Loading...
2019-11-06 Meeting Minutes City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Special Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: 32 Derby Square (Old Town Hall), Upper Level DRB Members Present: David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Catherine Miller, Marc Perras, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan DRB Members Absent: Chair Paul Durand Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith Recorder: Colleen Brewster Vice-Chair Sides calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM. Roll call was taken. Signs 1. 30 Church Street: (Hive & Forge): Discussion and vote on sign package – Continued from 9/25/19, Request to Continue to December 18, 2019 Miller: Motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 6-0. 2. 139 Washington Street (Eastern Bank): Discussion and vote on A-frame sign – Continued from 9/25/19, Request to Withdraw 3. 173 Essex Street (Kakawa Chocolate House): A-Frame sign No one was present to discuss. Vice-Chair Sides opens public comment. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Vice-Chair Sides closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve as submitted. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 4. 9-11 Dodge Street, 217-219 and 231-251 Washington Street (Hampton Inn/Mixed Use Development): Review of Hampton Inn Signage, Request to Withdraw Newhall-Smith stated that a mock-up of the banding on the façade has been installed on the building to be reviewed on-site. The Project Manager can meet Board members on site to discuss it. 5. 211 Washington Street (Starbucks): Review of Blade Sign Andrew Serrato of Serrato Signs, Worcester, MA, was present to discuss the project. Serrato stated that Starbucks wants to add a blade sign on the left-hand side on the front façade facing Washington Street. Miller asked if the blade sign will stick out farther than the awning. Serrato replied that it will be visible from the North. Newhall-Smith asked for the height of sign above grade. Glenn presumed 12-feet. Sides asked why the left side was selected and not the right. Serrato replied there is an existing power source on the left. The distance to the bottom of the 24-inch high sign is 10-feet. Kennedy noted that the bottom of the awning height is also 10-feet above grade. Miller asked if an internally lit sign is acceptable. Kennedy replied that internally lit goes against the SRA Sign Manual requirements, the standard is back-lit, and white is the only light permitted. Jaquith noted that the Board reviews them on an individual basis. Newhall-Smith stated that the sign design guidelines allow it, but they state that the light must be white. Sullivan asked if all the power will come straight through the building and not with an exposed conduit; Serrato stated that it would. The sign will be centered on the existing Starbucks sign and not 10-feet to grade. Kennedy noted that he is okay with the proposed sign. The white mermaid will be light up and the green background will only glow, but the lights must be white. Vice-Chair Sides opens public comment. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Vice-Chair Sides closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve as presented and centered on the Starbucks sign. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 5-0. Perras arrived. 6. 38 Norman Street: Review of Temporary A-Frame Sign Pat Abani was present to discuss the project. Pat Abani wants to place two temporary metal A-frame signs for 6-7 weeks over the Christmas holiday to sell Christmas trees. It will be like the Fenwick sign that was submitted in the packet – the same frame and size, different text. Sides stated that the proposed sign has some items that aren’t normally approved on the sign like the phone number and email address. Abani noted that the sign has been designed but not created. These signs will be next to the sidewalk. Newhall-Smith stated that the DRB can waive the 10-foot maximum distance from business entrance regulation; however, only one sign is allowed at each business entrance and that can’t be waived. Kennedy stated that the address, websites, and e-mail aren’t necessary and should be deleted. Sides noted that the sign should be kept simple since the trees will be the advertising. Vice-Chair Sides opens public comment. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Vice-Chair Sides closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve with no telephone or address and to allow 1 sign only. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 1 Derby Square: Review of Installation of skylights – Continued from September 25, 2019, Request to Continue to December 18, 2019. Kennedy: Motion to continue to the December 18, 2019 regular meeting. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 6-0. 2. 15 Crombie Square: Review of replacement of rotting column on rear porch of 3-unit residential structure – Continued from September 25, 2019 Cairo Charsi was present to discuss the project. Charsi stated that she spoke with five contractors and was told that the pressure-treated columns can be painted in the spring. Sides stated that Board Member and Architect David Jaquith offered to help with the design and asked if they had met. Charsi stated that she thought that was a suggestion and since she spoke with contractors, she didn’t feel that it was necessary to meet with Mr. Jaquith. Sides stated that the Board hoped that a detail would be provided because they won’t approve proposed work without plans, despite the emergency need. Charsi noted that they are an HOA and have under $10,000 to address the issues. Perras asked if they consulted a structural engineer. Charsi replied no, only contractors Vice-Chair Sides opens public comment. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Vice-Chair Sides closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 6-0. 3. 2 Lynde Street: Review of Façade modifications for new restaurant Aaron & Shawna Chambers, Owners, and Doug Dubin of Double D Construction were present to discuss the project. Mr. Chambers stated that they will remove the existing awning over the windows, install a flat metal sign over the door, install a lighted menu board between the door and window, update the windows and door, and paint the brick façade white. Sides asked if the double hung windows were accurate. Ms. Chambers replied yes, they provided the specification for the Andersen A series window, that will be 6 over 6 tempered glass, installed into the existing exterior openings. Mr. Chambers noted that the windows are slides that have been corked shut. Jaquith asked if they will be simulated divided lite. Mr. Chambers replied that muntins will be on the exterior and interior. Sides noted the odd window choice for this location, it was meant to be a ribbon window not double-hung windows; the proposed window will make the interior view outward seem compressed. They should work with the horizontal design of the window. Ms. Chambers noted that the interior drop ceiling will be removed to highlight the exposed wood beams and that will make the inside feel taller. Doug Dubin arrived. Dubin stated that they wanted a double-hung window that looks “period Salem” and the existing windows are aluminum. Mr. Chambers noted that they took the design from 6 over 6 neighboring windows because they didn’t like the slider look of the windows. Perras agreed that the existing window has a contemporary approach with no muntins since the building next door has double-hungs with no muntins. In terms of the color palette, he likes painting the brick and the new light fixtures, but the window doesn’t feel right at this location and double-hung windows aren’t typically used in a series. Sullivan asked if the new windows would be operable. Mr. Chambers replied yes. Perras suggested a band of crank-out awning windows. Mr. Chambers noted that the narrow width of the sidewalk would make them an obstruction. Perras agreed and suggested a hopper style windows installed above. Dubin noted that they looked at neighboring windows and found a window that fit into the existing opening and is like what exists on Washington Street. The proposed windows will fit into the opening and won’t disrupt the structure. Mr. Chambers stated that the new double-hung windows have already been ordered. Sullivan noted that the double-hung windows tend to look clunky, the jamb, sill, and head take up a lot of space, making the proposed windows look heavy. Kennedy stated that he is okay with the proposed windows. Ms. Chambers noted that the painted brick will catch the eye of patrons from Washington Street. Kennedy asked what specific color off-white would be used. Ms. Chambers replied that the color hasn’t been determined. Kennedy noted that he likes the painted brick look, but the color will be important. There are many tones of ‘white’ and even with warm grey it can still look white. Sullivan asked for the proposed awning color and if the cornice will be painted the same color as the brick. Ms. Chambers replied that the awning will be off-white (beige) with grey stripes, and the cornice will match the brick color. Perras suggested they use of a different sheen paint at the cornice. Miller asked if the brick coursing will stand out as much as it’s proposed. Ms. Chambers replied no, it won’t be so noticeable. Miller asked if the brick work will be repaired and the old anchors removed. Dubin replied yes. Miller asked how they will provide power for lights and if the new awning will also have a cord. Dubin replied that power will be provided directly through the façade and the new awning will not have a cord. Miller noted that the awning will catch the eye of pedestrians from Washington Street. Sides asked if the two lower light fixtures a necessity. Mr. Chambers replied that those have been eliminated since they can’t bring power to them easily. Miller stated that the paint and awning colors need to be submitted for review and approval. Sullivan asked for specifics with the new door. Dubin replied that it will have beveled glass, be black aluminum clad with wood on the interior, both sides will be black. Newhall-Smith requested a specification be submitted for the door. Perras asked if the window configuration could be discussed outside of a public meeting to allow the owners to keep moving forward with the project. Sides replied no, it’s too important of an issue. Jaquith noted that double-hung windows are too residential. Sullivan suggested the applicant can do better than the windows that have been ordered. Sides stated that the existing ribbon window is very distinct, the ceiling height at the interior will be increased and the space will be domesticated by adding double- hung windows. Sullivan noted that the result would be better if the windows were given better thought. Perras noted that Bella Verona has punched openings with mullions. Miller appreciated that the new windows would be black which would help them disappear. Kennedy stated that he doesn’t find the double-hung windows that egregious. Vice-Chair Sides opens public comment. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Vice-Chair Sides closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to continue and to return with window options, and Kennedy to review paint and awning colors. Seconded by: Perras. Kennedy abstained. Passes 5-0, 1 abstention. 4. 285 Derby Street: Review of Façade modifications to elevation facing Fortin Park Mark Meche of Winter Street Architects and Russ Tanzer of South Harbor Holdings, were present to discuss the project. Tanzer stated that they now have a signed tenant for the space, Rover Bagel, that will be moving back from Biddeford, ME. There proposed a small change to storefront faces the park. The fixed storefront will become operable with a Nanawall type system and a passage door. The mill finish will match existing and the transom will match up with the front of the building. Meche noted that this is based off the Adriatic window system, a Pacer Series 450 product. Tanzer noted that the future tenants will apply for a Café Permit and signage. Miller stated that the curb isn’t shown correctly. Tanzer replied that they will finalize the easement with the SRA next week, which is a 20-foot wide section along the building. Perras asked if the man door be inverted to flip it to the opposite side. Meche replied that it’s unknown at this point but they could potentially all have openers except for the spaces where SATV is located. Tanzer noted that the occupancy will be approximately 60, so they will need two doors to meet access/egress codes. The 20-foot wide easement area will be paved so the existing curbing isn’t an issue. Meche noted that the tenant will have tables on the terrace facing the park. There are multiple windows and openings along this façade and future changes are planned. Meche noted that the new walkway will be permanently open, the Ch. 91 license doesn’t allow furniture in certain locations, but the walkway will connect to the Harbor W alk. Miller asked if the new sidewalk for the easement must return to the DRB for review. Newhall-Smith replied that it shows as a paved walked and may have already been vetted; if not, then it will need to return. The easement vote is on the SRA meeting agenda for the following week. Vice-Chair Sides opens public comment. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Vice-Chair Sides closes public comment. Sullivan: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 5. 196 Essex Street: Review of Temporary Façade Covering at Flying Monkey, Request to Withdraw New / Old Business 1. Representative on Public Art Commission Newhall-Smith stated that the current representative J. Michael Sullivan, wants to step down. Julie Barry is the new Senior Planner for Arts and Culture and staffs the Public Art Commission (PAC). The PAC meets once a month, Tuesday’s but they may possibly switch to Thursday. Sullivan added that the PAC is looking at their mission statement, values, and vision to re-evaluate the group. Many sub-committees are formed, and members tend to come and go quickly. Artists’ Row tenants also get interviewed by the PAC and it’s important for someone on the DRB to be conscience of public art. No one on the Board immediately agreed to fill the seat. 2. Meeting Schedule for 2020 The meeting schedule was reviewed. Minutes The minutes from the August 28, 2019 regular meeting were reviewed. Miller proposed providing a check-list of landscaping items that should be shown in proposed plans, to show colors, growth, etc. to help ensure that application submissions are complete. Kennedy: Motion to accept the August 28, 2019 regular minutes. Seconded by: Miller. Passes 6-0. The minutes from the September 25, 2019 regular meeting were reviewed. Miller: Motion to accept the September 25, 2019 regular minutes with Miller’s edits. Seconded by: Sullivan. Passes 6-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:30PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.