Loading...
2015-06-24 DRB MinutesDRB June 24, 2015 Page 1 of 7 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Paul Durand, Glenn Kennedy, Ernest DeMaio, David Jaquith, J. Michael Sullivan, Christopher Dynia, Helen Sides Members Absent: Others Present: Andrew Shapiro Recorder: Jennifer Pennell Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review *First item taken out of order* 1. Cigarette Butt Recycling Units (City of Salem): Discussion of proposed new labels and signage. The submission under review includes a cover letter, design, and photo. Susan Yochelson of Salem Sound Coast Watch and Julie Rose where present on behalf of the City Of Salem. Yochelson noted that the proposal is to relocate existing units and to make them more visible to pedestrians with bolder signage, as a result of a project by interns who examined the effectiveness of the cigarette butt recycling units. Labels would be redesigned as shown and located on the units. Additional signage with arrows directing pedestrians to units would also be located on the street and inside nearby businesses. Rose commented that there are currently 90 recycling bins throughout the city and that the proposed unit label would be placed on all 3 sides. Sullivan questioned how many signs would be used to locate the units and could this signage be phased. The first approach would be to have signage located on the units and if that doesn’t work then phase 2 would require locating additional signage that could direct pedestrians to the recycling units. Yochelson and Rose said that they would be amenable to that approach. Durand noted that he understands the need for a change in the signage given that the units as currently shown are relatively nondescript. He then commented that the board DRB June 24, 2015 Page 2 of 7 typically approves signage located at specific places. Durand commented that he would have concerns regarding height and the interference signage would have with other things. Jaquith noted that additional signage could get out of control but feels that the campaign is important. Kennedy commented that there needs to be a balance on how much louder the campaign needs to be. Phase 1 could include placing signage on the front of recycling units. Placing labels on more than one side of a given unit could be done at the applicant’s discretion. Having signage placed elsewhere would need to be a third phase to be approved by the boards at a later date, if necessary. Kennedy commented that staging the signage in phases would also become more visible to the public than doing everything all at once. This would help balance how much visual noise is necessary. Kennedy commented that if the red becomes a bit darker the signage would become more legible; currently it comes off as too loud. DeMaio commented that he agrees with the approach. He noted that there is a balance that needs to be struck with respect to increasing the visibility of the signage but not to overwhelm someone walking down the street. Phasing if necessary, is a good approach. Sullivan: Motion to approve the revised label for the cigarette butt recycling units, conditional upon: • the applicant having discretion to place the labels on the sides of the units; • returning to the DRB if additional signage is needed; • red font should be darkened – Glenn Kennedy can review revisions; Seconded by: Durand, Passes 6-0. At this point Helen Sides joined the meeting. *This item taken out of order* 2. 181 Essex Street (TBT Post): Discussion of proposed installation of signage. The submission under review includes designs and photos of the proposed signage. Morgan William Downs was present on behalf of TBT Post. Downs began by explaining the different styles and types of clothing and jewelry offered by the store. Downs then noted that the perspective signage frame would consist of aluminum and be 3’-0” x 3’-0”. The signage would be made of PVC with wood lining. The existing bracket would be bolted into the granite. DRB June 24, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Sides questioned if the logo has been used in other locations. Downs commented that it is the business’ official brand logo. Sullivan questioned if the windows would have any signage. Downs responded saying that there was no intention to put signs in the windows. Sullivan commented that the middle signage could align with the granite coursing. The signage located on the sides would be more appealing as window decals. The building is very linear. Three signs would over populate the granite coursing. Downs noted that the proposal does not include any window signage. Kennedy noted that the bracket for the blade sign would need to drop down so that it could be mounted properly within the thicker course of granite. Durand commented that he agrees that the signage would fit better within the thicker coursing, similar to Pamplemousse. He said that he would not mind if the sign was lowered and intersected the glass below the granite. He continued to note that the building signage would be better if it was more rectangular, so that it fit within the granite coursing. DeMaio noted that the applicant could consider having the signage within the window spandrel below, which is how Pamplemousse handles its building signage. Sides commented that the location and scaled drawings of the signage and bracket are needed and not addressed in the current submission. Sides commented that the board typically views submissions with more detail relative to dimensions. Kennedy said that he would be comfortable approving a 3’x3’ blade sign as shown, with a bracket as shown, mounted underneath the thinner course of granite, but that the building signs should be considered. Sides and Durand noted that they agree with that approach. Kennedy: Motion to approve mount, 3’-0” x 3’-0” blade sign with black bracket as presented, conditional upon it being mounted below the thinner course of granite, and to continue the proposal for two other building signs. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0. 3. 295 Derby Street (Speedway former Hess): Discussion of installation of signage. The submission under review includes a letter, drawings, and photos of the proposed signage. Heather Dudko was present on behalf of Speedway. DRB June 24, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Dudko explained that Speedway has acquired Hess and is in the process of changing signage at all current Hess gas stations. She noted that the proposal in this case is to remove all existing green “Hess” signage and to replace them with the new Speedway logo. There would be no structural change to the free standing sign – it will be refaced with the new logo. Dudko commented that the proposal also includes replacing the current manual price signage to a digital LED format. All signage is currently internally illuminated, and the new signage would also be internally illuminated. Shapiro noted that all current signage had at one point been approved as internally illuminated. He also explained that typically, LED signage is not approved; however the City has made exceptions in the case of gas stations for pricing, which is something that has the tendency to change multiple times per week. Sides commented that the new proposed building sign looks better than the existing. The signage appears more contained and clean. Durand noted that he doesn’t have a problem with the signage being proposed, especially since it is in line with the type of signage that has been there previsouly. Kennedy commented that he is okay with the proposed building signage and awning changes. Kennedy questioned if the shape of the digits on the LED signage could be less digital and more natural. A similar unit with a more dense digital light of a higher quality would provide a more natural looking font. There are other led units that can achieve this. Dudko noted that she did not currently have an alternate specification for the digital signage but that it might be possible for her client to address. Kennedy: Motion to approve all signage as presented except for the digital sign board, which should be presented again at a future date with a higher quality more realistic looking presentation. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0. 4. 179 Essex Street (Salem Arts Center): Discussion of proposed installation of window signage and A-Frame sign. The submission under review includes photos and designs of the proposed signage. Laura Potter was present on behalf of Salem Arts Center. Potter explained that the Salem Arts Association and Salem Collective of Artists and Musicians (SCAM) is combining forces to rent the former Bernard’s space as a shared gallery space and studio. They intend to name the entity, the Salem Arts Center. Potter noted that the proposal is for an A-Frame to be placed in front of the storefront and vinyl logos located on the entry windows. Windows up front would hold art installations DRB June 24, 2015 Page 5 of 7 that would change on a regular basis. No business or organization signage is being proposed at this time, but they would like to return in the future for approval. Jaquith commented that the individual signs should be placed on side panels instead of doors. Sides commented that the letters located on the squared logo should come in from edges a bit. Potter agreed to the changes being proposed. Jaquith: Motion to approve individual signs located on side panels instead of doors, and approval of A-Frame sign. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0. 5. 118 Washington Street (Bistro 118): Discussion of proposed installation of window signage and new exterior paint colors. The submission under review includes photos and cut sheets of the proposed signage. Devin Kenneson was present on behalf of Bistro 118. Shapiro interjected to note that although the current submission shows a proposal to repaint the façade, that RCG informed him that it will not currently approve that proposal. The proposal is for three signs total, all to be placed on window (two on Washington Street side and one on the Lappin Park side). Kennedy commented that the “B” could be moved over slightly to become more legible and that the overall size of the window decal could be slightly smaller to fit in the window a bit better. DeMaio commented that the eleven and the eight are disassociated so much that it becomes confusing. The stroke could be 10% thicker to make it feel more unified. Kennedy: Motion to approve the • Window signs • Shifting the B slightly to the left within the logo • Making the window decals 10% smaller in the space • Matching the white font to the intended white of the building Seconded by: Sides, Passes 7-0. 6. 148-150 Washington Street (Joshua Ward House): Discussion of proposed exterior improvements. DRB June 24, 2015 Page 6 of 7 The submission under review includes photos, drawings, and plans of the proposed exterior improvements. Dan Ricciarelli of Seger Architects and Todd Waller (developer) noted that the proposal is for: • Brand new windows and frames • Slate roof which was originally asphalt shingles • Refurbishing the existing fence • Taking out existing paving and replacing it with brick • Old foundation wall would be removed and replaced, moving in about six feet. • Granite blocks would be put down. • New accessibility opening located in the back of building for a chair lift. • Balustrade at the top of the roof. Sides questioned if the sills would be replaced because of cracking. Ricciarelli stated that they would be replaced with insulated, wood, true divided light windows. Ricciarelli showed the Board a sample of the simulated slate to be used for the roof replacement. The existing signage frame seen on the front lawn would be used to mount a new sign that is the same size. The proposed signage would be presented to the DRB at a later time. Sullivan questioned what the process would be for cleaning the masonry. Riccirelli explained that any dust created would be cleaned but overall it is not needed. DeMaio questioned the material of the brick to be used for the driveway and suggested that the Board might want to review it prior to installation. Ricciarelli responded that they planned to use Boston Paver. Durand noted that Boston Pavers tends to be a standard. Jaquith: Motion to approve the drawings as presented with Boston Pavers Brick in the driveway. Seconded by Sides: Passes 7-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the May 27, 2015 regular meeting. DRB June 24, 2015 Page 7 of 7 Edits were suggested to revise members noted as not present versus present at the top of the minutes. Kennedy: Motion to approve with suggested edits. Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 7-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, Seconded by Durand. Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:42 pm.