City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board
Date and Time: Wednesday June 22, 2011, at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington St.
Members Present: Chairperson Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Ernest DeMaio, Michael Blier
Members Absent: Helen Sides, 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
Daniel states Blier was contracted by the City to help with the green space associated with Salem Five and will therefore recuse himself from this item.
- One Salem Green (Salem Five): Discussion of proposed pad mounted generator
Joe Correnti, Joe Longo, Scott Town and Nick Caporale are present on behalf of Salem Five.
The board reviews the previously submitted proposal dated June 13, 2011 which includes plans, images and details depicting four options for citing the generator.
Daniel states the application was previously reviewed by the SRA and tonight’s DRB recommendation will go back to the SRA in July.
Correnti states the board asked them to look at alternative locations for the pad mounted generator and they are prepared to show the board this evening what those might look like. Correnti adds they will also show their original location with significant improvements.
Town states they looked at alternative locations for the pad mounted generator including the Church Street end and the Essex Street side. Town adds their second alternative is to keep the generator in the originally intended location with a 9’x20’ minimal structure with a gate at one end and a removal panel at each side. Town adds they looked at the existing parking in each of these schemes and considered the existing view corridors not only for pedestrians but for the employees. Town states they also looked at their original proposal and how that might be enhanced a bit.
Town states they looked at keeping the structure in the back corner of the building, and introducing a new sidewalk that goes in front of the structure as to not impact any parking. Town describes the structure as having brick piers with light poles on top. Town adds the piers would be reminiscent along the long face of One Salem Green. Town further adds they are proposing to introduce a wooden screen around the brick piers as well that could be removable on the front face with hinges on two sides.
Jaquith states because it has more detail and is the least intrusive the original location works best for him. Jaquith suggests introducing curved elements to be coordinate with everything else. Jaquith adds he thinks they need a detail at the top of the brick piers and of the wooden screen.
Town shows the board an image of their conceptual intent. Town states the piers would be two by two and will replicate the ones along the building. Town responds he can work through that detail and get something back to the board.
Jaquith asks about the crushed stone.
Town states they will add it to the walkway.
Durand suggests extending the screening around the corner and swinging it in. Durand thinks the screening is attractive and thinks that would be best. Durand agrees with Jaquith about having easy edges.
Town responds it is always dark in that corner so this solution would enhance the courtyard.
DeMaio states of the four schemes, scheme A is his least favorite as anything that intrudes upon the green will be his least favorite. DeMaio suggests losing the two piers off the far right because he thinks they do not add much and instead really enhance the enclosure. DeMaio adds the four piers that enclose the generator should be more evenly spaced. DeMaio states his favorite version is scheme B and could work with scheme D.
Daniel reads comments previously submitted by Kennedy.
Kennedy prefers schemes B and D, in that order. Kennedy assumes they would recapture the parking spaces with the removal of the tree in scheme B.
Durand states he does not like scheme C, and isn’t sure he’s keen on scheme D. Durand does not mind scheme A and thinks it is more resolved with the building, and the circulation around it makes sense. Durand adds the he really does worry about the view corridor from Church Street in scheme B.
Jaquith agrees with Durand and would rather see the structure around the corner. Durand states he thinks it is resolved around the corner.
Jaquith doesn’t have an issue with the two piers off to the side because they create a way of linear spacing without using the screening.
Town responds they are also looking at mimicking the lighting in the courtyard.
Daniel states the group, which Blier is apart of, has a conceptual plan that will be brought to the DRB in the summer so the timing won’t line up for the Salem Five group to wait.
Jaquith: Motion to approve Scheme A with the following conditions:
- The radii of the curb corners shall be adjusted;
- A detail of the screening and pier caps shall be prepared;
- The lighting fixture shall match the fixtures that are subsequently approved for the rest of the plaza area; and
- The screening shall be extended to enclose the crushed stone area.
seconded by Durand. Passes 2-1.
- One Salem Green (Salem Five): Discussion of proposed signage
Joe Longo and Nick Caporale are present on behalf of Salem Five.
The board reviews a previously submitted proposal dated May 31, 2011, including a sign permit application, sign bond, plans and images.
Daniel states the SRA has approved the proposal subject to the DRB’s approval. Daniel describes the sign as a four foot by three foot blade sign.
Longo states they have moved their investment services to One Salem Green and they want to let the public know where they are located.
DeMaio asks if their entry is located where the sign is.
Longo responds yes.
DeMaio likes the sign and thinks the bolts should be painted the same color as the mounting bracket. DeMaio states he is not sure if the perspective provided is to actual scale or not; seems to be smaller than the 48” dimensions.
Longo cannot speak to the perspective scale but adds the sign guy will be here momentarily.
DeMaio states when a blade signs project 48” he gets rather concerned. DeMaio adds it may be in scale with the building but it’s hard to know from the perspective if it’s to scale. DeMaio states he would prefer if that dimension is less than 48” unless it is proportionate to the building.
Jaquith responds with looking at the band of brick, it appears close to scale.
Durand states the sign seems kind of big and chunky. Durand suggests 30” x 42” may fit better.
Blier asks about the 4” thickness of the blade sign seeming too thick.
Durand thinks it is kind of blocky.
Blier asks if it is needed for the structure.
Longo states their sign guy said to allow for the carved lettering without punching through the other side. Correnti adds the two support arms at 2” x 2” that go through the sign and on top of that is the sign foam that will be carved into.
Jaquith thinks 2 ½” will be fine.
Jeff Sarra is present on behalf of Salem Five.
Sarra states the photo representation is fairly accurate.
DeMaio states if it is 42” they could reduce the support sizes.
Sarra states he would not go smaller than 1 ½” on the supports.
DeMaio suggests proportionately shrinking down the blade sign size to 42” wide.
Sarra responds that is not a problem.
Jaquith states it should be 30” x 42”.
Jaquith: Motion to approve the sign with the following conditions:
- maximum dimension of 42”with a proportionate height dimension;
- maximum thickness of 3”; and
- the bolts to match the color of the bracket
seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0.
- 133 Washington Street (Caffé Graziani): Discussion of proposed façade project
Luis Valdovinos is present on behalf of Caffé Graziani.
The board reviews a previously submitted proposal dated June 10, 2011, including plans, photos, and cut sheets.
Valdovinos states they have an existing façade where the main objective is to upgrade some of the lighting, upgrade the front façade and emphasize the main entrance. Valdovinos states Caffé Graziani is an Italian restaurant; they will be adding menu boards to the front for a better and cleaner look, the existing curtains will be replaced with a 3M film to assist with screening people while they eat. Valdovinos adds they will provide better lighting that will cast some light down to the existing sidewalk and are proposing one Italian flag and one American flag on each side of the façade. Valdovinos states their existing sign will lower five to six inches.
Valdovinos describes the renovations they will make to the rear façade which will include upgrading some lighting and accentuating the back entrance with a 3M film, and Italian flag above the entrance and adding to their logo. Valdovinos adds in the summertime they provide seating out back and will need some more lighting. Valdovinos states this restaurant has been located at 133 Washington Street for twenty years and their specialty is breakfast and lunch. Valdovinos states they want to portray a family restaurant so they want to add to their existing logo.
Daniel states the logo is the family drawing which is in the restaurant but not on the board. Daniel adds they are looking to bring that in to emphasize the family dining establishment.
Blier asks if the exterior menu boxes are hung on the inside.
Valdovinos states they will be hung on the inside to prevent vandalism.
Valdovinos summarizes their proposal; to increase the lighting and visibility, provide a better view of what’s inside and to project their interest in a better more attractive way.
DeMaio states he thinks the Gienapp Design Associates proposals are very well done and appreciates their effort. DeMaio wonders why there are two menu boards instead of one but understands a desire for symmetry.
Valdovinos responds they like to display their awards on one side and menu on the other.
DeMaio states he would prefer if the awning had open sides so that there will be more visibility to the storefront when walking down the street. DeMaio states the tavern does something similar and it results in giving the sidewalk and storefront a more open feel. DeMaio states he does have a problem with the film on the windows. DeMaio adds he is not a huge fan of using permanently attached film on storefronts as a visual blockade. DeMaio further adds a lot of what happens in front of this board becomes precedent and they need to control the amount of film they do allow.
Durand states the clear boarder and film panels will be a better affect than wall to wall.
DeMaio states his argument is more about creating dead sidewalks.
Blier states the quality of the presentation is great and adds the sign is sitting on a sill and wonders if it should be more centered in the band when seen in the elevation on Sheet A-1.
Valdovinos states it is sitting on the existing molding.
Jaquith agrees with DeMaio about opening the awning ends. Jaquith does not have a problem with the screening because they are free floating squares. Jaquith states he is not worried about setting a precedent because everyone who comes before the DRB should be viewed on their presentation. Jaquith adds he does have a problem with ‘breakfast, lunch and dinner’ line as it seems tight and appears as if the ‘R’ barely fits. Jaquith thinks maybe a smaller typeface would work better.
Valdovinos states he is not sure they can reduce the text but understands the concern.
Jaquith states he always thought it was an upscale restaurant and thinks the logo loosened it up a bit.
Durand agrees with Jaquith about opening the awning and is otherwise good with the proposal.
Daniel reads comments previously submitted by Kennedy.
Kennedy likes the front and back awnings, the lettering and the lighting. Kennedy adds the flags feel a bit too much in front and would prefer no flags. Kennedy thinks a simple blade sign that matches the signage would be nice.
Jaquith: Motion to accept the presentation as presented with the following condition:
- The ends of the awning shall be open.
seconded by DeMaio. Passes 4-0.
- 32 Church Street (Milk & Honey): Discussion of proposed façade project
Luis Valdovinos is present on behalf of Milk & Honey.
The board reviews a previously submitted proposal dated June 10, 2011, including plans, photos, and cut sheets.
Daniel states the proposal is in two phases; the first phase is adding a bracket to the blade sign, providing new rod iron planters, a new wall mounted sign, gooseneck lights and tables and chairs out front. Daniel states the second phase will have the existing sign repainted to match new wall sign, and adding a fabric awning.
Valdovinos states the colors are not accurate on the proposed rendering but are more accurate on the cut sheets in the back of the set. Valdovinos adds the objectives of this proposal are for this façade to be more noticeable from Washington Street and to portray a more noticeable grocery market place. Valdovinos states they are alternatively proposing to have seasonal chairs and tables out front which will replace the fold down tables shown in the proposal.
Valdovinos states the first phase includes a new wall mounted foam sign, two wall planters, a sconce above each planter, bullet lights above the existing sign and seasonal chairs and tables out front.
DeMaio asks what happens with the fabric awning and two green colors.
Valdovinos states the awning has much more red in it to coordinate with the existing brick facade.
Jaquith states there is café seating that will match the green nicely by a French café furniture company named FERMOB. Jaquith adds he thinks they should do the table and chairs to provide more identity to the business. Jaquith does not have a problem with the planting baskets but asks where the gooseneck light cuts are.
Valdovinos responds they are included in the packet the board is reviewing.
DeMaio reiterates the quality of the presentation. DeMaio states the vertical space seems like the text lines are not related and are floating and recommends they be half the distance apart as they are now.
Valdovinos agrees and will look into that.
DeMaio asks how the awning frame attaches to the building.
Valdovinos responds it is attached to the window opening and they would use masonry anchors within the inset.
DeMaio asks if there is enough depth between the face of the brick and face of storefront. DeMaio states if their intent is to mount within the masonry opening then DeMaio is fine with that. DeMaio states he does not think it’s a loss to lose the awning on the sides.
Blier asks about the conduit to the light fixtures.
Valdovinos responds it will be painted the same color of the black bracket.
Jaquith and Durand agree with awning openings.
Daniel reads Kennedy previous submitted comments.
Kennedy states the font on awning should match the font on the sign and suggests they try to be consistent with the brand.
Jaquith: Motion to accept the proposal with the following conditions:
- The conduit shall be concealed;
- The ends of the awning shall be open;
- The furniture selection shall be reviewed and approved by David Jaquith prior to the SRA meeting; and
- The spacing between “milk and honey” and “green grocer” shall be decreased in the sign.
seconded by Blier. Passes 4-0.
- 43 Church Street (43 Church): Discussion of proposed signage
George Harrington is present on behalf of 43 Church Street.
The board reviews a previously submitted proposal dated June 10, 2011, including letters, sign plans, and color samples.
Daniel states the banners in the proposal are considered signage and exceed the allowable signage square footage.
Harrington states they are on a fast track to make changes they are excited about and apologizes for the relative incompleteness of the proposal package received prior to the meeting.
Harrington states the Lyceum building is classic and fitting but doesn’t really do enough to attract traffic from Washington Street. Harrington adds they are proposing to have a sign that would be a little bit more prominent and noticeable. Harrington states they have decided to rebrand the restaurant and these signs will be critical to their success. Harrington adds they want to have a great relationship with city going forward. Harrington further adds they are taking another step for the business by rebranding to give it a little bit more of a contemporary look. Harrington adds if approved the internally lit sign would have film with yellow lettering; font is as shown.
Durand asks since this is beyond the signage capacity what would be at the signage capacity.
Daniel responds they are calculating the banners at 20sqft each and the sign at 7 sf. Daniel adds if there were two banners over the entrance that would be 47 sf; adding they can go up to 80 sf but a third banner may get a little odd in terms of symmetry.
Harrington didn’t see 1 square foot/linear foot in guidelines when he read them and apologizes for that mistake and personally likes symmetry and would probably go with an equal number on both sides, whichever they could get. Harrington adds he is leaning towards making them the darker shade.
Durand agrees two banners in the darker shade are much more reasonable.
Harrington asks if they can have the option to have banners either on the two ends or two above the door.
Daniel reads comments previously submitted by Kennedy.
Kennedy states he loves the signs, banners, colors, everything.
Harrington states they had an alternative sign that was bigger and asks for discussion purposes if he could show the board to see if it is something they would want to resubmit on.
DeMaio understands the desire to want to brand the building in a new way but the problem for him is it’s a known historical building that has character and per the proposal it now becomes all about signage which is their goal but he would prefer to have fewer signs rather than more. DeMaio prefers the darker sign rather than the lighter as well. DeMaio adds the large illuminated sign hovers right over the entrance and given the dimension of it thinks it may feel uncomfortable for pedestrians. DeMaio would prefer it be remotely illuminated and not internally illuminated as internal glowing signs come off cheaper than edge lit letters/signs.
Harrington responds the glow of the manufacturer’s signs has very subtle illumination and is tastefully lit. Harrington adds they are using a prominent sign maker for restaurants and bars. Harrington states their intent is to add to the architecture and is not about selling their signs. Harrington further adds the new signs project less than their current sign.
DeMaio states the new proposal has a different feel and thinks the big disc feels hefty.
Harrington states their customers have stated they like their sign but feels a little rinky-dink.
Jaquith states the proposal will not meet the sign regulation but has no problem with the bigger identification of the building if it is done right. Jaquith states they still need to address the entry door with something. Jaquith thinks there needs to be another proposal that is clarified and fits within the requirements.
Daniel states it sounds like Harrington is open to the proposal being a blade sign with two banners.
DeMaio states if there were two banners he would prefer the end two, letting the entry be defined with the projecting sign.
Durand agrees.
Durand and Jaquith like the darker material.
Durand thinks a three foot diameter seems too big for the blade sign and thinks 30” is probably better.
Jaquith agrees. Jaquith does not have a problem with the sign being illuminated.
Jaquith: Motion to accept the proposal with the following conditions:
- Only two banners with the dark background shall be installed with one at each end of the building;
- The lower bracket and bolts shall be anodized bronze to match the existing higher poles; and
- The diameter of the blade sign shall be reduced to 30”.
seconded by Durand. Passes 4-0.
- 283R Derby Street (Witch City Segway): Discussion of proposed signage
Brad Biscornet is present on behalf of Witch City Segway.
The board reviews a previously submitted proposal including sign plans and photos.
Daniel states the issue with the blade sign area is it really counts as Brother’s Deli signage.Daniel adds the building owner has signed off on the Witch City Segway sign being there but the Brothers Deli signage actually exceeds what is permitted. Daniel adds it appears the signage was installed and was found out afterward that it needed to be permitted.
Biscornet states he needs to plead some ignorance stating the sign is already up and apologizes to the board for being here after the fact. Biscornet adds now that they have competition they felt the need to gain more exposure and awareness to their company. Their initial thought was to have the sign like this coming off above their doors but the issue there is there are a lot of tractor trailers that go along that side for deliveries.
Daniel on behalf of Kennedy: Kennedy states it’s a little tough to see from photos but from what he can tell its fine.
Durand likes the sign and thinks it is really pretty cool but doesn’t know if he likes the location that well.
DeMaio asks why the logo on the wall sign is different from the blade sign.
Biscornet states they are both their brand and are both on their business card. Biscornet thought it would look pretty un-proportional on a vertical sign.
DeMaio states the logo is less effective on a wall sign than it is on banner. DeMaio adds the logo cropped so much viewers can’t really get a feel of the logo anymore but adds he would have a bigger issue with it if the signs were in closer proximity to each other. DeMaio states he likes the vertical sign and thinks its really cool.
Biscornet states he was a graphic designer for ten years and understands branding pretty well.
Jaquith states even though the blade sign conflicts with the restaurant it is the only place it can go.
Durand agrees.
Jaquith would have them switch the flat sign to match the lettering on the vertical sign.
DeMaio agrees that as a family they do not work well together.
Durand can make the connection between the two signs.
Daniel also thinks they work well together.
Jaquith thinks it should stay the same.
Daniel states a regulatory issue still needs to be resolved. Daniel explains the adjacent properties are owned by the same owner, but they couldn’t approve a sign on that building for their business either as it would be an off-premises sign. Daniel states he needs to do more work on it. Daniel adds the board can like the graphics but the location of the blade sign will need to be determined. Daniel further adds if the issue is having a wall sign match the blade sign, just be aware the blade sign may not be there. Daniel states if there is just the one, are you going to say they need to re-do it to match the design.
DeMaio: Motion that the wall sign be modified to match the segway graphic that is on the banner, regardless if banner is there or not, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 3-1.
Blier states that he is not a marketing or graphic designer and thinks it is not his place to say they should change the graphic.
Durand agrees that it is Biscornet’s choice as to whether it demonstrates a segway or not.
DeMaio asks if they approve the wall sign as it exists today, does that mean that the banner would then match the wall sign?
Durand is ok with two different logos and would think if the banner doesn’t get approved it should probably go to an a-frame sign. Durand adds business success is what they want to encourage.
DeMaio states continuity and consistency of graphics is a big deal.
Durand sees it as a derivation and is acceptable to him.
Durand thinks making Bisquanette jump through hoops isn’t necessary but adds if this discussion was had before the sign was made it would be a non-issue.
Durand votes with the motion.
Biscornet states they have an a-frame sign that has the logo everyone likes.
Jaquith states that will have to come before the board with that proposal as well.
Daniel will research if the blade sign can remain. Daniel needs revised proposals showing the new graphic above the door.
- 230 Essex Street (Scrub): Discussion of proposed exterior painting
Jamie Metsch is present on behalf of Scrub.
The board reviews a previously submitted proposal dated June 13, 2011, including the paint proposal and photos.
Metsch states some of the paint on the existing façade is starting to need some maintenance and wanted to provide business definition by color change. Metsch is proposing ‘Windogo’ and ‘Diplomat Gray’. Metsch adds the building owner is thinking of doing this around the building to give each place their own color. Metsch further adds color plays a huge part in active vital down towns.
Metsch states they feel like the current color is a bit too consistent and/or bland all around and bleaches out retail vibrancy that is coming in. Metsch adds they tried to choose for Scrub, a color that will look nice on the block and is tasteful regardless of what business is in it. Metsch further adds they were trying to achieve tasteful design to draw people into that corridor and suck them down Essex Street.
Daniel on behalf of Kennedy; loves it.
Metsch states they are trying to get away from white banding found all over the building from top to bottom.
Jaquith does not have a big problem with it but thinks it seems a little dark.
Durand thinks it may be a little drab and with the blue scrub, may not be in keeping with each other.
Metsch states their choice of color is based on having the sign pop and would not be interested in doing anything close to blue.
Durand is not opposed.
Jaquith thinks it is not worth arguing about, but just hopes it doesn’t turn out the way they show for the whole block.
Blier doesn’t mind the blue with the gray and thinks it may be a little dark as well.
Durand and Jaquith agree.
Durand suggests doing a small test sample as a better way to see how the lighting will affect it and have one of the DRB members go by and bless it.
DeMaio likes the dark trim color very much and thinks the difference in color between the two is not as much a contrast as what the rendering shows. DeMaio states he likes the proposal in and of itself, but like Jaquith, when you start to get into a ripple affect this would have on the rest of building, it does not help their proposal.
Durand: Motion to accept the proposal with the following condition:
- A test panel of the paint colors be reviewed by Paul Durand prior to painting the entire façade.
seconded by Jaquith. Passes 4-0.
- 177 Essex Street (Turtle Alley): Discussion of proposed signage
Hallie Baker is present on behalf of Turtle Alley.
The board reviews a previously submitted proposal including a letter, sign plans and photos.
Baker states they ship their products all over the country and their branding is very important to them. Baker adds they are currently located in the Museum Place Mall but are getting out of there and will be on Essex Street soon. Baker states they do not require any lighting on the outside and adds their display windows will be lit from within. Baker adds their storefront will provide a splash of color between two not so splashy businesses. Baker states the landlord is very happy with it.
Durand asks if the sign band will be painted.
Baker responds it will be a digital print and the sign itself will rest on top of that.
Daniel on behalf of Kennedy: Sign and details are great but wishes there was something being done with the storefront and door to complete the package.
DeMaio states it is a great sign and wishes all of them looked this good. DeMaio agrees with Kennedy that the door should be coordinated with sign.
Jaquith: Motion to approve as presented with the following condition:
- The door shall be painted the same color purple as in the sign
seconded by DeMaio. Passes 4-0.
Adjournment
DeMaio: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 4-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 8:21 pm.
Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033.
| 
