DRB Minutes 11.05.2020CITY OF BEV9ZLY
PU BU C M EEn NG MINUTES
BOARD ORCOM M ISSION: Design Peview Board
DATE November 5, 2020
LOCATION: Virtual Meeting
MBVIBE SPRESENT Joel M argol i s (Vice Chai r), Emi ly Hutch i ngs, Carol i ne Bai rd Mason,
Rachel Pbor
MBVIBE SABSBVT: Sandra Cook, Ellen Flannery, Matthew Ulrich
RECORDER. Eharlyne Woodbury
Vice Chair M argolis calls the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
Margolis 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 meetingswith certain
conditions. Tonight's meeting will be held on Google Hangouts. Hutchings describes how the meeting
will be recorded by the City of Beverly, and describes how the meeting will progress. Margolis takes roll
of meeti ng attendees, and confirms the attendance of Board members and staff.
Note: Cook joinsthe meeting at 7:35 p.m., during the review of item 9, Modification to Ste Ran: Ste
Ran Faview #141-19,108 Bridge Sreet.
Signs
1.265 Cabot Street Soundtrack Records
George Andrinopoulos, business owner and applicant, introduces himself and presentsthe design for
window signage. Hutchings confirmsthesignage complies with the Ordinance.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Mason: Mot ions to approve the sign as presented. Pbor seconds. The motion carries
4 -0.
2.272 Cabot Street Coaxer Doa Books
Julie Karaganis introduces herself asthe busi ness owner and applicant, and details the sign designs. One
projecting/ blade sign is being proposed above the store front; window signage that will be vinyl,
including the logo and emblem on either side of the doorway; and a sandwich board sign. Karaganis
explainsthe sandwich board sign will have posters to switch out pending sales or seasonal promotions.
Hutchi ngs not es t hat all the signs comply with the Ordinance, but that the sandwich board sign must be
approved by City Council, with the Board making a recommendation.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Hutchings: Mot ions to approve the projecting sign and window signage as presented.
Margolis seconds. The motion carries 4-0.
Hutchings: Mot ions to recommend the City Council approve the sandwich board sign as
presented. Margolis seconds. The motion carries 4-0.
Page 1 of 6
Design Peview Board
Novem ber 5, 2020 M eet i ng M i n ut es
3.2 Edwards Street New Horizon Wellness Center
Melissa McLaughlin introduces herself asthebusinessowner and applicant. Ebe statesshe would like to
place an oval wall sign at the entrance of the property and first -floor level. The letters measure about 2
inches and contains the logo. Mason asks Poor if the "H" in the logo design will be hard to read. Poor
states that it may, b u t t hat it is part of the broader design of the logo, which likely cannot be changed at
thispoint.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Poor: Motionsto approve the sign as presented. Mason seconds. The motion carries
4 -0.
4.276 Cabot Street Worthy Qrl
,bnah Hulbert introduces himself asthe business owner and applicant, and describesthe proposed wall
sign. Margolis questions the vivid pink paint on the store front, and Hutching asks if any signage will be
on the windows. Hulbert replies no that no window signage is currently planned, and confirms the vivid
pink paint has an effect to make the light appear pink although it is not. The light is traditional soft
white. What will be posted on the windows is not paint, but atranslucent material to carry the pink
theme.
There being no further commentsor questions regarding the matter:
Hutchings: Motions to approve the sign as presented. Poor seconds. The motion carries 4-0.
5.600 Cumminas Park Lamacchia
Eleven Schwede introduces himself asthe sign maker. He notesthe single wall sign is internally
illuminated with trumpet lettering. Cummings Properties provided the specifications for the location.
Margolis inquires about the "600" numbers, also on the facade. Schwede states the numbers will remain
as it comeswith the property and isto the specification of the Cummings Properties; it is not part of the
signage.
There being no further commentsor questions regarding the matter:
Mason: Mot ions to approve thesign as presented. M argol i s seconds. The motion carries
4 -0.
6.236 Cabot Street
Coastal Windows and 6cterior
This is i n t he OCzoni ng district. The appl ication i nd udes one wal I sign wit h logo, busi ness name, and
particular language. The sign is not illuminated and does not comply with the Ordinance. Sped al permit
required.
Bill Nelbasafrom North Shore El gn -a -rama represents t he applicant assign maker. Nelbasa provides
sign det ai I s i nd udi ng measurement s and materials, and statesthat it i s an aluminum flat wall sign. He
statesthat the sign is larger than what is permitted by right as the store front that is 47' in length,
although a store front less than 40' would allow the sign to be compliant. The Board discussesthe
special permit requirements and the Ordinance. Hutchings reviewsthe Ordinance and clarifies how it
pertainsto this application. Mason commentsthe longer the fagadethe larger the sign, noting in this
case the scale is off. The Board discusses how store front lengths and building setbacks currently dictate
Page 2 of 6
Design Feview Board
Novem ber 5, 2020 M eet i ng M i n ut es
the size of awall sign. Margolis inquires if the business will occupy all three store fronts, Nelbasa
confirms it will. Hutching informs the applicant that the window signs are noncompliant and the
business owner should be informed that they either need to be reviewed and approved by the Board or
removed from the windows. M em bers f u rt her d i scuss t he si gn and i t s appro pr i at eness o n Cabot Sreet.
Hutchings suggests a potential condition that the Zoning Board of Appeals could adopt, suggesting that
if the storefront should ever be reduced in length (i.e. if another businesswere to occupy a portion of
the space currently occupied by Coastal W ndows & Exteriors), the applicant must reduce the size of the
sign and return to the Design Fbview Board for review and approval
There being no further commentsor questions regarding the matter:
Hutchings: Motionsto recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed
sign as presented, with the condition that noting the storefront (primary fagade)
iscurrently 47 feet in length, the size of the sign will be tied to that length; the
condition shall bethat if the storefront should ever be reduced in length (i.e. if
another business were to occupy a portion of the space currently occupied by
Coastal Windows& Exteriors), the applicant must reduce the size of the sign
and return to the Design Faeview Board for review and approval. Mason seconds.
The motion carries 4-0.
7.296A Cabot Street Hammer & Stain North Shore
Leslie Angellis introduces herself as applicant and business owner. She presents her design and states
she will make her own sign, which will be wood with vinyl.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Margolis: Motionsto approve the sign as presented. Poor seconds. The motion carries
4 -0.
8. M odification to a Ste Ran: Site Ran Review #142 -19 175 Bliott Street
David McKnley of Kaestle Boos Associates, has applied as the project architect. He states the proposed
modification affects the front and east landscaping as well as the main exit and entry points. The plan
already received approval from the Planning Board; they are returning for a minor modification.
McNnley details the changes to the exit and entry drives, and notes that the decision was agreed upon
with the Oty Solicitor and the Cummings Properties. McNnley reviews changes to the flow of traffic,
modified based on concerns from Cummings Properties. He notes that due to the nature of the decision
there isvery little flexibility to change the entry and egress points.
McNnley reviews the segmented wall at the front of the property, noting how the floodplain impacted
the design. In order to accommodate the code, the grading was changed from a higher wall to what is
currently proposed. The new effect maintainsADAaccess. McKinley notesthe Police Department likes
the revised, lowered wall and the idea of looking less like a fortress, to emphasize a positive community
presence. Hutchings inquires if additional street trees be accommodated with these landscape changes.
McNnley statesthey could, although they would likely need to be smaller to maintain strong visibility
Iinesfrom the street to the building.
There being no further commentsor questions regarding the matter:
Page 3 of 6
Design Peview Board
Novem ber 5, 2020 M eet i ng M i n ut es
Hutchings: Motionsto recommend the Planning Board approve the modifications as
presented with the condition that at least two street trees are added to the
front of the property. Margolis seconds. The motion carries4 -0.
9. Modification to a Ste Ran: Site Ran Review #141 -19 108 Bridge Street
Applicant David Outler returns to the Board for approval of the modifications to the elevations. Mr.
Cutler states that the project was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals and details the changes to
the site plan, describing the four - townhome property and the changes to the parking for the first unit
and changes to the fagades. Cutler describes the changes to the setback and the easement on the
property, and states that, upon discussion with Seve Frederickson, the garage and parking area for Unit
1 was redesigned to have two parki ng spaces wit h access from Carleton Sreet. Cutler states the
redesign creates more green space. Cutler details the changes to the Carleton elevation with added
balconies provide more outdoor space, changes to the exterior coloring to what is locally available. He
notesthat overall the building height and setbacksare unchanged.
Margolis questions the garagefor unit one, and statesthe turning radiusdoes not seem sufficient.
Cutler confirms Unit 2 is not affected bythechangesto the parkingspacefor Unit 1. Mason informed
the Board she drove to the site for visual context, describesthe neighborhood, and expresses her
concern for the redesign choices. She notesthe reduction in trim and removal of most architectural
details plus decorative ornamentation, and change of the Bridge Street fagade from a primary fagade
with an entrance to a side or rear fagade without an entrance, which is out of place for the
neighborhood. The Board agreesthe architectural changesare not appropriate for the context relative
to the other buildingswith frontage on Bridge Sreet. Margolisasksfor a reminder of why the project
required a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Hutchings states the variance was for the
setbacks, and states the original design induded an entrance on Bridge Sreet. Hutchings describes the
architectural detailsthat have all been removed despite being significant points of discussion during
prior DRB meetings when the Board first reviewed the project and recommended approval. Mason
notes the slope of the roof has changed and the rear windows are gone. Hutchings emphasizes her
concern with the Bridge Sreet fagade.
Cutler describes the functional versus aesthetic choices that were made in amendmentsto the building
design. Cutler statesthe entrance on Carleton Avenue isfunctional, asopposed to entry from Bridge
Sreet, which was decorative. The Board emphasizestheir concern about the removal of architectural
details, and state that they are what made the building aesthetically appealing. Mason offers comments
that thisdesign does not enhance Bridge Sreet, asthere are too many elementsthat have been
removed. She emphasizes t his is not a minor modification. Members go on to discuss t he windows,
patio elements, the rear fagade, and driveway setback.
Cook joi ns the meeting at 7:35 pm.
Cook echoesthe rest of the Board's sentiments that this building is not representative with the original
plan that was approved. Cutler asks what the Board would like to see. Cook comments on the
architectural details, such aswindow trim and corner boards. The Board restates itsconcern about the
lossof detailsand points Cutler back to the previously approved plans, and note featuresthat have been
removed that should be returned, including windows, wider window trim and corner boards, and focus
on returning the Bridge Sreet fagade to appear like a primary fagade, with an entrance and additional
details. Margolisstates hewould like to see architectural drawings and renderingsfor context.
Hutchings states a complete landscape plan should also be included if there are any changesto the
landscape. Cutler requestsa staff review prior to the next meeting. Hutchings agreesand asks Cutler to
Page 4 of 6
Design Peview Board
Novem ber 5, 2020 M eet i ng M i n ut es
contact her for such a review. Hutchings confirms subject's continuance to the next DRB meeting should
not impact the timelinewith the Planning Board.
Cutler asks about the process for the Ranning Board and potential parking issues. H ut ch i n gs cl ar i fi es
what each board Iooksfor and describesthe review process. Cutler would like to be prepared for the
requirements of each board, and states that Aaron Clausen had previously confirmed the parking
modifications. Hutchings states that Clausen no longer worksfor the C]ty of Beverly, and recommends
submitting the modification plans through the Parking and Traffic Commission, or making note of them
on the Ranning Board application, asthe Ranning Board may either refer the subject to the Parking and
Traffic Commission or request an opinion from the Engineering Department. Margolis reiterates his
concernsfor the turning radius of the driveway and garage for Unit 1.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Mason: Motionsto continue to the next meeting. M argol is seconds. The motion carries
4 -0.
10. M odification to a Ste Plan: Site Ran Review #145 -19 5 West Dane Street
Ben Carlson ret urns to the Board to discuss the minor modification. The only change in the siding color.
Carlson explains the chosen custom yellow is no longer in production. Therefore, a new color, heat hered
moss, was selected in place of the custom yellow. Board members discuss and agree the replacement
color is appropriate.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter:
Hutchings: Mot ions to recommend the Ranning Board approve the minor modification.
Mason seconds. The motion carries 4-0.
11. New / Other Business
a. Draft meeting minutes
Cook: Mot ions to approve October 1, 2020 mi nutes as presented. M argol is seconds.
The motion carries 5 -0.
b. 2021 Meeting Schedule
Hutchings presents to the Board the 2021 meeting schedule.
Margolis: Motionsto approve the meeting schedule with the time changed to 7 p.m. Cook
seconds. The motion carries 5 -0.
c. Other business
o Mason recommends that contextual photos be induded for relevant site plan reviews,
to provide information on the setting beyond the immediate site. She noted that site
visits and photos often provide more context than the presentations submitted in site
plan review applications. Hutchings stated that staff could take contextual photos.
o Hutchings states that the City has hired a new Associate Ranner, who will be starting
within the next month and will begin to staff the Design Peview Board. Hutchings states
she will introduce her at the next meeting.
Page 5 of 6
Design Peview Board
Novem ber 5, 2020 M eet i ng M i n ut es
o Margolis inquires about City Hall access. Hutching informsthe Board that only the first
floor remains open to the public, although the second and third floors do have staff in
the office. To date, there are no plansto hold in- person meetings yet. Margolis asks
about options to resume some form of in- person public meetings. Hutchings states the
difficulty isthat even if the Board were to meet in person, public access would likely be
limited due to space limitations or the cost- prohibitive nature of cleaning larger spaces.
12. Adjourn:
Hutchings: Motionsto adjourn. Margolis seconds. The motion carries 5-0.
Meeting adjourned 8:02 pm.
Next meeting December 3, 2020.
Page 6 of 6