Loading...
2025-08-27 Meeting MinutesDRB August 27, 2025 Page 1 of 10 City of Salem Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes Board or Committee: Design Review Board, Regular Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday, August 27, 2025, at 6:00 pm Meeting Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting DRB Members Present: Chair Paul Durand, Kate Martin, Marc Perras, Elizabeth Murray, and Catherine Miller DRB Members Absent: Leeann Leftwich and Sarah Tarbet 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. 30 Church Street: Crazy Good Kitchen Mario Vladi, Director of Operations, was present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Vladi reported that they applied for an outdoor wall mounted sign. • Images of the proposed signs were shared. • Mr. Perras reminded the applicant to ensure the A-frame sign is outside of the accessible path. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve as presented, amended by Mr. Durand to include the standard conditions. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Leftwich, Martin, Miller, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. Mr. Durand noted that the following standard conditions apply to projecting signs: The requirements for blade signs to be stationary was not appropriate for these signs for the following reasons: the signs and brackets are sturdy so that the wind load and movement of the sign will be minimal. Finding the requirement for blade signs to hang a distance of no less than 8 inches was not appropriate for these signs for the following reasons; (1) the sign is in the downtown core, which is highly pedestrian oriented, (2) Signs hanging close to the building cater to pedestrians, and (3) signs nearby appear to have a hanging distance of eight inches or less. A condition includes the applicant adhering to the surety bond requirements found in the City of Salem's Code of Ordinances, Section 4-47, Signs or structures over public ways. 2. 281 Essex Street, Unit C3: The Good Witch of Salem Ashley Tina and Ken McTague were present to discuss the proposal: • Images of the proposed sign were shared. • The sign will be placed on the existing bracket and will be a standard, flat PVC sign with vinyl graphics. DRB August 27, 2025 Page 2 of 10 • The lower sign will hang from the larger sign. • Ms. Tina said the vinyl she has is 2x3, but that it was almost all transparent except for the hat and words below. Transparent space does not count towards 20% of coverage. • Images of the door were shared. • The applicant said she could minimize the logo or words to meet the 20%. • Photos of the proposed location of the A-frame were shared. Ms. Owens noted that the a- frame needed to be no more than 10’ from the entrance per the code. • The applicant inquired if there was another location she could put her sign to gain visibility from the main street. Her business is on Cromley St. • Ms. Owens noted that the applicant could request a variance from the ZBA from the location requirement. She will share the appropriate contact and next steps with the applicant. • For the last sign, a photo was shared and the applicant noted that she was hoping to use artwork from the book that children are familiar with. It is a surface mounted sign. • Mr. Perras said that since he’s been on the board, they have steered away from allowing signage mounted directly to the brick, unless it is seasonal. • Ms. Owens noted that there is an ordinance that addresses wall signs, and that this sign falls within the total signage that the applicant is permitted. • The applicant also noted that she could paint a mural on the wall which would fall under public art. • Mr. Perras and Ms. Martin noted that they would prefer a hand-painted sign. • Mr. Perras suggested that the board allow the sign through November with the expectation that that it will be replaced with a handmade sign. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve the blade sign, to send the A-frame to the Zoning Board of Appeals, to approve the door signage, and to approve the wall sign attached to the mortar until it can be replaced with a wall faded sign of the same dimensions in November. Seconded by Martin. Roll Call: Murray, Martin, Miller, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. 3. 100 Washington Street: Black Cat Curiosity Shoppe Dan Fury was present to discuss the proposal: • Images were shared of the window signage the applicant is proposing at the bottom of their storefront windows on Essex St. • The graphics are roughly 15% window coverage. • The vinyl signs are coming down. • There will be product displays behind the windows. • The exterior signage is separate. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Ms. Martin made a motion to approve. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call:, Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. DRB August 27, 2025 Page 3 of 10 4. 322 Derby Street: Rouge Cosmetics Ken McTague was present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. McTague shared photos of the existing and proposed signage. He reported that the building has standard brackets across the entire building. • The owner wishes to eliminate the box and replace it with a gold leaf sign and gooseneck lamp above it using the existing power supply. • The existing sign takes up the entire width, with a ½” on either side of the pylon. • Mr. Perras suggested that a slightly smaller sign be made so that the architecture would show. Mr. McTague said they could do that with a 34” sign. • Ms. Miller said the existing size looked tidy and that she liked the existing size of the sign. • There will be no exposed conduit. • Mr. Perras said he’d like to see the lamp at the same elevation as the others on the building. • Mr. McTague noted that the existing lights are passive, whereas this one would be to light the sign. It was agreed that the light should be different, one that doesn’t match, like an LED bar light. • The light shouldn’t project more than 4”. • Ms. Murray and Ms. Martin said they would like a reveal. • Ms. Murray said she would like to see at least an inch of brick on either side. • Ms. Miller suggested that the board vote on the hanging and wall sign and ask Mr. McTague to come back with a lighting solution. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to approve the hanging side as presented and approve the wall sign reduced to 34” wide centered on the pilaster and continue the lighting solution anticipating a small, thin bar that would be above the light, with the standard conditions. Seconded by Martin. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. 5. 75 Washington Street: Dire Wolf Tavern A-frame Sam Porter was present to discuss the proposal: • Ms. Porter noted that she used the incorrect measurements, but that they are now updated on her application. • She said they are looking to add two window graphics to the back of Dire Wolf Tavern. • Images were shared. • The Dire Wolf circle logo would be 22x30” and the Hallowed Ground logo would be 18x30.” • The logos would be placed on windows near their back patio area. • The original proposal was too big, but the applicant has reduced them in size so that they are now 20% of window coverage. There were no comments from the public. DRB August 27, 2025 Page 4 of 10 VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to proceed with signage on the door and window taking into account the smaller versions that meet the ordinance of 20% coverage. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. Projects in the Urban Renewal Area 1. 128 Washington Street: Signage & Small Project Review – Review of proposed signage and facade modifications at Ba Banh Mi. Ba Pho and Ken McTague were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Pho reported that he would like to paint the storefront a darker gray so that it looks similar to O’Neill’s and the other buildings next to it. • Ms. Owens shared photos. • Board members were supportive of the change. • Mr. McTague shared images of the proposed sign, which is 34.5x34.5” and very similar to O’Neill’s. It will have a similar bracket and height. • Images of the window graphics were shown as well. • Light fixtures are existing and do not light any signs. Mr. Pho does not want to remove them, but he may want to put in different lights in the future. He suggested painting them for now. • Ms. Murray suggested that the lights be removed, and the J box could be capped. • There should only be one set of lights. New gooseneck lighting would need to come back before the board. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve as presented the painting strategy, window graphics, and blade sign with standard conditions and painting of the existing light fixtures until a time when the goosenecks are installed, at which time the existing light would need to be removed. The business owner will need to come back to the DRB to discuss the gooseneck fixtures. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. 2. 311 Derby Street: Signage, Facade Modifications & Extension of Premise for Outdoor Dining – Review of proposed signage, facade modifications, and outdoor dining at The Goat. Justin Passe, General Counsel and Chief Development Officer for Flurry, the parent company of Goat Salem, Adam Prentice, Creative Director, Ken Woods, Engineer, and Ali Fleury, owner were present to discuss the proposal: • The applicant is seeking to permit Goat restaurant in Salem, and are seeking an outdoor dining permit application. • They are proposing outdoor dining in the same location as the previous owner, American Flatbread, who had outdoor dining in both the front and rear patio area. They are proposing to add 48 sears in the front with 12 umbrellas, with 52 in the back with 13 umbrellas, for a total of 100 additional outdoor dining seating. • Exterior painting is proposed and framing around the HVAC equipment. DRB August 27, 2025 Page 5 of 10 • A site plan, renderings of signage, and photos were shared. • The vinyl is just signage lettering. • The front signage is raised channel letter with a white flexi face. • There are two proposed internally illuminated signs. • Mr. Perras noted that small chains have come before the DRB before requesting back lit lighting and they did not allow it. He said they would prefer channel lighting or lights added to the soffit. He said it would be the same comments for the tall, tower sign. • Mr. Passe said their strong preference is to hold on to the internal lit nature of at least one of the signs. • Ms. Miller said she will not support the sign as presented. She said may consider supporting a reverse sign, but was concerned about the precedent. • She also noted that the DRB has rules to follow, there is not a negotiation; they have to think about the community as a whole. • Images were shared of a reverse sign with white lettering. • Ms. Miller noted that the American Flatbread sign that was up previously was in violation of the City’s rules. • Ms. Miller requested that the letters get closer to the edge of the sign. • Ms. Owens noted that the freestanding sign is perpetually non-confirming, which is why the 35% comes in relation to the sign code. But that since it is 54’, it does play into the total amount of signage allowed. The total amount of signage is over the maximum allowed. • Mr. Perras said that the spirit of that line in the ordinance is to make sure that the building surface and windows are not covered with signage. He believes this is a very unique case and that should be taken out of the calculations for signage. DRB members agreed. • Ms. Owens noted that the total signage calculated also included the projecting sign that is proposed along with all the window signage and wall signage from the doors. • Mr. Passe said they were happy to go with the externally lit wall mounted sign above the entrance doors and reverse the color scheme on the pylon sign. • He reviewed the calculations and measurements for the doors. • The proposed free hanging sign was shared, which is proposed to be 5x5.’ • Mr. Perras said it would be helpful to see the rendering from another view. • Ms. Miller said the hanging sign felt excessive, especially along with the massive pylon sign. She thought 3x3’ size was more appropriate. • The Board agreed that there were too many signs, and that it felt excessive. • The applicant noted that they based their window calculations on five panes of glass along the bowling area side, and then one small pane of glass above the egress door, which came to 23.7sf of glass and they are proposing 22.27sf of signage. • Ms. Owens said she confirmed and it is 20% per glass pane, and that the only sign over 20% is the Goat sign. The applicant said they would reduce that. • Mr. Woods put together an architectural review of both the indoor and outdoor seating capacity. • Images of the unbranded umbrellas, proposed tables/chairs, and fencing were shared. • Planters would be used in the front and rear to act as an entrance and exit. • Fencing barriers are moveable so that they can be removed in the offseason. • Mr. Perras confirmed that the applicant will need to go before the Disability Commission. • He added that everything be painted black for consistency. DRB August 27, 2025 Page 6 of 10 • The applicant would like to mirror the fencing that is along the harbor walk. • Concern was expressed about the ropes not being enough to protect people from cars, that bollards or planters might be better. • The applicant said that with snow removal, having something modular would be easier, but said that they could go with planters. • Mr. Perras suggested the applicant look at the planters at the Salem Hotel on Essex St. to see a good example. • Renderings of the exterior modifications were shared. • Proposed paint colors are grays and browns. • The applicant is looking at air flows. • The applicant is not painting over any brick. • Ms. Miller noted that it is popular place for graffiti. • Joe Jacir, 51 Lafayette Street, asked if there were any plans for outdoor performance space. • The applicant said there will be indoor live music, but there are no plans for outdoor music at this time. They will have a full-time audio engineer on site and the restaurant will be configured in a way that is consistent with the neighborhood and in keeping with the City’s regulations. He said in other locations the music is played over speakers in the outside area, but that they haven’t dialed in for this location yet. • Ms. Owens said sound would fall under the licensing board, and that she would share their contact information with Mr. Jacir. VOTE: Ms. Miller made a motion to approve the signage packages with the following conditions; the Goat logo will be made smaller in order to be in compliance, the signage above the windows is accepted as presented, the word “Goat” above the door of the bowling alley building will be white lettering on the glass window, the main door will be accepted as presented but will externally lit, the pylon light will be accepted but will be reverse out and will be reverse lit, and the designers are going to provide a bit more space so that the Goat logo and the word Goat are not right up against the edges of the sign, the hanging sign is going to be deleted; the hours signage is going to accepted as presented, the back patio is going to be accepted as presented with a railing that is going to replace the twisty rails with something simpler and more in keeping with the railing on the river, the patio is accepted as presented with the change that planters are going to be used for a more structured look; the screen around the AC is accepted with any input from the engineer in regards to air flow, paint colors are accepted as presented with the note that the Goat is going to stay on top of the graffiti. Seconded by Perras. Ms. Murray noted that she did not object to the hanging Goat sign. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. 3. 288 Derby Street: Small Project Review – Review of proposal to modify the rear façade by adding faux storefronts with display windows. Request to continue to the November DRB meeting. 4. 216 Essex Street: Small Project Review – Proposal to modify the façade to facilitate the change in use from offices to hotel, including new doors, new trim paint, and new light fixtures. The use of public land adjacent to the property will be considered at a later date via a separate permit application. DRB August 27, 2025 Page 7 of 10 Stefano Basso with SV Design, representing 216 Essex Street, was present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Basso described the project which is a conversion of an existing office building into a boutique hotel. • There will be 14 rooms with a small lobby, bar area, public toilets, and gift shop. • The project site is on the corner of Washington Street and Cervoni walkway. • The building is three stories in the front, and one story in the back. It will be a historic tax credit project and SV is working with historic design consultants as they will be going through multiple rounds of historic review. • The proposal includes additional work that is not in the scope tonight, but for the presentation, Mr. Basso described the conversion of a window to a door on the front and bringing one doorway forward a few feet. • There will be a conversion of a second window to a doorway and some exterior lighting. • There will be building signage, but that is not on the agenda as the branding is still being worked on. An outdoor patio is proposed, but they are working with the City on that. • Existing and historic images were shared. • The schematic site plan was reviewed. • Mr. Basso noted that their intent is to maintain the historic elements and provide a subtle renovation. Shutters that need to be restored, will be. The windows, shutters, and doors will be painted black. • The doors will match the style of the existing doors in the area and will be half-light glass panel doors. • Small sconces will be incorporated at regular intervals aligning with the architecture, at about 10 ½-11’ above the sidewalk level. • The sign is likely to be placed in the same location of the existing, but is to be determined. • There will be similar treatments on the Cervoni side of the building, with a black aluminum store front door. • A cut sheet was shared for the proposed lighting. It will have a brass finish. • Ms. Martin noted that she liked the choice of black, the door design, and creation of symmetry. • Mr. Perras asked if they looked at removing the shutters and that he would like to see more brick. • Mr. Basso said they could be open to that; that they are looking to comply with the tax credit program. He said he would check with the consultant. • Mr. Perras said there is precedent for removing shutters. • Mr. Durand suggested they make the approval contingent on what the historic consultant advises. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to proceed with what was presented with the outstanding question of shutter removal and following the historic consultant’s guidance, and also with the understanding the signage and outdoor dining or seating area will come back to the DRB at a later time. Seconded by Martin. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. DRB August 27, 2025 Page 8 of 10 5. 301 Essex Street: Schematic Design Review – Review of residential units and interior building layout. The DRB previously recommended approval of exterior designs for the amendment, which consists of the ground floor as commercial space instead of a parking garage. Dan Ricciarelli, Julia Meridian, Mike Becker, and Charissa Vitas were present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Ricciarelli reported that they were asked to bring furniture plans forward to prove out the number of units they are proposing. • The project includes 9 studio apartments, 12 one BRs, and four 2BRs. • The size of the studios range from 351 sf to 450 sf. The one BR units range from 400 sf to 709 sf and the two BRs range from 732 sf to 1,010 sf. • Ms. Meridian reviewed the furniture layout placement plans. • A community room on the basement level was added. • One bike parking space per unit is provided for in the basement. • There is 13,175 sf of community space. • Two of the units are handicap accessible. • The minimum height of the apartments will be 9’. • Ms. Miller noted that she would still like to see windows in units 6 and 14. • Mr. Becker said they did not want windows over equipment, it looks over an alley. Ms. Miller said she would still like to see windows. • Access through a secure door is used to access the bike parking, community room, and residential trash area. • Ms. Miller raised the issue of needing to walk a bike through a community area that is being used. • Mr. Durand noted that the door swings or stair doors are not accessible. Mr. Ricciarelli said that tweaking would happen in the details. • Mr. Durand also noted that there is not handicap accessibility in the egress stair. • At least one of the bathrooms will be handicap accessibility. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to proceed as presented with the understanding the future development of units 6 and 14 have windows added, doorways that are currently pinch points have the proper clearance, and reworking of the basement are for good access to the bike room and security. Seconded by Martin. Roll Call:, Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. Ms. Owens will prepare a draft response for the SRA pending Mr. Durand’s review. Projects Outside the Urban Renewal Area 1. 342 Highland Ave: Entrance Corridor – Pre-Construction Document Review – Review of AL Prime Gas Station pre-construction documents which account for changes from previous DRB review in 2021. DRB August 27, 2025 Page 9 of 10 Anthony Guba was present to discuss the proposal: • Mr. Guba noted that they have not changed the plan since it was originally presented in 2021. • The site consists of two parcels, within Zone B2. • Forest River is located just to the northeast of the property and they are within the 200’ riverfront area for the river. • The applicant already has approval from the Conservation Commission, and they have site plan approval from the Planning Board. • Aerials and maps were shared. • When the plan was originally presented, there were not as many sheet plans. • There were two residential homes previously on the property. Because of the way the buildings were demolished the utilities were not properly abandoned. The Engineering Department is requiring the applicant to properly disconnect the utilities including the water lines nearing the median and the sewer lines under the bike path. • The 2021 plan set and current plan set were shared and reviewed. • The site plan has not changed and is being processed through the building permit application process. • The curbing has been changed, a sidewalk was added, a retaining wall was removed, and the driveway and center island were changed slightly per MassDOT requirements. • Grading has not been changed, but a catch basin was added. • A landscaping plan was submitted to the Planning Board. The photometric plan is the same layout. • There are no light fixtures around the sidewalk or reconfigured entrance. • A site detail sheet was included in the DRB set. • The floor plan has not changed from what was presented. An ATM will not be on the exterior. • A color version of the building front was provided. • The DRB requested in 2021 that the price signage be reduced in size, which the applicant did. There were no questions from the Board. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve as presented. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. New / Old Business 1. Approval of Minutes: a. July 23, 2025 VOTE: Mr. Perras made a motion to approve the July 23rd minutes. Seconded by Miller. Roll Call: Martin, Miller, Murray, Perras, and Durand. 5-0 in favor. 2. Staff updates, if any Ms. Owens wished to confirm that members were available to meet Thursday, September 25th instead of the Wednesday, September 23rd in observance of Rosh Hashanah. DRB August 27, 2025 Page 10 of 10 Ms. Owens noted that she received Ms. Miller’s email about the banners and that she would be addressing those. Mr. Perras asked what the next steps for businesses that are not providing accessible outdoor tables. Ms. Owens said she would follow-up. She has reached out to them multiple times with no changes. Ms. Miller noted that they would like to see the painting done, but the lack of accessibility is significant. Ms. Owens said she would follow-up with the Building Department as well. Upcoming Meetings 1. SRA: September 10th 2. DRB: September 24th Adjournment VOTE: Ms. Martin made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by: Perras. All in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:00PM. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-028 through 2-2033