CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Wednesday, October 28, 2009
LOCATION: 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairperson Paul Durand
OTHERS PRESNT: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
RECORDER: Lindsay Howlett
Acting chairperson David Jaquith calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review
1) 232 Essex Street (Fountain Place): Discussion of proposed awning text
Daniel describes that this proposal was reviewed last month and was approved with the condition that it come back to review the awning text. Daniel adds the architect called this afternoon and said he would be unable to attend tonight’s meeting.
DeMaio comments that “Established” is misspelled in the rendering. DeMaio adds he likes the 4” letters on the awning and that it looks a lot better. DeMaio is not a fan of the three segments in the sign band and feels that it does not fit well in elevation from first floor to second floor. DeMaio adds that the panels are not equidistant from the letters and that they don’t relate to anything.
Sides comments that visually the three segments help fill a lengthy sign band with small lettering. Sides questions if they were placed in those locations to hide seams.
Daniel comments the condition was added last month by the board to have them add the verticals.
Blier poses, what if verticals picked up the above window mullions and the text was slid over to be centered.
Kennedy summarizes to run the existing white panels down from the second floor, track type in slightly and center between two brackets. Kennedy adds there are so many verticals on the façade that we will never have everything align.
Sides does not agree and feels there is a strong enough roof line that separates the lower façade from the upper building making the relationship between the upper and lower insignificant.
DeMaio feels there is a strong relationship between the upper and lower brought down by the color white. DeMaio adds they need to line up because the current disconnect is bothersome.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the awning and to move the batons in the sign panel to align with the inside of the exterior windows, center the type in the middle of that space between the batons, track the type inwards to slightly reduce the amount of tracking between letters (about ½) and then track the awning type out to match the tracking of the logo type and to spell establish correctly on awning, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-1, Sides voting no.
2) 40 Front Street (Roost): Discussion of proposed signage
Daniel states that Roost is a new business on Front Street. Daniel shows pictures and drawings of the new blade sign and window decals they are proposing. Daniel introduces Jamie Metsch and Kate Leavy of Roost to further explain their proposal.
Leavy describes that Roost is a shop that is trying to marry very contemporary pieces mixed with older things/antiques. Leavy states they will be selling things you can find in your home or on your person.
Metsch describes that the blade sign will be 20” x 36” on a fairly simple metal square with a tubing hanger much like JMode. He explains the material is ½” PVC standard material with no frame. He adds the sign will stand off of the building which is where the 42” came from in the drawings and it will be hung exactly where the existing sign was hung in previous years only Roosts’ will hang a little lower. He iterates the sign size is also based on the existing sign dimensions.
Metsch describes the window decal will span the entire width off the windows and will come down 18” making the decal total within the 20% limitation.
DeMaio states he desired the sign to be more 3-dimensional in keeping with Roost’s neighbors, but the graphic is great. DeMaio also states that he is not a fan of using the same graphic on the blade sign and the window due to their proximity to each other.
Kennedy likes the sign a lot but is bothered by the stark white on the window creating a banner. Kennedy suggests adding a transparency to this portion of the window decal or an edge.
Leavy agrees and wants the white to be of more transparency but states that this is as close as the printer could get to the look. She adds they feel the white is more urban and contemporary and without it they would be left with just country.
Sides states that she likes the white as long as it’s floating and not meeting the edges and thinks it has to be strong to pop out from underneath the existing balcony above.
Kennedy suggests they look at Lyceum’s new window decals for the white ghosting which has created a bit of depth without interfering with the sign itself and without being stark white.
Discussion was put on hold for Metsch to grab a sample while the board continues discussing other items on the agenda.
Board votes to continue: 5-0
Discussion resumes.
Metsch shows the board a sample of the window decal with the white. Leavy states if it were to head towards frosted it will take away from the contemporary aesthetic which is not at all what they are trying to do.
Jaquith comments that ‘Get in Shape’ has a transparent white and it looks contemporary.
Jaquith and Sides agree that if the white does not touch the edge then they have no objection to the decal.
Metsch offers that Roost and the DRB are all on the same page and are looking for the same aesthetic. Metsch states they are already working with a sign company and would prefer not to have them experiment with something they haven’t done before. Metsch adds that they can talk to Lyceum and potentially use the 3M material as they did.
Kennedy states if the decal is floating it should do so by 2” but if the 3M material is used it should go edge to edge.
Sides: Motion to approve signage as submitted with pending material review by Kennedy for window decals, seconded by Blier. Passes 5-0.
3) 81 Washington Street (Salem Five Retirement Services): Discussion of proposed signage
Daniel states that 81 Washington Street is looking for approval of their sign package. Daniel adds the proposed is consistent with past concepts that have been previously approved.
Jeff Sara briefly describes the proposed signage as using formed 12” plastic lettering manufactured by Gemini, similarly seen at 140 Washington Street – Soup Factory. Sarra states the letters will be 12” non-illuminated and will be mounted to the building façade at the 15” tall flat area all based under the directive of what has previously been approved.
Jaquith, Kennedy DeMaio and Sarra all agree the lettering is a bit tight and that 10” letters would work better.
Kennedy requests the sign be 20-25 track, 10” lettering center and to be careful between letters R & B and S & A, and to watch kerning pairs. Kennedy adds otherwise it is nice, simple and clean right across the building.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the proposal with the following conditions:
- 10” lettering shall be used
- 20-25 track shall be used
seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0
Approval of Minutes: September 23, 2009 regular meeting.
Blier: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 4-0. (Sides was not present 9/23.)
Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, seconded by DeMaio. Passes 5-0.
The meeting is adjourned 7:00 pm.
| 
