DRB Minutes 06.04.2020CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
DATE: June 4, 2020
LOCATION: Virtual Meeting
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
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 the City of Beverly. 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 Board members, Staff, and applicants.
Signs
1. 269 Cabot Street Purr
The application includes one projecting sign with logo and one wall sign with the business name. Prior to
beginning discussion, Cook recuses herself, noting she is the applicant's residential landlord. Margolis
assumes the responsibilities of the Chair.
Matthew Gelineau is here on behalf of the applicant, Elizabeth Bachand. Mr. Gelineau notes the building
is in a notable front facing spot on Cabot Street next to Archer Insurance. He states the projecting sign
has a simple design with a white background and the letter "p" within a circle, and that the front facade
(wall) sign simply spells out "purr ". Margolis inquires if the applicant intends to have window signs. Mr.
Gelineau responds the door will have general contact information with no plans to advertise in the
windows or the door. Flannery asks if the door sign covers less than 20% of the windows. Hutchings
clarifies the contact information may not be considered advertisement and something that the Building
Inspector considers to be regulated by the Sign Ordinance, and that the Building Inspector will advise
the applicant if the door /window information requires Design Review Board approval. Hutchings
confirms the wall sign and the projecting sign comply with the Ordinance.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the proposed signs as presented. Mason seconds. The
motion carries 5 -0.
Cook returns to the meeting and resumes the responsibilities of the Chair.
Site Plan Review
2.44 Dunham Ridge — Site Plan Review 138 -19 (Minor Modification) Cummings Properties, LLC
Cummings Properties has submitted a revised plan with minor modifications to the elevations for the
building at 44 Dunham Ridge. Michael Aveni, Jim Trudeau, and Samantha Stone are introduced as
project architects and lead the discussion. Mr. Aveni provides a brief history of the project, and Mr.
Trudeau presents the facade revisions. Mr. Trudeau states the same colors (blue /gray) and materials are
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Board
June 4, 2020 Meeting Minutes
being retained, and metal panel with an accent color band above the second -floor windows has been
introduced to coordinate with the adjacent building. The north and south facade revisions include
expanded windows on the second floor, with vision glass and operable windows on the first floor as well
as egress doors. On the east facade, one additional loading bay has been added, reducing the size of
overhead doors, a canopy slope above the loading doors has been added, and the tenant entrance has
been revised. On the west facade, tenant entrances have been relocated to the southeast and northeast
corners and four loading bays have been added. Members note no concerns with the revisions, which
they seem to improve the building's overall appearance. Margolis asks where the primary entrance of
the building will be located. Mr. Trudeau notes it depends on how many tenants will lease the building,
who the primary tenant may be, and how many floors they will use.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to recommend to the Planning Board that they accept the minor
modification as presented. Margolis seconds. The motion carries 6 -0.
2. 5 West Dane St — Site Plan Review 145 -19 (Minor Modification) Benco, LLC
(Note: Item 2 on the agenda took place following Item 3 — 0 Everett Street.)
The applicant is returning to request a minor modification to a previously approved site plan. Architect
Thad Siemasko represents the applicant, noting the request is to change the window sashes from a
green sash to a white sash. Mr. Siemasko discusses how the applicant and architect previously expected
that the different colored sashes would not impact the price, but that upon further review the green
sashes were discovered to be priced significantly higher than the white sashes. Mr. Siemasko asks the
Board to consider approving the color change as the project goal is to create housing that is more
reasonably priced. Board members do not note any issues with the change.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to recommend to the Planning Board that they accept the minor
modification as presented. Margolis seconds. The motion carries 6 -0.
3.0 Everett St — Site Plan Review #146 -19 (Major Modification) 0 Everett Street, LLC
The applicant has submitted changes to the previously approved site plan. Due to the significance of the
proposed revisions, the Planning Board set a public hearing for the revised project. The proposed
revisions eliminate the commercial unit from the proposal and will instead contain only two residences
with added garages. Dan Ricciarelli, Julia Mooradian, Joseph Skomurski represent the client. Mr.
Ricciarelli begins presentation and details the residential units that include new garage, noting the
building footprint essentially remains the same. Mr. Ricciarelli states the elevation lowered two feet
since they did not need to accommodate a commercial space, and the rear elevation opens onto
outdoor patio space. Mr. Ricciarelli details the landscape plan, stating the previously proposed parking is
now gone and additional walkways and lawn are included. Mr. Ricciarelli notes that although the buffer
zone is no longer required, the landscape buffering remains the same with the same proposed species
as before.
Cook opens the floor for Board members to discuss the project. Mason inquires to the setback,
commenting it should reflect the neighboring residences' setbacks. Mason comments on the Hale Street
facade, noting it could be more attractive and does not fit the aesthetic of the prominent corner or the
gateway to Beverly Farms. Margolis notes the significant modifications and asks if the neighbors were
notified. Mr. Skomurski states that neighbors were notified of the changes. Hutchings informs the Board
Page 2 of 4
Design Review Board
June 4, 2020 Meeting Minutes
of the Planning Board's scheduled Public Hearing for the project, and that, per Public Hearing
requirements, notification is made through legal advertisement. Margolis asks about the square footage
of the proposed units. Mr. Skomurski states the units will be 2800 square feet each. Margolis asks to see
the prospective renderings of the proposed site plan with neighboring properties.
Cook states she agrees with other members in that the Hale Street facade needs improvement, and that
the previous design with a covered main entry better fit the area. She suggests returning to a true
covered entry with a roof, raising the line of the shingle flare approximately one foot to increase space
above the garage doors and adding some brackets, creating a more shallow roof line, shortening the
windows on the second floor to improve the proportions, and widening the trim on the windows. Cook
prefers the flare shingles from the prior design on the first floor, and notes the elevations appear busy.
Cook provides a modest sketch of the Hale Street facade and notes options for the architect to consider.
Hutchings states she disagrees with Mason about the building needing additional setback space on Hale
Street, noting the home is on a prominent corner. She explains the proposed setback appropriately
frames the street, which is part of the Beverly Farms village center. Hutchings states that she agrees the
building does look large, and that as the first story is not emphasized by a main entrance and retail
space, the focus is on the entirety of the building rather than the first floor. Cook agrees and notes this
potentially takes attention away from the neighbors' homes, affording more privacy. Hutchings
concludes the home should be closer to the street as the plan proposes, adding that such a site plan
increases space for the back and side yards to provide more of a buffer to the neighbors. Mason
maintains her position to have the residence set back, and states that the other residences on that side
of Hale Street are set back 20 -30 feet as opposed to the 10 feet that this plan proposes.
Flannery states she agrees that the Hale Street facade needs improvement. Cook mentions the balconies
now facing the neighbors on Hale Street and if the neighbors are comfortable with the change.
Cook opens the floor to the public.
Rebecca Swanick, 5 Everett Street
Ms. Swanick disputes that the applicants informed the neighbors of the proposed changes, noting they
first heard of the changes through the City. Her comments include concern over construction's effects
on her fence, which is starting to fall down; a request for clarification on the landscaping plans; concern
about the balconies and the impact on her property's privacy; and agreement that the Hale Street
facade needs improvement. She requests confirmation the landscaping plans will be adhered to so to
maintain privacy. Ms. Swanick states she does agree with increasing the setback, as she feels the recent
area developments are closing in on her property and would prefer additional buffering between the
proposed building and her property's backyard.
Dorothy Hayes, 680 Hale Street
Ms. Hayes expressed her pleasure the project is now solely residential. She states she agrees with the
Board that the Hale Street facade is lackluster and that she would like to see improvements. Pertaining
to the garage doors, she requests to see classic carriage doors that are in keeping with the
neighborhood aesthetics, and notes that the plans currently show minimal detail.
Peter Johnson, 678 Hale Street
Mr. Johnson states he submitted a presentation through Mason that he would like to share with the
Board. Cook and Hutchings explain proper protocol to receive any submissions or presentations, and
that in the future he must submit all materials in writing to Hutchings as Planning Staff prior to the
Page 3 of 4
Design Review Board
June 4, 2020 Meeting Minutes
meeting. Johnson states he agrees the Hale Street facade needs improvement, and that he appreciates
the project will keep the landscaped buffer although they do not have to. Mr. Johnson states he prefers
the setback be more than 10 feet. Mr. Johnson also raises the question for a neighbor not in attendance,
and asks if it is possible to move the home 5 feet to the right due to a safety concern with tight corners
that block pedestrians and cars from being seen around the corner.
The applicant responds. Mr. Skomurski states they are keeping the same landscaping around the
perimeter of the property, which should provide the same privacy buffer to 5 Everett Street. The
architects agree they can give more attention to the Hale Street facade. Mr. Ricciarelli speaks to the
setbacks, stating they cannot move the building back as the area is tight. He notes that currently the
plan conforms to zoning requirements. Mr. Ricciarelli states that removing the balconies would mean
losing an amenity for residents, and that the landscaping should appropriately buffer adjacent
properties to ensure privacy; however, they can try to move the balconies closer to Hale Street. Ms.
Mooradian explains the balconies are small and present a nice view toward the village center. Hutchings
comments to the landscaping plans and confirms the buffering remains the same as previously
submitted. Cook notes to Ms. Swanick that if her fence falls due to construction, it would be upon the
applicant to replace her fence. Cook agrees with Ms. Hayes that the garage doors should reflect the
neighborhood's character, and requests the applicant provide designs to the Board.
Cook closes public comments.
The Board further discusses neighbors' concerns and the revisions, discussing the setbacks, the building
scale, and the facade designs. Members agree the applicant should return with updated renderings
before they make a recommendation to the Planning Board.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to continue the item to the July 9, 2020 meeting. Flannery seconds. The
motion carries 6 -0.
4. New /Other Business
a. Draft meeting minutes
Cook: Motion to approve meeting minutes May 7, 2020 as amended. Flannery
seconds. The motion carries 5 -0 -1, Mason abstains.
b. Non - compliant and unapproved signs
Members briefly discuss signs currently not in compliance. Margolis notes there is a non - compliant
for -sale sign on plywood at a 211 Hart Street, and a temporary banner sign for Salem Plumbing
Supply that received a Special Permit where the time limit has expired. Cook notes the banner signs
at Station 101 that are beyond their time limit and must come down. Hutchings states she will
communicate with the Building Inspector and request enforcement.
Adjourn:
Cook: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Margolis seconds. The motion carries 6 -0.
Meeting adjourned at 8:10 pm.
Next meeting July 9, 2020.
Page 4 of 4