Loading...
2014-12-03 DRB MinutesDRB December 3, 2014 Page 1 of 8 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday December 3, 2014 at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand, Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides, Christopher Dynia, Glenn Kennedy, J. Michael Sullivan Members Absent: David Jaquith Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 75 Lafayette Street (Keller Williams Realty): Discussion of proposed signage. Documents and Exhibitions: • Application • Drawings and designs • Photo of existing storefront. Ed Juralewicz from United Sign Co. located in Beverly was present on behalf of Keller Williams Realty. He noted that his client is located at 75 Lafayette Street and that their logo had changed; hence they are applying to replace the existing sign with a new sign that has a new logo. Juralewicz noted that the existing sign dimensions were 18”x192” and the dimensions for the proposed signage would be 24”x144”. Juralewicz commented that the signage would have a black background with 1” raised gold leaf lettering. The text “Realty” would no longer appear on the proposed sign. DeMaio asked the height of the letters on the existing sign. Juralewicz said that he was not certain but that the letters on the existing sign would be taller. Sullivan asked whether the trademark logo would be on the sign as shown on the design. Juralewicz said that it would not be on the sign – it was just a holdover from the graphic. Kennedy said that he did not have any objections to what was being proposed. DeMaio commented that the existing sign band presented in the photo is identified as 18” tall; the proposed sign would be 6” taller. The pattern of the brick located above the DRB December 3, 2014 Page 2 of 8 current sign would be covered by the new signage. DeMaio noted that the 12” letters appear a bit large and could be reduced to a 10” font with a slightly smaller background. Kennedy commented that the lettering appears fine. The letters are very clean and could come down to a 10” height. Juralewicz proposed that he could shorten the height of the sign by 2” and also the height of the lettering by 2”. He would try to make it so that the top of the sign would be flush with the bottom of the next lower course of brick. Durand commented that the proposed signage could catch the top edge of the brick band and become flush with the bottom brick. Text could be reduced to a 10” font. DeMaio: Motion to approve conditional upon modifying the text letters and sign size by reducing it 2”, and positioning the sign in such a way so that it does not overlap the brick pattern above it. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. 2. 209 Essex Street, Rear (LEAP For Education): Discussion of proposed signage. Documents and Exhibitions: • Drawings and designs • Photo of existing storefront Brian Watson and Linda Saris were present on behalf of LEAP For Education. Durand refused himself from this discussion. Saris explained that her organization had recently rebranded and renamed itself from Salem Cyberspace to LEAP for Education, which requires them to erect new signage. Watson noted that the proposed signage would be the same size as existing signage and would have the same number of letters and font. Watson noted that the background color would change to a teal with 8” tall black letters that would be 1” thick. Kennedy questioned whether the teal would be too dark for black lettering. Watson explained that they had been able to see the black letters against the teal and felt that there was enough of a contrast. Kennedy encouraged Watson to ensure that the lettering would fit within the background and allow for enough breathing room. DeMaio noted that a graphic mockup to scale, of what exactly the proposed signage would look like is needed. It’s difficult to know exactly how the letters will be spaced. DRB December 3, 2014 Page 3 of 8 Sides commented that approval could be contingent on a shop drawing being emailed to Andrew. Kennedy asked what the font is. Watson replied that it is Micro Gramma Extended. Kennedy then agreed that he could assist in the creation of a graphical representation of the sign. Sides: Motion to approve as submitted conditional upon a graphical reprentation being produced that Glenn Kennedy shall approve. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review 3. 72 Flint Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place): Continued discussion of design revisions to proposed residential and commercial development. Durand returned to the meeting. Documents and Exhibitions: • 3-D Renderings • Plans and Elevations • Photos Attorney Scott Grover began on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the architects had done a considerable amount of work to prepare more detailed materials that responded to the comments of the DRB at past meetings. He also explained that they had been before the Planning Board a couple of times since last visiting the DRB and had responded to all of the concerns of that Board. Now the Planning Board is waiting for a recommendation from the DRB on this proposal. The applicant also recently filed an expanded notification form with MEPA. Grover then introduced the other representatives of the applicant that were there to present to the DRB. David O’Sullivan and Jonathan Stone of O’Sullivan Architects, landscape architect James Emmanuel, and Steve Feinstein of Symes Associates, which is the primary developer of the project. O’Sullivan began by playing a slideshow, set to music, of 3-D renderings of the proposed development in order to walk the Board around the site. After the presentation was complete O’Sullivan explained that the site plan and materials had not changed since the Board last met. He did note that they had some samples of the materials to share, as well as suggested colors for the materials. O’Sullivan then walked DRB December 3, 2014 Page 4 of 8 through a sheet that was provided to the Board that showed examples of real building elements set against proposed building elements for this development. O’Sullivan noted that the entrance on Building 3 had moved farther to the left side of the building and allowing for better handicap access. He then pointed to the introduction of metal canopies with glass coverings over entrances on the mill buildings. He also discussed a representation provided to the Board, which showed the location of a proposed dumpster as viewed from Bridge Street. He noted that there had been some concern expressed at a past meeting about whether that dumpster would be seen from Bridge Street and the representation shows that it would not. O’Sullivan then introduced samples of materials that would be used on the buildings. He showed a metal panel system with dark and light color combinations. They can be shown with narrow or wide seams. The window trim on the mill buildings would be dark and on Building 3 they would be white. Dynia questioned whether the bronze colored panels being shown on the upper levels of the mill buildings would be better if they were a gray shade. Sides noted that she preferred the bronze with the brick because it is much warmer. She also noted that she likes the industrial nature of the windows on the mill buildings. She then explained that Building 3 could use more dark tones in order to give the building more depth. O’Sullivan also showed the Board a cut sheet for the lights to be used on the grounds of the development, as well as a photometric plan showing how much light would be emitted in various areas. Landscape architect James Emmanuel then covered the landscape plan with the Board. He noted that many of the trees shown in the renderings were being shown in a mature state – perhaps 10 or 15 years down the line. He explained that headlights should not be shown into neighboring properties due to the significant tree and shrub plantings. There will also be a rain garden that will help with stormwater retention. Emmanuel also discussed the nature and location of fencing around the property. DeMaio questioned if there would be any access or easement for future pedestrian pathways to follow the north river channel. Currently a fence is being proposed. DeMaio noted that both sides of the river could be accessible in the future and questioned if a provision in the approval could be made that would allow the removal of the fence as required. DRB December 3, 2014 Page 5 of 8 Emmanuel noted that the proposed fence prevents trespassing on the abutter’s property and if the current property were to ever vacate, the next person responsible would have to work with the City on continuing the pedestrian path. Feinstein explained that they currently provided an easement to the City in order to allow 30’ wide pedestrian access along the canal. In terms of pedestrian access, he explained that they had also provided a new connection to Leslie’s Retreat Park. Emmanuel noted that six foot high wood fencing would screen the dumpsters. He also explained that sidewalks would consist of a precast concrete with an integral curb throughout the site. Concrete curbs would be located at planting beds. A 7’-0” high segmented concrete block retaining wall in a grey tone would be located at the rear of the site where a significant grade change occurs. Chairman Paul Durand then opened the meeting for public comment. Rachel Gilbert of 70 School Street commented that the design still does not visually appear like an old mill building instead it feels very industrial – more like a hospital. She noted that because of the size and surrounding architecture it appears not to fit in. The design could use more details such as roof pitches, pilasters, and corbelling. Architectural details could be incorporated such as cornices. Sides explained that it would be difficult, given the sheer size of the complex, to make it fit and feel appropriate to a residential scale surrounding it. DeMaio noted that the scale of the building on Mason Street seems gigantic in comparison to the surrounding residences. DeMaio commented that he appreciates that the connectors located on Mason Street have been recessed. They now appear like individual units. Morris Shopf noted that the proposed design encompasses a lot of windows. He questioned if they would really be 4 over 4 in pairs of singles or if they would be 8 over 8’s. Shopf questioned what the nature of the divided light windows would be. O’Sullivan noted that the windows would be simulated divided light with the grill located on the outside. The light in the glass is located in the middle. The proposed windows would be 8 over 8. Shopf then commented that entrances are still inadequately marked. The proposed scale of the entrances is tiny because the buildings are so huge. He questioned what the nature of the screening at the 1st floor parking level would be, and noted that the landscaping scheme needs to be fully implemented in approval. O’Sullivan explained that the proposed screening for the parking area would be a metal grill similar to the window mullion shape seen above it. DRB December 3, 2014 Page 6 of 8 Andrew Shapiro then read a letter provided by Nina Cohen of 22 Chestnut Street, into the record. It noted that the open campus setting is a smart choice because it acknowledges pathways. More landscaping is needed at the canal side of the property. Cohen expressed wanting to see a sidewalk with a staircase leading from Mason Street into the complex. She expressed wanting to see wider sidewalks at the entrance of Building 3 to promote a more pedestrian environment. Cohen questioned if an events pavilion could be incorporated into the design. Placement of the proposed dumpster is unfortunate for the abutter’s property and suggested that the developer pay for landscaping and screening. Cohen noted that the proposed plan lacks a playfulness that comes from renovation of an old mill. Modern elements are not being identified. Colorful elements such as wall murals, banners, and sculptures could be incorporated into the design. Cohen noted that building 1 benefits from the set back and material variations. Programming wise, Cohen asked that at least 10% of the units be three bedroom, in order to better accommodate families with young children. At this point, the Design Review Board Members provided their individual comments. Dynia commented that the dumpster location could be placed along the state parking lot located towards the North River and entrance off Flint Street. The dumpster could be screened by vegetation. O’Sullivan responded by noting that the dumpster’s current location is beneficial because of the screening provided by the grade change. He also noted that the location that Dynia suggested is meant to be a primary walking area, and the placement of a dumpster could deter people from wanting to walk through. Feinstein then pointed out that Chapter 91 regulations would preclude them from placing any structure where Dynia had suggested the dumpster be placed. Dynia then continued by noting that the proposed wall located along the raised garage parking continues to be presented as solid masonry with nothing in front of it. The appearance of this wall is not very attractive. A green buffer could be incorporated. Dynia commented that the design still lacks a bit of character but it is progressing. Durand asked what the height of the wall of the parking deck is. O’Sullivan remarked that it is about 6-8’. DeMaio commented that he would be concerned about headlights from the parking garage having a visual impact for the neighbors. O’Sullivan explained that the change in grade from the garage to the abutting properties should alleviate most or all potential visual disruption of lights coming from the garage. DRB December 3, 2014 Page 7 of 8 J. Michael Sullivan noted that the 3 models have helped a lot in terms of understanding the massing relationships. He commented that the ornamental fence appears a bit weak. The fence is a prominent element since it is located along a major pedestrian walkway. Signage would be needed for entering the facility. Sullivan commented that the design does not use a whole lot of color or playfulness to address entrances. Sullivan commented that the proposed canopies are nice but a bit out of character for what a mill building looks like. Sullivan asked if the windows are double hung. O’Sullivan responded that yes, they are. DeMaio commented the he is concerned about down-lighting located on the parking structure. DeMaio noted that there shouldn’t be a lot of light spill toward the neighboring properties. Ornamental lights on sidewalks may affect surrounding units and require shields. DeMaio noted his concern for the scale of the proposed building located on Mason Street. He then commented that hopefully as the design progresses spaces might be treated differently and less repetitive. Variety and interruptions in pattern give a building interesting character. Kennedy commented that the proposed metal work on the mill buildings could take a more modern approach. The proposed tone could be a bit less beige and a bit more of a warm grey. This change would make the building appear more modern and add excitement. Kennedy commented that a few more canopies could be incorporated into the design to make the building appear a bit more contemporary. Canopies could be placed at concaves located along the walkway at different buildings. Kennedy noted that the parking space still appears a bit flat between buildings 3 and the proposed parking deck wall. Sides commented that the building located on Mason Street could be a darker tone and tie back to the rest of the complex. A darker color would help bring the scale down and blend in better. Durand noted that at this point, a final review of mockups and color pallets needs to be reviewed and approved by the Board. He said that giving the metal siding a warmer tone will help the mill buildings feel less industrial and provide a modern element. Durand said that the landscaping looks good and that the dumpster is probably in the best location. Durand: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the October 22, 2014 regular meeting. Paul Durand abstained from voting due to not being at the previous meeting. DRB December 3, 2014 Page 8 of 8 Kennedy: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0. Adjournment Durand: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:30 pm.