October 6 2016 DRB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: Thursday, October 6, 2016
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Sandra Cook, William Finch, Ellen Flannery,
Rachel Matthews, Joel Margolis, Matthew Ulrich
and Allison Crosbie
MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Bebergal
OTHERS:
RECORDER: Brett Bauer
Cook calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Sign: Leland Creative Impactful Communications - 721 Hale Street - Brent Leland
Leland's firm has been in business for seven years and is moving from Salem. The
proposed projecting sign will have no illumination and complies with the Zoning
Ordinance. Response to the sign is positive.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Moves to approve the sign as presented. Flannery seconds the motion. The
motion carries (6 -0).
Sign: Schooner Hannah Beer and Wine Market - 52 Cabot Street - Jatra Indin
Indin explains they are only changing the logo, name, and painting. Cook notes that the
lettering on the awning exceeds the allowed and that the size of the sign would qualify it
as a wall sign. Indin responds that the awning is 4 feet in height and that the material is a
partially translucent vinyl. The letters proposed are the same size as the previous sign,
Tedeschi's. Indin states this was approved by the DRB and ZBA in the past. There are
currently three signs on the awning.
Crosbie confirms that sign would be reviewed as a wall sign and asks if the size of the
lettering could be reduced? Indin responds that lettering could be reduced in size, but
reiterates that the lettering size as originally proposed was approved in the past.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2016
Page 1 of 6
Crosbie: Moves to approve the signs with the condition that the lettering be reduced
in height by one inch (15" and 9 "), and the sign type on the application be
changed to a wall sign. Cook seconds the motion. The motion carries (6-
0).
Sign: Cabot Street Books & Cards - 272 Cabot Street - John Hugo
Hugo describes wall sign on the building with lighting. The landlord wants the sign to
match the adjacent "Atomic" sign. There will also be two window decals with the circle
logo.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Moves to approve signs as presented. Margolis seconds the motion. The
motion carries (6 -0).
Sign: Delta Electronics - 416 Cabot Street
Applicant is updating look of business. A wall sign and pylon monument sign are
proposed. The existing wall sign is 41'x12' and the proposed sign will be 41'x8'. The
materials will be a pvc with metal lettering.
Crosbie expresses concerns that the pylon monument sign will impair visibility. Although
the proposed sign is in the same location, it goes all the way to the ground. Whereas the
existing sign allows visibility underneath it. The proposed pylon monument sign will also
require a special permit.
Margolis asks if the sign could be moved back. The applicant responds that there is 5 -6
feet between the sign and the fence, and it could be pushed back. Though, the applicant is
unsure of the plan for trees and landscaping.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Margolis: Moves to approve the wall sign as proposed and to approve
the monument sign with the condition that it is pushed back at least 2 feet
towards the fence. Cooks seconds the motion. The motion carries (6 -0).
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2016
Page 2 of 6
Sign: Reck - 135 Cabot Street - Katie Partvka
The applicant explains that a wall sign and window sign are proposed. The window sign
will fill the existing frame and the decals will be on the inside of the window.
Ulrich expresses concerns about the visibility through the window and suggests either
making the colored bands transparent or reversing the colors to allow more visibility
through the window. Finch suggest smaller bands are used. The applicant explains that
they are trying to create some privacy with the window signs. Ulrich responds that some
visibility is needed.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Moves to approve the wall sign as proposed and to approve the
window sign with the condition that a 4" band is used at the top and
bottom with the logo in the middle, and a final rendering will be presented
to Crosbie for approval. Crosbie seconds the motion. The motion carries
(6 -0).
Sign: Metro PCS - 296 Cabot Street
Crosbie notes that the proposed sign is over the regulation. The regulations allow for a 20
square foot sign. And typically, just the business name would be on the sign, not the
"Authorized Dealer" portion. Finch suggested that the "Authorized Dealer" portion could
be removed from the wall sign and put on the window.
Crosbie also notes that the current window decals are in violation. The sign ordinance
only allows for 20% coverage of the window opening. The applicant responds that the
window decals are required by their corporate office as a branding strategy. Matthews
notes that although this is common, there is usually a worst case scenario branding layout
to accommodate local ordinances. The applicant will check with their corporate offices
about reducing the window decal coverage and details about illumination of the
"Authorized Dealer" portion of the sign.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Crosbie: Moves to approve the wall sign with the condition that the
"Authorized Dealer" portion be removed and added as a window decal.
Cook seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Sign: McDonald's - 230 Elliott Street
The applicant explains that this is part of an overall site improvement and update, but that
no structural changes will be done in the remodel. The existing single arch and name sign
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2016
Page 3 of 6
with a size of 40 square feet will be replaced with 2 arches with a total size of 28 square
feet and no name.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Moves to approve the wall sign as proposed. Crosbie seconds the
motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Site Plan Review: 112 Rantoul Street - Barnat Beverly, LLC
Barnat had an informal review with the Planning Board and has met with the Parking &
Traffic Commission. All traffic issues have been resolved, except they have been asked
to review the intersection of Pleasant and River. Improvements have been made to the
retail component. Landscaping improvements have been added, including a dog run in
the back. They would like to reduce the entrance to the MBTA garage from three lanes to
two, as this will allow room for a pedestrian walkway. Landscaping on the building at the
45' height setback has been added. A green screen is being proposed at the garage entries
and recessed building entries. A glass staircase will be added to the garage. The corner of
the building will be called out with different materials. They are hoping to include a roof
terrace.
Cook asked if the building across Rantoul Street is the same height. Barnat was not sure,
but can confirm this information.
Barnat plans to complete permitting through the fall with construction beginning Spring
2017. The target for completion is Spring 2018. They will plan to manage the utility
connections themselves.
Barnat is hoping to match the brick colors of the building to the garage. Material samples
are shown. The lap siding is a fiber cement. The metal shingle will be in a slate blue color
for the lower portions and a dove gray in the upper portions. There is some discussion of
the metal shingle colors and trying to match the lap siding. Barnat states they are going
for a warm gray. The DRB would like to see the final materials and colors once they are
chosen.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Ulrich: Move to recommend approval to the Planning Board as proposed with the
condition that the Design Review Board will have final approval of the
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2016
Page 4 of 6
siding materials and colors at time of building permit issue. Cook seconds
the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Informal Site Plan Review: 50 Dunham Road - Vitality Senior Living, LLC
The applicant states they will be going before the Planning Board in November. The
project is a 118 bed assisted living facility in Cummings Office Park. The building will
be four stories with a basement set into the hill. Part of the basement will be used for
parking and part for service. Part of the first floor will be used for memory care. They are
trying to maximize views of the open space /court yard area that the building wraps
around. They are trying to scale the building down compared to the adjacent office
buildings. They are also trying to preserve the existing landscaping.
The owner is interested in designing an assisted living facility that people would actually
want to move into, and to integrate it with the surrounding community. While the owner
has a presence on the West Coast, the aim with this project is to develop a flagship
product that can be a model for other Eastern US locations. The owner is very committed
to elderly issues. The proximity to the North Shore Music Theater is a big attraction to
this location. The use of art, theater, and plays has been well documented in use with
memory care. They plan to have different themes and activities on each floor. They hope
to have dedicated space on the property for daycare and /or retail that would be operated
separately, but they are still working out the details. They feel this could offer a good mix
of uses at the office park by adding a residential use with minimal impact.
Margolis asks how memory care can be provided without having nursing care. The
applicant responds that under state law assisted living cannot offer nursing care. They can
have nurses on site to provide some level of care, but it cannot directly be nursing care.
Matthews thinks the idea is great, but it sounds expensive and is concerned the units will
not all be filled. The applicant responds that two market studies have been conducted and
they are very confident that the market is there.
Finch expresses concerns that building looks too massive and institutional. Flannery
agrees. The applicant explains that they are trying to approach it as a modern building
and avoid it looking kitschy. They feel these type of facilities can often be large and
colonial, and can appear as kitsch. They are also trying to break up the scale as much as
possible. Matthews mentions that she can see how the business plan is to have the
building relevant in the long term.
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2016
Page 5 of 6
Margolis notes that there is one way in and one way out for traffic at this location. He
asks if the applicant has considered the impacts of a potential new ramp to Route 128.
The applicant responds that it is out of their purview, but that the primary traffic impact
of their project will be from employees, which will be off -peak and dispersed through the
day and night 3 -4 times. Finch asks if there will be parking for residents. The applicant
responds that typically 25% of residents will bring vehicles to this type of facility, but
they are rarely used. They currently are proposing 53 spaces on site and expect it to be
enough for both staff and residents.
Flannery asks about the number of employees expected. The applicant responds that they
expect 12 -15 employees per shift, and less during night shifts.
Finch asks if there will be kitchens in the units. The applicant says they are looking at
small burners with safety features.
Finch and Flannery reiterate that their main concern is the massing and institutional feel.
Flannery asks if there is plans for solar panels. The applicant responds that they intend to
construct the roof to be able to handle them, but there are no immediate plans to install
solar panels as they do not currently provide enough power for the entire building.
Adiournment
Cook asks if there is any other business to come before the Design Review Board this
evening. There being none:
Cook: Moves to adjourn the meeting. Ulrich seconds the motion. The
motion carries (7 -0).
The meeting is adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2016
Page 6 of 6