Loading...
2019-02-27 DRB MinutesCity of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Special Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, February 27, 2018 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 98 Washington Street, First Floor Conference Room DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Catherine Miller, Helen Sides DRB Members Absent: Chris Dynia, J. Michael Sullivan Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith Recorder: Colleen Brewster Chair Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM. Roll call was taken. Signs 1. 1 Derby Square (Fresh): Discussion and vote on signage. Jesse Vuona of Fresh was present to discuss the project. Miller asked why signage was installed for a second-floor office and if other upper level units has signage. Mr. Vuona replied that the lawyers in the building have an exterior plaque next to the door, and their new blade sign is just below the 1 Derby Square sign. Newhall-Smith stated the SRA sign manual states that a second-floor business are allowed to have a blade sign on the first-floor, if there are only two businesses on the upper level. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve the sign as presented. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. 2. 120 Washington Street (Workbar): Discussion and vote on signage. Greg Dorothy of Workbar was present to discuss the project. Chair Durand noted his preference to anchor the proposed sign into the mortar joints rather than brick façade, because the mortar can be easily repaired. Mr. Gregory replied that they can make that modification. Sides asked if any conversations with the building had taken place regarding the use of a panel in the future. Mr. Gregory replied that there was no discussion about a panel being installed and Autodesk is internet based and generates no foot-traffic therefore it does not need one. Tom Daniel, from the Planning Department, gave them a couple options regarding the sign location, and the proposed location is close to one of his suggestions and seemed to be a good fit for everyone. Miller asked how electricity will reach the propose sign. Mr. Gregory replied above the restaurant ceiling tiles, through the brick wall, and into the sign bracket, where a previous sign was once located. Chair Durand noted that he is not against the proposed internally lit sign where only the lettering will be illuminated. Mr. Gregory noted that this is the same sign that was previously presented only in a new location. Kennedy stated that he would prefer the previous location above the sidewalk which is more consistent, rather than around the corner, which makes is less consistent and limits its visibility. Chair Durand replied that the previous location over the sidewalk will make people think they are located at the corner spot and the newly proposed location will lead people to their entry door. Sides stated that she has no concerns with its location and finds the sign handsome, although she finds it discouraging that another building owner has no interest in creating uniform identification/signage for all tenants at the entrance. Kennedy agreed. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve the sign as presented and to install the signage in the mortar and not the brick, and with a minimum height of 8-feet from grade. Should the applicant determine that the sign design as approved is no longer feasible and/or desirable, he/she/they shall return to the DRB to review proposed modifications, prior to making any modifications in the field. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 221 Essex Street: Twilight House (f/k/a Freaky Elegant): Discussion and vote on proposed façade painting and new signage. Yuliya Abene and Mike Abene were present to discuss the project. Mr. Abene stated that the windows and door will remain and the peeling light green panels below the windows will be painted blue. A “Twilight House of Salem” sign will be added to a front and side panel. Miller asked on which of the three panels will the sign will be placed. Ms. Abene replied that the middle panel and the end panels will remain blue. Kennedy asked if the panel color behind the logo would be a different shade of blue. Ms. Abene replied yes, the panels with the logo will be painted the darker blue “Twilight.” Newhall-Smith presented the proposed panel color samples. Kennedy suggested the lighter panel be a darker shade to better match the darker panels with the logo or the band that wraps around the façade. Mr. Abene replied that they wanted to keep the building a lighter color but the sign color will match their branding and marketing material. The advice from the Guidelines was to use lighter colors; however, the black trim is existing. Chair Durand stated that signage ordinance allows a maximum of 6 square-feet for A- frame signs and the proposed is 8 square-feet, so the A-frame sign needs to be reduced by 2 square feet. Mr. Abene noted that this is the most stable A-frame sign they could find because it can be filled up with water or sand to stabilize it. Chair Durand replied that the ordinance must be followed. Newhall-White stated that signage area in an A- frame sign includes the entire width of the A-frame and not just the panel/sign, which is what pushes the sign beyond the required size. Kennedy added that the Board has no issue with the style of sign, it just needs to be made in a smaller size. Sides asked for clarification with the proposed graphic and whether the white trimmed columns would now be painted black. Ms. Abene replied yes. She asked if “The Bank Plaza” lettering above would remain. Mr. Abene replied that it will remain. Ms. Abene noted that the blue background, to the left and right of the “The Bank Plaza” sign, would be painted white, the cornice above will remain. Mr. Abene added that the paint on the cornice above is peeling and they will touch-up the paint. Sides asked if Twilight House logo had been officially established because the spacing between the “L” and the “I” stops the eye which she finds hard to read. Chair Durand agreed but it’s quirkiness will allow it to grab one’s attention. Miller suggested that the front sign be placed only in the middle panel and not in all three panels. Chair Durand opens public comment. Joseph Correnti, 63 Federal Street. (Representative for the new Building Owner) stated that as of 10 days earlier the building has a new owner. He asked if the applicant has an authorization letter from the new owner or spoken with the owner regarding changing the building façade. Approval from the previous own is no longer valid and the new owner is working with his own architect on modifications to the building. Chair Durand closes public comment. Miller: Motion to approve with the conditions that; the sign above the door shall only be in the center of the three panels, the A-frame shall not exceed 6 square-feet, and all proposed changes shall be reviewed and approved by the building Owner. Should the applicant determine that the sign design as approved is no longer feasible and/or desirable, he/she/they shall return to the DRB to review proposed modifications, prior to making any modifications in the field. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. 2. 281 Derby Street (Waters & Brown): Discussion and vote on façade renovation and new signage. Russ Tanzer of Waters & Brown of Waters & Brown were present to discuss the project. Griffin noted that the owner intends to refresh the rear entry and make it more appealing. On the Derby Street façade, he is proposing to replace the blade sign, paint the existing bronze mullions black, paint the cornice black, and install LED lighting to highlight the architectural features and the signage. The modifications to the rear, parking lot, façade include installing a pergola to extend the entryway along with bluestone pavers to replace the concrete, replace the entry door system, including transoms, replace the existing second story window, replace the loading dock door with swinging steel doors, install new signage, and add exterior lighting to highlight the façade. Members discuss proposed materials with all in agreement that the wood pergola does not compliment the existing brick warehouse-style structure. Members agree that a steel pergola will provide for a more industrial aesthetic and be more appropriate. Kennedy asks about signage. Griffin states that the signs will be consistent in terms of text, i.e. the use of ‘inc.’ on the signs. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 5-0. 3. 53 Charter Street (Grimshawe House): Discussion and vote on proposed redevelopment of existing structure. Walter Beebe-Center, of Essex Restoration, was present to discuss the project. Miller asked if quoining changes were proposed. Beebe-Center replied that when they disassembled the exterior, they found evidence of historic quoining which they proposed replicating on the addition. Jaquith noted his agreement with the handling of the new quoining. Miller stated that the letter from the Historic Commission made two suggestions; to remove the quoining from the South-West corner of the addition and to setback the West elevation of the three-story addition approximately 18-inches to further de-emphasize the addition and render it subordinate and to remove the corning. Beebe- Center replied that they are considering moving the addition inward to deemphasize it; however, due to an interior handicapped restroom there is a limit to how far inward they can go. Beebe-Center noted that once the Commission became aware of the existing quoins they were matching, the recommendation to eliminate new quoins was rescinded. Miller noted that the existing ell has no quoining details and the reason only three corners of the main building have quoining is because the addition/ell was added. Jaquith stated that quoining shouldn’t be added to the addition, just a more appropriate plain trim and a replicated water table to match the existing. Beebe-Center stated that the Historic Commission also requested they move the addition 18-inches beyond the proposed 18- inches. Jaquith replied that that they should only go the depth of the quoining, not a 36- inch jog in the building. Miller asked if new fencing is proposed. Beebe-Center replied that an iron fence is proposed to replicate the burial ground fence, and the Owner believes a fence previously existed in the 1700’s. There will be a gap in the fence that is the same width as the Vestibule. Jaquith asked for the height of the existing fence. Beebe-Center replied 4- feet. Miller requested a drawing of the proposed fence and noted her desire to have it compliment the burial ground fence, but not to be an exact match. Beebe-Center stated that project is being address in phases and the fence won’t happen immediately, the homes exterior will be addressed first. Miller asked if plants will be added to the planter area. Beebe-Center replied yes, although plantings haven’t been determined. Miller requests the applicant provide a landscape plan, including a detail for the fence, be submitted for the project file. Miller noted that the Board is neither for or against the quoins on the three corners of the building and adjusting the addition by wall 2-3 inches. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve with the conditions that the applicant provide plans showing the setback at the jog of the building and the landscaping, including the fence, to the Planning Department for inclusion in the project file. Seconded by: Miller. Passes 5-0. 4. 163-189 Washington Street: The Derby (f/k/a Tavern in the Square): Discussion and vote on proposed patio renovations and new signage. Attorney Joseph Correnti, of Serafini, Darling & Correnti, L.L.P., Mark Morris, principal and manager of New Derby, and Travis Blake of Sousa Architects were present to discuss the project. Atty. Correnti stated that the space has been closed since November 2018 and is undergoing an interior renovation. New signage is proposed, minor façade improvements, and patio renovations. The occupancy of the restaurant and patio remain the same. Blake stated that they wanted to simplify the busyness of the intersection. The 3 blade signs and 3 gooseneck lights will be reduced to 1 sign, a painted exterior, and minimized the patio design. More family-oriented picnic tables will be used on the patio along with fire pits, and a lattice fence and post surround to enclose the space. The chain will be replaced with a fence at both ends of the patio, but will also be moveable, to allow the continuation of the sidewalk when the patio is not in use. Blake noted that the signage is simple and the exterior will be painted a dark grey. The awnings and goosenecks fixtures will be replaced with sconces. Using the SRA guidelines for a corner lot, there are allowances for several signs; the signage proposed is well below what is required. Miller asked if the lattice fence will encompass the electrical box. Blake replied no. Kennedy asked for the fence material. Blake replied vinyl composite but it could be painted wood, either way they would like to paint it a dark color. Miller and Kennedy were against the use of a vinyl composite fence at the patio. Morris noted his preference for a wood fence. Miller asked if the proposed fire pits have been reviewed with the Salem Fire Department because they aren’t allowed in private spaces and probably not in public spaces either, but that needs to be determined. Blake replied that they’ve installed them at other restaurants and will review it with the local Fire Department. Morris added that they will cap off 3 of the existing heater locations and only plan to install 4. Miller asked for the fence color. Blake replied a dark grey/black. Miller requested a planting plan. Blake replied that they had no plans to change the existing boxwoods around the patio. Morris added that he did the previous planting and there isn’t much room for soil and there is cement below the planting bed, but he will install more. Chair Durand noted that when they allowed the use of the chain to block off the sidewalk they didn’t realize that the Liquor License would require that it be contiguous. Atty. Correnti noted that in Salem, the ABCC requires the exterior serving areas in bars/restaurants were alcohol is served must have a contiguous fence. Wait staff must not bring alcoholic beverages across a public sidewalk to serve a patio and when the patio is open for business the sidewalk must be closed. It took 9-months of City meetings to come to this determination and the City Solicitor, Beth Renard was involved in making this determination. Chair Durand added that that wasn’t known to them and the design had to be retrofitted to close the sidewalk. The restaurant has maintained the sidewalk and this redirection does bring pedestrians to cross at the intersection rather than jay-walk across Derby Street. Although slightly awkward it created a nice outdoor space that energizes the corner. Atty. Correnti noted that the gates will open after the restaurant has closed and will close again when the restaurant opens, and off season the gates will remain open. Atty. Correnti stated that they were asked to review the gate design since stanchions aren’t permissible and the visually impaired require a more identifiable barrier, therefore the lattice will continue to the building’s façade. Miller suggested a wooden gate where both sides swing open and a latch be installed on the building to keep the gate in place. Blake noted that they have the option to either remove the gates or make them moveable, although they would prefer moveable. Chair Durand suggested anchoring the posts so each end swings open. Miller suggested a pair of gates at each end of the patio that would swing in opposite directions and are latched so they remain open. Kennedy requested the fence and gate paint color and how it will work with the buildings existing windows. Blake added charcoal grey that will complement the mullions at the windows above, and he can provide a color sample. Miller asked how handicapped seating is being handled. Blake replied that there will be sufficient space for people to roll up at the ends of the benches and all tables will be dining height. Miller stated that the tables selected do not meet the requirements and should be revisited. Miller asked if Salem has guidelines for lights being directed at the sky and if the sconces meet those requirements. Blake replied that the existing sconces are a similar style and the new ones will provide ambient light only. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Atty. Correnti stated that the restaurant has been closed since November 2018 for an interior renovation and the owner would like to open in mid-March. Getting a restaurant of this magnitude up and running is a huge undertaking. Chair Durand suggested that only items the Board is concerned with be continued to the next meeting. Kennedy: Motion to approve the proposed signage and fence material, and to continue the fire pit after it receives approval by the Salem Fire Department, use handicapped accessible picnic tables on the patio, verify the sconce lighting guidelines, provide a landscape plan, and Glenn Kennedy to review the proposed fence and gate paint color. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 5-0. 5. 300 Derby Street (Casa Tequila): Discussion and vote on proposed façade and patio renovations and new signage. Attorney Chad Colarusso was present to discuss the project. Gilberto Reyes, Owner of Casa Tequila, and Lydia Szydlowska, Architect were also present. Atty. Colarusso stated that there were signage concerns and the context of the patio. Sign modification were made and the patio design revised. Sides asked if there is a construction plans for the patio awning. Atty. Colarusso presented samples of the terra cotta roof tile and the decorative column tile. Mr. Reyes noted that the patio surface will be stamped concrete and each steel column between the archways will have a concrete foundation with accent tiles to finish the columns. Jaquith stated that while he appreciates the South-Western/Mexico look to the patio and this doesn’t fit-in with the context of Salem. Chair Durand noted that the simple style of the building does not have any of the proposed materials, the style is contrary to the structure. Atty. Colarusso replied that the rectangular brick warehouse is why features from the South-West are needed to draw the eye. Covered seating that connects to the neighborhood is needed. Chair Durand noted that while something is needed, stylistically this is not it. Jaquith and Sides agreed. Atty. Colarusso noted that the restaurant across the street underwent a modern renovation in a historic district. Chard Durand replied that the structure is not historic. Atty. Colarusso argued that changes are being proposed to the patio and not the building and presented photographs from 1910 where rowhouses once stood prior to the warehouse structure. Sides stated that the heaviness and permanence of what’s proposed and its location doesn’t relate to the context. She envisioned something more light-weight and transparent that related to an outdoor plaza that connects to the building because it won’t be used 365 days a year. Atty. Colarusso noted that the Owner intends to continue using the patio year-round. Miller asked if there will be gates along the fence to exit the patio. Szydlowska replied yes, there are two gates, both exit towards Derby Street. Kennedy stated that he appreciates having a building and restaurant owner committed to creating an experience for his patrons designed around the food they will serve, it may be out of context from Salem, a typical awning is much less of a commitment to the experience he is intending to create. This particular location has several different styles and contextually it will fit in better than if it were elsewhere in the City. None of the other styles fit the context of Salem either. Sides agreed but noted that the scale, materials, and how it will age is cause for concern. She would need details on its construction before she would approve it because of its permanence. There are a lot of arches within a short distance and the fence posts are dense, the overall design is overdone, when there could be half as many arches and posts. Jaquith agreed with Kennedy but added that a lighter design should be implemented to allow people to see the activity underneath. The proposed design is too heavy and doesn’t work well with the building. Kennedy suggested the signage, painting of the building and front entrance awning be approved separately to allow the restaurant to open and allow the applicant to return with revisions to the patio and patio structure. Chair Durand and Sides agreed. Sides noted that further development of any future structure would be required. Kennedy added that a lower or smaller pitched roof would affect the placement of signage along that façade. The Board discussed the upper signage placement along Derby Street. Sides asked if the vestibule brick would also be painted. Szydlowska replied that they didn’t want to do something to the building that hadn’t been done before. Reyes added that there is a wood frame around the brick at the entry that will be painted to match the windows. The brick will be cleaned and sealed. Miller stated that she was in favor of the simplified entry awning with a less busy logo which is a better fit. Kennedy and Sides agreed. Jaquith suggested that the upper window trim is too tight. Szydlowska replied that it is matched the existing and it’s the color that changes its shape and height. Kennedy stated that he is in favor of the proposed building façade color palette and using a similar color to the patio awning would help tie the two together. Szydlowska noted that the roof pitch is 4 over 12 and wouldn’t be a high as it may seem, the use of lighting below the awning will also tie-in some of the Mexican architecture, and the railing was copied from a historical home. Salem was created using the techniques of immigrants and it evolved and they would want to see cultural representation from where they come from, and they’ve preserved the existing architecture. The streetscape is eclectic and pergola style has been previously approved by the DRB. Chair Durand read the staff comments and noted that additional details of this complex pavilion need to be reviewed to ensure that what’s executed is appropriate and the review can’t be rushed so the applicant can open the restaurant. Sides agreed. Jaquith stated that the design must be better. Reyes stated that he will make the required modification to the design. Sides noted that the design is copying old design and they need to ensure the new design is of good quality. Jaquith stated that with a heavier building a lighter structure should be designed. Kennedy recommended lightening the weight of the proposed structure but maintaining the authenticity of the what they are building. Chair Durand requested material changes, colorations, and details to bring the entire design together along with the historic stone wall in a more sophisticated way. The proposed is too brutal of a clash of styles that need to meld better when there is already so much going on in this area of Salem. Miller suggested that the use of white on the proposed patio structure was also very stark and the colors could be warmer. She suggested a brick wall instead of the fence. Atty. Colarusso noted that they were instructed to create a fence that connects with the street. Sides suggested eliminating all the fence posts and letting the building be the only structure. Kennedy stated that the sign is internally lit and only the border lights up. Jaquith noted that signs can be back-lit but not internally lit. Kennedy replied that this particular sign is a mixture of both, PVC letters and a halo LED, and there is no lighting on the bottom portion of the sign. Szydlowska stated that only “Casa Tequila” will be highlighted at night. Kennedy noted that letters mounted to a backer panel that are halo lit is acceptable. Only the plant would be internally lit and no lighting at “agave.” Minor detailing would be required. Sides asked if any lights would be placed on the wall under the patio awning. Reyes replied only on the underside of the ceiling. He noted that it would take 3 weeks to get the sign constructed. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sides: Motion to approve the Central Street paint color and awning as drawn, and the large patio sign contingent upon it being reviewed by Glenn Kennedy. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 5-0. Jaquith: Motion to continue the discussion on the patio design and the location of the large sign with the other patio items. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. 6. 23 Summer Street: Discussion and vote on proposed residential redevelopment of existing structure. Attorney Scott Grover of Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey, Tom Mayo – Architect from Thomas Mayo Associates, and Mike Becker – Owner, were present to discuss the project. Atty. Grover stated that this property is at the edge of the Urban Renewal District. This building has a series of additions beyond the main historic Federal structure and currently has 5 condominium units. Mr. Becker is proposing to remove the rear additions and construct a new addition in their place. There will be 10 units with 10 parking spaces, four garage spaces under the addition and the remaining will be surface spaces. For better circulation the 11 parking spaces were reduced to 10. Because they are going over 6 units the property is also subject to Planning Board review which they will file for after DRB review. Mayo stated that minimal new landscaping is proposed and the existing hedges and trees will remain. They will respect the Federal style of the building by using the same hip roof, blue façade color, and cornice line. The front elevation along Summer Street will remain the same. An existing bay window will be removed and replaced with a window that fits the building. An oriel window was removed from the front elevation and a 2-story bay window on brackets will be added to the rear addition over the garage doors. The two 18-foot wide garage doors will be used with an arch to help support the addition. The rear façade hip roof will have a balcony. At the driveway side they will continue the bend of the existing addition in the new addition. The addition along the property line must be fire-rated therefore smooth Hardie Plank clapboards will be used to match the existing building. The bedroom windows will be large enough to meet egress requirements and at the rear casement windows will be installed rather than a double- hung to meet egress requirements. The Benjamin Moore Historic Color “Newburyport Blue” is proposed for the addition to match the existing building. The grey roof structure will remain with a similar hip roof. Miller asked for the proposed addition foundation. Mayo replied concrete and the existing building has stone with brick in-fills. A non-functioning widow’s walk is proposed and the chimneys are functional. Sides noted that she is in favor of the detailing over the oriel windows above the garage. Jaquith stated that the oriel window appears too large and out of place, and a functional window should be used. Miller asked why the gutter line is higher on the addition. Mayo replied to achieve the desired headroom, but they’ve tried to keep the same cornice line. Sides stated that the details on the street front will dominate the elevation and override the main building, the details of the addition need to be subservient visually and not draw so much attention. Mayo noted alternative examples of oriel windows with a balcony with glass that is setback that he could implement to install a double-hung window to continue the line of the railing above. Sides suggested the soffit continue and the material above so it read more like a dormer than a bay. Mayo suggested keeping the extension of the bay but to set the glass back. Jaquith and Kennedy agreed. Jaquith suggested the windows in the other shed dormer are meant for a basement sash, two windows should be clustered in each rather than one. Chair Durand and Kennedy agreed. Sides suggested the garage doors be less pronounced and were painted the body color than a trim color and they should be squared off and not rounded to keep them simple. Kennedy agreed. Becker stated that he’s used Clopay garage doors that are aluminum with foam reinforcement before, and they offer alternative design. Mayo noted that they don’t have enough room for 4 individual doors so the garages will need to be paired at 2 and 2. Kennedy and Sides agreed that square garage doors with grids is preferred and painted the body color along with the associated garage door trim; however, the brackets and above can be the trim color. Miller asked if fences were proposed. Becker replied that there is an existing metal bollard chain fence around the property and a partially broken iron fence on the neighbor’s property. Miller suggested a small property line fence and landscaping should be included to keep people from walking through the property as they do now. Jaquith suggested an existing spruce tree be removed due to its proximity to the structure. Miller suggested the tree remain if doesn’t impact the building. Becker suggested pruning which will provide access to pain the building. Sides asked for clarification of buildings along lot lines. Mayo replied that both the wall and windows will need to be fire-rated. Jaquith asked if the building will be sprinklered. Becker replied yes. Miller asked about the roof at the widow’s walk. Mayo replied that there will be at the new roof, where the hip roof meets the angled roof at the back wall. Chair Durand asked if there is a concern with the chimney that close to the roof. Mayo replied that the chimney must be 3-feet above the roofline. Miller and Chair Durand suggested that widow’s walk not be implemented despite its Federal style. Becker added that he hoped to install the A/C condensers behind the railing of the widow’s walk since there would be a shorter run. Chair Durand and Miller agreed that the widow’s walk would help conceal the units and should remain but they will need to see where they will be placed on the drawings. Becker stated that the existing building has mini-split systems mounted on the back of the building so they will place as many as possible on the widow’s walk. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Newhall-Smith stated that she doesn’t believe the proposed design is applicable with the guidelines. Mayo replied that he has ideas of how to adjust the upper level windows. Miller stated that as long as smooth Hardie Plank is used it will be acceptable but it must be done correctly. Atty. Grover noted that making the garage doors less prominent and to show the location of the A/C condensers were also a request of the Board. Jaquith noted that the balusters of the widow’s walk should be kept tight together if they will conceal condensers. Mayo noted that the façade was not going to be made coplanar due to the design of the building and to maintain the cornice line. Miller requested a landscape plan and paving materials that will help with water infiltration. Sides suggested that solid panel doors be used to make them disappear even more. Kennedy suggested the glass remain since the glass tends to disappear with dark doors. Jaquith: Motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 5-0. Old/New Business 1. Discussion of Application Review Guidance Document The discussion was continued to the next regular meeting. 2. Minutes The review of the minutes of the January 23, 2019 meeting were continued to the next regular meeting. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 9:30PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.