City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes—DRAFT
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday December 19, 2012 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Glenn Kennedy, Helen Sides,
Paul Durand, Michael Blier,
Members Absent: David Jaquith, Ernest DeMaio
Others Present: Tom Daniel
Recorder: Jennifer Pennell
Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
~
- 87 Washington Street (Opus): Discussion of proposed exterior duct.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a duct proposal, cut sheet, samples, and photos.
Jonathan Poore was present on behalf of Opus. Daniel noted that the DRB will be reviewing the exterior duct shaft. The original proposal reviewed at last month’s meeting was to conceal the proposed duct with a brick finish. The DRB recommended an exterior duct which has subsequently been agreed to by the building owners.
Poore commented that tonight’s submission proposes using a powder-coated duct with brackets attached to the building’s exterior façade. Poore noted that the more feasible option would be to use a conventional double wall galvanized 16” duct with a decorative channel, powder-coated to conceal everything. This option would require no support brackets. The proposed standard brown finish color would be consistent with other metal located on the buildings exterior.
Kennedy questioned whether the channel could be faced inward.
Poore commented that this could be achieved and that the duct could then be face screwed through the cover and into the channel.
Blier commented that tonight’s proposal is a huge improvement from the original brick shaft design.
Sides: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 4-0.
- 16 New Derby Street (Rebound Properties, LLC): Discussion of proposed sign.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a letter, sign proposal, and photos.
Paul Montero was present on behalf of Re-Bound Properties. Daniel noted that the intent is to provide a sign centered over the existing doorway with two light fixtures attached to the top of the frame. Daniel commented that the window decals have been eliminated.
Montero commented that the adjacent tree needs to be trimmed so that the proposed signage is visible to pedestrians.
Daniel questioned whether there will be two or three lights attached to the proposed signage. Three light fixtures are currently shown on the cut sheets.
Montero noted that there are only two proposed light fixtures.
Sides noted that proportionally the sign appears to be too big in comparison to the provided photograph. Sides questioned whether the signage should fit with-in the space and not expand beyond.
Durand commented that the proposed signage should fit between the building façade’s brick coursing.
Kennedy commented that the signage should be made wider and shorter. Currently it appears very crowded. Kennedy noted that there are a lot of things going on with the black rule, white background, and the proposed logo. By stretching the dimensions out, more room will be provided so that the logo will catch the pedestrian’s eye. Lettering shall remain the same since the signage is for a franchise.
Montero commented that the brand is a franchise. The logo should fit within the brick coursing.
Durand questioned whether Montero would be allowed to put a sign inside the businesses window.
Daniel noted that anything visible from the sidewalk is considered signage unless the sign is part of a display. Reader-board signs are not permitted. Daniel commented that Montero is still allowed an extra square foot of space for signage.
Durand asked whether business address placed on the door would be considered signage.
Daniel commented that this would not be considered signage.
Montero commented that the centered light shown on the cut sheet is not supposed to be there. The proposed lights would be to Tavern in the Square’s lights.
Sides noted that any proposed wiring needs to be concealed. Cut sheets, installation instructions, and images of the proposed fixture are required.
Durand commented that there should be no exposed conduit on the existing building’s brick facade. The proposed conduit should be run behind the sign. Durand commented that LED strip lighting incorporated into the sign would provide a more delicate appearance. The strip lighting would not require as many penetrations into the building’s exterior.
Kennedy commented that strip lighting would only probably require one penetration.
Durand: Motion to approve with the following conditions:
- The sign shall be extended in length and reduced in height and shall rest within the soldier coursing;
- A light fixture cut sheet and image shall be provided and reviewed and approved by Glenn Kennedy prior to the SRA meeting; and
- No conduit shall be exposed.
Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 4-0.
Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the November 28, 2012 regular meeting.
Sides commented that the sentence on page 3 should read “Sides commented that a black matte industrial finish would be less apparent than matching the existing brick.”
Durand noted that on the last page “exhaust vent shall match window frame” should be corrected to include the word “finish.”
Durand: Motion to approve as amended.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 4-0.
Adjournment
Durand: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 4-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:34 pm.
| 
