Design Review Board

City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board Date and Time: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Remote Participation via Zoom DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, David Jaquith, Glenn Kennedy, Catherine Miller, Marc Perras, Helen Sides, J. Michael Sullivan DRB Members Absent: None Others Present: Kate Newhall-Smith, Principal Planner Recorder: Kate Newhall-Smith Chair Paul Durand calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM. Roll call was taken. Signs 1. 10 Front Street (Orchid – Hanging Sign): Discussion and vote on signage. Ken McTague, Concept Sign, was present to discuss the project. McTague stated that he is refacing the existing sign with the new graphics. It will be installed on the existing bracket. Chair Durand and other members asked about the apostrophe at the end of the word “Orchid”. A discussion on grammar and the use of apostrophes and the ‘s’ on “Fashions” on the sign. McTague stated that his preference would be to remove the apostrophe after Orchid. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Miller: Motion to approve with condition that the apostrophe after the word “Orchid” must be removed. Seconded by: Jaquith. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. 2. 41 Lafayette Street (City Smoke Shop): Discussion and vote on signage Fernando Penagos from Sign Source was present to discuss the project. Penagos walked the board through the three sign types. Sign 1: Kennedy confirms that the letters and logo will be internally illuminated. Sign 2: existing freestanding sign, internally illuminated. Members question (1) if the sign is legal, and (2) if the sign is necessary for business visibility. Newhall-Smith will investigate if the sign is grandfathered and if the applicant can keep the sign. Page 1 of 7  Sign 3: series of signs centered above the windows along the Lafayette Street façade. Newhall-Smith confirms the applicant is allowed to have the amount of signage in a one- to-one ratio to linear frontage along the public way. Durand suggests moving the signs to the bottom of the windows and making them vinyl graphics rather than internally illuminated letters. Other members agree with this recommendation. Kennedy recommends that all signs feature the same font. Members agree with this recommendation. Miller asks about the existing window decals and asks for a complete application that includes all signage for the business. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Perras asks about other façade changes. Newhall-Smith confirms that she will work with the sign representative and the owner to come back to the Board with a complete sign package and with information about other façade changes that were made without DRB review. Sides: Motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. 3. 11 Central Street (Diehl Marcus & Co): Discussion and vote on signage. Erika Diehl and Christian Marcus, owners of the business, were present to discuss the project. Marcus reviewed the sign proposal that consists of two banner signs attached to the stair landing and a wall sign. The images on the banners reflect Salem’s merchant history. The store will sell teas, soaps, goods, reminiscent of Salem’s history. Durand asks how the banner signs will be installed. Marcus states that they will drill into the granite stair and install a steel sleeve that the poles holding the banners can be inserted. Kennedy recommends cutting the spacing between the words “Diehl Marcus and Co.” in half, which will give more breathing room to the words at either end of the sign – Merchants and Exotic Goods. Marcus appreciates this recommendation. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sides: Motion to approve with Kennedy’s spacing recommendation. Page 2 of 7  Seconded by: Jaquith. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. 4. 60 Washington Street (Odd Meter Coffee): Discussion and vote on signage. Angelica Chayes, Eric Moers, owners of the business, and Ken McTaque, Concept Signs, were present to discuss the project. McTague presents the three signs to the Board – a wall sign, two window decals, and a hanging sign. He confirms that the hanging sign will be installed on the existing bracket. Kennedy asks about the text color on the window signs. Moers confirms that the window decals will be red, the text on the other signs will be yellow/gold, to match the other signs on the block. Members ask about the placement of the wall sign and its extending over the sign band’s decorative molding. McTague states that the proposal matches the other wall signs on the block. Perras and Miller confirm this via Google street view. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sides: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: Jaquith. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. 5. 316 Derby Street (Jolie Tea Shop): Discussion and vote on signage. Drew Juliano from Signverse was present to discuss the project. Juliano presents the four, identical window decals and the hanging sign. He confirms that the sign will be installed on the existing bracket and have the same dimensions as the other hanging signs on the block. Sullivan confirms the locations of the window decals. Juliano reviews the window locations – two on Derby Street, two on Central Street. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Kennedy: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: Miller. Page 3 of 7  Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. 6. 270 Essex Street (Tomb): Discussion and vote on signage. Mark Blanchard, business owner, was present to discuss the project. Blanchard describes the hanging sign and window decal for the Board. Kennedy confirms that the building owner installed brackets for the building’s tenants and that this hanging sign will be installed on the existing bracket and will match the others on the building. Miller asks about the size of the sign and how it compares to others on the block. Blanchard states that he based his sign on the Game Stop sign next door. His sign is 2” shorter than Game Stop. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Miller: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: Jaquith. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. 7. 18 Hawthorne Boulevard (Fisher and Orfaly Dental Center): Discussion and vote on signage. George Orfaly, business owner, was present to discuss the project. Orfaly present his wall sign, which features the name of his business and his logo. He would like to install it on the balcony railing. Orfaly discusses the tenant spaces in the building – one on either side of the main door, and his business on the second and third floors. Durand and Sides state that Dr. Orfaly is their dentist but do not believe that this precludes their participation in the sign review. Members note the historic building and the lack of natural sign band. Members agree that the sign installed on the balcony railing makes the most sense in terms of how the tenants spaces are laid out in the building and also in terms of respecting the building’s historic architecture. Miller asks about the size of the sign and if it meets the code. Newhall-Smith states that the size is fine, the placement does not meet the maximum height requirements since the top of the sign will extend beyond the bottom sills of the second-floor windows. Page 4 of 7  Members agree that the sign as proposed and where it is placed is more important for this historic building than a minimal upwards extension beyond what is allowed via code. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sides: Motion to approve as presented. Seconded by: Jaquith. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. 8. 90 Lafayette Street (Aleris Dental Center): Discussion and vote on signage. Bill Kielbasa from Signarama was present to discuss the project. Kielbasa presents the sign for the dental center. It is proposed for the rear elevation, facing the private parking lot. The sign is meant to direct patients to the front entrance of the business. Members ask for clarification on placement and sign purpose. Kielbasa states that the placement of the sign was based on where existing sign brackets are located. He stated that his client asked for a sign on the rear of the building to direct people to the main entrance. Sullivan and Miller discuss sign design; it is too large and needs to be more linear. Sides states that the sign is too bright, and its colors should relate to the more subdued color on the building façade. Jaquith asks if the signage could be on a black awning over the first-floor windows so that it matches the business next door. Kielbasa states that the windows don’t belong to the dental practice. Members prefer the sign to be lower on the building, below the break in the façade. Kennedy questions the purpose of the sign; it does not seem like wayfinding for patients, it seems like advertising for the business. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Sides: Motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Seconded by: Jaquith. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. Page 5 of 7 Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 27 Charter Street: Design review of proposed installation of additional telecommunications equipment on rooftop Brittany Tiano, representing T Mobile, was present to discuss the project. Tiano presents the project to the Board. She reviews where the new equipment will be placed, which equipment will be removed, and where the new façade antenna will go. Miller asks about the impacted façade. Much discussion ensues regarding where on the building the new façade antenna will be located. It is determined, through a review of Google Earth, that the new antenna will be placed on the West façade, not the East as indicated on the plans. Tiano states that she can have the antenna installed in the middle of the space between the edge of the building and the balconies. Jaquith and other members are in favor of it. Members discuss the appearance of the antenna and while if this was the first antenna they would like it to be black, since there are others already on the building and they feature the faux brick film, the new antenna should also have the film on it. Sides suggests that all equipment that extends above the roofline be black so that it is not noticeable. Chair Durand opens public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Chair Durand closes public comment. Miller: Motion to recommend approval of the project with the new antenna centered in the space. Seconded by: Sides. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. New / Old Business Staff Updates: Newhall-Smith stated that the Hampton Inn filed an appeal of the ZBA decision denying the blade sign. The City Solicitor has the appeal and is working on a way forward. Miller asks if the Board can take time to reflect on past decisions. There are instances where their decisions have not yielded the results they believed and she would like to have the opportunity to review successful and not-so-successful recommendation. Approval of Minutes Page 6 of 7  Sides: Motion to approve the minutes from the September 23, 2020 DRB meeting as presented. Seconded by: Miller Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. Adjournment Jaquith: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by: Miller. Jaquith, Kennedy, Miller, Perras, Sides, Sullivan, and Chair Durand all in favor. Passes 7-0. Meeting is adjourned at 7:30PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 30A §18-25 and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-203 Page 7 of 7