No preview available
1999-01-07CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD: Design Review Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: January 7, 1999 PLACE: Beverly Public Library - Arts & Crafts Room BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Douglas Haring, William Finch,Margaret ~vBrien Jennifer Palardy,Debbie Hurlburr RECORDER: Florence Sagarino Debbie Hurlburt calls the meeting to order and calls the first applicant. 1) LITTLE CAESARS/448 RANTOUL STREET Debbie Hurlburr states that the applicant is asking for a wall sign and a small tenant sign for the free standing sign at the location on Rantoul Street. She states that Little Caesars is there now with a 20 ft.long sign. States that the free standing tenant sign is 18 in. x 70 in. and the wall sign is 2.5 ft. x 12 ft., free standing out by the street. The applicant states that it is 130 ft. back from the street and that there is already a free standing sign saying "Little Caesar" and now wants to have the sign read "Rantoul Pizza". There is a pylon sign there now. Paul O'Donnell, Creative Signs states that the material will be the same. The pylon sign will be removed and they will have the same sign as other businesses. Hurlburt states that she spoke to them previously and stated that the Board does not look favorably on the product logos.O'Donnell states that Coca-Cola will be paying for the sign and states that the by-law says they can use 30% of the sign for advertising. He presents a copy of the law which states what is allowed under the by-law. Doug Haring reads the by-law for clarification and states that they are not allowed and proceeds to explain what could be used. Ed Juralewicz, who is present in the public states for clarification that it restricts it to 30% unless it is the major commodity. He states that if that is all they sold,- they could have a whole sign saying Pepsi Cola, and the Court specifically allows you up to 30% if it is a commodity sold there. Haring states he does not agree with this statement made by Juralewicz. O'Donnell presents a second plan since the first presented plan presented cannot be used,which is without the Pepsi logo. Juralewicz states that the interpretation of the ordinance is to use up to 30% of the sign. Haring at this point suggests that they look at the colors and page two suggests to the applicant that they use colonial white. O'Donnell states that lexan is what they want to use; that the color that the Board wants would wash out. Palardy states that they have had off-white before and that was what they requested from the China Buffet for their sign. She asks the applicant what is on the outside for color, to which O'Donnell replies that it is presently bronze. William Finch asks if the background is white and would there be illuminated lighting behind it. O'Donnell states that it is consistent with all the signs across from the CVS. Haring indicates approval of the sign as noted in bronze. Haring asks the applicant what time is needed, to which O'Donnell responds that it will be about a week because Little Caesar's sign has to come down by the 19th of January. The Board endorses approval of the plan as noted. 2) MONTSERRATMART/199 ESSEX STREET Randy Warren, representing the applicant states that they are replacing the present sign and want to replace it with this graphic sign with interior lighting. He states it is under the overhang. States that it is the internal graphics that are being changed. Finch states that they are just changing the front piece. Warren states that there will be less signage as you go by; that the Keno signs will be off the windows and that they are trying to clean up for a better appearance. Board endorses the plan as presented. 3) WALGREENS/ELLIOTT AND RANTOUL STREETS James (Randy) Cheyne, Project Manager of Wrenn Associates presents small sketches of the approved area along Rantoul Stret. He states that most of the building is up and that they keeping a tree in the parking area that was supposed to remain. He states that only one tree is still there.Randy states that one was knocked down during excavation. He states that the grades along the area were cut down to match the rest of the site.and by doing this the remaining trees' root system is approximately 2 ft. higher than the new parking lot.At this point, he presents a second sketch to the Board. He states that the roots have been sheared off and has concerns that the tree is going to die. The owners understanding was that they would try to save the trees. He states that they want to do some replacement; that they want to put some trees along the area. He states they would like 5 to 5.5"calipermaples because they have limited planting area. The trees would be Norway maple, ash or red oak. They would like to put 4 trees and space them about 20 ft. He states that there are power lines in one area and want permission to do something along those lines. At this point, page three Randy asks for suggestions from the Board. Hurlburt asks what else will be planted in the vicinity to which Randy responds that when the tree issue came in they realized that they did not make it in time which means they will have to plant in the spring. He points out that there are cypress trees which are 7 to 8 ft.in height. He also states that there are smaller ones and also a ground cover system. Finch states that they wanted to save the trees because of their natural size. Hurlburt asks if they are proposing 4 large Norway maples along Rantoul Street, which will be 7 to 8 ft.in height. Finch states that he does not think that the cypress is a very good tree to plant in this area. He states that they should consult with the City Arborist and revise the tree planting and talk about reviewing the whole concept of what will be planted along there. Jennifer Palardy states that she believes they need an expert opinion. She states there is too much concrete and that they need advice as to what would be better for this area. Member Haring asks if the Board wants something uniform to which they respond they want something that will grow tall. Randy Cheyne states that he wants something that is large enough to create a screen, and that red oak would be too tall. Hurlburt states that if she can get a copy of the landscape plan and give it to the City Arborist to get an opinion from him that would be helpful. Randy asks the Board if he can remove the tree. Hurlburt states that she feels that unfortunately she feels that it will not survive and asks if the Board would like her to talk to the Arborist of the City who could give them the status of the tree. She suggests the applicant could come back to the next meeting,and supply a revised landscape plan. Randy agrees and states that there is a person on site that they can talk to. The Board members agree with the suggestion made by Hurlburt; that the applicant return to the meeting of the Board which will be the first Thursday in February. The Board votes to have the applicant return at the meeting in February. 5) OTHER BUSINESS: BERTUCCI/DODGE STREET Debbie Hurlburt states that this was previously approved for the signage and the site plan was contingent on the final drawing of what the landscape would look like. To date, they have not received it. She states she sent it to the City Arborist for an opinion on the different trees and different species. He presented a response in the form of a plan with the City Arborist. Richard Peterson, Architect Annino Associates states that many ยท page four of the recommendations were not on there. He suggested shrubs in the back area and have to work this out with him. He does not know what additional information the Board wants. Hurlburt states that the City Arborist wanted trees and a green belt around it with pine mulch. For landscaping they can place shrubbery and ground cover and green up underneath the trees. Hurlburt discusses the size of the parking lot and that the Board would like green ground cover around it. Peterson asks the Board for suggestions on ground cover. Finch responds that euonymous, which is a big shrub 8 feet high or one that can cover the ground. He states that this cover stays green during the winter, but could get winter kill. Hurlburt suggests talking to the City Arborist about a low ground cover that will remain green year round. She states that the City Arborist recommended crabapple, red maple and also proposed shrubs in one location. Hurlburt reads from a letter dated June 14,1998 on the recommendations and conditions made at that time, which was based on a final plan of landscaping. She states that they have chosen not to do the front landscaping because of the street widening by the State and will do this at a later time. States a letter will be forthcoming from the applicant for the file. Peterson states they will add to the plan whatever the City Arborist recommends. He will identify all the trees on the plans showing the ground cover per the City Arborist recommendations and will also show the crabapple to be planted at a later date. The Board endorses the plan presented. Hurlburt states she will call regarding the ground cover and show where the trees are. 5 (b) LESLIE RAY INSURANCE AGENCY/129 DODGE STREET Ed Juralewicz of United Sign representing the applicant states that he wishes to change the free standing sign presently there and replace it with an internally illuminated cabinet. The property is located on Rt. 1A. He states he was approached in January, 1998 and said they were looking at the next property which is DeWolfe Real Estate, which has signage similar to what they would like to erect. He states that they will be keeping the post structure and hang the sign inside the posts with replaceable panels. Board member Finch states he does not like the sign; that the Board feels the present sign is far better than what is proposed. Mr. Juralewicz states he is attempting to convince the applicant to use another type of sign; that he has tried to keep the colonial shape. He states that the applicant feels the DeWolfe sign is better than the one he presently has. Hurlburt suggests a black background with gold lettering and feels that the sign page five has no attractiveness to it. She states that there may be a question of compliance with zoning. Member Finch states that the Board feels that the sign is too busy and suggests it would be a better sign if all the lines were taken out. J. Palardy states that she feels there is too much lighting on the sign. Douglas Haring states there are 7 different fonts on the sign and makes a suggestion that perhaps two signs could be there. He feels that the sign could have the same case as DeWolfe. Palardy questions whether they could have a directory board on the buildings. She points out that on the right side of the picture window they could place a flat sign. Mr.Juralewicz states he has some kind of tie-in with a tenant; they just want to identify the person in the building. Member Finch compares this with a building with 5 law offices and they are not allowed to have a sign of their own. Hurlburt states to the applicant that the Board will be meeting again on January 13 and that they will be able to check into the ordinance prior to that. She states that the feeling of the Board is that there is too much on the sign as submitted. She states further that they need to look at the ordinance and see if this is considered a shopping center or a tenant as defined under zoning. The applicant agrees to return to the Board at their meeting scheduled for January 13, 1999. 5 ( c ) WARREN BANK Applicant states they are taking the old sign off the building and therefore eliminate boring holes in the building. He states that the interior paint is all worn off. Member Finch aproves the design. The applicant presents a copy of the designed sign to the Board. The Board approves the sign as presented. 4. ~,KELLY AUTOMOTIVE COLLISION CENTER/420 CABOT STREET Dan Dunn, representing Kelly Automotive addresses the Board and states that they are going through a site plan review regarding the Nissan building for a 6,000 sq.ft. addition for 6 additional bays. He states that they have been before the Planning Board and they will be back again on January 19. Hurlburt states that they have to come before this Board before they can get site plan approval. Dunn discusses the landscaping and the fact that there is no landscaping shown on the plan because it is so far back from the street. He states that it is already landscaped and behind them is Delco Electronics. Finch questions if this is visible from the street to which Dunn responds no, that it is 200 ft.. Michaud, Engineer for the applicant states that the front elevation is 150 sq.ft. which is allowed; there is a 3 x 50 page six ft. sign along the front so, as people pull in, they will see where they have to go. The letters will be 2.5 ft. Finch states he has no problem with the addition, but has a problem with a sign that scale and that they only need a sign for identification purposes, to which Michaud states that they service 7 dealerships. Finch responds that it would be atrocious. He states they need a small sign in the form of a directional sign as to where to go. Michaud states that this is a collision center for the 7 dealerships and they would like this sign for people coming in. Finch states that he feels that they only need a directional sign and that they should make it smaller. Hurlburt is in agreement with Finch and feels that a reduction of the sign would be a better proposal. Hurlhurt asks the Engineer about a Kelly trademark. Michaud states that the sign depth would be 3 ft. Finch states that this is just an identification sign and realizes that they want something that is readable from 100 ft. for someone coming around the corner. He is further concerned with the precedent that will be set. Brian Kelly, the applicant states they would center the sign over the building and would have a blue background with white letters; that it would be internally lighted, which would close at 6:00 p.m.; it is usually left on for a night light. Dunn states that cars are towed in all night and they would like to have this sign lit at night. He states that if the sign is shut at 9:00 p.m., would that satisfy the Board. The Board states it would be all right. Douglas Haring asks the condition of the lighting; could it be placed on the sign that will go to the Building Inspector. Haring states that the letters are 23 inches tall. The Engineer states that 20 inch would be too small; that they would like some type of identification if the restaurant is taken down in front. At this point there is considerable discussion by the Board and the applicant regarding the size of the lettering and the size of the sign. Hurlburt questions what is there now for signs to which Kelly responds that there is a Nissan sign, Suzuki sign and the sign for the old Capri Restaurant. At this point Finch suggests visiting the site. Haring questions the lights that are presently on the building to which the applicant responds affirmatively. States that this is a service adjunct and letters should not be the same size as the other. This sign should be in proportion to the main building. Haring suggests they come back to the Board on the 13th of January. Hurlburt suggests a mock sign be placed on the buiding for the site view. Dunn states that the sign out front was 23 inches. Kelly at this point feels that the 18 inch letters would be adequate. Finch states that 18 inches is 3/4 of the size. States if 24 page seven inches is 50 ft long, it will be about 38 ft. The sign will be 24 x 38. Brian Kelly states the sign could read Kelly Collision Center. Hurlburt requests that Kelly have the Batten Sign Co. fax a copy to her office. The letters will be 18 inches, and the facade is masonite. The Board signs and approves the plan submitted with the corrections as discussed. Meeting is adjourned at 8:45 p.m.