Loading...
2011-01-06CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD: Design Review Board DATE: January 6, 2011 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Colleen Bruce, Bill Finch, Jane Brusca BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Patrick McGowan STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Bruce calls the meeting to order. Associate Planner Kate Newhall Kate Newhall 1. 55 Dodge Street, North Beverly Plaza — Upper Crust — Michael Buchhalter, 3 Intrepid Circle, Marblehead, MA 01945 Mr. Buchhalter of Upper Crust in the North Beverly Plaza presents his sign design to the Board. The proposed 24" by 16' steel, aluminum and plastic sign will have a black background with silver and white lettering measuring a maximum height of 15 ". The sign will be internally illuminated with LED lighting. Finch asks where the restaurant is going. Buchhalter states that it will be next to the Radio Shack in the North Beverly Plaza. Newhall brings up the background, stating that the other signs in the plaza do not have backgrounds. Buchhalter and the Board discuss illumination in regard to possibly removing the black background and altering the color of the text. All agree that changing the color of the text to black will not work since it can't be illuminated at night. Also, keeping the text white and silver will not show up against the facade during the day. Buchhalter states that all of the other franchises' signs have the black, silver and white color scheme. Finch asks about the Upper Crust sign in Salem. Buchhalter states that it is a wood sign with silver letters and gooseneck lighting. He states that the external illumination doesn't work well at the Salem location; only the text directly under the lights are visible at night. Finch states that there is no reason to recommend external illumination in this particular plaza since all of the existing signs are internally illuminated. Finch states that the only thing to make sense with channel letters is to darken them, using some other color than black. Finch also mentions halo lighting. Buchhalter is not in favor of this since using another color will not be in keeping with the company's color scheme. The Board agrees, upon this discussion, that they are ok with the sign as presented. Finch : Motion to approve the sign design as presented, seconded by Brusca. All in favor. 2. 110 Cabot Street— Tax Return Prep, Marciano Associates — Marciano Associates, 33 Riverview Avenue, Danvers, MA 01923 Mr. Marciano presents his proposal for a sign to be located at 110 Cabot Street, in the same building as CCI Reprographics. The sign, as presented, measures 2' in height and 10' in length and will be DRB January 6, 2011 Page 2 of 4 constructed of PVC. The color scheme will compliment that of the CCI signs: a black background with brushed gold text. The applicant will also utilize the existing external illumination for his sign. Finch asks about illumination. Marciano states that the existing lights will be used. The Board has no other questions or comments regarding the sign proposal. Finch: Motion to approve the sign design as presented, seconded by Bruce. All in favor. 3. Site Plan Review: 363 -393 Rantoul Street, Burnham Apartments — Windover Properties, LLC, 13 Elm Street, Manchester, MA 01944 Miranda P. Gooding, Esq. of Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC, Thad Siemasko of Siemasko + Verbridge and Lee Dellicker of Windover Development, LLC presented the site plan for Burnham Apartments, located at 363 -393 Rantoul Street. Gooding describes history of project with the market influencing the viability of the previous site plan presented to the Board. This new site plan represents the market for apartments starting to pick back up again. Siemasko describes the site plan: 38 units (15 two - bedroom, 25 one - bedroom); four stories; first floor parking in the rear; one way site circulation; 38 parking spaces (one per unit); a wooden fence across the rear wall for additional screening; extra plantings to soften the border between the properties; articulated facade on the building to resemble five row -style buildings; three entry points into the building off of Rantoul Street. Siemasko explains the facade treatments: hardi panel (posi panel) similar to that used at the Montserrat dorm; composite clapboard on first floor. Siemasko explains the attempt to break down the scale of the building with articulations in the facade. Finch asks about the parking spaces. Siemasko and Gooding explain need of a variance for the deficit of 13 spaces. Finch asks how they will prevent tenants from parking in the green buffer space to the rear. Dellicker mentions City's previous studies showing that parking in that area Rantoul do not require two spaces per unit due to a majority of tenants commuting to work via train. Siemasko also cites the size of the units, even the two - family ones, as being smaller than typical rentals; therefore most renters will not have the typical nuclear family. Finch does not agree with this argument. Dellicker and Gooding state that at several other Rantoul Street rental properties, the majority of tenants are those that commute by train and do not have more than one vehicle per unit. Siemasko states that the project team will need to replace the sidewalk and the street trees along that particular stretch of Rantoul Street once the project is complete. Brusca asks about the variances needed to complete the project. Gooding states that the following variances will need to be obtained from the ZBA in order to complete the project: fewer parking spaces; an extra curb cut on the lot; no recreational space on the lot; and the setback from interior way requirement. DRB January 6, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Dellicker mentions that some neighbors want a shorter fence at the rear of the property while others want the typical six -foot fence. He states that the project may require a variance for a shorter fence for a portion of the rear property line, which will then transition to the six -foot fence. Bruce states that a height transition in the fence could look appropriate. Brusca and Gooding discuss the special zoning meeting scheduled for January 10 and the potential of the meeting being moved to the regular ZBA time of January 25 Bruce asks how close the Weaver curb cut is to the proposed curb cut for this project. Siemasko measures the plan and states that it's approximately 40 feet. Dellicker and the Board discuss the shared parking potential with Weaver Glass. Gooding mentions that this notion may be a mitigating factor in seeking a parking variance for the project. Finch states that the Weaver lot is rarely, if ever, full. Brusca asks if spots for the apartments are assigned; Gooding states that they are not. Dellicker states that at the Parking and Traffic Commission meeting members discussed re- striping the street parking in front of the project, which is currently not striped. This street parking will provide more options to those that live in the apartment building. Newhall asks about the view of the building from the side and the open -air sections of the bottom level where the cars will be parked. The members discuss how the open space makes the building look like it's going to tip over. Finch suggests ironwork or trellises to eliminate the unbalanced look of the building but also to keep the space more ventilated. He suggests a treatment that is not dainty and looks sturdy to support the building. Siemasko suggested carrying down the batten pattern from the side of the building to the cut out that will allow airflow but will also add visual weight. Newhall suggests using native species rather than non - native. Siemasko states that his landscape architect will make those changes. Newhall asks about flower boxes on Rantoul Street. Siemasko states that due to the height of the windows, the placement of window boxes could be a safety issue for pedestrians on the sidewalk. Also, with window boxes maintenance can be an issue. Bruce asks about the site's lights. Siemasko points to their locations on the landscaping plan. Bruce asks if there are lights at the entry. Siemasko states that the entryways will not be illuminated. Newhall asks if a sign will be installed. Dellicker states that they have not thought about it yet, but should a sign be installed, he will be back to the DRB with a sign application. Newhall questions the grid -like look of the facade. Siemasko explains the design and states that the articulation in the facade will help the grid pattern fade a bit; the color scheme will also help. Newhall asks if Beverly Main Streets has reviewed the design. Gooding states that while the Board has not seen it, the Executive Director has and is in favor it. She states that Main Streets supports the project because it will bring housing to the downtown. She also states that the downtown businesses DRB January 6, 2011 Page 4 of 4 are excited by it as well. Newhall follow -up by stating that Main Streets wasn't in favor of the CVS proposal with a modern building and fought hard for a more traditional look. Gooding states that the original CVS proposal was much more modern and stark than the current proposal she is presenting. Finch suggests a change in the fenestration in the center block of the facade that may make the building look less like one giant block of a structure. Siemasko states that the project team changed the facade in several different ways and found that the design presented seems to be the best option for keeping that look of a row of buildings rather than one large building. Newhall recaps the recommendations for the letter to the Planning Board: put either ironwork or some sort of trellis in the "cut out" portion of the building's first floor parking area; recommend the use of native species for the site's landscaping. 4. Annroval of Minutes — December 2. 2010 Meetin Bruce: Motion to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Brusca. Approved 3 -0 (Finch abstains). 4. New /Other Business Miranda Gooding, Esq. stated to the Board that there will be a site plan forthcoming from Windover Development, LLC in the section of Rantoul Street that is subject to the "taller building" ordinance. She requested an informal discussion with the Board to review first draft plans so that the project team can find out concerns and field questions before the project progresses into the formal site plan review process. She requests that the Board members review the Tall Building Design Guidelines prior to this meeting so that everyone is on the same page regarding the City's expectations for this project since it will be the first proposal under this zoning ordinance. Newhall states that this discussion can happen at the February meeting and that she can provide copies of the design guidelines to the members prior to the meeting so they can familiarize themselves with the document. Meeting is adjourned at 7:50 pm.