Loading...
2021-04-28 Meeting Minutes City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board – Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Remote Participation via Zoom DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Catherine Miller, Marc Perras, Helen Sides, DRB Members Absent: J. Michael Sullivan Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith Recorder: Colleen Brewster Chair Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM. Roll call was taken. Signs in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 60 Washington Street – Small Project Review: Odd Meter Coffee A-Frame Sign Angelica Chayes, Owner of Odd Meter was present to discuss the project. Chayes stated that an a-frame sign is proposed to promote their business. Perras noted that the sign ordinance states that added signage shall not block the path for accessibility and requested that it not be out when windy. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve as presented with comments about keeping the sidewalk clear and not putting the sign out during inclement or windy weather or during October. Seconded by: Jaquith. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides and Chair Durand were all in favor. Passes 6-0. 2. 51 Charter Street: Charter Street Cemetery Information/Rules Signage Patti Kelleher, Salem Preservation Planner was present to discuss the project. Kelleher stated that the yearlong landscape restoration project is nearing completion with pathways, restored fencing, wall rebuilding, lighting, and a new welcome center. They want to install signage on the fencing to highlight the history and rules of the cemetery. One sign would be installed on the Charter Street fence and a double-sided sign (replicated wording) on each side of the gate at the Liberty Street entrance, and the existing signage will be removed. The background color is Salem Blue, and the proposed signs will be 18-inches-wide x 24-inches-high. The Board mentioned their concern with readability. Kelleher replied that the feedback they have received with the Salem Common sign is that the text size is too small, so she’s asked the sign company to increase the font size, although most people will be reading these signs from the sidewalk entrance. Miller suggested the wording be serifed and italic, particularly the rules portion of the sign. Kennedy replied that the serifs and italics are harder to read, and it may or may not be allowed for Salem’s historic site signage, but he would not want to text to be much larger given the proposed location and proximity to cemetery visitors. Chair Durand agreed. Kelleher added that this will be the first sign to be added with those guidelines and this is an opportunity to make improve upon them and this signage was based off signage in Boston. Sides asked if a smaller plaque was added that had the rules, so they were not incorporated into the larger sign and distracting you from the history of the site. That could provide an opportunity to use larger text. She questioned the need to incorporate many of the rules that should be known facts. Kelleher replied that the rules need to be clear and strongly worded so the police can enforce the rules. Chair Durand suggested the rules be arranged with “Security cameras are in use” first. Miller stated that Salem has been making a push for accessibility and signs have accessibility requirements that need to be met, height off the ground, specific dimensions, text height and an accessibility symbol and the wording about how the entrance on Liberty Street is not accessible. Kelleher replied that she forwarded this design to Salem’s Disability Coordinator, but she has not received a response. Chair Durand suggested they rules be placed on two lines to give more space to the historic wording above. Kennedy suggested differentiating the rules by separating them from one another, so the history portion is celebrated, and the rules are informational. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kelleher asked that a sign be reviewed and approved prior to the opening of the cemetery in late May. Chair Durand agreed that a special meeting could be convened. Miller: Motion to continue with Kennedy assisting in the revision of the sign. Seconded by: Sides. Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Chair Durand were all in favor. Passes 5-0. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 234 Bridge Street – Small Project Review: Installation of cellular infrastructure on existing decorative light pole, continued from February 24, 2021 request to continue to May 26, 2021 Sides: Motion to continue until May 26, 2021. Seconded by: Jaquith. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides and Chair Durand were all in favor. Passes 6-0. 2. 13 Barton Square: Small Project Review – Construction of exterior porch and deck Mike McGinn was present to discuss the project. McGinn stated that wants to add a porch and deck in keeping with the style of his 1870 Greek Revival four-family house. The deck will be pressure treated and a second stair and deck will replace the existing means of egress. The cornice and moulding will match the existing and new 8” diameter columns will replace the existing columns at the first-floor porch. The trim will be painted Copley Gray will match the house, but he would prefer not to paint the new pressure treated square balusters at the deck. Miller noted that the front entrance balusters are more decorative than the baluster proposed at the rear. McGinn noted his preference to shape pressure treated balusters to match an old profile and to keep them unpainted since it will become a maintenance issue. Kennedy noted that pressure treated wood is not a preferred look, and if the Board approved it, the applicant should wait a year and then apply a full pigment stain that resembles paint and will have better adhesion. Chair Durand agreed. McGinn noted that the deck will extend 10-feet away from the house and the stairs another 40-inches. The property line is 8-feet beyond the stairs, and he was told that he will not require a variance because this area allow zero setback. Perras asked how the structural members were sized and the railing height. McGinn replied that he is a general contract and used beam and span tables. The Board agreed that the railing heights will be reviewed by the Building Inspector prior to issuing a permit. McGinn clarified that the rear deck and stair would be stained but the raised porch on the side of the house would be painted Copley Gray to match the trim on the house. Miller asked if the front porch has similar detail. McGinn replied that the cornice and trim detail will be an exact match to the front porch, but the rear columns will be single round columns not bundled. Sides stated that a lot of detail is going into the side porch, but the second-floor deck is not receiving enough treatment and she wished there were more consistency in their treatment. McGinn stated that six-inch by six-inch square posts at the rear deck were selected for practical reasons since they will be exposed to the weather. The Board agreed that details and trim could be added to the rear deck. Sides suggested matching the proportions of where the columns meet the beams, wrapping the beam and painting it, or adding some details. McGinn agreed to wrap the rear posts in Azek trim and add dentil molding around the rim joists. Chair Durand suggested adding a fascia board with no dentil moulding is enough to tie it to the house. The Board agreed to adding a cap and base trim to each post. Sides suggested premade Azek balusters. Jaquith suggested using Azek riser. McGinn agreed to paint all Azek the trim color. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve with the following conditions: use Azek to wrap the rear posts, add an Azek fascia board at the beams, add cap and base to the posts, install Azek balusters and Azek risers. The applicant shall provide revised drawings to reflect their comments, and Sides to follow-up with the applicant. Seconded by: Kennedy. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides and Chair Durand were all in favor. Passes 6-0. 3. 15 Federal Street: Installation of infrastructure associated with city-wide SiFi initiative on public land adjacent to the Church Street parking lot Linda Calnan (PM of SiFi Networks), Joshua Arnold (GC of Mears Group), Mike McCollum and Clint Roques of (Jacobs Engineering) were present to discuss the project. Calnan stated that starting in May, Salem granted them the right of way to build infrastructure and provide a fiber city network to enable gigabit + to be privately funded, networked, operated and maintained by SiFi networks. Telecommunication cabinets are proposed around the city including one on Federal Street. Cabinet #15 will be located within the grassy area on the far end of the Church Street parking lot where it will be less obtrusive and surrounded by bollards at each corner. There will be 2-foot x 3-foot covers on either side of the cabinet to provide access to the 2-foot-deep vaults. The proposed color can not be painted due to temperature control and thermodynamic properties. Newhall-Smith suggested the cabinet be clusters with the new parking kiosk on the other side of the light post. Miller suggested it be located next to the last row in the parking area, so it is not on its own. Newhall-Smith replied that the parking lot is owned by the SRA and managed by the City and is most likely public land. Calnan noted that they did not want to place the cabinet directly outside the entrance to 10 Federal Street. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. The Board agreed that the bollards should remain powder coated black. Sides: Motion to approve with the condition that the cabinet be moved so the above ground portion of the cabinet is in line with the last row of parked cars. Seconded by: Jaquith. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides and Chair Durand were all in favor. Passes 7-0. 4. 53 Charter Street: Modification to Approved Plans – Exterior of historic home Jennifer Mello of Pomeroy & Co. was present to discuss the project. Mello stated that the previous application was in March of 2019. The previous plan was approved; however, they would like to eliminate the rear addition and return the house to its early 19th century appearance. The 2 over 1 window sashes will be replaced with 6 over 6, replicating the front portico that was gifted to the PEM in the 1920’s and is currently installed on another building. The windows will be manufactured by Marvin with simulated divided lite made of wood with black interior spacer bars and custom sills and casings. The number of windows on the facades will be reduced to match what is in the historic photos. They will replicate original moulding profiles and replace in kind where necessary. Aluminum gutters and downspouts will be added and painted to match the trim and siding. The owner would like to continue with the previously approved color palette. The deck will be added at a later phase of the project. Miller asked if there will be quoins or corner boards added to the house. Mello replied corner boards, the quoins are believed to not be original to the house and as previously proposed, were not wide enough to support the proportions. Miller believed that metal gutters and downspouts painted to resemble aged copper would be more consistent. Jaquith requested clarification on whether the window above the portico will be shorter as shown in the perspective drawing. Mello replied that the window would only be 3- inches shorter than the other windows at the peak of the portico pediment. Jaquith left the meeting. 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 minor modification to paint the gutters and downspouts a brown weathered copper color. Perras amended the motion to include that the applicant return to the DRB when the final color selections have been made. Seconded by: Sides. Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Chair Durand were all in favor. Passes 6-0. 5. 73 Charter Street: Modification to Approved Plans – Exterior of historic home Redevelopment of 73 Lafayette Street and 9 Peabody Street through the construction of mixed-use structures for affordable elderly supportive housing, compact residential units, the North Shore Health Center, and additional space for non-profit organizations, continued from 3/24/21, request to continue to May 26, 2021 Miller: Motion to continue to May 26, 2021. Seconded by: Sides. Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Chair Durand were all in favor. Passes 6-0 Projects Outside of the Urban Renewal Area 1. 4 Franklin Street: North River Canal Corridor and Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts – Construction of a business office and ambulance facility with associated employee parking area, utilities, landscaping, and harbor walk path along the North River. David Stockless of Icon Architecture, Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering Group, and Attorney Joseph Correnti of Correnti and Darling LLP were present to discuss the project. Atty. Correnti stated the project will provide a headquarters for Cataldo Ambulance and Atlantic Ambulance. The neighborhood meeting held several months ago with Councillor Riccardi was constructive. They have had three meetings with the Planning Board (PB) and have made substantial modifications to the plan based on their feedback. The most significant change was moving the building forward on the site and closer to North Street. Stockless stated that the NRCC and Entrance Corridor Overlay District designations have this project under the purview of the DRB. The proposed building is part of Phase I and the building has been placed closer to North Street with parking behind it, which will provide better access to the site off Franklin Street. The site will be buffered with landscaping. The structure will have a four-bay ambulance facility with a two-story supportive office space. Two points of entry are proposed, one at the corner of Franklin and North and the other off the rear parking area. The proposed façade is vertical metal siding, Hardi panel and siding, aluminum windows. The garage doors are that the rear with a sloped roof over the ambulance bay and flat roof over the office space. A stone wall is proposed along the North and Franklin Street corner due to the change in grade with the roadway at elevation 8 and the building at elevation 12. Sides noted that some of the PB design comments were #1: The front entrance is unnecessary and not needed since it is an employee only building where people enter from the parking lot. #2: Ambulances are out so this will not be a high traffic area. #3: The front corner should be reduced so the building can be more streamline. #4: Two rows of windows on North Street aren’t successful since the ambulance bay is a one- story space. #5: Signage should be lower not higher at an entrance that will not be used as a main entrance. Miller stated that they should remove the front stair that no one will use since it is not an entrance which will create a cleaner look. She agreed that the signage should not be so high. Perras stated that the design feels acontextual, as the last building seen before driving over the bridge. He agreed with the PB’s corner tower design comments and noted that a smaller scale entrance only carved out where necessary and creating two simple forms. He was not as concerned with materiality and the pop-up bay with a change in material, but the corner elements are out of scale. Stockless replied that the second floor accentuated the first floor to create a strong corner and when the entrance was moved to the rear they felt this corner needed something special. Miller stated that the façade renderings vary from resembling a fire station at the rear to a bank at the front. Mr. Stockless noted that they can eliminate the corner element and create something more in keeping with the scale of the building. Perras asked why the banding carries around the entire building if the entire building is not two floors. Mr. Stockless replied that they felt it added a traditional detail, but it can be eliminated, and can use the connection of the vertical windows to create height. Kennedy noted that a smaller/thinner band can achieve the same result. Sides stated that the rear bay doors give the façade a nice proportion and suggested that be carried over to the North Street façade and made translucent, to show a resemblance to the use and eliminate the square windows as a way to domesticate the building. Atty. Correnti stated that three new street trees will add height to the front façade. North Street is a main corridor, and the ordinance requires an entrance on that façade, but it can be much less noticeable than the tower. Sides suggested placing signage over the bay doors or the rear entrance on the rear of the building. Chair Durand asked if an elevator would be constructed. Stockless replied no, elevators are incorporated depending upon the type of office use. Miller asked if there is an accessible entrance and how many ambulances fit into the building. Stockless replied the accessible entrance is at the rear and four ambulances will comfortably but it can accommodate up to six. He reiterated that many ambulances will be around the city and not at this building. Chair Durand asked how they handle emergency calls. Atty. Correnti replied that 70% of this use is non-emergency but there will likely be an emergency response needed from this facility. They are not proposing a traffic light at this intersection, but they may use emergency lights to make a left turn and if a traffic light was installed, they would have the ability to control it. Perras suggested they push back the bay so it is not on the same plane, liked the use of banding as a reveal and suggested they incorporate the North Street elevation where the bridge is coming down to meet the road and at which point people will be able to see into the upper windows. Miller suggested that if the bay windows were brought to the North Street elevation, could they be similar but not reach the ground, so they aren’t so literal. Sides agreed. Sides and Chair Durand agreed that the second entrance can be less grand and asked if a variance would be required to eliminate the front entrance. The Board agreed that access through an ambulance bay is not allowed. Chair Durand asked about the finish on the metal siding. Stockless replied anodized. Miller liked the façade materials and suggested the plank be textured to add life to the façade. Chair Durand asked how the plank corners will be addressed. Stockless replied that angled reveal will be located at the corners. Chair Durand opens public comment. Anne Sterling, 29 Orchard Street. Carole Hamilton of the PB suggested a green roof or solar panels. Todd Waller suggested putting AC towards the rear of the roof. She requests a shadow study since the building looms over the pedestrian path along North Street. Emily Udy, 8 Buffum Street & HSI. Appreciated the Board comments, the context of building is the North Street entrance corridor so it is in the foreground to the downtown and should be linked to the area. The fire station further up North should be considered as a building type to use for context. The ordinance requires a door on the main entrance, but they also do not want the North Street façade to feel like the back of the building. Regarding materials, brick, stone, and wood are encouraged but prefab materials are discouraged. If those discouraged materials are being used the applicant should explain why they are necessary in lieu of the preferred materials. She agreed that some materials lack life and texture, but they want to see examples of them not through the rendering. Victoria Ricadello, 5 Foster Street. The elevation slopes toward Franklin Street which floods, so what will be done to contain water runoff. Griffin replied that catch basins in the parking lot will pipe runoff to the North River to meet DEP guidelines but the water on the street will run into the drain as usual. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Atty. Correnti clarified that they will modify the front entrance and tower design, modify the window design along to duplicate the look of the entrance bays, but the landscaping will remain. Sides added that reviewing the tower design will determine if it needs to be as tall as it is currently proposed. Chair Durand asked how vehicular exhaust will be handled. Stockless replied that it is still in design, but a mechanical system will be in place to exhaust from the sidewalls not the façade facing North Street. They are currently proposing that the system be at grade and concealed with the same façade material or perhaps hung from the roof. Miller requested that snow storage be located on the revised site plan. Sides noted that adding solar panels to the roof would be a valuable exploration for the applicant. Sides: Motion to continue to the May 26, 2021 meeting. Seconded by: Miller. Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Chair Durand were all in favor. Passes 6-0. New / Old Business Approval of Meeting Minutes a. March 24, 2021 Sides: Motion to approve with Miller’s edits. Seconded by: Miller. Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Chair Durand were all in favor. Passes 6-0. b. March 31, 2021 Sides: Motion to approve. Seconded by: Perras. Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Chair Durand were all in favor. Passes 6-0. Staff Updates: Newhall-Smith stated that a joint meeting of the SRA and City Council and the Council’s Committee on Economic Development on Wednesday, May 5, 2021, to introduce the Council to the Winn Development team. Winn will make a presentation on where they are with the redevelopment of the courthouses and crescent lot and to kick-off their public meeting process. Winn will submit conceptual design plans to the SRA in June and will come to the DRB for schematic design review. Adjournment Sides: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Perras. Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Chair Durand were all in favor. 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 2-203