Loading...
February 7 2019 DRB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board SUBCOMITTEE: DATE: February 7, 2018 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandra Cook, Caroline Baird Mason, Ellen Flannery, Emily Hutchings, Joel Margolis, Matthew Ulrich MEMBERS ABSENT: Rachel Poor RECORDER: Sophia Wetzig 1) Mathnasium, 140 Brimbal Avenue, N.S. Crossing Plaza Applicant: James Alosio & NE OP CO The applicant proposed one wall sign in the IR zoning district. The wall sign includes the name of the business and the term "The Math Learning Center." The wall sign will be internally illuminated. The sign is larger than permitted by right and requires a Special Permit. The applicant explained that the increased size is due to the fact that letters on the sign are not uniform, with the A+ in "Mathnasium" being larger than the other letters. The applicant requested 50 square foot sign, which is 30 feet beyond what is permitted by the Ordinance. The applicant mentioned that the logo text would be thin and unobtrusive. The applicant noted that in other municipalities, signage allotment has been measured around the A +, separate from the area of the smaller letters. Hutchings inquired as to the dimensions of these alternative measurements. The applicant answered that the dimensions were 32 square feet, which would still require special permit. Furthermore, the applicant noted that the distance of the site from street would cause a smaller sign to be unreadable to drivers, and that the proposed dimensions are not overbearing the facade. Margolis commented on the uniqueness of site due to distance from road, and Ulrich commented on lack of directory sign next to the street. Cook commented on the reasonability of the proposal, given that A+ affects the overall calculation. The Board generally agreed that increased dimensions appear proportional to the building. Hutchings: Motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the sign be approved as presented. Cook seconded. The motion carried (6- 0). 2) Ford, 420 Cabot Street Applicant: Batten Bros., Inc. The applicant proposed one freestanding sign in the CG zoning district to replace an existing freestanding sign. The freestanding sign would include the name of the business and be internally illuminated. There is an existing Special Permit for a freestanding sign. However, while the square footage of the sign has been reduced, the height and width of the sign have been increased at certain points. Because of this, the proposed sign requires a new Special Permit. 1 Cook asked if the previous sign was 24' high. The applicant confirmed that the height would be 24' and width 14'9 ", and that the shape would be an oval. Hutchings clarified that a special permit was required because of the changed proportions; the prior special permit was permitted on square footage, height, and width. The new sign would have an increased width and height but would technically meet the square footage allocation. The applicant indicated that the property owner would be amenable to bringing sign into compliance in height but could not reduce width. Cook noted that the square footage would be less than the allocated amount, despite the increased width of the new sign. Hutchings answered questions regarding zoning, which does not technically allow for freestanding sign at this location. This was the reason for the original special permit. Mason raised concern about exterior lighting being near to a residential area and was not in favor of increasing signage near a residential area, stating that it was not a highway. Cook noted that the overall square footage of the new sign was less than the old sign. The DRB discussed external lighting and its potential effect on nearby residents at the location. Mason raised concern that late -night lighting would affect residents. The applicant mentioned that concern had never been raised by residents. Cook asked to clarify if existing special permit restricted overnight lighting. Hutchings clarified that all restrictions of previous special permit would apply to the new sign, but that this particular application was made for increased dimensions, rather than lighting. The DRB would like to establish the lighting conditions of the current special permit. The Applicant clarified that he is not certain of the time at which the lights are currently turned off but would research the matter. The applicant explained that the current lights are LED and are fitted with visors to limit spillover into the street. Margolis and Hutchings proposed to include lighting conditions in the recommendation to ZBA. The DRB concluded that 10pm or 11 pm would be a reasonable time for lights to be turned off. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Cook: Motioned to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the sign be approved as presented with the condition that (1) the new sign be reduced to 24 feet in height, and (2) with the lighting regulations which applied to previous sign to be carried over the new sign, or, if none, that the lighting for the new sign be turned off at 10:OOpm. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (6 -0). 3) North Shore Acupuncture and Natural Medicine Applicant: Allison Camire The applicant is proposing one projecting sign in the CC zoning district. The projecting sign will be two - sided, include the name of the business, and will not be illuminated. The projecting sign needs to be reduced in size by at least 1 inch in width and 1 inch in height to comply with the Ordinance. The applicant is aware of this requirement and will Pa state the revised size of the sign at the meeting. The applicant clarified that the new sign would be 29 "h x 35" w and would not be illuminated, but stated that the business' front window would be illuminated when open. Ulrich recommended a darker border to help sign stand out. The applicant stated that she would consider this change. Mason expressed concern about scale of sign, noting that it was disproportionate to the building. The applicant commented that the business' name contained multiple words and thus required the dimensions. DRB discussed further design changes, such as eliminating the decorative scroll to reduce the size, but not all members were in agreement. Mason again raised concern about scale and importance of creating attractive aesthetic on Cabot Street. It was noted that 4 lines of text required more space than a similar size with less words. Mason inquired if DRB board members are required to approve by -right signage. Cook confirmed that they are not required. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Hutchings: Motion to approve the sign with the conditions that it be reduced in size to 29" in height and 35" in width, with the recommendation that the cream border be changed to dark gray or black. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (5 -1, Mason opposed) 4) Flip the Bird, 407 Cabot Street Applicant: Flip the Bird The applicant is proposing one wall sign in the CG zoning district. The wall sign includes the name of the business and will be internally illuminated. It will be placed directly over the front windows of the business. The sign complies with the Ordinance. The applicant noted that the plaza directory sign is currently filled and that a forthcoming expansion proposal is expected. The applicant mentioned that this business may be allowed a second sign but is not proposing it at this time. The applicant explained that there will be black and white returns on the letters and that the letter outlines will appear darker than as printed in the application. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Cook: Motion to approve the sign as presented, Flannery seconded. The motion carried (6 -0). 5) Whole Foods Market, 150 Brimbal Ave Applicant: Viewpoint Sign & Awning The applicant is proposing four wall signs in the IR zoning district. The signs each include the name of the business and will be internally illuminated. Each wall sign is larger than what is permitted by right and two wall signs are located on the building's south elevation; all the wall signs require a Special Permit. The applicant explained that the main elevation will have a circular 12'- diameter Whole Food Market sign and on the same wall, a sign with 41" channel letters. The other side of the building (second entrance) will also have a circular sign and channel letters. Applicant noted that despite being large, the proposed signs are appropriate to the proportions of the building and set far back from the road. Ulrich recommended that the circular signs be moved into the colored bands. The applicant explained that the 41" height of the channel letters 3 refers to the total sign height, but the letters themselves are 25" x 75 ". Hutchings comments on industrial scale of building necessitating larger signs but suggested lowering the circular sign into purple band and asks about visibility from roundabout. Applicant mentioned that smaller circular signs would make word "market" illegible from road. DRB consulted the site plan and established that the entrance to the rotary is about 180' from sign, and that a smaller sign would be visible to drivers. The applicant noted that Whole Foods brand includes a legible word "market ". Hutchings explained that the maximum allocated size for a wall sign by right is 60 square feet. The Board established that at 10 feet in diameter, the circular signs would be 78 square feet each. The applicant clarified that the disk signs will be illuminated. The DRB referred to the ordinances to establish if 24 -hour illumination would be allowed under current ordinance. Hutchings confirms that the ordination is silent regarding the timing of illumination. DRB would like to note this for future. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Cook: Motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the wall signs be approved as presented, except for the round disk on the front building elevation, which is to be reduced in size to approximately 10' diameter, so that the glass windows are continuous across the top of the facade. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (6 -0). 6) Encompass Health, 800 Cummings Center #147 -U Applicant: ACME Sign Corporation The applicant is proposing one wall sign, one temporary banner, and window signage in the IG zoning district. The wall sign includes the name of the business and will be internally illuminated. The temporary banner includes the name of the business and will not be illuminated. The window signage includes the name of the business and the note that the facility is a smoke -free environment. The window signage complies with the Ordinance. The wall sign and the temporary banner have received the required Special Permits. The signage package was initially proposed at the January 2019 DRB meeting; no updates have been made to the signs, but the applicant now has the required approvals of the property owner to erect the signage. The applicant explained that there would be no changes to the size and style of the sign, and that the sign has been approved by the Cummings Center. The applicant had been granted a special permit for the previous Health South Sign. The applicant currently has a temporary banner, which has been up for two weeks and now needs approval to continue hanging. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Flannery: Motion to approve the Encompass Health signage as presented. Hutchings seconds. The motion carried (6 -0). 2 1 7) Site Plan Minor Modification, 10 -12 Congress Street. Applicant: DMS Design 12 -16 Congress Street — Minor Modification to a Site Plan The applicant is submitting a minor modification of Site Plan Approval for 12- 16/10 -12 Congress Street. The modification involves revised elevations, specifically the addition of roof decks to the southern ends of Building A and Building B, and the proposed alteration to modify the exterior colors of Building A and Building B. The applicant stated that the property was under - agreement and that development had been delayed in due to environmental issues. The applicant stated they plan minor modifications to add a roof -deck to the southern end of buildings A and B, and to modify the exterior colors. The project contains 62 units. The number of units and buildings, as well as parking and public walkways would all remain unchanged from the initially approved site plan. The roof deck would be on the southern side of the buildings and cover approximately 20- 25% of the flat- roofed area. There would be two entrances /exits: one stairway (already in the design but to be increased an additional story), and an elevator that would be moved from its current location on the north end of the building. The applicant plans to install pergolas, chaise lounges, and a small grill area with tables on the deck, and to lowers the wall on the currently - permitted plans to allow for water -view. The applicant proposed to change the exterior colors from red (Building A) and green (Building B) to white with black elements, such as railings, windows, and doors, and some gray in the recessing. Both buildings would be the same color, and the applicant noted that the former elevator shaft would now include windows per a recommendation from the Beverly Planning Department. Some of the timber from the pergolas would be added as architectural detailing and brackets, and some shingle siding would be exchanged for vertical siding in a few areas. The applicant confirmed that Beverly Fire Department has been informed about the proposed grills and that a building permit has not yet been issued. The applicant will continue to work with the Fire Department. DRB members stated that the design changes were more fitting with New England architecture styles. The applicant confirmed that there would be public access to the Congress Street beach, and access around the perimeter of the site. The orientation of the buildings would allow nearby properties to maintain water view. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Flannery: Motioned to recommend to the Planning Board that design be approved as presented. Cook seconded. The motion carried (6 -0). 8) New /Other Business: a) DRB members expressed concerns that the monument sign for North Shore Crossing at 140 -150 Brimbal Avenue is being built up on a grade change beyond what was previously approved, and not at the recommended distance from the curb. Hutchings clarifies that in December meeting, it was recommended that the monument sign be built 30 feet from the curb and that the monument sign be 0 placed on a natural, slight grade change that would not be built up. The applicant had stated that the revised December site plan was accurate, but the original site plan, which DRB looked at in November 2018, was in fact inaccurate. Margolis expressed concern that a berm is being constructed upon which to place the monument sign but noted that a foundation has not yet been poured. Flannery established that the DRB had approved "a slight grade" and not a berm at the December 2018 meeting. Hutchings recommended asking the Building Department to review what was approved by the Zoning Board, and then to visit the site. Hutchings stated that she would also ask the Building Department to review the approved distance from the curb versus current construction placement. The DRB reiterated that the slope must be natural and not built up. b) Review of December 2018 Minutes: December 2018. Second page, the motion was to "recommend." Fifth page, last sentence, one "seconded" can be deleted. Cook: Motion to approve the December 2018 minutes as amended. Ulrich seconded. Motion passed (6 -0). c) Review of January 2019 Minutes: Flannery requested to add the first name "Rachel' to "Matthews," on the first page, second paragraph. Second page, first paragraph "the applicant would like the signage to be up for 30 days in February." Flannery would like to clarify if these 30 days start in February. Hutchings confirmed that they do and will add the word "starting ". Cook: Motion to approve the January 2019 minutes as amended. Hutchings seconded. Motions passed (6 -0). d) Signage Information Packet for New Businesses Hutchings presented an information packet that would be provided to new business owners in Beverly to explain the processes of erecting signage in Beverly. The packet would be provided to the City Clerk, who gives the business licenses, the Building Department, who provides certificates of occupancy, the Planning Department, and the Economic Development Planner. It would also be given to owners of commercial properties, such as the Cummings Center and Goldberg Properties. Ideally, the Building Department would distribute the information to properties when making site visits. Hutchings said that the final packet would include example signs and will more clearly indicate that "the City of Beverly does not recommend specific sign- makers for projects." The packet will also include information about the fagade and sign improvement grant program through Beverly Main Streets. 1.1 e) Other items. 1. Mason noted that Larry Demers followed up regarding the sign at Mingo Gallery and confirmed its secure installation. 2. Mason asked if the DRB thinks it would be helpful to attend Planning Board meetings. Flannery suggested relying on guidance and expertise of the Planning Department staff. Cook asked how staff make decisions as to which applications are presented to the DRB. Hutchings explained that decisions are made on a case by case basis and that the Project Review Team consists of Planning Director, Assistant Planning Director, Fire Department, Engineering, and other departments as each case requires. Hutchings further explained that the Planning Department emphasizes the Fagade & Sign Improvement Grant, which requires businesses to come to DRB for approval. Cook stated that when building extrusions are added or colors are changed, applicants should come before DRB regardless of approval in Planning Department. Mason agreed and stressed the scarcity of historic buildings as a factor that increases the necessity of DRB's work. Cook suggested sending a DRB as liaison to the Project Review Team. Hutchings stated that if the DRB is interested in sending a representative to sit on the Project Review Team, the DRB speak with the Planning Department and ask if this is an option. 3. Cook inquired about the Cabot Street improvements grants. Hutchings stated that it was recommended that the DRB attend the public meeting on the improvements. Mason noted new street lights with LED lights. Hutchings clarified that pedestrian - friendly lighting is being sought and that a specific section of Cabot Street will be completely redesigned, including lighting. Hutchings recommended that those with comments and input may attend the public meeting. 9) Adjourn: Cook: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Ulrich seconded. The motion carries (6 -0). The meeting adjourned at 8:14pm. VA