Loading...
DRB Minutes 9.05.2019CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board SUBCOMITTEE: DATE: September 5, 2019 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall — Council Chamber /Conference Room B MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Baird Mason, Ellen Flannery, Emily Hutchings, Joel Margolis (Vice Chair), Rachel Poor, Matthew Ulrich MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandra Cook (Chair) RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury Vice Chair Margolis calls the meeting to order at 6:33 pm. Signs 1) 126 Dodge St. — SV Design Applicant: SV Design The applicant is proposing one freestanding sign in the R -10 zoning district. The sign includes the name of the business. The sign will be replacing an existing sign of the same size, but is being moved to a different location on the site. The applicant is rebranding to "SV Design" from Siemasko & Verbridge. The applicant desires to move current sign from close to the bushes to a more prominent location. The applicant possesses a special permit to relocate the new 6 square -foot sign to the corner, increasing invisibility. Hutchings followed up with Building Inspector Steve Frederickson to confirm this sign does not require any amendment to the special permit; the sign simply requires DRB approval. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Flannery: Motion to approve signage as presented. Mason seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). 2. 140 Brimbal Avenue —Whole Foods Applicant: Viewpoint Sian & Awnina The applicant is proposing one wall sign and two temporary banners in the IR zoning district. The wall sign includes the name of the business, and the temporary banners also include the term "Opening Soon, October 18, 2019." The wall sign would be replacing an approved existing wall sign of the same size. The banner signs require a Special Permit due to the length of time they will be on the building and the fact that they represent additional wall signs. The applicant presents the revised wall sign, describing the existing 100 square foot circular sign over the entrance. The company had a change requested from within, desiring to keep the size but change from a circular sign to channel letters. Hutchings inquired about the temporary banners. The applicant replies one banner is fine as opposed to two. Margolis inquired which temporary banner and where. The one in question to be placed over the loading dock. The applicant and members discuss different sizes. The applicant would like to keep the "Now Open" sign up from opening day through November 2, 2019. Hutchings states that the temporary signage requires a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The deadline for submission has passed for the September meeting and the October meeting would not prove optimal per their timing. The store will already be open by then. The applicant inquired about the deadline for the October meeting. Hutchings supplies the October Page 1 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes meeting deadline. Margolis questions whether this is necessary since the building is in clear view and the public has knowledge of the impending opening day. Hutchings states that board approval is not necessary for a sign that advertises less than two weeks, and temporary signs that require only a permit from the Building Department (and not approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals) may be optimal given the current timing of the business' opening date. Hutchings recommends contacting Christine Eng at the Building Department for additional information on sign permits, and emphasizes the 2 -week time limit. Hutchings questions the permanent sign, asking about whether the layout could be one line versus two lines, in order to be consistent with other signage on the building. The applicant explains the company has four available logos /sign designs, and that the selected design is the one preferred by the company. Further discussion follows regarding layout, and the Board determines that the proposed signage is appropriate based on the fact that it is above the primary entrance. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Flannery: Motion to approve the permanent wall sign as presented. Ulrich seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). 3. 298 Cabot Street — The Indo Applicant: Michael Coen The applicant is proposing a wall sign and a projecting sign in the CC zoning district. The signs include the name of the business, and comply with the Ordinance. The applicant has applied for the Facade and Sign Improvement Grant for a matching grant for the projecting sign. The applicant desires to refresh the front fagade. The business has been open for 5 years. The applicant would like the sign noticed in the direction of east to west, stating that better visibility will increase business. The sign design uses elements from a friend's restaurant in NYC. The applicant claims this is a highly photographed facade of the restaurant and would like to make an investment in the facade. The applicant will be using local artists. Poor suggested the sign text to be bolder in order to pop. The applicant agreed to have the font weighted slightly thicker. When asked about the lighting, the applicant replied they are not moving lights that are currently on the building. Hutchings explained that two motions are required of this agenda item. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Hutchings: Motion to approve the signage with the recommendation that the font be weighted slightly thicker to ensure visibility of the lettering. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). Flannery: Motion to recommend approval of the matching grant. Mason seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). 4. 211 Rantoul Street - Soall Vietnamese Noodle Bar Applicant: Sa Nauven The applicant is proposing one wall sign and one projecting sign in the CC zoning district. The projecting sign includes the term "Soall Vietnamese," and the wall sign includes the term "Soall Noodle Bar." Both comply with the Ordinance. The applicant has applied for the Facade and Sign Improvement Grant for a matching grant for the projecting sign. The applicant stated that she is looking for approval of the established sign design. The applicant has another location in Marblehead and desires to replicate the sign design. Poor is fine with the established identity as long as it fits into the existing Rantoul retail area. Poor notes Page 2 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes the importance of continuity, and states the wall sign design has white lettering, and the projecting sign has a blue background. Hutchings verifies that neither sign requires a Special Permit; both are within the ordinance requirements. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Flannery: Motion to approve the signage as presented. Poor seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). Flannery: Motion to recommend approval of the matching grant. Ulrich seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). 5. 278A Cabot Street — The Cabot Lodae Applicant: Ben Carlson The applicant is proposing one wall sign and one projecting sign in the CC zoning district. The signs includes the name of the business, and the projecting sign also includes a logo. Both signs comply with the Ordinance. The applicant has applied for the Facade and Sign Improvement Grant for a matching grant for the projecting sign and the proposed awnings. Applicant desires to keep the lettering on top of the building exactly like the old Brown's bicycle store, the business previously at the location. The Board expresses concern about the location of the projecting sign. The applicant noted that he has studied the height and position of the brackets for the freestanding sign. Flannery and Poor are concerned with bracket placement. Flannery expressed the sign would be difficult viewing on Pond Street, while Mason does not feel the ornate design fits in with the overall continuity of the building design concept. Poor, Flannery and Ulrich agree with Mason. Hutchings proposes amendments to the blade sign, recommending the applicant to consider modifications and return to the next meeting. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Mason: Motion to recommend approval of the matching grant for the awnings as presented. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). Mason: Motion to approve the wall signage as presented. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). Mason: Motion to recommend applicant return with modifications to the blade sign. Hutchings seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). Site Plan Review 6. 52 Dunham Road — Site Plan Review (Minor Modification) The applicant is requesting a minor modification to the Approved Site Plan #112 -14 and Approved Special Permit #138 -14, involving the development of an industrial building at 52 Dunham Road. The modification includes an increase in gross floor area (with the building footprint remaining the same) and the elimination of balconies at the south and west fagades. The applicant submitted the original site plan design in 2014. The Planning Board asked the applicant to return to address minor modifications to the exterior facade. The applicant confirms the site and building footprints are not changing. The applicant clarifies the modifications were necessary to properly insulate the building as well as present a clean, utilitarian facade. The applicant presents building renderings demonstrating the minor modifications. Slight modifications include: minor increases to the square footage of the building, extending the curtain wall, and removing exterior balconies to prevent building leaks. The brick and materials to be used are the same. The entrance moved to the first floor from the parking ground level. Page 3 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes The balconies will be filled in with added curtain wall. The design of the elevation facing the pond has also been revised, using the same materials. The applicant will keep the materials consistent throughout all sides of the building. Ulrich asks why the modification called for getting rid of the balconies. The applicant explains it is cost effective plus the curtain wall provides clean aesthetics as well as better insulation for protecting against leaks, wear and tear, and building erosion. Members Flannery and Poor note their preference of the cleaner, utilitarian look. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Hutchings: Motion to recommend to the Planning Board approval of the minor modifications. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). INTERCESSION Vice Chair Margolis proposes a 5 minutes recess to relocate from Conference Room B to the Council Chamber. Meeting adjourns for a 5 minutes recess at 7:30 PM. Margolis resumes meeting at 7:35 PM. 7. 134 -146 Rantoul Street & 1 -9 Park Street "Depot Square II" (cont.) Applicant: Depot Square Phase II, LLC c/o Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC The applicant is proposing a six -story, mixed -use building with retail /commercial use on the first floor and 111 residential apartments on the upper floors. The proposed building includes approximately 7975 square feet of ground floor commercial space and a two -level parking garage beneath the building. The applicant has submitted revised plans in response to the Board's comments at the August meeting. Attorney Miranda Gooding reintroduces herself, architect Thad Siemasko and Krista Broyles from SV Design, and Beverly Crossing President Chris Koeplin. Gooding stating that the applicant is returning to the Board, and that they are seeking to note the response to the recommendations from the previous meeting held in August. Gooding states they are in compliance with the Guidelines for Tall Buildings where they previously were not and that revisions are provided for the Pleasant and Park Street elevations, the building nodes, and the height for a prominent corner. Gooding reiterated the two responsibilities of the Board for this proposed development: For this site plan review, the Board must (1) make a recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the approval of this site plan based on the design elements of the building; and (2) make a finding as to whether the design of the proposed development is consistent with the general intent of the City's Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. Gooding concludes her comments. Siemasko noted the intent of tonight's meeting is to address the revised exterior elevations of the building, and stated that comments fell under three categories: (1) reduce the mass and the scale of the building, (2) create more of an aesthetic sensibility that feels more historic, and (3) increase the connectivity to the adjacent park and the historic post office. No changes have been made to the parking and underground levels. Siemasko restated that the revisions are based on comments from the Design Review Board, comments from the Planning Board, and concerns expressed by the public. Siemasko stated that revised design has reduced the size of the building, reducing the total number of units from 115 to 111. On the ground level, the courtyard has been redesigned and porticos have been added to reflect the architecture of the post office, including the use of cast stone. The revised exterior elevations on Railroad Avenue complement the post office's neoclassical structure. On the second, third, and fourth floor, no changes were made to the building mass, but the units were increased by 1 Page 4 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes unit, from 22 to 23 per each floor. Building volume and mass has been removed from the fifth floor, reducing the number of units to 18 and removing the balconies. The sixth floor was also reduced in building volume, from 19 units to 16 units. Siemasko describes the materials to be used on each facade and reviews the design of architectural details. Siemasko notes how the proposed materials complement the surrounding area, and shows views of the proposed building from various angles. Siemasko notes the option of reducing the prominent corner (at the corner of Rantoul Street and Railroad Avenue) from five stories to four stories, and asks for the Board's input. Siemasko notes the intentional place - making effort made with the design of the site, and reviews details of the proposed public plaza, landscaping and street furniture. Siemasko also cites the updated solar study, describing the minimal impact the building will have on Odell Park in terms of shading. Siemasko continues with the presentation detailing exactly where the materials will soften the original design to appear more historic and aesthetically pleasing. Siemasko notes that he feels they diligently complied with the Board's recommendations and genuinely addressed public concerns. Margolis stated that, as acting chair, members of the public will be permitted to speak, as they were at the previous meeting. Margolis opened the floor to the public. Open floor to the public: Scott Houseman, 27 Appleton Avenue, City Councilor for Ward 4, spoke. Houseman notes that he is speaking only for himself, in his individual capacity as a city councilor, and states he does not agree with the current site development plans for Depot II. He maintains that special care is needed for this application due to its location. Houseman notes the importance of Odell Park as a civic space, which he equates to Washington National Mall. Houseman presents three ideas to the Board. First, Houseman states that the proposed plan is fundamentally flawed. Second, Houseman states the design flaw can be corrected to comply with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Third, Houseman states the Board cannot recommend the approval of this plan with the existing design and still be consistent with its charge and the City Ordinances. Houseman argues the design is fundamentally flawed due to the applicant's treatment of the design guidelines applicable to the project, and states that both the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings and the Downtown Design Guidelines have an intent that is not being met by the proposed application. Houseman summarizes the Board's responsibilities regarding site plan review. He argues that the Board's latitude and scope of review should expand based on the importance of the project. Houseman cites the goals of the respective design guidelines, and emphasizes the elements centered on protecting historic landmarks and elements. Houseman states the fundamental flaw lies in the narrative the applicant stated, which does not include the preservation of any historic structure on the site. Houseman argues this plan is based on the economic feasibility of construction, particularly of the underground parking garage, and not based on preserving the fabric of the historic district within which the site is located. Houseman states that in order to correct the flaw, the correct design must comply with the design guidelines starting with the primary goal of fitting new construction within the existing and historic fabric of Beverly's streetscape. Houseman states he is most concerned with the Railroad Avenue - facing facade, and the intent to demolish the historic Casa de Luca building. Houseman describes the Casa de Luca building and states that it can and should be saved. Houseman would like to see a design which preserves and re- purposes historic structures Page 5 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes including the Casa de Luca building. Houseman recommends reusing historic buildings. Houseman states that although he accepts that a large building will be developed on the property, by the stated design guidelines, the proposed design is fundamentally flawed. Lastly, Houseman argues that the Board cannot recommend the approval of the current plan and be consistent with its charge in the City ordinances, especially with the implication of impending demolition of three historic buildings within a National Register historic district. Houseman states that the proposed design is in fact not in compliance with guidelines as suggested, nor do any of the revisions genuinely attempt to ensure the new construction will successfully fit in with the existing and historic fabric. Houseman argues the Board should apply the design guidelines strictly, and should also apply civic goals to its recommendation to the Planning Board. Wendy Pearl, 21 Morningside Drive, spoke. Pearl is a member of the Depot Matters group and here to present an analysis of Depot II. She is also a member of the Historic District Commission; however, she is not here speaking in that capacity. Pearl stated she is here to discuss the fit of the project in its current design state. She provides a presentation that she states demonstrates that the current design plan does not respond to the topography of the slope on Pleasant Street by Depot Bridge, does not fit within the existing historic fabric of the district, and does not comply with the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. She believes that this is first and foremost a historic district that deserves special treatment — especially since there are low rise buildings in the historic district — and extra special treatment merits a more serious consideration of the design plan. Pearl states that she mainly objects to the demolition of three historic buildings in the design plan. Pearl discusses the street walls (side and rear) and their relationship between the tall buildings and adjacent properties and argues a lack of harmony. Pearl states that the building in the proposed plan will face an important civic open space and should provide consistent street edge to define the open space. She does not believe the current design fits with the civic space, and takes away from it rather than enhancing Odell Park. Pearl also states she believes the design is not in compliance with the intent of the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. Pearl states that a historic building like Casa de Luca is not vertically high, but it gives a sense of height, especially at a prominent corner. Pearl also provides a brief history of Odell Park and its prominence in the history of the City of Beverly. Pearl concludes her comments and turns her presentation over to Jim Younger. Jim Younger, 32 Butman Street, spoke. Younger introduces himself, stating he is a member of the Depot Matters group. Younger continues the presentation that Pearl began, and presents a Google Map image of the Depot II area, specifically concentrating on the street walls on Railroad Avenue, Park Street, and Rantoul Street; Odell Park, and the surrounding civic space plus the historic buildings. Younger states that a street wall is a continuous row of buildings with a consistent setback that forms a wall that defines the street. Younger states that the Depot II project will define three major street walls: Rantoul Street, Railroad Avenue, and Park Street. Younger argues that the proposed design includes setbacks at the corner of Rantoul Street and Railroad Avenue that erode the street wall, which is contrary to the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. Younger next highlights the street facades on Park Street and Pleasant Street, stating that they are too massive for the area. Younger argues any building facing an important civic open space such as Veterans Memorial Park should provide a consistent street edge to define these open spaces. Younger maintains Odell Park is one of the City's most significant civic landscapes; it is the site of the Memorial Day observances, the farmer's market, and other public events. Younger states Page 6 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes the current design plan would limit the access to the open space, creating a "pay to play" area for the public, contending that seating areas would be for the paying customer only. Younger next argues that the height of the buildings adjacent to landmarks should be restricted to allow the landmark to be viewed against the sky. Younger maintains the Casa de Luca building is already both a prominent corner building and a landmark. Younger argues that rather than demolishing the building and moving the corner back 20 feet to create a false new corner with five stories, the building should be repurposed; the landmark Casa de Luca should be viewed against the recessed new building rather than being dwarfed by it. The Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings gives dimensional height requirement for new construction relationship to landmarks. Younger discusses the height limitations and prescriptions described in the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. Younger states that while the developer has every right to request special permit for additional height, the City is not obliged to approve it. Younger concludes his comments. Bill Finch, 50 Front Street, spoke. Finch notes that he is a former member of the Design Review Board. He currently sits on the Historic District Commission, but states that he is not here in that capacity; his comments are strictly personal. Finch states the guidelines are not working to preserve the intent of the city. Finch notes thatrecently developed buildings have used these guidelines and the words within verbatim; they become stuck on the language and the overall intent is completely missed regarding how these buildings fit into the city scape and to the districts within Beverly. Finch states the language has allowed developers to add height not when appropriate to create five and six -story buildings by using the guidelines literally with reference to additions and setbacks. Finch states that he agrees that on occasion an addition to the building height can accent an area, citing the old Edwards School and the old Briscoe School. Finch does not believe the proposed development truly forms a prominent corner. Finch finds the details of the material and design of the brickwork and the shiplap lack any historic sincerity with regard to the historic district. He states that the current vocabulary within the guidelines is misconstrued and is not working well for the city. Finch concludes his comments. Matt Pujo, 11 Longwood Avenue, spoke. Pujo emphatically questions why the City is married to the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. Pujo argues that none of the buildings pay homage to the history or to the preservation of the historic district, and that none of the tall buildings really connect with the fabric the history. Pujo concludes his comments. Bill Squib, 509 Cabot Street, spoke. Squibb raises concern regarding a tax credit that was issued to the applicant for another project within the district. Squibb notes the letters written between the applicant and Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth Galvin's office in reference to the treatment of the historic buildings. Squibb states that he agrees with previous comments, and concludes his comments. Margolis opens the floor to members of the Board and Gooding interjects that the applicant would like to address some of the public comments before the Board comments. Gooding addresses three main points. One, is that the project should be reviewed in total and not in specifics. The whole of the project addresses and complies with the bulk of the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. Second, Gooding notes the guidelines were not established to determine which buildings to preserve. The were created to allow for special zoning permits in order to have new development. Finally, Gooding addresses the emphasis on the corner element. Gooding recognizes that the corner is set back, but also sites from the guidelines that there are special Page 7 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes circumstances where the deeper building set back provides a public realm, and in doing so also improves the storefront, retail and pedestrian activity. Gooding also admits this is an area where the guidelines offer varying interpretation. She appreciates the thorough work presented by the public. Gooding concludes her comments and opens the floor. Seimasko states the current street wall on Railroad Avenue is not a continuous line. The applicant did not think a street wall with a continuous line on Railroad Avenue made sense as part of the design. Seimasko maintains there will be public access along the park, and reminds the room there is parking on both sides of Railroad Avenue between the building and the park. Seimasko concludes his comments and opens the floor. Margolis opened the floor to the Board. Mason states the design enhances Rantoul Street but does not compliment Railroad Avenue. She prefers the new construction to harmonize with the context of the urban setting. The height of the building is a major concern to her and to the public. The design is still too big. Mason reiterates there is major objection by the public. Mason states the design overwhelms the area and does not compliment any of the other existing structures such as Casa de Luca, the Press Box, the Depot, the National Grid buildings, or River Street. Mason cannot recall any other building that has caused so much public outcry in recent history. Ulrich argues the building is appropriate, stating the design has come a long way since its initial proposal. Ulrich states he looks at the building for what it is: a new building. He can see the different facades within one large building and feels the design meets the spirit of the guidelines. He likes the public plaza modifications. Ulrich prefers a corner building to be more prominent and suggests five stories instead of four. Poor echoes the sentiments agreeing to Ulrich's previous comments. Poor states the setback makes the building feel smaller and suggests the prominent corner be five stories instead of four. Poor is impressed with the improvements and believes it will not feel as big once built. Flannery agrees with Poor. Flannery states she likes the open concept of the public plaza. She believes the improvements on Park Street are vital and vastly improved. Flannery addresses the spirit in which the improvements and modifications are presented. She maintains that not everyone may agree with the design concept, yet the applicant has completed and presented improvements as instructed by the Board. Flannery agrees with maintaining the prominent corner at five stories, stipulating that the corner must be more defined. Joan Johnson of 677 Hale Street interjects, asking if the public stairs are handicap accessible. Seimasko addresses the plaza accessibility for handicap and other ambulatory restrictions, stating that the plaza will be accessible. Margolis states since the inception of the idea he has always felt the size and scale of the project is simply too big. He states this would be a great looking building if it were for a high school or a hospital, but he does not feel the design is appropriate to the site. He stipulates that the legacy of the applicant and Board rest in the approval of an appropriate design plan for this historic area. Margolis does not want feel he can, in this capacity, recommend approval of the proposed design. Hutchings notes her agreement with Ulrich, Poor, and Flannery. She agrees that the applicant did well in responding to the Board's recommendations, and that the prominent corner should Page 8 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes be kept at five stories. Hutchings notes she has some questions regarding the plaza and material details, and comments on Park Street and Pleasant Street facades. Before proceeding Hutchings clarifies her comment from a previous meeting in reference to addressing a public comment of disrespecting historic building facades. Hutchings explains, one does not want to make the habit of incorporating only one or two facades into a new development in an attempt at historic preservation. A design plan looks for consistency. To incorporate a historic facade into a new development, as opposed to preserving the historic building as a whole, would be disrespectful to the history and integrity of the respective historic building. Hutchings would like to note on the section of the Railroad Street facade that corners on Park Street has a primary cornice height of 52'. If the top two stories were not there, the project would not need a special permit but would be a by -right project. Hutchings notes that from Railroad Avenue, the project will have an impact very similar to a by -right project. Hutchings would like to see more details regarding the facade treatments, windows, stonework, the public plaza, etc. On the Park Street facade, Hutchings recommends that the brick extend all the way to the corner on the right side, with the same for the Pleasant Street facade. Seimasko explains this softens the facade and creates symmetry. While Hutchings appreciates the attempt at symmetry she prefers a strong corner as opposed to the "porous" corner. Mason interprets the height for the corner of Railroad Avenue and Park Street, noting it would be viewed as over 55'. She notes the view while disembarking from the train, stating that the visual effect would be too big for that area and a special permit would be necessary for the proposed height. Mason states it is within the purview of the Board to determine whether height overwhelms the area. Hutchings clarifies that when looking at the building from Odell Park, the impact of the height is reduced due to the setbacks of the upper stories. Members discuss the height and area. Seimasko presents renderings of the area for the Board to review and discuss. Margolis asks for final comments of the Board and asks if there is a consensus from the Board to ask the applicant to return with changes to the design. Ulrich would like to see more details and specifics on materials and the plaza, noting a move away from generic patterns. Ulrich approves of the plaza, stating he would like to see more detail incorporated with historic elements for the building. Flannery would like to review the size and mass of the surrounding buildings, asking if there's anything further to be done to mitigate the scale. Gooding looks for clarification, and notes she is unsure of what bridges are needed to address the critical concerns of two the Board members. Seimasko and Gooding are both looking for specific direction in regards to the necessary changes to advance the project. Gooding states on behalf of the applicant, the building is this size for a reason; all of the concerns for the design had been accounted for. Proper research has been done to the area to determine the best way to proceed with the project. The project has been reviewed from every angle and the current size is the best way to move forward for the applicant; the preservation of the historic buildings on the site is not viable. Margolis interjects, stating that simply because the applicant or his predecessors may have miscalculated the cost to build such a building in the specific area are of no concern to the Board. Margolis states, "This has to be a building that works for the City, not only for [the applicant's pocket ". Gooding reiterates they are respectfully looking for guidance and direction. Hutchings agrees with Poor and Ulrich, stating the design meets the intent of the guidelines. She would like more specifics on details, including the materials, the public plaza and public access, architectural details. Seimasko agrees to return with more details. Mason maintains her concern about the building's height. Poor reemphasizes the importance of a prominent corner. Younger interjects and asks for a critical analysis from the Board in determining how the design does or does not meet the guidelines. Margolis replies there are varying opinions on whether it Page 9 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes does or does not, which is point of the discussion. Squibb comments that this design conforms in terms of Rantoul Street, but not Odell Park. Margolis asks if the applicant has a sense of what they are looking for. Gooding asks for a preliminary consensus of the Board. Margolis asks the Board if they would like to provide a preliminary opinion of how the Board is thinking, informing the members to state their opinions as they feel comfortable. Mason and Margolis state no, they would not vote to recommend the approval of the project. Hutchings, Ulrich, Poor, and Flannery state yes. Gooding states they have an idea of the intent and direction of the Board and will return with revisions. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Margolis: Motion to continue. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). INTERCESSION Vice Chair Margolis motions to have a 10 minute recess. Meeting adjourns from 9:30 pm to 9:40 pm. Vice Chair Margolis resumes the meeting. Vice Chair Margolis recuses himself at 9:40 and member Hutchings will chair. 8. 108 Bridge Street — Site Plan Review (cont.) Applicant: Nancy E. Frates, Trustee of Frates Realty Trust The applicant is submitting a site plan to convert and expand an existing building to a residential dwelling and the addition of three townhouse style residential dwellings to the rear of the existing building and fronting on Carleton Avenue, for a total of four residential units. The applicant has received a finding and variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the project. This site is located in the CN Neighborhood Commercial District in the Ryal Side neighborhood. The applicant has submitted revised plans in response to the Board's comments at the August meeting. Attorney Thomas Alexander introduces the project, representing owners John and Nancy Frates. John Frates is also in attendance. The project is a four -unit townhouse development. The location used to be an ice cream stand, and is currently a small retail store located in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district. The Zoning Board of Appeals has approved a variance to allow the conversion and expansion of the existing building from a commercial space to a residential dwelling and the addition of three townhouse style residential dwellings to the rear of the existing building and fronting on Carleton Avenue. Alexander introduced George Zambouras as the project engineer and Lyle Folkestad as the project architect. Alexander discussed the Board's recommendations from the August meeting. He has three main points for tonight. First, the vinyl siding is in keeping with the neighborhood. Second, they are looking for a recommendation tonight to move forward with the project since they are going before the Planning Board next week. Last, the applicant is looking to start the project. Folkestad notes the first change and confirms vinyl material is consistent with the neighborhood. He notes he added a 5" trim around the windows and 10" corner boards. Folkestad also brought down the water table with the clapboard, added eyebrow to the fourth townhouse as recommended by the Board, and added windows at the kitchen. Folkestad notes the footprint for the space is very small for each unit. Folkestad presents a vinyl color palette for approval. Hutchings notes absent member Sandi Cook provided comments, which she will read. Member Cook notes the applicant made revisions based on the Boards previous recommendations, including wider solid trim around windows and doors with historic style window sills and further developing the ground floor garage levels showing the same trim as the other levels. The details Page 10 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes in and around the exterior elevation renderings is enough for the Board to provide a recommendation to move forward. Cook's letter states the materials are not noted on the drawings, but she assumes the applicant will note them at the meeting. Cook would like to see a solid composite trim; she is fine with the use of vinyl siding for the clapboard areas. The use of solid wide trim is attractive, economical and practical. Cook's letter states she drove around Ryal Side, and guesses that around 75% of the homes have vinyl or metal siding. This leaves the remaining 25 % -30% of homes in possession of asbestos tiles or with shingles or clapboards. The use of vinyl is appropriate and in context with the neighborhood. The materials noted improve the design. She would like to see a more muted color palette than what was included in the Board's packets. She does not think the applicant should have to come back with the color palette but should submit them prior to final approval. She does not see why the building cannot be recommended tonight. Cook notes in her letter that the building is attractive and well- designed, and the neighborhood is in favor of the development. Overall, Cook is impressed with the plans for the design and believes it will make an attractive contribution to the existing neighborhood. Hutchings notes that the colors the Board received came out darker than what is presented. Folkestad presents the Board with material samples, stating the color is not as dark as what was initially perceived. Ulrich inquired about Bridge Street elevation. Ulrich asked about the materials of the siding, and stated that that material should not be vinyl. Folkestad stated that the material for that part of the building should be a real wood. Folkestad continued to describe the materials and design of the first unit and the terrace connected to the first unit abutting Bridge Street. Hutchings asked about the materials of the garage level of the building, including the material around the garage doors. Folkestad discussed potential materials with the Board. Hutchings requested additional details about the proposed materials for the garage level. Hutchings asked about the materials first floor on the Bridge Street elevation, and Folkestad described a vertical board and siding. Folkestad circled back to describing the materials for the clapboard stating natural wood or synthetic is appropriate. Hutchings asked if the windows can extend to the first floor. Folkestad cited privacy concerns due to Bridge St's busy traffic. Folkestad noted the courtyard- facing windows on the Carleton Avenue - facing facade will be full length. Hutchings is concerned about the impact of the building's primary facade. Ulrich and Poor agree with the current designs. Hutchings would like to know what the trim material is. Folkestad said it will either be Boral, Nichiha, or Azak, which is already white. Hutchings asked about the garage doors and whether they will be centered. Folkestad stated that there would be standard fiber glass porch columns. Hutchings would like architectural details to be clarified. Alexander notes the applicant can accept the conditions with set details in terms of materials and architectural details to address any concerns. Flannery points the previous meeting minutes of 6 points. She asked if that would be helpful to provide the applicant. Excerpt from the August meeting: The Board noted (1) the material and composition of the Bridge Street fapade and fencing (noting that the materials should match and be an organic material), (2) materials and architectural detail on the garage level of the building, (3) how the building will appear with the window trim and corner boards, (4) the addition of an eyebrow on the fourth unit, (5) adding windows to the rear elevation, and (6) colors of the units. Aaron Clausen, Planning Director, states that a condition could be included with the recommendation to the Planning Board. The condition could state that specifics for colors, materials, dimensions, and architectural details must be submitted for the record. Page 11 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Hutchings: Motion to recommend the Planning Board approve the proposed plans with the condition that plans will be revised to include details including materials, color, and architectural detail and dimensions; such plans must be submitted before the Planning Board prior to a decision being made. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (5 -0). 9. 1 Water Street — Site Plan Review Applicant: Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC The applicant is proposing a waterfront restaurant in the BHD zoning district. This proposal includes the redevelopment of the site — involving the demolition of the existing building, construction of a new restaurant building, and landscaping and site improvements including parking and public access to the water — through contract with the City of Beverly. The applicant has provided a formal submission for this Board meeting, with revisions based on the Board's comments at the August meeting during informal review of the proposal. Miranda Gooding, attorney for the applicant, introduced the project team: Marty Bloom, owner and principal for the proposed restaurant; site engineer Scott Cameron from the Morin - Cameron Group, Inc.; Bruce Bisbano, Jim Souza, and Erin Nardelli from Bisbano + Associates, Inc.; and landscape architect Michael Radner from Radner Design. The application is for a restaurant — Mission Boathouse — in the Beverly Harbor District facing the harbor. Souza discusses the revised plans with the Board. The presentation demonstrates boathouse styles along the Atlantic coastline. Souza notes the architecture is similar in designs to other boat houses in Martha's Vineyard, New England, and Pennsylvania. The first floor will provide public access to support retail and a snack bar, art gallery, public bar, and storage. Gooding interjects explaining the plan layout is different on the presentation from the current Board packet. The Board will have an updated packet at the next meeting. The do not have hard copies of the most current plans for tonight. The updated plans will reflect the state recommendations and compliance in the Public Space & Access guidelines. Souza continues to state the second floor will include 81 seats for the restaurant and bar. The top floor will have vertical bi -fold windows facing the harbor. The only windows to open will be on the left. He details the awnings, which will break up the mass of the building to present a linear look. The materials discussed are cedar shingle with gray corrugated metal awning. The street - facing facade will have faux windows that are backlit. The center windows will be real and the flank windows will be faux. The large windows facing the marina also will break up the building facade, providing a picturesque view. The colors presented will be matching typical gray shingles predominant to the greys of what you find on most Atlantic coastal regions. The color palette presented are cedar gray shingles with rendering white trim stone at the base, blue accent color for the gable and signage. Ulrich asked about the roof. Souza describes a metal roof with gray color. Flannery asked about the consistency of the colors. Souza states the colors are to be simple and crisp. Mason states she likes the proposed colors. Hutchings read Cook's comments. She is generally pleased with the changes submitted. Cook prefers the sailboat relief on the street - facing facade. Concerning the color and renderings as presented, the corrugated metal strikes as agricultural rather than nautical. Cook would like some Page 12 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes additional clarification and revision to the sailboat relief and would like more definitive materials prior to Board approval. Mason states the faux windows don't seem to work. Ulrich asked for clarification on the faux windows. Souza states the rationale behind the faux windows. They are there because of the kitchens. Due to plumbing the kitchens will be consistent on all floors facing the same direction and are stacked. Ulrich states he likes the sailboat relief on the newly passed out rendering. Ulrich inquired if the architect, Michael Radner, will use concrete for the retaining wall on the foundation. Hutchings wanted the applicant to verify the second large window break up the exterior facade and to verify exterior renderings are consistent. Hutchings inquired if the columns would be azak or shingle with white tapered wood. Margolis asked about the original sailboat rendering. Mason stated she prefers the sailboat over the faux windows. Hutchings asked for more detail about materials. Ulrich asked about the material of the sailboats. Souza describes the materials depend on the preferred finish. The azak would have a shiny finish and would be subtle. Mason asked why they would not use wood. Souza explained it's mainly for maintenance purposes. Ulrich stated that veneer would be an option and Poor agreed. Flannery stated she preferred shingles over the other discussed materials. Hutchings noted there is more opportunity for traditional elements to be present in this design. Hutchings feels the design is generic and does not speak to Beverly's sense of place. Ulrich asked about the railings in the design. Souza replied the railings are for public safety. Souza suggests to the Board to refer to the presentation. At the top of the right hand of the packet is a good example to view at the moment. It best represents what most Atlantic boathouses resemble. Hutchings states she still prefers traditional New England windows that are 3 over 9. The renderings currently maintain 2 over 2. Souza explains he would like to use the producer Nano as the maker of the windows. They are of industrial and hurricane grade. Mason likes the cleaner look of the windows and stainless steel safety rail. Hutchings questions the signage. Radner says they will return later for the sign. Gooding agrees and clarifies that Radner would first like to focus on the building design and then move on to the signage. Gooding asked the board for preferences about landscaping and the lighting design. Radner goes on to describe the suggested plaza landscaping with typical greenery noting they are open to suggestions. The Board would like more detail about the landscaping. Hutchings asked if it would be possible to add a shade tree on the east side of the property to add some shade relief for pedestrians. Ulrich noted that that would be a good location for a bike rack. Flannery asked if the proposal included a bike rack, and Bloom stated that one would be added. The Board concluded its discussion. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Flannery: Motion to continue. Ulrich seconded. The motion passed (6 -0). Approval of Minutes: Hutchings motions to accept June 6, 2019 meeting minutes as amended. Ulrich seconds. All in favor. Motion carries 6 -0. Hutchings motions to accept June 25, 2019 meeting minutes as amended. Flannery seconds. All in favor. Motion carries 6 -0. Other items of business: Page 13 of 14 Design Review Board September 5, 2019 Meeting Minutes Hutchings moved to change the November 7, 2019 meeting to November 14, 2019. Members of Board will finalize at the next meeting. Adjourn: Hutchings: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Ulrich seconded. The motion carried (6 -0). The meeting adjourned at 10:37 pm. Page 14 of 14