DRB Minutes 12.12.2019CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
DATE: December 12, 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, Matthew Ulrich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rachel Poor
RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury
Chairperson Cook called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
S!Km
1. 39 West Street GULF
The applicant is proposing to update one existing freestanding sign and signage on individual dispensers
at a gasoline filling station in the CN zoning district. The freestanding sign includes the name of the
business and a price sign. Although the sign does not comply with the Ordinance, it is updating an existing,
grandfathered sign, and the "Gulf" portion of the sign will be reduced in size. The signage on each
dispenser is being revised to cover only the lower portion of each dispenser. The applicant is also
proposing additional improvements to the site, including numbering the dispensers. These improvements
do not require Design Review Board approval.
The applicant notes minor modifications that had been made since the application submission. The
business is looking to implement a new Gulf brand, and to place the logo on the valance of each dispenser.
The applicant states Gulf is willing to reduce the logos' respective size. Hutchings notes the dispenser
signs are not allowed by right. The applicant informs the Board that Massachusetts State Code requires
the dispensers to be labeled with logos or business names. The applicant provides copies of the State
Code to the board, and states that per the Code the brand of the gasoline must be labeled on the
dispenser. The applicant would also like to label the side of each dispenser using the use word "full" rather
than the word "Gulf." The Board agrees the smaller logo version is preferential, and states that all logos
and writing should be contained within the orange stripe on the valances. The Board notes the discrepancy
between the State Code and City Ordinance in terms of dispenser signs, and that State Code supersedes
City Ordinance. The applicant stated he wanted to bring this section of the Ordinance to the Board's
attention.
Hutchings states she will have a discussion with the City Solicitor and the Building Inspector regarding the
state codes. Mason asks if the signs will be internally illuminated. The applicant states the freestanding
sign is internally illuminated.
Cook acknowledged a member of the public who had a question, who asked if the sign could be
illuminated during hours of operation only. The individual noted they also appreciate the white
background behind the Gulf logo not being lit. The applicant agreed that the sign would be illuminated
only during business hours.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Hutchings: Motion to approve proposed freestanding signage and dispenser signage as
presented, with the conditions that (1) the lettering on the sides of the signage
Page 1 of 8
Design Review Board
December 12, 2019 Meeting Minutes
on the upper portions of each gas dispenser will read "Full," and not "Gulf;" (2)
the Gulf logo on each gas dispenser will fit within the orange stripe on the top of
each dispenser; (3) the freestanding sign will be illuminated only during business
hours; and (4) the Building Inspector confirms that the signs either comply with
the Beverly Sign Ordinance or follow Massachusetts state standards, and do not
require a Special Permit. Flannery seconded. All in favor. The motion carried (6 -0).
2. 140 -150 Brimbal Avenue Caffe Nero
The applicant is proposing two wall signs in the IR zoning district. The wall signs includes the name of the
business and the term "The Italian Coffee Company and Master Coffee Roasters." The signs comply with
the Ordinance.
Heather Dudko represents the applicant and addresses the Board explaining the sign. Both Cook and
Margolis comment that the linear view of the sign needs to align with the existing signs, with the goal of
keeping all signs on the same plane on the sign band.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve signs as presented with the condition that the bottom of the
lettering on the signs align horizontally with the lettering on the adjacent signs
along the sign band of the building. Flannery seconded. All in favor. The motion
carried (6 -0).
3. 198 Rantoul Street The Boutique at 198 (Beverly Bootstraps)
The applicant is proposing a window sign in the CC zoning district. The sign includes the term "The
Boutique at 198," and is being used for rebranding purposes for the Beverly Bootstraps thrift store. The
sign complies with the Ordinance.
Jackie Hersey introduces herself as an employee of Beverly Bootstraps and explains the sign. Beverly
Bootstraps is looking to rebrand the boutique section of the store. The intent is to add some white vinyl
lettering to the window. Speed Pro is doing the work and the sign will face Wallis Street.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Margolis: Motion to approve as presented. Cook seconded. All in favor. The motion carried
6 -0.
4. 230 Rantoul Street Nacho Tacos
The applicant is proposing one wall sign and one freestanding sign in the CC zoning district. The wall sign
includes the name of the business, and complies with the Ordinance. The freestanding sign is replacing an
existing grandfathered sign, and does not require a Special Permit, only Design Review Board approval.
Attorney Michael Doucette of Glovsky & Glovsky and Stefano Basso from SV Design introduce themselves
and detail the new venture in the old MacNeil's Auto Body building, also known as the Ford Development
building. The space is being converted from an auto repair shop to a restaurant. The building is one of the
few set -back buildings on Rantoul Street. The applicant would like to continue use of the pre- existing pole
sign and erect a wall sign. Doucette notes that the wall sign is in keeping with size requirements. The wall
sign is above the new corrugated metal roof entrance. It is aluminum box with internal lighting. The
freestanding sign will include an arrow depicting "tacos this way" in neon lettering. The pole sign will assist
Page 2 of 8
Design Review Board
December 12, 2019 Meeting Minutes
the pedestrian and vehicular traffic who may not initially see the restaurant due to the setback of the
building.
Cook inquires if the freestanding sign blinks or flashes. Doucette informs the Board the sign is strictly neon,
and will not blink or flash. Margolis expresses concerns for the neighbors with the brightness of the neon
sign. The applicant confirms the sign is off during non - business hours. Hutchings notes she finds the sign
fun and engaging.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve wall sign as presented, and approve the freestanding sign with
the conditions that (1) the Building Inspector confirms the freestanding sign is
grandfathered and does not require a Special Permit, and (2) the freestanding
sign is illuminated only during business hours. Ulrich seconded. All in favor. The
motion carried (6 -0).
Site Plan Review
5. 2688 Cabot Street — Site Plan Review #134 -18 Minor Modification
The applicant is requesting a minor modification to the Site Plan Review #134 -18, regarding the expansion
of an existing commercial building to expand the commercial space and add 11 new residential apartment
units. The applicant is requesting a modification of the approved design, consisting of the elimination of
the proposed deck to change the space into a year -round indoor juice bar.
Attorney Miranda Gooding introduces herself and Dan Ricciarelli of Segar Architects. Both are here on
behalf of the applicant. Ricciarelli explains the minor modifications, presenting the floor plan for the juice
bar. In the original plans the minor modifications included a deck overlooking the rear of the building for
outdoor seating. The Atomic Cafe consulted with building owner Peter Lutts to convert the deck into an
interior space and build a juice bar, thereby expanding their operation. The changes are seen on the rear
and two side elevations. The juice bar space will be open year round and will have garage door windows
similar to A &B Burger. The alley side of the building was open and will now be a fixed storefront to fill in
the opening and bring in light. Gooding clarifies the two basement residential units were changed to the
first floor level and second level.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to recommend the Planning Board approve the minor modification as
presented. Flannery seconded. All in favor. The motion carried (6 -0).
Cook recuses herself from agenda item 6, Depot Square II Revision. As Vice - Chair, Margolis will chair the
meeting in Cook's absence. Margolis notes for the record that agenda item 6 will be videotaped by
resident Matt Pujo.
6. 134 - 142 -146 Rantoul Street & 1 -9 Park Street (Depot Square II) — Site Plan Review #140 -19 and
Special Permit #172 -19 Revision
The applicant is proposing a six - story, mixed -use building with retail /commercial and residential units on
the first floor and residential apartments on the upper floors.
Members of the Public Present:
John Hall, 143 Colon Street
Page 3 of 8
Design Review Board
December 12, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Lorraine Beth, 573 Hale Street
Wendy Pearl, 21 Morningside Drive
Jim Younger, 32 Butman Street
Matt Pujo, 11 Longwood Avenue
Dorothy Hayes, 680 Hale Street
Estelle Rand, 3 Agate Street
Peter Johnson, 677 Hale Street
Attorney Miranda Gooding for the applicant introduces herself and architect Thad Siemasko. Gooding
provides an overview of the project and states that the project was previously reviewed and the Board
recommended the Planning Board approve the project at the October 2019 meeting. Based on
commentary from the public at public meeting and public hearing proceedings, the applicant has decided
to preserve the Casa de Luca building (Casa) and incorporate the historic building into a slightly revised
design. Siemasko presents the modifications. In order to preserve Casa, Siemasko states that two parking
spaces and some bike storage spaces were lost, and the donut circulation in the underground parking
garage was removed to preserve the Casa foundations. However, the lost parking spaces will not have a
significant impact on the parking requirements, and a total of 106 parking spaces remain in the garage.
Siemasko states that Casa will connect into the main part of the building, and a fire wall will be installed
to separate the Casa building from the main building to protect the wood frame and structure. The fire
wall permits Casa residents to access to the rest of the building. The Casa building will house four one -
bedroom spaces. Siemasko summarizes how the number of units have changed based on the preservation
of the Casa building.
Siemasko presents the courtyard layout and describes how it will be mixed public and residential use with
decent circulation flow. He details the courtyard hardscape plan. Margolis comments the transformers
are huge. Siemasko states their sizes are per National Grid requirements. The transformers will have some
grasses and stone paving surrounding them for light camouflage. Since the plaza area has been reduced
to accommodate the Casa building there are minor changes to the original plan. The revised east elevation
on Rantoul creates differing rises in height producing a storied look. The connecting ideas between the
different sections of the building on Rantoul Street are designed to mirror the Montserrat College dorm
area with glass connector between sections of the building. Siemasko details the new design of the Casa
building including an open storefront, and other portions of the building including a co- planar 6th floor
90 feet from Railroad Avenue and 170 feet from the park, the glass connector element, and lower retail
entry at Park Street as shown on the presentation. Siemasko notes how Pleasant Street and Park Street
elevations include minor door changes, but the materials remain the same.
Mason inquires if the brick material is real brick. Siemasko replies they chose real, traditional red brick.
Margolis asks if a roof garden on the Casa building were possible. Siemasko replies a roof garden would
alter the design too much and residents would find it difficult to traverse. Hutchings agrees with Siemasko
that a roof garden may not be appropriate at that location. Margolis asks how much real public open
space exists, and what is the access and potential for usage. Siemasko explains the public plaza area is
20'x30', for a total of 600 square feet of general public open space.
Siemasko moves his presentation to provide a vintage photo of the Park Hotel (Casa building), which
serves as the inspiration for how to reinvigorate the Casa building. Siemasko notes the building will be
renovated, not restored. Siemasko states that with the exception of the cornice, the preservation will not
be a strict restoration, and that most of the existing materials are from the 1970s. Siemasko shows the
proposed paint scheme for the Casa building to create a monotone look with green moss paint, black sash,
and copper highlights. Siemasko ends his presentation.
Page 4 of 8
Design Review Board
December 12, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Margolis opens the floor to the public.
John Hall, 143 Colon Street
Mr. Hall states he is a member of Depot Matters. Mr. Hall states he is happy to see the Casa building
incorporated into the latest development plans. Mr. Hall expresses concerns regarding the Railroad
Avenue view elevation and the top floors, and requests additional 3D renderings. Mr. Hall states the
current view renderings presently fail to integrate the defining streetscape with too many conflicting
design styles. Hall agrees the building's connectivity on Rantoul Street is ideal.
Siemasko explains the correlation between the buildings on Rantoul Street, and states the goal is for the
top two floors to blend into sky and not take away from the rich materials of the lower levels. In order to
achieve the desired effect Siemasko states he chose an "ethereal" gray to mirror a cloudy day.
Lorraine Beth, 573 Hale Street
Ms. Beth states the Park Street side concerns her where current renderings show a lack of building
connectivity to the street. Ms. Beth states she believes where the Casa building anchors the left side of
the building, she would like to see the Trafton Hotel anchor the right side of the building. If the hotel
cannot be renovated, Ms. Beth states a mural of the Hotel Trafton would also suffice. Margolis echoes
agreement with Ms. Beth regarding the preservation of the Trafton Hotel building.
Wendy Pearl, 21 Morningside Drive
Ms. Pearl states she is a member of Depot Matters. She expresses appreciation for the preservation of
the Casa building, and states that additional work could be done to preserve historic elements. Ms. Pearl
states she feels on Railroad Avenue the building mass is still a problem, and no public space still an issue.
Ms. Pearl states she would like the developers to consider a better way to articulate the Railroad Avenue
entrance to welcome people to the city from this gateway. Ms. Pearl suggests ideas such as an open metal
frame arcade, trellis, etc., as a physical connector of the two sections of the building along Railroad
Avenue. Ms. Pearl states she is looking for signature artistic flare to the building in order to soften the
exterior Railroad Avenue elevation.
Ms. Gooding responds to the public, noting specifically that the preservation of the Casa building is not a
restoration but an adaptive reuse project.
Jim Younger, 32 Butman Street
Mr. Younger states he returns to express the same concerns and misgivings from past meetings. He
provides a printed flyer that details why the materials for the Casa building should be reflect the original
materials and time period when the building was erected. Mr. Younger argues thatthe proposed synthetic
materials are unacceptable and insists using better quality materials more in line with historic
preservation.
Matt Pujo, 11 Longwood Avenue
Mr. Pujo states he returns to the Board with the same concerns as from past meetings. He states that
despite his several attempts to reach out to the applicant to discuss the historic district, no response was
ever received by Beverly Crossing or Mr. Koeplin. Mr. Pujo maintains the neighborhood residents desire
to adaptively reuse the historic buildings and does not feel the current renderings meet their ideals or
goals. He argues that the management of the project and historic district is not acceptable.
Margolis closes the floor to the public and opens the floor to members of the Board.
Page 5 of 8
Design Review Board
December 12, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Margolis states he will not put his name on this project. He states he would like to see the Railroad Avenue
elevation incorporate the old Trafton Hotel as an anchor to the right side of the building. Margolis states
the project would be visually pleasing and balanced if this could be done.
Ulrich notes he likes the new Rantoul elevation and appreciates how the Casa building will be saved. He
states he believes the architects designed the streetscape well. Ulrich states that he appreciates the new
renderings, but agrees with members of the public that additional renderings are needed, particularly of
the Rantoul Street and Railroad Avenue elevations. He notes the 3 -story building (Casa) is drastically
different than the building the Board previously approved and said that additional renderings should
demonstrate whether the portions of the building have cohesion and fit, particularly with the glass piece
as the building connector.
Members of the public comment on the need to preserve the Casa building with historically appropriate
materials and restoring historic features, and Ms. Gooding clarifies the treatment of the Casa building.
She reiterates that the team is not restoring the Casa building. Ms. Gooding seeks direction for how to
proceed with that piece of the building. Flannery asks for a point of clarification regarding the level of
preservation that should be expected. Hutchings explains to the Board that the preservation is not a
restoration, but an adaptive reuse project. Therefore, some historic features may not be integrated, and
neither a full restoration nor review from any historic preservation entity is required. Ms. Gooding
addresses the Board and asks for specific details in what they require from the applicant.
The Board further discusses the new renderings. Hutchings states that the Board should see courtyard
elevations and how the building connects the different elements. Ulrich states he does not have a
background in historic preservation and suggests a peer review, possibly bringing in an expert. Mason
suggests the applicant seek counsel from the Historic District Commission strictly in an advisory capacity
in order to better understand what will be helpful and to receive practical feedback on the preservation
of the Casa building. Mason states she understands the need for synthetic materials to renovate the Casa
building.
Ms. Gooding states she would like to address additional concerns stated by members of the public. In
response to a member of the public, Ms. Gooding states the applicant is not seeking expedited approval
of the project, and has not ever sought to do so. She states the applicant understands all the boards have
a role in the process and that such roles, and the public process, are respected. Gooding states that this
project is a significant change as a big building composed of smaller buildings. Gooding agrees it is within
the Board's purview to make suggestions regarding historic preservation, and notes that although the
applicant would be willing to meet with the Historic District Commission (HDC), the HDC does not have
jurisdiction over how the Casa building will be preserved.
Hutchings explains that a member of the Historic District Commission is elected as representative to the
Design Review Board to provide input and weigh in on historic preservation issues. Hutchings notes that
the HDC reviews proposed demolitions, but does not have the authority to make any requirements
regarding the design of a historic building outside of a local historic district. When members of the public
inquire about the HDC's purview regarding the demolition of historic buildings, Hutchings iterates the
Demolition Delay Ordinance process. Hutchings reviews how when the applicant sought a demolition
permit for the Casa building, the HDC made two findings: first, the property is historically significant and
second, the building is preferably preserve. Based on these findings and under City Ordinance, the HDC
placed a one -year delay on the demolition permit. However, the HDC cannot stop a demolition permit
Page 6 of 8
Design Review Board
December 12, 2019 Meeting Minutes
indefinitely, and the Demolition Delay Ordinance does not require the HDC's input regarding building
design outside of that process. Mason reiterates the HDC could act strictly in the advisory capacity.
The Board responds to the applicant, requesting specific details on the design. Ulrich asks for additional
details and renderings demonstrating views descending down Rantoul Street, showing, landscaping,
sidewalks, streets, etc. Margolis inquires if there is any interest in saving the Trafton Hotel. Mr. Koeplin
states that saving the Trafton Hotel will not occur.
Dorothy Hayes, 680 Hale Street
Ms. Hayes interjects to comment that tax credits were used to acquire the property. She states she
believes there is something unseemly about not incorporating the Trafton Hotel when three historic
buildings are set for demolition. She asks Mr. Koeplin to reconsider the demolition of the Trafton Hotel.
Estelle Rand, 3 Agate Street
Ms. Rand thanks the Board and applicant for their time and efforts, and the public for their interest. She
points out the process of a public meeting versus a public hearing, and asks that everyone respects the
decorum of this public meeting.
Siemasko refers to his presentation and clarifies the renovation of the Park Hotel is an adaptive reuse of
the building, rather than a restoration. Siemasko states that with respect to the essence of the building
and what it was, they are taking care to reuse as much as possible. They are stripping off the 1980s
materials and renovating the building as best, and with as much respect to the history of the building, as
they can.
Mr. Younger objects and disagrees with the materials for the Park Hotel, insisting the developers have the
ability to preserve it more.
Peter Johnson, 677 Hale Street
Mr. Johnson asks for more details regarding the windows. He states he feels the current rendering lacks
key architectural details and dimensions.
Hutchings reiterates the need for additional renderings of the building from different angles and
elevations of the courtyard- facing walls. Hutchings also requests additional details on materials to be
shown on elevations, and additional details on architectural features on the Casa building. Ms. Gooding
and Mr. Koeplin state they are comfortable seeking counsel from the HDC.
Hutchings: Motion to continue the Depot Square II Site Plan Review to the next meeting,
January 9, 2020. Flannery seconded. All in favor. The motion carried 5 -0.
Hutchings: Motion for 2 minute recess at 8:55 pm.
Cook: Resumes meeting at 8:57 pm.
7. New /Other Business
a. 2020 Meeting Schedule
Although no vote is required to approve the 2020 DRB meeting schedule, the Board put forth a
motion to confirm the 2020 schedule.
Page 7 of 8
Design Review Board
December 12, 2019 Meeting Minutes
Flannery: Motion to approve the DRB 2020 meeting schedule as amended, with all
meetings falling close to a holiday (January and July) rescheduled to the second
Thursday of the month. Ulrich seconded. All in favor. The motion carried 6 -0.
b. Election of Chair and Vice -Chair for the year 2020
Flannery: Motion to nominate Sandra Cook as Chair for 2020. Ulrich seconded. All in favor.
The motion carried 6 -0.
Mason: Motion to nominate Joel Margolis as Vice Chair for 2020. Cook seconded. All in
favor. The motion carried 6 -0.
c. Approval of Minutes (as available)
Hutchings notes she found unapproved minutes from the year 2016. Flannery notes for the record
that she has made minor amendments to the 2016 minutes and submit to Hutchings.
Cook: Motion to accept 5/05/2016 meeting minutes as amended. Ulrich seconded. The
motion carried 5 -0. Mason abstained.
Cook: Motion to accept 9/01/2016 meeting minutes as amended. Ulrich seconded. All
in favor. The motion carried 6 -0.
Cook: Motion to accept 10/06/2016 meeting minutes as amended. Ulrich seconded. All
in favor. The motion carried 6 -0.
Cook: Motion to accept 10/03/2019 meeting minutes as amended. Ulrich seconded. All
in favor. The motion carried 6 -0.
Draft 11/14/2019 minutes not discussed, and will carry over to the next scheduled meeting.
Adjourn:
Cook: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Flannery seconded. All in favor. The motion
carried (6 -0).
Meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm.
Next meeting January 9, 2020.
Page 8 of 8