Loading...
2007-04-05 Design Review Board April 5, 2007 Design Review Board Meeting Minutes April 5, 2007 Meeting: Date: Present: Absent: Recorder: Design Review Board April 5, 2007 Colleen Bruce (Chair), William Finch, Larry Jaquith, Kate Newhall None Kate Newhall The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. 1. Fibber McGee's Bar & Grill- David Smith/l04 Cabot Street/Si2n Mr. Smith, the new owner of the business at 104 Cabot Street, approached the Board with a proposal for two new signs: one wall sign on the secondary fa9ade and one hanging sign off of the front fa9ade to be composed of MDO plywood. He indicates that the two proposed signs are of the same size as the pre-existing ones. The signs will both have a black background and say, "Fibber McGee's Bar & Grill." The wall sign will have a logo of a man leaning against a light post. Finch asks about the lettering and colors. Smith states that the letters will be gold with green borders. Smith also indicates that he has permission from the property owner to repaint all of the woodwork on the building to match the new signs. Smith indicates that he will use the existing lighting for the hanging sign and that he may install indirect lighting for the secondary fa9ade wall sign. Bruce asks about the banner sign currently on the building. Smith indicates that it will not be permanent. He will hang a temporary banner sign that states, "One week until Fibber's," which will be taken down when the new business officially opens. Newhall informs Smith of zoning regulations for temporary signs. Jaquith moves to accept as presented, seconded by Finch. Motion carried 4-0. 2. DeJaVu - Melanie Bettencourt/401 Brou2hton Drive/Si2n Ms. Bettencourt approached the Board with a proposed wall sign to be composed of vinyl over plastic. The sign will read, "DeJaVu," in white letters with a green background and blue scrollwork and flowers. The applicant will use the existing indirect lighting to illuminate the sign. Finch asks where the current sign is on the building. Bettencourt states that the current sign is located in the same place she plans on hanging the new sign. This way she can use the existing lighting fixture. She also states that all of the signs within the building are hung in the same manner. Bruce moves to accept the sign as presented, seconded by Finch. Motion carried 4-0. 3. Country Curtains - Ed Juralewicz/50 Dod2e Street/Si2n Mr. Juralewicz of United Sign, Co, approached the Board with a sign to be made of western red cedar wood, painted ivory, that would read, "Country Curtains" in brown letters. The sign also includes a logo of a pewter pitcher holding white daisies. Jaquith asks if the proposed sign in the same size as the current one. Juralewicz states that it is. Finch asks if the sign will be hung in the same place. Juralewicz states that it will be. Finch asks if lighting structure currently exists. Juralewicz states that it does currently exist. Finch moves to accept the sign as presented, seconded by Jaquith. Motion carried 4-0. 4. Sprint - John Farrell/34 Cabot Street/Si2n Mr. Farrell approached the Board with a new sign proposal for his Sprint business. The new sign is to be hung in the current location and made of lexan. The sign will have a white background with black letters reading, "Sprint" and a yellow Sprint logo. Finch asks ifDRB had an agreement to do channel lettering rather than the flat lexan panel. Newhall provides September 2006 Sprint DRB filing, which shows DRB approval for a channel letter sign. Bruce reviews the September 2006 DRB approval: the word Sprint will be white and the Sprint logo will be yellow. This approval showed channel letters. Farrell states that he is unaware of the channel letter sign approval. Finch states that current proposal and current sign are both in violation. Farrell asks the Board ifhe has to do the sign with channel letters to get approval. Bruce states that the current proposal is not acceptable; the only acceptable sign for that location involves channel letters and must follow the approval granted in September 2006. Bruce states that she doesn't want any sign on roof. If there has to be one, then it has to be the channel letters that were approved by the Board in September. Farrell states that the current sign has been in the location for 9 years. To do channel letters requires tearing down the sign frame. Farrell states that he is unaware of the history of this issue and the DRB. Bruce states that there are many issues with this building. Farrell states that the window signs have been taken down and that there are channel letters at the Saugus store. Farrell asks about the structure to hold the channel letters. He thinks the channel letters will open up more pipes, bars, etc. that negatively impact the look of the building. Bruce states that this is a gateway location and imperative that the sign looks good; she feels that the only sign that can help the building is one with channel letters. Finch makes a motion to underscore previous proposal (September 2006) and not approve the proposed change based on fact that there is a previously approved sign that Board felt was, and still is, acceptable. Bruce seconds. Motion carried 4-0. 5. 10-12 Con2ress Street - Thomas Alexander. Attnv./Site Plan Review Alexander states that they are here for a minor modification. The driveway on the eastern side of the property has been widened to 24 feet. This modification was made due to the City Engineer's comments, which stated that the opening of driveway must be widened to 24 feet according to code. Tucker, who represents Siemasko and Verbridge architectural firm, shows the Board the modifications on the plans, "Permit Site Plan of Land," drawn by Meridian Associates, dated 3/23/2007, sheet 4 of7. Jaquith asks about the shift of the building. He states that it looks fine. Bruce talks about engineering pipes and the CDM peer review. She asks if the plan been sent back to the City Engineer for approval since the peer review. Bruce wonders if the project will be further modified or if all of the modifications are complete. Alexander states that they still have to go through Chapter 91 and modifications may need to make once that process is completed. Jaquith states his appreciation of the group coming back to Board to describe the modifications made since the last DRB meeting. Finch makes a motion for the approval of the presented modifications, Jaquith seconds. The motion carried 4-0. 6. 48 Federal Street - Tom Alexander. Attnv./Site Plan Review Modifications Alexander represents Atlas Mortgage Corp., the company who owns the property. Atlas foreclosed on the property and inherited the problems on the project. Since the initial site plan review process, the special permit has been revoked and the previous owner was unable to complete the project. There have been problems with Linda Giallongo, an abutting property owner regarding a retaining wall along the southern border. The previous builder did not complete the project as approved by DRB and Planning Board. Currently, the project is largely built, but needs modifications to the prior approvals. Many of the modifications sought are for aesthetic purposes. Alexander respectfully requests hearing the modifications knowing that the mortgage company has inherited the project and has to make the situation right. Griffin, of Griffin Engineering Group, LLC, explains site plan. It has the same size building and the same sidewalks; the basic traffic pattern in the parking area is almost the same. The plans weren't completely engineered in 2001; now that construction has proceeded, the engineering needs to be adjusted and completed. National Grid has advised the applicant on where to locate the transformer and switchgear and the landscaping and fences around the structures. National Grid approves of these modifications. Drainage was not considered in 2001. Griffin added drains adjacent to foundation to collect dripping. The grading of the fire lane has been corrected for fire trucks. There is an added floor drain in the first floor parking area and gas trap (required by code). An enclosed area for rolling dumpsters has been added. Cable and telephone service are now shown on the plans. There has been a change made to the foundation of building: there used to be pillars on southern side and now a concrete wall keeps noise in garage. As a result of this modification two parking spaces had to be relocated outside of the structure. Bruce asks for details on the transformers. Griffin states that it is a gray painted box that sits 3-4 feet tall. All of the wires are underground. Finch asks if there is an option to relocate the transformer to southern end of the property. Griffin states that locations are limited due to access for National Grid. Jaquith asks about the abutting garage property. Is it residential? Griffin states that it is for a car and no one lives in it. Jaquith has concerns regarding the power station area near a residential area and potential vibrations. Griffin states he has not noticed vibrations on ground. Bruce asks about parking in front of dumpsters. Griffin states that there is enough room for a trash truck to empty the dumpsters because they are on wheels. Finch asks about two spaces on south side and maneuverability. Griffin states that they are manageable. Newhall asks about handicapped space and possibly moving it closer to the residential building. She suggests contacting the City ADA Coordinator to determine how many accessible spots are required for the residential building and the commercial buildings. Finch asks how many spaces are dedicated per unit. Griffin states that it is one per unit (as per zoning ordinance). Outside spaces are for visitors or users of the commercial buildings on the site. Finch does not think the two outside spaces for the residential building are maneuverable. Tucker, representing Siemasko and Verbridge architecture firm, states that the Rantoul Street door will have an automatic door for accessibility. Jaquith states it will be preferable to move the accessible space closer to building. Griffin states that there is no guaranteed visitor parking. The parking lot is shared. Griffin states that by zoning, the open-air parking lot requires 13 spaces. Alexander states that parking in this zone is done by square footage for the commercial units. Alexander states that currently the other building on the lot is vacant, but it is commercially zoned. Jaquith recommends discussion with the ADA Coordinator about accessible spaces. The applicant may be required to have an accessible space on the first floor parking of the residential building. However, based on the current configuration there may not be enough room for the required number of accessible spaces by code. Griffin will look at the situation and try to remedy as necessary. Alexander asks how many square feet of space is for office use on the site. Griffin states about 1400 sf of office space. Current zoning states there must be 1 space per 250 sf. Bruce asks about the width of garage door. Griffin states that due to the relatively small number of spaces there will be minimal usage of the garage door. Typically there will only be one car coming and going at a time so it is not necessary to make it 24 feet wide. Alexander states that this is modification of a site plan and the applicant is not looking for new site plan review. Newhall asks about maintenance of grounds. Griffin replies that the homeowners association will hire landscaping team. Newhall asks about wall between buildings. Griffin states that it is a zoning requirement. Tucker reviews the proposed modified elevations and other modifications: . The round roof is now a gable roof. . HV AC now is consolidated with the whole building. . The green shingles will be added as accents on the tower elements. . Federal Street end element has been changed with new accessible ramp and window unit. . Garage vents are now vinyl lattice. . Only two colors on the building rather than three. Newhall asks about the concrete along the first floor and covering it up with shrubbery. Tucker states that there aren't many plants that can grow in such a narrow strip. Bruce asks about garage door and the width being less than 24 feet. Griffin states that as presented, the size is preferable, and wide enough to allow access to garage. Bruce asks if there is anything to do make the Rantoul Street entrance more visually pleasing. Griffin states that he can put roof over door. Alexander states the applicant is trying to make an unsightly project better. Bruce asks about the vinyl lattice. Tucker states that it is lattice to allow garage fumes to escape. Finch asks to bring the green shingles down to street level at tower element to cover up part of the concrete first floor fa9ade. Tucker states that this can be done. Finch states that anything to make the Rantoul Street entrance better will help since it is the primary entrance. Tucker states that adding another opening at that entrance is not feasible since it is already built. Bruce asks if garage door can be changed. Griffin states that it hasn't been bought yet, so the door face can be changed. Jaquith states that it should complement the current fa9ade. Jaquith asks if space 13 in the first floor parking garage can be modified to be an accessible space. Newhall asks about adding an element to break up the beige siding. Tucker states that since the building is "stepping" he does not want to call attention to the beige, want it to fade away and to focus on the green tower element. Bruce asks about adding landscaping along northern end of the outside parking. Griffin will look into it. Finch states that there are conical evergreen type plants that can cover some of the concrete along the left side of the main entrance. Griffin states that the plants are the same as approved in 2001. Drapkin, of Atlas Mortgage Corp., states that there are many ways to cover the concrete: use painted flagstones. Can paste on bricks or stones over the concrete. Can stucco it. Finch would like to see continuity between the three tall plants by adding various size shrubs. Tucker said that he would look into adding some additional shrubbery. Bruce asks about the rhododendron along Federal Street and its potential to overgrow onto the sidewalk. Tucker said that they would use dwarf varieties that will not overlap onto the sidewalk. Chase, of Atlas Mortgage Corp., states that they don't want to modify the National Grid transformer area. Bruce asks about placement of landscaping around east side of building near fire lane. Jaquith asks about the grass around the transformers. Tucker states it is there to provide easy access for National Grid. Griffin says it should be grass around the area so the workers can't trample plantings and also have a safe place to stand and work while using the transformers. Jaquith asks about the plantings and if they are new or original. Tucker states that they are the original ones approved in 2001. However, the original plans had a lot of plantings around the fire lane. Those have been removed as per code. Griffin states that the P&T meeting is set for April 20th to go through parking elements and get feedback from the City Engineer. Bruce asks about the curbing on Rantoul Street. Will the curb be replaced along Rantoul Street to reduce the access to the site to 24 feet? The curb will also serve to protect the parking spaces at the front of the lot. Griffin states that the curb was not due to be replaced. It's only a few feet, but will be happy to do that. Bruce is concerned that there is one large driveway and curbing will help define the entrance. Finch agrees that the curbing will properly define the entrance to the lot. Finch wants a regular sized entrance. Bruce states that the curb should go to the end of the space adjacent to the sidewalk. Tucker and Griffin state that entrance to lot is 24 feet. Jaquith says that having a wide opening could exacerbate the traffic hazards on that section of Rantoul Street, an area where traffic hazards are already an issue. Alexander states that the applicant can put concrete curbing along the sidewalk to demarcate the first parking space near Rantoul Street from the sidewalk. Tucker states that if you can get 3 extra feet, then can possibly get a hedge to separate the sidewalk from the parking lot. Griffin does not want to promise this due to unsure the parking situation. A curb line could be accommodated. A tree would be as good a solution from the City. Bruce asks for iron fence instead. Alexander states it would be hard to maintain due to sidewalk plows and cars. Griffin and Alexander state that granite curbing would be the best solution. Bruce asks about the lighting scheme. Griffin states that there is no lighting plan, no security lights. There may be need for a light near the door to the parking garage. Bruce states that lighting is a security issue. Chase states that there will be lighting, as a practical issue. Bruce asks about lighting along eastern area, where the fire lane is. Tucker says there is no lighting planned for that area. Bruce asks if lighting goes in, the applicant must be cognizant of the neighbors. Griffin states that security lighting can be placed in small area where there are two parking spots. Jaquith asks about lights at patio doors along the east side of the building. Griffin said that there is a small landing outside of each patio door. Some have steps due to grading issues. Bruce says steps and patios need lighting. Griffin states that they will have sconces. Bruce asks about privacy issues along the landing. Finch states that since it is a fire lane you can't put up any privacy structures. Griffin reiterates this point. Bruce asks about air conditioning units. Griffin states that they are individual split systems for the units. Bruce asks if there will be a noise issue. Drapkin states that there may be. Alexander states that since the neighborhood is higher, units on the roof would have more impact than the proposed placement of the units. Alexander states that the applicants will modify the plans according to suggestions and will visit the DRB at the May 3rd meeting to discuss the modifications. Newhall will type up recommendations and forward to DRB members prior to weekend before emailing to Tom Alexander. RECOMMENDA nONS: . Discussion with city's ADA coordinator prior to P&T meeting. (Alexander states the need to look at the Schedule of Uses to determine if the applicant can gain extra spot to be used as handicap accessible). . The accessible space should be moved closer to building. . Applicant should explore the feasibility of parking space # 13 in the residential building to be used as a handicap accessible space. . Rantoul and Federal Streets doors should be ADA compliant, 32-inch wide, push button doors. . Bring green shingles down to ground level on tower element facing Rantoul Street. . Revisit the types and shapes ofplantings along Federal Street in and around the transformer and peastone strip on upper west portion of building. . Replace curbing at driveway entrance off of Rantoul Street so that the entrance to the lot from Rantoul Street will only be 24 feet wide. Ensure that there is a clearly defined sidewalk and driveway. . Location and feasibility of a street tree to be planted along the sidewalk on Rantoul Street. Applicant to discuss with City Arborist, Phil Klimowitz. . Install lighting over Rantoul Street door, move the existing light over the garage door to the pedestrian door. Lighting should be installed at individual patio doors along the fire lane. The applicant must come back to the DRB, prior to installation, should he decide to install additional lighting. . Use compatible architectural elements for both the entrance door and garage door to improve the type and style of the Rantoul Street entrance to read more as an entryway to the building. . Review accessibility of two exterior parking spaces on the south end of the building. The Board feels there would be access issues with the current layout of these two spaces. . Applicants should come back to DRB should any further modifications be suggested at subsequent meetings of other City Boards and Commissions. 7. Approval of Minutes Board members make necessary edits. Finch makes motion to approve with edits, seconded by Bruce. Motion carried 4-0. 8. Si2n Enforcement: Jaquith states that the Sports Connection, the old Press Box, sign is illegal. Newhall updates Board members on non-conforming signs. Beer signs continue to be an issue. 1. Other Business: Bruce notes that the DRB was not allowed to comment on the Taller Building Design Guidelines. Will there be an opportunity to do so? Finch states that contract with consultant who worked on the guidelines is up. He asks about the protocol for making amendments to those guidelines. Jaquith states that Krieger, the consultant, was brought in to revise the old downtown design guidelines to include tall buildings. Finch states that the issue was not just tall buildings, but to include all new construction, in addition to the rehabbed buildings that the old guidelines predominantly addressed. Jaquith states that there were two sessions to the public discussing the design elements necessary for urban cores. One of the sessions focused specifically on tall buildings. Finch's understanding is that the new guidelines do not speak to a revision of the old downtown design guidelines. Bruce states that design guidelines have been approved for the tall buildings. Bruce wants to be a part of the tall building design guidelines process. She feels that Tina Cassidy should have brought a final draft of them to DRB to solicit input. Bruce would like hard copies of guidelines, since the DRB is the group that will be implementing them. Finch questions abilities of Planning Department to accept design guidelines without going through City Council approvals. Who has the power and authority to make them official guidelines? Newhall will ask Cassidy/Zambernardi about the design guideline creation and approval processes. 10. Adiournment Finch makes a motion to adjourn the meeting, Jaquith seconds. Motion carried 4-0. Meeting adjourns at 9:40pm.