Loading...
2012-11-28 DRB MinutesDRB November 28, 2012 Page 1 of 5 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday November 28, 2012 at 6:15pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Helen Sides, Michael Blier Members Absent: Glenn Kennedy Others Present: Tom Daniel Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 6 Front Street: Discussion of proposed window. The submission under review before the DRB includes a window proposal and photos. Bill Goldberg was present on behalf of Goldberg Properties. Daniel noted that the intent is to swap out and replace the existing windows from multi pane to single pane glass. Daniel commented that the 6 Front Street property photographs in the application show the existing and proposed conditions (which would be similar to the J. Mode storefront) of the building exterior. Supplemental photos show the pedestrian’s perspective moving westerly down Front Street. Daniel noted that there are three buildings on the north side of Front Street owned by Goldberg Properties: • 6-12 Front Street, built between 1845 and 1846. It was renovated in the early 1970s with non-operable, multiple pane windows. • 16-20 Front Street, built between 1972 and 1975 and housing Front Street Coffee House. This property has non-operable, multiple pane windows. • 22-26 Front Street, built in 1816, and houses Maria’s and Avalanche. It was renovated in the early 1970s with operable, multiple pane windows. Daniel noted that the building across the street at 21 Front Street (housing J. Mode) was built in 1845 and renovated in the 1970s with plate glass windows. Daniel commented that the SRA would like the DRB to provide feedback on how to balance the historic fabric with the current needs of the 21st century retail space. Daniel additionally noted that the DRB should weigh in on the specifics of the proposed window finish. Daniel noted that the guideline for review for a building more than 50 years old is the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and the Salem Historical DRB November 28, 2012 Page 2 of 5 Commissions Guidelines Notebook, both being considered as guidelines and not standards. Bill Goldberg commented that the intent is to increase the quality of retail space by providing visibility and a comfortable and appropriate retail environment while properly accentuating the historic attributes. Sides asked whether the DRB approved removing the divided light similar to what was done on the old bleachers building. Durand stated that he believes this would be a positive move forward. Sides additionally commented that in reviewing the photo from the early 20th century, it is clear the elevation and width of windows changed when pillars got moved. Panels, sill height, and other windows for retail should be similar and uniform. Goldberg commented that granite is commonly located below the windows however in specific locations wood is used. Durand noted that while extensive mullions on windows look historical, retail functions are not easily accommodated and the windows are not accurately interpreted. Jaquith noted that the original building’s intent was to provide the largest panes of glass possible. The new windows should be detailed to mimic the building across the street. DeMaio asked how far the window treatment is intended to be implemented. DeMaio commented that each building would appear different. The treatment of the buildings’ bases continues beyond the intended scope of work. The window treatment should be extended further down the street following the base treatment ending at the Front Street Coffee House. This would complete the facades’ appearance and make the building feel connected as a whole. Goldberg commented that he is open to expanding the amount of the window replacement as long as he could have two or three years to complete the project. Goldberg stated that different types of retail are being accommodated within these buildings and the businesses require different types of retail visibility. Some retailers like the current conditions; flexibility to tenants needs to be acknowledged. Jaquith commented that over time the exterior rhythm should be consistent. Upgrades should include energy efficiency with thermal panes and UV ratings for the building and its occupants. Tenants can handle any perceived problem with their own aesthetics such as curtains or other treatments. Jaquith asked whether wood or bronze should be used for the exterior window finish. Board members agreed that the finish should mimic the details across the street. Jaquith: Motion to approve with the following conditions: DRB November 28, 2012 Page 3 of 5 • All of the first floor windows on the Front Street façade of the buildings at 6-12 Front Street and 16-20 Front Street shall be replaced within three years. • The new windows shall match the windows at 21 Front Street (J Mode) with a bronze finish. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0. 2. 87 Washington Street (Opus): Discussion of proposed exterior changes. The submission includes a letter and photos of the proposed exterior changes. Tim Curtis was present on behalf of Poore & Company for opus. Daniel noted that the items to be reviewed include the following. • Reinstate a window located in the alley with an exhaust vent above. • A proposed wood slat enclosure located in the back that would mimic the wood slat enclosure around the emergency back up generator at Salem Five. • Erecting a brick shaft along the back that would enclose a kitchen exhaust duct, which protrudes up to the roof. • The bulkhead would be removed and replaced with a metal platform. • Adding LED string lights in the alley, which should be secured to the existing brackets located on the City Hall building. The provided supplement shows how the led strings will connect to the City Hall building. • Heat pump system installed on the roof. Curtis noted that the proposed shaft is intended to match the existing brick along the building’s façade. The enclosure shall protrude above the roof a bit to accommodate the turn of the exhaust duct. Curtis commented that the wood slat enclosure would be 7 feet high and have a top so tenants above cannot look down and see the recycle bins. A bulkhead is not required anymore and would be replaced with a metal platform. Sides asked what the exhaust shaft would look like. Curtis commented that the intended shaft would be 15 inches by 15 inches. Sides questioned whether the duct could be located within the building. Sides commented that a black matte industrial finish would be less apparent than matching the existing brick or using a metal finish. Brick will not match in regards to age. The duct could be rounded and attached to the wall with painted metal brackets providing an industrial appearance. Goldberg commented that the intent was to match the building’s brick material to blend in and making the duct disappear. Goldberg asked whether it would be appropriate to make it a piece of artwork. DeMaio commented that ductwork tends to be large. A 16” round duct is most likely the smallest available. DeMaio asked whether this topic could be deferred until samples and drawings have been reviewed. DRB November 28, 2012 Page 4 of 5 Durand noted that historically it would be better to make the mechanical and industrial features apparent rather than adding to the existing architecture. Durand commented that making the ductwork a piece of art could prove difficult. DeMaio asked what is driving the footprint of the wood slat enclosure and if the enclosure is required to be there. DeMaio commented that the biggest concern is that the enclosure blocks the pedestrian from what is going on in the rest of the green area. The space should encourage use of the walkway and provide a visual view down the alley. DeMaio questioned whether the enclosure footprint could be minimized. Curtis noted that the enclosure’s intent was to house a path to the kitchen, provide a space for recycle bins, and to conceal the bulkheads from the dining area. Curtis commented that plants will grow up the enclosure and that a dumpster is not needed since trash will be taken out every night. Jaquith asked whether the enclosure could be squared off at the furthest extent, which would be the metal plate on the bulkhead. Jaquith questioned whether the same technique with the slats could be incorporated to provide consistency. Additional space would become available if the ventilation shaft went inside the building. Jaquith commented that brick is always a separate element and hard to match and metal would stand out if ductwork were finished in it. Durand commented that the alley is long enough and it would be good to allow for circulation as soon as possible by making the enclosure as small as possible. The walkway would then connect nicely with outdoor seating. Durand additionally noted that the DRB should see a sample of the LED string lights to make sure they are the correct size product. Sides asked whether the fire escape would land on the inside of the enclosure or on the street. Curtis commented that the ramp would land on the street. Blier questioned whether the LED string lights would continue the full length of the alley. Curtis commented that strings will be mini soft blue lights and may not be the exact same pattern as shown on the plan. Blier commented that lighting density should be noted so the desired space does not become too bright. Blier noted that ADA issues should be addressed in regards to seating. Blier questioned whether the outdoor tables are intended for public seating or customers and staff. Daniel commented that the outdoor dining area was not before the Board at this time. DeMaio asked whether the exhaust vent and the window frames would be the same color and finish. DeMaio noted that the shape of the enclosure works but a smoother rectilinear transition would be nice. DRB November 28, 2012 Page 5 of 5 Daniel asked whether the shaft would impact the tenants windows. Goldberg commented that the fire escape provides minimum options. The exhaust was sized so it protruded out a bit more above the roof, making the viewer aware of its presence. Durand: Motion to approve with the following conditions: • The enclosure around the recycle and trash cans will be shrunk to conform to Jaquith’s diagram. • The exhaust vent finish shall match the window frame finish. • Cut sheets for the led string lights shall be provided to DRB members in order to confirm the lights are appropriate prior to the SRA meeting; and • The new shaft shall be continued to the next meeting. Recommendations were provided. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the October 24, 2012 regular meeting. DeMaio commented that the quote in the middle of page 6 was incorrect and clarified it as well as his comment about the base of the fountain. Durand: Motion to approve as corrected by DeMaio. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0. Adjournment Durand: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:00 pm.