Loading...
2007-10-30 DRB MinutesDRB Meeting October 30, 2007 Page 1 of 7 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES October 30, 2007 A regular meeting of the Salem Design Review Board (DRB) was held in the third floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, on Tuesday, October 30 2007 at 6:00 pm. Members Paul Durand, Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, and Glenn Kennedy were present. Kirsten Kinzer, CDBG Planner was also present. Durand opens the meeting. Projects Under Review Urban Renewal Area Projects 1. 275-281 Essex Street (CF Tompkins redevelopment) – Construction drawings Attorney George Atkins presents the roof plan, specifications for fencing to hide the mechanical equipment on the roof and a revised entry plan. Durand summarizes the changes to the entry design as shown in the submission, including a recessed entry, more glass and the removal of some brick. He also asks if the screening fence is white. Architect Keith Musinski answers yes, the fence is white. Atkins says that this fence is very difficult to see from the sidewalk. Durand notes that it can be seen clearly from the adjoining buildings and asks if the white can be toned down. Musinski states that the vinyl is only available in white. He selected the model with the least visual flow through and there is only one color option. Jaquith states that the problem is that the white stays very white and shiny. Durand notes that it is still better than looking at HVAC units. Musinski states that to have a choice in color, it was necessary to either use a solid fence, which will not work with HVAC units, or a fence with too much view through the pickets. DeMaio says that he would choose white over HVAC units but would prefer a grayer or browner color similar to the building color. Jaquith says that the fence will be fairly difficult to see. DRB Meeting October 30, 2007 Page 2 of 7 Jaquith: Motion to approve the construction drawings with the alterations to the final design submitted, seconded by Kennedy. (Passes 5-0) Kinzer recommends that the meeting minutes be reviewed to allow the Gulu Gulu and Upper Crust café owners time to arrive for the discussion of the Lapin Park lighting. DeMaio notes that on the subject of Lapin Park, he is not happy with the appearance of the silver chain installed at Gulu Gulu Café. The meeting minutes indicate that the café enclosure discussed was a black cable, which is not what was installed. Kinzer states that the café was reviewed at two meetings and at the second meeting, the proposal was changed to include to a chain. DeMaio raises the concern that there is now a precedent for something that looks like it was purchased at Home Depot. Durand states that because future cafes will also go through the design review process, he is not concerned that the installation of silver chain at this café will lead to similar chains used at other cafes. 2. Approval of Minutes – September 26, March 28, February 28, February 6 and January 24 meetings. Blier: Motion to approve the September 26, 2007 meeting minutes, seconded by DeMaio. (Passes 5-0) Blier: Motion to approve the March 28, 2007 meeting minutes, seconded by Jaquith. (Passes 5-0) Kennedy: Motion to approve the February 28, 2007 meeting minutes, seconded by DeMaio. (Passes 5-0) Blier: Motion to approve the February 6, 2007 meeting minutes, seconded by DeMaio. (Passes 5-0) DeMaio: Motion to approve the January 24, 2007 meeting minutes, seconded by Blier. (Passes 5-0) 3. 112 Washington Street (Lapin Park) – Discussion of park lighting DRB Meeting October 30, 2007 Page 3 of 7 Kinzer summarizes the concerns raised by Michael Buchalter, owner of Upper Crust Pizza, and Steve Feldman, owner of Gulu Gulu café regarding the lighting of Lapin Park. They feel that the light level is generally too low and after dark, people are hesitant to walk through the park to the cafes along the edge of the park. The café owners are open to either more lighting in the park or lighting on the building. Several suggestions have been offered. Glenn Kennedy suggested adding a new head to the existing light poles with multiple light fixtures and Jon Girardi, City Electrician, recommended adding lighted bollards along the path through the park. Girardi has also installed a temporary spot light on the path that cuts diagonally through the park. The Mayor is also interested in a recommendation for the best way to increase the light level in the park. Feldman and Buchalter had said they would attend tonight’s meeting but have not yet arrived. Durand notes that the park is quite dark at night, in part due to the thick canopies on the trees. DeMaio states that the park was not designed for the way it is being used today or for the retail storefronts now along its edges. It was designed for people to pass through but now there are cafes around the edges and over the weekend there was a band playing in the park and people hanging out watching the bands. Jaquith says that there are two issues: the issue of visibility for the storefronts and the issue of safety on the walkway. Durand asks how much light could be provided by Christmas tree lights in the trees. Blier states that putting bollards in the grass is a possibility. DeMaio raises the concern that this would create competition between what the retailers are trying to do and the park design. Bollards along the path will simply encourage people to walk through the park and increase the visual clutter in the park. Blier recommends addressing the problem of lighting today and address the long term question of the park’s design in the future. He suggests mounting low-wattage fixtures in the trees that cast light up into the canopies, a pool of light at the base of the tree or both. These fixtures are virtually invisible once installed. Kennedy agrees that this would increase the amount of ambient light in the park. Durand states that it is very difficult to make these recommendations without a plan of any sort. It would be best to have a lighting designer create plans for the DRB to respond to. He further states that the building owners will need to provide lights on the building if they are concerned about the light level at the storefronts. DeMaio summarizes the recommendations discussed, including providing ambient light through light fixtures in the trees, providing fixtures that encourage a congregational space rather than a transitional space and that adding more fixtures on the ground will be overkill and counter productive to use by cafes. He poses the question of how lighting can be used DRB Meeting October 30, 2007 Page 4 of 7 to encourage people to walk along the edges of the park rather than pass through the center on the diagonal path. Kinzer thanked the DRB for their willingness to discuss this topic without a complete proposal. 4. 155-189 Washington Street (Salem News Redevelopment) – Schematic Design Durand and Blier rescue themselves from the discussion of the Salem News redevelopment. Ron Lamarre, architect, Opechee, summarized the changes to the design since the last meeting. These changes include creating a corner building that actually holds the corner by wrapping the building around the corner and a paneling material. They are now employing a more modern square window design with no lintels and no sills but are bringing back the idea of lintels in the windows. The retail entabulature wraps around the entire building and the top of the Central House becomes the cornice of the new buildings. The wood piers at the existing storefront are echoed in the new building and the bay windows are used to accent the retail entry doors. In response to the question of how the building turns the corner, Lamarre continues that his goal is to wrap the building around the corner, rather than create a separate building on New Derby Street and Washington Street. He also referenced a rendering showing how the building will act as a backdrop to Artists Row and how the corner retail points toward the waterfront. Ed Nilsson, Historic Salem Inc., comments from the audience that the building is now parallel to New Derby Street and if the corner were chamfered, it could create a gateway breaking up the traditional functions of Washington Street and New Derby Street. He also stated that HSI would like to see more detail and ornamentation on the columns and lintels. He concludes that at the Front Street side of the redevelopment, landscaping or a low wall is necessary to define the edge of the parking lot. Jaquith agrees that the intersection of the sidewalk and the parking lot need definition. A brick wall with an obvious entry into the parking would be a better concept, would provide a sense of privacy for the lot and would deal with the bleed from the parking lot to the sidewalk. The area for the parking could be made up somewhere further down. He adds that the curved corner is far superior to the chamfered corner. DeMaio agrees with Jaquiths comments regarding Front Street and asks if the 4 planters shown on the site plan exist now. Lamarre responds affirmatively and states that the design will save the four existing mature trees next to the cobble stone street. His goal is to not change the character of the marketplace. He also states that he understands the need for a physical, architectural separation between the sidewalk and the parking lot that will not disturb the roots of the trees. DRB Meeting October 30, 2007 Page 5 of 7 DeMaio states that this will need to reflect the materials appropriate to Front Street, perhaps bricks, that a passerby will not be put off by. Kennedy states that he could not agree more strongly with these comments. DeMaio comments that he does not object to the round corner but he does have a problem with the fact that the site plan shows rounded columns at the ground plane but the elevation shows rectangular piers coming down to the ground plane. Lamarre states that the elevations show the most current design, which includes wood piers. DeMaio states that he is less comfortable with rectangular piers than he would be with something that where people could more easily flow around. The rectangular piers will create a dark area that will collect trash. How that corner is carried down is very important. Jaquith says that these are stand alone columns, not like the columns on the building, and need a stand alone design. DeMaio states that however this is treated should reinforce the corner rather than acting as if there is no corner. DeMaio raises a concern about the bays, which seem to be just a slight change in depth. The DRB will need to see more detail on the bays including materials and what the underside looks like. The bays are an opportunity to add three dimensionality and interest to the building but from the elevation it seems that these may just be a slight change in elevation not an actual bay. Lamarre explains that the building is on the property line, as required, and the bay can extend a maximum of 12 inches. DeMaio questions how the storefront meets the ground plane. The elevations seem to show metal and glass coming down to the ground, giving the storefront a very modern feel. This may have too much of a modern feel to it based on the interest expressed in a more historically based building. There is also less of an opportunity to character at a human scale. Flat aluminum is not particularly inviting, warm or welcoming. The existing storefront next door has a great deal of detail and shadow to make the pedestrian comfortable. In reality, taking glass down to the ground may be difficult when grade changes and sidewalk snow plowing is considered. When taking the design to the next level, the storefront design may need to change, keeping the detail of the adjacent building in mind. Jaquith comments on the hierarchy of posts on the Central House storefront with big, medium and small sized posts and states that this rhythm in a more contemporary manner could help the design. DeMaio recommends that at some point the upper floor of the Washington Street elevation looks like as you are approaching from Essex Street will need to be considered. If you are on the same side of the street as Duncan Donuts, this area will be very visible. DRB Meeting October 30, 2007 Page 6 of 7 Lamarre explains that this is now a firewall and because these are two separate buildings, it will probably need to remain a firewall. DeMaio says that it is possible to have fenestration without needing to sprinkle the wall. Lamarre explains that although one window might be possible, the limitations on its placement within a firewall mean that this window would be up high inside a unit, rather than at the end of the corridor. Jaquith states that this still might be a good thing. DeMaio stresses that this wall is now drawn as background but depending on where you are on the street it will actually be foreground. Matt Picarsic, RCG, agrees that this is a fair point; this is not a hidden wall. Kennedy says that RCG has done a good job at keeping the contemporary feel of the building with historic references. They have done a nice job wrapping the building around the corner. The larger windows help a lot and yet the building is still tied to the Central House next door. He agrees with DeMaio’s earlier comments on the columns and states that in his opinion either a curved or chamfered corner to the building could work. He has no strong preference although he feels a chamfer could actually make a stronger statement but the curve also work well. Kennedy continues that he differs with DeMaio on the storefront design. He states that there many good examples of retail extending to the sidewalk level, but the displays become very retailer dependent. You can do a tremendous job with them but not many people do. This would be something different for Salem and speaks to a very contemporary look but some of the newer retailers, such as J. Mode or Rogue Cosmetics, could do well with a lot of windows. Kennedy says that he does understand the concerns about the materials and maintenance and that the challenge of getting in the right retailer. Kennedy asks what the material is at the top level of the rear of the building. Lamarre responds by showing on the elevation that the material is wood and the line is carried to the stair and picks up the line of the third floor at Artists Row. Jaquith recommends a slight tonal difference between the third floor and how it comes around versus the bays and the brick areas, working within the same color pallet. Kennedy agrees that the bays should extend out further from the building. Jaquith suggests that RCG check the limit on this and states that the bays should feel like they are coming out of the brick background. Kennedy states that at the corner, round columns could help emphasize the curve. DeMaio suggest that possibly a subtle shift, such as a pediment, could also help here. DRB Meeting October 30, 2007 Page 7 of 7 Jaquith agrees with DeMaio in regard to the base of the storefronts. DeMaio states that this contemporary design won’t work as well with painted aluminum as with a more expensive material such as steel. Jaquith stresses building from the Central House storefronts. DeMaio says that from the members varied opinions, the thing to take away is that how the building meets the ground plane is extremely important. Jaquith states that the members are all in agreement on Front Street. DeMaio: Motion to recommend approval the schematic design with the following conditions: • The design of the retail storefronts shall be developed in much greater detail. The design shall address the intersection of the retail storefronts and the sidewalk and the impact of the storefronts on the pedestrian experience. • An architectural treatment shall be used at the intersection of the parking lot and Front Street sidewalk. • Greater architectural emphasis shall be placed on the curved building entry. • If possible within the Building Code, the depth of the bays located on the upper stories shall be increased. Motion seconded by Kennedy. (Passes 3-0) Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, seconded by DeMaio. (Passes 3-0) The meeting is adjourned at 7:35 p.m.