Loading...
2004-01-28 DRB MinutesDRB Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 1 of 6 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2004 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 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 at 6:00pm. Members Paul Durand, Chris Greene and David Jaquith were present. Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Valerie Gingrich, Clerk, were also present. Minutes Minutes from the November 19, 2003 meeting were reviewed and approved. Project list Cafe Kushco (128 Washington Street) – Review of proposed signage. The applicant, Mr. Mark Stafford, described the signage proposal, which includes the installation of two signs along Washington Street that would cover the entire signboard. The proposed signs will have white lettering on a red background. The materials will be the same as what was there before. Mr. Durand commented that the sign does not work well with the blue facade. Mr. Stafford stated that he went with the red sign because the previous signs in this location have been red. Mr. Greene commented that other facades on the street are both muted colors and the blue does not fit in with the rest of the building. Mr. Durand inquired as to the colors of the interior of the cafe. Mr. Stafford stated that they changed the colors to white and a dull yellow. Mr. Greene stated that the lettering is fine and it has a nice European flare to it, but the bright white and bright red do not fit as nicely as a warmer red and a duller white. The bright colors would look too much like a flag. Mr. Greene asked if the sign would be painted. Mr. Stafford stated that the sign is plastic with white adhesive letters. Mr. Greene asked if there were other colors of plastic he would be willing to use. Mr. Stafford replied that he was just trying to keep the sign the same as what was there previously. He stated that he doesn’t necessarily like the colors and he would be willing to do something different. Mr. Stafford stated that he liked the black and gold sign next door. Mr. Greene asked Mr. Stafford if he already has the sign. Mr. Stafford responded that the sign has been ordered. He stated that he was going with the same type of sign that was there before just to be safe, but he likes the sign next door. DRB Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 2 of 6 The members of the DRB agreed that a black sign with gold lettering would work better and it is a standard Salem sign. Mr. Durand stated that a black sign would make the blue facade better, but if possible, the blue façade should be changed as well. Mr. Greene stated that if the applicant wanted to paint the blue a different color, they would consider that. Mr. Stafford inquired about the timing of approval because they are scheduled to open next week. He stated that he is willing to what the DRB re commends, but he already has the sign made. Mr. Stafford stated that he wanted to do something different like paint the sign onto the building, but he went with what was approved before. Mr. Durand stated that he wants the sign and facade to be attractive so that it is successful. Ms. Hartford stated that the Main Streets Program has a matching grant program for storefront improvements, which provides a 1 to 1 match for improvements up to $2,500. She further stated that she would have the Downtown Program Manager, Deborah Greel, stop in to talk with Mr. Stafford tomorrow or Friday. Mr. Greene suggested using the sign as a temporary sign until the final sign can be designed and approved. Ms. Hartford stated that a temporary sign is a sign hung in the window for 15 days and it does not required approval. The board members agreed that the sign can be hung in the window as a temporary sign and they will look forward to a proposal for a permanent sign and storefront improvements next month. Coastal Gas Station Redevelopment (289 Derby Street)—Review of Schematic Design Plans for the redevelopment of the current Coastal Gas Station. Ms. Hartford introduced the project and explained that they had been to the SRA in October. Ms. Hartford explained that the DRB can recommend the project back to the SRA tonight for schematic approval, or they can continue their review of the project until the next meeting. Mr. Durand inquired as to the definition of “schematic.” Ms. Hartford explained that schematic design review is focused on the preliminary design, layout, rough sketches, and use, rather than the final building materials and construction plans. She noted that she did not want the Board to get too focused on the details of the project but rather focus on the overall design and layout. Attorney Scott Grover introduced the applicant, Mr. George Bellows, and the designer, Brigitte Fortin of Martin Construction. Attorney Grover stated that they had been referred to the DRB by the SRA in October. He stated that since the SRA meeting, they have been working with the Planning Department to respond to concerns about massing and scale. Attorney Grover gave an overview of the proposal, which includes a mixed-use residential and retail structure with parking onsite. He explained that Chapter 91 requirements pose a lot of limitations of what can be done on the site, but Ms. Fortin will say more on that later. DRB Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 3 of 6 The project will have retail on the first floor along with the Harbor walk and open space, and residential condominium units on the upper floors. Attorney Grover stated that the project has been designed in accordance with local zoning and will not require any variances. Attorney Grover explained that in addition to the SRA, the project would be subject to site plan review by the Planning Board, Harbor Plan compliance, and approval by the Conservation Commission. Ms. Fortin presented the site plan and elevations to the board. She explained the changes that came out of meeting with the Planning Department, which include keeping the first floor on the street, but pushing the upper mass of the building back from the street. Ms. Fortin presented a view of the different building elevations along Derby Street for a perspective of the heights of surrounding buildings. Mr. Greene inquired as to how many of the adjacent buildings have second stories. Ms. Fortin and members of the board agreed that the adjacent buildings have false fronts with just one story. Attorney Grover stated that the concern of creating a wall along the street was the reason that they stepped the building back on the upper floors. Mr. Greene inquired as to whether the setback of the property line is the same for the entire width of the property. Ms. Fortin stated that the building is now aligning with the neighbor. Mr. Greene asked what the width of the sidewalk is in front of the building. Ms. Fortin stated that she did not know exactly. Mr. Greene asked if the site plan is to scale. Ms. Fortin replied that it is. Mr. Greene stated that the sidewalk is about ten or twelve feet wide. Ms. Fortin described the proposed access to the Harbor Walk, which would be shared with the neighboring Hess Gas Station. Mr. Durand asked if Hess has constructed the Harbor Walk yet. Ms. Fortin responded that they have not. Mr. Durand stated that they should include the approved Hess portion of the access way to make the two portions work together. Mr. Greene asked if the retail space would extend all the way back to the rear of the building. Ms. Fortin stated that the rear of the first floor would be a community space for residents, such as an exercise room. Mr. Greene asked Ms. Fortin to describe the access to the basement. Ms. Fortin explained that parking would be located in a loop under the building. Mr. Greene asked how much soil would be placed on top of the roof of the garage. Ms. Fortin stated that the landscaping will be a raised bed of approximately ten feet of soil, but the garage has not been fully designed at this time, so the details are not known. Mr. Durand asked if they have a parking layout at this time. Ms. Fortin responded that they do not. Mr. Greene asked if the balconies are accessible. Ms. Fortin responded that they are. Mr. Greene asked if the first floor is proposed as an arcade. Ms. Fortin stated that the building comes out to the street. DRB Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Greene stated that the main issue is the way the building meets the street and the Planning Department was right to discuss that further with you. The changes made are in the right direction, but are not quite enough. He stated that it is important to try to create a unified streetscape, and the line that carries across the existing adjacent buildings (one-story with a false front) should be carried across to this site. The mass of the building should be stepped back further. Mr. Greene suggested having one story of residential units above the first floor retail and then moving the rest of the building back. Mr. Durand agreed with Mr. Greene on the issue of massing and stepping the building back further. Mr. Durand stated that the building is very boxy, the mansard roof has never been successful, and the sixty-foot height is questionable due to the requirements of the first floor retail space. Mr. Durand stated that he would expect that they would be pushing closer to seventy feet rather than sixty. Mr. Durand commented that when he looked at the perspective from the street, the vanishing points do not add up. Mr. Durand commented that the building is pushing seventy feet and it is massive. He further stated that the streetscape needs to be dealt with. Mr. Durand stated that he has many issues with the proposal. It reminds him of “The Essex” on the Essex Street pedestrian mall because the retail spaces are not very transparent and in the case of The Essex, they struggle. Mr. Durand stated that the retail aspect needs more attention and cannot be an after thought. Mr. Durand commented that from his experience with Chapter 91, they might not be able to do as much private courtyard as shown in the proposal. Mr. Greene stated that they might want to have the private courtyard space off of the community room. Attorney Grover stated that the main struggle is the density that they must achieve due to the cost of the land. He stated that the property is operating very well as a gas station and therefore, the purchase price reflects that. Mr. Jaquith explained that the problem is not with the number of units. He continued that the mansard tops have never been successful and the density and the massing are a concern. Mr. Jaquith commented that they should be careful with public space because it is rarely used. He stated that signage must be thought out very early in the process and the retail should be the first priority rather than an afterthought. Mr. Greene suggested that they bring the stepped back design of the street level around the building with the high part of the building away from the street in the center. Mr. Durand inquired as to the material proposed for the street level. Ms. Fortin stated that it would probably be some kind of precast concrete. Mr. Durand asked about the roofing material. Ms. Fortin stated that they are not sure what the material will be. Mr. Durand asked for floor plans and scaled drawings. Mr. Greene explained the benefit of coming to the DRB early in the design process, being that the applicant gets direction from the board prior to final design. DRB Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Durand commented that the facade needs to be worked with so that the building does not appear so massive. He explained that he does not want the building to be the backstop to the South River. Mr. Durand stated that the goal should be to create more views to the South River rather than taking them away. Mr. Durand stated that Derby Street is becoming a great street with all of the development going on and this project should add to that. Mr. Durand asked if the retail units would be condos. Attorney Grover stated that they would. Attorney Grover explained that the site is difficult because Chapter 91 requires a certain distance from the water and therefore the building has to sit on a limited amount of space. Mr. Durand agreed that the site is challenging, but he added that it does not allow for the streetscape to be destroyed. Mr. Durand stated that it takes a lot of work to balance the streetscape with the scale and massing, but it can be done. He stated that a skilled architect could take the site and create a solution. Mr. Jaquith inquired as to the developer’s schedule. Attorney Grover stated that they will make changes and return to the board next month. Mr. Jaquith stated that they will need to come back with a solution to the massing and an alternative to the mansard roof. Ms. Fortin explained that the use of mansard roofs in other locations in the City is not reflective of what the proposed roof will look like. The board members agreed that mansard roofs are rarely used successfully. Mr. Greene stated that he understands the density issue, but he never expected to see such a large building on this site. The size of the building and the streetscape are concerns. Attorney Grover stated that the only way this site will be developed is if it is according to the proposed density. He stated that if a building of this scale doesn’t get developed here, it will never be developed, and that is just the economic reality of the situation. Attorney Grover stated that they will take the comments and suggestions, but he doesn’t want to give anyone the wrong impression that it will change dramatically. Mr. Greene stated that the SRA balances economics with design, but the role of the DRB is purely design recommendations, and according to that, the proposed building is too big. He stated that if the proposal is not changed to at least look smaller, if not be smaller, he will have serious concerns about the project. Mr. Greene stated that if it remains a gas station this time around, then there will be other opportunities to develop it at another time, but once the building is built it will remain there. Mr. Greene complimented the vision of the project, but stated that the vision is not entirely appropriate for this site. Attorney Grover stated that they will take a look at the suggestions and return to the board next month. Salem Five Bank (One Salem Green)—Review of Final Design Plans for the proposed pedestrian bridge linking buildings at One Salem Green and Essex Street. Mr. Durand excused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest. DRB Minutes January 28, 2004 Page 6 of 6 Attorney George Atkins gave a review of the process thus far and stated that they are pending Planning Board approval. They will return to the SRA for final approval after receiving approval from the DRB. Mr. Mark Meche reviewed the proposal to construct a bridge between the two buildings. Mr. Meche stated that the bridge would connect the second and third floors of the buildings. A set of columns will spring out of the existing hole. The bridge will have a pitch because the two buildings are not level. The bridge will hand off of the One Salem Green frame. Mr. Meche stated that the lighting would be a soft glow, which will improve the security of the parking lot. The bridge is a curtain wall system and will have a metal roof. The height of the bridge is 12 feet and 8 ½ inches. Mr. Greene asked Mr. Meche to explain the details of the column extensions. Mr. Meche clarified the details of the materials and design. Mr. Meche stated that they will be installing snow stops on the roofs to stop snow from falling below. Mr. Jaquith asked that width of the bridge. Ms. Amy Powers stated that it is eleven feet. Mr. Greene asked if the bridge has gutters. Mr. Meche explained the drainage system of downspouts and drainage pipes to the existing catch basin. Mr. Greene inquired as to whether there is any landscaping involved in the proposal. Mr. Meche replied that the trees shown are existing trees. The DRB recommended the approval of the project, as submitted, to the SRA. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned