City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board
Date and Time: Wednesday May 25, 2011, at 6:00 pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington St.
Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, Glenn Kennedy, David Jaquith, Ernest DeMaio, Helen Sides
Members Absent: Michael Blier
Others Present: Economic Development Manager Tom Daniel
Recorder: Lindsay Howlett
Chairperson Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects under Review
- ~One Salem Green (Salem Five Cents Savings Bank): Discussion of proposed pad mounted generator
Joe Correnti, Barry Mosher, Nick Caporale and Joe Longo are present on behalf of Salem Five Cents Savings Bank.
The board reviews a submission, dated May 12, 2011, includes a letter, narrative description, timeline, drawings, plans, and photographs.
Daniel states this typically would have gone to the SRA first but due to timing, this meeting came first and to try to expedite things the DRB will review this tonight and the SRA will review the proposal next month.
Correnti thanks the board for letting them go out of order to save a lot of time. Correnti states they are proposing a pad mounted emergency generator up against the building at One Salem Green.
Caporale explains to the board their critical need for the backup generator based on the continual growth of their computer server rooms and business. Caporale adds this plan has been in the works for two years and they have finally outgrown their current server room and now need to move quickly. Caporale further adds they hope to have it built within three months.
Mosher has been engaged by Salem Five for this project. Mosher states the generator will be located on the back side of the elevator tower. Mosher adds the generator will be nineteen feet long by five and a half feet wide by nine feet tall. Mosher further adds the proposal includes a wood structure similar to red cedar around the generator to hide it from view. Mosher describes the generator as diesel, 350 KW, and will be installed in a sound continuant enclosure. Mosher adds they took readings in and around where it is being proposed to be installed and current readings with what it is anticipated to be. Mosher states the sound recordings were calculated at full load which will typically only occur when they are run for exercise, between two and four times a month for 30 minutes. Mosher adds when
running at no load it will actually be approximately 2 decibels quieter.
Sides states it looks likes its occupying the whole sidewalk.
Durand states it looks like it is occupying more than the sidewalk.
Mosher agrees.
Sides states if it’s that big it should have a more permanent looking enclosure with a redirecting of the pavement. Sides adds it currently feels awkward and temporary. Sides asks if the enclosure could use materials that make it look more like the building.
Mosher states they put the fence tight to the unit to access it and adds if they do a more permanent structure, per their research, it may kill the nearby trees as pressing on their root beds.
Sides states the proposal should take into consideration the public space adding they are going to block that entryway and direct people out and around the whole garden space. Sides suggests redesigning the garden bed or something and adds the generator enclosure needs to be treated more like its part of the building, something that intends to be permanent.
Jaquith agrees with Sides and thinks it looks tacky. Jaquith states it is currently being designed for the generator and not for people. Jaquith asks why it can’t take away parking spaces if it were in a different location. Jaquith thinks there is a much better answer and wonders if the whole block can move into the green space to maintain the walkway. Additionally, Jaquith thinks the maple trees can handle the new generator.
Durand states it is basically blocking a straight route and he can see what they are objecting to. Durand asks if the generator can go around the corner which seems less offensive to the circulation. Durand adds if it is located around the corner the grass area can be better landscaped so the path goes through the trees instead.
Mosher responds the problem with locating the generator around the corner is the lack of abundant parking on site.
Jaquith states if they want a generator, it may be that one parking space has to go. Jaquith suggests matching the enclosure to the brick building.
DeMaio responds that was exactly going to be his comment. DeMaio adds losing the walkway is significant. DeMaio adds with or without the walkway, the generator is going to affect those trees and if the board buys into this scheme, it means they are sacrificing those trees. DeMaio states he wishes Blier was here to speak more to that. DeMaio also suggests moving the generator around the corner and though he understands the parking he thinks the compromising of the walkway if in the other location needs to be considered.
Sides states the project should be looked at more architecturally.
Mosher responds the reason they went with the fence was to keep the structure tight to unit but be able to open up when servicing the unit.
Sides suggests maybe the enclosure simply has brick corners.
Mosher states they could certainly do brick corners with fence structure in between.
Jaquith states Salem Five is known for pretty good architecture and thinks the better location is around the corner.
Daniel states if Blier was here he would need to recuse himself as he’s been working with the City regarding the green spaces. Daniel adds in their most recent meeting for this generator plan, Blier was concerned about the roots of the trees being impacted, and moving the sidewalk and curb would impact the trees as well.
Sides asks if there is some other way to conceal the conduit.
Mosher states their initial thought was to save the trees.
DeMaio states the root structures reach out as far as the canopy does and will still be affected.
Correnti states the City, the neighbors and Salem Five are very much interested in improving that area and adds that land is all owned by Salem Five. Correnti adds the public walkway in question goes around Lyceum and behind the Kinsman building. Correnti further adds Salem five is willing to make the land available for improvement and adds that while that process is ongoing it is running parallel to the generator project. Correnti states they hear all of the board’s comments but do want to be able to keep moving forward as well.
Durand states the problem is it’s a sidewalk with a generator cutting it off and thinks if it were located at the edge of the green space to allow the path to go around then it won’t feel like something’s in your way. Durand agrees noise won’t be an issue. Durand wonders if it should be located on the other side, lined up with the edge of the building with integrated brick details. Durand adds one of the parking spaces would just need to change in size.
Sides thinks there needs to be architectural intent to the enclosure and feels its wrong for there to not be brick around it. Sides suggests if possible, reconfigure the green space and possibly cut through the middle of the green space but also doesn’t think you can bring people around the corner and have the path just die.
Durand disagrees with the enclosure’s need for architectural intent because the sightlines are different and do not negatively affect the architecture of the building.
DeMaio states if the green space is already being considered, then certainly not having an appendage in the center will give that committee more flexibility.
The board agrees to reconsider the location of the generator.
Durand states he does not think anything being done is visually horrible.
Jaquith does not know what was written into the development regarding what can be built there and what can’t.
Sides thinks around the corner is the safer place to locate it.
Durand agrees that around the corner seems like a simple solution and they can simply rotate the direction of the two parking spaces in question.
Kennedy stated he previously walked through the space and it felt like it belonged around the corner. Kennedy adds it did not feel right on the sidewalk and felt like it would look as if it were just plunked down there.
Mosher states the generator will need to be accessed from all four sides.
Kennedy asks if the conduit can run that far.
Mosher replies he thinks so.
Daniel states the scale of the landscaping work will be a small investment to make it look better—it will not be a full rebuild. Daniel adds they will be looking at the plantings and possibly adding lights.
Kennedy states if it is a smaller project to just clean up that area then even more he thinks it should move around the corner and have the fence look like it’s appropriate to the building. Kennedy asks if the conduit can be located inside.
Mosher responds yes.
Kennedy states that is the preference.
Mosher asks what if they put the generator on the side towards Essex Street, right outside the electric room.
Sides states if it fits it seems okay and adds they would lose a parking space.
Kennedy states either side is fine.
Correnti clarifies that the board would rather see the generator on the Church Street side or the Essex Street side instead of what was proposed tonight.
The board agrees.
Durand states the Essex Street end may be the best solution.
Jaquith states there’s still an architectural issue.
Correnti understands.
Jaquith; Motion to continue, seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
- 24 New Derby Street, Unit 5 (Fished Impressions): Discussion of proposed signage
Joe Higgins is present on behalf of Fished Impressions.
The board reviews a submission that includes the sign drawing, plans, and photographs.
Daniel states there will be two new artists at artist row this year.
Higgins states his space will focus on making prints from fish. Higgins adds it is an old Japanese historical method, where you take a fish, put ink on it, and make a print. Higgins states kids will be able to make prints for free. Higgins states his gallery is meant to look retro, early 1900’s, with some nice material. Higgins adds these were the things he was trying to capture with his sign. Higgins further adds it is a seasonal business from June – November. Higgins describes the sign as a vinyl digital output on di-bond that is meant to be durable and last a long time. Higgins states the ‘Fish Impressions’ is a worldwide name and felt it necessary to spell out what he does. Higgins adds the sign pole in the photo looks bent but that has been fixed since it was hit last year by a passing truck.
Jaquith likes the sign and thinks it is good.
Kennedy gave Higgins some of his comments prior as they go way back. Kennedy adds he felt the ‘Fish Impressions’ was competing a little bit but it has already been tweaked. Kennedy further adds he thought the signature was beautiful and likes the sign a lot.
DeMaio really likes the sign but wishes there was a 3D element to it.
Higgins states he felt a 3D element did not make sense with the fish prints they create.
DeMaio likes the graphic.
Sides thinks it’s very beautiful and thinks it looks better from a distance. Sides wants to cover up the ‘Joe’s Fresh Fish Prints’ and thinks those letters bring it down from its beauty.
Higgins states he was doing a taste test of keeping it simple but thinks he needs to spell out what he does.
Kennedy states the white around those letters won’t look as strong when in application.
Jaquith: Motion to approve, seconded by Sides. Passes 5-0.
- 24 New Derby Street, Unit 1 (Serendipitish): Discussion of proposed signage
Illikiya Wingkey is present on behalf of Serendipitsh.
The board reviews a submission that includes the sign drawing, plans, and photographs.
Wingkey’s describes her space as incorporating many different things; part of the space is dedicated dance studio for belly dancing, a part is retail space, and the third space is art space. Wingkey has invited several artists to sell their work in her space as well. Wingkey states therefore there is no way to put everything in her space onto one sign. Wingkey describes her sign as just print on vinyl that will be laminated on smooth finished plywood.
DeMaio asks what the edges will be.
Wingkey responds the cream color would wrap around the edges.
Jaquith asks if there is a little implied shadow on the ‘S.’
Wingkey responds yes.
Kennedy adds there is the same shadow for the border. Kennedy states its okay to be simple and clean but the text looks like two separate units. Kennedy suggests pulling the text together a bit. Kennedy adds the ‘Strike’ and ‘Fancy Font’ does not work together very well and suggests more of a ‘Sans Serif’ but not ‘Arial’ or ‘Helvetica.’ Kennedy suggests adding something more humanistic or geometric with a tiny characteristic. Kennedy explains something that has a little bit of character without going over the top.
Sides agrees with the spacing adjustments to free up the ‘H’ and give more space on the end. Sides likes the motion of the italic.
DeMaio really likes the sign but agrees with the spacing and italics. DeMaio thinks the sign is elegant as is.
Sides: Motion to approve with with the following condition:
- The spacing between the initial “S” and the reset of the letters shall be decreased.
seconded by Jaquith. Passes 5-0.
- 245 Derby Street (Scratch Kitchen): Discussion of proposed signage
Judy Field is present on behalf of the new owner of Scratch Kitchen.
The board reviews a submission that includes the sign drawing, plans, and photographs.
Field states her client is simply asking for the existing sign to be taken of its hinges, repainted and re-lettered. Field states they will not be changing any dimensions and the sign will be painted white with green lettering to match the pre-existing green building color.
Daniel states they also wanted to do a 2’ x 3’ dry erase, a-frame sign, approximately seven feet in front of the door, next to the new light poles.
Sides states they usually require a plan showing where the a-frame sign will be located.
Daniel states they will need that before the proposal goes in front of the SRA.
DeMaio states he is not as much of a fan as the green on white as he is the white on green. DeMaio adds he thinks the green on white is starker and is less in keeping with the whole aesthetic of the awning. DeMaio further adds he never had any difficulty reading the ‘Derby Deli Café’ sign. DeMaio states the proposed sign will draw the viewer’s eye out too much and will feel out of character with the rest of the building. DeMaio does not think they will be any less visible with the white letters on the green background. DeMaio likes the logo and design.
Durand agrees with DeMaio to have a green sign with white letters and thinks it will be more successful that way.
Field asks Daniel if they know how to get the exterior light fixtures to turn on at night.
Daniel does not know but recommends speaking with John Giardi or Jim Hacker.
Kennedy tends to agree with the green portion of the sign but would have tried something a little different and wonders what it would look like with a light cream color that looked more like bread. Kennedy adds the cream could pick up the color of the mortar nicely. Kennedy states with the font appearing so rough, it will read better as a dark font on a light background. Kennedy further states Field should be careful of the ‘Handmade Sandwiches and More’ being too heavy. Kennedy states a yellow tone could help make the sign feel a little bit warmer. Kennedy suggests a warm toned yellow, not a bright yellow but a yellow with a little more gray in it. Kennedy states ‘Handmade Sandwiches and More’ should have consistent casing.
Sides and Jaquith both agree with Kennedy.
Sides likes the lower case h.
Jaquith excuses himself.
Kennedy: Motion to approve with the following condition:
- The version with the green background and white lettering shall be used.
seconded by Sides, Passes 4-0.
- 192 Essex Street (Angels Landing): Discussion of proposed signage
Keith Linares and Barbara Szafranski are present on behalf of Angels Landing.
The board reviews a submission that includes the sign drawing, plans, and photographs.
Daniel states Linares brought in a revised sign that is mathematically compliant with the signage regulations.
DeMaio asks if the board is involved in neon sign approval.
Daniel states he has explained to Szafranski that neon signs are prohibited and need to be removed. Daniel adds in reading the regulations, the board may construe the border as display lighting.
Szafranski states this is like an annex and wanted it to be same as their other locations which have the neon signs.
Daniel responds the signs are the other locations are illegal as well and will likely need to be removed as well.
Szafranski states there are other neon signs throughout the city.
Daniel states they are prohibited except for food, lodging or entertainment. Daniel states the SRA will not approve a proposal that is prohibited within the sign regulations. Daniel states if someone is to lodge a complaint about other businesses that are non-compliant, than that issue can be addressed.
Szafranski states they are located on the inside of her store.
Daniel states signage is defined as anything that is viewable from the outside.
Szafranski states those signs cost her over $3,000 and thinks this is unfair and is wondering if there is someway they can work this out. Szafranski adds they are a very soft and gentle light.
Daniel adds, Séances and Readings, two signs cannot be permitted unless the SRA grants a variance. Daniel states the DRB will make a recommendation to the SRA and if Szafranski wants to continue with those signs the SRA is the only entity that can approve those types of signs but again, that is highly unlikely.
Sides states is the DRB’s job to enforce the City’s ordinances but adds there aren’t sign cops of people walking around making people take things down. Sides adds but when they are noticed they will be asked to comply.
Kennedy states the outline on ‘Readings’ could be a little thicker to stick out from the cloud background. Kennedy adds the readability of all the letters is hard with the cloud background.
Linares states the print is not showing the lettering as defined as it will be.
Kennedy states overall it just needs a little bit more readable. Kennedy asks if there is a gray ruler on the outside.
Linares responds yes.
Kennedy asks if the intention was to blend in with the stone rather than pulling it off.
Linares replies yes, they wanted it to be subtle.
DeMaio asks about the a-frame sign and what the aura photos are and if there will be text that goes with them.
Linares responds they will put the aura photos on the sign with words underneath in white.
Sides asks if they want the words to show.
Szafranski responds she is not sure and will have to wait to see how it all comes out; she thinks they may be too small.
Sides states may get a better impact with just seeing the colors of the auras and that may be the entire message they need.
Daniel asks what the edge of the sign is.
Linares responds there will be a gray border with a white edge.
Kennedy thinks the white will make it stand out a little more. Kennedy asks about the lettering on the windows.
Daniel states the website is something that is only allowed on the door.
Szafranski states they don’t have a door as they share a common entrance with another business.
Kennedy states regardless of the situation if the board approves it on a window they now set precedence that they can not say no to future proposals going forward.
DeMaio states just looking at composition one less line of text on the right side of the window would benefit the overall aesthetic.
Szafranski states the other door owner has already said she cannot put anything on it.
Kennedy suggests putting the website on her inside door.
Szafranski asks if an email address is the same thing.
Kennedy and Daniel respond yes.
Kennedy recommends keeping all of the letting and lettering the same size.
Linares forgot the plan showing the exact location of the a-frame sign.
Daniel states they need to know where the a-frame sign will be between now and the next meeting.
Szafranski states it will be where it is in the photos and they intend to leave it there.
Kennedy: Motion to approve, with the following conditions:
- The rule around the lettering “Readings, Our Specialty” shall be increased;
- The window lettering on the right side shall be adjusted to three lines by removing the Internet address and shall be the same letter size as the letters on the left side;
- The aura photos shall not have text below them; and
- The neon signs are prohibited
seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
- 76 Lafayette Street (Salem Seggliders): Discussion of proposed signage
Joe Ingram and Victor Core are present on behalf of Salem Seggliders.
The board reviews a submission that includes the sign drawing, plans, and photographs.
Daniel states they came in after the deadline with a proposal that was covering the windows and it was explained that would not be permitted; they have now come back with a revised proposal that covers up the box sign only.
Ingram states they had to open when they did and they were unaware that sign approvals were required. Ingram states there plan is to work with graphics guy to put something together but were hoping in the meantime they could get a little feedback prior so they would have better directive when working with the graphics guy. Ingram states the board is giving thoughtful feedback to the aesthetics of signs and they were just looking for some clarification and direction. Ingram states their initial plan is to put their logo on something simple to cover the pre–existing ‘West Coast Videos.”
Sides states graphically it is too crowded and wonders why the Salem is slanting backwards.
Ingram responds that is the same slope patrons ride in.
Sides states overall it is too crowded and needs space around the letters.
DeMaio states they would want all of the fonts, colors and letter proportions to be consistent throughout all the signs.
Ingram states he thought there were the same.
DeMaio states they look different probably because they are stretched to fit the space. DeMaio adds consistency of graphics is important.
Ingram states they plan to only be in the space for five months and think it’d be best to cover up the ‘West Coast Video’ signage and just keep everything really simple. Ingram suggests lifestyle action photos as displays in the windows. Ingram asks for feedback from the board about temporary signage and how it’s affected by this process.
Sides asks Daniel what constitutes temporary signage.
Daniel states two weeks.
DeMaio does not understand how many windows there are on the building and on which facades the photos are.
Ingram responds there are 19 windows total.
Kennedy states there is a ton of window space on an extremely busy corner and the idea is for it to be temporary for five months. Kennedy adds he does not know exactly what they have in mind but to put a patch over the old sign, he would want to know exactly what that patch is going to look like. Kennedy suggests it be a color that works with the pre-existing purple and again wonders how this will be incorporated as a temporary solution on a very busy street.
Daniel states temporary is something in a window and that the signage would need to be approached and viewed as permanent for the building.
Sides asks how many windows have walls in front of them.
Ingram responds just the ones on Lafayette Street.
Sides asks Daniel if they have large scaled ‘lifestyle’ boards that were pulled away from the window with light, would that count as signage, or just because it is visible are they still limited to only 20%.
Daniel responds there is a difference between signage and a display.
DeMaio asks if the building has any signage regulations.
Ingram responds no.
Durand states they can have displays that aren’t signs.
Kennedy states they can make this work, just may take a little bit to get the awnings to work properly.
Ingram states they do not want to change the awnings as this will be there temporary location.
Sides states if they are trying to save money, modifying the existing awnings, and wanting to do something in every huge storefront window will be expensive. Sides is trying to understand how much is really going to be done to the space.
Ingram states they are thinking about using translucent vinyl with graphics on it in some of the windows.
Daniel states if it has their name on it, it will be considered a sign. Daniel adds by removing their name from the graphics and having them set in would shift more towards a display.
Durand recommends they be creative with the space and adds it’s a little tricky to define the loop holes.
DeMaio states he sees three legitimate signs in this location; the existing sign to be covered, the awning to be covered, and the front door. DeMaio adds all of the other windows are part of the space and they generally prefer to have more transparency at the windows. DeMaio further adds the signage should not look cheap or temporary. DeMaio suggests it may be easier to remove the awning instead of covering it up.
Ingram responds he wouldn’t mind removing it.
Daniel responds he is not sure how they could put anything on it that will make it look better.
Kennedy: Motion to continue, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
Daniel states the railing at Central Street was revised with detail satisfaction and was approved. Daniel adds they were required to replace the railing.
Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the April 27, 2011 regular meeting.
DeMaio: Motion to approve, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
Daniel states they are starting a process to update the Urban Renewal Plans and there is going to be a consultant led effort to see if anyone would be interested to serve in that working group. Daniel adds the group will be comprised of a consultant, members from the public, members from the SRA and hopefully someone from the DRB, to work with an Urban Renewal Plan firm.
Durand responds he would be happy to assist with the effort.
Adjournment
DeMaio: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sides. Passes 4-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:52 pm.
| 
