Loading...
2019-07-24 DRB MinutesCity of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Special Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 98 Washington Street, First Floor Conference Room DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Glenn Kennedy, Marc Perras, Catherine Miller, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan DRB Members Absent: David Jaquith Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith Recorder: Colleen Brewster Chair Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM. Roll call was taken. Signs 1. 192 Essex Street (Angelica of the Angels, Salem Smugglers Tour, Miss Betty’s Hat Emporium): Discussion and vote on signage – Continued from June 26, 2019. Kennedy: Motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0. 2. 172 Essex Street (Witch Pix A-Frame Sign): Discussion and vote on signage. Hope Hitchcock was present to discuss the project. Hitchcock stated that a plastic A-frame sign with laminated signage to attach with Velcro is proposed. The fonts for the logos are Raja Drama and Al Fresco. They use Arial or Garmand for other text that is not the logo. The second sign font will be Al Fresco and Yana, with extensions on capital letters, the same font as the signs in the windows. Kennedy asked if the signs will be frequently changed. Hitchcock replied that they are usually changed seasonally, and they create new ones for events. The laminated signs are done mostly for promotional events. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sullivan: Motion to approve as submitted. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 300 Derby Street (Casa Tequila): Review of Patio Improvements – Continued to August 28, 2019. No one was present to discuss the project. Sides: Motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. 2. 173 Essex Street (Kakawa Chocolate House): Café Permit Application Aledphin Genoness, General Manager, of Kakawa Chocolate House was present to discuss the project. Newhall-Smith stated that she spoke with Tony. The applicant went to SRA last month for a café permit and proposed four tables in front each of the 4 bay windows, with each table having four chairs. The SRA asked about umbrellas and proposed trash receptacle but were concerned with the placement of it. Genoness stated that the receptacle would be placed at the corner by the museum, to the left side of the business. Sides noted that Kakawa rents both storefronts. Sullivan asked for the distance between sign and the tables. Genoness replied that the sign can be moved since there is a lot of room. Newhall-Smith noted that they have approximately 8 feet and 4 feet of clearance is needed. Perras asked for the proposed receptacle and umbrella color. Newhall-Smith replied that the receptacle is brown and the umbrellas forest green. Miller asked for the umbrella pole color. Newhall-Smith replied that it’s is unknown. Miller noted it would be an indicator that that the store is open but noted that the tables and chairs don’t coordinate with one another in style or color. They should be either all black or aluminum and not a mix of classic and modern style. Perras asked if the proposed receptable is offered in black. Genoness replied yes. Sides asked if the beverage containers were recyclable, and if so, they should add a recycling container too. Perras suggested a combination receptacle. Perras asked if all these elements will go inside at night. Newhall-Smith noted that the application said they will move the furniture inside at night. Chair Durand noted that chaining the tables and chairs together would be acceptable. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Miller: Motion to approve with umbrellas, black receptable, possible recycle receptacle, table as proposed, chairs to match style of table. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. 3. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 and 231-251 Washington Street (Hampton Inn/Mixed Use Development): Review of Proposed Modifications (continued from 6/26/19) Andrew Queen and Keith Kelley of Opechee Construction Corporation were present to discuss the project. Queen noted the sealant color at the hotel corner. Sides noted the good color selection but raised concerns with the shiny finish, particularly the grey. Perras asked if matte finish was available. Queen replied no. The Board preferred the Option B color options. Perras ask about other color options. Queen replied that they pursued an aluminum composite panel. Perras asked if the panels will dull over time. Queen replied that he’s never seen them dull. Miller noted that some items do dull over time and pick-up pollutants. Chair Durand noted that the metal finish is impervious and may remain shiny. Queen noted the additional fee to match colors which they did not pursue; he also stated that there could be a black sealant line to make the panels more pronounced, both options were include for review by the Board. Kennedy noted that the black sealant is different than the material color black and the charcoal grey works better. Sullivan requested the joint thickness. Queen replied 3/8”. Perras asked if the sealant at the window insets on this side of the building could be changed. Queen replied no. Kennedy requested confirmation on whether the window inserts along the grey façade would have grey sealant on inside and black on the outside. Queen replied yes. Sullivan noted that the façade joints will be very pronounced and suggested they be black to define them. Kennedy agreed. Chair Durand recommended scheme B with black sealant. Kennedy: Motion to approve scheme B with black sealant. Seconded by: Perras. Passes 6-0. Queen stated that the siding at the Juliette balconies will be white Nichiha panel meant to resemble large tiles. They will be in long segments with score lines every 24-inches in a stack bond configuration to the panel. The Board previously approved a cembrit panel that were going to be cut into 18-inch wide in verticals strips. Queen presented samples of the base material with a stone texture in an alternating color but in a running bond pattern and every three-feet there is a vertical score. Sullivan ask why the upper material switched from horizontal to vertical, because there is a vertical pattern with the horizontal installation. Queen replied that the manufacturer recommends a horizontal application. Perras asked if there were alternative color options to match the other taupe or cream colors. Queen replied that the other colors were very loud. He noted that the base colors are backwards on the rendering, and they will have a dark base. Kenney stated that he is not in favor of the two colors that do not complement each other. Sides replied that the pattern is more important, and the colors won’t matter as much. Miller asked if the side wall of the hotel was different. Queen replied it’s the same as the side panels at the interior, it wraps around to the end wall. Perras asked if all elements attached to the building were different colors. Queen replied that the canopy is white, and the copings match adjacent wall façades. Sullivan asked if the railing in front of the windows is black with a black stripe wrapping around the building. Sides questioned the recess and what happens after the product it turns the corner. Perras noted his preference for this change in pattern. Sides agreed and noted her preference for the change in scale. Perras asked if the top canopy over the residential windows could be black to match all the other attachments. Miller asked what else is white. Queen replied the panel color that is a creamy tone not a bright white, and the cornice is white to match the façade color. Kennedy asked if it had been ordered. Perras was in favor of the white coping but finds the massing troubling. Queen noted that the canopy occurs between each of the three elements, it can be made black to match the deck rails, and the material does wrap around the sides. Sullivan: Motion to approve the substitution of the vertical panel as submitted. Seconded by: Perras. Passes 5-1, Kennedy opposed. Kelley stated that they will investigate the canopy/light screens and changing them to black if it isn’t too late to do so. The Board agreed. Screen Fence: Queen stated that they’ve proposed two schemes, A & B, to screen the 6-foot-high transformer. Option A offers views in between the slats while Option B allows no view through it. Miller asked for the screen color. Queen replied black. Sides suggested black or bronze to keep the trim features on the building consistent. Miller asked if landscaping is proposed in front of it. Queen replied McClure will push for a side entry although the utility company may want it on the front, which will determine if plantings can be placed in front of the screen. Kennedy noted that items and plantings could get caught in-between the fence slats if scheme B is chosen. Miller stated that the plantings don’t need to match but something in front of the large steel fence is good. Kennedy: Motion for scheme A with plantings. Seconded by: Miller. Passes 6-0. Parking Signage: Sides stated that the parking signage is centered and looks good. Miller: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. 231 Washington Sign: Queen stated that the proposed is a steel channel with flat face facing outward, a couple stand-offs, and 3 glass panels that extend slightly beyond the edge. In between there would be flat steel to support the box of the sign. Power will be added to the frame of the sign and it will be elevated 6” to allow water and snow to melt and run off the surface. The 231 is a cut out with a clear acrylic to illuminate externally lit with stainless steel lettering below. Kelley noted that they are presenting on behalf of the owner. Newhall-Smith asked how the signage gets attached to the bottom bar. Sullivan stated that the externally lit method is troublesome although up-lighting is good. Sides noted that it’s hard to determine what’s proposed in the renderings. Miller requested a rendering showing a section through it to indicated placement of lighting. Kelley noted that he is also troubled by the lighting and will clarify it before next month meeting with more detail. Sides: Motion to continue 231 Washington signage to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Miller. Passes 6-0. Newhall-Smith stated that this application will also be heard at the August SRA meeting. 4. 30 Federal Street: Development Project Review – Construction of an Addition Mike Becker, Owner, and Sanir Lutfija of Seger Architects were present to discuss the project. Lutfija presented slightly revised plans. Becker stated that they’ve reconfigured the elevator and will continue to work on the interior changes. He noted that the proposed work won’t affect the existing solar panels on the roof. Sullivan asked if the retail being added changes the street fenestration. Becker replied yes, to activate the corner and make it more commercial. The second-floor square staircase window will match the one of the right-side, and the first floor will be all storefront. Miller asked how Federal Street side will change. Lutfija replied that the current sloped area will be filled in, but they will create a light well at the basement and add a door to the Federal Street side to a new patio with a path. Miller asked if the lightwell was added for safety reasons. Becker replied for light and ventilation, and a new set of stairs will also be added. Perras asked if the tree in the planting bed will be replaced. Becker replied yes. Lutfija stated they will remove one tree. Perras noted the other trees in the vicinity. Becker replied that they can work the patio around the trees. There are trees on other side of the building including two large ones on Washington Street. An existing site plan is needed. Miller stated that this doesn’t trigger site plan review; an existing and proposed site plan is needed before she can consider approving it. They may need to remove three trees on Washington Street. There is a tree ordinance that stated when a tree is within 20 feet of a public way you need permission to take it down. It’s something the applicant must investigate. She has site concerns with demolition and replacement plans and the street tree is not indicated on the drawings. She questioned how that would work with the entry. Lutfija replied that they won’t remove any street trees. Becker noted that the last tree is beyond their property line. Sullivan requested clarification on the Washington Street elevation at cornice. Lutfija replied that it was adjusted to work with the roofline of the existing building and to connect to the elevator, stairwell and existing office space. Becker added that he wanted the new elevator to service the existing use. Sullivan noted that the metal panel appears to extend above the cornice line. Lutfija replied that it was done to make the building more contemporary and mimic aspects of the Superior Court building across the street. Sides stated that the cladding material doesn’t need to be a vertical treatment and since it won’t be in sheets, it will have more detail. She agreed that it would be a good idea to tie it back to Federal Street and breaking from its use in the traditional form is enough. Lutfija replied that they investigated patinaed copper. Perras asked for the primary façade material. Lutfija replied Hardi plank clapboard siding with a 7-inch exposure so it has a different affect. The paneling is on the end wall and brick on the panel. Miller stated that the smooth Hardi plank should be used not textured which looks fake and isn’t historically appropriate. Sides asked about the clapboard corner detail. Lutfija replied mitered corners and the same at the top edge but with flashing. It will return to the panel with a beveled edge. Sides asked if it will be recessed. Lutfija replied yes, it will return into the window. The only projection will be at the bay facing the parking lot, which breaks up the façade and was inspired by the chimney. Perras noted that there is no canopy attached in renderings. Lutfija replied that it will extend through the existing building. The owner wanted to create two separate retail spaces, and this would help connect them. Becker added that a tenant may want the entire space or just half, so he wanted to create that flexibility. Perras noted that he preferred no canopy, which would have to awkwardly connect to the existing building. They should tie into the side of the building. Sides questioned whether it’s necessary to bring the green panel onto the brick end of the old building at all. They should keep the elevation simple. Perras agreed. Chair Durand asked about the placement of trash and use of a dumpster. Becker replied that they will create a trash room in the basement and use the elevators to move the bins outside. Sides inquired about the tower and lines on façade. Lutfija replied they are false seams to break up the copper elevation. Sides noted her preference for not having seams since the horizontal lines don’t line up with anything on the façade. Perras asked if the canopy wraps around to the east elevation too. Lutfija replied no, the canopy only overhangs onto the Washington Street elevation, it’s only the trim that extends around that façade. Chair Durand asked about parking lot lighting and exterior lighting. Lutfija replied that it hasn’t been designed yet, they need to review the existing and work with it. Newhall- Smith asked if the red brick façade will be left as is. Lutfija replied it will be painted a dark grey called “Iron Spot Grey.” Sides asked if the proposed color carries over to the new construction. Lutfija replied in the clapboard siding, as will the Federal Street façade. Few changes are proposed on that side since that style of building continues further down the street. Sides requested updated drawings of reflect recent changes. Chair Durand opens public comment. Emily Udy, Historic Salem Inc. The applicant wants to treat the prominent corner in a more contemporary style which she appreciates. It will be interesting to compare to the future of the courthouse redevelopment. She agreed with treating them as two different buildings and to not get hung up on making them match. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sides requested the Board continue its review with the applicant including their comments, and drawings consistent with the changes, landscaping plans, site lighting, building lighting, materials, the rules for trees in Salem. Perras stated that he likes the copper and asks the applicant to look at alternative materials if they can’t cover the cost of the copper. The pattern could be interesting, but he suggested using copper in the canopy. Becker noted that they will use sheet copper with flat lock seams. Sullivan noted that the standing seams on the courthouse are on the roof not the wall. Sides requested the drawings indicate where the different materials will be used. Becker requested the Board’s thoughts on the tower. Miller replied that aspects of the façade are monolithic while others have a multitude of lines, the different copper seaming needs to be identified. Lutfija replied that it’s a graphic error that can be revised. Miller added that they indicate street trees to the site plans and noted that there are three tree pits on Washington Street one of which has no tree. Perras stated that the spandrels seem heavy handed, as well as the need to add copper to other areas that may not be necessary since he likes the monolithic look with carved out area and a completed removed base with glass in its place. Sides agreed. Perras asked that they also consider eliminating the spandrels on the Washington Street façade. Chair Durand asked if bike racks will be added. Becker replied that they have room to place one on the Federal Street side near the transformer. Perras stated this corner is important and needs more design; will it be all glass, do you eliminate the column at the corner, are things to consider. Newhall-Smith asked if they will paint all the brick. Lutfija replied that the entire building will be painted, but they haven’t determined a paint color for the all the areas. Sides noted that window relocations are proposed so the façade areas of brick will be patched, so there is a logic to painting it. Kennedy replied that he is not opposed to painting the brick. Becker noted that the neighboring building will remain red brick, but the brick returns on this building will also be painted. Sides noted that she is not opposed to painting the brick, but the applicant needs to flesh out all proposed materials and colors. Perras asked if the applicant considered painting the building all one color, including the Federal Street façade. Becker replied that he is in favor of that as are Kennedy and Sides. Sides: Motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. 5. 1 Derby Street: Small project review – Installation of skylights – Continued to the August 28, 2019 meeting. Miller: Motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Sides. Passes 6-0. Old/New Business Minutes Adjournment Sides: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:35PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.