City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Special Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday April 28, 2010, at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington St.
Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides, David Jaquith, Helen Sides
Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Board Member Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review
- 87 Washington Street (Green Land Café): Discussion of proposed expansion of outdoor dining area
Paul Bolden is present to discuss the expansion of the outdoor dining area at 87 Washington Street.
Daniel states the outdoor café was permitted last year but is now looking to expand from ten tables to twenty in the rear. The three tables approved for the front are being proposed to flip to the other side of the front entrance and a fourth table is proposed.
Bolden states the patio has been completely rebuilt. Bolden adds the tables are to be square, there is topiary with small lights, and flower boxes located at the patio.
Bolden further adds by flipping the location of the tables in the front they were able to eliminate the bottleneck concern from before.
Durand asks if the stanchions are the same as previously approved.
Bolden responds yes.
Blier states the proposed outdoor seating expansion is even better.
Kennedy notes the tables are deep green in color, with a black base, the seating is woven and the rail is chrome. His only concern is that none of the finish colors seem to work together.
Sides and Jaquith agree.
Durand states the chosen furniture and finishes are definitely different, stylistically.
Daniel confirms the furniture is different from what was approved last year.
Bolden responds they have really researched the furniture and adds that the process is very hard and extremely expensive and is also limited in options.
The board discusses the choice of furniture and finishes.
Durand states he knows the chair and likes it because it is durable and light but agrees the table base should be a more simple design.
Jaquith states if the base were simpler that would make it a non event and could work with the chair.
Sides states she is excited about the expansion and thinks it is great but agrees with Kennedy about the furniture.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the plan as proposed with the following condition:
- The table and chair combination shall be reviewed and approved by Glenn Kennedy.
seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
- 38 Front Street (The Beehive): Discussion of proposed signage
Jamie Metsch and Kate Leavy are present to discuss the proposed signage at 38 Front Street.
Metsch explains how he had recently opened Roost when the space next door became available and they would like to occupy that space and have a different concept store / more whimsical side of roost featuring cards and gifts.
Metsch states the frontage for the two bays is 14’ linear feet and he is proposing lettering and a few graphics. Metsch adds the blade sign would be hung from the balcony above as the property owner prefers nothing gets attached to the granite. Metsch describes the blade sign bracket as 1” square tubing.
Sides asks if the proposed sign will be at the same height off the ground as Roost’s existing sign.
Metsch responds that no it will not because dimensionally this sign is taller than wide whereas Roost is much wider than tall. Metsch adds it will probably be 8 ½’ above the ground.
Blier asks how far off the face of the building the sign will be mounted.
Metsch responds it will mimic what was done for Roost.
Metsch adds the sign materials are the same as Roost, a PVC panel with a vinyl decal.
Kennedy asks if the letters on the window are not transparent.
Metsch replies they will be an outline in real life but graphically he could not achieve that on the computer.
Durand and Jaquith like the sign.
Jaquith asks if there is any lighting proposed.
Leavy responds there is no lighting proposed but there is existing lighting inside the window as well as the top of the building.
Blier asks about the beehive graphic being sort of a jagged white?
Leavy responds there are four colors intended to be jagged as they are trying to affect a beehive.
Sides comments the bracket seems like the angle could collect water along the top.
Durand replies it is a small issue and should not be a problem.
Jaquith: Motion to approve signage as presented, seconded by Blier. Passes 5-0.
- 230 Essex Street (Urban Elements): Discussion of proposed signage, lighting and exterior painting
Luis Valdovinos is present to discuss the proposed signage, lighting and exterior painting at 230 Essex Street.
Daniel states that Urban Elements is looking to update their façade with new sign lighting and exterior painting.
Valdovinos states they want to remove the existing blade sign and lights. Valdovinos further explains the proposed signage is made up of stainless steel brackets and new 14” banners, one at each corner of the store front. Valdovinos states there will be new galvanized lighting and the sign will be 16” high by 5’ long made of a rusticated wood panel with fabricated stainless steel lettering. Valdovinos adds there will be a new façade color for the recessed panels with white for the raised trim.
Daniel adds the wood for the wall sign is something that is used in this store as well that they are trying to carry outside.
Durand asks if the electrical wires will be hidden and that there will be no exposed conduits
Valdovinos confirms it will all be hidden.
Jaquith states he has a problem with dividing the banner into three pieces.
Valdovinos responds that their intent is to consider that there are two businesses in the space with the main business being Urban Elements.
Durand responds it does not bother him.
Jaquith asks if the paint colors are related to the building.
Valdovinos responds they are bringing the inside aesthetic outward.
Blier asks if the banner blades are mounted over the seam of two panels.
Daniel states that right now it is centered between the recessed pieces.
Kennedy states it would make more sense if it was centered but thinks it should move slightly left and slightly down to be almost where the flag poles are.
Durand agrees.
Kennedy adds if the banner was made slightly taller, that could get the bracket to be in the middle at the corners.
Sides states it looks great, particularly with the adjustment described by Kennedy.
Kennedy adds the three lights over that sign seem a little bit much, a little heavy and thinks it may only need two.
Jaquith adds the lights look better on elevation and are almost 2’ apart.
Sides and Durand agree that the elevation looks better.
Kennedy: Motion to approve as presented with the following condition:
- The banner brackets shall be moved to the corner of the panel sides.
seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
- 10 Derby Square (10 Derby Square Building): Discussion of proposed signage and entry awning
Blier recuses himself and leaves the room.
Steven Rosen with the 10 Derby Square Association and Kevin Burke of Burke + Design is present to discuss the proposed signage and entry awning for the building.
Rosen describes the main issue is how the building is not easily identifiable to visitors.
Kevin Burke created a very simple identity strategy for the building with using modern materials.
Burke indicates the proposal features tenant signs at the three entries with an address number on the corner of the building and to the right of the main entrance made of brushed aluminum fabricated letters.
Burke adds the entrance will have a curved metal canopy that will support dimensional letters below it. Burke adds that the tenant signage would consist of two paired signs: one flat against the building and one blade sign. Burke states the tenant panel would be interchangeable depending on the tenant.
Burke states the retail spaces would eventually be added to the program as tenants fill up the spaces. Burke clarifies they will not be asking for people to put signs up now but are proposing this will be the building standard for the three ground level retail.
Daniel asks if the existing awning would be integrated into this program.
Rosen responds the building association is budgeting to change the existing blade sign to match the program but not the existing canopy.
Jaquith states the proposal is great.
Kennedy also states it was a tremendous proposal. Kennedy adds that he really likes the number 10 on the side of the building and really likes the blade signs.
Kennedy asks if the current awning has lettering on the gold band.
Burke responds that he thinks it says 12.
Kennedy asks if there is a way to change that gold band with a silver band without having to replace the awning as it may help to tie it in more with the new design. Kennedy adds it is not a deal break but a suggestion.
Durand states that future retail tenants would need to have their signage reviewed by the DRB and which would give them an opportunity to control colors and aesthetic at that time.
Durand states that he feels the 10 on the building is a little over scaled as well as the one near the entry. Durand adds the blade sign vs. the flat sign seems like it is getting cluttered and redundant and when you are standing one foot to the left or right you can see both.
Burke replies the double signage is addressing the existing visual clutter of the trees that prevents interaction with one sign over the other.
Durand responds only the blade sign should.
Burke responds the blade sign cannot always been seen because of the trees and that each sign has its own purpose, a belt and suspenders in this case.
Kennedy responds that he is not opposed to the scale of the number on the building and in some respects also understands Durand’s point with the two signs.
Burke states they were trying to look at the depth of the whole square looking from a good 100’+ distance.
Daniel states he too felt it was too large and too high when the primary interface with the building is on foot. Daniel adds he is interested in more reaction from the board in both the size and height of the number on the corner.
Sides states architecturally she thinks it is in the right place and if you move it down it will start to relate to the windows too much. Sides adds she thinks it is just wonderful and loves to see something strong on the building like that.
Sides asks if there is any possibility a mock up of the numbers.
Jaquith adds he likes the number and does not have a big problem with the flat sign with the blade sign.
Kennedy states his only fear is how the tenant will use the two signs but adds he does not have any issues with the two signs.
Durand states that he likes the materials, minimalist aesthetic and contrast of the sign designs.
Daniel suggests deferring the proposal to Durand to go see the mock up of the numbers on the side of the building.
Further discussion was had on the new signage proposal.
Kennedy states he is fine with the proposal as is.
Durand states a mock up would solve it for the number size.
Daniel clarifies that any and all future tenant signage will have to come before the board for approval.
Durand: Motion to approve the sign package proposal and canopy subject to the following conditions:
- The number “10” on the corner shall be mocked up and reviewed and approved by Paul Durand.
- All individual tenant signs will need to be reviewed and approved by the SRA.
seconded by Kennedy. Passes 4-0.
- 244 Essex Street (Mighty Aphrodite): Discussion of proposed signage
Blier re-joins the meeting.
Brett Mentuck is present to discuss the proposed signage at 244 Essex Street.
Mentuck describes the sign as simple.
Kennedy, Durand, and Jaquith state that they like the sign.
Kennedy asks if the sign will have any dimension.
Mentuck states it will be flat with recessed lettering.
Mentuck asks the board if they think a bright white sign would look dirty overtime.
Durand and Kennedy agree the sign will get dirty and the proposed neutral is a nice tone.
Daniel asks the board if the green oval will pop more if it were a different color.
Kennedy states it will not necessarily pop more because of what is around it. Kennedy suggests varying the line weight to create more of a vertical view of the lettering.
Mentuck asks if the oval should be red or green.
Durand states either will work.
Sides: Motion to approve the proposed signage as presented, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
- 90 Lafayette Street (Salem Theatre Company): Discussion of proposed signage
Gary LaParl is present to discuss the proposed signage at 90 Lafayette Street.
LaParl describes the sign as a PVC film 2½ mm with each element to be individually cut out and adhered to the building.
Blier asks if the letters will be raised.
LaParl responds no, they are on the surface.
Sides wishes there was a little more room after “company” which means the whole sign would need to get a little bit smaller.
Kennedy states he wishes there was a little dimension on the background.
Blier asks if there could be letters that are raised in some way.
LaParl replies it is part of their aesthetic and there is a cost issue. LaParl states the material they have chosen is good and affordable.
Kennedy asks if the adjacent dental office’s letters are raised.
LaParl replies yes.
Sides states the sign looks good and is oriented correctly to the existing store front.
Kennedy asks if there is any way to lift the logo a little bit outward off the wall. Kennedy suggests a little black box of approximately ¾” thick, with the logo adhered onto that.
Durand states the Salem Theatre Company needs to be a little larger and agrees with the black box around.
Sides: Motion to approve the proposal with the following conditions:
- The STC logo shall be raised off of the surface approximately ¾”; and
- The width of black background on the logo shall be doubled above and below the letters.
seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.
- 278 Derby Street (Salem Beerworks): Discussion of proposed signage, awnings, and redesign of outdoor dining area
Joe Slesar is present to discuss the proposed signage, awnings and redesign of the outdoor dining area at 278 Derby Street.
Slesar describes the proposal is to clean up the existing storefront and entrance to try to freshen the façade with modern elements and industrial finishes. Slesar adds the entrance is very confusing right now and the two parking spaces in the front are problematic in a number of ways.
Slesar states the outdoor dining has always been a challenging space as it is adjacent to the parking lot. Slesar describes they want to bring it out to the street front to engage the public more as well.
Durand asks what the rectangular box is underneath the awning.
Slesar replies they are infrared heaters for the outdoor dining area to try to extend their season slightly.
Blier asks what the ground plane material is.
Slesar replies concrete and granite.
Kennedy states the design gets to be a little nice feel of a contemporary beer garden.
Sides states she thinks it is great to remove the two parking spaces in front of the entry, likes the increase of the outdoor seating and likes the containment. Sides adds however that the wall is too solid and heavy and when it is hot in the summer the patrons will lose half of the breeze that could circulate into the space.
Durand and Jaquith state that they like the wall.
The building owner who is present states that the wall also assists in blocking the noise and exhaust from the cars backing out of the adjacent parking next door.
Blier asks if there is adequate threshold for people coming and going.
Durand suggests angling the railing and making the threshold wider than 6’-3” so that two groups can go in side but side. It should be approximately 8’.
Jaquith agrees with Durand to widen and angle the end so that it will not come to a sharp point, chamfer that edge.
Durand states there will be no advertisement permitted on the outdoor umbrellas.
Slesar responds that is not an issue because they make their own beer.
Blier states with the granite wall coming out, it would be nice if the base of the wall could feel more like an extension of the building architecture and asks if there is any way to make it granite.
Slesar responds they were trying to have it be a distinct material from the building and thought it should appear warmer.
Durand suggests by separating the wall by a 1” in plane, it will make it relate to the other wall as opposed to the building.
Kennedy states that he likes everything from the materials to the design and agrees with widening the threshold and chamfering the corner.
Durand asks if the heaters are gas or electric.
Slesar replies they are gas, and the pipes will not be exposed.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the proposal with the following conditions:
- The entrance step shall be widened to 8’; and
- The granite base of the new wall shall step back from the building 1”.
seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
- 15 Peabody Street (Peabody Street Park): Discussion of proposed sign
Blier recuses himself from the Board and stays in the room to answer questions since he is a consultant on the project.
Daniel describes the need for a sign to be installed identifying the Peabody Street Park. Daniel adds the design is the city’s new standard sign and the question is determining the best location of the sign in the park. Daniel further states the need for a secondary sign that is approximately a 10” rectangle with text and colors to match the primary sign.
Daniel summarizes the choices are a black rectangular sign or it could be the same blue as the primary sign.
Sides responds she thinks it should be the bluish color. Jaquith agrees but doesn’t mind either way.
Kennedy states he prefers for it to be black.
Durand adds he prefers black to signify that the smaller sign is an add-on.
Sides states the sign is being treated like it is unimportant and thinks it deserves a little respect.
Kennedy suggests notching the smaller sign to mimic the primary sign.
Sides and Durand agree with removing the sharp edge.
Durand: Motion to approve a 5” by 14” black sign with notched edges to match the primary sign placed in a new location as indicated on the drawing, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
- New Derby at Washington Sidewalk (outside Tavern in the Square): Discussion of proposed railing
Blier rejoins the discussion.
Daniel reminds the Board that the step outside of the Tavern in the Square was included in the original plans and no one caught it. Daniel adds the city has determined the step could present a potential tripping hazard and needs to have a railing installed.
While not required, DRB input was desired.
Daniel states the design shows a series of 4’ black segments, 36” high, which Winter Street Architects sketched up pro bono. Daniel adds the drawings show a right angle railing, with a 90 degree corner but the building department has since indicated the corner would need to be rounded.
Daniel states they thought about incorporating planting boxes, a bench or even a bike rack but decided to keep it simple.
Kennedy states that four segments feel like a lot. Kennedy suggests maybe only two longer ones that align with the windows.
Blier responds that two might actually encourage people to walk in through the side door which is not meant to be an entry.
Durand agrees with the effort to eliminate the tripping hazard.
Blier adds the design does not want to make the step look like an intentional step.
Sides and Kennedy discuss options and recommend three 6’ long railings with the two end pieces turning the corner.
Daniel thanks the Board for its input.
Approval of Meeting Minutes: Regular meeting minutes from March 24, 2010, and the special meeting minutes from April 13, 2010.
Jaquith requests to wait on the approval of the minutes from April 13.
Sides: Motion to approve the March 24, 2010 regular meeting minutes, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.
Adjournment
Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 8:24 pm.
| 
