Loading...
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