Loading...
2013-09-25 DRB MinutesDRB September 25, 2013 Page 1 of 8 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday September 25, 2013 at 6:15pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan, Glenn Kennedy Members Absent: Paul Durand Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Helen Sides calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 320 Derby Street (Pia): Discussion of proposed signage. The submission under review before the DRB included a signage proposal, cut sheets, and photos. Pia Schoeck was present on behalf of Pia. Schoeck commented that the signage title and design would be changing. DeMaio commented that the current proposed contrast needs more white wash so that it becomes a bit more subdued. Kennedy noted that texture should be incorporated. Kennedy: Motion to approve. Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 4-0*. *David Jaquith was not present when this vote was taken. He arrived shortly after and voted on all remaining items. 2. 43 Church Street (Turner’s Seafood): Discussion of proposed flags. The submission under review before the DRB included a proposal, cut sheets, and photos. Jim Turner was present on behalf of Turner’s Seafood. Turner commented that the proposal is for nautical and/or historical flags which would connect with the business and history of Salem and the building. Turner noted that the imagery has been hard to get approved for the historical flags. Turner noted that the business has been approved for one blade sign above the door, one building sign, window signage, and six window flower boxes. DRB September 25, 2013 Page 2 of 8 Kennedy noted that 43 Church’s business proposed 6 signage flags, which was not approved because the amount of signage was greater than the amount allowed. Kennedy commented that the historical flags add a lot of character, history, and interest to the buildings facade. The nautical flags would be very bright and interrupt the turner seafood sign. Sides questioned if the flags would be interchangeable. Turner commented that the flags are being proposed as interchangeable. DeMaio commented that final images need to be presented for his approval. 3D perspectives would allow the board to visualize the building and provide a more accurate scale. The current proposed flag shape leans out over the sidewalk more than previously represented and the proposed proportions don’t appear accurate. DeMaio commented that he is concerned weather the façade would still be apparent from the street. DeMaio commented that the idea of muted imagery is very nice. Sullivan questioned whether 2 flags will be connected to the existing brackets. Sullivan noted that the other proposed flags need to be stabilized to the building. All flags should be secured consistently in the same manner. Turner noted that the proportions represented are consistent with the existing flags and bracket size. Sides commented that if there were just 2 flags with historical images they would appear more as logos. Kennedy: Motion to continue with 3dimentional renderings (i.e. renderings that will reflect a view that shows all flags presented at angles that demonstrate the full extent of the façade) that emphasize scale, flag base connections, and 6 images of the proposed artwork. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. 3. 50 St. Peter Street (A&B Salem): Discussion of proposed signage. The submission under review before the DRB included a signage proposal, cut sheets, and photos. The representative noted that the existing signage had issues with seeing the sign from the street and parking locations. The signage would be made of white PVC with a logo printed on it. Sides commented that a diagram is needed to explain the signage locations. DRB September 25, 2013 Page 3 of 8 Graphically the signage is hard to read, the yellow seems to disappear against the white. Sides commented that the signage would become more of a logo if it was shrunken and the line weight became thicker. Sullivan commented that the logo could be filled with a color as opposed to just a line weight. The logo explains the business. DeMaio noted that he agrees with Helen - the signage doesn’t provide enough of a message of what you are selling. The A&B Salem portion doesn’t sit comfortably in the background. DeMaio commented that the sandwich logo is larger than it needs to be. Kennedy commented that the signage doesn’t respect the building and feels misplaced. Kennedy noted that this problem is not going to be solved tonight, more time and further development is needed. Jaquith noted that the hamburger is too much. The hamburger should not contain the A and B text within it. Could the A&B be simplified with a + sign instead? Jaquith commented that the hamburger should just be an abstraction as a hamburger and not letters. Sides commented that the signage could become the shape of a hamburger. People would want to find out what the business is about. Sullivan noted that photos from Bridge Street should be taken to provide a sense of the building; its context and scale. Kennedy commented that he would like to provide guidance and continue the proposal. Jaquith: Motion to continue Seconded by: Sullivan, Passes 5-0. 4. 11 Church Street (The Essex Condominium): Discussion of proposed exterior soffit replacement. The submission under review before the DRB included a proposal, cut sheets, and photos. David Barrett was present from SPS Inc. Barrett commented that the existing wood rake boards located at the dormers and soffits would be replaced with Versatex. The existing gutter would be removed and replaced with the same profile. Jaquith: Motion to approve, • Exactly replicating existing soffit with Verstex material (in-kind). Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0. DRB September 25, 2013 Page 4 of 8 5. 209 Essex Street, Rear (Salem Cyberspace): Continuation of discussion of proposed signage. The submission under review before the DRB included a signage proposal, cut sheets, and photos. Brian Watson and Linda Saris were present on behalf of Salem Cyberspace. Shapiro noted that the DRB would be approving: • 2 signs instead of previously proposed 3 signs. • Eliminate end sign on alley side. (sidewall sign) • Switched from blue letters to black ones • 8” instead of 9” tall letters • Lowered the main building sign 12” • Reduced the length of the blade sign from 8’ to 6’6” DeMaio questioned what would happen to your sign if it had to move and if the business would be willing to adjust their signage. Shapiro noted that the DRB is responsible for approval of permanent signage locations tonight. If the signage gets relocated, the business would have to come back to the board. Sullivan commented that the proposed sign placement dominates the front of the building. The signage implies that Salem Cyberspace is located on both floors. Color and size is prominent. Shapiro noted that the board had previously approved the revised version of the blade sign. Sides commented that the proposed sign seems very arbitrary. A similar sign on the other side of the building would be more effective. Sides questioned if the text could say Salem Cyberspace in one sign. The yellow color is going to be what catches people’s eyes. Kennedy commented that the business could have 2 vertical blade signs located on the right and left of the building. Watson questioned if the signage could be flat. DeMaio noted that any ownership of the wall for the above tenant’s space is not appropriate. Jaquith commented that the issue is the size of the Salem Cyberspace text. A vertical blade sign would be more effective. Two signs doing similar things would connect. DRB September 25, 2013 Page 5 of 8 With more details to be determined with respect to the building sign, Kennedy noted that it would be beneficial to work through any further details before going to the Salem Redevelopment Authority for final approval. Kennedy: Motion to approve building sign if revised with Kennedy’s guidance. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0. 6. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 Washington Street, and 231-251 Washington Street (Dodge Area LLC c/o RCG LLC): Discussion of proposed development-schematic design review. Prior to the presentation and discussion of this item, it was noted that Helen Sides might have a conflict of interest in hearing the proposal. If it was determined that she did in fact have a conflict of interest, she would recuse herself from participation. The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, cut sheets, and photos. Matt Picarsic from RCG and Klarens Karanxha (Project Manager, Khalsa Design) presented on behalf of RCG LLC dba Dodge Area LLC. DeMaio questioned if each separate building would be built in a single or multiple phases. Picarsic noted that the buildings would be built at the same time. Picarsic noted that the buildings placement would include a hotel towards the north and residential apartments to the south. The buildings would be linked by parking and retail. A 30’ setback of terraces, platforms, and sitting areas will make the building more urban friendly and provide a new location for street utilities. Picarsic commented that they agreed to retain 38 public parking spaces. DeMaio questioned which side of the hotel would be used as a loading dock. Picarsic noted that a loading dock is being proposed at the southeast side of the building parallel with the parking garage. Picarsic noted that materials would include a lighter color of aluminum on the upper level with stone along the ground level. Sides noted that the building being pulled away from the street edge is inconsistent with the downtown streetscape. Sides questioned why the building is being pulled away from the edge towards the Marblehead direction. Sides commented that this urban space is calling too much attention to the corner and the area is not of importance. This street corner should be downplayed. Sides commented that the retail area should be identified as a main entrance. DRB September 25, 2013 Page 6 of 8 Picarsic commented that the area is identifying public surface parking and making the proposed complex less prominent against the surrounding 5 story buildings. Sullivan questioned if the trees are against a retaining wall and if the 6 visitor parking spaces are needed. This area becomes a problem for incoming traffic. The space could be used as a public park for the surrounding neighborhood. Picarsic commented that the trees align with a retaining wall that surrounds the parking garage. Kennedy noted that the building’s focal points should be relocated from the corner to a new location. More attention should be focused on the retail spaces. The building’s height should increase as the complex becomes closer to the downtown. DeMaio noted that visually the Canal Street corner is a gateway into Salem. A series of barriers should be added to the sidewalk because of the grade changes. Sides commented that site sections would help to diagram the buildings relationships within its context. These sections should document how a person in a car would know where to go. Jaquith noted that this proposal would be one of the largest buildings in Salem. Jaquith commented that he has no issue with the placement of its functions, but the complex is a huge monolithic mass. Three architects would provide a variety of details that would enhance the building and its site. Jaquith noted that he agrees with the statement made by Sides, acknowledging that a green space further up the street would not be ideal. Jaquith commented that the proposal is very similar to the building that the applicant own down the street. The residential building could be broken up and express a bit more heritage. Jaquith noted that retail businesses might not be as valuable up the hill and around the corner. Retail spaces need to be continuous between the hotel and residential zones. Both buildings could still be connected but emphasize different elements to show a transition. Residential building could be evident based on window pattern and material. Jaquith commented that smaller units should be placed in this building to help with the high cost of rent. DeMaio noted that he language of the building could change when the material does, creating less of a homogeneous block feeling. DeMaio commented that the complex is not meant to look like a historic building; a more forward thinking that acknowledges details that are contemporary would enhance the design. Sullivan noted that the proposed design is reminiscing of the newer buildings in the area. Sullivan commented that a massing or site model is needed so that masses can be more easily manipulated and moved. DRB September 25, 2013 Page 7 of 8 Jaquith commented that the schematic design should feel less finished. This can be achieved by creating sketches. DeMaio questioned if the Starbucks building also belongs to RCG building and if there is some long-term vision for continuing the street wall downtown. This space would have a large impact on how pedestrians enter you building. Picarsic commented that the building has historic character and would most likely not be demolished or relocated. Kennedy commented that more attention should be addressed to the existing parking lot rather than the rear corner of the building. A lot of pedestrian movement is going to be happening there. Kennedy questioned if there has been any consideration for rooftop access. The rooftop would become a space that would always be occupied. Sullivan questioned if sustainability has been addressed. Picarsic commented that sustainability has not been analyzed or addressed yet. Sides commented that the public is now able to speak. Jennifer Firth of Carpenter Street commented that the building appears monolithic and identical to the complex a block away. Firth expressed concerns regarding the function of student housing, economic issues, and questions regarding the rating of the proposed hotel. Emily Udy of Historic Salem commented that it is important to make sure that the building is evaluated to design standards. The building should acknowledge the need for urban continuation. The Washington Street corner should have a conversation with the surrounding street. A traffic study needs to be done that looks at the major concerns with the traffic movement. Udy commented that she supports the idea of a contemporary building and would like to see the structure become a landmark. Peabody Street should be examined closer; this street has a lot of interesting brick details that could enhance the design. Details would make the building appear more timeless. The Howling Wolf building has interesting detail along the top of the roof that could be used as a reference as well. Nina Cohen of HIS Preservation Committee commented that the entry area located at the corner of Dodge Street would become an exciting space. Cohen would like to see bicycle racks and pedestrian access into the building. Cohen commented that a rooftop space would be a highlighted area in Salem. Sustainability and forward thinking into the building would only enhance the design. The building should not house undergraduates, but could be used for graduate and faculty housing. Cohen commented that the Domino’s Pizza intersection is failing and that it is inadequately spaced. A built-in bike lane, wider sidewalks, barriers, and another crosswalk may be necessary. DRB September 25, 2013 Page 8 of 8 Kennedy commented that clarification on student housing is needed. Picarsic noted that the proposed residential apartments would house a floor of graduate students as a test kit. Different ways of controlling this environment can be done. Picarsic commented that as he understood it, the main comments of focus for moving forward include: • Buildings that are not monolithic. This can be achieved by treating them differently with a distinction between the pieces. • Pedestrian experience / retail location: More images and perspectives of how the design is going to work with a consideration of material treatments. • Is visitor parking viable? This space could occupy a green space with bicycle parking or the building could be moved further out to reinforce the street face. Could this location of mass be 3 stories high instead of 6? • Visual vertical element to Washington Street further north. • Relocating the lobby to where the parking penetrates the building. Sides: Motion to continue. Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. Minutes Approval of the meeting minutes from the August 28, 2013 special meeting. Jaquith: Motion to approve Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 5-0. Adjournment Sides: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 9:00pm.