Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-27-DAC-min.pdf Minutes of Lexington Design Advisory Committee Meeting Interview with Three Candidates for Lexington Center Design Consultant Position September 27 1988 Members present. J.Frey (chair) N Bogen,J Eddison (Selectman) E. Whitman.R. Bradley E. Adler D Olson R. Ossman, W Pierce,A.Huang,T Coffman. Also present were John Vinton, associate member of the DAC and M.Battin and other members of the Lexington Center Committee IPurvose of Meeting To hear presentations by the following three design consultants for the purpose of making a recommendation of selection to the Selectmen Amsler Hagenah MacLean City Design Collaborative David Dixon &Associates with Peter Johnson Amsler Hagenah, MacLean Presentation Presenters Charles Hagenah and John for Carol Johnston Objective Balance between architecture and landscaping (would use Carol Johnston for plant types and specifics) Background Small firm. 10 - 12 people Work at high principal level rather than delegating responsibility Experience Projects involving: - architecture - signage (information as well as looks) - public items (benches receptacles, etc.) - retail businesses (intererior and exterior images) - lighting systems, parking, paving styles, etc. How they work Stress importance of working closely with town. Have experience in working with the LCC and other groups in town already having worked on a number of other projects, including the Lexington Center Building and the Lawless Motors site on IVlarrettRoad. Use idea concept approach. think about the community how people want to use it. Need feedback from people to help develop standards. Need to respond to global areas(building elevation levels, total look as well as details) Consider scale and nature of materials that blend with desired look and needs of community Identity of town can be affected by choice of trees and paving not only now but in 10 to 20 years, Positives in Many special elements that characterize Lexington are scattered around and may not be Lexington quickly discernable• showed photos of steeples seen above rooftops. signs, awnings. flowers, lines of windows. sidewalk cafe tables,etc Minutes of DAC Meeting of September 27 1988 Needs Better treatment of some tree and window lines Backs of buildings (need to try to instill some excitement in building owners to make side and rear exteriors more pleasing) Treatment of windows Size and extension of signs Inconsistent treatment of brick Divisions between residential and commercial areas Defining parking areas with plantings and boundaries Questions 25K OK? Yes. Need to realize that outlying areas won t be attacked with same intensity as Center Normally a center would be 25K, but standards for Center can be applied to outskirts in this case (Jack interjected that all the outlying areas aren't equal for the purposes of this study East Lexington and Countryside are the two outlying areas that have been earmarked as needing special consideration that must be addressed as part of this study Charlie Hagenah responded that it would be easy to show a photo of an area such as Countryside depicting 8U feet of extended open area along with an overlay of planting suggestions. He could also show photos of current building fronts with overlays showing improvements in signage flowers, etc. ) Product? Looseleaf binder Pages of photos showing current elements and suggested improvements, Detail elements with specs on items such as benches, receptacles. etc Why use term Hagenah uses the terms standards and guidelines interchangeably 'You don t want to standards'? control items such as sign sizes and materials, but leave room for individual creativity Lighting? Choose color and warmth consistent with town and needs. Preference is incandescent color Some fluorescents now reflect as an incandescent. ICit9 Design Presentation Presenters Randy Jones, principal Steve Heiken, collaborative principal ' Background 25 people - architects, landscape architects,planners, designers Worked on Minuteman Bikeway project and projects in Lowell, N Andover Medford. Boston, etc Minutes of DAC Meeting of September 27 1988 2 How they Two phases, about 2 months for each phase,working toward a plan that would focus on would work both public and private areas: Phase I -- Urban Design Concent Plan Task A - Inventory and analysis -vehicular patterns and routes - connections between parking. pedestrian and commercial areas - trends in building heights as new buildings are proposed B - Opportunities/Constraints C - Urban design Concept Plan - identifies issues and problems on boards, including drawings and comments, focusing on issues such as: - receptacles, lighting, benches, concrete barriers - changes in pavement surfaces D - Public presentation - to get community reaction Phase iI -- Design Guidelines Task E - Guidelines for Public Improvement F - Guidelines for Private Development G - Guidelines for Urban Design Concept Plan -would include funding recommendations. H - Public presentation Would be similar to a plan they did for Winthrop Product A looseleaf binder including - general concept - details - funding recommendations(we shouldn t write off the ability to get state funds to help pay for some of these projects; e.g. state may agree to fund off-street parking with town matching) Focus Lexington Center but would also LOOK AT outlying areas,generalizing standards for Center Sees Lexington image as "colonial" Negatives: some slavish imitations Positives: some nice reinterpretations Questions How include Concentrate on Center Apply guidelines to other areas.which are more commercial-- outlying areas? convenience areas designed to pull in auto traffic. What type of Looseleaf binder so revisions and additions can be included, Concentrate on architectural book is right elements: storefronts, etc for us? Would details Yes. Written and pictorial elements would be shown in the report. Randy commented that be included as he feels our study isn't asking for specifics, such as paving materials, lights, etc, well as general? Minutes of DAC Meeting of September 27 1988 3 Experience in Yes- storefront renovations,street and road signs in Lawrence signage? Lighting? Not philosophically predisposed one way or other Consider task and needs. That s why a plan needs to be developed. How share Announce meetings in paper with public? I David Dixon et al presentation David Dixon coordinator Background - Urban design firm - 5 architects in firms, Team of consultants, coordinated by Dixon,would work on this project. - Have provided design guidelines for a number of communities,including- --- Dorchester Mass Ave in Cambridge, Salem,Kenmore Square - No fixed design philosophy but do believe in guidelines. How they d Have developed an approach to developing guidelines. work Need to understand resources, evaluate use,analyze physical characteristics, get a sense of the history and future aspirations, and interview people commercial, residential, town officials Establish a vision appropriate to needs that provides a focus for public life Because each public area needs its own vision, an interdisciplinary team is needed. Dixon has put together the following team for this project: David Dixon, planner and coordinator David Spillane architect Peter Johnson,works with merchants on signs,facades Craig Halverson,landscape architect Must not risk developing specific designs too early in the process. Three basic elements to approach for both business and residential. 1 Must be embedded in the vision, with broad public input. Business community must be included and have a sense of vision 2. Don t overguideline, stifling individual creativity 3 A design review armed with vision is invaluable Nice elements - Scale of buildings - Center is contained in Lexington -Diversity - Balance between past and present - Liveliness - Plantings Areas to Raggedness of peripheral areas resolve Parking areas Public spaces that don t live up to potential. Outlying areas More intimate Have own problems Concentrate on auto use Minutes of DAC Meeting of September 27 1988 4 David Spillane Impressions Special spaces: monuments and memorials that speak to Lexington s history• these change the least. Ordinary elements: parking lots, parks, streets; these represent the commercial vitality Vision must allow the most historic and every day to function together This is a remarkable opportunity to encourage a blending of historic resources and buildings, facades and other spaces. No big, basic problems in Lexington Center The Town has demonstrated progressive planning and tried to anticipate problems. Approaches - Develop consistency to public spaces over time - Paving - Overspill of commercial areas to what was once residential. - Encourage franchise stores that move in to make their facades more compatible with rest of buildings. - Think about parking areas for tourist vehicles. - Emory Park has lost its potential and direction as a significant public space - Minimize disparity between fronts and backs of commerical buildings. - In the commercial outlying areas, conduct site planning that would mediate parking areas and make the lots better neighbors, Peter Johnson Impressions Merchants have between 5 and 10 seconds (at Faneuil Hall -- a few more in Lexington) to convey what they have to sell and invite people in. Lexington serves the community' - Many owners live in town - Merchants have standard rather than innovative merchandise - Many amenities are OK So what s the problem, particularly when compared to other communities? Need to consider potential changes before they happen - Chain stores- how to get them to conform to standards? - Tourists- how do they affect merchandising? 6 Basic Rules 1 Decide what should always stay the same and what should always change 2. Say who you are and what you want to be (and what you re not) 3. Build on what you ve got. (There are lots of opportunities in Lexington ) 4. Consider design and perspective (People perceive in perspective Think about how the piers block the store fronts of the Giroux building when standing at the corner so you have no idea of what stores reside there ) 5. Watch the edges (corner material on buildings suffer the most damage, yet are the most visible 6. Convey information as clearly and quickly as possible and in the way that people perceive it, For example with signs. people can perceive only so much at each distance and level. Minutes of DAC Meeting of September 27 1988 5 Basic Where have we been? questions Where do we want to be? What are concerns of merchants association? Crai¢ Halverson Concerns Materials Create heirarchy between neighborhoods Blend gas stations into area Horticultural implications: Can a tree grow where its planted? What type is best? Questions 25Y.OK? Yes Specific Yes. Would provide information recommending things such as benches,lighting, etc. details? including related issues and prices. There would also be a written statement of issues, goals, and priorities Vision In Lexington Center yes. Need to create a vision of how outlying commercial areas can already in become part of their neighborhoods pride,through better signage, plantings, etc place? How coordinate Meet periodically as team to review issues and jointly alter recommendations. Team team? approach will allow opportunity to think out ideas.together Worked to- Dixon has worked before with some This particular team has never all worked together gether before? before Where live? Hanover Cambridge, South Boston Lighting? Consider safety vs. ambiance lighting. Design spacing and light types to produce sufficient lighting for needs. Minutes of DAC Meeting of September 27 1988 6 IFollow-up after presenters left E.Lexington Myla Kabat-Zinn apprised us of meeting last night between East Lexington Neighborhood Report Association and East Lexington merchants. Good turn-out of merchants. Many merchants voiced feelings of being burned and neglected by the Planning Board. Many are aware of how much of an eyesore their properties are and want to make improvements, but are concerned about pricing merchants out. They have negative feelings about escalation of rent in Lexington Center Building prohibiting some tenants from returning to their old sites, and they don t want the same to happen in their buildings. They also have concerns about houses interspersed with commercial buildings on Mass Ave in E. Lexington. Because they re zoned residential,yet no one wants to buy them, they foresee the continued deterioration of these buildings, contributing to the overall appearance of the area, Myla felt that, in spite of the owners anger they feel positively about Lexington and might be encouraged to beautify their buildings if provided with some incentives. Discussion on In sharing impressions of the three presenters, it became clear that many DAC members Design had reached a conclusion as to whom they would vote on to recommend to the Selectmen Proposals John suggested that we take a straw vote,the result of which was unanimously in favor of David Dixon. Ensuing discussion revealed that most members had quickly eliminated City Design as a contender Almost all members also felt badly that they couldn't recommend Charles Hagenah for this particular project, because they feel he knows the town and many committee members well and is good to work with. In spite of this,everyone was so impressed with the presentation and ideas provided by David Dixon and his team members. that they deserved the opportunity to complete the project. As a result of this concensus, in combination with the fact that a number of DAC members would not be able to be present at the scheduled voting meeting on Wednesday September 28th, it was decided that we could take a formal vote and cancel the Wednesday meeting Formal vote A formal vote yielded a unanimous decision to recommend to the Selectmen that the Town hire David Dixon and Associates with Peter Johnson to complete the Lexington Design Guidelines. John Frey will request that our Secretary Betsy Whitman, send a formal recommendation to the Selectmen. Minutes of DAC Meeting of September 27 1988 7 How to start Many DAC members suggested that we meet to develop a set of guidelines to share with the consultants at the outset of the project. Efficiency would be increased if we spelled out important issues and areas where feelings about direction already exist. For example 1 Make sure the consultant has a copy of the Lexington Center Design Study written up by Norma Bogen a couple of years ago Much important information has already been gathered and reported on in this booklet and will save the consultant from duplicating these efforts. 2. Spell out exactly what outlying areas should be addressed in the study and what kind of information might be helpful regarding these areas. 3. Establish a schedule for communication of ideas and information Would the consultants like to meet with only the DAC chairperson? With a core group? With the entire membership? Should an LCC representative be part of the process? 4. Are there reasonable,workable recommendations that can be made regarding the parking of tourist buses around the Green? Can the recommendations include that motors cannot idle and must be turned off while the buses are parked? 5. Spell out the level of detail we re looking for with regard to recommendations for items such as benches, receptacles,etc. Do we want pictures and prices? An array to choose from? The one right choice? 6. Spell out committee members feelings about certain lighting types, Should the guidelines reflect these feelings? 7 Can recommendations include guidelines about allowing placement of newspaper(and other)vending machines in the Center? 7 Will the end product be a book showing specific guidelines that can be used by various Town departments involved in purchasing? 8 Request that the book be in looseleaf form so copies can be made for various committees and Town departments? Next meeting Tuesday October 11 1988, 8:00 PM,Room 111 Respectfully submitted, Elaine Adler Minutes of DAC Meeting of September 27 1988 8