City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday August 28, 2013 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand, J. Michael Sullivan
Helen Sides, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy
Members Absent:
Others Present: Andrew Shapiro
Recorder: Jennifer Pennell
Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
~
- 87 Washington Street (Opus Restaurant): Continuation of discussion of proposed outdoor café (front seating area only).
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, cut sheets, and photos. Mark McDonough was present on behalf of Opus Restaurant.
Shapiro commented that tonight the DRB would be reviewing concerns about the outdoor café’s front layout. The SRA has approved the submission with recommendations to be made by the DRB.
McDonough noted that the SRA’s concern was expressed in regards to the amount of room between the chain and the pedestrian walkway. McDonough commented that tables have been changed to round tables.
Sullivan questioned if the fence would be retractable and what the proposed outdoor heater would be.
McDonough noted that outdoor heaters would be located near guest’s feet, concealed by the tables. The fence will be retractable.
Durand questioned if two (2) electric heaters will also be located in the front outdoor café. The proposal is for electric heaters, which would keep guests warm and also provide a visual aesthetic to the outdoor environment.
McDonough noted that the heaters located at guests’ feet are just a concept and not part of the proposal just yet.
Kennedy questioned if the meter has a bike rack attached. Kennedy commented that this would be a nice addition if 48” clearances were met. The proposed flame-throwing heater makes a nice visual attention grabber, which is more for aesthetics.
Jaquith: Motion to approve.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0.
- 318 Derby Street (Petite Etoile): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, cut sheets, and photos. Kathy Peacock was present on behalf of Petite Etoile.
Peacock commented that the proposal is for a 24”x36” sign to be located on the existing iron bracket. The signage shall have vinyl letters that are not raised in a soft pink and brown color.
Sides commented that text needs to be pulled in a bit more so that more space on the edges is provided.
Kennedy questioned if the additional surrounding borders are needed?
Peacock commented that they are being removed.
Kennedy: Motion to approve with the following conditions:
- No border
- Pull text in about 5%
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0.
- 209 Essex Street, Rear (Salem Cyberspace): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, cut sheets, and photos.
Brian Watson was present on behalf of Salem Cyberspace.
Watson noted that Salem Cyberspace is requesting approval for 3 signs
Signage option A is for a proposed sign to be located to the left of the large windows. The signage would be reused from the organization’s previous location on Lafayette Street and read “Salem Cyberspace”. The sign would be completely flat with 3dimentional lettering that protrudes 1” from the sign. Watson noted that the sign would be attached to the main face of the building.
Watson commented that signage option B would be located on the side of the building, which would be seen by guests approaching from the Old Town Hall side. Watson noted that the signage would read “Cyberspace”.
Watson commented that signage option C would be a projecting 2-sided blade sign located on the face of the building, opposite the building sign proposed in Option A. Watson noted that this sign would consist of aluminum backer plates with royal blue lettering and a yellow background. Watson commented that the signage would have the same font and just have a different overall size.
DeMaio questioned which door would be the entry and if vertical lettering is permitted in the ordinance.
Watson commented that entry into the space would be through the larger door with adjacent window panels centered on the building between the two other existing doors.
Shapiro commented that nothing in the ordinance or Design Guidelines specifically prohibits vertical lettering on signage.
Jaquith noted that he is not a big fan of vertical letter signs.
Kennedy noted that previous signage on this building was a problem in regards to confusion over entry location. Signage was adjusted because of this. Kennedy commented that signage looks like it is disrupting the space and appears out of context. The proposed colors are not working; they visual feel like they belong on a contemporary building. Kennedy noted that there is one too many proposed colors; the yellow may be too strong with the blue. Kennedy suggested that maybe the awning color could change to black or blue.
Watson noted that the businesses intent is to save money by using existing signage. The proposed signage is relatively small to the size of the building and the town hall space. Lettering is very simple. Watson commented that the signage could be cut down to half the existing dimensions. Vertical blade sign is needed for location visibility.
Sullivan commented that a lot of signs don’t correspond. Signage needs to have consistent dimensions and font type. Sullivan commented that two (2) blade signs instead of the flush mounted signage might be a better solution. Space is needed for the first floor tenants signage.
Jaquith noted that the proposed sign in drawing B is in the wrong location. A smaller sign located near the edge of the planter would be sufficient for the space. Salem Cyberspace font needs to be shrunk. Jaquith noted that he agrees with Kennedy on the color issues.
Sides commented that advertisement is only needed once per guest. Sides commented that maybe signage is used more as an identifier rather than a guide. Signage becomes much smaller and simply identifies the business.
DeMaio commented that the blade sign guides you and the smaller sign would identify the entry. Currently the proposed signs take ownership of lower floor and the floor that is above your business. DeMaio commented that the sign next to the awning looks like you own the upper floor space. The blade sign makes it feel that way as well. DeMaio commented that signage needs to be scaled down and placed in more appropriate locations.
Jaquith commented that the business could live without signage located at the end of the building. If signage is to be located in this space, it needs to become much smaller and placed near the planter.
Watson commented that black lettering could be used and located on top of the yellow background.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the blade sign in “Drawing C” with the following conditions:
- That the lettering be black
- That the height of the sign be reduced to 6’6”
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0
Kennedy: Motion to continue the rest of the proposal:
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0.
The applicant then made it clear that they do not intend to proceed with any signage until all proposed signage is agreed upon and approved.
- 253 Essex Street (Santander): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, cut sheets, and photos. Dave Deola (Image One) was present on behalf of Santander.
Deola noted that the existing bracket would be reused and the signage will have a new logo and name. The second sign (a building sign fronting Barton Square / parking lot) would be scaled down, lowered on the building and centered. Deola commented that all signage would be made out of Aluminum. Entry doors would have 31”x3” decals and all existing parking signage would be replaced and become all white with ¼” plate letters.
Kennedy questioned whether the building sign in the Barton Square parking lot would have a cabinet with a face. Kennedy additionally questioned if the signage could be refaced and painted red. The sign should not give internal illumination.
Deola noted that the existing cabinet could be used and can be painted.
Kennedy commented that the red extension is a little out of place in drawing 32 (building sign fronting Essex Street). The length needs to be brought in to match the doorframe location.
DeMaio commented that the blade sign located on Essex Street is very large and placed on a very narrow sidewalk. DeMaio questioned what the typical blade sign requirements are.
Sides commented that she likes the contemporary bracket that has been drawn on the cut sheets. Sides noted that the signage should be scaled back to 48” from the wall to the edge of the sign. Sides commented that she would prefer a blade sign. Corresponding height needs to be altered.
Kennedy: Motion to approve with the following conditions:
- Approve front blade signs as presented using existing brackets. Parking sign approved at size presented. Preference is contemporary bracket presented 48” from wall to edge of sign.
- Building sign that fronts Essex Street should be at the height presented with the font presented but cut down to complement the buildings architecture (to fit within entryway).
- Sign in parking area approved as presented if replacing existing face in existing cabinet in existing location. Repainting box. Not moving location. No internal illumination permitted
- Vinyl door signs approved
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0.
- 260 Essex Street (Advanced Dental Care): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, cut sheets, and photos.
Shapiro noted that the proposed signage would include 2 internally illuminated boxes to be hung in the windows. Vinyl decals would be placed above the entry door. Shapiro commented that the City doesn’t typically allow internally lit signage. A formal request would be made by the DRB.
Durand commented that the owner has to take down the signage since it doesn’t meet the requirements. Any existing neon signage should be taken down as well.
Jaquith: Motion to deny further signage needs approval by the DRB
Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0.
- 43 Church Street (Turner’s Seafood): Discussion of proposed excavation and construction of exterior stairs and fenced border.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, cut sheets, and photos.
Jim Turner was present on behalf of Turner’s Seafood.
Turner commented that the business has a concern for their deliveries. The size of establishment really needs a delivery door with direct access to the basement or exterior coolers. The proposed space is a 6’ wide landscaped strip. Turner commented that the proposal is to take over this space and enclose it with a wrought iron fence. The intent is to excavate a staircase that allows access to the basement. Turner commented that they have not determined what the additional space would be used for.
Shapiro commented that the Fire Chief has stated that there would be no safety issues.
Sides questioned if the tree would be cut down. The proposed fence should just relate to what it is trying to do which is to enclose that areaway. Sides commented that the fence should extend back to the end of the brick. The tree would sit outside of the fence.
Turner commented that the tree would stay. The proposed condensing unit would get pushed around it.
Jaquith: Motion to approve with the following conditions:
- Fence will go back to the rear most edge of the brick and not extend to the back addition of the building.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0.
Minutes
Approval of the meeting minutes from the July 24, 2013 regular meeting.
Jaquith: Motion to approve
Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 6-0.
Adjournment
Durand: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 6-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:54pm.
| 
