City of Salem Massachusetts
Public Meeting Minutes
Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting
Date and Time: Wednesday September 24, 2014 at 6:00pm
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Ernest DeMaio, Paul Durand, J. Michael Sullivan,
Helen Sides, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy
Members Absent: Christopher Dynia
Others Present: Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner
Recorder: Jennifer Pennell
Paul Durand calls the meeting to order.
Urban Renewal Area Projects Under Review
~
- 20 Central Street, Suite 111 (Salem Dental Arts): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, designs, and photos. Pamela Maragliano-Muniz was present on behalf of Salem Dental Arts.
Maragliano-Muniz commented that she had recently purchased the dental practice at 20 Central Street and would like to have a sign similar to the one currently at Fantini Chiropractic – with black smaltz background and raised gold leaf letters. Additionally, she noted that she would have her logo in vinyl on both the front and side window of her storefront.
Shapiro noted that there is 39 feet of frontage at the property, and that typically a 1-1 ratio of square footage for signage to linear frontage is approved (i.e. no more than 39 square feet of signage would typically be approved in this scenario). He went on to explain that the current proposal calls for 48 square feet of signage, but that the DRB is in a position to recommend approval of more than 39 square feet if it felt it is appropriate in this particular case.
Durand questioned whether the entire sign backing was being measured, beyond the lettering. Shapiro responded that it was.
Durand suggested that the dimensions of just the letters should be considered. Shapiro agreed that this could be done.
Jaquith commented that the sign letters for the building sign need to be tightened up. The proposed logo located on the window is under seen. Typically we don’t have the website listed on signage.
Shapiro noted that website information has been approved in the past, but only as secondary signage.
Kennedy noted that website information is a valid and current mode of communication, much like a telephone number, and that the Board should be more receptive to it.
Jaquith noted that the square footage of the signage shown in the current proposal does not bother him.
DeMaio commented that brackets and screws should be painted out black like the sign. DeMaio noted that he has no problem with the square footage of the sign.
Kennedy questioned whether the letters shown in the proposal would be the same type as shown on the chiropractor sign. Maragliano-Muniz noted that her signage would be consistent with the neighboring business’ signage.
Kennedy explained that he would like consistency on signage, except for the window decal logo. Letters should be consistent with Fantini signage, using the same font and gold leaf. There should be continuity throughout the building’s façade.
He noted that the rule around the letters located on the logo decal is disrupting the legibility of the type. It should be thinner and proportional to make it clear. Kennedy commented that he would also accept not doing the black outline.
Maragliano-Muniz expressed that she would be fine with not having a black outline around the lettering on her proposed window signage.
Kennedy: Motion to approve with the following conditions;
- The letters on the building sign must mimic the chiropractic sign next door,
- A thinner black rule must be used around the type on the window signage, OR
- The black outline around the gold lettering may be eliminated.
- All fasteners must be painted out black or be concealed.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0.
North River Canal Corridor Projects Under Review
- 28 Goodhue Street (North River Apartments): Discussion of proposed signage.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, cut sheets, designs and photos. Tim Sullivan of Barlo Signs was present on behalf of North River Apartments.
Sullivan noted that a freestanding sign had been approved by the Board at the last meeting. Tonight, they are proposing half inch thick dimensional letters that are six and half inch tall, running across the top of the building as address signage. Black letters using the same font as the freestanding sign would be used.
Also being proposed are five 1’9” x 6’ long tenant signs that would be placed above each commercial tenant entrance. The same color background and font color would be used on these signs as is used on the freestanding sign.
One actual tenant sign is provided in this packet and is being proposed for approval. The sign will have dimensional lettering.
Shapiro commented that tenant signage should be reviewed on an individual basis if there is a unique deviation from the standard format. Tonight the DRB should concentrate on the proportion of the sign, the style of text, and color. Shapiro also noted that all signage for tenants should conform with having no more than a 1-1 ratio of square footage for signage to tenant linear frontage.
Durand commented that the proposed tenant signage is limiting to businesses with a long name.
Shapiro noted that the Salem Market would have to formally apply for signage with the City, but that the Board could vote on whether to approve the signage as shown or with conditions.
Sullivan questioned if locations only for signage could be approved.
Durand commented that the Board should consider approving a standard sign for the building, but that individual sign applications, such as the one shown for the Salem Market, would have to be considered when a tenant comes before the Board.
J. Michael Sullivan commented that business owners might want to use different signage panels. He also commented that the proportions for capital versus lower case letters on the address signage look different that the proportions for lettering on the freestanding sign. He noted that he would encourage more consistency between the two signs.
DeMaio noted that he agrees with the issue of proportionality on the address signage, and he also questioned how the board could grant a blanket approval for tenant signage so that there is consistency, and not issues such as variations in text size or number of text lines used.
Shapiro clarified that a blanket approval should not be considered. He explained that simply looking at the proposed standard sign backing and size for the backing should be considered.
Sides commented that tenants should have more flexibility to design signage that is more eye catching, or logo like.
DeMaio again expressed concern over how the Board could ensure that signage didn’t look vastly different from one storefront to the next, in terms of size or style of text, and considering other variation issues.
Shapiro commented that tenants would have to come in on an individual basis and considered at the time that they apply for signage. Signage that doesn’t fit with the consistency of surrounding signage could very well be rejected.
Sullivan (of Barlo Signs) explained that his client’s intention was to hold tenants to a green background with white raised letters, but that tenants could propose their own graphics.
Kennedy commented that three lines of text would probably not work. The text would probably have to be too small.
Durand commented that the property owner should have the standard sign details outlined in lease documents. Perhaps just the address and Salem Market sign should be considered this evening, and not the other proposed tenant signs, in order to keep things flexible for future tenants.
Sullivan noted that he agreed that approving a standard green background would be limiting other color opportunities and identities for tenant signage.
Sides noted that she would like to see a darker color.
Kennedy commented that he agrees that the color needs to be darker and capital text should be consistent on the address sign. The type on the Salem Market sign could also be a bit smaller so that it becomes more legible – it seems a bit crammed.
Sides noted that she would like prefer Salem Market to come in for approval of their business signage at another time so that more could be done to address ideas to rework the signage.
Kennedy: Motion to approve the address sign on the following condition:
- Address sign letters decrease in size.
- Match the capital text proportion to the North River freestanding sign capital text size.
- Type to be 6 ½” tall black letters.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0.
Sullivan (of Barlo Signs) noted that they would also like the Salem Market sign considered as submitted because the landlord has agreed to produce the sign for the tenant.
Kennedy questioned whether the placement and size of all other tenant signs be considered as well.
Durand expressed that he would rather not in order to preserve flexibility for each individual tenant.
DeMaio noted that tenants could potentially come before the Board in the future with a proposal to place signage in a different location, with a different size or style than what is currently being proposed. How would the Board deal with this?
Sides noted that the Board has asked for standardization of signs in multi-tenant scenarios in the past. She noted that she thinks it is appropriate for the landlord to think about the size of standard signage in relation to individual storefronts, and that she would hate to see future proposals that called for larger or smaller sign bands that looked inconsistent with other signage on the property.
Kennedy echoed Sides’ comments noting that they have asked other landlords to provide similar sign programs for the purpose of consistency. Tenants would still have to come before the Board to request deviations from the program, or to add window signage.
Kennedy motion to approve with recommendations location and size of the proposed panels for tenant signage.
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 4-2 (Durand and Jaquith vote no)
Durand then noted that there was a member of the public that wants to make a comment.
Jim Treadwell of the Mack Park Neighborhood Association ask whether the Entrance Corridor sign standard and North River Canal Corridor sign standard the same. Shapiro responded that they are not.
Treadwell asked whether the more stringent of the two policies must be followed. Shapiro responded, yes.
J. Michael Sullivan commented that the font used for the Salem Market seems a bit arbitrary.
DeMaio commented that he feels that the letters seem a bit crowded.
Kennedy says that although the sign could be more creative, there is nothing particularly objectionable about it.
Kennedy motion to approve Salem Market sign.
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0
- 72 Flint Street & 67-69 & 71 Mason Street (Riverview Place): Continued discussion of design revisions to proposed residential and commercial development.
The submission under review before the DRB includes a proposal, elevations, and drawings.
Scott Grover was present on behalf of Riverview place and also introduced David Sullivan of O’Sullivan Architects as the primary architects, as well as David Symes and Steve Feinstein of Symes Associates – the developer. Grover turned the presentation over to O’Sullivan.
O’Sullivan first presented a general landscape plan that was not submitted with the plans shown to the DRB ahead of time. He noted that the plantings are fairly consistent with what had been approved with the original plans for the original project. He pointed out a heavy buffer along Flint Street.
O’Sullivan then began covering changes addressed in the design of the proposed buildings. He explained that the window area has been increased, and the brick area decreased on Building 1. They have gone to all double hung windows with larger paned glass. The building is more proportioned to a more traditional mill building. A few more openings have been provided along the parking deck.
The new concept for Building 2 is to be more consistent with Building 1.
Jaquith commented that building number 2 is an improvement. Jaquith noted that the entrance located at building number 1 should have a contemporary canopy located above the door for a scale and proportion element. Large building details and a model would provide a more three dimensional and realistic understanding of how the buildings fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. Also a more detailed landscape plan would be good to have.
Sides commented that building number 2 is working better with building number 1. Sides noted that there could be more variation between window types. Nicely articulated corners with more glass and more contemporary detail would be an enhancement to the design. The repetition of the windows needs to be broken up. Sides commented that she would like to see more details and models that better represent the building scale and its use of materials.
Jaquith questioned if there would be any HVAC units located on the roof. He explained that screening system details are needed for review. O’Sullivan noted that there would be units on the roofs, but that more details would come forward in the future to show how they would be incorporated and screened.
DeMaio noted that the proposal is hard to evaluate at this point. It is hard to understand the design’s relationship with the surrounding site – for instance, whether the amount of brick being proposed is truly appropriate. Every building is seen in flat elevation. The proposal demonstrates nothing in a three dimensional form. DeMaio noted that because models, three dimensional renderings, or larger scale elevations have not been shown, it is difficult for him to judge the quality or appropriateness of the design at this point.
DeMaio noted that he is not willing to consider the landscape as it is presented right now. The landscape needs to be presented similar to the rest of the buildings, as a comprehensive whole, and will be an integral part of the design. Pieces of the façade need to be blown up to a much larger scale so that relationships can be understood. DeMaio noted that more glass than brick in being proposed in building 1 which appears to be the correct approach but the scale could still be incorrect. DeMaio commented that a model, three dimensional views of the site showing buildings in context, and a lot of contextual information is needed.
Durand asked DeMaio asked what presentation techniques could help the applicant in the future.
DeMaio explained that a model could certainly help. He also recalled there being aerial shots and three dimensional views in the original project’s presentations, and that the Board had a better understanding of how the project fit within the context of the surrounding neighborhood.
Sullivan noted that the proposed cluster of mill like buildings relating to one another works well. Sullivan noted that an analysis of what mill architecture is needs to be done. Stair towers, entrances, proportions of bays are all important elements that should be incorporated into this project. Sullivan noted that he is hesitant about the photographs used so far as precedents since they are not demonstrating mill architecture. Elements need to be distinguishing themselves from other elements.
Kennedy noted that he conceptually likes the idea of where the project is going but needs to see it in context.
Durand noted that the DRB is still looking at the same type of presentation form as previously introduced. The audience should be looking at details in relation to planes and spaces, demonstrating how it relates in context. Aerials, ground views, models are all needed.
Grover explained that the applicant would be working toward a more detailed presentation and should have more information and detail to provide at a future meeting.
A letter from Meg Twohey of 122 Federal Street was read aloud. It noted in that the proposal is brutalist in its design and does not acknowledge the 1 and 2 story surrounding properties. Twohey noted that consideration of amenities that the river provides to pedestrians is an important study that needs to happen. Twohey voiced her concern about the appearance and height of mechanical systems and asks the designer to be thoughtful of the garage treatment. The proposed buildings would loom over the neighborhood.
Emily Udi of Historic Salem noted the need for pedestrian access through the site. The proposed roadway between building one and two appear like a street rather than a driveway. Garage window openings need more study. A walkway is needed for Flint Street neighbor parking. The intent of the park was to let people walk to the train station. Udi noted that the materials should not be a recreation of a mill building; they should act in a more contemporary way distinguishing themselves from one another with varying depths.
Barbara Cleary of 104 Federal Street noted that building number 2 is a better direction. Cleary noted that the two dimensional presentation is hard to understand and a third dimension is needed. Most of the public would view the complex while driving on Bridge Street. The proposed elevation has a lot of garage openings on the first floor.
Jim Treadwell of Ward 6 and the Mack Park Neighborhood Associated commented that the buildings context needs to be recognized. Treadwell noted his concern about height restrictions. Treadwell also encouraged the applicant to appear before the Mack Park Neighborhood Association to present the project. He questioned when the applicant would file for their environmental review.
Feinstein responded that they would be filing within a week.
Jaquith: Motion to continue
Seconded by: Sides, Passes 6-0.
Minutes
Approval of the meeting minutes from the September 3, 2014 regular meeting.
Sides: Motion to approve
Seconded by: Jaquith, Passes 6-0.
Adjournment
Durand: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Jaquith. Passes 6-0.
Meeting is adjourned at 7:45pm.
| 
