DRB Minutes 03.05.2020CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
DATE: March 5, 2020
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
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Ulrich
RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury
Chairperson Cook called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Sins
1. 254 Cabot Street North Shore Bank (continued)
The applicant has requested a continuance to the April 2, 2020 meeting.
2. 175 Cabot Street TD Bank (continued)
In this application for signs in the CC zoning district, the applicant is proposing to replace five existing
signs with new signs or faces that have an updated design. The signs include two projecting signs, two
wall signs, and one window sign. Hutchings explains that, as the signs are replacing existing signs, no
special permits are required. Jay Parillo of Back Bay Sign is representing the business as the applicant.
Mr. Parillo describes the signs and how they will fit to the area. He confirms that the signs are
grandfathered and replacing existing signs of equal size. Hutchings asks about the stated lighting for the
window sign, and Mr. Parillo confirms that the lighting is preexisting and consists simply of a light
shining through the window.
Mason expresses concern about the size of the larger projecting sign, which is internally illuminated and
larger than permitted by the Ordinance but grandfathered. Members discuss the Sign Ordinance and
how it is problematic to continue to permit grandfathered signs that no longer fit the area. Mason feels
strongly the large projecting sign is not appropriate to the area or the building. Cook agrees but states
that due to zoning laws there is no way to legally require a smaller sign. Hutchings explains how the Sign
Ordinance is currently within the Zoning Ordinance, requiring grandfathering to apply to preexisting
noncompliant signs. Hutchings states that revising the Sign Ordinance and removing it from the Zoning
Ordinance would bring a halt to grandfathering. Mason asks Mr. Parillo if TD Bank would consider
reducing the size of the large projecting sign, and Mr. Parillo explains that he is the sign maker and
cannot make that decision for the business. He notes that only the faces of the projecting sign will be
changed, and that removing the existing, internally illuminated projecting sign and erecting a compliant
sign would carry a much more significant cost. Cook agrees, and states that in this case the Board is
limited in what it can require of the applicant.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve all the proposed the signs as presented. Flannery seconds.
The motion carries 5 -1 (Mason dissenting).
3. 321 Cabot Street Essex IT Solutions
The sign maker introduces himself as representing the applicant and explains the business. Essex IT
Solutions has moved into the location previously occupied by a smoke shop. They are replacing existing
Page 1 of 3
Design Review Board
March 5, 2020 Meeting Minutes
signs, including one wall sign and one projecting sign. Both signs comply with the Sign Ordinance. The
wall sign is a plain board with vinyl text, non - illuminated, and 13 square feet in size. The applicant will
use the exiting mounted brackets for the projecting sign in the same location. The proposed size is
approximately 6 square feet. Cook inquires to the size and whether the rendering makes the sign seem
larger than it is. The applicant assures the Board that the business prefers a smaller sign and the new
sign will be 4 -5 inches narrower than the previous sign. Members of the Board continue discussion
regarding the size of the projecting sign. The sign maker states the applicant is willing to accommodate a
reduction in size for the projecting sign. The Board moves the discussion to the existing window signs.
They inform the sign maker the window signs are noncompliant, and that window signs must also be
approved by the Board. The sign maker states the window signs will be removed.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the wall sign and the projecting sign with the condition that
the projecting sign is reduced to six (6) square feet or less. Mason seconds. The
motion carries 6 -0.
4. 199 Rantoul Street Topp Salad
Jenn Robichaud from Barlo Signs represents the applicant and explains the wall signs and their locations.
One wall sign includes the business name and the logo, and the second sign includes only the logo. Both
signs are internally illuminated and comply with the Sign Ordinance. Ms. Robichaud provides the Board
with updated renderings since the completion of another site review, noting the wall signs have an
obtuse shape. Hutchings explains the Building Inspector's review process for signs with obtuse shapes,
and how the total area of the sign is measured. Hutchings confirms that both signs comply with the
Ordinance. Board members confirm the wall signs will be located on the sign band of the building. The
Board confirms they are comfortable with the wall signs.
Discussion proceeds to the vinyl column wraps. Cook asks if the vinyl pole wraps are part of the
application. Hutchings informs the Board that the wraps were not included as part of the sign
application, although they are shown on the renderings, and may be considered part of the site plan
design. Cook comments on the colors, which appear green per the renderings. Poor asks about the
current colors of the columns. Ms. Robichaud says they are brown /bronze, as are the columns on the
rest of the building. Board members question the appropriateness of the vinyl wrap and discuss what is
permitted in the Sign Ordinance. Hutchings explains that the Building Inspector determines what may be
considered a sign and what is part of the building design. Poor comments with that if the wrap colors
and design are promoting the business, it is part of the business' identity and should therefore be
considered signs. Hutchings explains that in either case, the columns would require further review —
either a Special Permit if they are considered signs, or as part of site plan review if they are considered
part of the building design.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the wall signs as presented, with the note that the column
wraps are not approved. Mason seconds. The motion carries 6 -0.
S. 112 Rantoul Street Frank, FKM Brands
Cynthia Gold represents the applicant Frank. Ms. Gold states the application is for one sandwich board
sign, which has a wood frame and will have interchangeable panels. Hutchings informs the Board the
sign complies with the Ordinance. Ms. Gold explains to the Board they are not seeking permanent
Page 2 of 3
Design Review Board
March 5, 2020 Meeting Minutes
signage, and they want the sandwich sign to be changeable per the seasonal events hosted. Poor asks if
the sign faces are laminated and will have the term "Frank" on each changeable sign face. Ms. Gold
assures the Board the signs will be professionally printed and supported by laminate coating to
weatherize the signs. The sign may have the term "Frank" on the changeable sign faces to maintain
some uniformity.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Mason: Motion to recommend the City Council approve the sandwich board sign as
presented. Flannery seconds. The motion carries 6 -0.
6. New /Other Business
a. Draft meeting minutes — none
b. Review of noncompliant signs
Members begin discussion regarding the Sign Ordinance. Board members discuss grandfathered signs
and how signs that no longer comply with the Sign Ordinance or the character of a commercial area
should not be permitted. Hutchings states the Planning Department is aware of this dilemma with the
Sign Ordinance but notes that the process of revising the Sign Ordinance and removing it from the
Zoning Ordinance — which would eliminate grandfathering — takes time. The Board agrees that they
would like to urge the administration to start the Sign Ordinance revision process. Flannery advises
organizing the next steps to such a process. Other members volunteer to draft a formal letter to the
Planning Department. Hutchings recommends that if discussion on the Sign Ordinance continues, it
should be placed on the agenda of the next Board meeting. Cook states she will request the topic be on
the agenda of the April meeting.
Discussion continues to businesses with non - compliant signs. Hutchings states that she is continuing to
maintain a review list and is following up with the Building Department about enforcement. Members
speak specifically to owners who were scheduled to return to the Board for further review and have
missed meetings, and Hutchings states she will coordinate with the Building Department on
enforcement with those businesses. The Board discusses column signs, and confirms that they are not
permitted by right.
Adjourn:
Cook: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Flannery seconds. The motion carries 6 -0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:32 pm.
Next meeting April 2, 2020.
Page 3 of 3