Loading...
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