Loading...
2018-03-28 DRB MinutesCity of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:05 pm Meeting Location: 120 Washington Street, Third Floor Conference Room DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Ernest DeMaio, Chris Dynia, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, J. Michael Sullivan DRB Members Absent: Helen Sides Others Present: Matt Coogan Recorder: Colleen Brewster Chair Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. Roll call was taken. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 90 - 98 Washington Street (City Hall Annex): Discussion and vote on proposed signage (sign permit) scheme Chair Durand recuses himself. Mark Meche of Winter Street Architects was present to discuss the project. Building owners George Vernet and Property Manager Kathy Franson were also present. (Dan Hutchins sign designer was not present). Meche stated that the property owner is asking for approval of either one of both of their signage proposals. The owners want to help eliminate window signage in the form of flyers taped to windows. Therefore all proposed tenant signage must be reviewed and approved through the DRB process. The proposed signage consists of window, wall and blade signs for the City Hall Annex and the three first floor tenants, Bada Bing Barbershop, Red Lion Smoke Shop, and Koto. Meche stated that the circle sign under the City Hall Annex sign was requested by Mayor Driscoll to be installed on the transom glass above the new entry door that is 6 feet back from the front façade and below the individually cut letters of the “City Hall Annex” sign. All individual letter signage on top of the eyebrows will have the same type face, construction, scale, and spacing, although there will need to be some flexibility with the longer name of the barbershop signs so it can read well. The lettering will be brushed aluminum, either cast metal or cut, and its mounting method on top of the 10” deep eyebrow will need to be determined. Meche noted that two different concepts are proposed. Concept 1 shows the signage lettering mounted on top of the eyebrow just under the masonry opening, similar to what was at Foodland. Concept 2 shows the lettering secured to a separate element and that separate element is what gets mounted to the top of the eyebrow. DeMaio asked how any proposed lighting will work with the two options. Meche replied that they aren’t 100% prepared to show the proposed lighting methods. Sullivan asked if the lettering could be offset with posts mounted directly to the brick instead. Meche replied that the individual posts for each letter would need to be attached to the mortar joints not to the brick and the owners are concerned repairing the brick façade each time a tenant were to leave and the lettering needed to be removed. Ms. Franson presented a waterproof LED fixture that would sit on top of the eyebrow and point up at the light. Meche noted that the proposed fixture is manufactured by GE. If lighting were to be placed in front of the lettering it will be mounted slightly higher to keep it from sitting in the snow, but the top of the eyebrow will also help conceal it. Sullivan stated that he is in favor of there being no lights to keep the signage simple. Franson noted that Koto and the Barbershop will be open at night and should have lighting. Sullivan suggested that lighting be placed behind the letters. Meche replied that a mock-up will determine what will work best. Kennedy noted that a front mounted light fixture would be easier to execute especially if the letters were 3-4” thick rather than the proposed 1”. Meche suggested that the lettering as a whole be mounted on top of the eyebrow with stainless studs so the lettering can be removed and replaced when the installer of the new signage will only need to match up the stud holes instead of drilling new holes into the top of the eyebrow. Franson noted that the lighting can be purchased in specifics lengths to match the length of the lettering. Sullivan stated that he doesn’t want a break a connection between two combined light fixtures to break-up in the wall wash and create a dark spot in the wall wash. Kennedy suggested that front facing light will make the letters hard to read. Franson noted that the light fixture proposed by the sign designer wasn’t meant to be in front of the lettering. Meche noted that the font selected is Roboto in a condensed bold style. The letters are all capitals with smaller capital secondary letters. Kennedy stated that this style of building would have used lettering similar to this style but small capital letters wouldn’t have been used and back-lit letters are more in keeping with this style of building. The lettering could be secured to a separate bar and if the lettering is placed in the front back-lighting could also be used to wash the wall. If the lettering is placed on the wall the lighting can be placed in the front. Meche noted that the first capital letter in the signage is 14” high. Kennedy preferred 12” high maximum. Meche noted that the lettering will be centered above each entry door and the lettering raised up 3-4” so the bottom of the lettering isn’t blocked by the top of the eyebrow when looking up at the lettering from the street. A front facing light could be placed in that 3-4” space in front of and angled at the lettering. Meche stated that for the Bada Bing Barbershop sign the window sign does the branding not the lettering on the eyebrow sign. Kennedy suggested that the proposed remain and only the primary business names be used above the eyebrows and to keep the name lettering consistent across the façade. The business branding can be added to blade sign. Mr. Vernet agreed and added that Koto doesn’t show the branding on their sign. Meche replied that all additional lettering can be removed. Kennedy noted that some signage companies have premade letters with a lettering style similar to what Foodland used that could be used in lieu of custom lettering. Meche noted that at the West side of building, the Koto sign faces the parking lot, its lettering hasn’t change since the previous presentation, and it will also need to be permitted. Kennedy reiterated that all lettering signage should remain 12” high. Meche noted that the rear façade will also have 3 gooseneck LED light fixtures in the metal panel façade over the entrance door. Jaquith asked how the City seal was being installed on the transom glass over the front door and what it would be constructed of. Meche replied that the bronze seal from the Salem Hospital will be installed at the new Community Life Center, the Mayor’s office has a painted wood seal, but he would prefer that a new one be resin cast and painted or one that is screen painted directly onto the glass. The lettering underneath could be vinyl cut and installed on the interior of the glass. The proposed signage to the side of the entrance door will be a secondary sign for those on the sidewalk that cannot see the lettering over the eyebrow of the main sign. The glass means the lettering will be seen backwards from within the Lobby unless it is concealed by a panel. The use of clear glass means that the interior space will be visible from outside. Sullivan noted that the glass will also make the Entry appear busier and suggested that only a city seal be used. Meche noted that there will be no blade sign and the lettering on side façade of bump-in to get it off the glass. Peel off lettering can be used to test the look of lettering on the glass. Vernet noted that he also prefers using just the decal on the transom glass. Kennedy suggested that an interior and exterior seal be used and not the lettering. Meche suggested that a single sided seal could be partially see-through also. Meche asked if both options could be approved. DeMaio replied that he’s support forward lettering; although, he was concerned with the front lighting approach and suggested that there be a better way to approach it. He questioned how the lighting will look from a distance and how the lettering would be supported. Jaquith and DeMaio agree that backlit letters that would be best and all lettering should be capitals. Meche asked if there was preference on the spacing of the lettering. Kennedy no more than +8 or +10, so the words can be easily read and he noted that any longer words will need more space and should not be crammed to fit. Sullivan stated that any wall wash light fixtures will need to be continuous. Kennedy noted that with an 11” deep eyebrow the fixture could only wash 18”-20” of the building. Meche replied that a front mounted light fixture will be placed within the first couple inches of the eyebrow and the proposed letters behind it are 1” thick. The letters would be mounted to an angle and could sit 3” above the eyebrow, the angle will be continuous so it will not stop and start between the letters. It could be painted grey or aluminum but it would sit 1” above the top of the eyebrow to keep the bolts off of the roof membrane. Jaquith noted that the lighting will stop at each pier or eyebrow so it would not be continuous. Coogan asked if the blade signs will be lit. Meche replied that that hasn’t been determined. Sullivan stated his concerns with the void under the letter “A” not being an actual void since there will be a continuous bracket there, dirt collecting in those small spaces, seeing the back of the light from the street, and the angle changing color over time and eventually becoming part of the sign it will be attached to. Meche replied that the angle could be deeper on one side to attach a second stud. Sullivan noted that Concept 2 is preferred although the execution of it is the concern. Jaquith suggested that the smallest angle in a dark color be used. Kennedy suggested that if deeper letters are preferred they could be mounted onto a plate. Meche replied that the lettering signage design initially started with a flat bar, progressed to a 1x2 tube, and then an angle, but can return to a tube that can be mounted to the eyebrow roof. He suggested the signage concept be approved and the installation method continue to be DRB reviewed. Mr. Jaquith opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Jaquith closes public comment. Sullivan made a motion to approve the following:  City Hall Annex West Face (rear) entrance sign package that includes wall sign and lighting as shown on plan with revisions up to March 28, 2018  City Hall main entrance wall sign (Washington Street), with the following conditions: o Wall sign lettering will be installed on the front edge of the eyebrow o Lettering will be not taller than 12”. o The lettering will all be capitalized and the same size. o Every effort will be made to hide the bracket system for lettering. This may include increasing the thickness of the lettering. o If the wall signs are lit, the lights will be located behind the lettering on the eyebrow. Lighting will be continuous along entire eyebrow, not just behind lettering. The DRB also favored having these lights light the building façade behind the sign letters. o Glenn Kennedy has been appointed by the Board to oversee the above conditions with design team/ fabricator/ installer  Wall signs for other 3 retail spaces with the following conditions: o Lettering to match City Hall Annex Main entrance wall sign, including size, color, finish, thickness, mounting as mentioned above o Lighting to match City Hall Annex Main entrance as mentioned above o Include name of business only. The type of business will not be included in lettering (e.g. the sign will just say “BADA BING” instead of “BADA BING BABERSHOP”, and just “RED LION” for Red Lion Smoke) Shop  Koto West Face (rear) entrance wall sign package, with condition that wall sign is repositioned above the entrance door.  Additional conditions: o Any subsequent changes to the approved signs will require review by the Design Review Board and approval by the Salem Redevelopment Authority. o Any additional signs not included in this approval—including window signage and blade signs—will need to be permitted in the sign application process, which includes Design Review Board recommendation. Seconded by: Dynia. Passes 5-0. Chair Durand returned. 2. 5 - 7 Derby Street: Discussion and vote on repairs to exterior brick entry stairway and installation of hand railings David Dietz, condo resident was present to discuss the project. Dietz stated that they are repairing stairs and installing new railings at this four- condominium unit building. The bottom solid granite step will remain, the second brick step will be replaced with solid granite step to meet code, the brickwork of the third step rider and tread will be repaired, and the brick riser and landing of the top landing will remain. Jaquith asked if the stair mats would be removed or remain. Dietz replied that since they belong to another unit owner it is unknown whether they will remain. Kennedy questioned the step dimensions. Sullivan asked if the new railings will go up to the stop landing and be within the masonry opening. Dietz replied yes. Kennedy clarified that the top rail will be at third step and not at the landing. DeMaio stated that any areas being repointed the mortar color should be matched instead of introducing a new mortar color, since other areas of repointing are noticeable in the photographs provided. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve repairs to brick entry and installation of hand rails with the new mortar color to match the existing mortar. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 3. 173 Essex Street (Kakawa Chocolate House): Discussion and vote on proposed signage (sign permit) scheme Brock Bowdoin was present to discuss the project. Bowdoin stated that the client is in Santa Fe, NM and this will be their second shop. White Light Visual will be creating the signage. Kennedy asked that all mounting elements be black. Jaquith asked if there will be lighting. Bowdoin replied no. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve the signage scheme as presented. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 4. 226 Essex Street (Coon’s Card and Gift Shop): Discussion and vote on proposed signage (sign permit) scheme Karen Davia was present to discuss the project. Kennedy noted that the underside of the sign will need to be 8 feet from grade. Coogan stated that the Planning Department has added condition to all future signage permits, to ensure that what is discussed in meetings is what is installed.  Any subsequent changes to the approved signs will require review by the Design Review Board and approval by the Salem Redevelopment Authority.  Any additional signs not included in this approval—including window signage— will need to be permitted in the sign application process, which includes Design Review Board recommendation. All Board members approve of the added standard condition. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sullivan: Motion to approve the signage scheme as presented. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 5. 217 Essex Street (Count Orlok’s Nightmare Gallery): Discussion and vote on proposed signage (signage permit) scheme James Lurgio was present to discuss the signage. An additional section drawing was provided. DeMaio asked if power was being provided to the sign. Lurgio noted that a new conduit would be needed to provide power to the sign. Chair Durand stated it will be difficult to get power to the sign without exposed conduit and he added that if they can’t provide light through the sign bracket then light should not be included in the signage approval. He added that the proposed sign appears low and close to the entrance. Jaquith noted that the sign appears to hangs low and must be a minimum of 8 feet from grade. DeMaio noted that the bracket makes the sign appear lower and the doesn’t appear to be room above the bracket in the rendering relative to the capital. Sullivan added that inverting the bracket will mean eliminating the scroll. Kennedy suggested that a solar LED signage light could be an option and he will provide the applicant with the information. Sullivan asked if the existing bank clock sign could be used. Lurgio replied that the clock is too high to use as signage. Kennedy stated that the proposed A-frame is acceptable. Lurgio noted that the A-frame sign will have a plastic black PVC frame. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve the signage scheme, the black A-frame sign, if lighting can’t go through the wall directly to the sign no conduit at perimeter, or an LED solar sign can be used although black brackets must be used. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 6. 282 Derby Street, Unit 2 Rear (Paprika Grill): Discussion and vote proposed signage (sign permit) scheme. Helena XXX representative of the owner was present to discuss the project. Kennedy noted that the underside of the sign must be 8 feet from grade. Helena replied that 9 feet is proposed and the new sign will fit within existing bracket. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve the signage scheme as presented. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 7. 26 Congress Street (Antique Table Restaurant): Discussion and vote on proposed signage (signage permit) scheme. Coogan noted that the proposed signage fits within square footage limit and the underside of the sign is 8 feet from grade. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve the signage scheme as presented. Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. 8. 2 New Liberty Street (Essex Heritage): Discussion and vote on proposed signage (sign permit) scheme. Heather Gross of Essex Heritage and Brian Pearce of Omloop. Pearce stated that the changes have been summarized since the last DRB meeting and they’ve shortened the overall sign height without compromising its visibility. They reduced the size of the eye icon, added braille to the bottom of each sign panel, enlarged and heightened the base, eased the base edges to reduce the likelihood of chipping from snow plows, and will darken the base color to help conceal dirt. The lighting will be ambient and will make the sign more robust. It will not be placed too close to the stone seat wall so there will still be room to maneuver between the two. They will create a mock-up in a couple weeks where the map size will also be corrected. DeMaio noted that since the location still need to be determined, if a drawing with a proposed location is not provided the mock- up can be used and the location could change in the future. Either someone from the DRB or the City needs to make the final decision regarding its location. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sullivan: Motion to approve as submitted with the final location to be reviewed and approved by the DRB Seconded by: Jaquith. Passes 6-0. North River Canal Corridor Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 9 South Mason Street, 3A Buffum Street Ext., and 23 Mason Street: Discussion and vote on design changes to proposed four building, 29-unit residential development. Ryan McShera, architect, of Red Barn Architecture, and Mark Tranos, owner of Jupiter Point Development, were present to discuss the project. McShera stated that revisions to last month’s presentation will be presented. The changes at Building #3 that faces Buffum Street are; some of the front façade window openings some have been enlarged, they’ve minimized the siding reveal per the Board’s recommendation, and the rear dormers were pinched in at the sides to give more wall space from building to building. Jaquith stated that the windows have improved. Tranos asked make the first-floor window on the right side of Building no. 3 into a double window to match the others. Jaquith stated that it should also move closer to the front facade. Tranos also asked to change the double column at the front entrances into single columns with a railing to separate the two deck entrances. Chair Durand stated that the double windows at the first floor should be centered at each unit. McShera stated that at Building #3, East elevation, first-floor, they would like to install a single window so that they can install an electric fireplace inside that lines up with the coffered ceiling. The vent on the wall will be eliminated. Jaquith noted that the pediment at the second floors should have a return towards the dormer windows and the returns on big gables should be at an angle. Kennedy stated that he reviewed another project of Mark Tranos’ that used the same products. The façade material doesn’t look like plastic when installed and it matched neighboring sidings. The corner boards have a channel that will be revealed at each board and the interior corners should not use the pre-made corner piece, they should be custom made and wider. The siding will also be exposed 4 ½” to the weather. Tranos added that stainless steel clips will prevent the board ends from opening up and trim will be added around the windows. McShera stated that the center Building #1 has also been revised; they are bringing back the original window style, a storefront window system will be used at stair tower entrances, and the 3rd floor addition windows were revised. The existing stucco will be repaired or replaced, a light grey metal panel finish will be applied to the stair towers, and 3rd floor addition and a dark grey metal panel finish. Sullivan asked for clarification at the divider between the 3rd floor decks. McShear replied that there will be a horizontal cedar panel divider. Tranos added that he could color match the wood stain to the metal panels. Kennedy suggested metal edge trim at both the top and sides of the divider. DeMaio asked if the window opening sizes are existing or new. McShera replied that the existing openings in the walls are similar to what is being proposed and the long elevations have various window sizes. DeMaio asked for the floor to floor height and window height. McShear replied approximately 14 feet floor to floor and 7-foot-high windows. Tranos relied that the heights were adjusted on each floor. Jaquith suggested that the top floor needed additional glass to better match the window layout of the lower floors. McShear replied that single windows are proposed at the corner bedrooms. Jaquith suggested double windows with a transom at each corner, for a total of 4 new windows. Durand suggested that single at the lower level be changed to double windows to also match the façade and keep the symmetry throughout the window. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Jaquith: Motion to approve at Building #3; to center the double windows at front façade of the first floor, change the double columns at the entrances to singles with a railing to separate the two entrances, install a single window at the first-floor East elevation to allow for the installation of an electric fireplace, eliminate the proposed wall vent, and to add four new windows to both the lower and top floors of the center Building #1 to make the windows at each floor symmetrical. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0 Old/New Business 1. 401 Bridge Street (Levesque Community Life Center): Discussion and vote on proposed signage (sign permit) scheme. Sid Silvara, Architect, DMS Design was present to discuss the project. Silvara stated that they would like to raise the proposed lighting to 18”-24” from the signage. Dynia asked why a white fixture was proposed and not satin. Kennedy preferred that white not be used and the signage and lighting should be more consistent. Jaquith asked for the proposed lettering color. Silvara replied metallic. Sullivan asked if there was any shrubbery in front of the proposed lighting. Silvara replied yes. Dynia suggested moving the proposed lighting to 18” above the sign. Jaquith suggested a white underline under the sign. Sullivan questioned if the signage is underlined if the lighting should run the length of the sign. Jaquith replied that he is okay with the design as presented. Dynia stated that the lighting length should be able to match the 24’ long sign lettering on building. Chair Durand stated that this seems out of place to have it on the wall and the lighting should point down. Kennedy noted that up-lighting will highlight the second line of text but not the first which is higher. Chair Durand noted that the lighting only extends 12” away from the wall. Since it is near the walkway it doesn’t meet ADA requirements and would be a hazard, but it could be installed under the band above. Sullivan noted that there is a terrace next to it, a small area of landscaping, and then more terrace, and people could run into or stand on it. Chair Durand suggested that the lighting be recessed into the ground. DeMaio stated his concern with a 12” extension of light so far from the sign not being effective and suggested the lighting be in the eave that could extend further out so better direct the light. Sullivan agreed. Silvara noted that 24” extension arms are available for the lighting. DeMaio noted that longer extension arms will allow the light to be better directed. Sullivan suggested spot lights from the middle roof eave which may be too high up. Chair Durand noted that spot lights from the entry overhang might not be very effective since it would only come from the right side of the sign. DeMaio stated that lighting from above could be distracting to the drivers on Bridge Street. Kennedy suggested either recessed lighting in the ground as Option No. 1 or LED spot lights from the eave as Option No. 2. Durand suggested backlighting would be the best option since lighting at the top won’t work and the lighting cannot go below. DeMaio suggested mounting the sign to any other locations in the area because a backlit sign would require a sign redesign. It was agreed that the applicant should return with lighting alternatives. Jaquith: Motion to continue with the applicant to consider backlit signage, ground recessed. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. Minutes The minutes from the November 29, 2017 regular meeting were reviewed. Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Durand. Passes 6-0. The minutes from the December 19, 2017 regular meeting were reviewed. Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Durand. Passes 4-0. The minutes from the January 24, 2018 regular meeting were reviewed. Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Kennedy. Passes 6-0. The minutes from the February 13, 2018 special meeting were reviewed. Jaquith: Motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by: Dynia. Kennedy recused himself for being the presenter. Passes 5-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Chair Durand. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 8:30PM. Approved by the Design Review Board on April 25, 2018. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.