DRB Minutes 07.09.2020CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
DATE: July 9, 2020
LOCATION: Virtual Meeting
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joel Margolis (Vice Chair), Ellen Flannery, Emily Hutchings, Caroline
Baird Mason, Rachel Poor, Matthew Ulrich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandra Cook (Chair)
RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury
Vice Chair Margolis calls the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
Hutchings 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. Hutchings describes how the meeting will be recorded by the
City of Beverly. Hutchings describes how the meeting will progress, and states procedures for voting and
for public comment. Hutchings takes roll of meeting attendees, and confirms the attendance of Board
members, Staff, and applicants.
S!K
1. 12 Congress Street Sedna Apartments
Andrew Layman introduces himself as the sign maker representing the applicant. Mr. Layman describes
the freestanding sign for the residential development in the WDR zoning district, which requires a
Special Permit. Members review the sign. Hutchings notes that although the Sign Ordinance does not
provide specific permissions for signs in the WDR zoning district, in districts where freestanding signs for
residential projects are explicitly allowed, 20 square feet is the largest freestanding sign for a residential
project permitted by right. Layman notes the sign will be 21 square feet, and Hutchings clarifies that the
Ordinance describes the area of a sign as including the base, frame, background, and any other integral
aspects of the sign; the sign is therefore nearly 60 square feet in size. Ulrich inquires to overall height of
the sign, and provides a suggestion the sign should not be taller than a person. Layman roughly
estimates the sign height at 6 feet, on top of a graded mound which has the height estimate rising
approximately 10 feet above the sidewalk.
Margolis inquires to the specific location of the sign with respect to the street and whether the sign will
be raised or located at street level. Laymen states the sign rests on the corner of Congress and Wellman
streets. Property owner Bryan Vitale joins the meeting and confirms the sign is not at street grade for its
location. Vitale explains the mound is a portion of the AUL (Activity and Use Limitation), part of the
environmental improvements to the site; the mound is required by the Conservation Commission and
may not be removed.
Board members discuss the sign and conclude the sign is too large for the residential area, although
there is agreement that the design is attractive. Members agree the height of the sign in particular is too
large, and ask about reducing the height and the overall size of the sign. Mason notes the importance of
setting precedent with the waterfront development and signs. Vitale states they are willing to work with
the Board and redesign the sign to ensure appropriate scale.
The Board asks about sign illumination, and Layman confirms the sign was originally internally
illuminated. Mason states she does not support internally illuminated signs for the waterfront location.
Page 1 of 4
Design Review Board
July 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Ulrich provides suggestions for the applicant to consider for guidance, including height reductions, and
notes that the sign is attractive but simply too large. The Board asks for to -scale renderings and street
perspectives of the sign. Flannery confirms the berm is on the approved site plan. Hutchings ask what
the applicant's goal is in terms of sign visibility. Vitale states the goal is to be able to see the sign from
the train tracks and coming south at the intersection, and notes the sign does not need to be seen from
several hundred feet away. Vitale agrees to return to the next meeting with a revised design.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Flannery: Motions to continue the Sedna sign for 12 Congress Street to the August 6, 2020
meeting. Ulrich seconds. The motion carries 6 -0.
2. 505 Rantoul Street (380 Cabot Street) Drink Stir
Ricky Zeng introduces himself and states he represents the applicant. Mr. Zeng describes the wall sign
and projecting sign to be located in the CN district. Hutchings clarifies the proposed wall sign fit within
the existing sign band. Members discuss the design and find the signs are appropriate for the location.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Flannery: Motions to approve the proposed signs as presented. Poor seconds. The motion
carries 6 -0.
3. 142 -8 Brimbal Avenue (150 Brimbal Avenue) Rosetti Restaurant & Bar
This is in the IR zoning district. The application includes two wall signs with business name, logo, related
imagery and the term "restaurant /bar ". Both signs comply with the Ordinance, no Special Permit
required.
Jeff Kwass introduces himself as sign maker representing the applicant, Chris Rossetti. Mr. Kwass
describes the two wall signs, and states the business is a full- service restaurant going into the North
Shore Crossing plaza's right rear corner. Mr. Kwass explains the signs comply with the Ordinance, as
confirmed by the Building Inspector. Mr. Kwass explains the sign details including LED illumination.
Michael Diskin introduces himself as sign designer and provides insight to the sign inspiration. Mr. Diskin
states their intent was to have an impactful and simple design. Mr. Rosetti provides further insight to
the ambiance of his restaurant and design concept, and states the restaurant will include a four - season
patio area. Hutchings inquires if both facades require signs. Diskin details the visual impact of having
signs on both facades, explaining they function to frame the restaurant as opposed to mimicking the
look of a smaller bodega restaurant.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Mason: Motions to approve the proposed signs as presented. Flannery seconds. The
motion carries 6 -0.
Site Plan Review
3.0 Everett St — Site Plan Review #146 -19 (Maior Modification) 0 Everett Street LLC
Architect Julia Mooradian and Applicant /Developer Joseph Skomurski are present. They review the
modifications to the Site Plan completed in accordance with what was discussed at the July 2020 Board
meeting. Mr. Skomurski restates the project was originally a commercial /residential building that has
been modified to include two townhouses. Ms. Mooradian explains the changes to the garage roof with
Page 2 of 4
Design Review Board
July 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes
added details and added shed roof to the side entrances. Ms. Mooradian states the entrance doors are
recessed, the dormers were reduced to fit between the gables, the windows were reduced on all
facades, and the roof line facing Hale Street was reduced to scale down what may be perceived as an
imposing view.
Margolis opens the floor to the members.
Mason comments on the Hale Street facade, reiterating the importance of Hale Street as the gateway to
the Farms village. Margolis suggests using a larger door on the Hale Street facade and using a gable roof
to further formalize the Hale Street facade of the building, also noting that it is a prominent site. The
Board continues to discuss the building facades and the location's prominence as corner property, and
whether any further design revisions are needed. Hutchings notes that the applicant responded to the
Board's recommendations from the discussion at the previous meeting, and Ulrich comments on the
attractiveness of the design.
Mason briefly leaves the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Margolis opens the floor to the public.
Peter Johnson, 678 Hale Street, states he appreciates the changes to the building and suggests rotating
the building back around to its original design. Mr. Johnson further suggests putting the garages behind
the building on the north side of the property.
Ms. Mooradian addresses the parking and explains there is not room for parking in the rear. Mr.
Skomurski explains they turned the building to include the garage space and doors that fit the redesign
of the unit. Mr. Johnson and Ms. Mooradian review the original footprint, and Ms. Mooradian notes the
previous design had a pull- through carport that facilitated parking in the rear, where the revised design
includes garages instead. The building rotation is not feasible since the building is rectangular, not
square.
Margolis closes the floor to the public.
Flannery briefly leaves the meeting due to technical difficulties, but returns within approximately two
minutes.
The Board asks about the color of the entry and garage roofs. Skomurski informs the Board copper is the
current preference.
Mason notes at 7:50 p.m. that she had previously rejoined the meeting.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Hutchings: Motions to recommend the Planning Board approve the Site Plan as presented
with the condition the side entry, lower, and garage roofs are copper. Ulrich
seconds. Motion carries 5 -1 (Mason dissenting).
Mason leaves the meeting at 7:52 pm.
Page 3 of 4
Design Review Board
July 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes
4. New /Other Business
a. Draft meeting minutes
Flannery: Motions to approve June 4, 2020 minutes as presented. Poor seconds. The
motion carries 5 -0.
b. Margolis requests physical copies of the meeting packets.
Adjourn:
Flannery: Motions to adjourn. Poor seconds. The motion carries 5 -0.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.
Next meeting August 6, 2020.
Page 4 of 4