DRB Minutes 10.03.2019 (1)CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
RECORDER:
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019
Beverly City Hall — Council Chamber /Conference
Room B
Sandra Cook (Chair), Joel Margolis (Vice Chair), Ellen
Flannery, Emily Hutchings, Caroline Baird Mason
Matthew Ulrich
Rachel Poor (joined meeting at 8:09 p.m.)
Sharlyne Woodbury
Cook calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Poor is absent for agenda items 1 -8. Member
voting will be for 6 present members until Poor joined the meeting at 8:09 pm.
Signs
1. 278A Cabot Street — The Cabot Lodge (cont.) Ben Carlson
The applicant is proposing one projecting sign in the CC zoning district. The sign includes
the name of the business and a logo. The applicant has applied for the Fagade and Sign
Improvement Grant for a matching grant for the projecting sign, and is returning to the
Board for review of the projecting sign after the item was continued from the September
meeting. The proposed wall sign and awnings were approved at the September meeting.
Carlson returns to describe the details of the projecting sign. Members of the Board
inquire to the color, placement, brackets, and lighting of the sign. Carlson states that he
prefers to maintain consistency, matching the sign to the logo and keeping the grey color.
He is open to relocating the projecting sign. Some members of the Board stated their
concern that the rendering photos do not properly show the location of the sign and overall
sign design is lackluster. Hutchings asked about the location of the bracket and more
information on the sign details. Hutchings also inquired about the shield shape of the sign.
Cook asked for more details in regards to the projecting sign. Carlson stated that the
additional details would be provided. The Board asked about next steps, and Hutchings
stated the final details of the projecting sign could be reviewed administratively.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Hutchings: Motion to approve original, shield- shaped projecting sign with the
condition that the location of the sign on the building, the brackets for
the sign, and the background color of the sign be reviewed and
approved administratively. Cook seconded. The motion carried (6 -0).
2. 142 Brimbal Avenue, Unit 4 — Le Vernis Nail Studio Yvonne Pham
The applicant is proposing one wall sign in the IR zoning district. The wall sign includes
the name of the business and the term "Nail Studio." The sign complies with the
Ordinance.
Mr. Steven Coen introduced himself and stated he is representing the applicant Ms.
Pham. Pham operates another salon located in Wellesley. The Board asks about the halo
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
lighting and whether the font is painted on. Mr. Coen responds to the Board's questions,
and states that the sign's design will be the same as the Wellesley location.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve original signage as presented. Flannery
seconded. The motion carried (6 -0).
3. 144 Brimbal Avenue — Lighthouse Wine & Spirits
The applicant is proposing a permanent wall sign and a temporary banner -style wall sign
in the IR zoning district. Both signs include the name of the business and a logo. The
permanent sign is larger than what is permitted by right, and requires a Special Permit.
The applicants are here to ask for a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals (ZBA) for a 210 square foot wall sign, where only 150 square feet is permitted.
The applicant describes the site location and notes the building is two stories. The owner
explains the purpose of the store is to go beyond a simple community wine and spirits
convenience store; the owner would like to create an upstairs space that permits wine
tasting and other small ventures, plus community gatherings. Due to the distant visibility
from the main thoroughfare, they would like a larger sign. The applicant notes that the
store location is prominent and occupies a large space, therefore requiring a prominent
sign.
The Board discusses the sign, inquiring as to the necessity of a larger sign with larger
font, and clarifying zoning requirements and restrictions. Board members discuss the font
size and the lighthouse design in the middle of the sign. Ulrich notes that other applicants
had a similar issue with their sign visibilty due to the distance from the road and plaza
design. Cook inquires if the lighthouse can be decreased and brought down six inches,
noting its design restricts the lettering. The applicant desires backlit font for the sign.
Mason points out that each sign in the plaza has been considered on a case -by -case
basis since there is no monument menu board advertising all businesses in the plaza.
Mason states that she normally is not in favor of allowing an increase in the size of signs;
however, this particular instance merits a larger sign in order to be consistent with the
design of the plaza.
Hutchings presents options to the Board and applicant. The Board can approve a
temporary banner, as it complies with the Ordinance. She also notes the Board can
recommend the ZBA approve the permanent sign as presented, or with the size reduction.
The Board further debates options regarding the approval of the sign and its size, and
reaches consensus that 180 square feet is an appropriate size.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve
permanent wall sign with conditions that (1) the size of the sign
reduced to 180 square feet, and (2) that the reduced sign receive
administrative review by Planning Staff prior to review by the Zoning
Page 2 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Board of Appeals. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (6 -0).
Cook: Motion to approve the temporary banner as presented with the
condition that the temporary sign be removed by November 30,
2019. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (6 -0).
4. 35 Standley Street — Waring School Waring School
The applicant is proposing one freestanding sign in the R -22 zoning district. The sign
includes changeable panels that will display events and school activities. The sign
requires a Special Permit due to its being in a residential zoning district.
The applicant representing Waring School would like to move away from the lawn signs
hence the proposed free standing sign with changeable panels. The Board begins
discussion with Cook inquiring whether there are any comments or concerns from the
abutters, and if all lawn signs will be taken down after installation. Ulrich asks about the
durability of the material, and about the sign colors. Hutchings asks the distance from the
sign to the roadside. The applicant responds, and informs the Board that school colors
will be used, and the sign is the proposed size in order to maintain visibility.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Mason: Motion to recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the sign
as presented, with the condition that all bandit signs (smaller
temporary freestanding signs) be removed from the roadside area.
Flannery seconded. The motion carried (6 -0).
5. 142 Brimbal Avenue. Suite 6 — Verizon ACME Sian Corporation
The applicant is proposing one wall sign in the IR zoning district. The wall sign includes
the name of the business, and complies with the Ordinance. The applicant states that the
sign is a straightforward Verizon sign, using internationally recognized branding. Cook
inquires if the sign will be internally illuminated, and the applicant states yes, the sign will
be internally lit.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the signage as presented. Ulrich seconded. The
motion carried (6 -0).
6. 480 Rantoul Street — The Cotton Mill Cafe Georae Gikas
The applicant is proposing one projecting sign in the CC zoning district. The sign includes
the name of the business, a logo, and the term "Hand Made Ice Cream and Good Eats."
The sign complies with the Ordinance. The applicant has applied for the Facade and Sign
Improvement Grant for a matching grant for the projecting sign.
George Gikas and his general contractor present their sign to the board. Mr. Gikas states
they received landlord approval for external lighting projected onto the sign. Cook and
Hutchings would like to see specifications for the lighting. Gikas agrees to provide a
rendering for administrative approval.
Page 3 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve sign as presented with the condition that the
lighting for the signage be reviewed and approved administratively.
Flannery seconded. The motion carried (6 -0).
Cook: Motion to recommend approval of the matching sign grant. Flannery
seconded. The motion carried (6 -0).
7. 27 Park Street — Backbeat Brewina Comoanv Peter Harkins
The applicant is proposing two wall signs, one projecting sign, window signage, and a
sandwich board sign in the IG zoning district. The primary wall sign, projecting sign, and
window signage include the logo only, and the secondary wall sign includes the name of
the business. Imagery for the sandwich board sign was not included in the application.
Although the initial application showed the window signage and sandwich board sign as
larger than what was permitted by the Ordinance, the applicant is amenable to reducing
the size of the window signage and sandwich board sign to comply with the Ordinance.
With these size reductions, all proposed signs comply with the Ordinance.
The applicant acknowledged upon review the original design was too large, and notes the
changes that will be made to fully comply with the Ordinance. Discussion ensues with the
Board calling attention to the Ordinance with some Board members recognizing the
Ordinance needs to be updated. Cook clarified the sign shape is circle not square, and
Hutchings confirms the circular shape was used to calculate the square footage. The
applicant showed the projecting sign. The Board reviewed the different signs. Cook and
Hutchings discuss the position of the wall sign. Hutchings suggests centering the sign
and Cook recommends that the top of the sign aligning with the top of the door as
proposed. Hutchings asked for photos of the sidewalk sandwich board sign. The applicant
states that he intends to maintain the sidewalk sandwich board sign seasonally and
prefers chalkboard to edit the daily menu specials. The sandwich board sign will only be
for nicer weather, situated on the Broadway fagade. Hutchings states that images of the
frame are still required for approval, and the Board agrees that the applicant could supply
renderings of the sandwich board sign for administrative review.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the wall sign, projecting sign, and window sign as
presented. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (6 -0).
Cook: Motion to recommend the City Council approve the proposed
sandwich board sign with the condition that the design be reviewed
administratively by Planning Staff prior to City Council approval.
Flannery seconded. The motion carried (6 -0).
Applicant asked about timing and process. Hutchings described the process of approval.
Page 4 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Site Plan Review
8. 108 Sohier Road (Anchor Point) — Anchor Point, LLC — Site Plan Review (Minor
Modification)
Andrew DeFranza and Kristin Carlson are present from Harborlight Community Partners,
along with architect Thad Siemasko. The applicant is requesting a minor modification to
the Approved Smart Growth Overlay District Application #01 -18, involving the
development of 75 affordable housing units in two buildings and a community center. The
applicant has received comment from the Department of Housing and Community
Development, and is revising their application accordingly.
Cook recused herself due to being currently employed by Harborlight Community
Partners on a separate project. Ulrich recused himself due to being currently employed
by the applicant to develop landscape design for 108 Sohier Road.
The applicant gave an update regarding project funding, particularly funding through the
state. The applicant describes the process of applying for funding for affordable housing
projects through the state of Massachusetts and the Department of Housing and
Community Development (DHCD), and notes that as part of review, DHCD and in -house
architects provide feedback on proposed projects. The applicant explains that DHCD
funding will not finance balconies, and has also stated hesitance at funding the community
building proposed on the site. The applicant states that due to the perceived importance
of the community center, which will provide services to the families living in the two
residential buildings, Harborlight Community Partners has chosen to raise funds privately
and develop the community building without state - funded assistance. The applicant
states that the proposed changes are a response to DHCD's comments. Hutchings noted
to the Board that for this item, the Board would be making a recommendation to the
Planning Board on whether to approve the minor modifications, potentially with
recommended conditions.
Siemasko presents the modifications to the Board. Siemasko noted the change in the
design of the southeast corner of Building A, and described the various design changes
to the community building to allow the addition of a daycare and office space. Siemasko
showed where two units would be added to Building B, and how four additional parking
spaces were added to accommodate the units. Siemasko showed the addition of a bus
shelter and a shed, as well as the revisions to the children's play areas to facilitate the
addition of a summer splash pad. Siemasko reviewed the revisions to the facade
materials on Buildings A and B. It was noted that because of the inability to fund regular
balconies, Juliet balconies have been added where regular balconies were originally
located, with slight changes to the windows and layout of materials on the building, but
Siemasko noted that the style, materials, and colors would remain the same.
Margolis asked about the tower on Building B, and if it will be lit up in any way, as it is a
focal point of the building cresting the hill. Hutchings notes the unique style of the tower,
and Siemasko notes that it was intentional for the tower to be unique and stand out. The
Board asks about the community building, and Siemasko went into further detail about
the building, noting how the building will now house Harborlight Community Partners
Page 5 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
general offices as well as site management offices. Seimasko explained the day care will
have elevator access and stairway with direct access down to the playground, and
described how the building has changed from two to three floors. The roof has been
altered to a typical gable roof with the use of dormers. Margolis asked about the siding
material, and Siemasko clarified that the clapboards are Hardie lap siding.
Siemasko presented renderings of the originally approved elevations and the proposed
updated elevations, and noted how the updated elevations differ from the original plans.
Hutchings requested more detailed dimensions on the Juliet balconies and windows, and
asked if it is possible to have the doors on the second and third floors be all glass, and if
the windows on either side of the terrace doors on the first floor could extend further.
Siemasko noted that the doors on the first floor cannot be all glass for security reasons,
and for the same reason the windows must be standard size and no larger.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Mason: Motion to recommend that the Planning Board approve the revised
plans with the conditions that (1) the doors to the Juliet balconies be
all glass, and that (2) additional details and imagery be provided to
the Planning Board for the Juliet balconies. Hutchings seconded.
The motion carried (5 -0). (Cook and Ulrich recused.)
9. 107 Dodge Street — Hart's Hill, LLC — Site Plan Review
The applicant is proposing to redevelop an existing commercial property into a 5 -unit
multi - family residential condominium. This redevelopment will include moving the existing
historic home and converting it from commercial use into residential use, and constructing
two new residential buildings.
Hutchings noted for the record Rachel Poor joined the meeting at 8:09 p.m.
Cook notified the Board she filed a disclosure with the Mayor's Office, stating that she co-
owns a separate property with Thad Siemasko, the architect on this project. Per the
statement, Cook states that she has no financial interest in this project, and can be
impartial. This statement is also applicable to #10 on the agenda, Site Plan Review for 5
West Dane Street.
Attorney Miranda Gooding introduced herself and the applicant. Gooding noted that the
applicant appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals and received an amendment to
an existing Special Permit to reduce the curb from the street.
Siemasko provided a brief history of the site. The original historic building was moved to
the site in the mid - twentieth century and a breezeway was constructed as an addition
after the original building was moved. The building was utilized as a residential home and
then converted to a commercial space. In the 1980s there was an application to demolish
the building, but the Historic District Commission, through the Demolition Delay
Ordinance, initiated a one -year delay on the demolition permit, and the then -owner
decided not to demolish the building. Siemasko stated the applicant intends to demolish
Page 6 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
the twentieth - century breezeway addition, but to preserve the original historic home and
move it within the site to a more prominent location. Siemasko emphasized the
precedence for moving the building — the house was originally constructed at 44 Dodge
Street, but relocated to allow for the construction of Route 128.
Siemasko described the site, noting that the back part of the lot is largely paved, with the
tree line denoting the property line. The original house will be moved to the front of the
property to have the same configuration to the street as homes on adjacent lots.
Siemasko noted that the driveway will be 20 feet wide rather than 24 feet, and there will
be two parking spaces per unit. Siemasko noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals
requested that the taller of the new buildings to be located at the rear of the lot, and the
shorter building to be located closer to the street. Siemasko proposed to plant four maple
trees as street trees, and eastern red cedars at the side property lines, as well as privacy
fencing.
Siemasko gave details on the preservation of the historic home. The application will retain
as much of the original trim and clapboard as possible, and will paint the home. The back
of the building is vinyl, which will be replaced with different material. Siemasko stated the
intention to replace the kitchen back window with a sliding door, and the intent to restore
the chimney. Margolis asked if the house will retain its historical significance. Siemasko
responded that the frame of the structure will not be altered, and the existing historic
materials will be retained.
Mason asked if the wood clapboards on the front of the home will be retained, and
Hutchings asked if the windows are to change. Siemasko replied that the wood
clapboards will be retained, as will the historic windows.
Siemasko gave further description of buildings "B" and "C ". He explained Building C is 34
feet in height, Building B is about 26 feet in height. Hutchings noted the existing home
(described as Building A) is 22.5 feet in height. Siemasko stated that these are 2- bedroom
units with some basement space beneath, and described the layout of the
buildings. Building C has garage built in and the 3rd floor. Margolis asked if the units will
be condominiums, and Siemasko confirmed that they will be. Siemasko continued to
provide detail for the building paint color scheme and the materials for doors and windows.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Mason: Motion to recommend that the Planning Board approve the proposed
plan with the condition that details on the architectural features and
trim, including the windows and doors, will be provided to the
Planning Board. Ulrich seconded. The motion carried (7 -0).
10. 5 West Dane Street — Benco, LLC — Site Plan Review
The applicant is proposing the redevelopment of a site in the CC zoning district, to include
the construction of a new, 3- story, mixed -use building containing one ground floor
commercial unit and ten 1- bedroom residences and an associated parking garage.
Page 7 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Attorney Miranda Gooding for the applicant introduced Ben Carlson as the applicant.
Carlson described the proposed space and project site. He stated the project meets the
dimensional requirements for the zoning district. Architect Thad Siemasko described the
project, providing a history of the space and how it relates to its abutters on West Dane
Street. The current building, a single -story warehouse /garage, is in the process of being
demolished. Siemasko noted that the proposed design attempts to complement the
neighborhood. Siemasko described the lot, and states that the proposed building is
mixed -use, with a portion of the first floor as commercial space with the second and third
floors residential. The garage door is set back off West Dane Street as a one story carport
behind the commercial space. There will be ten parking spaces, one for each unit. The
balconies are 12 feet deep, and there will be 5 residential units on the second floor and 5
units on the third floor. The back stairway empties into the garage. Siemasko noted that
the building is designed with tiers, with increasing setbacks from the street to reduce the
impact of the building height on the street.
The applicant stated that the units will be approximately 500 square feet to naturally
ensure some affordability. Each unit will include washer and dryer. Siemasko noted that
there is not a lot of space for landscaping, but described how the retaining wall will be
reinforced, and fencing and some landscaping will be installed. Siemasko reviewed the
building and landscape materials and the color scheme, and noted the opportunity for
roof - mounted solar energy systems. Seimasko further described the traditional treatment
of materials, including a dark roof, weathered shingles, and dark green window sash.
Siemasko noted the colors blend with the existing neighborhood. Hutchings asked where
the trash will be located, and Siemasko confirmed the trash is located inside the building.
Margolis asked if the proposed project is a by -right development, and Gooding confirmed
it is. Mason sought clarification on the review of a by -right project versus a project
requiring a Special Permit, and Margolis responded. Gooding confirmed the neighbors
have had the opportunity to review the site plan, and there are no current objections from
any abutters.
Hutchings sought further clarification on how the project complies with the Downtown
Design Guidelines, and noted concern about the building's size and potential impact on
Cabot Street. Hutchings noted that the Planning Department is still reviewing the
proposed development in reference to the Downtown Design Guidelines, and there is
particular concern about how the rear and side walls will be viewed from Cabot Street.
Siemasko reviewed the elevations and discussed what would be visible from Cabot
Street. He stated the impacts will be minimal. Ulrich noted the front elevation resembled
a single - family home, but would like to see a rendering that shows how the proposed
building will appear from Cabot Street in reference to the adjacent buildings. Hutchings
concurred.
The Board reviewed the porches and materials with the applicant. During review of the
landscaping, Hutchings asked if there will be space for people to walk where there is
crushed stone. Siemasko replied no, where the dogwoods end is where the garage
begins the landscaping is primarily decorative. The Board reviewed the lot borders, and
Page 8 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Flannery asked about the walkway at the east property border. Gooding replied it is a
worn path used by the neighbors. Ulrich inquired if the applicant can build a fence
between the site and Laundromat. Siemasko responded they could; currently the building
edge, being so close to the lot line, acts as a fence.
Gooding and Carlson agreed to return with perspective drawings that illustrate the impact
of the building on Cabot Street.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to continue 5 West Dane Street to the November meeting,
requesting the applicant return to review the proposed building's
impact on Cabot Street and review how the project meets the
Downtown Design Guidelines. Ulrich seconded. The motion passed
(7 -0).
Flannery noted the Planning Board meetings are November 13th and 19th. Gooding and
Hutchings reviewed the dates of the Planning Board meetings in relation to the Design
Review Board meetings.
11. 1 Water Street — Glovskv & Glovskv — Site Plan Review (cont.)
The applicant is proposing a waterfront restaurant in the BHD zoning district. The
applicant has provided a revised submission for this Board meeting, with revisions based
on the Board's comments at the September meeting.
Attorney Miranda Gooding for the applicant introduced applicant Marty Bloom, and
stipulated they will provide a list of requested changes. Gooding noted that the Planning
Board has begun the public hearing for the project. The applicant has met with and
received a recommendation from the Parking and Traffic Commission. Gooding noted
that this is the applicant's third meeting with the Design Review Board.
Architect Jim Souza presented the revisions to the Board, and reviewed the minor
revisions to the interior of the building. Souza reviewed the elevations and details for the
exterior of the building, and noted the revisions to the balcony railings and windows.
The Board discussed the architectural details. Cook asked about the faux windows on the
Cabot Street fagade, explaining her absence in the previous meeting. Souza described
the faux windows as following the natural lighting of the day, and reviewed the sailboat
relief with halo lighting to the side of the windows on the Cabot Street fagade. Souza
confirmed that the windows will not be lit during the day. Bloom reminded the Board the
windows are faux because the building's mechanics and bathrooms are on that side of
the building. Cook inquired which windows are real, and Souza clarified. The Board
reviewed the balcony railings and column /window alignment. Cook noted how a glass
railing versus a more traditional balustrade changes the aesthetic of the building. Bloom
and Souza further described the windows, and Souza discussed halo lighting used for the
sailboat relief in strategic spots and using height differences. Souza presented materials,
trim, and colors, and noted that the shingle material is stained gray cedar.
Page 9 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Board members commented on the past renderings compared to the current rendering,
and noted their concerns about the current design in reference to New England coastal
architecture. Poor stated her concern about the sailboat relief. Gooding noted the relief
had a more favorable response from the Board at the September meeting, which is why
they focused more on the relief this time. Board members stated how the design feels like
a hybrid of modern and traditional. Margolis reminded the applicant at the previous
meeting they were to revise the elevations to maintain a more traditional New England
design. Cook and Hutchings stated they do not see a big change from original
design. Poor stated that the applicant has an opportunity to make something iconic, and
recommends softening the appearance. The Board discussed the landscaping and public
art, Poor asked if the art wall on the Cabot Street fagade could be approved separately.
Bloom ask the Board for direction with the public art on the Cabot Street fagade. Cook
asked Bloom specifically what his design concept is. Bloom replied the Mission on the
Bay has a California feel to it, while Mission Boathouse should have a New England feel.
Bloom stated he is flexible with the design and open to change.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Hutchings: Motion to recommend the Planning Board approve the proposed
design with the condition that the applicant return to the Design
Review Board for final review and approval of (a) the art wall on the
Cabot Street fagade, (b) the balustrade on the balconies, and (c) the
faux windows on the Cabot Street fagade. Ulrich seconded. The
motion passed (6 -1 -0, Cook abstained).
Hutchings moves for a 5 minute recess at 9:50 pm. Margolis seconded. Cook resumes
the meeting at 9:59 pm. For agenda item #12, "Depot Square II" Cook recused herself.
Vice Chair Margolis resumed the meeting and noted that resident Matt Pujo will be
videotaping the meeting.
12.134-146 Rantoul Street & 1 -9 Park Street (Depot Square II) — Depot Square Phase
II, LLC — Site Plan Review (cont.)
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 is returning to the Board after
presenting at the September, August, and July 2019 meetings.
Attorney Miranda Gooding summarized the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings in
reference to the project, and reminded the Board that its role is to determine whether the
project is in compliance with the guidelines. Gooding notes that the applicant has not
submitted any new materials, and there are very few changes in the design from what
was presented at the September meeting. Gooding stated that the presentation at this
evening's meeting is to fill in the gaps, provide greater detail on minor changes, and
further describe the fagade details and materials.
Page 10 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Architect Thad Siemasko briefly provided additional detail to the fourth story of the
building, then introduced Jacqui Trainer, Senior Landscape Architect at Meridian
Associates. Trainer described the landscaping in greater detail, referring to the renderings
for visual details. Trainer reviewed plant species, locations, and colors; paving materials
and patterns for the courtyard; and street furniture including railings, benches, bicycle
racks, and trash receptacles.
Siemasko resumed his presentation, noting one change proposed is to add one point of
entry /egress to the corner of the building at Railroad Avenue and Park Street, which will
be used to gain entry to the building from direction of the Depot station. Siemasko
reviewed the architectural details and the materials, and referenced the neighboring Post
Office and compared the horizontal pattern of stone headers over the windows and sills.
The windows are divided -light with a 2- over -2 pattern, and are set back roughly the width
of a brick. Siemasko further described the insets, cornice lines and materials, window and
arch shapes, and storefronts. Siemasko provided sample materials of the brick and cast
stone for the Board's review.
Seimasko and Gooding conclude their presentation.
Margolis opened the floor to the public.
Wendy Pearl, 21 Morningside Drive
Pearl brought a presentation to illustrate her points of concern. She began by
referring to the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings, and stated that it is the Board's
responsibility to make a determination regarding whether the project truly conforms
to the guidelines. Pearl states that she does not see how the current renderings
differ from the previous designs. She argues that the applicant has made the
Board's review about improving the design, rather than focusing on whether the
design complies with the Guidelines. Pearl reiterates the importance of
harmonizing new construction to the existing streetscape, pointing out that the site
is within a historic district with its own unique character; the district has cohesion
and authenticity, and part of that authenticity is demonstrated by the mix of
buildings. Pearl describes the existing buildings, and emphasizes the investment
that has been put into the buildings to date.
Pearl contends the Board expressed proper concern for spacing issues for the
Benco Project at 5 West Dane Street, and asks the Board to do the same for the
Depot Square II project. Pearl discusses Railroad Avenue, the street walls, the
drop in elevation, and how mass and height are perceived. Pearl states that the
public plaza is separate from the open public realm, and argues the public space
(plaza) will be regarded as only for the paying customer. Pearl asks the applicant
to create some variety in the design, reduce the height, and allow the architecture
to fit into the landscape, referencing the Montserrat dorms next to the Beverly
Public Library as an example of good infill and design. Pearl emphasizes that the
development is the gateway from the train station, currently set to eliminate three
historic buildings. She asks the Board to ensure the proposed development
preserves the authentic gateway of Beverly.
Page 11 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Jim Younger, 32 Butman St.
Younger asked the Board not to ignore a petition against Depot Square II, with
more than 2000 signatories. He asked the Board to deny the applicant's request
for special permits.
Matt Pujo, 11 Longwood Ave.
Pujo stated that at the last Planning Board meeting, discussion focused on the
building height. Pujo asked the applicant why the development has to be over 5
stories.
Gooding and the Koeplin respond to the public's comments. Gooding reiterated that the
site is at a prominent location, and as a result a prominent structure is appropriate. Koeplin
stated that the height is necessary to make the project economically feasible, and he does
not believe a smaller alternative design is appropriate for the site. Koeplin stated they are
not here to discuss alternative options, and argues Rantoul Street was dead for 30 years
prior to Beverly Crossing's redevelopment. Koeplin maintained Rantoul Street is the best
it has ever been as a result of the recent urban renewal, including Beverly Crossing's
projects.
Mason asked the applicant if they have ever had this much push back in a project before.
Koeplin replied that that is a subjective question. Mason commented such contention
should provide pause. Gooding interjected, acknowledging the project is not going to
receive approval from everyone, and upheld the applicant has listened and responded in
an endeavor to respect the differences in opinions.
Pujo interceded with a final statement, describing to the Board growing up on Rantoul
Street and insisting it was not dead, but had always been vibrant until the Great
Recession, which hurt many businesses. Pujo stated that he is tired of Beverly being
insulted by the urban renewal projects, and asserted the right urban renewal and
development in conjunction with historic preservation would make a lot of people happy,
particularly saving the historic district. Pujo maintained that the people's voice has not
been heard during the project, and closed by stating that historic resources, specifically
buildings, when properly preserved can do a lot to uplift and help communities.
Margolis tabled public comment and asked the Board for their comments.
Margolis commented that he has never felt as passionate about his disapproval of a
project in all his time serving on the City boards. Margolis emphasized that in this case
the Design Review Board is only an advisory board, that the Planning Board can overrule
any recommendations, and thus encouraged the Design Review Board to send the proper
message and not be afraid to do so. Margolis agrees the changes previously requested
by the Board were all met; however, Margolis asked the Board if that is enough to receive
a positive recommendation. Margolis commented that recommending this project
supports the process used to reach this point, and stated he would not vote to recommend
approval unless the historic buildings are saved. Margolis reiterates there must be a way
to protect the district that better reflects the area, and urged the Board not to feel pressure
to recommend the approval of the project.
Page 12 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Mason read from a New York Times article, "The Newish Charleston" by Steven Kurutz,
regarding the Courier Square historic district in Charleston, SC. Mason described how
the article shows how the people of Charleston protected their community from
inappropriate development and used zoning to protect their historic resources. Mason
read a personal statement, and further pointed out the similarities between Beverly and
Charleston regarding the need to preserve their respective histories. She continued that
the Board must look at the project design as a stand -alone — it should not be compared
to other Beverly urban renewal projects. Mason also spoke to the misuse of tax credits
and relocating the affordable housing offsite. Mason quoted the Design Guidelines for
Tall Buildings, "to improve the fit of new construction into the fabric of Beverly city
streetscape." She then asked if all goals cannot be accomplished without compromising
their sense of place. Mason stated that she is not in favor of this design iteration.
Ulrich stated that he believes the project has come a long way since its inception. The
place is one of density and the building fits. Ulrich cautioned the Board that they may not
be able to provide the same level of input or receive such a well- constructed design with
a different developer building a by -right project. Poor stated her agreement with Ulrich's
comments. Flannery stated that she felt the applicant complied with all requests made for
the project. Ulrich stated that on a minor note, the paving patterns for the courtyard are
underwhelming and do not add to the historic nature of the area. Ulrich recommended a
revised design for the paving pattern. Hutchings stated she recognizes the unique nature
of the site, and how the building may comply with certain guidelines that conflict with
others in the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. She argues the plaza does add space
for public enjoyment, and notes that the building is separated from other buildings — and
the park — by streets. Hutchings reviews the materials, particularly the special articulation
of the cast stone, and requests more details on the uppermost two stories of the building.
Discussion ensues regarding the materials. Siemasko demonstrated the design concepts
and noted the greyish blue material named "ethereal grey" for the upper two stories.
Hutchings requested additional detail on the materials, colors, and the balconies, but
stated that the applicant's return to the Board to provide such details, including a revised
paving pattern for the plaza, could be a condition of a recommendation.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Ulrich: Motion to make a finding to the Planning Board that the proposed
project is consistent with the general intent of the City's Design
Guidelines for Tall Buildings. Poor seconded. The motion carried
(4 -2, Margolis and Mason voting against). Cook recused.
Ulrich: Motion to recommend that the Planning Board approve the proposed
plans as presented with the condition that the applicant return to the
Design Review Board with additional details on materials for
hardscape and the uppermost two stories of the building for final
review and approval. Poor seconded. The motion carried (4 -2,
Margolis and Mason voting against). Cook recused.
Page 13 of 14
Design Review Board
October 3, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Approval of Minutes:
Flannery motions to accept July 11, 2019, meeting minutes as amended. Poor seconded.
All in favor. The motion carried (6 -0).
Flannery motions to accept August 1, 2019, meeting minutes as amended. Poor
seconded. All in favor. The motion carried (6 -0).
Other items of business:
None.
Adjourn:
Hutchings: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Ulrich seconded. The motion carried
(6 -0).
Meeting adjourned at 11:13 pm.
Page 14 of 14