Loading...
2004-02-25 DRB MinutesDRB Minutes February 25, 2004 Page 1 of 7 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 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, February 25, 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 January 28, 2004 meeting were reviewed and approved. Project list Il Boca Italiana (140 Washington Street) – Review of proposed signage. Ms. Hartford introduced the project and new business owner, Ms. Patrice DeSa. Ms. Hartford noted that the landlord, Goldberg, will be submitting a proposal to the SRA in March to paint the facade, so keep this in mind as far as color schemes. Ms. DeSa described the proposal, which includes the installation of three signs; two wall signs, along Washington and Barton, and one hanging sign, along Washington Street. The wall signs would be black plastic letters attached directly to the existing façade. The hanging sign will be a 2’ x 1.5’ green sign with white lettering. Mr. Durand asked if the logo on the hanging sign is a white flying pig on a green background. Ms. DeSa stated that it is such. Mr. Durand commented that the hanging sign is hard to see and that the black letters of the wall sign are very elegant. He inquired as to what the bracket for the hanging sign would look like. Ms. Hartford stated that the applicant would use the existing sign bracket from Triosi’s Restaurant. Mr. Durand asked if the sign would be in the same location as the previous sign and stated that perhaps the sign should have a border. The applicant stated that the sign location would be the same. Mr. Greene commented that a border does not seem appropriate because the sign is very plain and it isn’t classical. Mr. Greene asked the applicant to supply a larger picture of the hanging sign. The applicant apologized and agreed to drop them off the next day. Mr. Durand inquired as to the material of the hanging sign. The applicant stated that it is plastic. Mr. Greene commented that the lettering on the side street wall sign is too big, and the lettering should be the same as that on the Washington Street wall sign. Mr. Greene also requested a larger photo of the hanging sign. The applicant stated that she will submit the requested item the next day. DRB Minutes February 25, 2004 Page 2 of 7 Spellbound Museum (190 Essex Street) – Review of proposed signage. Ms. Hartford introduced the project and Mr. Keith Linear. Ms. Hartford informed the board members that the site is that of the former “Practical Magic” site on the Essex Street pedestrian mall and the proposal includes the installation of two signs, one wall sign and one window sign, along Essex Street. The wall sign will be a 22” x 55” sign with a black background and white lettering. The window sign will be 2.5’ x 57” with gold lettering attached directly to the window. The material of the signs will be painted MDO. Mr. Durand asked for a photograph of the adjacent signs in order to see the context of the proposed sign. Ms. Hartford stated that they do not have a photograph, but the adjacent signs are window signs that are similar to the one proposed. Mr. Greene commented that he did not like the design because the border is too busy and the lettering is too big, which doesn’t allow for enough empty space on the sign. He stated that he liked the window sign. Mr. Jaquith agreed that the window sign is good. Mr. Greene stated that the sign should be one line across instead of two, like the sign next door. Mr. Linear commented that the sign next door is not very visible. Mr. Greene replied that the sign is not visible due to the font type, not because it is one line across. Mr. Greene stated that the sign is too big for the space. Mr. Linear stated that they were trying to use the existing holes in the granite for the sign and that the owner requested that specific font because it is the font she uses for her business. Mr. Greene commented that not all fonts are appropriate for signs, as is the case with this one. Mr. Jaquith agreed that the font is hard to read. Mr. Durand agreed that the sign would look better linear with only one line. Mr. Linear stated that the proposal is such because of budget constraints. Mr. Greene replied that the sign doesn’t necessarily have to bigger, but a different shape and the border is too ornamental. Mr. Durand stated that they will need photographs that show the context of the sign. Mr. Greene stated that perhaps if the font was bolder and smaller, but the font is too curly to be readable. Mr. Linear inquired if he could use a more modest border. All members agreed that a more modest border would be better. Ms. Hartford stated that she would contact the owner, relay the comments from the board and have the applicant resubmit the proposal. Ms. Hartford stated that the owner can hang a temporary banner in the window until the permanent sign is permitted. 289 Derby Street (Coastal Gas Station) – Continuation of the Schematic Design Review for the proposed mixed use development. Ms. Hartford introduced the project and the development team. Ms. Hartford stated that the project should be given schematic approval with recommendations for the final design. DRB Minutes February 25, 2004 Page 3 of 7 Attorney Scott Grover introduced George Bellows, the owner, Brigette Fortin, the designer, and Al Martin of Martin Construction. Attorney Grover stated that the design team took the comments from the last meeting and made some positive changes in the design. He stated that the details will become even more specific when they return for final approval. Ms. Fortin reviewed the plans with the board members. She pointed out the change that was requested by the board to step the building back between the second and third floors and continue the facade around the side of the building. Ms. Fortin reviewed the underground parking layout. Mr. Bellows commented that the engineering firm for Hess responded in a positive way at the possibility of combining access to the waterfront. Attorney Grover stated that the designs will correspond and Hess has not started construction of the walkway. Mr. Greene inquired as to who would be responsible for building the walkway to the waterfront, because they do not want two halves of a walkway. Mr. Bellows stated that they will coordinate the construction in order to have one walkway. Attorney Grover pointed out the additional glazing that had been added along the proposed location of the walkway to the waterfront. He stated that all of the suggestions made by the board were incorporated into the plans well. Attorney Grover added that the number of units decreased from 42 to 38 units from when the SRA saw the project first. Mr. Bellows stated that the suggestion to step the building back at the second story makes the building look smaller. Mr. Jaquith commented that one of the things that was mentioned at the last meeting was not addressed, the mansard roof. Mr. Jaquith commented that the mansard roof is not good and he stated that aluminum will probably be used and if so, brick would be better even if it makes the building look bigger. Mr. Durand agreed that the mansard roof is not good. Attorney Grover stated that they would look at the material later in the process. Mr. Durand stated that it is not only the material that is not good, the form of a mansard roof is not desirable. Mr. Durand suggested that there be more glass at the top of the building. Mr. Greene stated that a mansard roof is not the only way to try to make the building smaller. Mr. Durand stated that there should be more stepping back and the building should be more delicate on the streetscape. Mr. Jaquith suggested using bay windows or something similar, but he stated that he understands the reason for the density. Mr. Durand stated that if they are going to have that density, they want some quality for the density. Mr. Greene suggested carrying the cornice to the back of the building and changing the mansard roof. He suggested a stronger cornice and reducing the size of the terrace. Mr. Durand commented that the building is boring, monotonous and if the density is going to work, there need to be some architectural quality to the building. Attorney Grover stated that Ms. Fortin’s goal was to give the impression of a number of separate brownstones. Mr. Durand stated that the design should be even more like that and the sections of the building should not all be the same, but have more character. Mr. Durand agreed that it was good that the facade was continued around the corner and that the building was stepped back at the second floor, but he stated that the mansard roof is not good. He suggested that they DRB Minutes February 25, 2004 Page 4 of 7 celebrate the top floor by adding more glass and create better views. Mr. Bellows asked if Mr. Durand was suggesting a flat roof. Mr. Durand replied that a flat roof would be fine if the top floor is celebrated. Mr. Durand also suggested that the windows on the street vary. Mr. Greene stated that he had no problem with celebrating the top floor as a penthouse. Mr. Martin commented that mansard roofs are all over Salem and that he likes mansard roofs, it is just a difference in opinion. Mr. Greene stated that the DRB is concerned with matters of design, which are subjective. Attorney Grover stated that they would like to get back to the SRA with any suggested changes. Mr. Durand stated that there are still big concerns about the design and they are not ready to give schematic approval. He continued stating that it is the DRB’s job to judge the design and they have stated that the mansard roof is not acceptable. Mr. Durand stated that they need to be more comfortable to give approval and they are not there yet. Mr. Bellows commented that they are finding the problem with the process is that they try to provide changes by guessing at what the board will like. Mr. Jaquith stated that they have provided plenty of comments for direction. Mr. Durand stated that the board made comments at the last meeting, which were not incorporated in the design. Attorney Grover commented that he thinks of schematic or conceptual design as pertaining to the layout and more general things than what the concerns are. Mr. Greene stated that the board asked that the building be smaller or look smaller, and even though there have been good changes that has not happened. Mr. Bellows commented that they tried to incorporate the changes except for the mansard roof. The board members agreed that they are not trying to make the building smaller, but they are requiring that the building have architectural features to make up for the massiveness of the building. Mr. Jaquith added that they do not like the mansard roof, as stated in the last meeting. Ms. Hartford suggested that the board recommend the project to the SRA with specific comments and recommendations. Mr. Durand asked why they should go to the next step when they are not comfortable, and he stated that the problem is that when the SRA sees the visual, they will think that a mansard roof has been approved when it has not. Mr. Durand stated that he does not want anything to get lost in translation and he does not want to put the board in a corner in the future. Ms. Hartford suggested that they could hold another meeting before the SRA meeting on March 10 if the DRB members are willing. Mr. Jaquith stressed that the massing is not a problem with him, but how the mass is handled is an issue. Attorney Grover commented that he believes that this is where schematic ends and final design begins, therefore if the board is comfortable with the mass, the details can be worked out. DRB Minutes February 25, 2004 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Greene stated that once the schematic design is approved, there will be no going back to change it. Ms. Hartford asked the group if they would be willing to meet prior to the next SRA meeting on March 10. Ms. Fortin and Mr. Martin stated that they would need at least two weeks to prepare for the meeting. Ms. Hartford reiterated that the SRA meets in two weeks on March 10. Mr. John Goff asked to be recognized from the audience and suggested that they drop the cornice line of the building like the YMCA building. Ms. Hartford suggested that they meet on Monday, March 8 or Tuesday, March 9. The board members and applicants stated that they would check their schedules and Ms. Hartford stated that she would coordinate with both parties to set up a meeting. 18 Crombie Street – Review of Schematic Design Plans for the proposed redevelopment of home. Ms. Hartford introduced the proposal and the architect, Mr. John Goff. Ms. Hartford stated that the house at 18 Crombie was recently acquired by the SRA and through the RFP process, Habitat for Humanity was chosen as the designated developer to historically restore the house to be sold as an affordable home. Mr. Durand commented that the rehabilitation of 18 Crombie Street is an outstanding project. Mr. Durand stated that he reviewed the project and he has very little criticism. Mr. Jaquith commented that the “L” shaped rear of the building does not look right. Mr. Goff stated that they will be removing the “L” shaped portion, which was added on in the 1900s. Mr. Greene inquired as to the date of the main structure. Mr. Goff stated that it is pre 1830s. Mr. Goff went on to explain the proposed restoration work, which includes replacing the asphalt roof with cedar shingles, restoring the clapboards, and replacing windows. Mr. Greene asked if the windows would have double glazing. Mr. Goff replied that single glazing with a storm window system is preferred, but it will depend on the budget. Mr. Greene stated that he did not have any architectural questions, but he did have a question about the site boundary and layout. Mr. Goff described the proposed landscaping and pointed out the property lines, which follow the newly erected fence around the property. Mr. Greene asked if the main entrance would be in the rear. Mr. Goff stated that the main entrance would remain at the front of the building. Mr. Goff stated that th e back end of the building is difficult and they will be removing the odd windows and adding a porch. Mr. Goff stated that they would like to remove the existing asphalt in the backyard and recreate a lawn and garden, like the other houses in the area. Mr. Goff stated that they are also considering building a tool shed in the backyard in the future. DRB Minutes February 25, 2004 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Greene stated that he would recommend the project with the caveat that the site improvements are not included in the approval. All members agreed and Ms. Hartford stated that the applicant will now go back to the SRA for schematic approval. 10 Federal Street – Review of Schematic Design Plans for the proposed three-story addition and roof to existing two-story building. Ms. Hartford introduced the proposal and Attorney George Atkins. Attorney Atkins introduced the architect for the project, Mr. Peter Gehring. Attorney Atkins stated that the goal of the project is to create new, modern office space and bid for the RFP fro the State to house the District Attorney’s office. Attorney Atkins stated that the DA will require approximately 25,000 square feet of office space, therefore, the proposal is to construct three additional stories on top of the existing two-story structure. Mr. Durand inquired as to whether the project depends whether they get the DA’s office. Attorney Atkins stated that the project does not rely entirely on that outcome, but it does affect it. Mr. Durand stated that he is currently representing another property owner in bidding for the DA’s contract, so he would feel more comfortable if he recused himself. Mr. Durand took a seat in the audience. Mr. Gehring explained the proposal, which includes two additional stories of brick with windows matching the existing, cast stone window sills, and a third floor of an external finish system. Mr. Gehring explained that they are looking at a hydraulic elevator system, which would decrease the size of the elevator back on the roof. Mr. Gehring stated that the roof will be metal, probably a green color like that of the Museum Place Mall and the trim will match the limestone below it. Mr. Greene asked if they will be approximating the brick to match the existing. Mr. Gehring stated that they would and that they have the beltcourse to break it up. Mr. Gehring stated that the height to the top of the main roof is sixty-five feet. Mr. Jaquith asked if the windows are double hung windows. Mr. Gehring stated that they would be. Mr. Greene inquired as to the proposed site improvements and landscaping. Mr. Gehring stated that there is some existing landscaping and they do not have a specific landscape plan at this time, but there is a yard that wraps around two sides of the building. Mr. Greene stated that the building, being in an urban context, is an isolated mass with little landscaping opportunities to bring the building down to the pedestrian level, therefore, he recommended larger trees to bring the scale down. Mr. Greene inquired as to the proposed parking layout and suggested that if they construct a deck of parking under the existing parking, they could do more landscaping. Mr. Greene commented that the accessibility to the site is tremendous. DRB Minutes February 25, 2004 Page 7 of 7 The board members agreed to recommend the schematic design with the caveat that site improvements, including a parking plan, is not included and with the comments that the metal roof may not be the best material and that substantial landscaping is suggested. Mr. Greene commented that the location is a good edge of the commercial district and the City of Salem should use its resources to create a plan for the area. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned