Loading...
2014-02-26 DRB MinutesDRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 1 of 11 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Monday February 26, 2014 at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan, Glenn Kennedy, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith Members Absent: Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 50 St. Peter Street (New Boston Ventures): Continuation of discussion of proposed design revisions of phase two new building. The submission under review includes a letter, presentation, drawings, and renderings of the proposed design revisions. Sara Ann Logan of LabHaus, Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects, and David Goldman of New Boston Ventures were present on behalf of the applicant – New Boston Ventures. Ricciarelli opened the presentation by thanking the Board, and by noting that the applicant had addressed some of the concerns expressed at the Board meeting on December 18, 2013. He introduced Ms. Logan who then began a slide presentation. Logan moved through a slide presentation of before and after design proposals, noting that the following revisions have been addressed in the current proposed drawings per comments received at the last meeting: • Moved the building back 8’ from the courtyard allowing the façade to align with the existing brick edge of the Macintyre building. Building footprint is now smaller in regards to the change. It is believed that the 8’ difference in the courtyard will increase pedestrian traffic along St. Peter Street. The connector element has been removed to supply the extra feet. The courtyard is now 88’ across. • Center block area on the brick façade has been revised to be grey granite as opposed to red brick that had previously been proposed. • The decorative entablature line below the eave line that was in the previous design has been removed and the eave has been thinned out. The building now appears to step back a bit because of this change. • Revised the proposed color scheme to make the building more cohesive. • Center block was reading more as an implied brick pillar and less monumental. Made it appear more like a punched opening. Window glazing got adjusted. DRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 2 of 11 • Architectural masonry has been made the exact same dimension as the existing masonry dimensions. • Material change: Darker infill panels were hardyboard, but are now being proposed as a metal panel. This would provide more of a cohesive language around the building. • Masonry block located in the center of the façade is now an 8’x16’ proportion. This begins to feel more grounded and civic in nature. The coursing would line up with the proposed cladboard siding. Logan noted that the pedestrian’s eye variation would not change much. • Exposure of hardy plank that specified a 6” material is now an 8” standard dimension across the whole project. • 12 to 12 pitch on the roof would be lowered so that the ridge height at the jail is more prominent. This would lower the height of the proposed building creating a smaller scale presentation to the street. • Pediment gables begin to repeat themselves down the street. Starting at the jail and continuing down the block. • Scale of the brick changed. End of building appeared to float. Now the brick continues all the way to the end of the building. There is no longer a skirt. • The window count has been increased and made to appear more symmetric at the townhouse façade. • Taking material hues from the limestone panels and large glass windows from the jail, and hues from the cladboard siding from the caretaker’s cottage. • Rear balconies are now done in the same metal panel material. • Townhouses windows have become more like a band. David Goldman then took a moment to address the Board. He noted how proud he was to develop this project, that in its first phase, has won several awards. He noted that he wanted to the new phase to complement the rest of the site. He then emphasized the notion that his team had taken many of the comments that the Board had made and incorporated them into their revised design. He appreciated the comments and thinks that they made this project better. Sullivan noted that revisions made have been a great improvement. Sullivan commented that he has a concern for the dimensions of the cladboard. Sullivan questioned what the importance was for the cladboard lines to meet up with the masonry. Logan commented that the block would be a smooth faced 8” imitation that would match the jail. Sullivan questioned if an 8” limestone block would be used. Logan responded that it would be a cementitious material. Materials have been an improvement and he appreciates moving the building back 8’. The vocabulary becomes an assembly of parts. There is a lot going on. Sullivan noted that his favorite part of the design is the back because it is the most cohesive part of the DRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 3 of 11 building. Sullivan commented that he is concerned with the proportions of the 2 wings; they appear as 3 pieces instead of 1. Detailing of pediments will be interesting to see developed. It’s a historical vocabulary in a modernistic way. DeMaio thanked the applicant and noted that most of what had been revised is an improvement. He noted that the setting back of the building on the courtyard side was a nice change. Constraining the color palette has also helped a lot. DeMaio also commented that he had mixed feelings regarding a few aspects of the project. The gabled element that is closest to the courtyard attempts to relate to the context, even though the rear of the building (the contemporary portion) is his favorite piece. He expressed that he believes the building should feel cohesive and unified – how the pieces come together is important. DeMaio commented that the connection between the two buildings is still unresolved. DeMaio questioned what material the entablature line is made from, and what its dimensions would be. He noted that the proportion of the entablature on jail building is approximately 1:1 width-to-height, but on this proposed building this proportion is shown as 3:1, and looks disproportionate and awkward. DeMaio noted he is uncomfortable with the massing and proportions of the new entablature – the entablature line does not complement the building, as one would hope. He suggested that the designer could choose to handle the entablature design in a different way. It is a very large element, and because of its significance needs to be executed perfectly. The proportions are at odds with each other. DeMaio commented that he is unsure of the material specified for the entablature, and he is skeptical this detail can be successfully achieved with the materials the designer is proposing. The proportion needs to be studied more. Logan noted that the entablature had been reduced by about 30 percent from the previous design. Sullivan questioned if the building would have a gutter system. Logan commented that smaller gutters would be used at certain points on the building. Kennedy noted that he appreciates where the project has gone. Kennedy commented that he understands DeMaio’s comments and agrees with them. The entablature is the one thing that comes across visually. In the rendering the divide between the two buildings is so dark and probably is not as significant as it would be in real life. Kennedy commented that his favorite part would still be the rear of the building. Kennedy noted that he liked the way the windows worked out and the massing located in the front and rear of the building. Sides noted that the revision has been a terrific improvement. The modern design really excites traditional aspects of it. Sides commented that she really likes the 8” scale of the block and hardy plank and the lower pitch roof. It helps to downplay the cartoonishness of the design. Sides commented that perhaps a screen material could be incorporated to DRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 4 of 11 produce a hole in the masonry at the side of the building where the parking lot is screened. It becomes fun to see that it’s a thin wall. Jaquith noted that he had the same concerns as DeMaio regarding the eave line. Jaquith commented that the rake should pick up the line but have a break line through it. Jaquith questioned what occurs when the cladboards meet the corner, would it be tight? Logan noted that it is a thicker siding at that it is intended to be mitered at the corners. It would be a tight connection at the corners. Jaquith continued to note that the contemporary parts in the back do their job. The proposed window coming forward in the pediment informs you what is going on. Durand noted his concern regarding the dimension and proportions of the entablature. It appears intentionally overstated and loses a little elegance. Durand questioned how water drainage, gutters, and downspouts would work. Logan noted that most of the building is over framed and flat roofed. Where it is not, there will probably be six inch gutters. Durand noted that the Board would want to see these details. He continued to ask about any mechanical elements that would be incorporated. Logan responded that a heat pump system would be incorporated in the flat roofed section of the building. The unit would be easily hidden. Durand emphasized that the Board would want these details as well, in addition to all other construction level details. Durand then opened up discussion and questions to the public. Emily Udy of Historic Salem noted that the elevation at the courtyard feels uncomfortable in regards to its proportion. It reads like a colonial house. The middle part of the façade needs to be narrower. Goldman addressed the concern by noting that the rendering is perhaps not emphasizing the masonry elements well. There are more contrasts that actually do exist. Logan followed up by noting that the rendering is raised in such a way that the scale looks off. It’s not at the pedestrian level, which may mislead someone looking at the rendering into thinking that the scale is inappropriate. Penny Schwartz questioned what the distance from the carriage house and the new building is. The carriage house appears to be in the shadow of it. DRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 5 of 11 Logan noted that it is 35’-9”. Ms. Schwartz then wanted to confirm that one would be able to drive in between the two buildings. Logan confirmed that indeed, one would be able to drive in between the buildings. Sy Schwartz then commented that the new building would seem to hide the Jail. Goldman responded that this proposal had been previously been approved by the DRB and SRA, and that this revised proposal would actually increase the amount of space between the two buildings and provide a larger courtyard. Sy Schwartz asked if there would be an attendant for the tandem parking. Goldman noted that there would not, but that it should not pose any conflict. Durand noted that tandem parking is an acceptable format. Jaquith: Motion to approve the design with statements made by the board to be considered when developing final construction level documents, and conditional upon the following: 1. Project Description – The description of the project must conform to the project description described at the February 26, 2014 DRB meeting, including in the plans presented (Dated February 6, 2013), and the slides presented. 2. Construction Plans – The final site construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to a building permit being issued. They must conform to the plans submitted and approved by the DRB. a. Specifically, roof drainage/gutter plans, as well as plans and designs for building mechanical elements must be reviewed and approved by the DRB prior to a building permit being issued. 3. Landscape Plan – The final landscape plan must conform to the plans dated October 19, 2006, submitted and reviewed by the DRB, and later approved by the SRA on December 13, 2006. Changes to these plans with respect to the approved redesigned building should be articulated, and reviewed and approved by the DRB. 4. Construction/Building Materials – The construction and building materials must conform to the materials presented to the DRB and approved by the DRB on February 26, 2014. DRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 6 of 11 5. Exterior Elevations – The exterior elevations must conform to the plans and presentation submitted February 26, 2014. 6. Site Plans – The site plans must conform to the plans dated February 6, 2013, submitted and reviewed by the DRB. 7. Lighting – The lighting must conform to the lighting specified in the lighting plan submitted to and approved by the DRB on December 6, 2006 and in accordance with the Electrical Site Plan and Schedule dated November 7, 2006. Final plans as it relates to the new design must be submitted and reviewed by the DRB. 8. Signage Plan – The signage plan must be submitted to the DRB for review prior to installation. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. At this point Helen Sides recused herself from hearing the next item and left the room. 2. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street, and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Continuation of discussion of proposed development – Schematic Design Review. The submission under review includes a letter, drawings, presentation, and renderings of the proposed schematic design. Matthew Picarsic of RCG opened the presentation by noting that this was their fifth presentation before the DRB. Picarsic noted the following refinements made to the design of the development: • South building (residential) along Washington Street – the stoops are now facing straight out and the setback has been reduced for residential unit functionality. • West building and connector geometry and materials simplified • North building materials simplified. Stucco and curtain wall system eliminated. Picarsic noted the following uses currently being planned for the development. Some of this he noted was up for discussion in the future and could change: • 70-100 residential units – this is also dependent on whether the top floor of the proposed hotel building would have residences. • 19,000 sq. ft. of commercial space • 85-100 room limited service hotel – could be up to 115 • 260 parking spaces Picarsic noted that he hopes the project receives schematic approval this evening, which would entail approval of the following elements: • Building orientation and massing – about 190,000 sq/ft without parking DRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 7 of 11 o FAR of below three • Range of mixed uses, with some flexibility • Shared parking among the uses in the parking garage • Approach to façade design and interaction with public realm • Support of additional concepts for the project • Acknowledgement of the plans for final approval will have more detail Picarsic noted that schematic approval would allow their team to move forward with more detailed drawing up of documents, engineering plans, etc., as well as to advance to other City boards that would need to review the project. Architect Jai Singh Khalsa noted the following changes that have been made based on previous comments from the DRB: • Southern building stoops have rotated and come out 90 degrees. o Dormers have been simplified and are now two story bays. o Red brick below with retail glazing, metal panel above. o Linked piece is a spider glass system with a residential pattern of glazing above. Connector bay wraps around corner. Pulled back on upper stories to provide a visual line. o The bulk of the mechanicals would be hidden behind the bays on the roof. • West building materials have simplified. o Parapet heights have been pulled so that balconies can occur. o Glazed balcony system in between bays. o Fewer lights in the windows. o Steps with terraces in between buildings with a series of trees and places to sit. This connector provides access points into both buildings as well. o Hotel building is now a grayed brick material with a simplified entrance point. Pulled back cornice lines to allow for balconies above. • Landscaping and street level treatments will include chairs and tables for dining and bicycle parking along the edge. Larger areas of landscape for parking courts would soften the appearance of the parking area. Sullivan noted that the development is pretty nice. Color appears like it is missing and is appearing more grey and white. The applicant noted that the projector may be affecting how the coloring appears. Sullivan continued by noting that by eliminating the overhangs the building visually appears larger. Sullivan noted that he applauds the landscaping. Sullivan commented that he is concerned about the entry at the connector piece. The proposed residential above is making it appear more like everything else. Sullivan noted that he was intrigued before that it was different. People are going to be walking through the parking courtyard and walking up the stairs to the parking court. There should be retail and commercial uses located in those areas so that the pedestrian experience can be enhanced. DRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 8 of 11 DeMaio noted that some of the changes have been significant improvements. The treatment of color on the west building has brought down the energy a bit and feels more like the scale of the hotel. DeMaio noted that he agrees with Sullivan’s comment regarding the connector being a hybrid of the west and south buildings. It is less successful than before and should become part of one building or the other instead of both – or make it something completely different. The landscaping plan is important for this project. Currently we are still looking at too much of a “bird’s eye view;” the presentation should be more at a pedestrian scale to understand what it will feel like, especially on Washington Street where there will be a higher concentration of retail. A site plan at a closer scale is needed as well. DeMaio noted that he would have a hard time voting to grant schematic approval at this time without these more detailed views at a closer scale. DeMaio continued by noting that the south building is not as successful massing-wise as the west building. DeMaio noted that the problem could be rooted in the treatment of the “attics” or the setbacks of the building. The massing of the south building is awkward. DeMaio noted the mass could take a step back in the attic stories. The hotel building, generally, is nicely done. DeMaio noted he likes both “ends” of the hotel building and the connector between the hotel and the west building. DeMaio was critical of the “sameness” of the punch-out windows throughout the project. He noted that all of the windows are punch-out windows regardless of where they occur, which is a real negative for the project – the building feels like a low-budget “developer building.” Portions of the building want to be treated in a more civic and grand way, such as the building’s base, the building corners, and the connector elements. The base of the hotel building located near Washington Corner could be much more open and glassy, with different treatments. Spandrel panels could extend curtainwall elements and connect multiple floors, to create a two-story reading to the windows. These changes would make the development significantly better. Kennedy noted that schematically he likes where the design is going. There where one too many colors with the previous design. The proposed current design feels like it went from 5 or 6 colors to 2 – almost too far. The development feels like it is missing some of the color that was there. The windows all around the building are very white in the renderings – a very light window treatment. Before the windows appeared darker and felt more contemporary rather than punch-out style. Kennedy commented that the hotel building got simplified but the punch-out windows are very repetitious with the white and light glass. Structurally the building is great. Kennedy noted that he would like to see more going on. More focus needs to occur regarding the finishes now and not so much about the structure. The color and tone of the west building, as well as the punch-out windows, should be addressed. DeMaio noted that the base of the building should have a more public, retail, open façade. Adjusting the treatment of spandrel panels and mullions would make the façade read differently. Also, the differentiation between the hotel and west building is a good thing. At this point, they are becoming more the same, which is a step back. DRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 9 of 11 Khalsa noted that in terms of tones and colors, that the model is more representative of the design, as opposed to the image that was being projected. Jaquith noted that the west building is better than previously presented. The connector between the west building and residential mill building is no longer a connector, which creates a problem. The landscaping to the courtyard needs work. The west elevation appears like the proportions of the windows to the mass of the building is off. The rhythm of the windows is off as well. The balconies on the west building need work. Massing is good on the buildings but the façade covering needs more finesse. Durand noted he believes that the hotel is very successful. The windows located on the lower level need work. Retail struggles behind punched windows. He noted that more glass and more storefront on the retail portions of the hotel building and on the west building is desired. Durand noted that he liked the first connector better because it was a statement of being different – it was a statement piece. Durand noted that he appreciates the stoops being changed. I agree very much with the comments made by Ernie and Glenn. At this point Mr. Durand opened up the conversation for comments and questions from the public in attendance. Emily Udy of Historic Salem Inc. noted that retail should read as retail and residential as residential. There is too much similarity; every building has the same windows, and they are the same size. Changing the window pattern could add some more interest. Udy noted that she would like to see a cornice located on the west building to stop your eye from going up too high. The hotel corner works well with the larger planes and doesn’t need a cornice. Currently there is no place for signage along the Washington Street side. The hotel located at Dodge Street Court; it’s awning shoots out with a heavy mass that has nothing supporting it visually. Andrew Shapiro then read a letter from Nina Cohen of 22 Chestnut Street into the record. It noted that the interior layout of the townhouse mill building does not run front to back, but instead shows a series of very small apartments. Cohen opposes the creation of more single room occupancy housing in the downtown area because it does not serve the needs of Salem’s low-income families. The stairways to Washington Street are unadorned and essentially unmarked. They appear visually like a warehouse entry. The mill building stoop design lacks any interest at the street level at a human scale. The design also lacks any horizontal element above the entry area to bring it to human height making the building appear massive. The concrete wall between the building base and garage is repellent. A window opening would improve the appearance of this wall with a nice looking iron railing. Upper floors should have each window delineated with outlining in a different material and concrete lintels similar to those at 135 Lafayette Street. The proposed roof edge needs a better-looking cornice. The current design does not relate to any existing infrastructure in downtown Salem. Salem State uses an orange brick that sits DRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 10 of 11 at the splitting of Lafayette and Loring Ave. The library is completely modern yet utilizes an exterior cladding material that is nearly the same color of the Sullivan building’s brick. The cladding is horizontal striped but it is not brick. This is a fine reference that RCG should be acknowledging. Shapiro then noted that Morris Shopf of HSI passed along that he concurs with Nina’s assessment and suggests further study is required before conceptual design approval occurs. Shapiro then passed along comments provided by SRA Chairman Robert Mitnik, who noted that he would like to see more distinction between the base of the building and upper levels. Once the sign plan is addressed he acknowledges that there will be some differentiation. Councillor William Legault of 2 Orne Street noted that he has attended other DRB meetings reviewing this project, and was not a fan of the other two projects produced by RCG. It appears that they have learned as they have gone along. He noted that he is looking forward to seeing the project move on to the next level. Jaquith noted that the Washington Street residence sign is currently 16’ in the air. This is not the proper place to label a building and should be down lower to a pedestrian’s height. Durand noted that he understands that the applicant would like schematic approval now, and he believes that they are close. Items such as addressing the punch-out windows, as well as understanding how sign banding will work, would be helpful in understanding better prior to schematic design approval. I don’t feel we’re quite ready, but I would welcome a motion if one were presented for approval. Jaquith noted that he agrees with Chairman Durand. DeMaio then stressed that the landscape proposal would also be very important to understand better, and to examine at a closer scale. He expressed concern over approving the schematic design to then see final landscaping elements and other issues addressed months later with construction level documents. Jaquith: Motion to continue to answer outstanding issues/comments: • Windows – Retail is a big concern and should be addressed • Sign Banding – some understanding how it will occur • Coloration issues • Landscape – Seeing everything at a larger scale is needed. Eye level perspectives. • South building landscape at stoops • Lighting DRB Februry 26, 2014 Page 11 of 11 Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 5-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the December 18, 2013 regular meeting. DeMaio: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Durand, Passes 5-0. Approval of the minutes from the January 22, 2014 regular meeting. Durand: Motion to approve. Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 5-0. Adjournment Durand: Motion to adjourn, Seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:21 pm.