DRB Minutes 05.07.2020CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
DATE: May 7, 2020
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall — Virtual Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandra Cook (Chair), Joel Margolis (Vice Chair), Ellen Flannery, Emily
Hutchings, Matthew Ulrich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Caroline Baird Mason, Rachel Poor
RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury
Chair Cook calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Cook describes how, due to the Coronavirus outbreak
Governor Baker has issued a state mandated order to suspend all public meetings and gatherings, and
has permitted virtual meetings with certain conditions. Tonight's meeting will be held on Google
Hangouts and will follow specific meeting requirements for live video feed and chat. Cook describes how
the meeting will be recorded by both the City of Beverly and BevCam and will be live streamed by
BevCam. Cook describes how the meeting will progress, and states procedures for voting and for public
comment. Cook takes roll of meeting attendees, and confirms the attendance of all Board members,
Staff, and applicants.
Sins
1. 151 H Hale Street Bean Trust Coffee Bar, Bonny Breads
The application includes one projecting sign and one window sign; the application has been continued
from the previous meeting. Erik Modahl, Diane Modahl, and Stephanie Modahl introduce themselves as
the business owners and applicants. They note the projecting sign design is clean and straightforward,
with complementing neutral colors for lettering and the logo being a simple espresso bean, with the
same design being used for the window sign. Erik Modahl confirms there are no changes to sign
dimensions. Hutchings notes the Building Inspector has not responded to whether the signs qualify as
grandfathered, but that the Board can still make a determination contingent upon the Building
Inspector's approval. Board members agree the projecting sign is clearer, and note that the window
lettering seems difficult to see and may be more visible in a different color. Diane Modahl confirms for
the Board there will be simple lettering on plain glass. Hutchings advises the Board that window sign
details, specifically the color, may be finalized and approved administratively if the Board makes it a
condition of approval. Flannery asks for clarification on how large the window sign is permitted to be.
Hutching explains this is a residential zone and not a commercial zone (where a window sign is only
allowed to cover 20% of the window), and that the window sign is grandfathered. Hutchings notes that
this is an unusual circumstance, and that the window is small. The window sign is also subject to Building
Inspector approval. The Board agrees that the window sign is appropriately scaled, and likely smaller
than the previous window sign.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the proposed signs with the conditions that (a) the Building
Inspector confirms the signs are grandfathered and do not require a Special
Permit; and (b) that final colors for the window sign will be submitted to the
Planning Department for administrative approval. Margolis seconds. The motion
carries 5 -0.
2. 211 Rantoul Street Soall Viet Kitchen
Page 1 of 5
Design Review Board
May 7, 2020 Meeting Minutes
The application includes one projecting sign and one wall sign both with name of business and logo. Sa
Nguyen introduces herself as the business owner and application. Ms. Nguyen explains that, due to
recent events, she is changing the model of her restaurant from the noodle bar to a full menu of
Vietnamese cuisine. Ms. Nguyen has therefore redesigned her logo and made minor revisions to her
proposed signs. Members confirm the location of both signs, and discuss the projecting sign, noting the
design clean and pleasant. Hutchings notes this business is a recipient of a 2019 Sign Grant from Beverly
Main Streets.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the signs as presented. Flannery seconds. The motion carries
5 -0.
3. 175 Elliott Street — Site Plan Review (Minor Modification) Beverly Police Station
Architect Kaestle Boos submitted a revised plan showing minor modification to the site and elevations.
The project had received review and prior approval and is returning for a Minor Modification.
David McKinley and Keith Mercy introduce themselves on behalf of Kaestle Boos Associates
representing the applicant. McKinley and Mercy review the plans and summarize the modifications,
including the reallocation of parking in the rear lot, the reduction of pavement at the north entrance,
relocating the flagpoles, and a south side walkway addition. McKinley provides further details, noting
the reallocation of parking will benefit the public, and that there were concerns of overflow use in the
Cummings parking lot. Therefore, the rear parking lot has been reformatted to better serve public
parking and staff parking, including the realignment of the west end of the north parking lot. McKinley
describes how the pavement at the north staff entrance plaza will be reduced, and how flagpoles are
being relocated due to retaining wall concerns. In order to accommodate ADA access, McKinley states a
walkway is being added to the south side, which will also serve as prisoner release to the visitor parking
lot. The applicant notes the Building Inspector has reviewed the modifications.
Mercy then reviews the changes to the elevation details including the added railing at all roof locations.
Mercy notes the exterior has a more uniform look with the removal of some windows and added panels,
and that all colors and materials are the same. Mercy notes the railings were included to facilitate PV
panels on the roof, if and when funding becomes available. Mercy states the goal is to have as close to a
net zero building as possible, which the PV panels will support. Hutchings confirms the removed
windows are due to revisions to interior storage areas and also inquires to any changes for the planting
plan. Mercy assures the Board the revised floor plans and changes to the windows are for increased
office and functional storage space. McKinley confirms that no changes have been made to the planting
plan. Cook notes that the building would be more attractive without the railings but recognizes the
need to support the installation of PV panels.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the Minor Modification to the Site Plan Review for the
Beverly Police Station. Ulrich seconds. The motion carries 5 -0.
4. 7 Sohier Road — Site Plan Review (Informal Review) Briscoe Village for Living and the Arts
Both Ulrich and Cook provide letters of disclosure to the Board. Hutchings informs the Board the City
has accepted the letters with no concerns.
Page 2 of 5
Design Review Board
May 7, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Architect Thad Siemasko of SV Design, Andrew DeFranza of Harborlight Community Partners, historic
preservation consultant Darcy Jameson, and Atty. Miranda Gooding introduce themselves as part of the
team for the project. Siemasko introduces the project as the adaptive reuse of a historic, municipal
school building for affordable senior housing and artist live /work space, and outlines the main goals of
the project including the preservation of the historic turf bowl up front and the athletic field; the
preservation of the building and the auditorium; and to develop affordable senior apartments and artist
live /work space. He begins the presentation noting that the team is applying for historic tax credits for
the project, which will receive full review from the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC).
Siemasko states the project is LEED certified.
Starting with review of the site plan, Siemasko notes that upon project completion the athletic field and
turf bowl will be deeded to the City. Siemasko describes the site design and planting plan and highlights
two large oak trees that will be preserved. Siemasko states that existing sidewalks will be improved, and
a new sidewalk will be added on Sohier Road. Siemasko describes the paths and connecting walkways
with varied paving textures along the perimeter and throughout the site, and the bus stop to be located
across from Charles Street on Sohier Road. Siemasko continues to outline the landscaping design
concept, including maple trees along the perimeter of the site and a total of 150 canopy trees. Siemasko
notes that the team has found historic statues, and the castings and monuments will be restored
throughout the site. Siemasko states that one such statue is a 1930 vintage monument of George
Washington.
Moving on to the building Siemasko outlines the plan details, noting the structure is solid and generally
in good shape. Siemasko states the original gym will become a communal living /socializing area with
complete restoration of the original windows, and the locker rooms will become artist live /work studios,
with three studios in each locker room area. Siemasko notes the artist studios are on one level and will
be about 600 square feet. To get into the work /live studios some exterior grading is being completed,
and the floor is being raised to ensure ADA accessibility.
Siemasko describes how the classrooms will become affordable apartments for seniors, with a mix of
one bedroom and studio apartments. Siemasko states they are preserving as much of the classroom feel
as possible, with chalk room rails and large windows being key features to remain as original as possible.
Siemasko states the lobby space will be restored, and that there are no volume changes to the building
with the exception to the rear grade to ensure accessibility. Siemasko states the "dungeon" level will
become workshop spaces for residents, and the space under the stage will be utilized for storage.
Siemasko notes the loading dock area will remain as is to facilitate uses including trash pickup. The site
contains a rear access drive and will contain 234 parking spaces. Siemasko describes a new maintenance
shed to be developed at the rear of the property. Flannery inquires about the materials of the shed.
Siemasko provides details, noting the shed will have a grayish color and will be designed to blend into
the background.
Siemasko states the exterior will largely remain as is, with simple metal railings being added to exterior
stairs that are currently without railings. Siemasko reviews the treatment of masonry, windows, and
doors. Margolis asks how high up off the floor the windows are and whether seniors will have the ability
to open and close the large windows. Margolis notes it might it be prudent to ask MHC if the first 2 -3
panes can open as opposed to how the windows currently operate. Siemasko responds and agrees to
review the concern. Siemasko notes the MHC strongly prefers staying true to the original design, and
that the windows will be treated for ease of use.
Margolis inquires if a fountain could be located on the turf bowl, potentially dedicated in honor of
COVID -19 victims. DeFranza and Gooding both note this was not part of the original RFP or proposal,
and currently there are no plans or funding for such a proposal on site. Hutchings reiterates that it was
Page 3 of 5
Design Review Board
May 7, 2020 Meeting Minutes
not something the City requested or required, and agrees that the developer could approach the City if
they choose to pursue the idea further.
Ulrich provides comments to the landscaping design. He questions the use of stamped concrete in the
front drop off area and suggests using a paver instead, as he notes stamped concrete pits and discolors
quickly. Ulrich points out the same stamped concrete intended for the front walkway also suggests using
a granite historically appropriate to the building. Ulrich brings attention to the modern look of the
benches and the light fixtures, and recommends fixtures with a less modern -style appearance. He cites
the current Cabot Street renovations with period appropriate light poles, and notes similar fixtures could
be used for Briscoe Village. The Board reviews the small inner courtyards. Siemasko explains the
courtyard is concrete due to its location and spatial function to the apartments. The courtyard is not
intended for functional use, but instead provides light to inner units. Ulrich suggests creating bird
habitats or other functional uses that would benefit residents.
Regarding the recommendations for alternate fixtures and pavers instead of stamped concrete,
Siemasko notes the economic feasibility and limitations of the project. He notes many ideas were
suggested and considered for this project but may not have been used due to budget constraints
needed to retain affordability.
Hutchings states she agrees with Ulrich's comments, and restates Ulrich's point that the priority areas
are the front entrance area and the front wall, and encourages materials other than concrete. Hutchings
states she would also like further review of the light fixtures and benches and how they can be made
more timeless and less modern in style. Hutchings moves to the sidewalk on the Colon Street perimeter
of the site, and questions if it is possible to have the sidewalk inside the street trees, with the trees
serving as a buffer to the road. She notes the trees can be a first line of defense against vehicular traffic
in addition to added privacy. Siemasko states he will look into the possibility, and DeFranza suggests
speaking with Mike Collins.
Flannery notes she finds the project tasteful and appropriate.
Cook asks for clarification on the artist live /work studios, and notes they seem small. Siemasko clarifies
these studios are not intended for industrial work such as welding. Siemasko informs the Board the
original middle school shop will remain and become a shared space for building staff and residents. He
assures the Board that many original school elements are staying in a communal capacity.
Gooding addresses the Board. She outlines the project timeline expectations for meeting approval with
all the appropriate boards and committees they are expected to go before. She reminds the Board of
the project tax credits, funding, and budget. Gooding explains the client is seeking as much feedback as
possible to proceed, and that the project has already been reviewed by the Historic District Commission.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to recommend to City Council that they approve the application as
presented with the conditions: (1) the applicant will consider alternative
materials to (a) the stamped concrete footpath at the entry, (b) the curved
concrete wall at the entry, (c) lighting fixtures, and (d) benches, using materials
that will reflect a more classic and less modern style; and (2) that the applicant
will review options to alter the proposed sidewalk on Colon Street so the street
trees may be placed between the sidewalk and the road. Flannery seconds. The
motion carries 5 -0.
Page 4 of 5
Design Review Board
May 7, 2020 Meeting Minutes
S. 254 Cabot Street —Site Plan Review #198 -17 (Minor Mod.) YNS Affordable Housing, Beverly YMCA
Thomas Alexander and Ben Scott represent the applicant. Alexander reminds the Board this project was
originally approved in 2017. The modifications are limited to the revised windows as a result of (1) a
reduction of units from 69 to 67, and (2) a clearer understanding of the location of existing windows on
the side facades. Alexander states the reduction in units allowed each unit more space and required the
shifting of interior partition walls. The most notable window modifications are on the Cabot Street and
Essex Street elevations. Ben Scott guides the presentation detailing the window alignments, additions
and removals, noting the goal is to have preserved the same look and feel for both exterior elevations.
Scott emphasizes that there will be no revisions to existing historic windows, only to new windows that
will be part of the addition.
Scott states the Cabot Street elevation changes create a clean look with three aligned windows replacing
the cluster windows. Scott notes that two windows were removed to accommodate the shifting of
interior walls, and no other windows were changed. Scott shows the Essex Street elevation changes
include splitting apart the windows in the center of the addition instead of being placing them together.
Scott notes the temporary removal of some historic windows at ground floor level and assures the
Board that upon site completion the existing wood, molding, casing, and trim will be restored. Any glass
that is being removed is not original 1901 material.
Scott reviews the South elevation at the fourth floor. He details all the existing windows and describes
the reasoning for window revisions on the fourth floor. Scott notes that an existing door on the third
floor will be removed and made into a window. Scott describes reasoning for the revisions, and Board
members note that the portion of the facade impacted from the window revisions will have little
visibility from the street.
Cook states she likes how the cluster window has been replaced with the three aligned windows, as it
provides a cleaner look. Members find the north facade has interesting window placement, but not
enough to cause concern, particularly as it is only partially visible from the street. Members agree
modifications are appropriate.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the Minor Modification to the Site Plan Review as presented.
Cook seconds. The motion carries 5 -0.
6. New /Other Business
a. Draft meeting minutes
Cook: Motion to approve meeting minutes March 5, 2020 as written. Flannery
seconds. The motion carries 5 -0.
Cook: Motion to approve meeting minutes April 2, 2020 as written. Ulrich seconds.
The motion carries 5 -0.
Adjourn:
Cook: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Ulrich seconds. The motion carries 5 -0.
Meeting adjourned at 8:27 pm.
Next meeting June 4, 2020.
Page 5 of 5