Loading...
2012-01-25 DRB MinutesDRB January 25, 2012 Page 1 of 4 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday January 25, 2012 at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, Helen Sides, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Michael Blier Members Absent: Ernest DeMaio Others Present: Tom Daniel, Economic Development Manager Recorder: Sarah Brophy Chairperson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. Roll call was taken. Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review 1. 304 Essex Street (Liberty Tax Service): Discussion of proposed signage The submission, dated January 18, 2012, included a letter; sign permit application form, plans and photos of the proposed signage. Sean Galligan, owner, was present. Daniel commented that this item was reviewed by the DRB at the previous meeting and was continued. Sides questioned if the proposal before the DRB intends to leave the signage “as is”. Galligan stated that at this time, the permanent signage is all that is being submitted for review and more guidance from the DRB is being sought. Kennedy reviewed what was discussed at the last meeting. Comments included the reduction of the number of fonts for simplification and a more cohesive signage package for both permanent and temporary signage. Regarding the temporary signage, it was suggested that the signs should be standardized in terms of size and shape. Daniel noted that the comments regarding temporary signage are only suggestions and do not have to be adopted. The permanent signage was discussed. Kennedy offered guidance on font size and color. It was agreed that 8” lettering is appropriate. While the letters can be red or white, red letters tie in better with the rest of the surrounding signage package. Daniel commented that the blue of the logo does not show up relative to the red letters. Kennedy suggested that the addition of a white or frosted strip behind would enhance the legibility of the sign. Durand agreed that the frosted strip would improve the overall message. It was concluded that the frost should go all of the way across the window with a 1” spacer at the two edges and bottom. Within the frosted band, there should be a 2” border on all sides. It is appropriate for the logo to be slightly larger than the lettering. DRB January 25, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Jaquith: Motion to approve with the following conditions: • 12” frosted band with 1” reveal on sides and bottom; • 10” logo; and • 8” letters to be centered vertically. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0. 2. 186 Essex Street, Unit 3 (Witch City Ink): Discussion of proposed portable sign The submission, dated September 30, 2011, included a sign permit application form, letter, and photo of the proposed signage. Cassandra Warren from Witch City Ink was present. Sides commented that the sign is difficult to read. Jaquith stated that the sign should reflect the graphic nature of the business in a more meaningful way. Kennedy agreed with Jaquith’s comments. While the imagery on the sign is subjective, simple handling of the type could improve the sign significantly. If the type was made a bit smaller, the letters were spaced evenly and there was a border around the text, the sign would be easier to read. Daniel commented that if the sign was to be redesigned, it could be a smaller A-frame and that this is an opportunity to think about how the signage might reflect the creativity of the business in a better way. Daniel stated that the minimal extent of revisions required at this time include Kennedy’s comments about the border and letter spacing. However, Durand and Kennedy stated that it would be appropriate to have the business name, “Witch City Ink”, incorporated into the sign. Kennedy: Motion to continue, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0. 3. 14 New Derby Street (Gagnon’s Shoe Repair): Discussion of proposed signage The submission, dated January 18, 2012, included photos of the proposed sign. Richard Gagnon was present. The existing permanent sign is to be replaced by a new sign. The new sign will be slightly smaller than the old one and will be centered above the window. There will be no exposed fasteners. Sides asked Gagnon if the cartoon figure is important to the sign as it distracts from the overall balance of the sign. The owner affirmed that it is in fact important. Kennedy commented that he likes the sign. While it is contemporary, it also harkens back to a 50’s cartoon style. The sign in the window conflicts with the new sign. The owner DRB January 25, 2012 Page 3 of 4 indicated that the sign in the window is an artifact from a previous location and is not meant to be part of the reviewed signage. Durand commented that the “14” address on the door is inconsistent with the rest of the signage and should be replaced. Durand: Motion to approve with the following condition: • “14” address to be changed to white vinyl letters that are the same size and are to be located in the middle of the door. Second by: Sides, Passes 5-0. 4. 50 St. Peter Street (Great Escape Restaurant): Discussion of proposed temporary vestibule The submission included a cover letter, photos, and plans of the proposed vestibule. Shane Andruskiewicz, Great Escape, and William Balkus, architect, were present. Daniel stated that they were before the SRA earlier this month. The SRA approved the temporary vestibule in concept. Andruskiewicz indicated that the proposed temporary vestibule is wood construction with glass windows and asphalt shingles. Due to the historic nature of the building, the structure will not be attached. Sides questioned why the vestibule is not canvas. Andruskiewicz noted that the canvas was quoted to be three times more expensive than the wood and glass. Durand inquired about the construction and detailing of the structure and expressed concern about the attachments. Balkus noted that a rubber roof might be better than asphalt. Jaquith agreed. Balkus confirmed that the structure will be made of pieces for easy dismantling/installation and that the hinges would be simple and elegant. There was discussion regarding how it will be secured to the ground. Andruskiewicz indicated that the mounts would be concealed in the summer. Durand requested detailed drawings prior to approval. Balkus to provide to Daniel. Upon receipt, the DRB will review and comment within four days. The Board considered dates for installation and removal. It was agreed that a flexible range would be best to accommodate for weather fluctuations. The structure can be erected no sooner than November 1st and must be removed by no later than April 30th. DRB January 25, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Jaquith: Motion to approve with the following conditions: • Review and approval of construction drawings. Seconded by: Sides, Passes 5-0. Minutes Approval of the minutes from the December 28, 2011 regular meeting. Sides: Motion to approve, seconded by Kennedy. Passes 4-0. Adjournment Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:20 pm.