City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board
Date and Time: Wednesday December 22, 2010, at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington St.
Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, David Jaquith, Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy
Members Absent:
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Chairperson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review
- 168 Essex Street (Lakay Island Restaurant): Discussion of proposed signage
The board reviews the Lakay Island Restaurant submission dated December 10th, 2010.
Vladimir and Sarah Lessage and Keith Linares of Sign-O-Rama are present on behalf of Lakay Island Restaurant.
S. Lessage states tonight’s submission is completely different from their last submission presented before the board.
Daniel states he does not have all of the dimensional information and will need those numbers to ensure compliance.
Linares states they are trying to create a sign band that differentiates them from their neighbors.
S. Lessage states they tried to take the board’s previous suggestions while simultaneously attempting to make it their own. S. Lessage adds they really wanted to make it more open and visible.
Linares states Asahi installed the awning when the smoking-ban came into play to allow protection for smokers.
Kennedy states it is clearly a dark corner and the awning didn’t help.
Kennedy adds the windows go underneath the awning but making the awning thinner didn’t quite work well either.
Linares responds if they were to make the awning narrower it would need to be supported on the window instead of the brick which was not an ideal situation.
Linares adds their proposed sign band is in line with the adjacent green sideband.
DeMaio states he does not have a problem with the change in direction the sign took but does feel a bit underwhelmed and has questions ranging from the color of the graphics to the scale of sign. DeMaio suggests having such a prominent and over-scaled sign in one location and an understated sign over the entry is something to think about as well. DeMaio adds most of the emphasis is on one side where there is no storefront and also states the font over the entry seems very muted as well.
Linares responds they are trying to stay within the permitted square footage while trying to emphasize the restaurant visibility on the side where there is no storefront.
DeMaio additionally states carrying the same sign band from the adjacent neighbor is contradictive to trying to separate their restaurant from the adjacent business.’ DeMaio adds the proposal feels as if it is trying to force one idea on three very different facades.
Lessage and Linares thought the board wanted to see the band brought across, which is what they interpreted from last month’s meeting.
DeMaio disagrees with the thought that a large statement on a blank brick wall will bring a passerby’s eye to the entrance. DeMaio also states he does not think the band works very well and thinks it does not pull it together. DeMaio adds he does not think a bigger sign is the answer to draw eye to the entrance and thinks overall their entrance is still very much understated where the blank wall is very prominent. DeMaio states he does not think the whole design ties together well.
Sides states the proposal shows good effort and is headed in the right direction. Sides likes the color scheme they had before but thinks the light blue is right. Sides thinks the board was not thinking of a literal carrying around of the sign band but rather something more abstract.
Sides adds by removing the green awning the sign band connection is broken and thinks that is better because part of the strength of this building is seeing the freestanding brick cube.
Linares asks about the volume of traffic coming from the direction of the Peabody Essex Museum, based on the changes the board is talking about, people could literally miss that the restaurant is there.
DeMaio responds that is one reason why the entry doors should be played up more.
Linares replies but coming from the PEM people cannot even see doors.
DeMaio states he is not saying to have nothing on the blank brick wall, but is saying to add more emphasis to the front door to draw people to the door.
Lessage asks what if they had the oval sign at the entrance instead with a regular banner on the sides so that is would read, banner-oval-banner instead of banner-banner-oval.
DeMaio states there are a lot of ways to do it such as a blade sign or perpendicular banner to the entry wall. DeMaio adds at the last meeting when the board spoke about awnings above the door it seemed like there needed to be some statement about the entry and there still isn’t one.
Kennedy states it is interesting because the band is less about signage but more about the architecture of the building and the sign is really the oval piece and the proposal is creating an architectural element with the band.
Kennedy adds his biggest issue is the color contrast of the green and red; yes it would stand out but clearly it will not feel like it fits in. Kennedy further adds the yellow stands out but still works with the green and its colors but would still be bright.
Kennedy suggests switching the presence of the signs and thinks it was an interesting comment about maybe it being a blade sign.
Linares adds a blade sign will be significantly smaller so readability wise will still be difficult and thinks the oval is much bigger.
DeMaio suggests it would be better if there was some sort of perpendicular sign that caught the eye from the plaza but brought the eye down to the door.
Sides states there needs to be something projecting off of the wall near the front door that indicates an entry.
Sides adds a sign that provides dimension to break up the very flat surface, but importantly does not connect the adjacent architecture would be ideal; sloped sign, awning-esque, something needs to happen above the doors.
S. Lessage states she understood the board was not thrilled with the shape of the awning, but is confused about what would be a better idea.
Sides responds if they took what they are proposing and angled it from the top to the bottom that would do it.
Kennedy states the sign should be attached to the brick above the windows.
Linares responds that would put the bottom of the sign at twelve feet.
Durand states what is wrong about this, is that it does compete with the architectural language and instead of looking for definition by creating a new sign band where the old sign band failed and still fails, they should look at something else. Durand adds the blue and green does not work.
Durand adds something substantial over the door is necessary and does not think the sign on the blank brick wall is bad but would not make it that large. Durand adds something high up on that side provides visibility.
Durand further adds if someone turns the corner and see something high up and they are compatible, smaller than proposed but still substantial and raised, that would be ideal.
Durand states adding three tables with umbrellas that match the signage color, and it now starts to communicate and work together to deliver the message about a restaurant in the corner.
Durand does not like the idea of a sign band on the front and wants to keep the green but wants the letters to have more weight. Durand suggests maintaining the green metal awning, to not interrupt the reading, put the lettering on it and stop fighting with the architecture.
Lessage states the problem with the yellow font is that they already have a logo that is their trademark with the orange and they found it didn’t work well with the yellow.
Lessage adds above the door the palm tree will be three dimensional as well.
Kennedy suggests if the sign on the blank brick wall was a little smaller, pick up similar thing like that above the window, maybe add some lighting, no band, apply simple lettering onto the existing green band, have two signs closer in weight and size on the side and top, and that will be enough to create a connection around the corner.
Durand adds they are interested in making a more intellectual connection than a visual connection.
Linares clarifies two smaller ovals and just the description font on green band?
Kennedy replies yes it will be creating more balance on the corner; get the orange type in the existing green band, might work on green to pop off and the similar font types will tie everything together.
Durand agrees it is that simple and effective.
Kennedy adds it does not have to be a blade sign, but a bigger sign above the door will work.
Sides thinks the sign should be an oval to stay away from the garage wall corner.
Kennedy thinks it should be more like the size of the door.
Linares agrees and thinks it will soften the whole area.
Kennedy states the addition of lighting will really brighten that corner.
Durand suggests taking the signage mostly off of the green and they now own the brick portion of the restaurant. Durand adds this will bring the attention further right where they will not be competing with a number of things on the left.
Durand and Kennedy agree that the light blue oval will work on the brick.
Durand thinks it is clear and simple.
Jaquith agrees that lighting in this corner is important.
S. Lessage agrees that lighting will help and adds that they have an interior orange wall that will look nice. S. Lessage states she also loves the umbrella idea and adds their windows open and thinks this will be a nice area in the warmer weather.
Daniel states table chairs and umbrellas would need to be a separate submittal.
Daniel asks what the letters on the oval sign are made of.
Linares responds the letters are vinyl and will be flush to the sign and adds the palm tree will be a three dimensional PVC product.
Kennedy states the words ‘Lakay’ and ‘Island’ should but slightly pushed together as there is a little too much space between. Kennedy adds this will give the palm tree a little more space as well. Kennedy suggests the same thing on the sign band, tighten ‘Lakay Island’ as well there just a tiny amount.
Durand: Motion to continue and look for representation of ideas discussed tonight.
Linares responds it can be done tomorrow morning and adds these folks hope to be open early January.
Durand responds the board would rather have a special meeting and will schedule one for next week to discuss.
Durand: Motion to continue, seconded by Kennedy passes 6-0.
The board agrees to hold a special meeting for next Thursday December 30th at 8:30am.
Sides asks Lessage if they can remove the awning in the meantime, so the board members can get a better understanding of the space before the special meeting.
Lessage agrees.
- 282 Derby Street (Dunkin Donuts): Discussion of proposed handicap ramp installation
Jaquith recusses himself.
The board reviews proposal plans dated December 8th as well as photographs of the existing building façade.
George Osgood and David Jaquith are present on behalf of Dunkin Donuts.
Osgood states Dunkin Donuts is down sizing, they no longer make their own donuts and no longer use Baskin Robbins.
Osgood states they are proposing an accessible entry by raising the city sidewalk. Osgood adds he spoke with the city engineer who thought this would be the best way.
Durand states its 1:12 ramp which would need handrails each side and thinks it would be best if it were instead a 1:20 slope to avoid handrails.
Jaquith states the total grade change is 9” to 11” from floor to sidewalk and adds on the sidewalk they would just have to make up 9” and can make up the remaining 2” going into the entry. Jaquith agrees it could be 1:20.
Jaquith states it is so shallow coming from the left hand side whereas the corner is higher coming from Liberty Street and its about 6” and 9”.
Sides states she is also not a fan of handrails on the sidewalk and always tries to avoid it.
Durand asks about car doors hitting the 11” curb.
Jaquith responds they stepped it in to avoid that occurrence.
DeMaio asks about jurisdiction and procedure in regards to what extent the DRB should be evaluating changes to city property to accommodate a private tenant.
Durand responds it is driven by the Building Department to serve a public entry and the city is asking the building owner to make it code compliant and when it changes the exterior it comes to the DRB.
Daniel responds there is no city policy that says these types of things need to be resolved exclusively by private tenants.
Daniel adds he spoke with the Building Department and this entry is currently accessible and when the new wall goes up, the tenant space will still need to be accessible, either internally or externally.
Daniel further adds the Building Department sent them here because this advisory board has jurisdiction over the exterior.
Sides asks if there is a way for a small amount of the accessibility slope to happen inside, with a portion of it outside.
Daniel states had the tavern’s issue been caught it would’ve been dealt with similarly.
DeMaio asks to what extent the DRB should be modifying city property to accommodate private tenants where private tenants can handle the issue internally.
Daniel responds that is a question the board discusses but there is nothing stating one way or the other.
Blier adds there is certainly a precedent for it such as the tavern.
Durand adds an internal accessible solution in retail will not make the tenant space valuable.
Kennedy responds this will result in a significant change to the public exterior for a single location vs. access to the entire building.
Sides asks if Jaquith studied an internal option.
Jaquith responds yes because it took up 20+/- feet and would take up a lot of space.
Durand states when it becomes one big space again it will have a split level condition.
DeMaio states it is a continuous fine sidewalk with no problems and to what extent should the DRB be recommending that the city plays games like this with sloping sidewalks and handrails to accommodate private development. DeMaio adds he would have to be convinced that other alternatives have been exhausted and this is truly the best solution.
Jaquith states from the corner of Liberty Street it will not appear to be a ramp because it is higher by 10”.
Durand asks for a larger plan to see the whole picture.
DeMaio states it is important to internally discuss how we send these recommendations to the SRA in these instances as they are obviously precedent setting. DeMaio adds if other establishments come to the DRB to solve issues that could be internally resolved, the question will come back asking why is the DRB continuing to allow an external approach vs. pushing the private owners to resolve these issues internally.
Osgood is thinking about telling Dunkin Donuts to move out if they can not rent the space with an internal ramp as it will not be worth it. Osgood states however he does not want to lose Dunkin Donuts.
Osgood adds Dunkin Donuts corporate headquarters will not allow their entry way to accommodate an internal ramp.
Sides does not want to see the handrail on the sidewalk.
Kennedy states the handrail looks like it comes in around the tree and asks what the distance is from the handrail to the wall.
Jaquith states it is greater than 54”, almost 60.”
Jaquith states it could be an architectural rail or planter and does not have to be a rail.
Blier states the tapered slope may be a tripping hazard because it would be hard to see.
Jaquith suggests a brick band could go through level.
Blier reiterates its creating a tripping hazard and may want to extend the rail to the end.
Jaquith states raising the curb to match that may be a possibility.
Blier states to DeMaio’s point, the image of the sidewalk being interrupted is not great.
Blier asks if Dunks could just move to the right and have the corner as the second tenant.
Osgood responds Dunks does not have a decision on the plans as that goes to the Dunkin Donuts headquarters; Osgood tried to move them.
Osgood states there is a 16” concrete slab with water 22” below.
Durand responds so lowering slab isn’t that easy?
Jaquith states no he could not recommend that.
Osgood states there is a pier in the middle where the waterfront used to be.
~
Sides suggests entertaining a scheme that brings the door down as much as possible, brings down the sidewalk and removes the rail.
Blier asks how tall the present curb is.
Jaquith responds 6-7.”
Jaquith states they could switch out the curb to not presume a tripping hazard and can make it like a sidewalk going uphill on one side.
Sides does not see any problem changing the sidewalk because it will be imperceptive and will eliminate railings.
Jaquith responds the tenant space is only 1,170 square feet.
Durand states if resolved internally, it would make the vestibule have steps to the right and will result in not good retail space as it will kill a lot of the internal square footage.
Durand confirms there is no access from the rear.
Osgood-responds it is 4’ high in the back.
Durand suggests the board walk the space to better understand.
Jaquith states he can certainly develop schemes that compromise the heights.
Jaquith adds the existing tree is a little tricky as it is right at the doorway and the maximum height is at the tree.
Durand asks if there is some sort of ground treatment other than a rail that will prevent tripping.
The board attaches a site visit to next Thursday’s special meeting.
Sides: Motion to continue, seconded by Kennedy passes 5-0.
~
Minutes
~
Approval of the minutes from the September 22, October 27, and November 17, 2010 regular meetings.
September 22nd:
DeMaio states on page 5, 2/3 of the way down should be changed to “fan of internally illuminated signs.”
Jaquith: Motion to approve as amended by DeMaio, seconded by Blier. Passes 6-0.
~
November 17th:
Durand suggests changing the date in the header.
DeMaio states on page 3 under 76 Lafayette, 3 paragraphs down, change typo of an f to a t in deterrent.
Jaquith: Motion to approve, seconded by Blier. Passes 6-0.
~
Adjournment
Blier: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 6-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:26 pm.
| 
