DRB Minutes 01.07.2021CITY OF BEV9ZLY
PU BU C M EEn NG MINUTES
BOARD ORCOM M ISSION: Design Peview Board
DATE January 7, 2021
LOCATION: Virtual Meeting
M BVI BE SPRESENT Sandra Cook (Chair), .bel Margolis (Vice Chair), Blen Flannery, Emily
Hutchings, Caroline Baird Mason, Rachel Poor, Matthew Ulrich, Chelsea
Zakas
M EIVI BE SABSBVT:
RECORDER. Eharlyne Woodbury
Chair Cook calls the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
This is a virtual meeting with special meeting format as required to honor Governor Baker's State of
Emergency declared due to the national crisis of COVID -19.
1.407 -409 Cabot Street Fuji Hibachi & Sushi
This is in the CGroning district. The application includes one wall sign internally illuminated, and one
replacement pylon panel with business name with internal illumination. Both signscomply with the
Ordinance. Awindow sign is proposed but not included with the current application. No special permits.
V at Cf9gns& Graphics representsthe applicant. Eiraightforward design concept. They are replacing
an existing sign with same style channel letters and measurements. The colors are black and white.
There being no further commentsor questions regarding the matter.
Margolis: Motion to approve the sign as presented. Flannery seconds. The motion carries7 -0.
2.407 -409 Cabot Street Azad's Barbershop
This is in the CGroning district. The application includes one wall sign and one replacement pylon panel
with business name both with internal illumination. Both signs comply with the Ordinance. Awindow
sign is proposed but not included with the current application. No special permits.
V at Cf 9gns & Graphics represents t he applicant. Etraightforward design concept. They are replacing
an existing sign with same style channel letters and measurements. The colors are blue and white. Cook
inquiresabout the business address. The sign designer clarifiesthisbusinessand the previously
discussed businessare both located in the same plaza.
There being no further commentsor questions regardingthe matter.
Cook: Motionsto approve the sign as presented. Poor seconds. The motion carries 7-0.
3.377 Cabot Street
377 Cabot Street
This is in the CN zoning district. The application includes one free standing sign for multi - business names
with internal illumination. The sign complieswith the Ordinance. This isa pre - existing, legal
nonconforming sign. No special permits.
Page 1 of 6
Design Review Board
January 7, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Vasu of Fast 9gns representsthe applicant. Presentsto the Board simply design plan discussing the
freestanding sign with font variances between the business names and street number. 9mple construct
and design for a succinct presentation.
Poor offers comments to the sign font stating the art deco appearance is out of place with the rest of
the mall. Poor suggests changing the numbering font to a modern font or "Sans Serif ". A bolder font is
better. Members review and discuss agreeing with Poor's comments. Discussion and suggestions are
madewith the coloring, material, and illumination for thefree - standing sign. Membersand Vasu debate
the lettering height and limitationsfor the numberingof thestreet address. Vasu believesthere isnot
enough spacefor everythingto fit on one line. Members propose keeping everything on one linewith
Mason's idea of simply "377 Cabot" as sufficient for identifyingthe street address. Ulrich inquireswould
there be issuesfor light refraction. Vasu repliesthe sign will be aluminum with a matte black finish and
steel tubing for the frame. Margolis inquires about additional signage for new stores. Hutchings explains
the ordinance and the "anchor" store. Members discuss how a new sign would have to be created since
no more slots are available.
There being no further commentsor questions regarding the matter.
Hutchings: Motionsto approve the sign as presented with the condition the applicant submit an
alternative/ revised design for administrative approval. Mason seconds. The motion
carries 7 -0.
4.131 Brimbal Ave
The Local
This is in the IRzoning district. The application includes replacing one free standing sign for gas price
listing with business name, internally illuminated; and wall sign on the primary fagade with wrap around
text, no internal illumination. Both signs comply with the Ordinance. The Building Inspector determined
the signs comply with the ordinance and do not require a special permit.
Mark at Metro 9gn and Awning representsthe applicant along with Jim Kauhl and Liz Liz beginsto
present the design until Mark is able to rejoin the meeting after technical difficulties and makes his
presentation to the Board. He detailsthe change in sign colorsfrom blue to pink/red with blue accents.
This will bean aluminum composite sign with wrap around banner.
Cook inquires how the sign sizes and square footage was determined. Zakas reviewsthe ordinance and
measurements for the Board. Hutchings interjects and notes how the building inspector calculates his
measurements, and explains the building inspector determined the wrap around band and arch sign to
be one sign. Zakas notes a correction to the square footage of the sign in the staff notes. Hutchings
confirmsthe building inspector reviewed the sign and approved the square footage.
DRB members do not like the wrap around sign with the additional words. Mason and Rannery concur
it's too busy noting prior sign did not have writing on the banding. Per Poor, this is out of context with
the area. Members particularly do not like the word "Tobacco" advertised. Mark interjects letting the
Board know the point isto change to a convenience store with more merchandise possibilities. Poor
inquires if the company has atag line. Hutchings redirectsthe Board from the content of the sign, to the
layout and context, which isthe Board purview. The Board should focus on bringing the sign design into
context with the area. Members discuss how many words would be appropriate for the band. M ason
said the sign speaksfor itself as "The Local Shoppe ". Members agree. Flannery noteswith the name
change there's product inside and it's not just a cigarette and gas station. Margolis suggests moving the
Page 2 of 6
Design Review Board
January 7, 2021 M eet i ng M i n ut es
words to t he wi ndows. Liz wonders if movi ng t he words to t he wi ndows is an option. Board members
confirm that is an option. There could be astrip at the top and small font. Rannery points out the
windows and how they're completely covered currently. Cook i nst r uct s appl i cant s are only allowed 20%
of each window pane space. Vendors can not come in and put up posters all over the windows.
Hutchings not eswindow signs must come before the Board for approval. That is a separate process.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter.
Cook: Motion to approve the sign as presented for the space of signage in arched area over the
window /door, and the pylon sign above the gas prices, no words on the band, with the
condition they return to the Board for approval of additional window signage. Rannery
seconds. The motion carries 7 -0.
5. 181 BIiott St/ 500 Cummings Ctr Merrill Lynch
This is in the IGzDning district. The application includes two wall signswith internal illumination and
business name. The signs comply with the Ordinance for a previously approved variance for Cummings
Center signage. No special permits.
Heather Dudko represents the applicant and explains the two existing wall signs on the building. They'd
like to be replaced at 82 sq ft each, with internal illumination. Bank of America has taken overt he
branches and which is the reason f o r t he rebranding. Margolis notes the building faces a residential
area. Dudko suggests they will conform tot he residential area.
There being no further commentsor questions regarding the matter.
Cook: Motion to approve the sign as presented with the condition the illuminated sign be shut off by
10 pm. Mason seconds. The motion carries 7 -0.
8:10 pm Hutchings notes Mr. Ibrahim commented publicly on hissign. Hutchings informs Mr. Ibrahim his
sign maker spoke on his behalf informing the applicant of the Board's decision.
6.278 Cabot Street Nest/
This is in the CCzDning district. The application includes one wall sign and window signage both with no
internal illumination and features business name, description, and store hours. The signs comply with
the Ordinance.
Margolis recuses himself from this item.
Sjndi Zaiger presentsfor the applicant. Nest isteam within Compass. They share the businessfront with
the Cabot Lodge. Floor notesthat thissign does not inform the publicwhat the businessdoes. Zaiger
notesthat they wanted to have some listingson the window. Fbor notesthat the business name is not
self- explanatory. Mason agrees. Mason questions difference between two names, Nest and Compass.
Zaiger notes Compass isthe broker and Nest isthe team working for Compass. Membersdiscuss how
the sign is not notable nor informative. Zaiger maintains Compass isone of the biggest real estate
brokers in Boston. Members affirm something of better marketability would work for the business.
Hutchings reviewsthe ordinancesand sign windowsaswell astemporary signswith Zaiger.
Cook inquires if this sign is like the other signs in Boston. Zaiger explains Compass isthe parent
company, and Nest isa team within Compass. Zaiger explainsthisiswhat the parent company wants
Page 3 of 6
Design Review Board
January 7, 2021 M eet i ng M i n ut es
them to use. Pbor explainsthe sign has too many mixed messages. Hut chingsto the Board, if this i s w hat
the parent company is allowing, this is it. If Nest would like to return and di scuss pot ent i al window
advertisement geared toward real estatethat iswelcome. Cook suggest s ret u r ni ng wit h a new design
concept for the windows. Zaiger maintains they seek to have the door signage approved as presented.
Mason suggests make the bird bigger as door sign and return with new window design concept.
There being no further comments or q uest i o ns regardi ng t he matter.
Hutchings: Motion to approve the wall sign and window signage on the door as presented noting
the applicant will return with revised signage for the window.
Mason questions keeping the signage for the door window the same, or if it should be larger. Cook
agrees the applicant should return with a larger window sign proposal along with other
window signage and real estate listings. Rannery suggest sthe applicant return with
finalized window signage concept, Cook agrees.
Motion amended by Hutchings: Motion to approve the wall sign as presented, and to continue the
window signage to the next meeting.
Cook: Motion to continue the window signage to the next meeting. Rannery seconds. The motion
carries 6 -0.
7.150 Brimbal Ave uBreakiFix
This is in the IRzoning district. The application indudes one wall sign with business name internally
illuminated also featuring parent company business name not internally illuminated. The sign complies
with the Ordinance. No special permit. Applicant received landlord conditional approval based upon the
raceway being removed with the letters individually lit to match the rest of North Shore Grossing.
Hugh Brown represents the applicant. Smple presentation and straightforward sign. The business is
located in the Whole Foods Raza and mai ntai ns cont i nuity with the plaza signs. Board members have
little commentary and appreciate the design plans as presented.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter.
Cook: Motion to approve sign as presented. Rannery seconds. The motion carries 7 -0.
8. Modification to Site Plan: Ste Plan review #141 -19 108 Bridge Street
The applicant returns to the Board for approval of the minor modifications. This plan has already been
approved by the Ranning Board. The proposed modifications affect the street facades on Bridge Street
and Carlton Avenue, along with all four building sides; and in general, the architectural details, roof
slope, and the front layout.
Tom Alexander repr esent s t he client. David Cutler and Daniel RcdarelIi are both present. The property
sold from the Rat esfamiIyto David Cut Ier. Daniel RodarelIi presents with Alexander. Alexander
addresses the parking issue and notes they went before the Parking and Traffic Commission to which
they approved the par ki ng cc nfi gu rat i o n noting it meets all requirements. RociarelIi reviewsthe
presentation. They reviewed the prior architectural submission and brought back many of those
elements. Larger corner boardswere presented, carriage house style doors, recessed entrywaysand
more uniformity amongst the windows. Board members appreciate the changesand note that they
Page 4 of 6
Design Feview Board
January 7, 2021 M eet i ng M i n ut es
brought back the spirit of the original approval. Members agree the changes are a vast improvement.
Fbi nt rod uct i o n to the architectural detaiIsand individual colored units promote neighborhood context
and unit individuality. There are no vinyl corners, all full composite trim. Cook note the balconies
provide texture and appred at es t he color scheme presented. Rannery inquires if the landscape plan is
submitted or if this was for presentation only. RociarelIi not esthe landscape plan is part of the original
proposal and carried over. Members approve of the plan improvements.
There being no further comments or q uest i o ns regardi ng t he matter.
Cook: Motion to recommend to the Planning Board they approve the minor modificationsto the site
plan and project as presented. Ulrich seconds. The motion carries 7 -0.
9. Supplemental Review to Site Ran: Ste Ran Review #140 -19 Depot Square Phase II, LLC
The applicant returns to the Board as part of a previous condition placed by the Ranning Board. The
condition references the applicant must return tot he DFE for a final review of vent location prior to
issuing a building permit.
Cook recuses herself from this item.
KristaZiembafrom SVdesign and Kristen Poulin with Beverly Crossing, represent the applicant. Ziemba
notesthey return to the Board to satisfy a condition from a prior meeting and presentsto the Board the
proposed vent locations for the buildings. Members review the renderings and note they are difficult to
read, however; appreciate the attention to detail regarding the vent design and placement. Hutchings
comments they've done well consolidating the vents and locating them under the balconies. As long as
the ducts are painted to camouflage into the building the vents are well disguised per the condition.
Rannery notesthistask is not easy to make these ducts invisible. They accomplished their task and
brought forth adean look.
Rannery points out per staff note no action required at thistime. The Board notes the condition has
been met, Hutchings will make a note and go forth before the Ranning Board.
There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter. No action required at thistime.
10. New / Other Business
9debar:
Mason proposesthe Board be bolder in the future for projectswhen structure interrupts the
scenescape. Mason refersto two corner lots as examples of discussion emphatically noting the front of
the building is an issue. Members discussthe issue of corner lots particularly discussing the front and
back of each structure. Mason heavily advocatesfor away to review context for these applications as
they are contentious. Corner lots are a difficult entity to review. Members debate the pros and cons of
having site visits as a Board for contentious projects. Hutchings notesthe appropriate context for the
Board to conduct site visits in their official capacity.
Margolis,Zakas, and Hutchings discuss meeting evites and the digital packet contents.
a. Draft meeting minutes
Cook: Motionsto approve November 5, 2020 minutes as presented with edits by
Rannery. Rannery seconds. The motion carries 7 -0.
Page 5 of 6
Design Peview Board
January 7, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Cook: Motionsto approve December 3, 2020 minutes as presented with editsby
Flannery. Mason seconds. The motion carries7 -0.
b. Bection of Board Chair and Moe Chair
M ason: M of ions t hat Sandy Cook remai ns Chai r t hrough 2021. Poor seconds. The
motion carries ? -0.
Cook: Mot ions that Joel Margolis remainsasMoe Chair through 2021. Ulrich seconds.
The motion carries ? -0.
11. Adjourn:
Cook: Motions to adjourn. Ulrich seconds. The motion carries 7 -0.
Meeting adjourned 9:11 pm.
Next meeting February 4, 2021.
Page 6 of 6