Loading...
2011-04-27 DRB MinutesDRB 04/27/11 Page 1 of 10 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board Date and Time: Wednesday April 27, 2011, at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington St. Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, Glenn Kennedy, David Jaquith, Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides Members Absent: Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel Recorder: Lindsay Howlett Chairperson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review 1. 3 Lafayette Street and 186 Essex Street (Mike’s Museum): Discussion of proposed temporary mural and signage The board reviews the temporary mural and signage proposal date April 2, 2011. The proposal consists of drawings and photos. Mike Lash is present on behalf of Mike’s Museum. Daniel states the proposal is actually for 1 and 3 Lafayette Street. Daniel adds Mike’s Museum will be in the laundromat building next to Derby Lofts. Daniel states Mike and his wife recently moved to Salem. He formerly lived in from Chicago where he worked as the city’s public art administrator. Lash states there will be approximately four to six mural changes from April through October. Daniel states the SRA approved the concept for the mural as well as the signage. Daniel adds that in other public art proposals, the DRB has been presented with conceptual drawings for the actual art, but in this instance where it would be changing every month, the SRA wanted to have the Director of the SRA, Lynn Duncan, review the art concepts each month prior to installation. Daniel states the sign proposal is not that of a typical wall mounted or projecting sign but rather is for a sign that would consist of text on a panel inside the space with changing art as the background. Daniel adds there is a free-standing sign the laundromat currently has and additionally, Lash is proposing to add his name to the sign. Daniel adds free standing signs are prohibited in this area but it appears this particular sign existed prior to the ordinance. Daniel adds he has not been able to find record of approval for this sign. Durand states he likes the idea of the revolving art garage door and that Lash will be the curator of the quality of art that goes up. Lash responds they are looking for non-graffiti style art and are trying to refrain from any text in the pieces. Lash adds it is not meant to be advertising but instead public art for the City of Salem. Lash further adds he thinks the art can generate good, educational and visual activity as well as press. Durand asks where Lash’s space starts. Lash responds his space is not behind the door but a little to the left. Lash adds the garage door is a blank canvas that can now be activated. Lash further adds he envisions the whole door to be covered but will have to see what each artist proposes. Durand asks what happens between the active times when the art is not being revolved. Lash states that is a discussion; but if no one is against the art, the last one may just stay during the off season. Sides asks if the muralist is also on display in the gallery. Lash responds not necessarily and explains the complications of proprietary art. Blier asks who some of the sponsors are for the murals. Lash responds the scaffolding company is donating their scaffolding. Lash states he sees putting advertising up on the scaffolding for the sponsors while the piece is being painted. DeMaio states some of these questions touch on the difference between an art installation and a sign. Lash confirms if there is text, which is something he is trying to avoid, it would have to be part of the artistic statement. Lash adds all of these pieces, under contract will need to not be offensive to a third party. DeMaio asks about reflectivity of the paint finishes that could affect people walking or driving. Lash states he does not foresee that as an issue, but if it comes up they will deal with it. Durand asks what happens if something is found to be offensive, what are the checks and balances. Lash states all drawings would be subject to City approval. Daniel reiterates the art concepts are subject to pre-approval by Executive Director Lynn Duncan each month. Durand thinks it’s a pretty good palate and thinks it will be interesting and will bring some vitality to the street. DeMaio asks how long a typical installation will be up. Lash responds he is thinking one month per mural. DeMaio asks what happens if the paint doesn’t adhere well to the surface. Lash responds they would clean up the mess and at that point strip and repaint the surface. DeMaio states part of this is that whatever installation occurs will be maintained while its there. Lash confirms yes. Jaquith asks if that door is used. Lash confirms yes. Lash states he would like to get rid of the no parking sign but figures that will need to be discussed at a future meeting to have the City provide a sign. Daniel states there are currently no spaces in front of that door because of the curb cuts and function. Blier asks if there is ever an instance where relief may be adhered to the doors. Lash responds it could happen but nothing beyond a 2” projection. Durand confirms the landlord is ok with this. Lash states yes and adds he will be submitting a letter of approval for this project. Sides: Motion to approve garage door mural as presented, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0. Lash states the sign is simply silk screen with a standard font. Lash adds the space is very raw and will be a commercial art gallery. Durand asks the board for comments about the sign. Jaquith states he would use the word boring. Lash states it’s supposed to be flat footed and is intentionally designed that way. Jaquith asks if the word ‘Mike’ can move down, closer to the Museum, LLC. so that is reads as one statement, by reducing the letting. Lash guarantees the text ‘Mike’s Museum’ will always be a darker color on a lighter color background. Sides asks if the text will be done by a stencil each time. Lash confirms yes it will be silk screened from a stencil. Daniel shows the board exactly where Mike’s Museum will be located on a map. Kennedy joins the meeting. Kennedy states it feels like it is missing something, not that it necessarily needs something too overt, but it could use something. Lash affirms the proposal states the text might change but is a little bit weary of associating a dingbat or element to it as he finds it contrary to the aesthetic of the space which will have a very raw and industrial feeling. Kennedy adds the typeface makes it want something more. Kennedy reiterates, the Gaudi old style is very simplistic and when it’s sitting there alone, it really wants something more. Jaquith would agree to attach something. Kennedy adds he wouldn’t force the issue but does recommend it. Kennedy asks what Lash is looking at right now for color. Lash responds he is looking for dark hues but it is possible that the text color will change. Sides states she does not think Lash is looking for the sign to look finished. Lash agrees and states he sees it as one step above hand written with a marker. Sides states she does not like the giant LLC. Lash agrees but states he finds it as comic irony. Durand states he think this is a sign in concert with the gallery. Durand adds the board shouldn’t over dictate that as that is what it’s meant to be. Jaquith: Motion to approve the sign as presented with the addition of reducing the letting between Mike’s and Museum LLC and to allow a dingbat or graphic element below the text, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 6-0. 2. 4 Central Street (1805 Custom House): Discussion of proposed walkway and retaining wall replacement The board reviews the proposed walkway and retaining wall replacement plans and description dated April 13, 2011. Fergal Brennock, Nick Driscoll, and Dave Butler are present on behalf of 1805 Custom House. Daniel states the SRA has previously approved this proposal as well. Daniel adds the retaining wall is failing and needs to be replaced. Daniel states the reason it is before the board is because they are proposing a change in materials. Brennock states the proposal describes a replacement of the failing retaining wall to reinstate the brick façade on the wall but instead of the brick paving, to make it uniformly sloped with a broomed concrete finish for overall better drainage. Brennock adds the existing steps would remain in place. Durand confirms the only change is the brick paver to the broomed concrete. Brennock responds yes. DeMaio asks if the railing will remain. Brennock states they will reuse the railing if possible. Durand asks the current height of the railing. Brennock does not know. Jaquith states it could probably work if the old rail is able to be reused. Durand thinks there might be tighter spacing required. Jaquith states if the rail changes in appearance, the DRB will need to see it. Jaquith adds their best bet is to save it. Brennock confirms whatever the code exactly states, they will adhere to. DeMaio states the concrete is visually a loss but understands from a construction point of view why it is done. DeMaio thinks it would look better if it was brick on top. Brennock states it would be a difficult terminating and draining detail if they use brick on top. Jaquith states there should maybe a ¼” lip on that course of brick to prevent the water from going down the brick. Jaquith states his point is to prevent them from ever having to do it again. Brennock states he does not want to have an interface between the slab and the retaining wall and believes the wall would have to be redone sooner than the way he is proposing. Jaquith agrees with DeMaio about the edge of the concrete sticking out over the brick not looking too good. Brennock asks the board to consider its location with it being in the rear. Jaquith states those stories don’t work too well with the board. Blier asks what the building is across from Red’s. Blier states that project has a series of steps which is exposed aggregate concrete, so there is a kind of language or precedent in the area for a concrete lip. Sides wishes she could go see it and get a better idea of what it is. Sides adds she has real doubts about the railing and it being adequate per code. Kennedy agrees if the railing changes it will look totally different. Sides reiterates from a safety point of view. Durand states he does not have an objection to the concrete but would like to see a more articulated detail where the concrete terminates. Brennock agrees the drawings don’t have some of the details Durand was looking for but confirms the design’s intent. Durand states the rail and edge of slab needs to be better articulated and thinks it is really a pretty simple solution and adds the rail is going to be what it has to be, per code. Jaquith adds he would like to see more photos. Durand reiterates the railing will be dictated in regards to the dimensions and openings but agrees the materials are subjective. Durand asks for an elevation of a code compliant rail per the eighth edition of the Massachusetts State Code. Brennock confirms if the existing rail meets the requirements the board would be in favor of reusing the railing. Durand confirms yes but adds it he does not think it will comply with code. Durand asks to see a detail the contractors can elegantly build from and photographs that communicate the solution better. Brennock asks if the board does visits. Jaquith states yes but its harder with everyone’s schedule and photographs would be better. Brennock is asking if the board is crossing the line between new construction vs. repair. Durand adds the fact they are reconstructing over a certain percentage is what likely makes them redo the whole thing. Blier asks for a detail about where the expansion joints will be located. Brennock states he will propose a vertical soffit. Daniel recommends Brennock speak with the building inspector to find out what extent of the railing needs to be replaced. Daniel asks the board if in fact the building inspector says it’s fine as is, the board would just want to see the detail of the concrete and wonders if that needs to be discussed at another meeting. Durand states if the railings are fine, and if the detail was given to an arbitrator that would be a good solution to avoid waiting another month. DeMaio asks if the two percent cross slope is existing. Brennock responds no. DeMaio asks how that works with the existing stairs and landing. Brennock states it would cause the creation of the extra step, which would be the slab. Durand confirms that is technically changing the stairs and will likely need a new railing but it will be the building inspector’s call. Durand does not mind expediting the approval but states the board is not seeing what is being proposed in the proposal. Brennock states the he could get away with a one percent slope. DeMaio agrees there should be photographs of the existing condition with the next proposal. Jaquith states he will be the arbitrator for the next proposal and will visit the site. Durand asks Brennock to resubmit a photograph of the existing conditions, adjacent conditions and similar details around the City, elevations of the railings if it changes, a detail of the railing, and a detail of the concrete and brick intersection. Jaquith states he will judge if what he sees is still vague and if so, will then recommend it come back to the board. Durand states the liability is still there and could eventually come back on Brennock. Kennedy: Motion to expedite by deferring to Jaquith, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 6-0. 3. 168 Essex Street (Lakay Island Restaurant): Discussion of proposed outdoor dining area The board reviews the outdoor dining area plans dated April 10, 2011 which includes a cover letter, cut sheet, photos and a site plan. Vladimir and Sarah Lassage are present on behalf of Lakay Island Restaurant. Daniel states Lakay Island Restaurant is now looking forward to moving with their outdoor seating proposal. Daniel adds it’s a proposal for four tables with four seats each, located outside with planters dividing the space. Daniel had asked in licensing if this restaurant is authorized to have that many seats outside and is waiting to hear back. Lassage states they just want to provide four tables because they are new are located right next to a lawyer’s office that they want to respect and also because of financial reasons. Lassage states different planters were included in the packet to try to get some feedback from the board. Durand states if they had asked for eight and they put only implemented four, that would be fine, but they only asked for four that’s it. Kennedy asks how the tables will be serviced. Lassage states by the front door. Kennedy points out if they have eight full tables outside, the biggest factor coming in and out of the front door while other guests are entering and existing, will have to be figured out. Jaquith does not have a problem with five tables. Durand adds those might be the good kind of problems to have. Durand states they should probably align their planter boundaries within the restaurant’s boundaries. Lassage states he believes the thirty feet shown are within their space but agrees the planters will be aligned with the tenant entry. Daniel states the space needs to be defined and contiguous to the restaurant. Daniel adds if in fact the Marley’s own that space then its fine, but that needs to be verified. Lassage believes the Marley’s do own up to the wall. Kennedy states there is a lot of space out there for only four or five tables. Kennedy states they should align the right edge of the window to define a space for walking around but still allowing for four, five or six tables in there; it’s a big space. Kennedy states they may want to make it a little snugger to have people feel like it’s snugger; kind of want to create that social atmosphere. Lassage asks if they can define that with planters. Kennedy confirms absolutely yes. Jaquith states they need to watch the clearance from the brick wall to the planters, at least five feet, but it shouldn’t be a problem. Lassage agrees. The board reviews the planter options. Blier asks if there is rectangular planter as shown in the plans. DeMaio likes the planter types they have in both color and shape. Daniel adds it is a Caribbean theme. Sides thinks it needs to be lively and colorful and that is so dependant on what is planted and kept alive. Durand confirms they don’t want to see cheap plastic containers. Kennedy suggests a planter at Loews that is like one of the ones they proposed that offers a nice quality and great color options. Daniel states the will need a lot of planters to define that space from a licensing point and isn’t sure if that’s done exclusively, if that would be too expensive. Sides states it would be less expensive to have stanchions and chains and it can be easily controlled. Kennedy suggests the stanchions and chains with a few defining planters, would likely be cheaper. Daniel adds four of them may cover the length, and thinks it’s important to think of the cost and maintenance of a lot of planters vs. using stanchions and chain. Lassage asks if there is a preference in which direction they go in and admits they will likely pick the scenario that is the most cost effective. Sides thinks it would be more aesthetically effective if they were not all planters but instead a combination of stanchions and a few planters. Kennedy states Lyceum did a nice job of using planters with lattice that create the space and were able to only do it on the sides. Kennedy suggests using chains on the long side and planters on the ends, to create the space and create privacy from the adjacent tenant. Kennedy is happy to work with Lakay Restaurant with these issues. Durand thinks it is a fairly simple issue. Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval with referral of clarification of the outside seating plan to Kennedy, seconded by Sides. Passes 6-0. Daniel adds the City has the same table and chairs set. Jaquith: Motion to approve the chairs and table layout as presented, seconded by Sides. Passes 6-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the January 26, 2011, February 23, 2011, and March 23, 2011 regular meetings. Durand: Identifies an error on the second page towards the bottom, the third paragraph; “Durand adds the other two signs don’t perform” should be conformed. Jaquith: Motion to accept the meeting minutes from January 26 with the comment from Durand, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 6-0. Jaquith: Motion to accept the meeting minutes from Feb 23, seconded by Sides. Passes 3-0. Durand: Motion to accept the meeting minutes from March 23, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0. Adjournment Durand: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:54pm. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.