City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday June 25, 2014 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Paul Durand, Ernest DeMaio, Christopher Dynia
Glenn Kennedy, David Jaquith,
Members Absent: Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan
Others Present: Andrew Shapiro
Recorder: Jennifer Pennell
Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
~
- 217 Essex Street (Verizon Wireless): Continued discussion of proposed installation of wireless telecommunications equipment.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, drawings, and photos.
Carol Holahan was present on behalf of Verizon Wireless.
Holahan commented that the DRB did not favor a previously proposed faux chimney that would have camouflaged four proposed antennas to be installed on the back end of the roof of the building. The DRB recommended creating 2 smaller chimneys or mounting the antennas on masts and painting them black.
Kennedy questioned what the brace supports are or what they do.
Holahan noted that the two braces support the masts, and are affixed to the roof. The supports are connected to a fiber box that is also painted black. The proposed antennas are shorter than the height of all of the existing antennas on the rooftop.
Kennedy commented that the braces are very large. Kennedy questioned if the supports need to come so closely to the edge of the building.
Holahan deferred to an engineer that was present on behalf of the applicant as well. He noted that the antennas would need to mount to the steel frame. Currently there is no steel reinforcement on that side of the roof. The roof pitches east to west over a 48” span. 2 posts are required to create a level mounting area.
Durand questioned if the braces have to be so high, could they span further but be at a lower height?
Dynia questioned if the supports have to be leveled.
Jaquith commented that 2 feet could be removed from the height if a plate was located at the west side parapet. Antennas and the brace should be painted warm grey to match each other and blend more seamlessly with the other antennas on the roof.
Durand noted that the proposal also calls for a 3” gas line to run up the south face of the building. Durand commented that it should be painted to match the brick façade.
DeMaio questioned if the gas line could run up the seam between the two buildings instead of the south façade.
Holohan noted that the applicant would have to examine whether it would be feasible to run the gas line up the façade along or close to the seam, but if it was not, that they would be willing to come back to the DRB for further review.
Durand: Motion to approve with the following conditions:
- Lower brace support approximately 2’ and lower if possible
- Paint out antennas and brace warm grey
- 3” gas line painted to match brick façade and located between the two buildings following the seam at the south facade.
Seconded by: Kennedy, Passes 4-0.
- 155 Washington Street (Tavern In The Square): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, photos, and cut sheets.
Stephen DeSousa was present on behalf of Tavern in The Square.
DeSousa acknowledged that new blade signs had been erected in place of previously approved signs as part of logo redesign process and had not been reviewed and/or approved by the DRB or SRA. He emphasized that this was an oversight on the restaurant’s part and not intended.
DeSousa continued by noting that the proposed signage is actually slightly smaller than the signs that were previously on the building and are mounted in the same locations.
Kennedy commented that the proposed signage appears larger and much more prominent. The signage looks congested. Two words appear to be competing for a single space. Kennedy noted that if this had come before the Board prior to mounting them alterations would most likely have been made.
DeMaio noted that the Board should not be put in this situation. He commented that he is not a fan of the new design. The new signage has a lot of visual noise. Washington Street has two mounted signs located in close proximity to each other and a large one that wraps around the corner of the building. He noted that the Board typically does not allow for more than one blade sign to be erected along the same storefront, but in this case, the Board had considered that there were two storefronts being occupied along Washington Street.
Durand noted that the establishment has been cooperative with the Board prior to this topic. Durand commented that he would vote to approve the signage however; he feels that the signage could be better.
DeMaio commented that had this issue come before the Board, he would have encouraged having two, as opposed to three signs along Washington Street.
Jaquith commented that one sign should be removed.
Kennedy commented that he would prefer to see the signs straight instead of angled upward.
Kennedy: Motion to approve, with the following condition:
- Approve the design as submitted with the exception of removing the sign located closest to the corner of Washington and Derby.
Seconded by: DeMaio, Passes 5-0.
- 87 Washington Street (Opus): Discussion of proposed revisions to back and front outdoor seating areas, and proposed A-Frame sign.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, drawings, and photos.
Richard Griffin was present on behalf of Opus.
Griffin noted that the applicant had originally wanted an A-Frame sign that was larger than what Salem’s sign ordinance would allow. The current proposed sign would be downsized to 24” x 36”. Griffin commented that the proposal also includes 3, 5’-0” teak benches to be located in the front of the building, replacing the previously approved outdoor seating. The rear of the building would have teak benches in place of a couple of tables and chairs. Griffin noted that the rail would be brought in about 18” but that the length of the seating area would be extended to encapsulate the waste storage area.
Shapiro noted that the plan for the front of the business does not show any distances or dimensions. 5’-0” of clearance from the signage to the curb should be shown. Benches also require 4’-0” of clearance. Visually it does not appear to be a problem.
Kennedy commented that none of front façade items appear to work together. An A-Frame sign that complemented the bench or signage might make the front appear to work. The A-Frame could be a wood-framed chalkboard that would match the bench to make it connect better.
Griffin commented that mahogany could be glued to the A-Frame signage.
Kennedy also commented that the A-Frame signage base is still too massive. A simpler wood or black frame would work better with the composition.
Dynia noted that an A-Frame sign could be built to match the existing sign located above the door.
Durand noted that a more minimal base is needed on the A-Frame sign.
DeMaio commented that the front appearance from the street is very minimal and elegant, although none of the personalities of these items appear to relate. DeMaio commented that the items appear disconnected from the façade. The bench located closest to the tree does not appear to meet the clearance dimensions required. He noted that he has no strong dislike of the benches, they just don’t relate to anything else along the front facade.
Kennedy commented that the Windmaster 1004v4 model in a black finish could replace the proposed A-Frame sign.
DeMaio noted that the proposed sign should have some sort of branding located on it to identify the business.
Jaquith questioned if the bench could become backless with arms.
Durand noted that a straight bench similar to the ones in the back would look nice.
DeMaio commented that the footprint of the rear outdoor seating was held back from the edge so that the outline encouraged pedestrian pathway travel. Seating appears to be fine. DeMaio commented that he is concerned with the limit of footprint and the way people move through the alleyway.
Kennedy commented that the space is not a high traffic area.
Jaquith: Motion to approve rear seating as proposed.
Second by: Durand, Passes 5-0.
Kennedy: Motion To Approve 15” wide x 70” long backless wood benches.
Second by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0.
Kennedy: Motion to approve A-Frame Windmaster 1004V4 sign.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0.
- 186 Essex Street Unit #2 (October Moon): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal and renderings.
Kennedy commented that there is one line of text too much. The sign is not clear because there are too many descriptions located on it. One description should be addressed on the sign and the remaining could be placed on a window.
Steven Kee, present on behalf of October Moon, noted that there are two different components to the businesses, a retail art boutique gallery and a museum. Both aspects need to be addressed on the sign for identity.
DeMaio questioned if there would be any exposed conduits.
The representative commented that conduits would be part of the awning structure, which already has recessed down lighting and would be hidden from sight.
Kennedy commented that the scale of the text and how it relates to each other needs work. More space between lines of text would enhance the design. Light colors overlaying over light colors are hard to read. Kennedy commented that there is a lot of information on the sign.
Dynia questioned how the letters would be attached.
The representative commented that letters would be attached flat to a board. The proposed black background and moon are on the same plane and the proposed letters protrude out from it.
Durand questioned if there would be thin LED down-lighting located at the top of the signage.
The representative noted there would be.
DeMaio: Motion to approve with the following condition:
- The applicant will work with Glenn Kennedy to refine the signage’s design.
Seconded by: Durand, Passes 5-0.
Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the May 28, 2014 regular meeting.
DeMaio: Motion to continue the issue of reviewing the minutes to next meeting as to allow more time for review.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 5-0.
Adjournment
Jaquith: Motion to adjourn,
Seconded by Durand. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:42 pm.
| 
