Loading...
2016-07-27 DRB MinutesDRB July 27, 2016 Page 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 ¼” 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 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 ½” 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 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. DeMaio asked if the thin nichiha panels will be carried to grade level. Khalsa replied that there will be a 2 ½” 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. DeMaio 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.