CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Wednesday, August 20, 2008
LOCATION: 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Daniel, Economic Development Manager
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
1. Public Tables and Chairs: Discussion of proposed pubic tables and chairs in Derby Square
Daniel states that the DPW director has agreed to manage the tables and chairs in collaboration with Gordon College. He adds that the ideal table and chair design busts the budget so the new design consists of a shorter chair and a 42” table, and both will be black and perforated.
Durand expresses concern not with the management but with the policing of this furniture.
Daniel states that these items will be checked throughout the day on an ongoing basis. He adds that they will be cabled up at night, and stored in the hanger on Winter Island during the off season.
Durand states that he thinks the new design for the tables and chairs are fine.
Daniel reads Ernest DeMaio’s comments:
I love the tables and chairs. My earlier concerns still apply, however: I believe if the tables and chairs are left outside overnight, they will be abused, and they pose a danger to kids/young adults who play with/on them. If they can be stored indoors after hours, I am completely supportive of them, otherwise I believe there are many safety and abuse issues left unresolved, and potential liability for the City if left unpoliced.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the design for the tables and chairs, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 4-0.
2. 60 Washington Street: Discussion of proposed changes to two entrances
Bill Goldberg speaks about the evolution of this plan for the entrances, and states that the rail will be green and will not protrude onto the sidewalk and the brackets will be simple. He presents a color sample for the rail.
Jaquith asks how the rail will be painted.
Goldberg states that he assumes that it will be painted with a brush.
Jaquith expresses concern about the paint chipping.
Kennedy asks if the inside rail will be the same color and Goldberg says that it will.
Durand asks if the railing does not have to protrude into the sidewalk and Goldberg says that it is his presumption that it need not protrude if it creates a hazard. Durand says that he is not able to usurp any federal or state laws but he doesn’t want the rail to protrude into the sidewalk. He adds that this new design is a much simpler solution than the one originally presented.
Daniel reads the comments from Ernest DeMaio into the record:
The applicant is ultimately responsible for making sure their project meets all applicable code and access requirements. Having said that, if the railings and steps proposed in this package meet applicable codes, I have no objection to this proposal. It is a far leap from the original proposal, and a great improvement.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the design with the condition that the railing match the trim, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0.
3. 230 Essex Street (Urban Elements): Discussion of proposed signage
Kim Tanenbaum, owner of Urban Elements, says they are requesting approval for window lettering, a blade sign, and flagpoles. She adds that the letters will be a flat silver resembling stainless steel, and flagpoles are tangle-free spinning white aluminum 6-foot, and the flags will be taken down at the end of the each day.
Durand asks what the flags are.
Tanenbaum states that there is one “Open” flag and one “Rainbow – Gay Pride” flag.
Durand states that he has no problem with the content of the flags but they look like low-quality “Home Depot” products.
Tanenbaum says the she could use a different style of “Open” flag, and she feels strongly about using the gay-pride flag.
Durand says that she might just want to use two gay-pride flags, and no “Open” flag.
Kennedy states that the flags are almost twice the size of the sign and they are too prominent. He expresses concern about the flags obstructing the sidewalk and the view of the sign.
Tanenbaum says that she has no preference for the size of the flags.
The members agree that the flags should be 2x3, and the poles should be about 3 feet.
Kennedy states that the font on the sign has been squeezed.
Daniel reads Ernest DeMaio’s comments for the record:
I like the blade sign as submitted. I also like the window graphic, although I would ask Glenn if the green letter “E” from the blade sign would be visually successful on the glass as well. If so, that would be my preference, to tie the two signs together better. I am not a fan in any way, however, of the flags. I believe the storefront is fairly narrow and the clear space in front of the store is very tight, as it is constrained by planting beds, a tree, light poles, street furniture, etc. I believe the flags not only add to the visual clutter of the area, but (much to the detriment of the applicant) I believe they will cut down the visibility of the storefront window and the product when the store is viewed from down the street. I am
opposed to the flags – they add nothing in my opinion, are not nearly as nice as the signs, and actually detract from a potentially good storefront and sign package.
Jaquith: Motion to approve with the above recommendations, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 4-0.
4. 185-189 Essex Street (Pamplemousse): Discussion of proposed signage
Diane Manahan says that the marquis will be wrapped with painted aluminum.
Durand suggests locating the blade sign closer to the entry.
Kennedy asks about the bracket.
Manahan says that it will be a non-decorative L-bracket.
Kennedy asks about the dimensions of the sign.
Manahan says that it is 2x3 and Kennedy says that, according to the graphic illustration, those dimensions don’t make sense.
Jaquith states that he has no problem with the curved sign except for the “established” note.
Manahan agrees to take it out.
Kennedy says that he likes the “established” note.
Durand and Blier say they have no preference either way, and she can keep the “established” note.
Kennedy says that the proportion is great but it must fit into the height regulation.
Manahan agrees to check into that.
Durand states that they have the concept and the aesthetic approval and they have to get the technical aspects finalized. He offers to work this out.
Daniel states that they board can approve the corner sign. He reads DeMaio’s comments for the record:
I like the curved sign as is. I like the style of the graphics for the blade sign as well. The blade sign, however, is called out as being 2 x 3 in the cover letter, but the proportion of the sign in the drawing is all wrong – it is drawn more like 2 x 4 (or 1 6 x 3 0…it is about half as wide as it is tall). I would not approve the blade signs without: a) a revised, scaled drawing of the blade sign, and b) without a bracket submission and a mounting plan showing height and location.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the curved sign as is, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the blade signs upon review and approval of the members, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 4-0.
Durand agrees to work with this design.
Approval of Minutes – July 23, 2008 Meeting
Daniel reads DeMaio’s comments on the minutes for the record:
I have no real objections or corrections to the minutes from July 23rd, except to state that I believe the DRB was more emphatic than the memo reads that the tables and chairs proposed for the plaza created numerous difficulties and potential hazards that required more study and consideration. The memo states this to some extent, but my recollection is that I/we were much more concerned/skeptical than the memo reads. I believe the residents who attended the meeting that night shared that opinion, rather clearly.
Blier: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 3-0.
Voting members are Jaquith, Blier, and Durand.
Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 6:30 PM.
| 
