City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington St.
Members Present: Michael Blier, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides
Members Absent: Chairperson Paul Durand
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Board Member David Jaquith calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review:
- 32 Derby Square (Old Town Hall): Discussion of vent plate
The board reviews the plans and proposal submitted November 17th, 2010.
John Goff is present on behalf of Old Town Hall.
Daniel prefaces the proposal stating the building inspector requested a protection plate at this location.
Goff states the vents were originally proposed to be painted out while maintaining the planar aspect of the building and they are now proposing to have a shield/protector panel in front of the vents that would be the same color as the intake vents. Goff adds the new heating system is mostly complete but the flooring and painting will not be done until next spring.
Goff states the building inspector wants to ensure that people are not able to place their hands or other objects in the vents that could block the air flow.
Jaquith states he doesn’t have any problem with new design.
DeMaio states even if there is a panel present people could still put their hands there. DeMaio adds he does not really understand how this will appease the building inspector and suggests putting a screen underneath the panel to assist with the issue.
Daniel adds the building inspector was adamant about installing these panels.
DeMaio suggests they recommend to the inspector the need for the screen. DeMaio asks how the panel is attached to the building.
Goff responds they will be side mounted into the stone.
DeMaio recommends the panel turn back and be mounted to the infill panel rather than the stone.
Goff will defer to whatever the board recommends.
Sides suggests that Goff first proposes the paint and screen and then look to see if an additional panel is needed later. Sides thinks it won’t be needed.
Blier asks why the inspector does not have the same concern with the intake vent.
Goff states they should treat them all the same.
Sides agrees stating if it can be done, they should all match.
Blier states the intake may need the air flow.
Sides: Move to recommend that it be painted out and screened if acceptable to building inspector, if not panel be installed returning and mounted to infill panel instead of the stone, and that all panels match, seconded by DeMaio. Passes 5-0.
- 157 Washington Street (Passage to India): Discussion of proposed signage.
The board reviews the plans and proposal submitted November 17th, 2010.
Hugh Kerr is present on behalf of Passage to India.
Daniel states the signs were already installed and there have been timing issues trying to get this proposal on the agenda; additionally the signs that exist today exceed the permitted area and Kerr is planning on making modifications.
Kerr states they took two of the signs down today and originally had told his sign guy to make sure the square footages all comply but that didn’t work out.
Kerr adds they will just have the two signs reading ‘Passage Lounge’ and ‘Passage to India.’
Daniel states they are allowed one square foot for every linear foot of store frontage.
Hugh states that under review tonight is the third sign that will be the same color and design as the others but will be smaller in size.
Sides confirms Kerr will modify the sign by removing the internet address.
Hugh responds yes.
Kerr asks when that ruling may change and what the reason is for having that in place.
Daniel states that telephone numbers are also not permitted on signs. They can be on the door or window.
Kennedy responds a glass door application is fine, and it’s really about the size and look.
Kerr asks if they can resubmit with a separate application.
Daniel responds yes.
Kerr clarifies if the door sign will add to the overall square footage.
Daniel states yes and that A-frame signs also need to be reviewed by the board.
Kennedy states he would like to see a consistency of font between two of the signs to make it look more connected.
Kennedy: Motion to approve subject to resubmission of the long sign and review provided it is within the allowable square footage and window sign, seconded by Blier. Passes 5-0.
- 76 Lafayette Street: Discussion of proposed fence.
The board reviews the plans and proposal submitted November 17th, 2010.
Alex Schip from RCG is proposing adding a new fence to the parking lot behind the Howling Wolf Taqueria / West Coast Videos location.
Schip states they have had a number of vandalisms and tenants have commented their fear about the situation. Schip states they have upgraded the security and are now proposing a fence around the private lot for tenants only. Schip states the ornamental steel fence will be painted black, is about four feet tall and comes in eight foot lengths. Schip adds it will be along Lafayette and Dodge Street.
DeMaio likes the fence and adds his first thought is that it may not need to be four feet tall. DeMaio states it is the type of fence where if you want to get over it you can but understand it is a deterrent.
DeMaio concludes he would feel better about it if it were a little bit lower.
Kennedy states he does not like to see structure around a parking lot but can see why it’s needed so he has a slight conflict there. Kennedy likes the fence material and sways to yes. Kennedy agrees it should be somewhere between 36”-42” high.
Sides agrees.
Blier likes the fence and thinks it improves the street-scape. Blier adds he has no problem with the height and thinks it scale to the building is right.
Jaquith likes the fence but thinks it should be 42” high and not as low as 36”.
Kennedy: Motion to approve at a 42” height, seconded by DeMaio. Passes 5-0.
- 168 Essex Street (Lakay Restaurant): Discussion of proposed signage
The board reviews the plans and proposal submitted November 17th, 2010.
Vladimir Lesage is present on behalf of Lakay Restaurant.
Lesage states they are aware of the rules and regulations and will be putting just the logo and restaurant name on their proposed signage.
Daniel states both the awning and the sign are twelve inches high by nine feet long.
Daniel adds they are proposing a gold color because of the green background.
Daniel states currently Asahi has an emblem on the side of their awning but Lakay Restaurant would not. Daniel additionally states there would be no lettering on the windows and the depicted palm tree is part of their logo but would only be on the awning that faces Essex Street.
Kennedy states the colors are HEX colors.
Lesage responds they are from the logo maker.
Kennedy asks what type of a file they are giving to sign maker.
Lesage responds vector.
Kennedy replies that is good because he was concerned that it looked bitmap in the packets.
Kennedy states the board does not know exactly what the colors are going to be as their packets only have the color of the awning and not the colors of the signs.
Kennedy adds samples or chips of the colors or pantone colors are typically submitted. Kennedy reiterates they usually want a little more clarity on what the colors are going to be.
Kennedy states he is concerned with the gold working with the dark green.
Lesage responds they are open to any colors.
Overall the Board likes the palm tree.
Sides states she has a problem with the awning crashing into the roof at the corner and wonders if the shape can change or be lifted.
Sides adds they wouldn’t want the lettering to run into that corner either.
Kennedy states it would make more sense if it was a flush awning coming out.
Sides questions if it needs to cover the whole door assembly and suggests it shrinks in size to be only over the door.
Jaquith responds it may be tough to get all the lettering on there if it shrinks in size.
DeMaio states he agrees with Sides, it is a very difficult corner to see and there have been a lot of half attempts to try to solve it.
DeMaio asks if all of the text about the cuisine is going to be on the awning.
Lesage responds it does not have to.
DeMaio states he does not know the sizes of any of the lettering and logo and thinks it may not be legible.
Lesage responds it will be twelve inch lettering on both the sign and awning stating ‘Lakay Island Restaurant.’
DeMaio states he has a problem with the sign having a twelve inch letter and thinks it does not work well.
Lesage asks the board for a letter size recommendation.
Jaquith suggests a ten inch letter.
DeMaio agrees with Sides about the awning over the doorway and thinks it conceals their entrance and contributes to darkness.
Sides states she thinks it should relate more to the brick façade with one primary sign to help clear out that corner.
DeMaio is personally not a fan of awnings that have sides to them. Awnings that are closed on sides, down low will just make entrance harder to see. DeMaio suggests a steep awning
Sides states she does not think the awning should be green but should be different from the roof, something colorful might draw the eye to it.
Jaquith agrees because they are not the exact same color anyway.
Lesage asks the board for a recommendation for an awning.
Sides suggests yellow and to flip the logo and awning colors.
Lesage thinks yellow is a great idea and adds the interior of their restaurant is orange.
Lesage adds they hope to be open the first of January.
Daniel states Christian Day of Omen dealt with a similar situation and his approach was putting in a black panel over the green band to better define his storefront.
Daniel suggests a yellow band with the existing green awning, with green lettering may really make it pop.
DeMaio agrees with Sides’ comment about the awning not needing to be entire width of doors and sidelights.
Kennedy states they pushed Café Polonia to bring pop to that corner and it worked out well.
Daniel asks if the brick portion of the entrance is Lakay’s space
Lesage responds yes.
Daniel wonders if there is a yellow band, should it wrap around the corner to be able to see the color from the PEM direction.
Sides states it is a funny blank façade, with no windows and currently Asahi has a banner in that location.
DeMaio states the garage has its own feel and thinks carrying the same idea on all three sides is a little forced but simultaneously agrees that having something on that wall could be valuable. DeMaio adds it needs a little splash of something maybe even just the palm tree.
Jaquith recommends it be continued to the next meeting, and if Lesage has any questions they can ask Daniel.
The board requests the following revisions be made to the proposal; a drawing for the new sign as discussed, a revised plan for the awning, exact colors of the lettering with samples or pantone numbers and if something is desired for brick wall, a proposal for that solution.
Sides: Motion to continue, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.
- 15 Front Street (Perry & Perry): Discussion of proposed doors and windows
The board reviews the plans and proposal submitted November 17th, 2010.
Carol Perry, Mark Rizzo and Joe are present on behalf of Perry & Perry.
Daniel states they are looking to replace the first floor windows and doors.
Perry states the front and back doors have a lot of cracks in them and need to be replaced. Perry adds the first floor windows can’t open anymore and they want to replace the storms as well and have brought a sample with them.
Perry states the front and back door will be a Spanish cedar with a natural finish like it was originally. Perry adds they are looking into getting reproduced bull’s-eye glass as well.
Kennedy suggests rejuvenation.com, a company out of Portland Oregon that can replicate glass, hardware, light fixtures, etc and do an unbelievable job.
Sides states the scale looks entirely different from the existing photographs and is not convinced.
Sides comments the front is a lot bigger than the back by about 10”. Sides thinks its fine the way it is.
Jaquith asks how the mullions compare to the existing.
Rizzo responds they are the same and is exactly what they have on the second floor.
Rizzo adds the storm sash is currently aluminum but is going to be wood to match the second floor.
Rizzo states there is a triple track on the second floor for the screen inset and that they will need to custom make this system for the first floor.
DeMaio asks what the color of the finish is going to be.
Rizzo responds the first floor doors and windows will have a natural finish.
DeMaio would prefer the storms to be painted on the second floor, all casework to remain dark and the door to be natural.
Rizzo and Perry agree.
Rizzo states they are prepared to make everything out of Spanish cedar anyway.
DeMaio is asking about the frame around the door and if that would be natural wood color.
Rizzo responds yes.
Kennedy asks if it will be the same for the back door.
Rizzo responds yes.
Rizzo states the storms are what the opening size is set for and therefore will need to be custom made.
Sides states the historical commission accepts aluminum.
Jaquith thinks recently not as much.
Sides states it is not offensive to her and thinks it is nice that it maximizes the opening. Sides thinks they should go ahead and do the aluminum storms.
Rizzo says they will find someone who can make the custom size.
Jaquith states Harvey may be good with the small profile.
Joey asks if the hardware on the door could be switched to oil-rubbed bronze.
Sides states it is fine.
Jaquith likes brass.
Sides confirms that the board does not have jurisdiction over hardware.
Daniel agrees.
Sides: Motion to approve replacement of both doors with Spanish cedar, oil finish, windows and transom lights remain the same, and that the windows be replaced, painted to match second floor and that new storms be aluminum to be painted same color, second floor storms be painted to match, seconded by Blier. Passes 5-0.
- 93 Washington Street (City Hall): Discussion of proposed signage
The board reviews the plans and proposal submitted November 17th, 2010.
Daniel states with the elevator addition to City Hall required there be a sign identifying the accessible entry.
Daniel adds one change to the actual sign was made to state entrance rather than accessible.
Daniel states the sign will have a satin bronze finish which is standard with a leatherette background texture.
Daniel asks the board what type of edge the sign should have, Natalie Lovett suggested #515 beveled edge.
Daniel adds the location of the sign is limited as it has to be 60” off the ground from its midpoint. Daniel states it can also be larger if needed but is technically large enough.
Blier states substituting accessible for entry is a nice touch.
Kennedy states the arrow seems to be in an odd place and that he almost wants it to be centered but is aware there is brail.
DeMaio’s only recommendation is not lacquering the sign as it tends to break down and will soon become a maintenance issue.
DeMaio asks if the corner condition is #515.
Daniel responds yes.
DeMaio: Motion to recommend approval with the #515 corner treatment, leatherette background and satin bronze finish in location proposed, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 5-0.
North River Canal Corridor Projects under Review:
- 401 Bridge Street (Gateway Center): Review of design development details and materials
Harry Gundersen is present on behalf of the Gateway Center project. The Board reviews submitted plans dated November 9, 2010.
Ramp:
Gundersen states the ramp on the exterior of the building was an issue that arose during the last meeting. They reviewed the design suggestions and were conflicted but the owner finally agreed to the 11.75 elevation.
Gundersen states the owner’s concern over an internal ramp design was if they wish to sell the entire floor in the future, it may be more difficult with the ramp.
Gundersen concludes putting the ramp inside and moving the floor level to 11.75’ allows for the future installation of a door that leads to the street front at the corner and eliminates the conflicts with the trees which can now be maintained as originally proposed.
Retaining Wall:
Gundersen states there was a desire to modify the retaining walls so that the amplitude of the wave is more shallow which allowed them to pull away from the building slightly.
Gundersen adds that allowed for a larger planting area as well.
Mechanical Equipment – Screening:
Gundersen states a solution was requested for the screening of the mechanical equipment on the roof, almost 14’ high. Gundersen adds the enclosure will continue to be the GRFC material in the remainder of the concrete panels.
Gundersen states the screen will be set back at the plane of the stair tower.
Gundersen adds in the event of additional equipment on roof being needed, they would be small pieces and there will be a parapet on the building and it will not necessarily need to be screened.
Sides asks how tall the retaining wall is.
Gundersen responds it varies slightly but is roughly three feet in height. Gundersen adds that while the sidewalk varies in elevation, the top of the retaining wall stays level.
Gundersen adds the building foundation wall is larger and imposing without the retaining wall and the window sills would actually be above eye level which was felt to be an unpleasant scale. Gundersen states they wanted to scale that down with the retaining wall and planting and so the three feet is about 2/3 of the difference from the ground to the window sills.
Sides states 36” seems low. Gundersen states it could be anywhere from 36” – 42” without it being a problem.
Blier states he is not a huge fan of the curvilinear wall but realizes it is part of the design and is acceptable and reasonable. Overall Blier thinks it looks much cleaner now.
Jaquith likes the wall but worries about the detail where it meets the building
Gundersen agrees and is still trying to work that out as they have not found the solution yet.
Jaquith states the height does not bother him and thinks it is high enough to deter kids from walking along the top.
Blier asks if the rooftop mechanical equipment will still be screened from the Federal Street view.
Gundersen replies it will be very low and they will make sure it can’t be seen.
DeMaio states removing the ramp at the entry is significantly better and is glad to see the trees can remain as designed. DeMaio adds the corner accessibility is another great improvement.
DeMaio states he is concerned with the island added in the back being directly in front of the doors and thinks it might conflict with wheelchair accessibility.
Gundersen replies one idea was that wheelchair vans going to the Senior Center take time to load and unload so this way they could pull into a special area. Gundersen adds they could change the ramp to be at this location without any problems.
DeMaio responds it is bottlenecking the sidewalk where the entrance doors are opening. DeMaio clarifies a comment from last week stating that it would be ideal for the sidewalk and finished floor be at the same elevation and the worst case scenario being that the slab and sidewalk are at the same elevation. DeMaio adds that ADA guidelines allow for ½” of play.
Jaquith adds the grade at the sidewalk is always changing and Gundersen needs to be very sensitive of how to treat that elevation.
Gundersen responds there is access along the South elevation and they can achieve access at that corner. Gundersen adds the 11.75’ elevation was understood to not be taken literally but when they checked serendipitously that was the number needed to get into the building at that corner.
DeMaio states it would be unfortunate if down the road the interior slab and sidewalk communication was not thought about and didn’t work.
Kennedy asks what the width of the sidewalk is from the wall to the street.
Gundersen replies it is wide and then narrows with approximately seven to eight feet at its widest point and five feet at its narrowest corner.
Kennedy states he feels as if the pedestrian is being pushed out of the nice sidewalk into a high traffic area at the corner.
Gundersen states that is fact.
Kennedy responds he is thinking more about the height of the wall and the pedestrian experience.
Gundersen responds after thinking long and hard about the height of that wall he felt this solution would be the least imposing. Gundersen adds he does not find that area to be unpleasant with the wall, trees and plantings.
Kennedy reiterates the feeling of being pushed out into traffic and suggests lowering the wall to a 36” height.
Gundersen responds there is a steep sloping grade and adds the height of the wall really has to do with the proportion of the wall to the building at the opposite end. Gundersen adds from the grade standpoint a lot of it is virtually level.
Kennedy: Motion to approve as submitted, seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
Adjournment
Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:41 pm.
| 
