Loading...
2014-04-03CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Design Review Board April 3, 2014 Conference Room A, Third Floor City Hall Rachel Matthews, Jane Brusca, Karen Berbergal, Ellen Flannery, Bill Finch Jane Brusca, Leah Zambernardi None Craig Schuster The meeting is called to order at 6:30 p.m. 1. Sign: Burger King, 498 Rantoul Street, Beverly MA 01915 Heather Dudko, of National Sign, provided a description of the proposed signage for the Burger King. She explained that the existing fascia is being replaced and existing signs are being removed and replaced with new signs. She noted upon code review the sign for the drive through is not allowed and will be withdrawn. She explained the proposal is to install an internally illuminated 5' x 5' logo sign on the front elevation facing Rantoul Street, an internally illuminated 5' x 5' "Home of the Whopper" sign on the side elevation facing Cabot Street, a sign on the fascia for the drive through, and four illuminated canopies around the perimeter of the building. Finch commented he had no issues with the round Burger King signs but would not allow the "Home of the Whopper" sign because it violated the City's ordinances of not allowing a business to showcase their services or goods on signs. Finch also commented that the drive -thru sign is not allowed as proposed but a smaller drive -thru sign with an arrow could be erected adjacent to the street. Finch made a motion to approve the application with the conditions that the "Home of the Whopper" sign and the logo sign over the drive -thru, as presented, not be included. Flannery seconded. Matthews, Berbergal, Flannery, and Finch in favor. None opposed. 2. Review Modification to the Site Plan, 79 Rantoul Street, Beverly MA Miranda Gooding of Glovsky and Glovsky, representing Windover Enterprises LLC explained the reasons for being before the Design Review Board (DRB). She stated this project was originally approved by the DRB and the Planning Board for site plan review back in April 2012. (The project went through some minor modifications, which was approved by the Planning Board, through the process before building permit was issued.) Then during the City inspection for Certificate of Occupancy additional variations from the approved plan were noted by the Planning Department. As a result of this inspection, the project team was directed by the City to submit a request to the Planning Board to Design Review Board minutes April 3, 2014 Page 1 of 4 approve these changes as minor modifications. The project team went before the Planning Board last month and the Planning Board directed the project team to go before the DRB to make sure the DRB does not find the design changes substantial. She noted the Planning Board has the authority to approve the design changes without reopening it to public hearings as long as the changes are not deemed to be substantial. Thad Siemasko apologized on behalf of the project team that they did not come before the DRB sooner to present these changes for review. Peter Goudreau of Windover Development went on to discuss the various changes to the design. Goudreau explained the National Grid electrical vault, which houses the transformer for the building, is located interior to the building instead of exterior to the building. This is because there is not enough room exterior to the building to place the transformer. Since the transformer had to be installed interior to the building the project team had no choice but to follow National Grid's installation requirements which required a large access door which presents a negative exterior visual impact of the building. There was a discussion among the project team and the DRB members on how best to screen the large doors to lessen the visual impact. Discussed solutions were to install plantings: 1. winterberries, black pine, or some other plant that provides good screening year round, 2. repainting the door a different color (silver gray like the adjacent garage door or a color which matches the brick of the building), 3. possibly recess the door a little more or 4. can anything be done around the door to make it more aesthetic? (both could not be done because the of the size and location of the concrete vault), 5. move the door to around the side of the building (could not be done because National Grid needs direct access to the street which the side of the building does not offer), 6. to take the edge off of the flatness of the door possible install an awning or vary the brick around the door (Finch thought these ideas would probably draw more attention to the door than take away), 7. change the sign on the door, or 8. adding texture on the door. DRB and the project team decided the best solution at this time is to repaint the door a lighter color and install Black Pines in front of the doors. Goudreau explained the next issue. Zambernardi noticed the piers have a gap between the pier fascia boards and the top of the concrete wall. Goudreau explained this gap is needed per manufacturer's requirements in order to preserve the 25 year warranty of the fascia boards and there is nothing the project team can do without voiding the warranty. Goudreau described on the next issue which was the metal work in the garage openings. He noted the design originally had a four foot high metal work which looked imposing not proportional. The design team decided to reduce the height to two feet to make it more proportional. Goudreau highlighted the next issue which was the original design had brick sills but was changed to precast sills. Goudreau explained the brick sills are problematic because Design Review Board minutes April 3, 2014 Page 2 of 4 water will degrade the brick over time. He also added the design intent was to emulate the historic buildings in the area which have brick arches and millstone sills and the change to precast sills strengthens that relationship. Goudreau explained the next change which was the from a glass curtain wall to "store front" glass. He explained that a glass curtain wall is installed from first floor to top of building attaching itself at each floor's floor slab which is usually 8 inches thick to minimize the visual impact of the slab. The "store front" glass attaches to the floor and the ceiling with a larger separation between glass panels. The design had to change to the "store front" type glass because the floor slab is 2 feet thick which would be to visible if glass curtain wall was used. Goudreau explained another change which is the change from the extended balcony to a Juliet balcony on the backside of the building. He explained that since the building is not a 90 degree building, actually very acute angle, so some of the units would be very close and across from each other so privacy is a concern. Privacy is also a concern for a neighboring building and finally because of the property setbacks, which are quite small, the building needs to meet a certain fire rating. Having the extended balcony so close to the neighboring building gives fire a chance to jump over to the extended balcony, a Juliet balcony lessens that chance. Gooding noted one more change regarding the landscaping irrigation. Goudreau noted at the bottom of the brick the design kept the 1 -foot planting strip and is irrigated. He stated the intent was to soften the edge of the brick. Finch made a motion to recommend approval of the presented proposed changes to the Planning Board as well as the proposed landscaping and re- painting of the National Grid door as a possible solution to its negative visual impact. Flannery seconded. Matthews, Berbergal, Flannery, and Finch in favor. None opposed. 3. Sign: Gulf, 443 Essex Street, Beverly MA 01915 Anthony Guppa, of Ayoub Engineering provided a description of the application stating the gas station has changed from Sunoco to Gulf which will require sign changes. He stated there already is a free standing sign that will be changed over to Gulf which will be smaller but taller than the existing sign. There are signs on the building which will be changed over and be the same size as the existing signs being replaced. The Central Bell sign will be changed over to a Gulf Express sign, and the Dunkin Donuts will not be the same size, coloring and lettering as the existing sign. He noted there will be a Gulf sign on the new canopy but that is not part of this application. Finch had an issue with the wording "ATM Inside" being on the free standing sign. He stated if the DRB allowed every business to have and "ATM Inside" sign it would obliterate the landscape. He felt installing a lighted sign inside the window would suffice. Guppa responded this sign is necessary for this business since it uses a lot of cash so Design Review Board minutes April 3, 2014 Page 3 of 4 being able to direct patrons to the ATM would be beneficial to the owner. Flannery asked if the sign is allowed per the City's ordinance. Finch responded he did not know and Guppa stated the sign itself is not an issue and needs a special permit from the Zoning Board since it is a free standing sign. Flannery asked the applicant to better describe the reference in the application to the non - illuminated sign. Guppa noted this is a non - illuminated sign mounted directly to the face of the building and is changeable. Clausen asked if there is need for this sign. Guppa responded this is something that the brand does to offer certain promotions Gulf may be running and is commonly installed at other gas stations. Berbergal made a motion to approve the application as presented. Matthews seconded. Matthews, Berbergal, Flannery, and Finch in favor. None opposed. 4. Approval of Minutes: March 6, 2014 Flannery had a comment regarding Item No. 2 to clarify the last paragraph and will send the changes to Zambernardi to incorporate into a revised meeting minutes. Flannery made a motion to approve the draft meeting minutes of March 6, 2014 with the noted revisions. Berbergal seconded the motion. Finch, Matthews, Berbergal, and Flannery voted in favor. None opposed. 5. New or Other Business There was no new business. 6. Adjournment Flannery made a motion to adjourn Flannery in favor. None opposed. Finch seconded. Finch, Matthews, Berbergal, The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Design Review Board minutes Page 4 of 4 April 3, 2014