Loading...
2025-06-25 Meeting MinutesDRB June 25, 2025 Page 1 of 8 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, June 25, 2025, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Leanne Leftwich, Elizabeth Murray, Marc Perras, Sarah Tarbet, and Catherine Miller DRB Members Absent: Kate Martin Others Present: Stephanie Owens, Senior Planner Recorder: Christine Petryszyn The meeting was called to order at 6:01pm. Roll call was taken. Signs in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 60 Washington Street: Melt Ice Cream Brittany Milligan, owner of Melt Ice Cream. was present to discuss the proposal: • Ms. Milligan wishes to switch out the signs with hanging signs that have her new logo. • She plans to use the same size signs and the same brackets and shared images of the proposed signs. • The window decals were not part of the application. Ms. Milligan noted that the signs have been on the windows for 1 ½ years. She had been told they didn’t need a permit because they were under 20% of the window size. • Mr. Perras noted that all signs need to come before the DRB. • Mr. Tarbet inquired about whether the sign is the same size as the ones next to it. Ms. Milligan said she would have the producer remeasure to make sure it is in line with the other signs. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve the sign as presented with the signs centered under the lights. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 2. 221 Washington Street: Tipsy Cowboy Ken McTague was present to discuss the proposal which includes: • Signs are to be 1” thick PVC with letters individually cut and mounted to the granite façade. Identical signs will face the Starbucks’ parking lot and Washington St. • Ms. Leftwich suggested tightening up the space between both words, and Mr. McTague said he could do that. • There is no sign existing in the space now. • Ms. Murray inquired about the architectural placement and that the sign’s justification and relationship to the openings seemed off. DRB June 25, 2025 Page 2 of 8 • Ms. Miller suggested shifting the Starbucks side sign to the left which could alleviate Ms. Murray’s concern. • The letters are 11 ½ inches, the space on the façade is 16” and there is space above and below the letters. • There are no signs planned for the windows. • Mr. Perras agreed that the signs should not bleed over the architectural bay. The font will need to be reduced to probably 10”. • Mr. Durand suggested centering both signs over the column. • Ms. Miller shared an image with the reduced letter size, and Mr. McTague thinks it will work. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to proceed as presented with the downsizing of the letters to fit within the architectural opening. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 3. 246 Essex Street: Witch City Broom Co. Ken McTague was present to discuss the proposal which includes: • A steel frame inside the sign with two signs sandwiched over the steel frame. • It is a flat sign with digital graphics. • There will be two brackets attached to granite. • Images were shared, but the sign shown wasn’t to scale. • The storeowner may be coming forward in the future to discuss repainting the storefront. • The buildings are currently black. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to proceed as presented with the caveat that owner come before the DRB should they wish to make any changes to the storefront. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 4. 75 Washington Street: Dire Wolf Tavern A-frame Michael Smith was present to discuss the proposal which includes: • An A-frame sign is proposed at the front of the building on Washington Street. • It would be unbranded, plastic 36 inches high by 24 inches wide. • They would like to include information on the sign such as when they have promotional evenings, or just general advertising. • Mr. Perras noted that the sign needs to be within 15 feet of the entrance and kept out of an accessible path. • Mr. Perras suggested the applicant submit a couple of design ideas that the DRB could approve and then they would have more freedom. He noted that the signs should not be used as a sales tool for Guinness, Coors, etc. DRB June 25, 2025 Page 3 of 8 • Ms. Miller noted that she is more interested in seeing what the logo will look like on the sign. • The applicant said he could generate a template for the DRB to review. • Mr. Durand suggested that Mr. Smith review the sign code for general guidelines regarding placement, quantity, liability insurance, term, structural integrity, etc. • Mr. Perras said they could approve the A-frame usage in general, but to come back with a design and street plan of where they plan on locating the sign. • Mr. Perras said they are permitted one A-frame per entrance, so they could also include that in their next application. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to continue. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. Projects Outside of the Urban Renewal Area 1. 266 Canal Street: Entrance Corridor – Sign package review for LORE apartments. Chris Copeland and Kristen Poulin with Canal Street, LLP were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Copeland noted that they have a PUD condition that stated they would come back and review the signs because at the time the project was permitted they did not have clarity on how the units would be marketed. • The ZBA just approved the banners to be above the sill line as a permanent sign for a couple of years for leasing. • Images of the sign were shared along with site plans showing the buildings. • There will be signs on the buildings as a monument signs for wayfinding, and numbers on each building. • Images of website were shared. The signs are in keeping with the branding. • The leasing signs are 3’ by 100”. • There will also be public art on the buildings. • The sign has a back box which matches the façade that it sits on. • Ms. Poulin said the letters will be painted aluminum and backlit. • There are five buildings with a number on each one with a tasteful font that matches the marketing. • The wayfinding signs will be 3’ x 2’ and there is one per building. • ZBA approved the lease banner height which is printed mesh and will be up for at least one year. • The lease sign facing Kimball Road will be a little smaller. • Mr. Perras expressed concern about the way one of the lease signs span across the joints, which is a nice part about the architecture. Mr. Copeland said they couldn’t go vertically because of the public art or horizontal below the windows because of vents. • Mr. Copeland said they could possibly move it, but the sign would have to get much smaller. DRB June 25, 2025 Page 4 of 8 • Mr. Perras said he would rather have a permanent sign that could come down after two years instead of a banner. • Mr. Copeland said viewing a vertical sign driving 30mph would be difficult. • Ms. Miller said it bothers her less where it is if it is a temporary sign. • Ms. Owens said the ZBA overrules the Sign Ordinance, which is why they sought relief because the sign was out of compliance with the code. • Mr. Copeland said they filed the ZBA application as keeping the sign up for only two years, but it was approved by the ZBA as a permanent sign. • Ms. Miller recommended that the DRB approve it as temporary. • Mr. Durand noted that this building isn’t in the SRA district so the DRB doesn’t have much authority; the DRB advises the Planning Board here. • Mr. Perras suggested they look at the inverse of colors; a white sign with dark lettering. Mr. Copeland said he prefers to have a colored sign. • The other signage has gold trim around the edges. Ms. Miller suggested using a color other than gold. Mr. Durand and Ms. Murray said they like the gold. • Ms. Leftwich suggested shifting the numbers on the sign. • Ms. Tarbet suggested looking at a natural wood for the sign. • Ms. Owens plans to draft a document for the Planning Board file stating that the applicant came before the DRB so that will be on record. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to convey that the proposal was reviewed and discussed. Seconded by Murray. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 2. 17 Canal Street: Entrance Corridor – Design review for proposed AC Hotel by Marriott. David Sherborne, Opechee Construction, Andrew Pike, PG Construction, and Kevin Steele were present to discuss the project: • The applicant shared images of the proposed design changes and shared the project timeline status. • Materials were previously submitted, and images were shared and reviewed. The backbox is a match to the adjacent siding. • Options for the second-floor windows were shared with option #1 being the second-floor windows mimicking the guest rooms above and option #2 was to try a treatment of gray paneling. • Three options were shared. Option A is to run the same windows that are used in the guest rooms and incorporate the louvres into them. Interior roller shades would be used. • Option B utilizes the same window sizes on the first floor. It would be a two-foot panel with a 6’8” window sill and no risk of direct headlights projecting out beyond the glazed areas. • Option C has some variations with grading, all windowsill heights would be 5’8” and would be tinted in the same way as the first-floor windows. • With all options they are planning to use automated lighting controls based on occupancy. • The sign plan is compliant with zoning requirements. Images of the proposed signs were shared. DRB June 25, 2025 Page 5 of 8 • The freestanding sign plan includes one sign at 27.5 sf at 10 ft tall. • The building sign plan includes a total sign area of 85 sf, and includes 1 entry placard, 1 canopy channel letters, two wall signs, and two directional signs. • Mr. Pike noted that the development team’s preference is Option A, but they are open to any of the three from the DRB. • Mr. Durand noted that he preferred Option A. Ms. Murray agreed and suggested that tinted glass be used as she found roller shades to be difficult. • Ms. Tarbet preferred Option B, that the space is different and should be treated differently. • Ms. Miller noted that she prefers Option A, but also likes Option B. She felt that Option B breaks down the scale of the massive wall a bit. • Mr. Durand suggested a hybrid of A and B. • Mr. Sherborne said in that instance he would probably lean more towards Option B if panels would be introduced and let it all be tinted glass. • Mr. Perras noted that he prefers Option A. He does not like the proportions of the windows in Options B and C, but wants to see tinted glass instead of roller shades. • Ms. Murray asked if the interior signage would say Salem. Mr. Sherborne said they committed to the Historical Commission to pay homage to the Eagle Iron Foundry that existed on the site and have historical context within the public area of the building. • Ms. Tarbet asked if the signage on the corner could be brought more into alignment. Mr. Sherborne said they were trying to screen the transformer on one side of the building and wanted to have the one be more prominent. Ms. Tarbet suggested using a horizontal sign so it doesn’t look like a mismatch. Mr. Sherborne said they could do 5x5 and drop it below the band. • Mr. Perras said he has a similar concern. • Ms. Miller inquired about the sign facing downtown. Mr. Sherborne said they were limited due to the second-floor windows and that they were limited on doing anything larger with limited wall space with the glazing. • Mr. Sherborne said the purpose of the light colored band is to provide accent to the entry way and give it more prominence from the pedestrian standpoint. Mr. Perras said he felt it was redundant and heavy-handed to him with the signage. • Photos of the AC Hotel in Portland were shared for comparison. • Ms. Tarbet agreed about seeing a thinner canopy. • Mr. Sherborne suggested they make it simpler and run a simple plane around, but would want to create a color shift to create emphasis. • Ms. Tarbet expressed preference for the dark continuous banding. • Ms. Murray agrees that the redundancy is a little much. Mr. Pike said the intention was to draw pedestrians to the area to the left of it. • Mr. Pike said he would prefer the DRB to accept it as is knowing it is not perfect to the whole board. He said they have had that element in the plan since the beginning. • Mr. Durand said he hopes the details can make it more refined. There were no comments from the public. • Mr. Perras asked if they could push the plane back so that it isn’t flush with the canopy. Ms. Murray agreed with that design comment. Mr. Sherborne said they could accommodate that. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion that the DRB’s preference was for Option A assuming that the glass has films on it as the first floor does, that the signage on the corner of Pond St. and Canal St. DRB June 25, 2025 Page 6 of 8 goes down to a 5x5’ and is lowered to align with the adjacent sign and that the canopy is offset as described. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 288 Derby Street: Small Project Review – Review of proposal to modify the rear façade by adding faux storefronts with display windows. Mr. Durand recused himself. Mark Meche and Shawn Shea were present to discuss the proposal: • Ms. Owens noted that the SRA has reviewed the proposal, but wants the project to come back to their board after the DRB’s review. • The Building Permit was issued on June 25th and the contractor will be moving forward on the storefront set. • Mr. Meche reviewed the approved elevation of the façade and encouraged the Board to read the letter describing the project motivation. • The concept renderings were shared. • Mr. Shea described the proposal, which is to create a village inside the building, that the wax museum as it exists is going away. • They want to stay open year-round, give options to their customers, and keep their employees employed. • Mr. Shea said they want to depict a mid-19th century American type of storefront with customers being able to go into different village stores. The last exhibit will be the tragic story of 1692. • They want to have air movement, more color, better lighting and sound. • Mr. Meche said SRA voted to move forward, though it was not unanimous. He said there were questions about the concept and dialogue on execution. He said they are trying to understand what design will be required to be successful. There is precedent for Victorian storefronts in Salem. • The Salem Wax Museum sign will stay. Each of the “storefront” signs will specify the type of shop. The windows are going to be real. • It could be turned into a Christmas Village during the holiday season. • Mr. Perras suggested that the Wax Museum sign come down to the shop front that will be true entrance. Ms. Leftwich agreed. He added that it should be clear that the armature is attached to the façade. • Ms. Miller expressed concern about the changes from when the project was originally presented and they have tried to maintain the integrity of the bricks and windows. She suggested finding a way to create a real façade. • Mr. Meche noted that what is proposed is a set, it is not historical so it can distinguish itself from the historical fabric. • Ms. Tarbet said she is not in favor of the faux historic, especially next to a historic cemetery. She said it represents an era, storefronts, and typology that is no longer real. • Mr. Perras suggested painting the building, rather than a three-dimensional design. DRB June 25, 2025 Page 7 of 8 • Ms. Miller said she does not want to see fake storefronts with fake store names, and fake doors. • Mr. Meche noted that the SRA bought into the idea. Ms. Miller said the SRA can override the DRB; their role is to offer advice to the SRA. • Mr. Perras said the majority of the board is not interested in a faux storefront so they could pursue other ideas, like a mural, or if they wish to stay the course, the SRA can overrule the DRB’s suggestions. • Ms. Tarbet said she understands that it is a museum, but replicating a historic storefront in a place they never were in an urban setting feels wrong. • Ms. Miller suggested that if the architects take the artist rendering and design it with a cornice, change the lighting, real millwork, highlight the door and window displays, that could be a different thing that wouldn’t look faux. • There did not appear to be support for doing something similar, but representing a different era. • Ms. Leftwich said that if a tourist came and saw faux storefronts, they may think they were beautiful, but not real. • Mr. Shea said he believes there would be interest from customers, but also does not want to negatively impact the neighborhood. • Mr. Perras said the reason people love the storefronts across from the mall, the Witch House, and the Seven Gables is because they are from that time period. It will be difficult to convince a board of architects that making a building look old is the right way to go with the DRB. • Ms. Miller said she really likes the idea of display windows, and a Christmas village, but noted that they need to make sure they still have 5’ of width in the deck area so people in wheelchairs to turnaround. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to continue. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Tarbet. 5-0 in favor. 2. 252 Bridge Street: Discussion of The Exchange’s wall color Chance Brady and Steve Prestejohn were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Chance said in taking with Mr. Daniel in going with a single color versus using two colors on the Hardy siding had a much better flow to it. • Mr. Prestejohn reviewed some of the color choices that were originally chosen. He said the project is already dramatic enough and does need further accent. • The thought history and images of the previous color choices were shared. • A rendering was shared of the building looking from the northwest corner of the site along the North River. • The façade color is the honeycomb tone. Vertical panels were staggered and offset from one another. The upper panel is dark gray. • Ms. Murray said the rendering looks much better and commended the applicant on the process. • Mr. Prestejohn said they had to move to a larger height metal from a pure panelization viewpoint. DRB June 25, 2025 Page 8 of 8 • Mr. Perras said these were the best renderings they’ve seen to date. He asked whether the tapered columns should be the same color. • Mr. Prestejohn said he thinks if they start to color match then the curve starts to feel divorced from the public realm. Mr. Durand, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Murray agreed. • Ms. Tarbet thought the design looked good. There were no comments from the public. • Ms. Owens said this will be shared with the SRA and Mr. Daniel. It was approved, but with the option to be brought back to the DRB. The applicant will not have to go back to the SRA at this point. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve as presented. Seconded by Tarbet. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. New / Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: a. May 28, 2025 Mr. Perras made a motion to approve. Seconded by: Murray. Roll Call: Leftwich, Miller, Murray, Perras, Tarbet, and Durand. 6-0 in favor. 2. Staff updates, if any • Ms. Owens said she just received the minutes from the Lappin Park meeting today, and will share them for review. The City Council approved the next phase for $100,000 for the next phase of the project. She said they are not sure what the next phase will be, but they are working on that and collecting data, costs, etc. • Mr. Durand said getting a sense of the budget will be good to have soon. • Mr. Perras asked what the best is to convey information about issues with outdoor dining. Ms. Owens said to send her emails, and she will reach out to the businesses directly. Upcoming Meetings 1. SRA: July 9th 2. DRB: July 23rd Adjournment VOTE: Mr. Perras: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by: Miller. All in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:40PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033