CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Wednesday, June 25, 2008
LOCATION: 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, Glenn
Kennedy, Helen Sides
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Blier
OTHERS PRESENT: Kirsten Kinzer, CDBG Planner
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
1. 139 Washington Street (Treasures Over Time): Discussion of proposed signage
Aaron Margolis of Gienapp Design states that there will be a sunscreen film on every window and logo on every other window. He shows the sign stating that it is 3-feet wide by 3.5-feet tall. He adds that they will replace the existing bracket with a new one.
The members review the design for the sign, logo, and bracket, and the color chips for the sign.
Durand states that the sign is very tasteful and unique, and the colors are very nice. He adds that the word “Treasures” pushes the boundary and if slightly reduced, readability would be enhanced.
Jaquith agrees with Durand about compressing the word “Treasures”.
Sides states that the sign reads better when represented in black and white and when the color is introduced, the sign looks crowded.
Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval subject to compressing the word “Treasures” slightly, seconded by Sides. Passes 3-0.
2. 186 Essex Street, #3 (Witch City Ink): Discussion of proposed signage
Joe DiRuzza from Saugus Sign-a-Rama displays the material for the sign and the color chips and states that there will be window lettering on one window and to the left of the door (white lettering with a black outline). He adds that the sign band is about 18-inches tall and the sign will be 16-inches.
Durand asks if there are other signs there.
Much discussion ensues about the surrounding businesses and the signage.
Jaquith states that he has no problem with the sign, but he wishes to make sure there is adequate clearance on the sign band.
Sides states that she would love to see the context for this sign.
Kinzer suggests conditioning the approval.
Durand and Jaquith favor conditioning the approval.
Durand states that it should be one foot wider to allow more field on the each side of the lettering, and a one-inch white border within the edge of the sign board. He expresses concern with the lettering.
DiRuzza shows the original design with all of the text on one window and the members agree that the original design is preferred.
The members agree that the phone number on the window is too large, and something should be on the door to signify entry.
Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval with the following conditions:
· That the sign be one foot wider;
· That the sign height be consistent with signs on the adjacent awnings;
· That a 1 inch wide white boarder be added to the sign
· That the text of the window decal be consolidated to one window, as shown in the original design;
· That the 20% limit on window coverage be waived
Seconded by Sides. Passes 3-0.
Kennedy and DeMaio arrive.
3. 203 Essex Street (Lizzie Borden Museum): Discussion of proposed signage
Durand recuses himself from this item.
Keith Linares for Danvers Sign-a-Rama states that the blade sign would be 2-feet by 3-feet and is positioned to avoid a tree. The window graphic will be sized to 20% of the window.
DeMaio says that he is in favor of moving the sign toward the corner of the building near the entrance. He states that the height is low in relation to the window and the other signs on that street. He adds that the shape may be inappropriate for the number of words and the type of lettering.
Kennedy states that he likes the context of the fonts and the shape. He agrees with moving it toward the corner. As for the height, he states that the bottom of the sign could be at the middle of the opening. He adds that the bracket fits the sign more than the building.
Jaquith states that the scrollwork at the bottom could move down slightly, but he has no problem with the overall design.
Kennedy reviews the recommendations, which are:
· Location be off of the window toward the corner, closer to the column
· The height of the sign should be set by centering the oval on the top of the storefront windows
· Pending visual inspection of the bracket by Kennedy
Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval with the following conditions:
· That the sign be located over the building entrance, positioned to the left of center to avoid the tree;
· That the height of the blade sign be set by centering the oval with the top of the windows, to the extent possible while providing 8 feet of clearance to the bottom of the sign;
· That Kennedy approves the proposed alternative bracket
Seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
4. Banners at Artists’ Row: Discussion of proposed signage
Gary LaParl with the Salem Arts Association states that they would like to place banners on the lampposts along the Artists’ Row. He adds that the banners would be 2-feet wide and 4-feet tall, and will have an apostrophe after Artists.
Sides states that when adding the apostrophe he should keep it on the red ground.
The members discuss the height of the banner. They are concerned because the banners will not meet the clearance requirement of 8 feet.
Kinzer states that the height violates the SRA regulation for the 8-foot clearance, so they would need to recommend a waiver of this requirement.
Durand expresses concerns about accessibility if it is possible to walk into the banners.
LaParl states that the brackets would have to be purchased. He adds that there are seven lampposts.
Sides states that these banners seem really low and vulnerable to vandalism.
DeMaio says that he likes the concept of having the banners but they would compete with the other signs. He adds that they are too much like the signs that are there and perhaps the design could be changed. He states that he would not be opposed to a narrower design with vertical lettering.
Sides suggests that they may need to use fewer signs.
The members agree with DeMaio’s suggestion for a narrower banner.
DeMaio suggest centering the banner on the post and Durand agrees.
LaParl states that they are double sided and that would increase the total expense.
Much discussion ensues about possible designs.
The members agree to walk the space and continue this item until the next meeting.
LaParl recaps the thoughts from the board, which include:
· One size does not fit all
· Banners should not blend in with the individual blade signs
· Clearance is critical
· Perhaps the banners should be narrower
· Vertical lettering might be acceptable in this case
5. 155-189 Washington Street (Old Salem News Building): Discussion of proposed temporary fence
Matthew Picarsic with RCG states that there was a request to present a design for a temporary fence. He says that the six-foot fence will be constructed of cedar board and will be erected by the end of July. He adds that the sidewalk is currently blocked off. He requests that the approval include flexibility in the fence location because it may shift based on the progress of construction.
Jaquith: Motion to recommend approval of the temporary fence design with flexibility in location, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.
6. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Discussion of proposed phase on site plan
Penn Lindsay of New Boston Ventures states that he spoke to the SRA about phasing the project, and they need to present the design for a completed phase one.
Dan Ricciarelli presents the plan for the completion of Phase One.
DeMaio asks what would happen if Phase Two doesn’t happen.
Durand states that the SRA would determine that and the undeveloped area could become green space.
Kennedy states that he would like to see consistency of the grass across the entire project.
Lindsay assures the board that there will be consistency.
Kennedy states that if there is no development of that space in two years, they should redesign the green space with benches or something else.
Kennedy: Motion to recommend approval of the phasing plan with the following conditions:
· All the grass on the site be either sod or loam and seed to create a consistent appearance across the site;
· That the applicant return to the Design Review Board in two years for a discussion of further landscaping if Phase 2 does not move forward.
Seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
7. 2-26 Front Street: Discussion of replacement of screening fence
Kinzer states that part of the fence is in place.
Steven Goldberg presents a sample of the fence material and states that the existing fence was rotted and is in bad condition. He adds that most of the old fence was in this exact location, and was 16 feet high near the A/C system. He explains that there is now a new quiet A/C and the fence need not be as tall.
Kinzer states that the DRB should approach this issue as if this is a new fence.
Goldberg agrees to stain the fence the color of the DRB’s choice, perhaps the same color of the windows (dark beige).
The members discuss the possible colors and agree that a color would be best, such as walnut or dark brown.
Sides agrees to review the color for the fence.
DeMaio: Motion to recommend approval of the fence subject to approval of the color, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.
8. 60 Washington Street : Discussion of proposed sidewalk elevation change
Steven Goldberg states that there is currently a 13-inch step up into the building and this entry configuration is not handicapped accessible. In order to comply with ADA standards, he states that he wishes to reconstruct the sidewalk as a ramp with a step-down at the edge of the sidewalk. This would result in having an 8-inch step, thereby eliminating the need to have a fence against the high curb.
Goldberg states that the proposed tenant is a national company and requires an ADA compliant entrance.
Kinzer states that with the proposed design, a person in a wheelchair parking in front of the building would be required to travel in street because they would not be able to access the sidewalk due to the step.
Goldberg states that there are no handicapped parking spaces in front of the building. He adds that this may not be the perfect solution, but it is a good way to eliminate the requirement for the fence.
DeMaio expresses concern with setting precedent with this design.
Goldberg states that they are trying to comply with the law and they are working with old stock.
Durand states that this solution is better than the fence option but it does not provide full accessibility for all storefronts. This proposal alters the city for the benefit of one tenant.
Much discussion ensues regarding the possible options.
Durand suggests a site visit. He requests that the plan show all of the impedances such as including parking meters, newspaper boxes, light poles and parking spaces.
The members agree to a site visit on Wednesday, July 2 at 8:00 AM
Minutes – May 28, 2008 Meeting
DeMaio makes a suggestion for an amendment to the minutes.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.
Durand: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:30 PM.
| 
