City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board
Date and Time: Wednesday March 23, 2011, 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
Members Absent: Glenn Kennedy
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Board Member Ernest DeMaio calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review
1. 196 Essex Street (Café Valverde): Discussion of proposed portable sign
Nelson and Eleni Valverde are present on behalf of Café Valverde.~The board reviews the previously submitted submission dated February 23, 2011 including a cover letter, cut sheet, plan and photograph.
Daniel states to date the board has been quite literal in regards to the portable sign requirements per the recently adopted ordinance. Daniel adds some discussions have been had internally and they are suggesting the board be a little more relaxed about that if it makes sense per proposal.
DeMaio asks about previous applicants.
Daniel states those issues have already addressed.
Valverde states their sign will be 24” x 36” with a whiteboard surface and is a basic a-frame sign. Valverde adds it would be located right outside of their window allowing plenty of room at the sidewalk.
Sides asks if their logo should be permanently adhered to the sign.
Daniel states it is not a requirement but has been previously discussed.
Valverde states they would not want to add their branding to the sign as they will be using it to announce daily specials.
Blier does not have any issues with the proposal.
Sides states it doesn’t necessarily appeal to her and thinks if it has the business’ name on it, it would provide some neatness down the street.
Valverde agrees but worries about size.
DeMaio agrees with Sides. DeMaio thinks having some logo or branding on the sign makes it feel a little more designed. DeMaio prefers to have some personalization of the signs. DeMaio wonders if the board should recommend moving the sign away from the building as people tend to walk along the face of the building.
Daniel responds the location is within the ordinance requirements.
DeMaio doesn’t have a problem with the size of the sign either.
Jaquith thinks the sign should have identification on it as well and likes the location near the building.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the a-frame sign as presented with the suggestion that identification be added in the top 3-3 ½”, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
2. 72 Washington Street (re-find): Discussion of proposed signage
Shelley Mathews is present on behalf of re-find. The board reviews the previously submitted submission including two photoshopped images of the storefront with the proposed signage.
Daniel states this is a new shop opening where Crunchy Granola Baby was previously located.
Mathews states they are selling women’s new and re-sale clothing and furniture.
Daniel states they are proposing a blade sign and window decals.
Sides states the blade sign needs a little more space at the bottom.
Mathews responds they may need to add more height to the sign as the depicted bureau is supposed to appear as its sitting on the floor.
Durand arrives to the meeting.
Sides would like to see another ½” at the bottom.
DeMaio suggests having the same space on the bottom as there is on the sides which may result in proportionally shrinking the graphic.
Mathews agrees and suggests ¾”.
DeMaio asks if there is any piece of the sign that can become three dimensional.
Mathews states it could but doesn’t fit in her budget and thinks it pops enough on its own.
Jaquith states he does not have any problems with the window graphic.
Sides asks if the name is a bolder type than the other text.
Mathews confirms yes.
Sides: Motion to approve as submitted with the following condition:
- The space at the bottom of the sign shall be increased by ¾” and the graphic shall be shrunk proportionally.
seconded by DeMaio. Passes 5-0
Jaquith turns the meeting over to Chairman Paul Durand.
3. 144 Washington Street (The Urbane Cyclist): Discussion of proposed signage
Dave Gordon is present on behalf of The Urbane Cyclist. The board reviews the previously submitted submission including a cover letter and photoshopped image of the storefront with the signage proposal.
Daniel states the proposal exceeds the sign area allowed for this location. Daniel adds the landlord indicated that both panels needed signage. Daniel is to follow up with the Goldbergs about any allowance for more signage space that may or may not have been previously approved.
Gordon states they have no problem just doing one sign on the front wall pane. Gordon adds the blade sign will be located at the corner.
Daniel states the sign extends 56” which is the maximum requirement. Daniel adds it was previously approved in its previous location due to trying to gain sightlines from Derby Street.
Sides asks if the type face being proposed is required.
Gordon states yes the landlord requires all the same type face for these signs.
Daniel adds he has not found this specific approval for the building to have one approved type face in his archives. Daniel will follow up with the Goldbergs.
Jaquith states the space between the top line and the second line should be tighter to assist with reading as one title.
DeMaio suggests it be half the distance it is now.
Daniel states the size of the sign needs to be slightly reduced.
DeMaio thinks that is a mistake as the letters are already out of character with its neighbor and reducing the size would only enhance the difference. DeMaio asks if the board can recommend the size be permitted as proposed.
Daniel states sign area is one of those things that cannot be adapted.
Blier states by squeezing the text together the sign area is getting smaller.
Sides states Gordon will have to figure out how much to squeeze the text together and reduce the size of the letters to fit into the allowable area.
Durand asks if the area is calculated in the shape of a ‘T’ as the text is designed or if it is calculated by one rectangular box.
Daniel states it is calculated by one rectangular box.
Gordon agrees the white is part of the building and only the letters should be calculated.
Daniel states the ordinance requires the area be calculated by the smallest box that can be drawn around the text.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the sign with the following conditions:
- Only the wall sign over the store entrance is permitted;
- The space between the top and bottom line on the wall sign shall be decreased by half, and the letters shall remain the proposed size.
seconded by Blier. Passes 5-0.
4. 118 Washington Street (Café Polonia): Discussion of proposed signage
Derek Barcikowski is present on behalf of Café Polonia. The board reviews the previously submitted submission dated March 1, 2011 including a cover letter, menu box sketch, cut sheet and photographs.~
Barcikowski states they are proposing a menu box they are custom creating to be in line with their interior aesthetic and exterior façade. Barcikowski states the second item is an a-frame blackboard sign that has a natural wood frame to have polyurethane.
Daniel states the a-frame sign complies with the ordinance but adds the location will not be approved on the grass and will instead need to be on the sidewalk.
Barcikowski agrees.
Sides reiterates it would be nice if Café Polonia had branding on the top of their blackboard.
Jaquith adds that could be painted on.
DeMaio asks about the header pieces depicted on the a-frame sign.
Daniel confirms it still meets the ordinance guidelines.
DeMaio does not have a problem with the a-frame portion of the sign. DeMaio has a little bit of an issue with the header when the sign starts to get into the four foot height and obstructing visibility.
Barcikowski confirms the header is detachable.
Daniel states he agrees the intent of the ordinance is for a-frames and this piece is an add-on.
DeMaio does not have any issues with the menu box and asks how its projection complies with ADA compliance.
Barcikowski states they can definitely make the box to be 4” deep.
Blier asks what the back panel of the box will be.
Barcikowski states its all natural wood with the menu directly attached.
Blier asks if it will be lighted.
Barcikowski states no.
Sides asks if the a-frame sign becomes obsolete without the attachment.
Barcikowski confirms no.
Sides: Motion to approve submittal with the following conditions:
- The menu box depth shall be reduced to 3”;
- The portable sign shall not include the header board; and
- The portable sign shall be located on the sidewalk.
It was also suggested that the portable sign include the business name in the top 3” to 3½”.
seconded by Durand. Passes 5-0.
5. 50 St. Peter Street (Great Escape Restaurant and Old Salem Jail): Discussion of proposed signage
Dan Ricciarelli and Shane Andruskiewicz are present on behalf of Great Escape Restaurant and Old Salem Jail. The board reviews the previously submitted submission including signage site plans, sign designs and photos. Ricciarelli submits a revised drawing of sign locations.
Daniel states the SRA has already reviewed the submittal at their last meeting. Daniel adds sign D is a drop-off / pick-up sign when the city has already taken care of four signs at this location. Daniel states the a-frame sign is not in tonight’s proposal. Daniel reiterates the SRA’s approval from the last meeting as; freestanding sign A be approved, more than two signs per one business (sign B) be approved and that sign D can be located more than 10’ from the door.
Ricciarelli walks the board through their proposal. Ricciarelli states the signs are being proposed to assist with patrons finding the paths to the restaurant. Ricciarelli states sign C provides directions to the exhibit for residences as well as the restaurant.
Ricciarelli states there are 81” to the top of the wall where sign A will be located perpendicular to the fence and assures it will be out of head range. Ricciarelli states only the signs that are dedicated to the restaurant will have the restaurant’s logo.
Blier asks if any of the signs will be lighted.
Ricciarelli states no but they are talking to the city about future renovations they can make to the site lighting but is not something they are ready to talk about now.
DeMaio asks if the residences and the exhibit share the same type face and branding as the restaurant.
Ricciarelli states they haven’t gone there yet.
DeMaio states sign C for example is a wayfinding device but is using the style and typeface of the restaurant could give the opposite effect of what they are trying to achieve with clarifying paths.
Ricciarelli states that’s a question for the owner.
Sides states the sign is quite threatening and edgy with the image of barbwire.
DeMaio states knowing it is part of their logo it is difficult to comment on but thinks it’s quite suggestive and striking and may provoke both positive and negative reactions but again understands that’s their brand.
Andruskiewicz states it is in compliance with their theme and restaurant aesthetic.
Sides state if they take this hard line with bold typeface, is it something they really want to repeat for the residences.
Jaquith would rather see sign E off of the granite and attached to its own post.
Ricciarelli agrees.
Regarding the A frame sign, Daniel states the discussion around the legibility from the SRA was that there be signage at the end of the driveway which has now morphed into a sign on a post. Daniel adds the city has now installed four signs at this location to mitigate the issue. Daniel states Councilor Sosnowski attended the SRA meeting and mentioned the City was taking care of the signs at this location.
Daniel states he thought the a-frame sign was going away but now understands they still want it. Daniel adds the ordinance allows for some flexibility of the a-frame location if it makes sense with the site, which is does. Daniel further adds the SRA approved the exception in this instance.
Jaquith: Motion to accept sign A as presented at the revised location, seconded by Blier. Passes 5-0.
Blier: Motion to approve sign B as submitted, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 4-1.
Jaquith: Motion to approve sign D as submitted with the amendment of adding no parking if the other signs can be removed and permitted by the police department, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
Jaquith: Motion that sign E be posted on a metal post and amended to state ‘Restaurant & Exhibit,’ seconded by DeMaio. Passes 5-0.
Jaquith: Motion that sign F (formerly known as D) is approved as submitted, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
Adjournment
Durand: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:34 pm.
| 
