Loading...
2012-01-05CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD: Design Review Board DATE: January 5, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Finch, Colleen Bruce, Jane Brusca, Rachel Matthews, Karen Bebergal BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Associate Planner Kate Newhall RECORDER: Kate Newhall OTHERS PRESENT: Bruce calls the meeting to order. 1. 50 Dodge Street — North Shore Bank — Kevin Duggan, Metro Sign & Awning, 170 Lorum Street, Tewksbury, MA 01876 Mr. Duggan presents his sign proposal for the North Shore Bank. The wall sign will be constructed of white sign foam with blue text and red details. The sign will be externally illuminated using existing lighting fixtures. Duggan states that the only difference is the shape of the sign and logo; the size is similar, but the letters are smaller. Brusca asks about the cornice detail. Duggan said that it is three- dimensional and will be part of the sign, not a separate piece. Bruce: Motion to approve the wall sign design as presented, seconded by Brusca. All in favor. 2. 407 Cabot Street — Happy Clam Seafood Cafe — Ed Juralewicz, United Sign Co, 33 Tozer Road, Beverly, MA 01915 Mr. Juralewicz presents the proposal for a wall sign and a freestanding sign panel replacement. The wall sign, constructed of lexan, with be internally illuminated with a green background and white text. The sign panel replacement will feature the same color scheme. He states that the sign is similar to others within the plaza. Color scheme to get contrast to you can see it from the road. Finch asks if the white can be cream. Juralewicz responds that the colors were chose to create the most amount of contrast so that the sign could be visible through the parking lot. Finch: Motion to approve the sign design as presented, seconded by Brusca. All in favor. 3. 48 Dodge Street — Site Plan Review: Walgreen's Pharmacy — Westward Apple Orchards Limited Partnership, 48 Dodge Street, Beverly, MA 01915 Attorney Tom Alexander presents his client's site plan, describing the location and its surroundings. He introduces Jeff Rhuda from Symes Development, the property owner. Rhuda describes the history of the site and how Walgreen's was chosen to occupy the site. Rhuda spoke to the economics of the site and the current buildings. He states that the strip mall was never a cohesive building, but small buildings that were added to as time passed. He states that the strip mall is "functionally obsolete" for retail space and that he has lost tenants. He states that he had interest from national chain restaurants but turned them down and struck a letter of intent with Walgreen's in September 2011. He states that there is a delay of demolition on a portion of the structure, which ends in DRB January 5, 2012 Page 2 of 5 May 2012. He stresses that the site's historic home is not being demolished because Walgreen's is coming in; it is being demolished because that is the decision Symes has made. Rhuda states that if someone wants to move the house, Symes is willing to help with the process. Finch states that the building is historically significant where it sits on this particular site; it is a landmark in that location and in Beverly. Moving the structure may preserve the building, but the historical significance of the building will be lost. Finch presents a photo of a project in Middleton that preserved the historic home in the redevelopment process. He acknowledges that redevelopment of the site is a positive thing; however, he believes that it should be done in way that the historic structure may remain and even be incorporated in the plans for Walgreen's. Rhuda states that the Middleton project is a bad example and that it is located in a low rent area where his project is in a high rent one. He lists several Symes projects in other communities that did preserve historic buildings. However, preserving the historic building on this site does not make economic sense. He reiterates that the decision has been made and the only way the house will stay intact is if it's moved. Mr. Swerling from Bohler Engineering, describes the site plan, which includes connected circulation around the entire site, the new building, a single lane drive through, no change in impervious surface, some landscaping where possible, and a pedestrian connection between the Conant and Dodge Street intersection and the proposed building. Members ask about the curb cuts. Mr. Swerling states that the entry points to the site will remain the same, this project will include improving the curb cuts that are currently existing. Vehicles will be able to enter off of both Conant and Dodge Streets and drive around the front of the Walgreen's; delivery trucks will likely enter from Dodge Street, but will not be prohibited from entering off of Conant Street. Bebergal asks about the nearby Route 128 ramps and potential traffic congestion. Mr. Swerling states that he is not a traffic engineer, but believes that the better - defined curb cuts may actually help the traffic issues in that area. Bebergal states her concern with traffic backing up onto the highway as a result of the increased use of the site. Mr. Lorigan from Moeser & Associates, describes the proposed building's facade and architecture. The proposal includes brick veneer in a red color, tan clapboards above the brick, and white trim. The building is one story and measures 32' at its highest point. The facade includes several windows and a clearly defined entryway. Mr. Lorigan shows the Board samples of the building's materials. He states that the roof will be shingled in brown. The building will meet or exceed the City's newly adopted Stretch Code and be a highly efficient building. Mr. Lorigan next explains that the proposed building is not the Walgreen's prototype. He proceeds to show the Board the two typical prototypes that Walgreen's uses around the country. Finch refers to the Rantoul Street Walgreen's approvals and how what is built was not what was permitted. Rhuda states that since Symes will continue to own the property and want to continue to redevelop it, they will ensure that the construction is appropriate and adheres to the approved plans. Brusca asks about the building's placement on the property — specifically, if there is space for the historic home to remain adjacent to the Walgreen's. Rhuda states that there is physical space, but this would eliminate some of the necessary parking spaces. Brusca responds that if Symes wanted to preserve the DRB January 5, 2012 Page 3 of 5 home, there is room on the site to do so and it could potentially be incorporated into the design of the Walgreen's. She reinforces that what is being presented to the Board is the easiest and most cost effective way to redevelop the site, but this does not mean that the building should come down. She feels that it is a choice between redevelopment that is appropriate for the location and for the City or redevelopment that is driven purely by economics and profit margins. She finishes by stating that the house softens the commercial area and when it is gone, the site will lose its uniqueness. Finch asks about the Conant Street facade. Mr. Lorigan states that the materials will be the same around the building. Finch states that it is a blank wall with no architectural relief along Conant Street. He would like some detailing to break up the blank facade. Brusca suggests adding windows along Conant Street. The proposed building sits on a prominent corner in Beverly and the blank facade, which will be visible from Dodge Street as well as Conant, is unacceptable. Mr. Lorigan states that he may be able to add windows, but that they will not be clear for security reasons. Brusca asks about the drive through. Mr. Lorigan confirms that there is one on the Conant Street facade. Bruce asks about repeating the pilasters to help break up the Conant Street facade and add some dimensionality to the structure. Mr. Lorigan states that pilasters could be added. Finch asks about the monument sign indicated on the plans, which is located at the corner of the site. He would like more landscaping there to help define that corner. He is also unhappy about the lack of landscaping between the parking lot and Dodge Street. He would like some visual relief between the street and the paved lot. He compares this site plan to the CVS site across the street where there is landscaping to provide some relief between the roads and the parking lots. Rhuda states that he focused his landscaping efforts on the greenspace between the building and the abutting residential properties behind it. Mr. Swerling states that they can take another look at the corner to add more shrubbery but that adding landscaping between the lot and Dodge Street is not possible since it will result in fewer parking spaces. Finch reinforces that he feels strongly that there should be some greenery there. Finch is in favor of losing a few parking spots in order to increase the landscaped areas. Rhuda states that Walgreen's only requires 43 spaces for a building this size but that the Beverly zoning requires close to 70, so that the parking problem lies with the City regulations. Brusca asks if the project needs zoning relief from the ZBA. Alexander states that he wouldn't mind relief from parking requirements and that he will need a Special Permit from the Planning Board for the parking. Bruce would like to see landscaping within the existing parking lot to help break up the expansive paving. Bruce asks about the site's lights. Mr. Swerling points out the lights in the parking lot. There are some in the center of the parking area and some along both Dodge and Conant Streets. Bruce asks about the text of the monument sign on the corner. Rhuda is not yet sure what the text will be. Bebergal states that the house is an institution in Beverly with an important history. Rhuda does not acknowledge this. DRB January 5, 2012 Page 4 of 5 Alexander proposed holding a special meeting on Thursday, January 12, 2012 to return to DRB with new plans depicting tonight's discussions. Newhall states that she is unavailable and polls the other members to see if a quorum can be met. The other members acknowledge that they will be able to attend the meeting. Newhall agrees to organize the special meeting for Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 7:30, to be held in City Hall. 4. 79 Rantoul Street — Site Plan Review: Enterprise Apartments — Rantoul Enterprise Realty Trust c/o Glovsky & Glovskv LLC, 8 Washington Street, Beverly, MA 01915 Attorney Miranda Gooding presents her client's site plan stating that the DRB is the first step in the process. She acknowledges that they have not yet officially filed for site plan review, but will soon do so. Gooding describes the surrounding properties. She states that the site is currently occupied by Enterprise. The site plan will include the demolition of the building and the construction of a four - story, primarily residential building with 45 apartments and approximately 500 sf of commercial space on the ground floor. The proposed building complies with the zoning, in dimension, parking and in use; however, the project needs a Special Permit from the Planning Board since the percentage of commercial use is below the required minimum of 25 %. Thad Siemasko and his assistant John from Siemasko and Verbridge, describe the design. He shows photographs of the surrounding properties, which are predominantly brick mill buildings. The proposed building will be built to the property line, which is in keeping with the surrounding buildings. He felt that there is an abundance of brick, which is why they proposed using clapboards in addition to the brick on their facade. Siemasko presents the first floor plan where all of the parking is located as well as where the small amount of commercial space will be; the entrance to the commercial area is at the corner of Fayette and Rantoul Streets. The entrance to the parking is located on Fayette Street and the exit will be onto Edwards Street. The tenants will likely enter off of Fayette as well. The trash and mechanical rooms for the building are located to the rear, hidden from Rantoul Street. Siemasko next presents the floor plans for the residential units. The second, third and fourth floors will be identical with a mix of bedroom types, each with balconies. There will be six affordable units spread out through the three floors. Siemasko presents the roof plan, which includes a roof deck for the tenants. The HVAC systems are aggregated toward the middle of the roof so they are not seen from the streets. His landscaping plan shows most of the green areas located along the property lines that are shared with abutting residences. He would like to reinstate curbing and curb cuts along the property lines with street trees and a planting strip along the sidewalk on Rantoul Street. The project team is talking to the City Engineer to work out these details. Siemasko points out the wooden fence with arborvitae along the rear property line. Siemasko presents the planned exterior view. The building features brick towers with a brick first story, clapboards along the upper stories' facades with some vertical differentiation. His clients wanted to keep the upper stories lighter in color and materials, which is why the clapboards and extra windows were proposed. DRB January 5, 2012 Page 5 of 5 Siemasko believes that street parking on Rantoul may be possible once the sidewalk and the curbs are installed; he stressed that there is continued discussion with the Engineering Department and Public Works regarding the proposed curbing and sidewalks. Finch is concerned with the parking garage exit on Edwards Street. He believes it is presently a very dangerous corner and the proposed exit from the parking area may lead to vehicular and pedestrian accidents. Siemasko states that the location of the parking garage exit could be a traffic calming method as people become more familiar with the new building and its traffic patterns. Newhall asks about snow storage on the site. Lee Dellicker of Windover states that since there is covered parking they will not have a lot of snow to store and any snow that needs to be cleared will be pushed onto the planting beds along the side of the building. Finch states that the location of the parking on the first floor of the building will result in dead space along the Rantoul Street facade. He believes that the proposed building will result in a long, uninterrupted wall between the abutting properties with no street level amenity. Gooding states that the project is consistent with the corridor that currently exists on this portion of Rantoul Street and that the proposed building has a presence and an urban feel. Siemasko stresses that the building is not as large as it could be being that it is only 44' in height in a location where 50' is allowed by right with up to 70' with a Special Permit. Gooding states that this area of Rantoul Street does not currently support retail, which is why they opted for first floor parking over commercial space; she states that the housing must be built in order for the demand for commercial space to increase. Bruce compliments the lighting fixtures and asks where they will be located. Siemasko states that there will be two fixtures located along the rear of the property for safety purposes. Matthews asks about visitor parking. Gooding states that the City only requires resident parking and that visitors will most likely park on the surrounding streets. Finch asks about enforcing the directionality of the parking area since it is one -way. Dellicker states that there will be signage. Siemasko states that the exit way could have a one -way gate to help enforce it. Brusca compliments the balconies on the facade. Bruce asks about the species of street trees. Siemasko states that they are honey locusts, which were chosen for their hardiness and open, airy foliage. Gooding reiterates that the City Engineer will make the final call on the planting strip and they cannot guarantee that he will agree to their proposal. The board would like to emphasize the importance of the planting strip with the street trees in their recommendation letter to the Planning Board. 5. Approval of Minutes — December 1, 2011 Meeting Bruce: Motion to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Brusca . All in favor. 4. New /Other Business There is no new /other business to discuss. Meeting is adjourned at 8:30 pm