Loading...
2006-07-26 DRB MinutesDRB Minutes June 26, 2006 Page 1 of 4 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 26, 2006 A regular meeting of the Salem Design Review Board (DRB) was held in the third floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, on Wednesday, June 26, 2006 at 6:00 pm. Members Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand, David Jaquith, and Glenn Kennedy were present. Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Debra Tucker, Clerk, were also present. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Hartford reported that there would be an Open Meeting Law training held on Monday, July 31, 2006. She asked that anyone interested in attending reply to Dan Merhalski, Staff Planner, in the Department of Planning and Community Development. New Civilitea is holding a Grand Opening on July 27th between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and board members are invited. Crunchy Granola Baby will also be holding a Grand Opening on August 4th at 11:30 a.m. PROJECTS UNDER REVIEW 1. 13 Washington Square (The Washington Square Studio) Ms. Hartford introduced the proposed signage for 13 Washington Square for The Washington Square Studio. The board discussed various possible locations and configurations for the signage due to the location of the front door, an unused second story door, a protruding granite lintel, and a high brick wall in front of the property. Mr. Durand offered to sketch out a suggestion for the petitioner and send it to Ms. Hartford. Mr. DeMaio recommended an ornamental bracket, which would protrude off the building so that the sign would “float” rather than fit into the architecture. Ms. Hartford reminded the owner that should she want to add exterior lighting, she would have to submit a plan for approval. It was decided that the owner’s sign maker, Keith Linares, would submit a sketch to Mr. Durand to review. Mr. Jaquith moved to approve that an amended signage plan with a bracket, which is not visible, be submitted for review by Mr. Durand. Mr. DeMaio seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0). 2. 24 Front Street (Fiddlehead) Jackie Albanese of Fiddlehead at 24 Front Street presented her plan for proposed signage. The sign will be a hanging sign similar to other signs in the area and will have a green patina copper “F”. Mr. Kennedy moved that the signage plan presented for Fiddlehead at 24 Front Street be approved as presented. Mr. Jaquith seconded the motion, and it was approved (5-0). DRB Minutes June 26, 2006 Page 2 of 4 3. 17-21 Front Street The review of the proposed exterior renovations at 17-21 Front Street was continued. Architect Michael Litkowski reported that he had addressed the concerns raised by the board at the last meeting. He addressed the nine items with the board: 1. The dormer sketch requested was submitted. A painted Broscoe window with true divided light window was proposed. 2. Glass doors are proposed for the front entries. The 21 Front St. door will be changed out to a narrow style. The sidelights will be left. There will be a similar new door added at 17 Front St. to provide access to a second floor tenant. Two sidelights will be full panel lights in recessed doorways. 3. A door will be added on the “Marketplace” side. A 36” high wrought iron rail will be added and will match the railing used at the Residences at Museum Place. 4. The shutters will be removed. 5. Knox box will be added to the front, per the building code. 6. Three new oval signs measuring 29” x 22” are proposed, which would use the bracket previously approved for The New England Soup Factory. The proposed signage will be made of PVC and each tenant will be responsible for getting a permit. The signs will not be lighted. The middle sign will be the street address. 8. Narrow mullion bronze storefronts. Three doors on the rear would match Front Street. 9. A 44” x 44” brick masonry platform will be constructed on the side with the intention of outdoor seating. 7. The Goldbergs hope to obtain approval for storm windows. They indicated that they are necessary to help prevent heat loss and believe that they are needed for their tenants. They gave examples of nearby storm windows at the Residences at Museum Place, another Front St. building’s second floor, Café Graziani, and 15 Front St. There was extensive discussion concerning the windows. Mr. Durand asked if insulation would be added to the walls. Steve Goldberg stated that they would be just installing sheetrock. Bill Goldberg said that there would be some insulation added and some of the brick would be left exposed. Steve Goldberg said that the second and third floor levels have sheetrock and he was not sure if there was insulation behind it. Mr. Durand said that he understood their dilemma and was sympathetic to it. Bill Goldberg stated that 25 years ago there was a bad renovation done to the building and that they were trying to step up the renovation to make it better. Mr. Durand said that there were better storm windows. Bill Goldberg replied that they were trying to work together. He referred to their recent renovation of the storefront at 24 Front St. and said that they left it vacant for 3 months in order to rent it to Fiddleheads. Mr. Jaquith said that he liked all but the storm windows, with which he had an issue. Mr. Kennedy agreed. He said that he had seen storm windows done well. Mr. DeMaio said that the board needed to decide whether the building had historical character and how to allow the developer to bring it into the 21st century. He added that every decision that the board makes sets a precedent. Mr. DeMaio thought that the board should be sensitive that similar projects will come before the board. Bill Goldberg stated that the board has to balance pure preservation. Mr. Durand said that the board has an historic preservation doctrine. Mr. Lutrzykowski asked if there could be a compromise and suggested no storm windows be installed on the Front Street elevation. Mr. Durand said that this might be alright. He did note that storm windows are not that effective in the prevention of heat loss in comparison with double pane windows. He added that the board was not trying to hurt the developer and noted that precedent setting was very powerful. Bill Goldberg said that they need to be able to compete economically. He commented on energy prices. Mr. Durand DRB Minutes June 26, 2006 Page 3 of 4 responded that the board worked for the SRA and was working to help make projects successful. He noted that there has been many mistakes made all over the City with redevelopment but noted that those projects were not before this board and out of their control. Mr. Blier asked the developer about windows that meet energy code. He noted that there are other ways to meet the energy code without storm windows and added that there are interior storm windows available. Bill Goldberg said that they would explore all options, but that they are trying to get the project moving. Mr. Jaquith asked if there were any historic tax credits available. Ms. Hartford answered that there may be a grant matching program available and recommended that the developers contact her. She indicated that she would speak with Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, to see whether this project would qualify. Mr. Jaquith asked the reason for the dormers. Bill Goldberg answered that the third floor was dark and needed natural light. Mr. Lutrzykowski said that the dormer windows would have energy panels. Possible ideas for compromise were discussed. Mr. Durand indicated that they wanted to be practical but were struggling with preservation. He noted that he could approve storm windows as long as any new windows replaced in the future would be historically accurate thermopane. Mr. Blier agreed that he was leaning in that direction. Mr. Kennedy concurred that he was leaning that way with reluctance. Mr. DeMaio noted that the building has certain facades that have historic significance and thought that Front Street should remain authentic. He added that this was an historic public-fronting building. Steve Goldberg said that 140 and 160 Washington St. have replacement windows. He said that different buildings downtown have been updated over different periods. Mr. DeMaio noted that this is the reason that boards such as the DRB exist to hold onto the past. Years of bad redevelopment have led to the creation of these boards. Bill Goldberg commented that empty pretty buildings don’t accomplish much. Mr. DeMaio said that there was an ebb and flow to the economy with good times and bad. Ms. Hartford indicated that the possibility of any grant would have to be reviewed. She suggested that if the board was in agreement with the rest of the project, they could approve all but the storm window proposal. Bill Goldberg answered Mr. Durand that tax credit applications were not worth the gyrations necessary to apply. Bill Goldberg said that he would agree to either no storm windows required on the front of the building or none on the whole first floor. Mr. Lutrzykowski said that he would prefer the elimination of the storms proposed on the first floor. Bill Goldberg said that every window had to be either replaced or have storm windows installed. Ms. Hartford recommended further study of the issue. She said that a cost estimate would be necessary and that she would speak with Lynn Duncan. Mr. DeMaio said that if City funding were available that the money should be put into the two most visible elevations. Ms. Hartford recommended that the developers obtain estimates for the replacement of all windows, just the Front Street elevation, and storm windows on all. She said that a per window cost should be submitted. Ms. Hartford directed the developers to inform all tenants moving in that lighting was not proposed nor approved for the signage. DRB Minutes June 26, 2006 Page 4 of 4 The board agreed that eight of the nine items were approved. The only exception was the window issue. The brick platform was approved on the condition that it would be done only if the City approved outdoor seating. The Board agreed to reconvene the following week during the day to discuss the solution on the windows. VIOLATIONS Ms. Hartford reported on the status of violations. Fresh Taste of Asia will be notified that the umbrellas with liquor advertisements and the flag garland were inappropriate. She said that the owner has already been instructed to remove the neon window signage. The outdoor patio fencing is not as specified. Ms. Hartford reported that after researching the signage approval, it appears that the Salem Five Bank is in compliance. The door paint, however, is a violation and Ms. Hartford will speak with them. The sign installed at Hair Express on Front Street is not as approved by the board and Ms. Hartford will speak to the owners. Mr. Jaquith excused himself from the meeting and left. MINUTES The minutes of the June 28, 2006 meeting were presented for approval. Mr. DeMaio moved that the minutes of the June 28, 2006 meeting be approved as presented. Mr. Kennedy seconded the motion, and it passed (5-0). OTHER BUSINESS Mr. DeMaio reported that he had not received the hardware information from the developer of Residences at Museum Place. Ms. Hartford replied that the SRA board was aware. Ms. Hartford reported that she had placed a call to Mr. Christoudias regarding the violation of the addition of the side porch at Rockafella’s restaurant. Ms. Hartford informed the board that there would be a few North River Corridor projects before the board at either the August or September meeting. Mr. DeMaio stated that the board would be setting precedents with their decisions. He thought that it would behoove the board to know the Planning Board studies inside and out. He added that the board might be challenged in big ways and any decisions would have a ripple effect. Ms. Hartford said that familiarity with the urban design standards was important too. She added that if the board felt that it would be helpful, site visits could be scheduled. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, Mr. DeMaio moved that the meeting be adjourned. Mr. Kennedy seconded the motion, and the vote was (4-0).