DRB Minutes 11.14.2019 (2)CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
DATE: November 14, 2019
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall — Council Chamber /Conference Room B
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandra Cook (Chair), Joel Margolis (Vice Chair), Ellen Flannery, Emily
Hutchings, Caroline Baird Mason, Rachel Poor, Matthew Ulrich
MEMBERS ABSENT:
RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury
Chairperson Cook called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
Signs
1. 242 Elliott Street — Chase ATM Donna Cullen
The applicant is proposing one wall sign and one pylon sign on an existing freestanding sign in the CG
zoning district. The signs includes the name of the business, the logo, and the term "ATM." The applicant
stated that minimal signage is being used. Hutchings confirmed the signage complies with the Ordinance.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve signs as presented. Margolis seconded. Motion carried (7 -0).
2. 228 Cabot Street — Lux Realty Lux Realty North Shore
The applicant is proposing one wall sign in the CC zoning district. The wall sign includes the name of the
business and the term "North Shore." The sign is largerthan permitted by right, but is replacing an existing
grandfathered sign, and therefore does not require a Special Permit.
Lux Realty North Shore acquired the Barter Brothers space, and will be replacing the original sign with one
of approximately the same size. The applicant noted that the sign board is deteriorated and will be
replaced using a lighter PVC material. The Board begins discussion, suggesting sign edits. Cook
recommends a smaller sign, despite the proposed sign being allowed, noting that the existing sign is large
and looks oversized on the building. Hutchings suggested reducing the frame, and Poor noted that white
space on either side of the wording could be eliminated. The Board expressed their concern about the
multiple fonts and lines of text, and asked if the term "North Shore" could be removed to improve the
aesthetic. The applicant noted the "North Shore" distinction is necessary to differentiate from their other
branches. The Board concurred that reducing the size of the sign to see more of the brick background on
the sign band would improve the aesthetic. The applicant confirmed that the existing lights will be kept in
place and used. The applicant stated she is amenable to the members' suggestions for edits. The applicant
agreed to change any yellow font to blue, and that cursive font will not be used, in order to increase
legibility. The font for "North Shore" will be the same as the font for "Realty," and the font will remain
consistent for all lettering.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Hutchings: Motion to approve the sign with conditions noting that the lettering will all be the
blue color as shown on the plan, and that the lettering for "North Shore" will
match the font style of the term "Reality "; and with the recommendations that 1)
the sign is to be reduced to 32 inches in height, and 2) the sign will be reduced in
width to minimize the white background space on either side of the lettering.
Cook seconded. Motion carried (7 -0).
Design Review Board
November 14, 2019 Meeting Minutes
3. 130 Sohier Road — Sohier Road Self Storage Sohier Road Self Storage, LLC
The applicant is proposing a wall sign in the IR zoning district. The sign includes the name of the business
and a logo, and complies with the Ordinance. The applicant states that the wall sign will affix to the side
of the building, since it is set back from the road. The design follows similar designs at the business's other
locations. The Board agrees that the sign and design are straightforward and uncluttered.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve sign as presented. Mason seconded. Motion carried (7 -0).
4. 507 Rantoul Street — Beverly Psychic Beverly Psychic
The applicant is proposing one wall sign and two window signs in the CN zoning district. The wall sign
includes the name of the business, and complies with the Ordinance. The window signs are larger than
permitted by right, and require a Special Permit.
The applicant noted a late amendment to their sign, stating that the window signs will be reduced in size.
Hutchings clarified upon review with the Building Inspector that as the window signage includes two
separate signs, the second sign would require a Special Permit. The Board agreed that the second window
sign creates a symmetrical design and is more aesthetically appropriate, but noted it is out of their scope
to approve the second window sign, and the sign would require a Special Permit through the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the wall sign as presented, and approve the first window sign
with reduction in size. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (7 -0).
Cook: Motion to recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the second window
sign. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (7 -0).
5. 377 Cabot Street — Dollar Tree Anchor Sien. Inc.
The applicant is proposing one wall sign and one pylon sign on an existing freestanding sign in the CN
zoning district. The signs includes the name of the business. The sign is replacing an existing sign that was
approved by Special Permit. The applicant stated the business would like to put the same size sign that
occupied the Rite Aid space. Hutchings noted that although the new sign is larger than what the Ordinance
permits by right, the proposed sign is smaller than the Rite Aid sign that was approved by Special Permit;
therefore, the proposed sign requires only Design Review Board approval.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the pylon and wall sign as presented. Flannery seconded.
Motion carried (7 -0).
6. 296 Cabot Street — The Rustic Mandala Linda Estrella
The applicant is proposing one wall sign in the CC zoning district. The wall sign includes the name of the
business, and complies with the Ordinance. The Board asked for a brief description of the business. The
applicant explained her business entails selling used furniture, jewelry, bath products, etc., with an
eclectic mix of merchandise. The Board found the sign straightforward and aesthetically appropriate.
Page 2 of 7
Design Review Board
November 14, 2019 Meeting Minutes
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the wall sign as presented. Mason seconded. The motion
carried (7 -0).
7. 244 Elliott Street — The Healthy Animal (Informal Review) Gary Polignone
The applicant had erected wall signage and window signage without the approval of the Design Review
Board or a sign permit, and that does not comply with the Ordinance. On the recommendation of Planning
Staff, the applicant appeared before the Board for an informal review of the signage to discuss what would
comply with the Ordinance and be approved, and what would require a Special Permit, or may not be
approved.
Chairperson Cook clarifies this is an informal discussion in regards to the signage. Mr. Gary Polignone, the
business owner, speaks to the nature of his sign and how it expresses itself. He recognizes that he added
to the existing, approved signage without approval, but argues that he spoke with a City employee about
the signage. Mr. Polignone states he cannot recall exactly with whom he spoke regarding the sign
additions, but the individual stated that he did not think the updates to the signage would be a problem.
Mr. Polignone stated that the store is part of a franchise. Mr. Polignone also brought forth a signed
petition by customers and patrons, which requested the approval of the sign. Cook explains the Ordinance
and the requirements therein for altering and adding signs. Mr. Polignone stated he does not have the
funds to reverse the changes at this time. Board members explain the pictorial graphics overwhelming,
and to recommend approval for the signage at that location would mean setting a precedent for allowing
similar signage at other locations. Poor states that the words in the sign should speak for themselves. Mr.
Polignone seeks suggestions to come into compliance, and the Board describes what is permitted by the
Ordinance and notes what may be appropriate, in terms of wall signage and window signage — for the
location.
Mr. Polignone states that the Board's approval of the original sign stated that the background could be
white. Hutchings clarifies approved white background color was for the panel on the freestanding sign,
and not for the wall sign on the building. Hutchings presented the original letter of approval from the
Board for the original wall sign and panel for the freestanding sign. The Board stated that they would like
to support businesses in Beverly, and understand the applicant's need for additional time to bring the
signage into compliance. The Board recommends that the Building Department wait until after the
holidays to enforce compliance, to allow the business owner time to evaluate options. Hutchings will
communicate with the Building Department that the owner is working toward compliance. Cook
reiterates the ordinance allows for 20% of the window to be covered.
No action is required at this time. Due to the circumstances, the Board is comfortable reviewing the sign
after the holidays. The Board tentatively set a date to revisit the signage on January 9, 2019.
Site Plan Review
8. 10 -12 Congress Street — Site Plan Review (Minor Modification) DMS Design, LLC
The applicant is requesting a minor modification to the Site Plan Review #88 -07 and Special Permit #114-
07, regarding the development of two multi - family buildings. Dan Skolski of DMS Design introduced
himself as representing the applicant. Mr. Skolski noted the applicant was last before the Board in
February 2019 to review the relatively minor modifications. Mr. Skolski stated that the vast majority of
items for this evening's review apply to Buildings A & B. Plan and elevation changes were clouded and
Page 3 of 7
Design Review Board
November 14, 2019 Meeting Minutes
labeled on the renderings. The buildings are almost identical. DMS explains the modifications to the Board
going through each floor and the elevations for Building A, noting that the elevator shaft is slightly higher
and where doors and windows were revised, and showing dormers and roofline still intact. Building B
presents the same series of changes. The applicant noted that previous renderings for Building B show no
basement, where a partial basement in Building B has been added.
The civil engineer reviewed the site plan, showing where walkways were reconfigured, revisions to a patio,
the addition of a shuffleboard court, the river walk being changed from stone dust to asphalt, and changes
to the river walk bridge is shorter. Hutchings inquired if the applicant has received approval from
Conservation Commission for the revisions to the proposed bridge structure. The civil engineer stated the
project is currently before the Conservation Commission. When the Board inquired, the applicant
confirmed the boardwalk is accessible to the public. Hutchings asked if the slope will be appropriate for
handicap access, and the applicant confirmed the slope meets accessibility requirements. The applicant
noted the MBTA expressed concern about the vegetation across the tracks, and requested no large trees
close to the track. Dogwoods are proposed to replace the larger and faster growing tree species. Mason
asked if the asphalt was the best environmentally friendly choice. The applicant confirmed that stone dust
can wash away with storm surges going back into the river, and that asphalt has been approved as an
environmentally appropriate option.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to recommend that the Planning Board approve the minor modification
to the site plan as presented. Ulrich seconded. The motion carried (7 -0).
Flannery motioned for a 5 minutes recess at 7:51 pm. Cook seconded. The motion carried (7 -0).
Cook called meeting called back to order 7:55 pm.
9. 5 West Dane Street — Site Plan Review (cont.) Benco. LLC
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. The applicant has returned with revisions to the east
elevation and renderings demonstrating the proposed development's appearance from Cabot Street.
Cook reiterates she has a business relationship with Thad Siemasko and filed a disclosure with the Mayor's
Office, same as she did for the October 3, 2019, meeting.
Architect Thad Siemasko returned, reintroducing property owner Ben Carlson to discuss the continuation
of the site plan. Siemasko described the commercial space and garage on the first floor plan, and noted
the smaller one bedroom units with balconies. Siemasko described revisions, including the windows on
the second story corner units to create a rounded /wrap around surface, and a dormer added to the third
story on the east elevation. Siemasko noted exterior materials, including asphalt roof shingles, composite
trim, cementitious clapboard and shingle siding, and vinyl clad windows. Revised drawings were included
to demonstrate how the building will be viewed from Cabot Street.
Members inquire to the colors. Siemasko stated that the palette will be light sandy beige to a marigold
yellow with dark green window sash. The windows will be 6 over 1. The Board reviewed the perspective
drawing of the proposed development with the surrounding buildings. Margolis asked about the shading
Page 4 of 7
Design Review Board
November 14, 2019 Meeting Minutes
impact on 7 West Dane, whether the proposed building blocks the natural light. Siemasko assured the
Board the development will have minimal impact on the surrounding neighbors.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to recommend that the Planning Board approve the proposed site plan
as presented. Mason seconded. The motion carried (7 -0).
10.0 Everett Street — Site Plan Review 0 Everett Street, LLC
The applicant is proposing the development of a new building having 825 square feet of retail space on
the first floor, three residential units on the second and third floors, and associated parking.
Cook asked the public to please limit their comments to those pertaining to the design aspect, and not to
discuss issues that other boards and commissions will undertake, such as use or traffic. Comments should
focus on the building mass, materials, landscaping, etc.
Attorney Tom Alexander presented the site plan and detailed the mixed -use building. Alexander noted
the design maintains the small downtown feel of Beverly Farms. Architect Dan Mucharelli, Segar
Architects, further detailed design elements. Mucharelli reviewed renderings for each elevation, and
described a stone wall and landscaping will buffer the neighbors, as required by the zoning ordinance.
Mucharelli gave a list of landscaping options used for the corner intersection as well as the buffer zone,
and summarized the various species and locations.
Mucharelli stated that there will be a full basement, and the retail space is 825 square feet. The interior
of the building was described, and it was noted that the Hale Street elevation first floor has a lot of glass
for a traditional storefront. Mucharelli provided details, noting that the gable ends are to reduce mass
along the street, the windows will be double hung 2 over 2, the windows are reduced on the rear facade,
and there will be white trim the whole way around. Additionally, the balconies have been removed due
to a concern of the neighbors. For the rear landscape buffer, trees will be planted that start at
approximately 18 feet in height. The building does sit up about 30 inches higher off the street.
The building materials were reviewed cedar weathering stain shakes, board siding, trim and casing, white
entry doors, mounted wall lighting, lights are sharp cutoff, with boral /azak /koma trim. Dryer vents will be
painted to match the exterior and located on the back of the building. There will be some dryer vents
going through the 3rd floor roof. Snow will be removed off site since parking is tight and limited. Hutchings
asked about the dumpster location, and Mucharelli stated he will discuss options for the dumpster
location with the civil engineer.
Chairperson Cook opened the floor to the public and reiterated that comments should be relevant to the
design discussion and the purview of the Board. Members of the public in attendance include the
following:
Members of the public:
Dorothy Hayes, 680 Hale St
Charles Sherrill, 858 Hale St
Rebecca Swanick, 5 Everett St
Cameron O'Connor, 5 Everett St
Paul Weingartner, 12 Everett St
Page 5 of 7
Design Review Board
November 14, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Joe Manzie, 16 Everett St
Pete Johnson, 677 Hale St
Brian French, 19 Everett St
Hutchings stated that two letters had been received from members of the public, Brian French and
Rebecca Swanick. Both Mr. French and Ms. Swanick opted to read their own statements.
An open forum commenced with multiple members of the public and neighborhood voicing their concerns
simultaneously. Specific areas of concern are the zoning requirements for the buffer zones and
landscaping to separate the new development from adjacent residences, wall composition and height,
visibility at the corner of Hale and Everett Streets, and the retail /commercial space windows. Members of
the public emphasized their concern with the sight visibility for vehicular traffic at the intersecting corners
of Hale and Everett Streets — noting that it is a bus stop for children — and that vegetation may dramatically
decrease visibility. Members of the public suggested a bump -out, and the Board reminded the public that
that portion of Hale Street is Route 127, which is an official state highway and falls outside the Board's
jurisdiction. Noting the safety concern, the Board explained that their purview is to recommend conditions
be attached to the site plan approval, which could include the enforcement of vegetation and landscaping
restrictions.
Discussion moves to the rear buffer zone along the northern perimeter of the site. The current renderings
provide for deciduous trees that provide a buffer until they shed during fall foliage. Immediate neighbors
are concerned with privacy after foliage since the condo windows directly overlook their backyards. The
Board discusses viable options for vegetation screens, and Ulrich notes the proposed trees are a good
option due to their initial and mature height.
The Board reviews the windows, particularly the retail windows, which are 8 feet in height. Some
members of the public voice their concern with the current commercial window renderings, and feel that
the windows do not match the village ambiance of downtown Beverly Farms. Members of the public state
that historic downtown buildings are converted residences, which defer to the quaint seaside village era.
Board members Cook and Hutchings explain to the public that putting double hung windows on the retail
space will actually make the building look taller, and will reduce the viability of the retail space. The public
asked about the restrictions for retail signs in the district. Hutchings explained the sign requirements for
the area, and reviewed allowable sign types, sizes, and illumination.
Hutchings inquired about the concrete columns. Mucharelli stated that the concrete has to remain for
safety reasons, but it could be covered by another material. The Board asked whether the residential units
would be condos or rental units, and Alexander stated the owner plans on keeping the units as rental
apartments. Mason voiced concern that the size is too large for the area. Members of the public voiced
concern about the mass and scale of the proposed building, with some commenting that a single - family
home is more appropriate than a mixed -use, multi -unit building.
Ulrich stated he feels the project fits in the neighborhood, but notes that the proposed plantings at the
corner of Hale and Everett Streets could obstruct views. He urged the architect to reconsider the
landscaping, and recommended plantings that would not grow to a height that would have an impact on
visibility at the corner. Ulrich inquired about the style of the wall at the perimeter of the site, and asked if
the pedestrian pathways in the front of the site leading to the residential and commercial entrances could
be changed to bluestone to increase the attractiveness of the site and fit with the neighborhood. Ulrich
Page 6 of 7
Design Review Board
November 14, 2019 Meeting Minutes
restated the pros and cons of the proposed trees for the rear buffer area, but agreed that what was
proposed is an appropriate option.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Hutchings: Motion to recommend the Planning Board approve the proposed plan as
presented at the meeting with the conditions that 1) the columns on the rear
(north) facade receive further design treatment to reduce the appearance of the
concrete; 2) the material for the walkways from Hale Street to both the retail and
residential entryways be changed to bluestone; and 3) the landscaping on the
corner of Everett Street and Hale Street be changed to low- growth plants so not
to impede visual access at the corner. Flannery seconded. The motion passed
(7 -0).
Approval of Minutes:
Mason: Motioned to accept September 5, 2019, meeting minutes as amended. Cook
seconded. All in favor. The motion carried (7 -0).
Other items of business:
None.
Adjourn:
Hutchings: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Ulrich seconded. The motion carried (7 -0).
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm.
Next meeting: December 12, 2019.
Page 7 of 7