Sullivan Members Absent: Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Andrew Shapiro Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Proiects Under Review 1. 281 Essex Street(Caramel): Discussion of proposed installation of signage • *Glenn Kennedy was not present at the time of this discussion. The proposal before the DRB included a sign permit application,photos showing both the existing conditions of the building and imagery with the proposed signage, and designs. Jean Phillipe and Dmitri Vallier were present on behalf of Caramel Jaquith, Sides, and Durand all commented that they liked the proposal. Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval of the signage as submitted. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. 2. 140 Washington Street(Aurora): Discussion of proposed installation of signage *At this point Glenn Kennedy arrived and joined the discussion. The proposal before the DRB included a sign permit application,photos showing both the existing conditions of the building and imagery with the proposed signage, and designs. Trang Tran and Tom Carroll were present on behalf of Aurora. Sides asked whether the letters are three dimensional. Carroll responded noting that they are raised one half of an inch. • Sullivan asked whether all of the signs are the same dimension. DRB' August, 2015 Page 2 of 10 Carroll explained that the two side panels are smaller dimensions. Dynia commented that it would be preferable to have all the text on each sign be the same height. Sullivan agreed noting that the lettering also seemed crowded. DeMain commented that he was under the impression that the landlord had a restriction on what style of typeface should be used for the building signage. Shapiro explained that at least two of the tenants in the building use uniform black typeface,but that the recently approved signage for Hauswitch deviated slightly from those signs. Shapiro then asked Carroll whether the property owner signed off on the proposed signage. Carroll responded noting that he had. Durand commented that due to the crowding of the letters,the readability suffers. He suggested reducing the size of the letters to: 16" for capital letters, and 12" for lower case. This should be a uniform dimension for all the signs. Those proportions would fit in better with surrounding signs as well. DeMaio agreed with Durand's comments, and noted that many signs in the immediate area are not as large as what was originally being proposed. The reduced size would be more in scale with surrounding signs. • Carroll agreed that the proposed reduced dimensions could be accomplished. Durand: Motion to recommend approval of signage conditional upon typeface being reduced to 16"capital letters and 12" lower case letters, and for all three building signs to be the same dimensions. The sign on the glass shall be the same font as shown on the building. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0. 3. 283 Rear Derby Street(Notch Brewing): Discussion of proposed fagade/building improvements (small project review), outdoor seating area, and signage *Paul Durand recused himself from hearing this item and left the room. David Jaquith assumed the position of Chairman. The proposal before the Board included a comprehensive package of information related to proposed fagade/building improvments, outdoor seating, and signage. Photos of the existing building as well as graphical representations of proposed improvements were shown. The package also included designs, drawings, floor plans, and elevations. The applicant also showed a detailed PowerPoint presentation during the meeting. Mark Meche and Annette Popp of Winter Street Architects, and Chris Lohring of Notch Brewing were present. • DRB August, 2015 • Page 3 of 10 Meche began by showing a presentation that he had prepared. The site was shown. It is located off of Derby Street in the same building as Brothers Taverna and faces what once was the Grapevine Restaurant. He explained what they anticipated to be the local permitting process for approval of the overall project. Meche then showed some photos of the existing building and the businesses that are currently present there. He showed a photo of a beer garden in Brooklyn; a style and atmosphere that the applicant is trying to achieve with this project. Meche explained that their project would repair and adaptively reuse the building, and not necessarily change anything. Existing openings would be restored to their original condition, new windows and doors would be installed, new lighting will be installed, and masonry will be repaired. Meche showed a floorplan and explained where brewery functions would be distinct from the tap room, which represents 33 percent of the building. An outdoor beer garden concept was shown. It will take up two existing parking spaces and will be enclosed with a fence. Communal wood benches will be provided with umbrellas and lighting. Meche then showed two schemes/options for signage. "Tap Room" and`Brewery" are proposed as painted directly on the building's brick fagade. He showed examples of . breweries in different parts of the country that display prominent signs that breach the roofline. Meche explained that when calculating the amount of allowable signage they could have, they considered the South River elevation as a"frontage"that would count toward their signage allowance. At present the Department of Planning and Community Development had indicated that only the front elevation should be considered. Meche noted that there would be a degree of flexibility if less signage were to be allowed. Meche noted that one of the proposed options calls for signage above the roofline but understands that the sign ordinance does not allow for it. He explained that they would be willing to seek a variance for this. Another option would have the primary signs below the roofline and affixed flush to the building. He ran through all of the signage proposed for both the front and South River elevations. A placeholder for seasonal banners was shown and proposed. Meche emphasized that they are seeking approval for general building improvements but understand that more detail and clarity is needed for signage, and therefore, the applicant is willing to return to discuss those details at a future date. DeMaio questioned the status of a plan for the South River Harborwalk to be completed behind the building because he had not seen it addressed. DRB' August, 2015 Page 4 of 10 . Meche expressed that it would not be part of this project but that any walkway would need to extend around, and perhaps be cantilevered,behind the outdoor seating area. This is because the seating, due to state regulations regarding serving alcohol outdoors, needs to be continuous with the building. Shapiro explained that the harborwalk development is tied to new construction that requires Chapter 91 permitting; he expressed uncertainty as to whether this project triggers that requirement. DeMaio emphasized that no approvals for this project should impede progress in building out the harborwalk. Shapiro agreed. DeMaio asked for any detail regarding rooftop mechanical elements. Meche explained that those issues have not fully developed. Mechanical elements would not be large or too obtrusive. Breweries tend to have stacks and chimneys and this project would certainly incorporate those elements. Screening would be easily achievable. Chris Lohring noted that there would also be a glycol chiller on the roof with a roughly 300 gallon reservoir,but that it would most likely be installed on the end of the roof furthest from the front elevation and would be difficult to see, if at all, from the front. A • compressor for a walk-in cooler would be installed in the middle of the roof. Sides expressed that she is very excited by this project and that this is an ideal location to draw people. This is a wonderful use of industrial space and there is so much going for this project. I like the roof mounted sign but I understand the limitations. People may be worried about others requesting to be able to mount signs to their roofs, but we're not always going to approve them. The location being set back such as it is provides a good reason for the roof top sign. Graphically the signage is very strong and exciting. DeMaio seconded Sides' comments and noted that he strongly prefers "option A" in terms of signage. This would add a lot of character to the site. The amount of signage does not seem overwhelming. Sides inquired about the issue concerning how signage is being calculated. Shapiro explained that the amount of signage one may have is determined by the space's linear frontage. At this time the Planning Department would only be counting the linear frontage facing the parking lot,but the applicant has expressed an interest in having the South River elevation also counted. The South River does not have a road with which to be considered a frontage. Shapiro noted that the Zoning Enforcement Officer would be the ultimate arbiter of what would be appropriate and allowable by-right. • DRB August, 2015 • Page 5 of 10 Sides noted that it would be important for the South River elevation to be addressed in terns of visibility. Jaquith expressed that he agrees with Sides and that because the space is off of the main road, it needs an identity that can be shown on the roof. Sullivan said that he feels that rooftop signage may be easily seen from Congress Street, but perhaps not from Derby Street. Lighting will be an important element to address this issue. He also expressed a preference toward option A for signage. Dynia noted that he agreed with comments that others had made. Kennedy noted that when the experience is right, people will find the business, regardless of signage. He agrees with option A. In order for the roof sign to work, it will need to have thickness; 10 inches at least. The sign could be lighted from below. Kennedy noted that he likes the proposed improvements. He likes the tap room and brewery signs above the doors as shown in option A. The banners should not be too big and could be lit—they can draw interest from Derby Street. He noted that execution for the rooftop signs is key, and that perhaps a second roof sign could be added to create a cornered effect. • Sides agreed with Kennedy that the corner of the building could be strengthened with two roof signs and that it would not matter that they would not necessarily relate to the entrance of the building. Meche noted that they were considering a halo-lit scheme for the roof signage as well. Kennedy asked about the material to be used for the ground of the outdoor seating area. Lohring explained that it would be an ADA compliant crushed granite, that is typical of many beer gardens to accommodate for spillage. Jaquith opened the meeting to public comments. Polly Wilbert of 7 Cedar Street expressed concern over the roof sign, noting that applicants along Canal Street have requested similar signs. If this sign were to be approved, it could set an unwanted precedent. It's not appropriate in a lot of places. She questioned if it would in fact be viewable from many places. Jaquith noted that the DRB does not use the word precedent and does not consider it because each project is considered on a case by case basis. Kennedy noted that precedent is a legitimate concern and that he has seen a-frame signs, • for instance, not executed well. DRB' August, 2015 Page 6 of 10 . Jeff Bellin of 396 Essex Street commented that this seems like a great use of the space and that he likes the look of the above the roof sign. It seems tasteful and is a nod to an industrial look. Heather Famico of 195 Essex Street and Ward 2 City Councillor expressed support for the outdoor seating area and the roof sign. Kennedy noted that the Board would need to see a final proposed plan for signage, the umbrellas for the patio,the fence, and the mechanical elements for the roof. Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval of building/facade improvements and outdoor seating area; continuation of signage; conditional upon future approval of final plan for signage, lighting, umbrellas, fencing, and rooftop mechanical elements and screening. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0. 4. 44 Boston Street and 401 Bridge Street(Gateway Center): Discussion of proposed mixed-use residential and retail development with City's Community Life Center *Paul Durand returned to the meeting and resumed as Chair. The submission under review included a full set of plans with elevations, floor plans, and perspectives showing both the proposed Community Life Center(CLC) and mixed-use • residential and retail building proposed for the site. A PowerPoint presentation was shown. Harry Gunderson, architect in charge of the design of the CLC began. He introduced the rest of the project team, including landscape architect Blair Hines, Chris Semmelink of "The Architectural Team," (TAT) which is in charge of designing the mixed use building, Attorney Joseph Correnti, and developer David Sweetser. Gundersen explained that a previous project had been permitted in the past and showed a schedule of anticipated permits that the applicant would seek. He showed the site, which is at the corner of Bridge and Boston Street. He then showed a site plan for the previously approved project, which showed one large building pushed to the corner of the site. He explained that the site is being treated very much the same as the previous one, but now the CLC was a standalone building and a new mixed-use building would occupy the corner of the site. The previous project had a 138,000 square foot building, four stories, 58 feet high, and 374 parking spaces. The new project has a separate 20,000 sq/ft CLC building, which would be two stories. The new multi-family building would be a little over 162,000 sq/ft and five stories high. It would have 117 units and 298 parking spaces. Landscape Architect Blair Hines explained that there were no changes to the buffer in the back of the site and that a generous supply of trees is provided for the parking area. • DRB August, 2015 Page 7 of 10 There is pedestrian plaza at the mixed-use building, which provides access to both Boston and Bridge Street and the residential area and parking area. Architect Chris Semmelink of TAT explained that an effort was made to create a street edge and a strong corner at Bridge and Boston Street. He showed floor plans for the mixed-use building, as well as elevations. The building will have a steel-framed podium with a wood frame on top. There would be brick elements for the retail component on Boston Street and a vertical metal referencing the past industrial nature of the site. There will also be wooden clapboards used throughout the building. Gundersen explained that the project team worked with a committee designated by the City on the design of the interior of the CLC. He showed floor plans for the CLC and explained uses of various rooms and space. The first floor would be communal and also have offices for Parks and Rec as well as Council on Aging. It would have a great room. The second floor would focus on programming space. It is anticipated that the building will have a steel frame with interior exposed ductwork. Board and batten would be used on the upper story of the building, with clapboards on the lower level. There will be outdoor gathering spaces with landscaping elements. Shapiro then noted that the Board received two letters in response to the project; one from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association and the other from Nina Cohen and Gary Kinley, residents of Chestnut Street. He explained that the Board had been • provided these letters ahead of the meeting and had the opportunity to review them. Durand then opened the meeting to public comment. Dana Endres of 166 Federal Street commented that it seems that one industrial building is being replaced with what looks to be somewhat industrial in look and feel. There is a lot of parking on-site. Historic character needs to be considered. Something more majestic or that has a Federal style look to it would be more appropriate for the site. Perhaps a building could serve as a parking garage in order to eliminate some of the surface parking, which would enable more of the site to be used as green space. Jeff Bellin of 396 Essex Street expressed that the CLC looks like a 1970s era structure. He expressed a preference to see a style of architecture more referential to the historic district in the immediate area. He also noted that seniors may have a difficult time navigating all of the surface parking to get to the retail area on the other side of the site. Emily Udy of Historic Salem Inc. expressed that the design review process is premature given that many issues must be resolved at other boards, which may in turn, could change the project in some ways. She also expressed an opinion that the project does not meet the standards set forth in the North River Canal Corridor Master Plan. The buildings do not relate to the historic context and do not create a village like neighborhood. She noted that the CLC seems to lack a civic presence. She expressed an appreciation for the architectural character of the residential building but questioned whether it suits the • surrounding context. DRB' August, 2015 Page 8 of 10 Polly Wilbert of 7 Cedar Street expressed support of the prior comments coming from members of the public. She asked the Board to think hard about how the site functions. The senior center also supports activities by other age groups. There does not seem to be a lot of safety for pedestrians given the large surface parking lot, especially in the winter. She expressed a desire to see the CLC oriented toward Boston as opposed to Bridge Street. She questioned whether there is enough snow storage on site. She expressed a concern about the potential for a liquor license to be granted somewhere on site and whether that would mesh well with a community use like the CLC. Nina Cohen of 22 Chestnut Street noted that she felt that the design was not yet ripe for review. She noted that the developer does not have the right to the variances that were granted in 2010, although he thinks that he does. What was granted before was for a commercial building,but the use has now changed to residential. Jeff Millar commented that the residential building seems like effort was put into making it seem interesting,whereas the CLC building lacks interest and seems "cookie cutter." He noted that there is a great room in the CLC but no apparent windows for it. The mass of the two buildings are completely incongruous,but it is difficult to say whether that issue can be corrected. Polly Wilbert commented again, noting that the landscaped buffer zone should be activated with play equipment or other uses for people to utilize. • Heather Famico, Ward 2 City Councillor, compelled the Board to work with the design team to make the project more interesting. We need to make sure that the site has more green space. Durand then asked Board members to provide comments. David Jaquith: • The residential building—I like that it has an element on the end of it(the tower piece), but it isn't truly a tower. It needs some work. • The linkage between the two residential/retail buildings needs some work. The best thing that could happen is that the building is reduced by one whole floor. There is no basis for having five stories, for a residential building along Boston Street. This revision would help with the issue of scale between the residential building and the Community Life Center. • The CLC building needs to start over from scratch. It looks too industrial, or as one member of the public put it: a nineteen sixties era school. • All the windows are the same, yet the uses behind the windows are not all the same. • The CLC windows are 5 feet squared. If they are operable, some people will have difficulty pushing them open. • The cafe portion of the CLC should work with both the inside and the outside. • DRB August, 2015 Page 9 of 10 • There should be more bringing of inside and outside features around the entire building. One should have a better sense of what's going on both inside and outside of the building. The landscape has to work better in this respect. • I don't know if the building can be moved within the site or not. There is an issue of isolation. Helen Sides: • Disappointed in the loss of a much nicer project. The former corner piece was far superior to what is being presented now. • The tower is silly looking. It doesn't belong with the rest of the building. It's not successful. • The plaza is a nice gesture but it's just there because you need it to be there. • There is a sea of parking without anywhere for people to go, which is very different than parking area that would have been a commercial building,with people coming and going, and no parked cars at night. There's a lot of asphalt. • I am disturbed by the repetitive square windows for the CLC. There are far more creative ways to handle windows, such as ribbon windows. • If you want a building to appear contemporary, then use different materials, not clapboard. Those are cheap gestures to make it look like it's in an old neighborhood. It's not successful. • Scale is always going to be an issue now that the CLC has been separated from the residential building. I'm not sure anything can be done to make them go together. Christopher Dynia: • The biggest thing to focus on is the scale. The tower is pushing almost 80 ft. The middle section of the building is almost 70 ft. • It will be difficult for natural light to penetrate the plaza area as it's currently designed. It will feel like you're in a tunnel. Get more light, air, and openness into that space. Ernest DeMaio: • There is a perception with the way the buildings are organized now that Bridge Street is the backside of the project. I think moving forward, Bridge Street needs to be looked at as being a future of the NRCC, and how we make that more welcoming. • There is an uninteresting repetitive sameness of the residential building, and that is representative of the materials, which are a significant downgrade from the prior approved project. • Every window is repeated hundreds of times. • I agree with comments recommending that the CLC should be closer to Boston Street. • The scale of the elements of the CLC don't seem to make sense. J. Michael Sullivan: • I appreciate the notion of trying to create a community, but I don't think it's been successful—there is too much asphalt on the property. 0 How did we arrive at 296 spaces? I question if that is necessary. DRB' , August, 2015 Page 10 of 10 Paul Durand: • I caution about stylistic intent. I'm all for using high quality materials that were used more frequently in the past, but I also realize that using those materials comes at a high cost and can derail a project. • I am more focused on scale and how the buildings will fit in. The former site plan for the commercial building fit that site plan very well, but the current uses do not seem to fit this presented site plan well. • I am disappointed that the CLC is separate. There is a jarring scale discrepancy between the two buildings. • I would have probably had the residential uses situated along Bridge Street, closer to the train station. • I would have put the CLC toward Boston Street. • The windows are repetitive. They don't seem to reflect what's actually going on inside the CLC. • The tower looks like a typical suburban gesture to look historic, but it fails. Durand: Motion to continue, Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the July 22, 2015 regular meeting. Jaquith requested that the minutes be considered at the next meeting in order to allow more time to review them. Durand: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0. Adjournment Durand: Motion to adjourn, Seconded by Sides. Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:38 pm. • Salem Redevelopment Authority 1015 JUL 20 P 1: 15 Design Review Board FILE # REVISED Meeting Agenda CITY CLERK SALEM, MASS. Wednesday, July 22, 2015 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 299 Essex Street(Bonchon): Discussion of proposed installation of signage • 2. 179 Essex Street(Salem Arts Center): Discussion of proposed installation of a building sign 3. 52 Charter Street(Peabody Essex Museum): Discussion of proposed demolition of boiler plant building 4. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion of proposed revisions to previously approved schematic design Old/ New Business Minutes Approval of the minutes from the June 24, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • This notice posted on "Offi oryllletjr�t5oard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JJU T5 at / 1yf,2m in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Salem Redevelopment Authority 1815 JUL IS P12- 54 Design Review Board CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. Meeting Agenda Wednesday, July 22, 2015 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 299 Essex Street(Bonchon): Discussion of proposed installation of signage • 2. 52 Charter Street(Peabody Essex Museum): Discussion of proposed demolition of boiler plant building 3. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion of proposed revisions to previously approved schematic design Old / New Business Minutes Approval of the minutes from the June 24, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "OffiGt la �oard" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on JUL at /2:SQ PH in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. DRB July 22, 2015 Page 1 of 5 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:OOpm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand, Glenn Kennedy,David Jaquith, Christopher Dynia,Ernest DeMaio Members Absent: Helen Sides and J. Michael Sullivan Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Proiects Under Review 1. 299 Essex Street(Bonchon): Discussion of proposed installation of signage. The submission under review includes a sign permit application, drawings, and photos of the proposed signage. Peter Alm was present on behalf of Bonchon. Shapiro explained that the applicant's proposed signage as currently shown is internally illuminated and goes against the recommendation of the City's Commercial Design Guidelines. He continued by noting that the proposed signage is also larger in size that what would ordinarily be recommended for the Urban Renewal Area. Shapiro noted that the DRB has the discretion to recommend what it would prefer to see with respect to both illumination and size, to the Salem Redevelopment Authority. Kennedy noted that he is not opposed to an internally lit blade sign for this particular location. Kennedy commented that the proposed wall sign does not feel like it belongs because the existing storefront does not accommodate signage in this style. Alm noted that Bonchon is a franchise; the business owner has little to no control over most design elements. Durand commented that the provided design does not appear as linear as the signage expressed in the photograph. DeMaio noted that he would prefer the signage to be backlit letters, in keeping with the City's Commercial Design Guidelines and the type of streetscape that we are trying to promote in this area. There is connotation of food shops having internally lit signage, and we should be trying to avoid that. DeMaio commented that the letters appear a bit large and does not seem to proportionally work for the building. The proposed text does not fit the surrounding one story streetscape. DRB July 22, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Dynia agreed with DeMain, noting that he would endorse reducing the size of the sign in order to proportionally reduce the size of the letters. He also commented that the addition of a tan colored border located above and below the proposed signage would help it blend in with the facade. Durand commented that the proposed signage could be resized to 29 square feet. Shapiro asked for clarification from the Board on where it stood with respect to illumination. Durand said that he would not like to see lights on this building because it would not help the architecture. Backlit letters would be fine but does not like the idea of an internally illuminated sign. Signage could go down to a 3'-0"x10'-0" sign with the letters proportionally reduced and centered between the borders. Ahn said that with respect to positioning of the building sign,he has gotten a variety of feedback as to whether it should be centered or shifted more toward the door. Kennedy commented that the placement of the blade sign should align with the left edge of the door. The larger sign could align with the window, pushing over to the left a bit instead of centering it. Alm presented two alternate scenarios for lighting, which included the use of gooseneck fixtures for external illumination, or backlit/halo. The blade sign would not be illuminated. Jaquith said that he would worry about the potential damage to the fagade that could occur with the installation of the gooseneck fixtures. Kennedy noted that an LED lighting strip might be more appropriate for external illumination than the goosenecks. Durand commented that if an LED light strip channel was to be used, a lower intensity black finish should be specified. This could be achieved on both proposed signs. DeMain commented that he would fully approve the use of halo lit letters but would endorse further review of an external lighting fixture, such as an LED strip. Kennedy: Motion to approve building signage with halo/backlit letters and/or Led lighting strip channel (sample to be reviewed by Kennedy), as well as the blade sign. • Blade sign moved to align with the left of the door • Wall sign becomes 36"x120", text proportionally reduced. • Wall sign moved to the left aligning with the window. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. Is DRB July 22, 2015 Page 3 of 5 2. 179 Essex Street(Salem Arts Center): Discussion of proposed installation of building sign. The submission under review includes a letter, designs, and photos of the proposed signage. Laura Potter was present on behalf of Salem Arts Center. Potter noted that the proposal contains two options, one painted directly onto the existing granite with stencils and the second would be a white wood sign. Durand asked whether the building owner would approve of painting directly on the granite. Robert Monk who was present on behalf of the Peabody Essex Museum explained that the paint is acrylic and would be easily removed, so they would not have an issue with it. Kennedy commented that the signage appears cleaner without the border. Jaquith noted that the word "center" appears a bit shifted to the left. This word could be pulled in a bit. Kennedy: Motion to approve painted letters on granite or wood signage that does not fill the granite space height and width. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. 3. 52 Charter Street(Peabody Essex Museum): Discussion of proposed demolition of boiler plant building. The submission under review includes a detailed coverletter and photos of the building proposed for demolition. Robert Monk was present on behalf of the Peabody Essex Museum. Monk noted that the proposed building to be demolished is no longer active or utilized. The original building was built in the 1950s. It was used for heating and cooling operations up until the fall of 2013,but those operations have since been relocated to the roof of the main building of the museum. A DEP order of environmental cleanup for an oil spill located beneath the building has been issued, which also must be addressed. Monk noted that the land would be partially landscaped with paving. Durand asked when the building would be taken down. Monk responded by saying it would occur within a month of final approval; most likely late August or early September. DeMaio questioned what protections would be up while work is done. DRB July 22, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Monk noted that proper screen fencing would be used.No fencing during the remediation phase would be located along the street,just a buffer between the sidewalk and building. The entire project should be done before the middle of October. DeMaio questioned if the sidewalk would be passable during October. Monk noted that the sidewalk would be passable after the building is taken down. Shapiro noted that a waiver of demolition delay has already been approved by the City's Historical Commission. Kennedy questioned what the area would ultimately look like. Monk responded by noting that it would ultimately be addressed with the new yet-to-be presented plans for the Museum's expansion. DeMaio asked what type of fence would be used. Monk noted that it would use the wooden fence shown in one of the provided photos to separate its property from the adjacent property, but no fence between the property in the sidewalk. The area will be graded and have about 12' of turf. James Warren, abutter to the property(17 Central Street,Unit 12)commented that the demolition of the proposed building would provide an unexpected benefit to the neighborhood. The unused 4-story chimney would be removed. Currently the building makes it difficult to view people coming in and out of the driveway. Jaquith: Motion to approve the proposed demolition as presented. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. 4. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street, 231-251 Washington Street(Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion of proposed revisions to previously approved schematic design. The submission under review includes a full set of plans with elevations and perspectives of the proposed revisions to the previously approved schematic design for the development. Seth Zeren and Matt Picarsic from RCG LLC, and architect Jai Singh Khalsa were present on behalf of 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street, 231-251 Washington Street. Zeren noted the following proposed changes while moving through a presentation provided to the Board: • DRB July 22, 2015 Page 5 of 5 • The main change would be to remove the top floor off of the West/South building that stretches along Washington Street resulting in 16 less residential units. The north building would remain the same. • The proposed lower parking level diagonal parking portion would not be built for cost concerns. 27 net parking spaces would be lost. • Retail spaces would become deeper along Washington Street. Durand questioned if the parking removed is proportional to the housing removed. Zeren noted that the changes are being reviewed as an overall package and are not being addressed as a 1:1 ratio. There will be 68 housing units with 216 spaces, so there is still a substantial amount of parking. The proposal would still provide adequate parking to meet the needs of residents. Zone B5 requires no parking for commercial uses. Durand commented that he applauds the change. It appears more proportional. Jaquith, Dynia, and DeMaio all commented that they agree with Durand's sentiment. Judy Copp, who was present in the audience, asked when construction would begin. Picarsic responded by noting that phase 1 infrastructure work would begin in the fall of this year, with excavation of for building construction to hopefully begin in spring of 2016. Jaquith: Motion to approve as presented, Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 5-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the June 24, 2015 regular meeting. DeMaio: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, Seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:16 pm. Salem Redevelopment Authority REVISIT 1015 JUN I l P 1: 4: Design Review Board CITY t L�r2tE iI 3 #EM MASE Meeting Agenda Wednesday, June 24, 2015 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call` Ernest DeMain Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 295 Derby Street (Speedway (former Hess)): Discussion of proposed installation of signage 2. Cigarette Butt Recycling Units (City of Salem): Discussion of proposed new labels and signage 3. 181 Essex Street (TBT Post): Discussion of proposed installation of signage 4. 179 Essex Street(Salem Arts Center) Discussion of proposed installation of window signage and a-frame sign 5. 118 Washington Street(Bistro 118): Discussion of proposed installation of window signage and new exterior paint colors. 6. 148-150 Washington Street(Joshua Ward House): Discussion of proposed exterior improvements Old/ New Business Minutes This ^ tine postedon "Offi I Bulletin Board" C ty r,.<<i, Salem, Mass. onithMGL Chap. 30A, o20/�' u JYl ' I -1� . Approval of the minutes from the May 27, 2645 regularr P e g.accordanc w Sections . Adjournment . Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. Salem • C= Redevelopment Authority 1015 JUN I l P I I S Design Review Board FILE # Meeting Agenda CITY CLERK, SALEM,MASS. Wednesday, June 24, 2015 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 295 Derby Street(Speedway (former Hess)): Discussion of proposed installation of signage • 2. Cigarette Butt Recycling Units (City of Salem): Discussion of proposed new labels and signage 3. 181 Essex Street(TBT Post): Discussion of proposed installation of signage 4. 179 Essex Street(Salem Arts Center) Discussion of proposed installation of window signage and a-frame sign 5. 118 Washington Street(Bistro 118): Discussion of proposed installation of window signage and new exterior paint colors. Old / New Business Minutes This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on I r� 0I Approval of the minutes from the May 27, 2015 reguiSF*RWFanceolt (M�GL bhap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Adjournment � •15�iY1 Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. • Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 ;R ph:978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 6/24/2015 --City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand, Glenn Kennedy, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, I Michael Sullivan, Christopher Dynia, Helen Sides Members Absent: Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Proiects Under Review *First item taken out of order* • • Cigarette Butt Recycling Units (City of Salem): Discussion of proposed new labels and signage. The submission under review includes a cover letter, design, and photo. Susan Yochelson of Salem Sound Coast Watch and Julie Rose where present on behalf of the City Of Salem. Yochelson noted that the proposal is to relocate existing units and to make them more visible to pedestrians with bolder signage, as a result of a project by interns who examined the effectiveness of the cigarette butt recycling units. Labels would be redesigned as shown and located on the units. Additional signage with arrows directing pedestrians to units would also be located on the street and inside nearby businesses. Rose commented that there are currently 90 recycling bins throughout the city and that the proposed unit label would be placed on all 3 sides. Sullivan questioned how many signs would be used to locate the units and could this signage be phased. The first approach would be to have signage located on the units and if that doesn't work then phase 2 would require locating additional signage that could direct pedestrians to the recycling units. Yochelson and Rose said that they would be amenable to that approach. Durand noted that he understands the need for a change in the signage given that the units as currently shown are relatively nondescript. He then commented that the board typically approves signage located at specific places. Durand commented that he would have concerns regarding . height and the interference signage would have with other things. Jaquith noted that additional signage could get out of control but feels that the campaign is important. Kennedy commented that there needs to be a balance on how much louder the campaign needs to be. Phase 1 could include placing signage on the front of recycling units. Placing labels on more than one side of a given unit could be done at the applicant's discretion. Having signage placed elsewhere would need to be a third phase to be approved by the boards at a later date, if necessary. Kennedy commented that staging the signage in phases would also become more visible to the • public than doing everything all at once. This would help balance how much visual noise is necessary. Kennedy commented that if the red becomes a bit darker the signage would become more legible; currently it comes off as too loud. DeMaio commented that he agrees with the approach. He noted that there is a balance that needs to be struck with respect to increasing the visibility of the signage but not to overwhelm someone walking down the street. Phasing if necessary, is a good approach. Sullivan: Motion to approve the revised label for the cigarette butt recycling units, conditional upon: • the applicant having discretion to place the labels on the sides of the units; • returning to the DRB if additional signage is needed; • red font should be darkened—Glenn Kennedy can review revisions; Seconded by: Durand, Passes 6-0. At this point Helen Sides joined the meeting. *This item taken out of order* • 181 Essex Street(TBT Post): Discussion of proposed installation of signage. The submission under review includes designs and photos of the proposed signage. • Morgan William Downs was present on behalf of TBT Post. Downs began by explaining the different styles and types of clothing and jewelry offered by the store. Downs then noted that the perspective signage frame would consist of aluminum and be Y-0" x Y-0". The signage would be made of PVC with wood lining. The existing bracket would be bolted into the granite. Sides questioned if the logo has been used in other locations. Downs commented that it is the business' official brand logo. Sullivan questioned if the windows would have any signage. Downs responded saying that there was no intention to put signs in the windows. Sullivan commented that the middle signage could align with the granite coursing. The signage located on the sides would be more appealing as window decals. The building is very linear. Three signs would over populate the granite coursing. Downs noted that the proposal does not include any window signage. • Kennedy noted that the bracket for the blade sign would need to drop down so that it could be mounted properly within the thicker course of granite. Durand commented that he agrees that the signage would fit better within the thicker coursing, similar to Pamplemousse. He said that he would not mind if the sign was lowered and intersected the glass below the granite. He continued to note that the building signage would be better if it was more rectangular, so that it fit within the granite coursing. • DeMaio noted that the applicant could consider having the signage within the window spandrel below, which is how Pamplemousse handles its building signage. Sides commented that the location and scaled drawings of the signage and bracket are needed and not addressed in the current submission. Sides commented that the board typically views submissions with more detail relative to dimensions. Kennedy said that he would be comfortable approving a 3'x3' blade sign as shown, with a bracket as shown, mounted underneath the thinner course of granite, but that the building signs should be considered. Sides and Durand noted that they agree with that approach. Kennedy: Motion to approve mount, 3'-0" x 3'-0" blade sign with black bracket as presented, conditional upon it being mounted below the thinner course of granite, and to continue the proposal for two other building signs. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0. • 295 Derby Street (Speedway former Hess): Discussion of installation of signage. The submission under review includes a letter, drawings, and photos of the proposed signage. • Heather Dudko was present on behalf of Speedway. Dudko explained that Speedway has acquired Hess and is in the process of changing signage at all current Hess gas stations. She noted that the proposal in this case is to remove all existing green "Hess" signage and to replace them with the new Speedway logo. There would be no structural change to the free standing sign—it will be refaced with the new logo. Dudko commented that the proposal also includes replacing the current manual price signage to a digital LED format. All signage is currently internally illuminated, and the new signage would also be internally illuminated. Shapiro noted that all current signage had at one point been approved as intemally illuminated. He also explained that typically, LED signage is not approved; however the City has made exceptions in the case of gas stations for pricing, which is something that has the tendency to change multiple times per week. Sides commented that the new proposed building sign looks better than the existing. The signage appears more contained and clean. Durand noted that he doesn't have a problem with the signage being proposed, especially since it is in line with the type of signage that has been there previsouly. Kennedy commented that he is okay with the proposed building signage and awning changes. Kennedy questioned if the shape of the digits on the LED signage could be less digital and more natural. A similar unit with a more dense digital light of a higher quality would provide a more • natural looking font. There are other led units that can achieve this. Dudko noted that she did not currently have an alternate specification for the digital signage but that it might be possible for her client to address. Kennedy: Motion to approve all signage as presented except for the digital sign board, which should be presented again at a future date with a higher quality more realistic looking presentation. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0. • 179 Essex Street (Salem Arts Center): Discussion of proposed installation of window signage • and A-Frame sign. The submission under review includes photos and designs of the proposed signage. Laura Potter was present on behalf of Salem Arts Center. Potter explained that the Salem Arts Association and Salem Collective of Artists and Musicians (SCAM) is combining forces to rent the former Bernard's space as a shared gallery space and studio. They intend to name the entity, the Salem Arts Center. Potter noted that the proposal is for an A-Frame to be placed in front of the storefront and vinyl logos located on the entry windows. Windows up front would hold art installations that would change on a regular basis. No business or organization signage is being proposed at this time, but they would like to return in the future for approval. Jaquith commented that the individual signs should be placed on side panels instead of doors. Sides commented that the letters located on the squared logo should come in from edges a bit. Potter agreed to the changes being proposed. Jaquith: Motion to approve individual signs located on side panels instead of doors, and approval of A-Frame sign. • Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0. • 118 Washington Street (Bistro 118): Discussion of proposed installation of window signage and new exterior paint colors. The submission under review includes photos and cut sheets of the proposed signage. Devin Kenneson was present on behalf of Bistro 118. Shapiro interjected to note that although the current submission shows a proposal to repaint the fapade, that RCG informed him that it will not currently approve that proposal. The proposal is for three signs total, all to be placed on window (two on Washington Street side and one on the Lappin Park side). Kennedy commented that the `B" could be moved over slightly to become more legible and that the overall size of the window decal could be slightly smaller to fit in the window a bit better. DeMaio commented that the eleven and the eight are disassociated so much that it becomes confusing. The stroke could be 10%thicker to make it feel more unified. Kennedy: Motion to approve the • Window signs • • Shifting the B slightly to the left within the logo • Making the window decals 10%smaller in the space • Matching the white font to the intended white of the building Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0. • 148-150 Washington Street (Joshua Ward House): Discussion of proposed exterior • improvements. The submission under review includes photos, drawings, and plans of the proposed exterior improvements. Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects and Todd Waller (developer) noted that the proposal is for: • Brand new windows and frames • Slate roof which was originally asphalt shingles • Refurbishing the existing fence • Taking out existing paving and replacing it with brick • Old foundation wall would be removed and replaced, moving in about six feet. • Granite blocks would be put down. • New accessibility opening located in the back of building for a chair lift. • Balustrade at the top of the roof. Sides questioned if the sills would be replaced because of cracking. Ricciarelli stated that they would be replaced with insulated, wood, true divided light windows. Ricciarelli showed the Board a sample of the simulated slate to be used for the roof replacement. • The existing signage frame seen on the front lawn would be used to mount a new sign that is the same size. The proposed signage would be presented to the DRB at a later time. Sullivan questioned what the process would be for cleaning the masonry. Riccirelli explained that any dust created would be cleaned but overall it is not needed. DeMain questioned the material of the brick to be used for the driveway and suggested that the Board might want to review it prior to installation. Ricciarelli responded that they planned to use Boston Paver. Durand noted that Boston Pavers tends to be a standard. Jaquith: Motion to approve the drawings as presented with Boston Pavers Brick in the driveway. Seconded by Sides: Passes 7-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the May 27, 2015 regular meeting. Edits were suggested to revise members noted as not present versus present at the top of the minutes. • Kennedy: Motion to approve with suggested edits. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, Seconded by Durand. Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:42 pm. • Salem Redevelopment Authority 7015 MAY 20 P 12: 3b FILE # Design Review Board CITY OLEPA, SALEM. MAS`. Meeting Agenda Wednesday, May 27, 2015 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review Q 1. 24 New Derby Street(Artists' Row): Discussion of installation of signage for: M a. Stall #5 (DINO and Sheila Farren Billings) v c • b. Stall #1 (Boston Woodturning) o� c c. Stall #4 (Nikky Bergman Jewelry, Witch City Wicks, and The Pack Paper Co.) MN U d. Stall # 2 (Ceramics by Sibel) eo CJ9 g 2. 2-26 Front Street(Goldberg Properties): Discussion of proposed replacement of roof �� r m¢ 3. 45 Lafayette Street(The Cheese Shop of Salem): Discussion of proposed installation of �� y signage A 4. 7 Church Street(Jodi Bee Bakes): Discussion of: O o 0 a. Proposed installation of signage; and c H b. Proposed outdoor seating area m 5. 144 Washington Street(Hauswitch Home and Healing): Discussion of proposed o d C N installation of signage Qi; cc u �Qcc o 7 M c Old/ New Business r =c o w +� Minutes N Approval of the minutes from the April 22, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. Salem City Hall 93"ach ng`°°Street Salem,MA 01970 ph:978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 5/27/2015 --City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 6:OOpm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand, Glenn Kennedy, David Jaquith, Ernest DeMaio, and Christopher Dynia Members Absent: Helen Sides and J. Michael Sullivan Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review • 2-26 Front Street(Goldberg Properties): Discussion of proposed replacement of roof. *This item was taken out of order* • The submission under review includes a letter, cut sheet, and sample of the proposed products. Steve and Jay Goldberg were present. Steve Goldberg noted that the current roof material is synthetic. The proposal would replace the existing with a new synthetic roof in the winter green mix color finish. Durand noted that he felt like the proposal looks good. DeMaio questioned if snow guards would be replaced but continue to match the existing. Steve Goldberg commented that they would be replaced. DeMaio noted that snow guards should not be a bright metal finish. They should keep with the character of the building and consist of either a powder-coated steel, copper, or a color that matches with the roof. The material should not be shiny, it should not be galvanized steel. Jaquith questioned whether the roof is currently failing. Steve Goldberg confirmed that it is. DeMaio questioned if trim would be placed around the buildings edges. N Goldberg commented that there would be no trim just copper gutters on the front and rear of the building. Jaquith: Motion to approve the winter green roofing with a non-bright metal snow guard. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. • 24 Derby Street(Artists' Row): Discussion of installation of signage for: Stall#5 (DINO and Sheila Farren Billings) Stall#1 (Boston Woodturning) • Stall#4 (Nikky Bergman Jewelry, Witch City Wicks, and The Pack Paper Co.) Stall#2 (Ceramics by Sibel) The submission under review includes a letter, drawings, and photos of the proposed signage. Stall#5: Sheila Billings was present on behalf of the applicant. Kennedy commented that the separation between the two names could be brought together a bit more to sit centered within the sign. Kennedy noted that the signage elements appear like they are falling off. Kennedy questioned if the silver hooks could be a powder coated black finish to match. Billings questioned whether the artwork could be repositioned to provide separation from the text. Kennedy agreed that that would be fine. Kennedy: Motion to approve with the recommendations listed below. • Reducing the space between the top and bottom of the signage • Provide black powder coated hooks Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. Stall #1 • Tommy Gagnon was present. Kennedy that he likes the shape of the sign, but that the proposed signage element could fit and be centered more in the spacing of the sign. Gagnon explained that it is a real wood-carved sign and that he had already began buildingicarving it. He showed the Board a picture of the sign in its current state on his phone. Kennedy asked if a black rule around the border would be used. Gagnon confirmed that the rule would be used. Kennedy commented that the text located below could be reduced if needed. Shapiro noted that the signs being presented for Artists' Row are temporary/seasonal. Durand noted that the sign seems very high quality and that some of Kennedy's proposed revisions seem minor. Durand: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. Stall#4 Nikki Bergman and Liz Frasier were present. Jaquith questioned the colors being used for the signage. Bergman replied noting that it would be navy blue with off-white lettering. DeMaio asked if the edge of the sign would also be navy blue. • Bergman noted that the edge would be navy blue. Jaquith asked about the connectors between the three signs. Bergman said that they would be powder coated black carbineers. They had considered a bar that would have made the sign more rigid. Kennedy commented that the proposed connection located at the top needs to be stable to prevent any movement caused by wind. The navy blue finish could have a hint of slate. Kennedy: Motion to approve with black grommets. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. Stall#2 Sibel was present. Jaquith questioned whether the brown in the sign would be wood grain. Sibel noted that the proposed brown color represents the actual wood finish. The lettering would be made of glazed ceramic stoneware. Kennedy asked how the ceramic letters are attached. • Sibel explained that small holes are drilled and the letters are screwed in. Jaquith: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. • 45 Lafayette Street(The Cheese Shop of Salem): Discussion of proposed installation of signage. The submission under review includes a cut sheet and drawings of the proposed signage. Peter Endicott of the Cheese Shop noted that the proposed building sign would fit within the existing sign band over the entrance. The existing light fixtures would remain. Signage would be printed on metal. There are fixed black awnings that will remain. The goal was to keep the sign simple and easy to read. Kennedy asked if the result of the design was what was being sought. Endicott commented that the sign turned out more traditional than originally intended. The sign was designed with the manager's input and with informal input from the Derby Loft residents. Shapiro questioned whether the signage needed to be approved by the Derby Lofts condo association. Endicott noted that the sign did not need to be approved by the condo association. • DeMaio commented that the wall sign's text needs to be adjusted. The top of"H" in shop and bottom of"P" in shop are centered in field. This causes the whole line of the text feels like it is favoring the top of the sign and not centered in the field. Kennedy commented that pushing down the text, slightly, as a unit would balance off the text on the sign. The vertical signage text spacing could be brought in very slightly to be more legible. This would make the lettering appear more as a name. Jaquith: Motion to approve with recommendations listed below. • • Lowering the band of letters on the long sign slightly • Correcting the spacing on the blade sign. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. • 7 Church Street(Jodi Bee Bakes): Discussion of proposed installation of signage and proposed outdoor seating area. The submission under review includes photos and cut sheets of the proposed signage and outdoor seating. Jodi Bradbury was present. Shapiro explained that the signage is being supported by the City's Storefront Improvement Program. On-Contract Architect Dale Gienapp and his firm developed the designs for the signage. Dynia commented that the bee logo located over the door appears lost. Dynia questioned if the element could have a solid background. Bradbury noted that she feels the same way and that she's been playing with the coloring. She welcomed any feedback. DeMaio noted that similarly, the bee seems to be lost on the awning. • Bradbury noted that she is not fond of having a backer. Durand commented that the color of the bee is probably the best contrast. Black would get lost especially where it is on a green awning. The 3D bee could be lowered 2 brick courses above the door. A backer is not necessarily a good solution. Kennedy noted that he would not recommend putting a backer on the bee element but it would require some sort of connector. The three individual pieces would need to be tied together or mounted on the wall independently with pins. Kennedy commented that the bee could be gold instead of the proposed off white color. Gold could replace the off white lettering on the on the awning as well. The bands on the top of the windows could be gold with the black lettering to provide just enough contrast. Bradbury agreed that gold could look good and that she would explore that option. Kennedy noted that he would be willing to work with the applicant before the SRA meeting. Kennedy: Motion to approve as presented with recommendations listed below. • Lowering the bee above the door 2 brick courses • Exploring a lighter gold color scheme to replace the off white color. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. • Three tables, thirty inches in diameter each would be lined along the storefront windows along Church Street. DeMaio noted that the sidewalk material changes from concrete to granite block then to brick. Seating should be held from the granite block towards Washington Street and remain off the brick. This is a heavy traffic area. Bradbury commented that she would agree to this request. Jaquith: Motion to approve the location and design of tables and chairs as presented. Seconded by: Durand, Passes 5-0. • 144 Washington Street (Hauswitch Home and Healing): Discussion of proposed installation of signage. The submission under review includes photos and cut sheets of the proposed signage. Kennedy commented that the proposed signage uses two different fonts. Spacing between the two lines could be tightened up a bit on the signage above the door. Kennedy commented that the text could come closer together. The proposed text border could move down a bit to make the image on the blade sign read more easily. Jaquith: Motion to approve with recommendations listed below. • Tightening the two lines of text on the wall sign • Move the border text located on the blade sign slightly Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the April 22, 2015 regular meeting. Jaquith: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, Seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:14 pm. Salem Redevelopment Authority 70I5 APA I b P S: 29 Design Review Board �rITY ELE Si�LEM. MASS, Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 22, 2015 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 288 Derby Street(Bambolina): Discussion of: a. Proposed signage; and • b. Proposed installation of steel chimney and kitchen exhaust hood on roof 2. 186 Essex Street, Unit#2 (Village Silversmith): Discussion of proposed building sign and a-frame sign 3. 24 New Derby Street/Artists' Row#3 (Lobster Shanty): Continued discussion of proposed installation of air-cooled fan unit. Old/ New Business 4. Derby Square and Essex Street Pedestrian Mall: Discussion of proposed Adirondack chairs and umbrellas Minutes Approval of the minutes from the March 25, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. . This notice posted on "Officialull tin B rd" City Hall, Salem, Mass. on APR f 6 201 at !'Z% /gyp'/ in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Salem • M= Redevelopment Authority 2015 APR 15 A 8. 34 FILE Design Review Board CITY EtEKK. SALEM. MASS., Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 22, 2015 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 288 Derby Street (Bambolina): Discussion of: a. Proposed signage; and • b. Proposed installation of steel chimney and kitchen exhaust hood on roof 2. 186 Essex Street, Unit#2 (Village Silversmith): Discussion of proposed building sign and a-frame sign Old / New Business Minutes Approval of the minutes from the March 25, 2015 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Offici ulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. an JS 0 � • at f.*34 o in accordance Oith MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 ph:978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 4/22/2015 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 6:OOpm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand, Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy, David Jaquith, J. Michael Sullivan, Christopher Dynia Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review • 288 Derby Street (Bambolina): Discussion of proposed signage and proposed installation of steel chimney and kitchen exhaust hood on roof. • The submission under review includes a letter, drawings, and photos of the proposed steel chimney and signage. Terry Brown from Village Signworks was present on behalf of Bambolina to discuss the proposed signage. Terry noted that the proposed signage would use the existing lighting fixtures on the right and left sides of the sign and be located above the door. Kennedy inquired as to why a flat sign was being proposed as opposed to a blade sign. Brown noted that this was the preference of the applicant. Jaquith questioned whether the spacing between the words "crafted" and"wood" was intentional. Brown responded noting that it was. Jaquith then commented that words should appear separated; this can be achieved by using more space or a dot. Jaquith: Motion to approve with the comment that additional space should be added between "crafted" and"wood." Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. Architect Richard Griffin was present on behalf applicant with respect to the proposed chimney and vent installation. Griffin noted that a second means of egress to exit out onto Liberty Street is required by building code. The proposal is for a 3-foot exit door with a raised side panel. The existing sill would drop 8" • to allow for the proposed door. The door would be stained a similar color brown to an existing door seen across the street. Additionally, the applicants are calling for the installation of a chimney to vent a new pizza oven. Griffin commented that the chimney would extend 2 feet above the higher roofline. It is proposed to be steel and silver in appearance. A hood exhaust would also be added but would not be visible from the street as it would be set back 16'. It may be visible from the adjacent cemetery. Sullivan questioned if the chimney could be moved over in between the two windows. He also • commented that he is concerned about the hood being visible from the graveyard. Griffin explained that the chimney needed to stay in its current position given the location of the pizza oven inside the building. He also noted that nobody occupies the windows where the chimney would be located. Sides questioned if the chimney could be a matte black finish as opposed to stainless. Stainless would be more apparent from the street. Black would blend better. Jaquith commented that he agrees that black would be a better color to use and that it would be in keeping with the industrial history of the building. He noted that he has no problem with the hood vent. Restaurant co-owner Tim Haigh commented that he also felt as though the chimney blends well with the industrial look of the building. He also commented that the City's fire prevention officer had commented to him that they prefer the straight venting that the chimney, in its currently proposed position, would provide —it provides a better convention current. Shapiro noted that the Building Department has approved the plans. Jaquith: Motion to approve as amended with a matte black finish for the chimney. Door approved as submitted. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. . • 186 Essex Street, Unit#2 (Village Silversmith): Discussion of proposed building sign and A- frame sign. The submission under review includes a letter, cut sheet, and sample of the proposed signage. Katy Lovasco was present on behalf of Village Silversmith Lovasco explained that the building sign being proposed is aluminum. They are also proposing a black wood framed chalkboard a-frame sign for placement outside of the business. Kennedy commented that the blue color selection does not work well with the green awning or surrounding signage. Black with white text would be the best scenario. Lovasco asked whether the inverse of the colors might be preferable to the Board. Kennedy said that might be better, but black and white would still be best. Lovasco commented that the colors being proposed are part of the store's branding. They have several other locations where similar or the same color combinations are used. Sides commented that a sign with a white background might look too much like a medical office. Durand commented that he wished the building could have some continuity of signage. He noted • that Omen seems to handle the approach to signage best. Sides commented that the location is a marketplace and there is a variety of signage that cannot be changed. Dynia commented that the sign seems overscaled. Kennedy commented that the proposed text should decrease P' within the sign so that it appears more legible. The logo would reduce '/2" as well to create more edge space. Sides: Motion to approve with review by Glenn Kennedy Reduced text to 1" Reduced logo to 1/2" Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0. • 24 Derby Street/Artists Row #3 (Lobster Shanty): Continued discussion of proposed installation of air-cooled fan unit. The submission under review includes a cut sheet and drawings of the proposed fan unit. Lee Wolfe was present on behalf of the Lobster Shanty. Shapiro explained that the applicant has revised the application from having the fan unit mounted on the side of the building, to having it installed on the roof, with a wood platform that would be painted green to match the roof. It would be amongst other rooftop elements that currently sit atop the roof. Jaquith commented that this was a far better proposal than what had been previously proposed. Jaquith: Motion to approve. • Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. Old/New Business • Derby Square and Essex Street Pedestrian Mall: Discussion of proposed Adirondack chairs and umbrellas. The submission under review includes photos and cut sheets of the proposed chairs and umbrellas. Shapiro noted that the proposal is for 6 Adirondack chairs made of pine to be placed behind the newly renovated fountain. They would be all the same size in a variety of colors. Sides commented that she would prefer the chairs to be all the same color or two different colors. Sides noted that she likes the light green and light blue shades. Blues and red would be nice as well. Sides: Motion to approve 3 green and 3 blue chairs. Seconded by: Durand, Passes 6-0. Shapiro noted that the proposal also calls for 6 umbrellas for the existing tables and chairs in Derby Square. Durand commented that he likes the buttercup color because it is lively. They should all be the • same color. Jaquith: Motion to approve 6 buttercup color umbrellas. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the March 25, 2015 regular meeting. Jaquith: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, Seconded by Kennedy. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 6:50 pm Salem Redevelopment Authority Design Review Board REVISED - Meeting Agenda Wednesday, March 25, 2015—6:00 pm o 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room rn A Roll Call " v r N g„m O Ernest DeMain Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides 3 D Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan a3. David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 155 Washington Street(Adriatic Restaurant): Discussion of proposed installation of awning • 2. 24 New Derby Street/Artists' Row#3 (Lobster Shanty): Discussion of propose installation of air-cooled fan unit. Old/ New Business Minutes Approval of the minutes from the December 17, 2014 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Off' Bulletin Board" City Hall, Salem, Mass. o GY�i ao�� at // ///9m in accordanc th MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. a Salem Redevelopment Authority 1015 MAA 18 P I- l u FILE # Design Review Board CITY CLERK, SALEM, MASS. Meeting Agenda Wednesday, March 25, 2015 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room Roll Call Ernest DeMaio Glenn Kennedy Paul Durand Helen Sides Christopher Dynia J. Michael Sullivan David Jaquith Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 155 Washington Street(Adriatic Restaurant): Discussion of proposed installation of awning • Old/ New Business Minutes Approval of the minutes from the December 17, 2014 regular meeting. Adjournment Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official� Bulletin Do, r " City Hall, Salem, Mass. on ''//" / 19'/ p/S at / / Y PM in accordance with MGL Chap. 30A, Se tions 18-25. • 'Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 ph:978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 3/25/2015 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday March 25, 2015 at 6:OOpm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy, Christopher Dynia and J. Michael Sullivan Members Absent: Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Andrew Shapiro Chairman Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review • 155 Washington Street(Adriatic Restaurant): Discussion of proposed installation of awning Documents and Exhibitions: • • Cover letter • Photos showing awnings superimposed on existing building Vini Kurti, owner of Adriatic Restaurant, was present. Mr. Kurti noted that he would like to erect awnings above his restaurant windows. He explained that he was told that the bottom of the awnings must be no lower than 10 feet from the sidewalk. His plan was to have a fixed awning, but he has since revised his proposal to be a retractable awning, which when fully extended, its bottom would be about 8 and a half feet from the sidewalk. Turner's Seafood installed similar style awnings. There would be no logo on the awning, only gold colored vertical stripes as shown in the designs. Durand asked Kurti if he had thought of an interior solution to the issue of too much sunlight spilling into the restaurant. Kurti explained that the restaurant has shades, but they are ineffective and not able to be used when the windows are opened in the warmer months. Shapiro confirmed that a fixed awning could be no less than 10 feet from the sidewalk, but that he had yet to confirm with the building department whether the proposed retractable awning would be acceptable. Durand, Sides, and Kennedy all noted that they felt that the 10 ft. height limit was high. Durand • also expressed that he feels that the solution of a retractable awning is fine. Sides also said that she was okay with the retractable awning. Kennedy said that he would be fine with an awning—fixed or retractable -being at 8 and a half feet from the sidewalk, and that 10 feet seems too restrictive. Sullivan questioned whether a variance could be sought for a fixed awning at the proposed height. Shapiro noted that he conferred with the Building Department about that possibility, but was told t that a variance could not be sought in this case. DeMain noted that he suspects that there are several examples around the City of awnings being • lower than 10 feet from the sidewalk. Shapiro acknowledged that this is likely the case, however the code of ordinances clearly states the requirement that signs or awnings over public sidewalks be at least 10 feet from the sidewalk. DeMaio pointed out that Turner's Seafood has retractable awnings that are likely less than 10 feet from the ground. Durand then noted that would present a precedent. Durand suggested that he would motion to recommend approval of the retractable awning, noting to the SRA that the 10 ft. height limit seems too restrictive, and that this would be a good compromise. DeMaio added that perhaps the Board should consider adding the condition that the awning be no lower than the height of the awnings at Turner's Seafood. Durand responded by noting that perhaps the Board should not single out one establishment in terms of precedent for an awning lower than 10 ft., but to call out a dimension that seems acceptable in this case. Sides and others note that they would be comfortable with 8 feet as the limit. Durand: Motion to approve conditional upon the bottom of the retractable awning being no lower than eight(8) feet and upon approval from the Building Inspector. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0. • • 24 New Derby Street/Artists' Row #3 (Lobster Shanty): Discussion of proposed installation of air-cooled fan unit Documents and Exhibitions: • Memo to the Board • Photos showing existing conditions and with drawings of proposed outline of unit • Specifications of fan • Wooden box(brought in physically) that would house the fan Diane Wolf and Paul (Chef of the restaurant) were present on behalf of the Lobster Shanty. Wolf explained that they planned on installing a fan to cool their refrigeration until, which would be mounted on the side of their building with a wooden box screening it, which would be painted the same color green as the roof. Paul noted that they propose to mount it 80 inches off the ground with a lock in order to prevent people from tampering with it. Sides expressed a concern about how far the box and unit would be sticking out from the side of the building. Durand questioned how the unit and box would be supported. Paul explained that bracing would • have to be mounted. Sides questioned whether a roof unit could be considered as an alternative. Wolf noted that she would not object to mounting the unit on the roof. Dynia explained that a platform would need to be constructed to support the unit on the roof. Jaquith inquired about what the unit was for. Wolf explained that it would be used to cool a walk-in refrigeration unit that is currently water cooled. The air-cooled unit would save the restaurant approximately $6,000 per year. Jaquith questioned whether there was a way to have a unit sit on top of the refrigerator inside the building, and to duct the hot air out. Wolf noted that there is not enough room inside the building to accomplish this. Sullivan asked if the current mechanical units on the roof can be seen from the RCG parking lot that is adjacent to Artists' Row. Wolf said that yes, they can he seen. Sides again emphasized her preference not to see the unit mounted on the side of the building, especially given the amount of support the unit would need in order to be held up. Kennedy noted that he is less concerned about the visual impact of the proposed unit, as opposed to the issues inherent with supporting it on the side of the building. Sides: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the December 17, 2014 regular meeting. Kennedy: .Motion to approve, seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0 (Durand and Dynia abstain). Adjournment Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sides. Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 6:27 pm. • I Salem • M= Redevelopment Authority 1015 FfB 18 p 1. 2� Design Review Board Notice of Meeting Cancelation elrY CLEM,S�# NgSS. Wednesday, February 25, 2015 — 6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Offici B Iletin Board" City Hall, Sal m, Mass. on 0 0101 )� at / ,."2�P4 in accordanc with MGL! Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. Salem 7: Redevelopment Authority 1615 JAN 21 P 12: 11 CITY CLE✓W SALEM. MASS. Design Review Board Notice of Meeting Cancelation Wednesday, January 28, 2015 —6:00 pm 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELED. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A§18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033. This notice postedon "Offic' Il pard" City Hall,Salem,.Mass,. on ��n y ri� at /!-.'// '� in accordance with MGL Chap..30A, Sections 18-25. • DRA City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Ernest DeMaio, Glenn Kennedy, Chris Dynia, David Jaquith, J. Michael, Sullivan DRB Members Absent: Helen Sides Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Colleen Brews,*r Chair Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. Roll call was taken. Urban Renewal Area Proiects Under Revie� 1. 5 Central Street (Aroma Sanctum): Discussiomand vote on proposed a'frame sign Akuura Kulak of Aroma Sanctum was present to dlussstthe proposed signage. Kulak stated that the-plastic black"fr `shall be�pla�ced in the planter area. • Chair Durand o' pen p �c9omment No one in the�ssembly wi§hled to speak. Chair D il-closes public comment: Jaquith: Motion to approve.proposed signage. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes, 5-0. Ked ay rrives. \`\ 2. 143 Washing ton`Street'(Oak + Moss): Discussion and vote on proposed window signage '\;�Wo Jamie Metsch and Kate Leavy of Oak + Moss were present to discuss the proposed signage. Metsch stated that they will start a retail store at 143 Washington Street. They are proposing to apply three vinyl decals on two Front Street windows and another on a Washington Street window. Metsch provided a vinyl swatch in an opaque light grey color. A temporary "coming soon" text will be added underneath the Washington Street decal. Kennedy suggested that all three decals have 'coming soon" added to them 1 Chair Durand opens public comment. • No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve proposed signage. Seconded by: Dynia. Passes 6-0. 3. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street, and 231-251 Washington Street (Hampton Inn, Mixed-Use Development Project)`--Discussion and vote on proposed revisions to final design Attorney Thomas Alexander of Alexander&Femino, %Dustin DeNunzio of the DeNunzio Group, LLC is the Manager of Dodge Street,-LLC., Ken McClure, Mark Woglom, Manager of Opechee Construction Corporation, and Keith Kelley VP of Opechee Construction Corporation were present'to discuss the piroject. Atty. Alexander stated that Dodge Street, LLC still%wns the property. During the bid process the numbers couldn't bet so the design was re-evaluated andredesigned to be more efficient and economicale buildings are now one story shorter with 30 fewer residential units and the 113-hotel ,room'count has not changed. The office space has been eliminated but the retail use will remain�The buildinngjootprint is approximately the same and the`pa&ing has mg w slightly increased \> • DeNunzio staf ted;that they are workinith RCG but couldn't make the numbers work with an ineffic en0design. Structural changes were made and they have downsized some elements of\thebuilding-pro..gram with'`a bigger focus on the hotel and expanding along Washington Street. The retail and residential spaces will remain; however, a final use for the flexible space hasn't been d„ a ined. The SRA's comments were included 'in this currentiteration. Woglum stated that Main Course Hospitality Group had their office review both portions of th `project which resulted in a simplified design; the structural system, less site work, constructing both portions+at once, and simplified roof lines. The result is an economically viable project with the same materials, orientation, and a similar footprint. Woglum stated'th tthe access point between buildings has been removed and the hotel now turns the corner at-Dodge Street and continues along Washington Street. The primary entry to hotel'was at the corner of Dodge Street and Dodge Street Court and the vehicular and main pedestrian entry is now on Dodge Street across from Starbucks. The hotel parking will be valet parking only and all public parking spaces will be on the lower level with overflow valet spaces. The majority of overnight parking will be on the second level of the parking deck and that level has no access to other interior spaces. There is a slight excess in parking so some of the spaces could be leased to tenants. The paving design and patios are similar. The residential site work is similar but the drainage infrastructure was modified and there is no longer a stepped entry. 2 • Woglum stated that additional divisions of the retail space have been included for potential smaller retail spaces as was suggested by the SRA. The hotel dining and other amenities are on the second floor with a mixture of guestrooms and residential units on both the second and third floors. A repetitive wall structure simplifies the unit design. The live/work units will be left undefined until market demand is determined. The top- level parking deck will be accessed off of Washington Street and it will now have a roof to conceal it. Potential three-bedroom units that were eliminated have been re- incorporated per the SRA's recommendation. Kelly stated that the project has been redesigned in a way that will get it built. The revised renderings show the same materials applied in�a,ssimilar fashion, the hotel will have a modern look with a metal panel application and the residential portion a traditional feel with a brick facade. The connectohas been simplified to accept the transition between the modern and traditional, and the changes in massing made to work with the grade changes. Jaquith stated that the old scheme possibly shouldn't havebeen followed because some features have been lost which has Iimited,the new scheme architecturally. The parking has improved, the best residential portion along Washington Street is the best elevation although it has lost elements, and the Dodge Street Court elevation has improved but still needs work. The connection between the twoo�buildings has been lost�but could be worked out. DeMaio stated that although%there are some similarities,the efficiency changes are significant and the current proposed design has.signifPcant,,design changes that went • through months-of review. The cu rru ent proposal is only At start of its own redesign -{ process and�resembles�a Schematic Design review with many layers of design missing. Buildings are,veryy two-dimensional, they'lack variety, richness, detail, scale changes, shadow, and texture that the Board has, orked had to include. This is a significant location worthy of\more byrthe people who build here and too many steps backwards have been taken. The Board-will work with you to achieve efficiency but also make it appropriate#owr�downtown Salem. Dynia stated that he agrees with,the comments so far. He stated that the residential and retail are the more uccessfuj`portions, but the blue corner of the hotel has been over- simplified.aanmd needs Yo find its way,'back to where it was. Kennedy that he ag ees with most of the comments so far but a couple meetings should result in significant improvements. The last design clearly defines the three spaces and using different colors isn't enough to separate its monolithic massing but varying the size cf elements could help. The residential vs. modern changes help define those areas; however, the Washington Street hotel corner needs more defining with shadows, etc. The facades beyond the blue corner and along Dodge Street Court facade could work but are less of a concern. Sullivan stated that multiple meetings revised the old design and the current is less developed. The changes created a different kind of structural problem and this current iteration will need a couple meetings to review. The hotel needs to explain why they want their entrance in the middle of Dodge Street. If the hotel wants to carry on the • design esthetic of another building the Board will need to respond to that detail. 3 Kennedy noted that the blue portion of the hotel seems more like an appendage than a • structure that could stand on its own now that is has been shortened. Jaquith added that the blue towards the opposite side of Washington Street is now meaningless. Woglum agreed and noted that the hotel was adamant about not having the entrance along Dodge Street Court because it resembles a back alley. Kennedy stated that the first-floor finish is not very inviting as a restaurant space. Jaquith added that it is very visible since it extends past the front of the neighboring building. Kennedy noted that it is a very important corner and some small changes to the modern portion will make it more powerful. The similarity of the window is economical but the previous change in windows worked well to differentiate between buildings. Woglum replied that the window design will`be-,identical. Jaquith noted that the window spacing is off. Jaquith stated that the second floor of the yellZpo�` oresembles office space and doesn't read as residential. Dustin repliedithat is was live/work and it was accessed from the rear. Woglum replied that more glass makes theretail more prominent and the second floor of that is meant to be a more modern unit with more glass and similar to what's below. Jaquith added that window coverings will be needed inside that space. Chair Durand opens public comment. William LeGault, 2 Orne Street states that he is concerned with the parking design as a former city councilor that voted fo give over the 38 public parking spaces. The current public parking plan is not in the spirit of the agreement as it limits its accessibility and should be accessed from Washington,Street$not Dodge St et Court. People objected, • to giving up the spaces,batit was fought for:' D,usti eplied'that it would be better since %they are cove ed�and ac essible. LeGault replied thatthey are now more difficult to get to. Emily Udy;-8,Buffum,�Street ,-Histbric Salem„Inc. Connector piece on upper WashiiigtWSireet was,onginally awery-creative space that now no longer fits the area. ITT Qhe'blue corner i highly visible and they uld expect a higher design in downtown Salem because it is is and it has the opportunity to be that. The current designs a plain box4hat will become quickly dated. Washington Street elevation now has a' lower ceiling height and the,corner with the blue loses out with such a low ceiling. All of the,windows are now,the same now holes in a facade, they were varied before. There is more facade material and less glazing and she preferred more glazing. The residential facade and hotel entry along Dodge Street is successful but details were lost. No one else in h asse bly wished to speak. Chair Durand stated that the flattening of the previous design was about the scale and the building fitting into downtown Salem, and the changes are now to the detriment of the character of the city. The flattening out of the same materials makes it more suburban. It needs to be in scale and in character with the City. The residential aspect is more successful but that first floor's undetermined use with residential stoops is uncomfortable and details have been lost. The flattening of the facades is not a solution to a complex city with significant historical architecture and roots. The Board was trying to articulate a modern building that was sensitive to the scale, materials, etc. This design needs some work and rethinking. The changes don't work and this is a major • development that will draw a lot of comments. 4 • DeMaio noted that the previous design took a similar window type but treated it differently and those changes gave it some variety. The current windows all have the same treatment. Some spaces will need a bit more because of where they are located. Sullivan noted that the passage way to the parking lot is now hotel and it could read differently to show the division in the hotel and residential spaces. Jaquith: Motion to continue to the November 29, 2017 meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. Old/New Business k .3 Minutes The minutes from the September 27, 2017 re4gula" r,meeting were reviewed. Kennedy: Motion to approve the minutes and trike`his comment. Seconded by: DeMaio. Passes 6-0. Adjournment Kennedy: Motion to adjourn-the meeting. ecorided by: DeMaioPasses 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at M. Know:your rights under the Open_Meet ing Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2 028 through 2-2033. 5