CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Wednesday, September 24, 2008
LOCATION: 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy,
Helen Sides
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ernest DeMaio
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Daniel, Economic Development Manager
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
1. 50 St. Peter Street (Old Salem Jail): Discussion of revised exterior design
Daniel explains that this project had final DRB approval, but during the National Park Service’s (NPS) review of NBV’s historic tax credit application, NPS had comments about some elements.
Architect Dan Ricciarelli of Feingold Alexander Associates describes the design. He explains that NPS had an issue with the lowering of the main entrance to the jail. They will maintain it at its current elevation and will adjust the grade in order to have an ADA compliant slope of 1:20. He adds that this works much better with the new building, and with the interior of the building.
Ricciarelli states that NPS did not want the windows to be lowered for the ground floor terraces, but they would accept punching new windows into the base, to make them work with the garden apartments. He adds that they wanted to see more of the original fabric inside the building and wanted to keep the main stair.
Ricciarelli explains that they will be keeping the original lobby fabric and removing the bars on the exterior.
Jaquith states that the lower windows get a little thin but he understands the situation, as long as they are functional. He acknowledges that some of these changes are improvements.
Kennedy states that he is okay with the design.
Daniel states that DeMaio has no objections.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the new design as stated, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 4-0.
2. 2 East India Square, Suite 119 (Rita’s Water Ice): Discussion of proposed outdoor café seating
Daniel tables this issue until the special meeting.
3. 73 Lafayette Street (Beverly Cooperative Bank): Discussion of proposed rooftop screening plans
Attorney George Atkins, representing Beverly Cooperative Bank, states that he is here to discuss the roof screening. He explains that the bank had a dispute with the contractor that did the work, and the roof had an on-going problem with leaking, and he is here to submit a new screen design. He confirms that there are two structures on the bank roof, one on the Derby Street side and one on the side facing the South River. He states that it will be a vertical screening (Willard flat picket screen), making sure there is enough air getting to the HVAC equipment. He presents a color sample for the board to review.
Kennedy states that the grey does not seem to fit.
Sides states that it looks like each elevation presents a different condition.
Durand suggests using a color that matches the top trim piece.
Kennedy suggests using something that has a little bit of warmth to it.
The members agree to the “Surrey Beige” color.
Daniel reads DeMaio’s comments:
I have no objection to the screening detail as proposed. ~I do not think we should approve the screen without a colored view of the facade, so that we can see the color of the screens in relation to the facade. ~I'm not sure how the grey screens will look compared to the building and without a drawing I am not willing to take a leap of faith that it will look good. ~I would recommend a follow-up view of the building, in color, with the screens shown, in color.
Sides: Motion to approve the design as submitted with the condition that the “Surrey Beige” color is used, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 4-0.
4. 60 Washington Street (Dunkin’ Donuts): Discussion of proposed signage
Ed Juralowicz with the United Sign Company states that he is applying for approval of two signs, a carved wall sign (12 feet long), and a projecting sign double sided on a scroll bracket (18”x36”). He adds that the blade sign will be positioned the same way as the sign for the Boston Hotdog Company on the brick column. He says that both signs will be a Spanish cedar sign, carved and painted, and unlit, and there will be no flag.
Jaquith asks why they won’t use the colors of the other Dunkin’ Donuts location on Washington Street.
Juralowicz states that the franchise is no longer approving anything that is outside of their colors.
Jaquith states that the sign color will not affect their business at all. He iterates that he would like the gold on black.
Juralowicz states that the franchise is pushing these colors.
Jaquith states that from a business point-of-view it will have a better effect.
Kennedy states that, in the past, the board has made changes when a design was considered inappropriate.
Juralowicz suggests having the one sign with the gold on black, and the other with the original colors.
Durand disagrees and states that there is enough name recognition that this location does not need to stand out, and this street has slow traffic so the visibility will be good. He suggests that Juralowicz resubmit the sign with the gold on black colors.
Durand states that all of the other aspects of the sign are acceptable.
Juralski searches his file and presents a wall sign design in gold on black, and states that he will get a new copy of the blade sign.
Daniel reads DeMaio’s comments:
I have no objection to either sign as proposed, except to question the mounting location of the blade sign. The 3-D view of the blade sign appears to show the bracket mounted to the white mullions of the storefront, where the straight-on view of the facade appears to show the bracket mounted on the brick pier just to the left of the windows. ~We should get clarification of the mounting location. ~If the sign is mounted on the brick pier, I have no objections and would recommend approval.
Kennedy: Motion to approve in the gold on black with white upon submittal and the bracket will be installed on the brick, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
5. 24 New Derby Street, Unit 1 and 2 (Artists’ Row): Discussion of proposed banners
Gary LaParl states that these will hang on the building and will not be lighted.
Daniel states that DeMaio has not objections.
Sides: Motion to approve banners as presented, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 4-0.
6. 281 Essex Street Unit 3 (Body Empowered Wellness): Discussion of proposed signage
Dale Gienapp presents the design with the entire business name for the door. He states that it is a two-sided sign and the background color is based on the owner’s logo, and the bracket is made of anodized aluminum.
Kennedy states that he doesn’t get this sign at all because it doesn’t work with the bracket, the type is nearly illegible, it is left heavy, and he doesn’t understand the positioning of it. He adds that the symbol is nice, and he likes the bracket, but the bracket color doesn’t work with the sign.
Sides agrees that the bracket doesn’t go with the sign, because the sign shape has a lot of flourish and the bracket is too straight.
Durand states that he doesn’t disagree with anything that Kennedy says, and he thinks that combining the gold and silver is wrong.
Much discussion ensues regarding the design.
Kennedy suggests matching the sign to the logo shown on the business card. He describes the visibility issue with the color in great detail.
Kennedy suggests he resubmit another design at the special meeting, and the board agrees with Kennedy.
Kennedy: Motion to continue this issue until the special meeting, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 4-0.
Daniel states that DeMaio has recused himself from this issue:
North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review
7. 72 Flint Street and 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place f/k/a Salem Suede): Discussion of proposed Schematic Design
Daniel tables this discussion until the special meeting.
Approval of Minutes: August 20, 2008 Meeting
Voting members are Kennedy, Jaquith and Durand.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 3-0.
Daniel agrees to contact the members to arrange the special meeting.
Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
The meting is adjourned at 7:25 PM.
| 
