City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board
Date and Time: Wednesday January 26, 2011, 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
Members Absent: Glenn Kennedy
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Chairperson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review
- 7 Central Street (Angelica of the Angels): Discussion of proposed portable sign
Barbara Szafranski is present on behalf of Angelica of the Angels. The board reviews a letter dated December 1st with photo attachments of Szafranski’s proposed portable sign.
Daniel states the City Council has adopted an ordinance back in June for portable signs that includes specifications about the requirements. Daniel states the ordinance specifies only one A-frame sign allowed per entrance and adds Szafranski currently has three.
Daniel states Szafranski currently has three portable signs; one is a fabric sign, one has her primary image on it, and the third has individual letters displayed. Daniel states the third sign is the one that conforms to the allowable dimensions per the ordinance.
Durand clarifies Szafranski will be going down to one sign. Daniel confirms.
Szafranski states she has always made sure her signage did not interfere with pedestrians on Central Street. Szafranski adds she also has chairs outside where people come to rest a lot. Szafranski states she had a few more signs because she wasn’t on Essex Street and wanted to bring more attention to her store and adds that her signs are displaying different services.Szafranski asks if she needs to choose only one sign.
Daniel confirms yes and adds depending on the one she chooses she may need to modify the signage to ensure it’s within the allowable dimensions.
Szafranski states her signs are the same size as the ones all around the city and that if she were to have a smaller sign, she would rather not have any signs because people won’t be able to always see it from Essex Street.
Daniel responds the issue with that sign in particular was that it was 48” high which added to its overall area. Daniel states the objective of the council was the whole structure to be a 6 square foot area.
Sides suggest shortening the legs to bring the height down on the sign to come into compliance.
Szafranski responds she has been putting it on the dirt and out of the way of the sidewalk. Szafranski adds it will cost her a lot of money to modify her current signs.
Daniel states he is aware the signs cost money and adds not everyone on the City Council wanted to allow portable signs but it was determined that they are effective for businesses and if they wanted to have portable signage they had to come into compliance with the ordinance.
Durand states they can’t change the requirements of the ordinance.
Szafranski states she understands.
Daniel states the DRB is to look at the graphic quality of the signs and ensure it is compliant with the ordinance.
Durand states the A-frame signs weren’t allowed before the ordinance.
Szafranski states last Halloween it looked like a big mess going up Essex Street with all of the portable signs.
Durand responds it was a free for all and states the City Council acquiesced because there is a business need and now there needs to be a conforming sign per entry.
Jaquith states the issue is Szafranski has more than one sign.
Durand states Szafranski needs to pick one and the one that is conforming is not something he would pick tonight because it’s not a good sign.
Szafranski agrees that one is not a good sign.
Durand adds the other two signs don’t conform.
DeMaio states the taller sign doesn’t conform in several ways; too tall and it has a weighted base.
Durand clarifies she can’t pick one of her current signs she would need to propose a new sign as her current signs are non-conforming.
Daniel states the board can choose to recommend that one of her signs be modified to conform to the area requirements.
Szafranski asks about putting up one of her signs on the side of the building over her current sign so that she can at least utilize one of her signs that she spent so much money on.
Daniel states that would be considered a building sign and that would have to be reviewed separately. Daniel adds there is a certain amount of area permitted for building signs and they would have to include her current sign in the count. Daniel adds they could look at that but it would have to wait for next month.
Szafranski states that is fine and confirms she would have to get a whole new portable sign.
Daniel responds she could possibly just make modifications to one of her current portable signs.
Durand adds it would be easy to cut the legs down.
Sides agrees.
Szafranski asks how she could go about that and adds there is no one who could help her with this. Szafranski states she will have to find someone
Jaquith suggests Szafranski considers redesigning her A-frame sign as she has two businesses. Jaquith adds she really has a design issue of how people see this sign from the beginning.
Daniel states Kennedy’s previously submitted comments; Kennedy states only one sign is allowed, preferably not the one with the changeable letters as it is not attractive. Kennedy adds the other images are not legible.
Jaquith adds the signs should be legible from fifty feet away. Jaquith states cutting the legs off is the easy part, but to be able to get her message across better would be something to think about.
Szafranski states she understands and asks if she could use the same exact sign for her new location.
Durand responds they could approve one graphic to go two places but adds the board would need to review the new location.
Daniel states for the new location, the building signage would need to be reviewed as well. Daniel asks which direction Szafranski is going in.
Szafranski states for now she will work on cutting down the legs of her current sign.
Daniel states it would need to be three feet tall, no more than six square feet total.
Durand states the sign can go straight to the ground and adds that is preferable for ADA standards.
Jaquith: Motion to continue, seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0.
- 83 Washington Street (Urban Elements): Discussion of proposed signage
Kim Tenenbaum is present on behalf of Urban Elements, who will be moving around the corner to the space where Hip Baby Gear used to be on Washington Street.
The board reviews a proposal produced by Fastsigns which includes photos of the proposed signs and building.
Daniel states Tenenbaum is proposing a new blade sign, new sign band lettering, a portable sign and bringing back the red door. Daniel adds the original proposal exceeded the allowable dimensions and adds those will be adjusted going forward.
Tenenbaum walks the board through her proposed signage package. Tenenbaum states she has been looking for an a-frame sign that fits the dimensions but adds they all seem to have some sort of base and so it has been a challenge.
Daniel clarifies the a-frame ordinance regarding allowable square footages.
Durand states the proposed a-frame sign seems as if its legs could be modified and adds that the bottom really needs to be less than four inches anyway because of canes and tripping hazards.
Tenenbaum adds the proposed a-frame sign is also 1” wider than allowed.
Durand states he likes the sign.
DeMaio asks if Kennedy submitted any comments regarding the sign. DeMaio adds it feels more like a brochure to him rather than a sign. DeMaio further adds he loves the blade sign, but the a-frame sign needs to be a little more like logos and less like a brochure.
Daniel states Kennedy’s previously submitted comments; like the fabric touch and that the dimensional requirements need to be met.
Tenenbaum states the frontage of the store will be clear with the windows and the furniture buts asks how else they would explain briefly on the a-frame sign all of the great services they provide.
Durand states he understands Tenenbaum’s point and can see the value. Durand thinks it is handled in concert fairly well and finds the proposed information on the a-frame sign to be fitting and appropriate.
DeMaio states there are a lot of graphics and he is not sure there needs to be so much clutter. DeMaio adds the collection of a-frames going down Essex Street, that all have this much information, to him goes against the intention of the sign ordinance which is to try and allow signage because it is important but not to create a series of brochures going down the street.
Tenenbaum adds it may be different if two businesses didn’t have to share one a-frame sign.
DeMaio agrees that is a problem and creates a more challenging situation but adds that is why it’s important it is done in a clear way. DeMaio states he realizes there is a difference of opinion on the board but in his opinion he thinks there is much more information on the sign than is warranted. DeMaio adds he thinks they could pull of a more successful sign with half the information shown.
Durand understands the issue and adds the a-frame signs are there to gather attention to the business to help make it more successful. Durand understands the need to talk about the services and doesn’t have a problem with it.
Sides states she agrees with DeMaio regarding two businesses on one sign and thinks they should be separated more to provide more independence to each store. Sides agrees it is very crowded. Sides states there is a lot of graphic information and the bullets can’t be seen until the viewer is up close. Sides states there should be some continuity about how much graphic information is going to be allowed per signs now that stores are doing these.
Blier states the window display will be sophisticated and wishes the a-frame sign had characteristics with an edge to them.
Durand states a-frame signs are about communicating particular information and advertisement and is not just a graphic that identifies retail. Durand agrees it does get a little crowded.
DeMaio states if the two logos played a bigger role on the sign and all the other stuff was somehow minimized, that may be a step in the right direction. DeMaio adds it seems as though in an effort to put every little detail in there, may be losing the bigger value or graphic impact.
Tenenbaum states the proposal does not include an image of the current signage which includes photos of actual product.
Jaquith agrees with Durand in regards to the philosophy of an a-frame sign. Jaquith suggests removing the post-it note and just use the simple social media links. Jaquith adds additional items such as the gift certificate blurb could be dropped as well. Jaquith states he likes it but thinks those things can be compromised.
Tenenbaum agrees and is very aware there is a lot of information packed onto the portable sign.
Durand agrees with Jaquith’s points. Durand adds they will have great visibility into the stores and adds in general he’s never liked a-frame signs. Durand further states in this situation the proximity of people in traffic and the volume of traffic, with the window showing what they have, should all help getting the advertisements across.
Tenenbaum states she does not mind removing some of the information.
DeMaio states the proportions of the logos and information are not quite right and overall the organization of the sign is not working for him.
Tenenbaum understands people will see the furniture in the window and may not necessarily see the smaller elements and adds their logo is going to be on the tags, branding, blade sign, etc and so thinks having their logo as the prominent feature on the a-frame sign, for her is not something she necessarily agrees with.
DeMaio states he can’t imagine every sign on Essex Street having an a-frame sign with this much information on it, he is afraid they will be setting a precedent for signs with too much information on them and in some ways is contradicting the point of the a-frame guidelines which were to try to limit area, etc; to visually calm things down a bit.
Durand states the reality is to allow these signs to improve business, and the city council acquiesced there was a need, and it is up to the businesses which is why he does not like to get too involved in regards to what they need for the business as long as its in the confines. Durand adds again in context thinks it works.
Sides states the board still reviews the signs in terms of design.
Durand states the word décor needs some space to the right.
Sides agrees and thinks the sign overall needs to be simplified and thinks there’s too much stuff on the sign. Sides adds with a little more information people could go in and gather more information, which thinks it could be simplified.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the blade sign, seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
Motion to approve red door, seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
Motion to approve the letters in the sign band to match the lettering concepts of Green Land Café and to be centered over the storefront, seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
Durand states he understands the business’ point of view on the a-frame sign but agrees it needs a little clarity. Durand adds he understands it’s a business and understands the reason for the signage is to help businesses and states the board’s job is to advise to the redevelopment authority which is pro business; but Durand thinks those things need to be weighed and understood in balance with the graphic nature of the sign. Durand is willing to acquiesce some on what he feels, but wants the board to understand the business nature of this proposal in addition to the graphics.
Sides agrees.
Tenebaum states she would like to email a few different versions of the a-frame design to Daniel and asks if it is possible to be approved via email as she is concerned about time.
Daniel responds if Tenebaum could agree to some specific changes then the board might be able to approve it and substitute those conditions in a review.
DeMaio states he does not think removing a bullet or two will make much of a difference and suggests scaling the size of the bullets down a bit to conform with what’s going on with the top of the board.
Daniel suggests Tenebaum make the changes recommended by the board, resubmit a revised design to him and a member of the board could volunteer to review so they can get it on the SRA agenda as soon as possible.
Tenebaum agrees.
Jaquith: Motion that the comments from the board be integrated into the new a-frame design so that it can be resubmitted quickly, Sides to review. The following conditions are included:
- The portable sign shall comply with the dimensional requirements in the ordinance (no greater than six square feet in area and no more than 24” in width);
- The “post it note” feature on the top portion of the portable sign shall be removed; and
- The bulleted list in the bottom portion of the portable sign shall be reduced in size by eliminating two bulleted items and reducing the font size so that it corresponds to the font size in the top portion of the sign.
seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
- 230 Essex Street (Scrub): Discussion of proposed signage
Jamie Metsch and Kate Leavy are present on behalf of Scrub.
The boards reviews a submission packet from Birds and Bees LLC that includes sign plans and photos.
Daniel states they are proposing a blade sign and window detail.
Metsch states the proposal is raising the letters, not the bubbles. Metsch shows a sample of galvanized steel for the sign bracket and adds it is weather resistant.
Leavy states they will be selling soap, towels, etc. in a fun way. Leavy states there will be galvanized steel that goes around the sign and clamps with bolts, much like industrial plumbing. Leavy adds their sign is super bolted on and not going anywhere.
Durand states it’s a clever way to keep with the store’s branding and the board likes to encourage that.
DeMaio states it’s a great sign and works very well but suggests the letters spelling ‘scrub’ on the window detail are too large. DeMaio suggests they be 10”-12.” DeMaio adds the stroke of the letters is thick which helps, but the problems with the things they approve become precedent setting and thinks it may be too large. DeMaio further adds he doesn’t to take away the affect of the graphic.
Durand states he doesn’t think it will work if it gets smaller; the fact that it’s thin and minimalist balances out its size. Durand thinks it will lose the idea if it gets smaller. Durand adds the decal is transparent with a minimalist logo and if the size decreases it may look like a mistake that wasn’t executed properly.
Jaquith agrees and states he doesn’t have any issues with it.
Durand states everything the board judges has reasoning behind it, so the precedent is reasoning, not the quantitative measurement of something. Durand adds trying to quantify something and apply it to everything, ends up not working; the board is qualitative. Durand further adds like Urban Elements and Scrub, they are correct retail expressions that should be encouraged.
Leavy states the entire idea is to make the customers feel fresh and clean.
Daniel states Kennedy’s earlier comments were that he thought it was fine.
Jaquith: Motion to approve as presented, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-1.
Leavy states they will not be utilizing an a-frame sign but feels seeing the same sign graphics is repetitively useless and thinks it would be better to state services.
Durand states he almost comments on their submission that he was glad they didn’t propose an a-frame sign.
Leavy thinks the branding on a-frame signs should be minimized and instead it should state things like 'this is what we do, this is what we offer.' Leavy adds she thinks there are better ways to engage pedestrians.
- 60 Washington Street (Body & Soul Massage and Wellness Center): Discussion of proposed signage
Anne Sousa is present on behalf of Body & Soul Massage and Wellness Center. The submission includes a cover letter dated December 15, 2010, and photos.
Daniel states the proposal from Sousa shows two a-frame signs but only one would be out at a time. Daniel adds neither sign complies with the dimensional requirements of the ordinance, but Daniel has already explained this to Sousa over the phone. Daniel suggests the board provide feedback and if there’s a way to have an approval with conditions, perhaps there will need to be another submission, but he thought it would be a good opportunity to provide some feedback.
Sousa explains they are above Ben & Jerry’s and are not allowed to have signage in front of the building so they utilize the a-frame sign to advertise services as well as local events to pedestrians.
Daniel states Kennedy’s earlier comments regarding the marker sign, suggesting there might be some permanent branding on the sign.
Sousa explains the size is a standard size and adds they can add a permanent graphic to the top.
Durand states the sign is too large in accordance with the ordinance. Daniel confirms the proposed sign is 42” x 28” whereas the ordinance only allows a 24” width. Daniel adds the proposed sign is 4” over in width which makes it 2 square feet over in area. Daniel states if they have the maximum size in width then they can only have a three foot sign.
Daniel adds a marker sign or chalk board would be permitted but the thinking was the businesses name would have a permanent portion of the sign.
Sides states she likes having a permanent brand on the sign with changeable context.
Sousa states the sign is a standard size.
Sides replies it is not in compliance with the ordinance.
Daniel states previous to the approval of the ordinance a-frame signs were technically illegal. Daniel further states the City Council realizes the important role they can play for businesses and so they created an ordinance to legalize them while maintaining aesthetics, street clutter and safety for pedestrians and people with disabilities. Daniel states any business now that wants to utilize an a-frame sign has to comply with the ordinance. Daniel adds in Sousa’s case her sign cannot be modified to conform to the sizes whereas other businesses have been able to cut down the legs. Daniel understands the cost is a factor but the ordinance is what it is. Daniel states if the height of the sign was brought down to three feet it would comply.
Jaquith states this is an example of a business that needs an a-frame sign. Jaquith states graphically the logo needs to float like it does on the paper.
Durand thinks the sign needs to be made of better material and from what he can tell its low grade plywood with rusty hinges and overall looks like poor craftsmanship. Durand adds from an accessibility point of view it is a tripping hazard because it needs to be no less than 4” from the ground. Durand also states the graphics need to be more professionally executed.
DeMaio states their a-frame sign is important as they are located on the second floor to be able to find where they are.
Sousa states the sign is a way to draw attention to their business.
DeMaio asks Daniel how it works with approving two signs for the same use.
Daniel states he is fine with the concept of having two signs but only putting one out a time.
Jaquith adds the marker board sign should have the company’s logo permanently on the sign.
Durand agrees.
Sousa asks if the board will be criticizing the colors in her logo.
DeMaio states the board doesn’t alter a company’s logo or brand they look at the formatting of signs. DeMaio adds they try to encourage the use of company’s brands in their signage.
Sousa asks what type of material could be used for the a-frame sign.
Durand states MDO is a sign material or a plastic sign board, MDF board or PVC board. Durand adds if this sign was a paintable grade plywood he wouldn’t have noticed but he can see the graining.
Sides suggests Sousa speaks with other businesses that have approved signs.
Daniel states when the ordinance was adopted businesses could come in with no fees and get their sign approved before the end of the year and in January the building department would start enforcing the ordinance for businesses that have yet to comply. Daniel adds they have since extended the date but at some point soon the building department will start visiting businesses and if their signs are non-complying they will have to take their sign inside until they are approved.
Sousa states she understands and will revise her sign proposal.
Sides states in the interest of the whole city they look for uniformity.
Jaquith: Motion to continue, seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
~
Adjournment
Jaquith: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7: 39pm.
| 
