DRB Minutes 01.09.2020 DraftCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
DATE: January 9, 2020
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall — Council Chamber /Conference Room B
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandra Cook (Chair), Ellen Flannery, Emily Hutchings, Caroline Baird
Mason, Rachel Poor, Matthew Ulrich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joel Margolis (Vice Chair)
RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury
Chairperson Cook called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.
S!Km
1. 135 Cabot Street Reck
The applicant is proposing one projecting sign in the CC zoning district. The projecting sign includes the
logo and name of the business. The sign complies with the Ordinance.
Hutchings notes the 32 -inch diameter size is within regulation. Mason comments the sign is big for the
small storefront. Cook inquired if the photo is accurate to scale. Applicant said the sign was copy /pasted
to reflect the location, not the size. Hutchings comments the sign is comparable to many other signs
previously approved. The Board asked if the sign will have a 32 -inch diameter, as stated on the application,
or a 30 -inch diameter, as shown on the provided rendering. The applicant stated the sign will have a
32 -inch diameter. The applicant confirmed that the sign hardware will be erected within the sign band.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the sign as presented, noting the sign is 32 inches in diameter.
Hutchings seconded. The motion carried (5 -1), Mason dissenting.
2. 3 Dodge Street Sunoco (gas price sign)
The applicant is proposing to update one price sign on an existing freestanding sign in the CN zoning
district. The price sign includes LED lighting. The applicant states that the height of the numerals have
been reduced to comply with Ordinance requirements. Members of the Board state they have no issues
with the sign as revised.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the sign as presented. Mason seconded. The motion carried
(6 -0).
3. 50 Dodee Street Hanscom Federal Credit Union
The applicant is proposing one wall sign and one pylon sign on an existing freestanding sign in the CG
zoning district. The both signs include the logo and name of the business. The applicant confirms the faces
do not light up, only the edges. The background will not be illuminated. Hutchings confirms the wall sign
and the pylon sign comply with the Ordinance, and there is nothing requiring special attention or permits.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Page 1 of 6
Design Review Board
January 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Mason: Motion to approve the signs as presented. Flannery seconded. The motion carried
(6 -0).
4. 63 Dodge Street North Shore Bank
The applicant is proposing one wall sign in the CG zoning district. The wall sign includes the logo and name
of the business. The sign is larger than what the Ordinance permits by right, and requires a Special Permit.
Richard Batten from Batten Bros. represents North Shore Bank. Mr. Batten states that North Shore Bank
is merging with Beverly Bank. Mr. Batten explains the sign design, and states they are requesting to
remove the existing signage and replace it with channel lettering that is internally illuminated. Mr. Batten
says the sign appears large at its current location, but it is mostly due to the placement of the logo, and
notes the significant background space on the facade. Mr. Batten states when considering the letters only,
the sign meets size regulations. Board members discuss the dimensions of the lettering within the sign.
Hutchings states she would like to see a smaller sign for the location to match other smaller signs per the
location. Hutchings reviews the Ordinance and how the permitted sign size is calculated, and notes the
building is 40 feet from the highway. Cook describes past precedent and states that the size may be
calculated using the distance of the store front from the public way, rather than the building. Hutchings
states she will confirm the correct interpretation with the Building Inspector, but notes that, due to the
length of the storefront, the sign still requires a Special Permit. Other members of the Board state that
the size appears appropriate due to the area of the facade where the sign is being placed.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Hutchings: Motion to recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed sign
as presented. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (6 -0).
5. 48 Enon Street North Shore Bank
The applicant is proposing one wall sign and one pylon sign on an existing freestanding sign in the CG
zoning district. The both signs include the logo and name of the business, and the pylon sign also includes
the phrase "24 hour ATM." Richard Batten from Batten Bros. represents North Shore Bank, and explains
the sign designs. Hutchings confirms the pylon sign replaces an existing sign and does not require a Special
Permit. Mr. Batten describes the internal lettering illumination to mirror the 63 Dodge Street location.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Hutchings: Motion to approve the proposed signs as presented. Flannery seconded. The
motion carried (6 -0).
6. 254 Cabot Street North Shore Bank
The applicant is proposing one projecting sign and two wall signs in the CC zoning district. The wall signs
will be replacing existing wall signs and include the name of the business. The projecting sign is a new sign
and includes the logo and the name of the business. Richard Batten from Batten Bros. represents North
Shore Bank, and explains the sign designs. Mr. Batten states the wall signs will not be illuminated and the
design will be gold embossed black lettering. The projecting sign is slightly over 16 square feet and will
be internally illuminated.
Board members discuss the signs and express concern about the projecting sign. The Board collectively
appreciates the wall signs with black and gold embossed letters. However, they feel that the projecting
sign design, while staying true to the business logo, is out of place in the historic district and on the
Page 2 of 6
Design Review Board
January 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes
building. Hutchings notes that the projecting sign requires a Special Permit, being over 16 square feet
where only 7 square feet is allowed and being internally illuminated. The Board discusses how the sign's
size and illumination do not match the architectural style of the building or the character of the area. The
Board members agree the district has undergone many renovations, and that some projecting signs are
larger due to being grandfathered, but are not appropriate to the current character of street. The Board
emphasizes they strive for a cohesive look on Cabot Street that may differ from an area such as Rantoul
Street. Mr. Batten points out that while the building is in a historic district, the building itself is not historic.
Mr. Batten considers the Board's comments and suggests softening the illumination and reducing the
lettering size. Mr. Chris Peche, Marketing Officer from North Shore Bank, introduces himself. He explains
the need for visibility with the projecting sign. Mr. Peche states the wall signs are elegant but difficult to
see from the street. Cook reiterates the starkness of the white sign suggesting a light grey to soften the
look. The Board continues discussion on the general design of the sign and agrees the need to review the
projecting sign with different lighting and a reduction in size.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the wall signs as presented and to continue the review of the
projecting sign to the February 2020 meeting. Flannery seconded. The motion
carried (6 -0).
7:05 Cook instructs the Board to nominate an Interim Chair for item 7 (Depot Square II), as Vice Chair
Margolis is absent. Cook then recuses herself from the meeting for Depot II. Mason motions to nominate
Ellen Flannery as Acting Chair. Ulrich seconded. The motion carried (5 -0).
Mr. Pujo will be recording only this portion of the meeting.
Site Plan Review
7. 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. The revised application also includes the
preservation of the historic Casa de Luca (Casa) building. At the previous meeting, the Board requested
(a) additional renderings showing the building, particularly the Railroad Avenue facade, from various
angles, and (b) information displayed on the renderings demonstrating which materials will be utilized
where on the building. The applicant submitted revised renderings and drawings that comply with these
requests.
Architect Thad Siemasko and Attorney Miranda Gooding return representing the applicant, Beverly
Crossing. Chris Koeplin and Kristen Poulin from Beverly Crossing and Krista Broyles from SV Design are
also present for the applicant. Siemasko begins the presentation and describes the requested additional
renderings and the information /materials represented on the renderings. Siemasko focuses primarily on
the Railroad Avenue facade and elevations. Siemasko affirms the project remains unchanged from the
prior meeting and that he is presenting supplemental information. Gooding notes they will take into
consideration any recommendations for the Park Hotel (Casa building) facades.
Siemasko presents the courtyard views, noting no changes, and details the materials that are intended for
the Casa building. Materials are not new but better labeled for the presentation. Siemasko describes the
windows for the Casa building and moves to the courtyard exterior elevations, noting the balustrade
continues around the building. Siemasko describes how the glass storefront serves as a connector
Page 3 of 6
Design Review Board
January 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes
between the new building and the historic Casa building, and presents computer - generated images with
his hand -drawn overlay. Siemasko states he added supplemental notes to the sheet for the Casa building.
The balustrade will be the same scale and proportion to the extent they can be replicated, and the shutters
will also be real working shutters. Siemasko addresses the residential entry (north courtyard- facing) wall.
Siemasko provides design options to what they currently proposed for materials on portions of the
elevation, and states the contrasting color combinations will keep the facade interesting and unique. The
applicant's presentation is concluded.
Flannery reads two letters from individuals unable to attend the meeting: Vice ChairJoel Margolis and Jim
Younger, 32 Butman Avenue. In his letter, Margolis states he does not approve of the project and
maintains his prerogative from the beginning of the project. Margolis' letter states the project does not
meet the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings and is not appropriate to the historic district. Mr. Younger's
letter states he is happy to see the Casa building incorporated into the project; however, he strongly
believes historic features should be retained and the materials used could be of better quality paying
special attention to the historic relevance of its time period. Mr. Younger's letter provides a list of historic
features and how they should be preserved in a historically appropriate manner.
Flannery asks for comments from the Board. Members of the Board further discuss the 6 floor and how
it may or may not remain "hidden" according to the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. Siemasko explains
the reasoning for the current design of the top floors and how it meets the Design Guidelines for Tall
Buildings. Siemasko notes the 6 floor is best "hidden" in the sky. Members then discuss the residential
entry (north courtyard- facing) elevation and its color scheme. Ulrich states he prefers one of the
alternative color combinations, and other Board members agree. Board members feel the dark grey is
better suited to the facade instead of the blue presented in the original rendering. Ulrich and Poor
commend the applicant's team on making efforts to renovate the Casa building. Other members discuss
the need to preserve historic features on the building. Mason and Hutchings state that if missing historic
architectural features are going to be recreated, they should be accurately replicated to the fullest extent
possible. Hutchings cites the Interior Secretary Standards, noting the balustrades and shutters should
exemplify the specifications. Flannery seeks clarification on whether the doors are real wood, and
Siemasko confirms they are. Regarding the colors and historic features, Siemasko informs the Board that
he is looking at black- and -white historic photographs, and will do the best he can with deciphering
aesthetics from the photos.
Flannery opens the floor to the public.
Scott Houseman, 27 Appleton Avenue, Ward 4 City Councilor
Mr. Houseman states he is gratified the applicant is saving Casa and for the additional renderings. Mr.
Houseman states his main focus is on the adaptive reuse for the historic building. As part of that adaptive
reuse Mr. Houseman calls attention to the details along the first floor door area and the character details
on the doors themselves, and argues the importance of preserving the belt course above the first floor
windows. Siemasko responds to Mr. Houseman's comments and questions on the reasoning for the first
floor design and preserving (or not preserving) historic features. Siemasko and Mr. Houseman review
character details and materials, and Siemasko informs the Board that most of the existing building
materials are cheap materials from the 1970s. Siemasko states his goal is to have a clean, refreshed,
invigorated look appropriate to the modern building design while nodding to its historical past. Mr.
Houseman asks additional questions on the treatment of the punched windows, balustrade and textures,
and Siemasko responds.
Wendy Pearl, 21 Morningside Drive
Page 4 of 6
Design Review Board
January 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Ms. Pearl agrees with Jim Younger's letter, previously read into the record. Ms. Pearl states the public
maintains its objections to the mass and scale of the building. She notes the Casa restoration was a great
compromise to the project. However, Beverly is still losing two historic buildings, and, in her opinion, the
Railroad elevation has still not been fully addressed. She states she believes the Park Street elevation is
too harsh of a look and hovers in the sky with the concrete ground level and all the brick above. Ms. Pearl
states she feels the applicant is picking and choosing which historic elements to bring back or retain on
the Casa building, and does not feel the project has much character but reminds her of average buildings
found in dense areas of Boston and Charlestown. Ms. Pearl states she would prefer to have a project
design that looks like Beverly, which would involve retaining or restoring additional historic features on
the Casa building and reducing the scale of the larger building.
Matt Pujo, 11 Longwood Ave
Mr. Pujo reiterates the necessity of preserving the historic district. He implores the Board and the
applicant that the historic district is about to be lost and Beverly needs its "front porch" back again. Mr.
Pujo calls attention to the public distaste for the project, citing the use of tax credits to get the prime real
estate and that the project is built on false foundations. He states he is specifically is not fond of the Park
Street elevation.
Hutchings informs the Board they are allowed to attach conditions to a motion and add an additional level
of review to the project. The Board may recommend a condition that the project, specifically the
treatment of the Casa building, be reviewed by the Historic District Commission. Hutchings also asks about
the location of the vents on the building, which are not indicated on the renderings. Siemasko responds
that the locations of the vents on the building will be established by engineers later in the development
process. He notes his team are not engineers and cannot speak to the location of vents with any certainty,
but thinks they will probably locate the vents off the balconies and not have them on the front of the
facade. Siemasko notes the vents are due to new requirements for air ventilation, as modern buildings
are built tighter and smaller. Hutchings recommends that the Board place a condition on their
recommendation to the Planning Board that the applicant must return to the Design Review Board to
review the location of the vents, once those locations are being established.
Mason seeks clarification on the votes required by the Board. Hutchings clarifies that the Board must
determine if the project meets the general intent of the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings, and must
provide a recommendation to the Planning Board. Hutchings states that conditions may be attached to
the motion. Planning Director Aaron Clausen addresses the Board and states the Board can complete
these actions using a single motion, rather than voting on two motions. The Board agrees that conditions
should include review by the Historic District Commission and the requirement of a return to the Board
to review any changes in the design and the locations of the vents.
Gooding addresses the vents and asks the Board to reconsider the necessity of additional review, noting
the vent placement and details are largely governed at the last minute by the engineers on the
project. Clausen reminds the Board that these details are entirely within the purview of the Board, and
that the review may be a condition in order to ensure the details are consistent with what is shown in the
renderings. The Board agrees it is important to review the options as the details become apparent, and
understand the building code may drive some changes. Flannery asks if it is possible to hold a Special
Meeting of the Board if time is a critical piece in reviewing such design details. Hutchings confirms that
the Board can call a Special Meeting if necessary to review design details in a timely manner.
Mason states she would prefer a two -part vote, noting the importance of attaching the described
conditions, especially the condition the applicant meet with the Historic District Commission. However,
Page 5 of 6
Design Review Board
January 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Mason states she believes that the project has never met the spirit of the Design Guidelines for Tall
Buildings. Clausen clarifies that a vote cannot be broken up to separate conditions from general approval.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Hutchings: Motion to recommend that the Planning Board approve the proposed plans as presented,
with the finding that the proposed development is consistent with the general intent of
the City's Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings and with the objectives embodied therein,
and with the following conditions:
1. Dark gray panels shall be utilized on the north courtyard facade rather than
blue or light gray colored panels;
2. The applicant shall review the proposed development, particularly the Casa de
Luca building, with the Beverly Historic District Commission, in order to best
determine how to preserve historic features; and
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall return to the
Design Review Board to review the locations of vents on the building.
Poor seconded. The motion carried (4 -1), Mason dissenting.
8. New /Other Business
a. Draft meeting minutes — November 14, 2019
Hutchings: Motion to approve the November 14, 2019 minutes as amended. Flannery
seconded. All in favor. The motion carried (5 -0).
Adjourn:
Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Poor seconded. The motion carried (5 -0).
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm.
Next meeting February 6, 2020.
Page 6 of 6