Loading...
2010-09-22 DRB MinutesDRB 9/22/10 Page 1 of 10 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Thursday September 22, 2010, at 6:00pm Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington St. Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, Michael Blier, David Jaquith, Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides, Glenn Kennedy Members Absent: Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel Recorder: Lindsay Howlett Chairperson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order. 1. 26 Front Street and 15 Derby Square (Maria’s Sweet Somethings): Discussion of proposed portable sign Maria Harris is present on behalf of Maria’s Sweet Somethings. The Board reviews submitted plans dated September 9, 2010. Daniel explains Maria is presenting a new A-Frame sign. Daniel states up until June A-frame signs were illegal but the City Council decided to allow them under a regulated circumstance and businesses now have through the end of the year to come into compliance. Daniel adds businesses are allowed one A-Frame sign per entrance and if businesses share an entrance they need to share an A-Frame sign. Daniel states during this initial phase there are no fees. Daniel indicates the ordinance guidelines state the sign must be within 10’ of the entrance and have a 5’ clearance from any obstruction. Daniel adds these measurements can vary given specific site conflicts. Daniel states Maria’s Sweet Somethings is proposing to utilize their existing A-Frame sign. Daniel adds the sign in the front of their store exceeds the 10’ distance and there will be a second proposed location, behind the building at their second entrance. Harris states that to the left of the door at the back entrance, is actually a 12’-9” distance on the plans. Daniel states she is proposing to locate the sign flush against the building within the 10’. Harris adds she hopes the proposal goes through and that the sign has been there since April 2003. Harris adds the same design is presented everywhere and has become her brand now. Daniel, on behalf of Glenn Kennedy, states that the sign contains a lot of information and is something that you have to stop to read. Durand replies he thinks the sign does both as the ice cream cone graphic provides quick communication. Sides states it looks fine. DeMaio states the sign looks fine, if it were a new sign thinks the comment about a lot of information is a good one but when he sees it in the photo it looks great. DeMaio adds the sign in the back against the building concerns him as people tend to walk up against the sides of the building especially those who are visually impaired. Harris responds the sign is going to be next to a table and chair that will be in place from May until October. Harris adds second sign will not be there much and adds that she does not believe the sign will be a trip hazard. Blier states there is a service lane there as well but has no problem with the sign. Sides: Motion to approve as presented, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0. 2. 24 Front Street (Sweet Anthem): Discussion of proposed building signage and portable sign Pam Jaynes is present on behalf of Sweet Anthem. The Board reviews submitted plans dated September 14, 2010. Daniel states the proposal is for a blade sign as well as a portable sign and that the business is sharing a space with Fiddlehead. Daniel states the wooden door depicted in the images is not used. Daniel further adds that the sign ordinance states that each entrance is allowed one blade sign, and elsewhere states one business is allowed one blade sign so there is some ambiguity in the ordinance. Daniel hands out a revision to the portable sign package, which will be shared with Fiddlehead. Jaynes states the portable sign would sit next to the existing flower cart which is 8 1/2’ from the front door. Sides states the blade sign looks good but thinks it needs to have a little more space at the bottom underneath ‘Jewelry Etc.’ Jaynes asks for advice on how to accomplish that. Sides responds to squeeze things a little bit more, the whole imagery needs to float a little bit more within the sign. Daniel clarifies that the ‘Jewelry Etc.’ piece needs to be lifted a little or the sign made slightly bigger as it feels tight. Jaynes clarifies more negative space. Sides confirms. Durand asks how much space is needed. Sides responds probably only an inch. Durand confirms. Jaynes asks the board their thoughts on making the crown smaller. Durand responds that Jaynes should do that because a 24” sign is a nice round number. Jaynes reiterates that if they were to shrink everything up by an inch they should achieve what the board is looking for. The board confirms. Sides asks if the URL link is allowed to be on portable signs. Daniel responds it is something they don’t want to see on the building but is okay on the A- Frame sign. Sides states she is missing the creative Fiddlehead signage. Jaynes states to put both logos on the same sign seems forced and this is what the sign company suggested. Jaynes adds it should feel like one sign even though there are two businesses there. Kennedy arrives late to the meeting. Sides confirms it is a challenge to try to fit the two signs together but thinks the Fiddlehead looks very secondary on the sign. Sides adds she thinks the A-Frame sign needs to be studied. Sides further adds that she approves of having two separate signs on the building even though they share an entrance. DeMaio states he has no problem with the blade sign. DeMaio adds the text of ‘Sweet Anthem’ is a little large but is not sure if that is part of the company’s branding and for that reason any re-sizing should be done proportionately. DeMaio states adding too many things to the A-Frame sign will provide too much visual clutter on the sidewalk. DeMaio states whatever happens with the sidewalk sign needs to work with Fiddlehead’s branding and needs to be given another pass. Additionally DeMaio likes the location. Jaquith arrives late to the meeting. Blier states the arc of the ‘Jewelry Etc.’ seems a little imbalanced but otherwise is fine. Blier adds he shares the same negative space concerns Sides stated earlier. Kennedy states he agrees that the A-Frame sign needs Fiddlehead’s branding. Kennedy states he loves the blade sign but sees what is happening with the arc. Kennedy suggests making the J closer to the same baseline as the C will assist in making it more visually balanced. Kennedy explains by pushing the type around10 pixels along the arc, it won’t appear as heavy on the left side of the sign and to decrease the kerning between the ‘e’ and the ‘w’ to assist in balancing it out. Kennedy states if that is done there will be no need to add space along the bottom. Durand agrees with Kennedy’s comments. Kennedy states he shares the same comments with the A-Frame sign, it needs Fiddlehead branding. Jaynes responds they will definitely correct that. Durand states they will approve the blade and look for another pass on the portable sign. Kennedy volunteers to review the portable sign outside of the board meeting. Sides comments that she wonders if it is necessary to have the store hours on the blade sign as the point of sign is to have people come into the store to learn more. Jaynes agrees. Kennedy: Motion to approve the blade sign with the following conditions: - The arc of the “Jewelry, Etc.” shall be shifted slightly to the right so it appears more balanced; and - A revised design of the portable sign shall be reviewed and approved by Glenn Kennedy prior to the SRA meeting. Seconded by Sides. Passes 6-0. 3. 28 Norman Street (7-Eleven): Discussion of proposed signage Jack Floyd is present on behalf of 7-Eleven. The Board reviews submitted plans dated September 8, 2010. Daniel states there are two signs being proposed, one on the Crombie Street façade and one on the Norman Street façade. Floyd states they want to get as much as they can and that the signage is mass produced in limited sizes. Floyd adds the lettering height in the package fits within the allowable square footage. Jaquith thinks the 24” letters on the Norman Street side is too tall and thinks the type could be made smaller or the sign board bigger. Jaquith asks if the sign board is in bad shape. Floyd responds he would not call the sign board poor but fair. Sides agrees with Jaquith, and adds she would want to reinforce that White Hen has external sign attachments that are not supposed to be there and has received complaints about those in the past. Sides asks if the business has changed ownership or franchise. Floyd responds franchise. Sides states she hopes the whole place is cleaned up because it is a mess. Floyd agrees the entire awning should be redone and states it is a landlord issue and they have been approached on the matter. Floyd states he represents the sign company. Daniel states the issue with the signs on the post should be included in this motion. DeMaio states he is generally not a fan of internally illuminated signs. DeMaio adds he does not think they have approved a letter half as tall as these letters in the past. DeMaio further adds in general anything taller than a 10”-12” has not previously been approved with the exception of the T at the Tavern. DeMaio states they take signs by a case by case basis but thinks this sign is significantly out of scale within the context of the surrounding community. Durand asks if there is a size DeMaio would suggest. DeMaio responds it is not just the letter size but that they are also lit up. DeMaio adds unless they are on a site where the sign is very high up on a building it should be less than 12”. DeMaio states 24” lettering on Crombie Street seems out of scale to him. DeMaio adds he is not a fan of the other signs in the plaza either but at this time they can’t do anything about that and can only deal with new proposals. DeMaio encourages the board to think of what they could be other than internally illuminated. Blier states he agrees with the lettering appearing too large and overly scaled. Blier states he appreciates the ‘off the shelf’ comment but knows there are other 7/11 signs that are not 24” tall. Floyd states for 7-Eleven 24” is the smallest they use. They meet code in all respects, understands their advice but hard for him to go back and explain to 7-Eleven. Blier states they are an advisory board and not code enforcers but from his perspective the lettering is too big. Floyd states it is more beneficial to his business because custom signage is more money for them and so agrees but adds the client wants as big as they can get. Floyd agrees with the board’s advice. Durand states the board is charged with the aesthetics of the downtown character and the SRA has the authority to agree with that or not. Durand adds they are charged with maintaining the downtown aesthetics. Durand agrees with the commentary and thinks the letters are over scaled. Kennedy agrees that they are too large but would be more lenient in the size of them. Kennedy would be ok with a 16-18” letter size for these. Durand agrees. Kennedy states he is ok with the illumination but thinks the 6” decrease on the Norman Street and Crombie Street sign would make a big difference. Kennedy thinks half the size would almost be too small but 6” smaller would certainly be much more appropriate. Kennedy states he thinks the board should hold approval until all of the other signs are gone. Durand states the board can approve tonight’s signage with a provision to eliminate the other non-conforming signage. Durand adds he is okay with the halo illumination and would not want it to be internally lit. Floyd adds reducing the size of the letter will provide more impact with the halo affect. Blier: Motion to approve the package with the following conditions: - The letter height shall be reduced to 18”; and - The illegal temporary signs on poles, etc. shall be removed permanently. seconded by Sides. Passes 5-1. 4. 282 Derby Street, Unit 2 (Custom House Rotisserie): Discussion of proposed signage and awning. Bill VanLoon and Dennis Griswold are present on behalf of Custom House Rotisserie. Jaquith recuses himself. The Board reviews submitted plans dated September 15, 2010, and plans submitted at the meeting dated September 20, 2010. VanLoon explains the design of the sign features three three-dimensional chickens on a spick that will rotate, driven by a small electric motor. Sides states it being a brick building would not want to see wires on the exterior of the building. DeMaio adds they want the entire conduit to be hidden and not seen on the outside of the building. VanLoon states the wires would come out from the building where the sign spick is located and should be hidden as a result. VanLoon adds this will not be happening until after October. Sides asks what the bracket looks like. VanLoon states they are re-using the existing bracket. Kennedy states he took a photo of the building façade and did some work in Photoshop to show what the building could look like all cleaned up. Kennedy asks what the plan is for the awning. VanLoon states it is the original awning to the building and everyone else was ordered to follow the green and thus has carried all the way down to Dunkin Donuts. VanLoon states they would be using a black awning material to cover up the previous tenants name and would then use a white awning material cut into letters with their name on the awning. Sides asks why it is named ‘Custom House’. VanLoon states the name sounded good to them. Griswold is a friend of VanLoons who has heavy restaurant experience and will be running the place. Sides is curious about the name as its not going in a custom house and adds that it being the first location seems a little odd to her. DeMaio states that he likes the three-dimensional chickens but as it is so close to the urban renewal area where the limit is 56” per sign, wonders why that would be waived in this instance. DeMaio thinks they could achieve a successful sign within the limits and would not be his preference to allow that waiver. DeMaio adds he thinks there is a lot going on with the sign such as three different type faces, and everything seems very packed together. DeMaio states he thinks the sign needs a lot of refinement. DeMaio further adds that the proportion of the letters is not good and that combined with the white letters on the awning results in way too much clutter, no gelling and no balance. DeMaio states a smaller sign with smaller letters on the field, relating sign and awning would be better that what it is now. Griswold states they took the sign dimensions from the existing sign at Cilantro. Kennedy thinks the previous tenant’s sign did come before the board but not the awning. Kennedy states the dimension of the sign did not look too big for the bracket or the space but thinks the sign now looks taller. Griswold states they are the exact measurements of the previously existing sign. Kennedy states if the dimensions are exact same size then it is proportionate to the space and the hinge. Kennedy adds it almost looks in the photos like the sign is banging into the wall. Griswold responds he thinks it’s the angle of the photo is skewing the reality. Kennedy states if you remove the awning, it will actually create more visibility to the sign and will make the space look like its busier and in addition will allow people to see the bike sign behind. VanLoon agrees but states the landlord insists on maintaining that awning, so much so that when a recent UPS truck hit it, it was fixed and reinstalled and a post was installed to protect the awning from future trucks. Kennedy states it is very intrusive to the space, does not help the space look busy, blocks the street off, is a distraction and is hurting traffic flow. Kennedy adds the challenge of that location is to get people to walk up the street. Kennedy states the more he studied the space, photoshopped the awning out, the more he realized it has to go. Kennedy explains that he looked at alternate smaller awnings, but thinks its still best with no awning. Kennedy adds someone needs to clean up the street front, paint the post, stain the wood trim, get rid of the extraneous stuff on face of building etc, it is a mess. Kennedy further adds if this was all done the space could look very nice. Kennedy states if the sign matches the size of the current sign, there is no issue. Kennedy adds all of the type needs to get a little bit smaller as it is very crammed in, unless the eye has space to see the characters, the more the letters are pushed to the sides. Kennedy clarifies there needs to be enough room around the type to see the type. Kennedy states to reduce almost all of it a little bit down, give it room and space to breathe. Kennedy adds to remove the rule underneath the ‘Take Out & Catering,’ as it is another element that is not needed. Kennedy summarizes it all just needs a little more space around it, make everything a little smaller. Daniel states the sign is not able to be permitted at these dimensions because it exceeds the permitted area. It also extends more than 56”. DeMaio asks why we would need to waive the size of the sign in this particular instance anyway. Daniel clarifies the regulated maximum length is 56” and area is 12 square feet. DeMaio states so much of what the board does becomes precedent setting and thinks they need to have really good reasons for waiving particular cases. VanLoon states they are a small restaurant on a dead end street hoping to catch the eye from the traffic, which is why they were hoping they could maintain the existing sign. Kennedy states it will work look good and conform in the 56” length. Kennedy confirms with the board that the chickens and everything is fine with everyone. Board agrees. Kennedy states he is more than happy to work with Brian so that they do not have to wait another month. Kennedy proposes that they don’t approve the awning. Blier states he thinks the awning was not previously approved. Daniel will review. Durand agrees the awning is horrible. Daniel states he will check the records to see if there was an approval for the awning, if there is then its looking at modifying it this way. If there is no approval in place then the property owner will need to explain and document an approval for that. Daniel adds if the DRB does not approve the awning then it will need to come down. Daniel states he will communicate directly with the property owner. VanLoon states he is currently in Europe. Sides asks if they can attach a recommendation to the SRA to remove the awning. Durand states he is not so sure they can but thinks taking it down would be better for the businesses. Durand adds less is more; people want to see the signs and not be confused. Durand states he is not so sure that can’t be looked at again. Kennedy asks if they can make a recommendation to SRA that the awning come down. Daniel states yes. DeMaio asks if the white letters are the only option for the awning lettering. VanLoon states it was wishful thinking to get the awning from green to black, but it is too much of an expense for them at this time. VanLoon adds the letters do not need to be white. Sides asks if the white letters have to be on the awning. Sides states she does not see why it would be necessary and instead to just leave it as a black cover up. Durand: Motion to approve with the following conditions: - The sign size shall be reduced to be no more than 12 square feet; - The width shall not exceed 56”; - The lettering shall be reduced in size; - The rule below “Take Out & Catering shall be eliminated; - The “&” shall be shifted up; and - A revised design of the sign shall be reviewed and approved by Glenn Kennedy prior to the SRA meeting. The DRB also recommended that the awning be removed. seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0. Adjournment Approval of the meeting minutes from the July 28 and August 5, 2010 regular meeting. Kennedy: Motion to approve July 28th meeting minutes, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0. Blier: Motion to approve August 5th meeting minutes, seconded by Durand. Passes 4-0. Kennedy: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Durand. Passes 6-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:23 pm.