February 4 2016 DRB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS:
RECORDER:
Design Review Board
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Beverly City Hall Conference Room
Chair Sandra Cook, William Finch, Ellen Flannery,
Rachel Matthews, Joel Margolis and Allison Crosbie
Karen Bebergal
Eileen Sacco
Finch calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Site Plan Review: Transitional Care Facility — 130 Sohier Road — Lockwood
Investments
Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Commission on behalf of his client Lockwood
Investments. He notes that he is joined this evening by Robert Griffin of Griffin
Engineering, Chris Poravas, architect, and Laura Rutledge, the Landscape Architect for the
proj ect.
Alexander explains that the site is the present location of the Roller Palace and Soccer
Ect. He explains that the owners are ready to move on and have the property under
agreement with Lockwood Investments and they are in the process of going through the
permitting process for the construction of a Transitional Rehabilitation Care Facility for
patients recovering from hip, knee replacements, and will be strictly for short term
rehab.
Alexander estimated thatt the facility will create 111 new jobs and they will provide 24 -hour
care with three shifts 7 -3, 3 -11 and 11 -7. He notes that the facility will have 100 beds all of
which will be private rooms with the capability of having a couple of double rooms if needed
and notes the area on the plan.
Alexander explains that last spring the Beverly City Council approved a Special Permit to
allow this use in this Zoning District and the Special Permit has been issued by the
the Zoning Board of Appeal.
Alexander explains that the existing building will be torn down and a new facility will be
constructed. He explains that there are currently two entrances to the site and notes that
they are proposing to save one entrance and extend the land on the Sohier Road side of
the building to the entrance for a service road.
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2016
Page I of 8
Alexander introduces Bob Griffin to review the layout of the site.
Griffin addresses the Board and explains the area on an aerial photo of the site. He explains
that there are 200 parking spaces on the site now and they will be reducing the parking spaces
for this facility. He explains that they met with the Parking and Traffic Commission earlier
this week and they requested some minor changes to what is proposed. He notes that they are
providing more parking that what is required noting that 45 are required and they are
providing 85 spaces. He explains that there is a high level of support needed to run the
facility and they have provided for that.
Griffin reported that they met with the Beverly Conservation Commission and they have no
issues with the proposed plan. Griffin reviewed the drainage for the site and notes that they
are providing an underground retention system with new catch basins and a retaining wall.
Griffin addresses the Board and explains the layout of the site. He notes that there will be
less impervious surface on the site at the completion of construction that is presently on
the site.
The architect reviews the plan. He explains that this will be a one story building with no
ability for future expansion. He notes the location of the parking areas that will be on the
east and west sides of the building. He reviews the layout of the building and notes that they
have provided for an area in the back of the building for the storage of an oxygen tank. He
explains that there will be a passenger port in the front of the building. He reviews the
elevations and explains that they are proposing to use a cement clapboard pointed finish on
the building with stone veneer and accents. He notes that there will be a gable look towards
the front of the building and the roof top HVAC units will be hidden from residential and
public view.
Laura Rutledge addresses the Board and explains the landscaping plan for the site.
Cook asks what the proposed changes are in the grade relative to the retaining wall. Griffin
explains that on the north side there is a slope toward the softball field and to accommodate
the need to pull the parking closer he estimated there would be a change of about 10 feet.
Flannery asks if employee parking areas will be designated on the site. Griffin states that
they do not intend to designate employee parking at this point.
Margolis asks where the snow storage areas are proposed for the site. Griffin explains the
areas designed for snow storage and notes that they have chosen plantings that are hardy
enough to handle the snow in those areas.
Margolis asks where the dumpster for the site will be located. Griffin explains that they are
planning for two dumpsters and notes the locations. He also states that they will probably be
recycling within the building as well.
Cook asks if the hardy board will be prepainted. The architect states that they would prefer it
to be painted.
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2016
Page 2 of 8
Crosbie asks why there is a change in the windows on the ends of the building. Poravas
explains that some interior spaces are taller on the ends of the buildings.
Finch asks if they will have shed dormers for the mechanical spaces. Poravas explains that
the construction will be light gauge steel framing and explains the construction of the
building proposed. He explains that the mechanical areas will be screened on the rooftop
units.
Matthews notes the rhythm of the color scheme and states that it seems like a lot of things are
pieced together creating a lot of visual noise. She suggests that she would like to see
something a little smoother.
Finch states that he has no objection to tonality on a massive building with some degree of
variation.
Cook suggests that the Board could request a revised plan with a more cohesive color scheme
and material samples be provided.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Finch: Motion to recommend approval of the proposal as presented. Margolis
seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0).
OSRD Site Plan Review: 11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue — PD Building LLC —, Definitive
Subdivision Plan —11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue — Create Six (6) New Residential Lots for a
Total of Seven (7) — PD
Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering Group LLC addresses the Board and explains the
proposed subdivision located off Bridge Street consist of a 6 -acre area and they are proposing
to build six new single family residences and further notes that the property at 15 Sunnycrest
will remain. He also states that there is an existing two family house that will be demolished.
Griffin reports that the wetlands on the site have been confirmed by the Conservation
Commission and the Parking and Traffic Commission has approved the project as designed.
Griffin explains that they have been before the Planning Board for approval of the preferred
plan which was approved by the Board in October. He states that they are proposing to set
aside the lower side of the site for conservation land to be conveyed to the City of Beverly.
Griffin explains that they are proposing the construction of 150 foot long cul -de -sac. He
explains that the proposed roadway will be 24 feet wide with a 40 foot right of way which
require a waiver from the subdivision regulation requirements for a 32 foot wide roadway
with a 50 foot right of way.
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2016
Page 3 of 8
Griffin states that the plan is pretty straight forward. He also notes that there is a visibility
issue at Sunnycrest and Netherton regarding site distances and suggests that signage.
Finch states that there is no action required by the Design Review Board on the this matter he
thanked Griffin for the presentation.
Sign - Continued from January Meeting: Townhomes of Beverly — 201 Broughton Drive
— Jason Parillo — Back Bay Sign
Jason Parillo of Back Bay Sign Co., addresses the Board and explains that they are proposing
to replace the free standing sign on the side of the hill for Beverly Townhomes and he is
joined this evening by Ed Augelewicz of Beverly Townhomes.
Ed Augelewicz addresses the Board and states that they have reviewed the comments and
recommendations made by the Board at the last meeting. He states that they are trying to
improve their property and they are trying to get the best visibility in terms of traffic for the
site and the recommendations of the Board does not accomplish that. He explains that they
are looking for visibility in both directions. He expresses concern that the proposed location
by the Board will not be visible in both directions noting that on Brimbal Avenue drivers will
not see it until they pass it and will have to turn around to go back to it. He also states that a
sign above the traffic line is less intrusive.
Cook explains that the suggestion of the Board was to intergrate it into the wall by popping
the wall up and explains it on the plan. She states that she looked at the site and she feels that
they will get better visibility as suggested by the Board.
Cook also notes that the sign is parallel and the angle of the sign should be in line with the
wall.
Augelewicz states that they are going to build a stone deck and raise it up and move it away
from the wall to give it better visibility for north bound drivers.
Cook states that she does not see how they could do that without cutting down the trees. She
asks if they have any data of where the traffic is coming from, noting that they would find a
lot of traffic coming from Herrick Street.
Augelewicz states that they have not done a study on where the traffic comes from.
Cook states that she does a lot space planning and feels that what has been suggested is a
good solution for them.
Parilla suggests that they could insert 2 4x4 posts in the ground and dig 2 -foot holes for the
sign which would be less intrusive for the trees.
Margolis asks if they would like to come back with a more clear and accurate site for the
sign.
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2016
Page 4 of 8
Cook suggests that the Board go out and take a look at the site. She suggests that they stake
out the location for the sign so that the Board can get a better idea of what they are proposing.
Cook also states that the actual sign needs some adjustments as well, noting that there are
three company logos on the sign and the Beverly sign ordinance and guidelines only allow
one logo on a sign. She explains that the sign is supposed to identify the business which is
Townhomes of Beverly.
Christa of Beverly Townhomes addresses the Board and states that she understands the issues
about the location and notes that she is on the site everyday. She states that she walked the
area and she is concerned about visibility for them during all of the construction on Brimbal
Avenue. She states that the construction is not going to be completed anytime soon, noting it
will be more than a year.
Cook suggests that Crosbie coordinate a time for the Design Review Board to visit the site
and review the proposal before the March meeting.
Sign: Pediatric Associates — 30 Tozier Road — Jim Treacy — Sign Works
Jim Treacy addressed the Board and explains that they are proposing to install a standard
base sign in the current location for Pediatric Associates. He notes that Pediatric Associates
will be the only tenant in the building.
Treacy explains how the sign was designed and shows a sample of the materials to be used.
Crosbie explains that this sign will need a special permit from the Zoning Board and explains
that the Board can issue a letter recommending approval of the sign.
Flannery: Motion to send a letter recommending approval of the Special Permit for the
proposed sign. Matthews seconds the motion. The motion carries (6 -0).
Sign: - Baked — 297 Rantoul Street — Chen Feldman
Chen Feldman addresses the Board and states that he was before the Board a few months ago
and got approval for the sign. He explains that he is here this evening for a modification to
that and notes that he wants to change the color. He states that they are proposing to use the
same wood and are holding off on the projecting sign at this time. He states that they are
requesting another sign over the doorway which will be an oval shape and will be the same
size as the one on the adjacent building.
There being no questions or comments regarding this matter:
Crosbie: Motion to approve the change in the color of the sign and material for the sign
and the installation of an additional sign on the facade of the building. Flannery seconds the
motion. The motion carries (6 -0).
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2016
Page 5 of 8
Sign - Standley Gardens — 51 Standley Street — Lynne Shanoski - J. Bartlett &
Company
Margolis recuses himself from the review.
Crosbie informs the applicant that this sign will require a Special Permit from the Zoning
Board of Appeal as well as review by the Design Review Board.
Lynne Sahnoski addresses the Board and explains that they are proposing a temporary sign
for a period of 18 months at 51 Standley Street. She explains the site of construction of 8
new single family homes. She also explains that the sign will be 4' x 5' x 3 /4 " .
Cook asks when they expect to put the sign up. Shanoski explains that they would like to put
it up as soon as possible noting that they expect the first two homes to be finished by June.
She explains that they are trying to attract people who want to design their own homes and
work with them during the construction of the houses.
Matthews states that there are too many businesses listed on the sign and notes that the sign
should capture the right audience for the right reasons. She notes that the Standley Gardens
logo and the site plan and the realtor information may be all that is needed noting that J.
Barrett & Company is listed twice on the sign.
Cook explains that more than one business name is not allowed on a sign. She suggests that
the site plan and the name of the development should be more prominent than the contact
information.
Shanoski agreed to make the suggested changes.
Crosbie: Motion to approve the sign for Standley Gardens with the recommended
changes and to recommend approval of the Special Permit by the Zoning Board of Appeal.
Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0).
Site Plan Review — Krohne Inc. 55 Cherry Hill Drive — Highpoint Engineering, Inc.
Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board and states that he is joined this evening by
Michael Fabbiano of Highpoint Engineering.
Alexander gives a brief history of the site and explains that the existing site is 9 acres located
at 55 Cherry Hill Drive and presently has a 27,000 s.f. building on it with under building
parking spaces for a total of 200 parking spaces.
Alexander explains that they intend to renovate the existing building to accommodate a
primarily light industrial use with associated office space and the existing under - building
parking level will be converted and enclosed for use of storage space to support general
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2016
Page 6 of 8
operations. He states that the addition will be the same height as the existing building and the
use of the building is intended to be light industrial.
Alexander explains that they are proposing to continue the existing road to Cherry Hill Drive
to service the loading docks and notes the location of the two loading docks in the rear of the
building noting that one is existing and a new one is proposed. He also notes that a
stormwater management plan has been submitted with the plan as well.
Alexander states that the company employs 48 employees and provides 52 parking spaces in
their Peabody location and they expect to have 210 employees by the year 2020 with 164
parking spaces on site.
Alexander explains that they could accommodate more parking on the site and explains that
they added a little more open space on the site which would give them the ability to
accommodate more parking on the site in the future if necessary.
Alexander explains that the zoning requirement for parking on the site is 309 and they are
requesting a reduction by special permit of that at this time noting they will have the
capability to add parking if needed in the future. He also explains that the Beverly Zoning
calculations would take up a lot of impervious surface unnecessarily and notes that they met
with Planning Department staff and they agreed to go with less parking and more open space.
John Massauro of Highpoint Engineering addresses the Board and gives an overview of the
existing building and the changes that they plan to make. He explains that they are proposing
a new loading dock and to enclose the existing underground parking area for use as a storage
space. He explains that they will be building an addition that will be the same height as the
existing building.
Massauro reviews the proposed materials for the facade. He explains that they are proposing
corrugated metal panels and composite metal panels with a modern flare to make this
building something interesting. He shows the Board photos of sample materials.
Keith DeRossa addresses the Board and explains the landscaping plan for the site. He notes
the locations of plantings in the front of the building, at the entry and reviews the locations of
proposed trees as well. He distributes a list of proposed plantings for the site to the Board.
Alexander finished the presentation by noting that Krohne will own the property and they are
looking at closing on the property soon.
Finch states that the plans are straight forward and he has no questions or comments at this
time.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this proposal:
Flannery: Motion to approve the proposal as submitted. Cook seconds the motion. The
motion carries (6 -0).
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2016
Page 7 of 8
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Design Review Board this evening.
Flannery moved to adjourn the meeting. Cook seconds the motion. The motion carries (6 -0).
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
February 4, 2016
Page 8 of 8