Loading...
2004-09-22 DRB MinutesDRB Minutes September 22, 2004 Page 1 of 8 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 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, September 22, 2004 at 6:00pm. Members Paul Durand, Chris Greene and David Jaquith were present. Tania Hartford, Economic Development Planner was also present. Minutes Minutes from the August 25, 2004 meeting were reviewed and approved. Old Business Ms. Hartford explained that the owner of Edgewater Café, Dennis Moustakis, is present to discuss the ductwork in the rear of his restaurant. Ms. Hartford explained that the applicant appeared before the board some time ago and was told to match the siding to the existing aluminum siding. She stated that he is ready to start the work and would like to use vinyl siding. She explained that the applicant brought samples for the board to review and he is willing to paint the aluminum siding to match the vinyl. Mr. Durand commented that they really want the colors to match. Mr. Moustakis stated that he would match the aluminum by painting the vinyl. Ms. Hartford questioned whether vinyl could be painted. Mr. Durand stated that with the right primer is could be possible, but it will probably look like patchwork. Mr. Greene asked about the location of the wall. Ms. Hartford stated that it faces the alley or parking lot. Mr. Moustakis stated that he understands that the materials will have to match. Mr. Moustakis commented that they don’t even make aluminum siding anymore. Mr. Greene stated that the other option would be to make it a very different color. Mr. Durand suggested making it look like a chimney. The members suggested using a different material. They stated that they would look at it and give suggestions. Ms. Hartford stated that the change would probably have to go before the SRA. She told the applicant that she would be in touch. DRB Minutes September 22, 2004 Page 2 of 8 New Business 1. 24 Front Street (Boon) – Review of the proposed signage at 24 Front Street. Ms. Hartford explained that the proposal includes the installation of two signs. One sign would be installed along Front Street and would be 24” x 24” attached at a right angle to the building with a blue internal light to show the through the die cut. The other sign would be located along the alley and would be 12” x 14” attached flat against the wall. Both signs would be a dark metal background with die cut diamonds. Ms. Hartford stated that the only color light allowed in the guidelines is white, except for entertainment, recreation and eating and drinking establishments. She commented that she did not know what category a gallery fits into. Mr. Durand commented that the blue light would be good. Ms. Hartford commented that if the members want to recommend the blue light, they can take it to the SRA and make a case that it is an entertainment establishment. Mr. Greene supported the idea and suggested approval of the blue light for the hanging sign. Mr. Greene stated that there is a light shown for the wall sign. He commented that the wall sign should not have a light. The members discussed the location of the conduit. Mr. Greene commented that both top and bottom of the conduit have to be covered. Mr. Greene suggested approval of the hanging sign with the blue illumination and the wall sign with no illumination. The members agreed that the wall sign should be one inch off the wall with no light. They agreed that the applicant can add color to the wall sign because there will be no light. The members stated that they will need to approve the location of the conduit and the attachment detail. They stressed that there should be no exposed conduit. They stated that the entire sign needs to be enclosed, but small ventilation holes would be allowed. 2. 139 Washington Street (Pickle Pot) – Review of the proposed signage at 139 Washington Street. Ms. Hartford introduced the owner of the gallery at 138 Washington Street, Jennifer Bowie, and explained that the proposal includes the installation of a hanging sign and a wall sign. Ms. Bowie stated that she had to compromise with the landlord to get to this point because the building does not lend itself to signage. She stated that her frontage is 32 feet along Washington Street. The applicant stated that the hanging sign would be 18” x 36” mounted on a scroll bracket with medium green vinyl graphics on ½” PVC with a white background. The wall sign would be 24” x 96” with medium green vinyl letters on ½” PVC with a white background. Ms. Bowie stated that the compromise was to attach the signs to the brick of the façade instead of mounting them to the granite sign bar. DRB Minutes September 22, 2004 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Greene suggested using two brackets mounted to the brick and hanging the sign above the door at the granite level. He commented that the applicant is correct about the granite being the sign band. Mr. Durand stated that the brackets would not work with the proposed PVC sign. Mr. Greene commented that the sign would have to be thicker. Ms. Bowie stated that she likes the idea but she does not have any say in the decision. She commented that the Pabichs probably should have come to the meeting in order to make decisions. Ms. Bowie explained that they are having a hard time trying to find a place for the blad e sign because of the shutters. Mr. Durand asked why the signs have to be up so high. Ms. Bowie explained that she does not have enough clearance from the sidewalk and then the bracket hits the shutters if it is higher. Mr. Jaquith commented that the blade sign does not need a big bracket. Ms. Bowie stated that she would like it if the sign was just the pickle cut out entirely. Mr. Durand asked if the applicant needs the blade sign. Ms. Bowie explained that because of the trees, her store is completely hidden from people going down Washington Street and the hope is that a blade sign would attract pedestrians. Mr. Greene stated that the location is a walk-by location. Mr. Greene stated that he does not see why the sign cannot be attached further down towards Front Street. Ms. Bowie explained that the pickle hanging sign is to attract people from Essex Street. Mr. Durand asked the members what they thought of the white background and suggested that it be darker. The other members of the board agreed and suggested that the color be crème. Ms. Bowie explained that she hates the PVC, but she cannot paint, and would like something that will last. Mr. Greene stated that the background color needs to be changed to crème and the signs need more space around the letters and graphics. Ms. Bowie passed out color renderings of the pickle sign. Mr. Durand stated that the colors on the picture are better and that she should paint the sign. Ms. Bowie clarified that the board wants the wall sign to hang and asked if the sign would hit the building. Mr. Greene stated that the sign would be rigid and there could be a welded rod keeping the sign in place. Mr. Greene stated that the sign should be exterior plywood (MDF) and hang out from the building about three inches. Ms. Bowie asked if since they are going with the MDF, can she carve the signs and do gold letters with dark green background. The members stated that that would be great. Ms. Bowie suggested that the pickle be silver and the members agreed that it would be great. DRB Minutes September 22, 2004 Page 4 of 8 Ms. Hartford summarized that the board would like to see an MDF sign above the door and the dimensions will have to be worked out. Mr. Greene stated that the board should see a submission before approving the signs and brackets. Ms. Bowie stated that the submission will be a hanging sign with a silver pickle and the wall sign with gold letters and rigid mounting above the door. She stated that both would have dark green backgrounds. Ms. Bowie stated that she does not have jurisdiction on where the signs can be hung. Mr. Durand stated that this is the first sign on the building and there needs to be a precedence where the signs work around the building. He added that the owners should be presenting the signs. Ms. Bowie stated that how her signs work will not work on the other side of the building. Mr. Durand commented that the owners of the building said that they would present a sign package for the building to the board. The members asked Ms. Hartford to check whether they were supposed to come back with a comprehensive sign package. Mr. Jaquith asked that Ms. Hartford check the drawings for the shutters. The applicant asked that the rods be decorative. The members suggested that she propose something but to keep it simple. Ms. Hartford asked the applicant to submit revised materials by noon on Monday, September 27th. She stated that she needs dimensions, locations, colors and layouts. 3. 289 Derby Street (former Coastal Gas Station) – Review of the Final Design Plans for the redevelopment of 289 Derby Street (Coastal Gas Station) into a mixed - use building. Ms. Hartford introduced the design team and stated that they will be presenting their final design plans. She explained that the project is c urrently being reviewed by the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. Ms. Hartford explained that the project has also started the process of Chapter 91 review. She stated that the DRB will have a series of meetings to review the project before recommending the project to the SRA. Ms. Hartford explained that they will be looking at site issues tonight and introduced Scott Grover, the attorney for the project. Attorney Grover introduced the project team and stated that they have been working on site design. He explained that they are hoping to get site plan approval from the Planning Board at the next meeting and they expect approval from the Conservation Commission tomorrow night, September 23, 2004. Attorney Grover explained that the site plan has been revised through a series of meetings with the Department of Planning & Community Development and the Planning Board. He stated that the topic tonight is the site plan. He commented that they are looking to have the final design of the buildings in part by the October meeting and the finalized plans in DRB Minutes September 22, 2004 Page 5 of 8 November. Attorney Grover stated that they appreciate the comments and input from the schematic level and look forward to working with the board during the final phase. Brigitte Fortin, the architect for the project, went over the site plans and the changes from the Chapter 91 process thus far. She stated that the parking spaces within 100 feet of the river are now open to the public and the area around the harborwalk has been opened up. She explained that they are looking at brick for the surface of the site and poured concrete for the planters. Ms. Fortin explained that they do not know what the harborwalk materials will be yet, so they will add that information when it is provided by the city. Ms. Hartford explained that the harborwalk is currently being designed and the specifications will be provided to Hess, Beverly Cooperative Bank and this project for construction of the walkway. Mr. Durand asked what the material will be for the harborwalk. Ms. Hartford stated that she believes that it will be concrete. Mr. Greene stated that he found it hard to comment on the site plan because the details of how the design would be constructed are missing. He stated that the cross sections do not show what the roof of the garage is and it is hard to comment on whether there is enough soil or too much soil without knowing what the structure will be. Ms. Fortin explained the dimensions of the garage and the planters. She stated that the planters will be 28” and will require smaller trees. Mr. Greene commented that designing a garden on a rooftop is complicated and irrigation, weights, structural supports, etc. need to be worked out. He explained that his comments on the design are qualified by the fact that they are limited because there is not enough technical information. He commented that the roof may need to be thicker to hold the proposed planters and shade trees would be an excellent idea for this site. Ms. Fortin asked if there are examples of roof gardens with shade trees. Mr. Greene suggested looking at examples such as Post Office Square Park or University Park Hotel in Cambridge. He commented that the planters in the second instance had to be mounted because they could not go down, which would probably apply to this site. Mr. Greene commented that the board will need to see the particular patterns of the brick on the site. Mr. Greene commented that the proposed semi circular pattern of bricks would necessitate saw cutting them and they probably do not want to do that. Ms. Fortin agreed. Mr. Greene commented that there is a risk that the poured concrete planters will be a focal point and may not be as elegant as appears. Mr. Greene suggested carrying the wall around so that people will not be able to see into the garage from the garden. Mr. Durand commented that the stairs look too bare and may be too wide. Mr. Greene commented that the stairs will need to have handrails and the risk is skateboarders. He stated that the design should think about that and railings will break the DRB Minutes September 22, 2004 Page 6 of 8 steps up. Mr. Greene commented that his firm designed Spaulding Rehab Hospital Park with seatwalls all around the park and installed bronze objects where the concrete is smooth. Mr. Greene commented that they should make sure the proposed ramp is twelve percent. Mr. Greene commented that the waterproofing structure for the garage needs to be at least preliminarily designed in order to look at the roof. Mr. Greene also asked about the ten foot access to the harborwalk. Ms. Hartford explained that they will be combining their access with the Hess Gas Station to make a ten foot walkway. Mr. Greene asked about the other side of the parcel where there is a five foot setback and asked if there will be access on that side as well. Ms. Fortin stated that it is a setback and there will not be access. Mr. Greene asked questioned what will stop people from walking in that space. He added that the five feet should be thought out and there should be plantings in the five foot setback. Mr. Greene asked about the rest of the harborwalk. Ms. Hartford explained the location of the harborwalk. Mr. Greene commented that at this site, the harborwalk is a dead end. Ms. Hartford stated that at this point, it is a dead end. Mr. Greene stated that the dead end of the harborwalk, the lack of access on the side should be worked out. Ms. Hartford stated that she would check on what they can do in the setback. Mr. Greene commented that they should be allowed to do a planter in the setback. Mr. Greene added that all of these issues go together in refining the design. Mr. Jaquith commented that the circular planters where they touch the building will create awkward spaces that stuff will get stuck in. Mr. Belleau asked if they are suggesting square planters instead of round. Mr. Greene commented that because their building is straight and the harbor line is straight, they may want to have straight planters. Mr. Jaquith added that round planters would work on the corners. Mr. Greene stated that if they use rectilinear planters, they may be able to use other materials than poured concrete, which would work better. Mr. Greene stated that the balance of plantings to paving is fine. He asked about the windows on the public facility. Ms. Fortin explained the windows. Mr. Greene stated that they should think about the egress and design it even though they don’t know exactly what the use will be. He added that they should consider adding planters in front of the windows. Mr. Belleau commented that the feedback is very helpful. Mr. Greene commented that the lighting of the space should be included in the design. Ms. Hartford explained that the harborwalk will have specs for lighting fixtures. Attorney Grover stated that they will use that in the design. Mr. Greene commented that the seating area should have a sense of enclosure with a smaller entry. Mr. Belleau explained that because they do not know what the use will be, so the design is trying to be flexible. DRB Minutes September 22, 2004 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Greene suggested that they consolidate some of the planting beds so that they have more usable space. Attorney Grover stated that their feedback is very helpful and stated that they will come back to the next meeting with some of the building design and the changes from the comments regarding the site. Mr. Belleau added that they will get more details on the structural design of the garage. Al Martin suggested that they design the structure but work on the details at a later time. Mr. Greene stated that they need to know the dimensions and whether it will work. Mr. Durand stressed that if the structural design does not work, the site will not work. Ms. Hartford asked the applicant about their process with Coastal Zone Management and whether their comments are incorporated into the design. Attorney Grover stated that the comments are incorporated. Mr. Greene asked about coverage at the down ramp and suggested building a freestanding wall along the ramp opening. Mr. Greene added that because it is North facing, it will be a great place to grow plants. 4. 331 Lafayette Street – Review of proposed Schematic Design Plans for the redevelopment of 331 Lafayette Street from a one-story retail space into a residential/commercial mixed-use building. Ms. Hartford stated that this project is a little different because it is outside of the Urban Renewal Areas. She explained that the applicant had some trouble with the Zoning Board of Appeals and asked if they could come before the DRB and get comments about the project design to aid in the ZBA process. She explained that Lynn Goonin Duncan, Executive Director of the SRA and Director of DPCD, thought it would be a good experiment for using the Design Review Board outside of the Urban Renewal Areas. Mr. Durand commented that the board could be used as a scapegoat in the Zoning Board process. He asked if there were any specific issues that were raised from that process. The applicant explained that there were no issues but there was a lack of communication with the neighbors. Ms. Hartford stated that from her understanding the neighbors wanted some changes to the design, or the project would not be approved. Attorney Scott Grover explained that he was not at the meeting and he is filling in for Attorney Bill Quinn, but the neighbors had some problems with the design of the building. Mr. Greene commented that he feels that the board should not discuss the project. He explained that they do not know what the parameters are, who they are advising, and what the implications will be. He stated that there could be situations where parameters are established for review outside the SRA, but that is not the case at this time. He explained that such parameters should be in place before the board acts outside of their jurisdiction. DRB Minutes September 22, 2004 Page 8 of 8 Mr. Durand commented that they did review other projects outside of the Urban Renewal Areas. Ms. Hartford stated that the board reviewed the project at 50 Palmer Street because the city required the review as part of the funding agreement with the Salem Harbor CDC. Mr. Greene commented that the board reports to the SRA with recommendations for the downtown, which is a different situation. He questioned the legality of reviewing the project and stated that it is not their function to review neighborhood projects. Mr. Jaquith commented that it would even be difficult to review if in their jurisdiction prior to the Board of Appeals. Mr. Jaquith stated that the ZBA has different criteria for reviewing and approving projects. Mr. Durand commented that expanding design review is a good idea, but he is concerned about what Mr. Greene is saying. Mr. Greene commented that they do not know who they are advising or what the basis is to review the project. He added that design review should be added to other parts of Salem through mechanisms, but those are not in place. He stated that the Planning Department should work out those mechanisms before having the DRB review projects. Mr. Durand stated that there should be more design review, but agreed that a mechanism must be in place. Attorney Grover explained that some of the neighbors stated that without professional help, they did not know whether the project would be integrated into the neighborhood properly. Mr. Durand stated that they should hire their own consultant to determine that; the DRB is not that mechanism. Mr. Durand commented that they may be pulled into something that they don’t want to be pulled into. He added that he appreciates that they would come voluntarily, but they cannot help. Mr. Greene stated that in order for them to be a design review mechanism, there has to be a permitting requirement. He stated that it is not an accident that they only look at the Urban Renewal Area. He stated that if the city wants to create areas where design review is a part of review, it has to be legislated. Attorney Grover thanked the board. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned