Loading...
2019-04-24 DRB MinutesCity of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Special Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 98 Washington Street, First Floor Conference Room DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Catherine Miller, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan DRB Members Absent: Chris Dynia Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith Recorder: Colleen Brewster David Jaquith calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM. Roll call was taken. Signs 1. 93 Washington Street (City Hall): Discussion and vote on signage. -- CONTINUED Kennedy: Motion to continue to May 22, 2019. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 4-0. 2. 12 Front Street (Alex & Company): Discussion and vote on signage. Alex Panos was present to discuss the project. Panos stated that the sign would be black with red and white, constructed by Concept Signs, and attached with a new bracket Miller stated that all other signs on this block are mounted onto a granite lintel, not above it, and this sign seems bigger than the other signs. Kennedy replied that at 26” wide it only appears larger but will actually be smaller than the other signs. Sullivan noted that the location is a good. Kennedy suggested the sign be lowered. Miller replied that it there must be 8-feet clear below the sign, Panos stated that he doesn’t want it to hit people, and he’d prefer to keep it centered over the door. Sullivan noted that the top of sign is 10-feet above grade. Panos stated that the awning will be removed. Sides asked for the bracket dimensions. Panos replied that he didn’t know but that it could be secured to the granite rather than the brick for uniformity. Kennedy agreed and asked if the bracket would need to be higher than the granite. Sides replied the bracket could be slightly above the granite if need necessary. Jaquith opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Jaquith closes public comment. Sides: Motion to approve as presented and to adjustment of the bracket location to the granite. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 4-0. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 133 Washington Street (Boston Burger Company): Discussion and vote on Café Permit Application Colin McGuire was present to discuss the project. McGuire stated that they’d like to reopen the outdoor café that was allowed last season as a trial period. The SRA raised concerns with traffic flow and clearances. Last year’s set-up wasn’t enclosed but with the flow and foot traffic he’s centered it on that space. They will maintain the 10-feet of public space at the rear of the building and the 7½ feet between the neighbor’s property line, to be considerate of their neighbors and their concerns. Sides asked if alcohol will be served. McGuire replied yes. Sides replied that the state has a regulation restricting wait staff from carrying alcohol across an open sidewalk. McGuire noted that they wanted it right out their back door but wants to keep the walkway area clear. Kennedy added that there is currently no way around the public way. Jaquith noted that the furniture looks good but also suggested the applicant investigate the restrictions before they select materials. Sides added that although the concept looks good, the applicant should visit the licensing board. She noted that umbrellas with logos can’t be used. Miller suggested measurement of how much sidewalk must remain be included on the plan. Newhall-Smith added that 48” minimum clearance is preferred. Sides stated that the proposed planters are good but the applicant needs to determine whether they can serve alcohol there. Chair Durand arrived. Jaquith opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Jaquith closes public comment. Sides: Motion to approve as submitted with no logos. Seconded by: Miller. Passes 5-0. 2. 10 Lynde Street: Discussion and vote on restoration of existing residential structure John Seger of Seger Architects, Doug Kelleher of Epsilon Associates, and Greg Ahmed (Owner/The Crescent Trust) were present to discuss the project. Seger stated that the William Hunt Double House at 10-12 Lynde Street had a fire in November of 2018. The 1858 double entry structure had 12 studio units in the main 2- story building and a 1-story rear addition added in 1910. The owner wants to restore the exterior back to its original condition and is pursuing historic tax credits. There will be some site improvements, including adding 2 rear stairs for a second means of egress and entry to the back units, they will remove the front concrete planter and add a 6” granite curb, new shrubs to conceal the rear condensers, repaving the driveway, and screening the garbage bins in the rear. The building will also be fully sprinkled. Sullivan asked if there will be an exit from the second-floor units. Seger replied that there are 3 sets of interior stairs and the rear stair leads to the doors. Seger stated that along the façade they will remove fire damaged clapboards, restore damaged trim, replace all windows with 6x6 sashes and keep some original windows that they will match. They will replace the asphalt roof shingles on the main building and the rear membrane roofing, and will repoint the brick foundation and chimney. Seger stated that they’ve met with the SRA and HC requesting letters of support of the tax credits and will go back to SRA with the DRB’s comments. Jaquith suggested a low pitch roof be added over the rear entries to provide shelter that shouldn’t impact the tax credit. Seger replied that there was a door there and they are now introducing a window with a transom, so new roofs might not be approved. Sides recommended the applicant propose the idea early in their tax credit request. Chair Durand noted that it will provide a sense of entry to the rear. Seger replied that he would speak to the owner about including it in their request. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Miller: Motion to approve as presented with the addition of rear roofs. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 5-0. 3. 23 Summer Street: Discussion and vote on residential redevelopment of existing structure (continued from 3/27/19) Tom Mayo, Architect from Thomas Mayo Associates, and Mike Becker, Owner, were present to discuss the project. Mayo stated that at the previous meeting an alternative idea was presented and after Historic Commission discussion they’ve changed the addition to a carriage house in an ell configuration. The existing mixture of rear additions will be removed and a new ell constructed that will be setback and with a lower ridge height. The garage below the addition will hold 7 cars accessed with 1 door and a second single garage door for 1 car. Only 3 cars will be visible on site. Minimal greenspace will be pruned and not plantings added. The deteriorated wrought iron railing will be repaired and replaced where required. Mayo stated that simplified trim will be added to the ell so it reads like an addition and some facades on the property line will have a reduced eave. They will try to conceal the garage door by painting the door the body color. The recessed decks at the ell have a shed dormer above and the HVAC equipment will be hidden on a reverse dormer on the North side. Only 3 cars will be parked on site and the others will be in the garage. The new windows will be 6x6 in sizes will match those of the main building. Becker stated that part of the existing structure will be preserved and they will use a grade beam to protect a neighboring tree. Larry Spang of the Historic Commission helped develop this scheme and make the addition secondary to the main building. There is an existing 20-foot-wide drive aisle and the single garage door will be 8-feet- wide and a quiet close garage door will be used. The additions are currently skewed but the addition will be aligned and recessed and the units will have exterior space. Sides noted that the proposed plan is very dense for this site and asked for the proposed unit count. Becker replied 10. Miller asked if the existing large tree will be removed or replaced. Mayo replied that it will be replaced if it can’t be pruned properly and it’s mostly on a neighbor’s property. Mayo stated that the cornice at the ell wraps around and is at the gable’s end. Jaquith suggested a simple board return at the side of the ell. Sides disagreed. Becker noted that it wouldn’t be visible because of its proximity to the neighboring garage. Miller added that cars will also block it. Sullivan stated that there is minimal space on site and the car shouldn’t stick out into the curb cut. Miller noted that the wider opening gives more space to get vehicles out. Becker suggested the add landscaping and the curb cut is excessive. Newhall-Smith noted that the Planning Board will conduct a Site Plan Review. Sullivan asked if the large garage doors act as one because it appears to have 3 bays. Mayo replied that the door is 20-feet wide for maneuvering in and out and could be broken into sections. Chair Durand opens public comment. Jessica Herbert, Chair of the Salem Historic Commission speaking on behalf of the SHC and HSI. Stated that the applicant voluntarily came to the SHC and was accommodating to their suggestions. Both are happy with the progress, the ell shape to give it a carriage house feel rather than a large building, they want plantings on the crescent area of the site, and she believes the house restoration will be done well. Chair Durand closes public comment. Becker stated that adding the door to the façade is a good idea and if they add it they will return to the Board for review. Chair Durand noted that his concern with the density rather than the addition of a door. Becker noted that he may purchase a piece of neighboring property to increase the lot size for the 10 units. Miller replied that in increased lot size would also require another DRB review and she too has no issue with adding a door to the façade. Jaquith: Motion to approve as presented, and to allow a door to the stairwell. Seconded by: Miller. Passes 6-0. 4. 25 Lynde Street: Discussion and vote on residential redevelopment of existing structure Tom Mayo, Architect from Thomas Mayo Associates, and Mike Becker & Carissa Vettis, Owners of 26 Lynde Street, LLC, were present to discuss the project. Mayo stated that a door was moved 24-inches, they’ve stepped the addition back from the front façade and lowered it. Doghouse dormers were added to match the existing dormers and they did not add them to the addition to keep the main building prominent. Windows will be replaced with wood Andersen 6x6. The addition matches the main building and a new granite planter will match the streetscape. The garage door on the West side will be painted the body color and has a proposed trellis with new plantings to break up the elevation. There is an existing door and oval windows on either end of the West elevation that will be recreated on the new addition. East addition is 4 feet back from the existing structure. Two people doors to the garage will be added and one is recessed under the second floor. The garage has no interior walls so a vehicle can drive underneath the building and exit the other side when no car is parked in front of it. Becker stated that 25 Rear Lynde helps to conceal the East façade and the elevated parking lot at the YMCA will conceal the rear. The architecture of the people door will be copied to the new door. Miller asked if the parallel parking garage door could be reduced. Becker replied yes, from 24-feet-wide to 22. Miller stated that plantings on the trellis add too much texture and should be left as an added structure only, that is also the same color as the building. Mayo added that the trellis only sticks out on the top and not on the sides. Becker stated that they could add a small planter or landscaping next to the garage. Miller suggested the front planter be enlarged to allow room for snow plows to maneuver in the driveway. Sullivan asked if shutters would be installed. Becker replied at the front facade only. Mayo noted that shutters were shown in historic photos. Miller asked where condensers and trash bins will be located. Becker replied that condensers can go at the rear of the property and the trash will either be on site or in a trash room at the far end of the garage. Chair Durand public comment. Jessica Herbert, Chair of the Salem Historic Commission speaking on behalf of the SHC and HSI. She reviewed this project and want to work with developers outside the HC to get them to preserve the original building and to use more historic materials. Some HC and HSI members were concerned with the garage underneath; however, compared to the existing conditions it has improved and will work since a sea of cars on a small lot wasn’t desirable. They went through the project in detail and the end result is a good design. Sides asked if they were satisfied with the look of the addition. Herbert replied that it’s lower in height, they kept the same profile, and they made more adjustments to include their comments. Sides questioned the color and roofing in terms of helping with massing. It’s similar to the existing but the spacing in the addition appears more regular. Dormers don’t need to be exactly the same because it looks too much like the original building. Jaquith agreed. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sides questioned the National Park Service Guidelines. Chair Durand at the addition on Lynde Street, the material change and roof wouldn’t help, but there could be a change in material at the addition, to make the main building stand out or adding a different dormer on the front face of the addition. Kennedy suggested a color tone change not a color change. Becker suggested burgundy. Sullivan disagreed the suggested they keep the same color to make it look like a significant addition. Sullivan asked what color blue will be used at the front door. Becker replied a muted blue. Chair Durand suggested they keep the doghouse dormer look but noted that the addition should look like an addition. Jaquith agreed and suggested shed dormers be used. Sides suggested clapboard one on building and shingle façade on the other and the new dormers shouldn’t compete with the existing. The new dormers could double up the windows and put 2 under 1 shed dormer. She encouraged the applicant to play with the location of them and to add them to both sides. Becker suggested adding a gable at the front addition. Kennedy stated the zoning requirements to accommodate one vehicle is the need for all of this extra design and wasted space, which is a disturbance to this building. He suggested removing the garage space and eliminating the West facing doors. This is a lot of solution for one problem. Newhall-Smith replied that the applicant wants 5 units, therefore this is not a zoning issue. Becker replied it’s not cost effective for a fewer number of units. Sides: Motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. 5. 65 Federal Street: Discussion and vote on residential redevelopment of existing structure Tom Mayo, Architect from Thomas Mayo Associates, and Mike Becker, Owner, were present to discuss the project. Mayo stated that there are two existing boxed additions with flat roofs and their previously proposed addition would have wrapped a new addition around the existing building, which took up too much of the actual front façade. They will reuse the box addition and add a gable on top of it rather than envelope more of the front face of the façade. Four parking spaces are proposed and pervious pavers will be installed so the area can double as a patio. The existing building will mimic the front gable roof and the addition will be attached to either side. Along the Federal Street elevation, they will add a 3rd floor on top of the flat roof. The existing two chimneys will remain and a redesign will accommodate a new third chimney. The front entry porch will remain and the entrances to the back unit will be on either side of the building. The windows will remain and missing shutters will be added. The 1st and 2nd floors windows will be kept, new windows will match the original, and fire rated windows will be installed on the lot line wall. Becker noted that the structure has three layers of siding and they intend to remove the top two layers and restore the clapboards. Sides stated that she was not in favor of the shed dormers. Mayo replied it wouldn’t be highly visible from the rear or from Federal Street. Jaquith stated that the dormers on the addition should have simpler trim, there should only be about 8” on each side with minimal trim at the interior. Mayo noted that casement windows will be installed for egress requirements to meet current coded. Sullivan suggested the casing be thicker and the proportion of the dormer is too large on the roof relative to the windows below it. Sides stated that there are too many dormer roofs and walls. Chair Durand noted that the dormers aren’t set back far enough from the edge, he doesn’t like the shed or doghouse dormers, and they make the roof too chaotic. Sullivan stated that the street profile will change. Becker noted there is limited floor space at the 3rd floor and the dormers will add it. Jaquith suggested the applicant add more windows to the dormer or use Nantucket dormers instead. Becker replied that one was proposed but they were instructed to simplify it. Sides stated that too much being done to maximize the volume on this floor with modified dormers. Sullivan noted that the chimney should be added to the plans to see how it interacts with the roof. Miller stated that the entrance at the front door is using the neighboring property. Mayo replied that they have no landing on their property but will pull the steps inward and maintain the same porch size. Chair Durand opens public comment. Jessica Herbert, Chair of the Salem Historic Commission speaking on behalf of the SHC and HSI. Stated that HSI submitted a letter concerning the pitch of the addition that looked too modern, and the dormers they feel still need to be resolved. Becker suggested they move the ridge to elongate the shed dormer and heighten the front elevation. Mayo suggested they adjust the gable end to match the rear and make it steeper or bring the shed back further. Herbert noted that keeping the 5-bay rhythm was their biggest concern, so the original building wasn’t being swallowed up, and the applicant kept the rhythm. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. 6. 285 Derby Street: Small project review Chair Durand recused himself. Mark Meche of Winter Street Architects and Rus Tanser of Waters & Brown, were present to discuss the project. Tanser stated that they want to redevelop the building. Meche noted that at the park side of the building, they want to renovate the space and prepare it for a new potential tenant. Only the vacant end and the park side will be modified. They want to replace the storefront settings and they are considering adding new storefront at the second brick-infilled bay facing the park. The three storefront bays at the front façade of this unit will be replaced; however, the two front façade storefronts at SATV on the opposite side of the building will remain for now, since they still have 8 years left on their lease. The existing storefront is a mix of bronze and black. The sign bands are in front of glass and the masonry opening extends p to the flat fascia. Signage locations are undetermined at this time. As a former car dealership, the floor elevation is at the top of concrete foundation wall, and that concrete will be removed since it is 12-inch above grade and improve access. New glazing would be installed within the existing masonry opening. The glazing will be clear low-e, 1 ¾” front glazed rather than center glazed, similar to The Hotel Salem. This site is within Ch. 91 jurisdiction, with elevated performance values to meet, so the glass must meet certain requirements. A Kawneer Encore system will be installed but not in a dark bronze color. They are also considering installing a pair of doors rather than a simple door. The masonry will be cleaned, the plaster painted, and with the concrete floors removed the bottom of the storefront will be closer to grade. Sides and Kennedy stated that they were in favor of adding more storefront to face the garden. Sullivan asked if the new opening will match the storefront on the front facade opening. Meche replied that it would match the proposed storefront facing the park. Jaquith stated that he would need to see the additional bay of storefront in conjunction with the park. Sides noted the numerous bays facing the park. Meche replied that if the building is repositioned the other bays could be other spaces, and 6 or 8 bays could potentially become storefront, allowing the two ends to harmonize. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith stated that the repetitive bay is okay, but it shouldn’t be drastically different in between. The bays should be established and consistent. Tanser noted that the openings range is size too. Miller stated that the existing has a consistent line at the front of the building and the deep mullion is not aligned with the existing band; however, the proposed is a better design. Sides agreed. Jaquith suggested the SATV storefront be replaced to match. Sullivan noted that it’s okay for them to be different. Kennedy suggested they open the side bay all the way, from column to column, since the last section of the bay is in-filled with brick. It should also extend to the next bay over to establish that entire corner. They should select either the top or bottom sign band, but leave the top alone because it will help them establish a line to follow. Sides: Motion to approve the concept and remove the floor. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 5-0. Chair Durand returned. North River Canal Corridor Projects 1. 9 Mason Street, Building 2: Small Project Review Ryan McShearer of Red Barn Architecture, Mark Tranos of Juniper Group was present to discuss the project. McShearer stated that at building No. 2 the color scheme will match other wood frame building and materials. There has been a new change at gable end walls since there was a previous concern with gable ends from the front to the side elevations. The new scheme has the gable ends facing front and they will be the same front to back. They made the gable end more diminutive to resolve the awkward corner at that end of the building. Sides and Chair Durand approved of the changes. Jaquith noted that this is a better resolution, although they should setback the middle portion of shed dormers. Tranos replied that it will be setback. Miller asked if the central concrete building with the lighting at the roof was complete. Tranos replied yes, although he wants to add additional lighting will be added. What’s installed is on a timer and thee will be on from dusk to dawn. Sullivan asked if the lighting was temporary. Tranos replied no, it is permanent each column on the sides of the building and there will be up and down lighting too. Sides stated that lighting must be approved by the Planning Board. Tranos replied that he will determine if it had been previously approved. Miller noted that the lighting doesn’t fit with the neighborhood and shouldn’t be reviewed by the Planning Board. Sullivan agreed although this is an opportunity to use a nice lighting operation. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. Old/New Business Minutes The minutes of the February 27, 2019 and March 27, 2019 meeting were reviewed. Jaquith: Motion to approve with edits. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0 Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:30PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.