CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Wednesday, October 22, 2008
LOCATION: 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith,
Helen Sides
MEMBERS ABSENT: Glenn Kennedy
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Daniel, Economic Development Manager
RECORDER: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
1. 203 Washington Street (H&R Block): Discussion of proposed signage
DeMaio asks about the status of awnings.
Schnipp states that the awnings have been proposed to the tenants and some have elected to put them in. He adds that the awning over this space was planned to be red, but H&R Block has not committed to using the awning yet.
Daniel states that Kennedy is in favor of approving this design as proposed.
Sides: Motion to approve the sign design, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 4-0.
2. Solar Trash Compactors and Recycling Kiosks: Review of installed solar trash compactors and new recycling kiosks
Tom Watkins, with the Mayors office, states that they would like to make these units permanent by bolting them down, and he is seeking the DRB’s approval of the locations.
Jaquith states that any advertising on the kiosks would need DRB approval.
Daniel states that the SRA has acknowledged that advertising signage would need DRB and SRA approval, and should have a uniform look.
Watkins states that the 3 units in front of the courthouse could be pushed together to look more uniform.
Sides states that this would make more sense to the users.
DeMaio states that in general some locations are placed in front of parking areas and rather close to the curb, which might impede a car door. He suggests relocating those units, if possible, to a curb that has no parking adjacent to it. He adds that some units are dispersed, or in a random order, such as those near the Salem Five Bank, and might be better sited. He adds that they fit in better if they have a real place, and stand closer to poles, if possible, or along benches or tucked into a corner rather than having them floating out in the sidewalk.
Daniel asks if the 3 units at Salem Five could be pushed together somehow on one side of the fire pole. He suggests that the same could be done for the three at Front Street, and to follow that theme for all of them.
Daniel reads Kennedy’s comments:
Agree that they should be in a little less conspicuous locations, but not to the point as to be hidden and not used. I’ll leave any other comments to the rest of the board.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the solar trash compactors and recycling kiosks with the above recommendations, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
3. 155-189 Washington Street (Tavern in the Square): Discussion of proposed exterior façade, signage, and lighting
Daniel introduces architect Stephen Sousa and owner Joey Arcari and RCG’s Alex Schnipp.
Souse states that tonight they will talk about storefront colors, signage, awnings, and lighting, and architectural elements. He explains that there will be three blade signs along the front with awnings over all of the doors.
Sousa describes the door as an operable storefront system the total length of the restaurant which will open in good weather. He clarifies that each bay opens up totally. He provides a material sample for the metal trim on the windows/doors, stating that it will be bronze and will match the wall color. He adds that the signs the awnings will be lit with goose-neck fixtures. He presents samples of the 2 awning colors and the façade color.
Sousa explains that there will be four signs, one main sign (53 square feet) lit solely by the goosenecks above it, and 3 blade signs with dimensional letters on the black/brown background.
Sousa provides details of the storefront system, with fixed transoms above and operable doors below.
Durand asks if they intend to have outdoor seating.
Alex Schnipp of RCG states that no outdoor seating is yet approved, but they are working on a proposal.
Durand asks if this color is part of the theme with his other locations.
Souse states that it is part of the branding strategy. He adds that the sign band is synthetic polymer.
DeMaio asks about the recessed panels.
Sousa states that they will be one color.
Durand expresses concern about the color being a bit drab, or disturbing to the streetscape by being so overpowering and dark.
Sousa states that the strategy is to allow the dark color to produce a base to the building.
Durand states that he doesn’t see a good depiction of this, and he would like to see photos of his other locations with this color.
DeMaio states that some samples of the brick and mullion color above would be helpful in determining the compatibility of this color scheme for the storefront.
Schnipp states that the coloring of the hardy panel is practical beige.
DeMaio states that he would have less of a problem with the brown if it has some relief to it, but now that it is monolithic it becomes too dark.
Jaquith agrees that the brown may be too dark.
DeMaio states that the lighter bronze of the mullions on the windows above could be carried down.
Sides states that during the day it will look dark and at night the illumination will make it appear lighter.
Durand states that the beige band could remain beige and the brown could remain there but it doesn’t integrate with in the architecture. He agrees with DeMaio about the presence of the panels, which would work better with the brown color. He says that there is a double band, and the top piece could remain beige, and then have the darker band below, and to have relief on the columns. He adds that he would like to see a mock-up. He concedes that the Board doesn’t want to go against their theme.
Jaquith states that the asymmetrical arrangement of the large sign bothers him.
Sousa states that the “TAVERN” is part of the branding.
DeMaio cites the section on the enlarged elevation sheet, which shows the large goose-neck fixtures, which are high over the sign then low at the awnings. He says he has a problem with the goose-neck lighting color being black, and if they go on the beige trim they will be too stark.
Sousa states they can locate them on the brown band rather than the beige band.
Sides states that it is the surface mounted fixture that bothers her.
DeMaio states that according to the drawing it will be too low.
Sousa states that they will light the pilasters.
DeMaio says there are ADA compliant fixtures, which will not project more than 4 inches and will not present a problem for people walking on the sidewalk. He suggests that Souse look into that option.
DeMaio states that he would like more detail on the blade sign bracket, particularly the way that it meets the building. He adds that it looks like it is 2 rods that come to the brick somehow, but obviously there will be more to it than that.
Jaquith expresses concern about the fixture because it might be too modern, and the chains for the blade signs should be rigid, not swaying. He says that where the awning sticks in underneath the soffit, it should be moved out. He adds that he wishes to see more of the fastening of the Tavern wall sign. He says that he doesn’t like the brown valance on the awning.
Durand states that he would like to see photos of the awnings.
Jaquith states that he likes the idea of a restaurant that opens up to the street.
Arcari states that the restaurant will seat 300.
Sides asks how the lower words on the sign are mounted.
Sousa states that they are on the sign band.
The members express confusion about this because it appears that they are floating, so Durand states that he would like to see an example of this.
Daniel reads Kennedy’s comments:
I’m okay with the overall design of the exterior. For the signage, overall, unfortunately the typography is very generic and lacks any character. I appreciate the attempt on the main entry sign to create some type of playfulness by hanging the “in the square” and “SALEM” below the façade, but unfortunately, again, it just doesn’t work. Nothing holds together. I’d at least prefer to see something influenced more by their Central Square location sign- even if they must use the san serif style font. I don’t see any need for the “SALEM” type as it does not exist on several of their other locations and does not appear to be part of an ongoing “Branding” effort. Fine with the
blade signs – although is there a need for two of them on Washington St?
Daniel asks why there are two blade signs on Washington Street.
Sousa says it is because it is such a long façade.
Jaquith says he doesn’t have a problem with it.
Sousa states that they will keep the double doors with each side being operable.
Daniel confirms that the blade signs have no reference to points of entry into the restaurant.
Sousa reviews the additional information requested for the next meeting, including new color scheme on the exterior elevation, ADA compliant sconces, a section of the sign, the fastening for the main sign, and the lighting of the central sign.
DeMaio states that they tend to want signs to be remotely lit.
Jaquith: Motion to continue this hearing until the next meeting, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
Approval of Minutes
Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by DeMaio. Passes 4-0.
| 
