Loading...
May 4 2017 DRB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS: RECORDER: Design Review Board Thursday, May 4, 2017 Beverly City Hall Conference Room Sandra Cook, Ellen Flannery, William Finch, Joel Margolis, and Allison Crosbie Rachel Matthews, Matthew Ulrich, and Karen Bebergal Brett Bauer Cook calls the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Sign: TK &K Services - 719 Hale Street The applicant is proposing a projecting sign. The dimensions of the sign are 20 inches by 32 inches and matches a previously approved sign for an adjacent tenant, Leland Creative. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Cook: Moves to approve the wall sign as presented. Finch seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0). Sign: Futures Behavior Therapy Center - 55 Tozer Road The applicant is proposing a monument sign. There previously was a sign in the same location, but this one will have vinyl lettering. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Margolis: Moves to approve the monument sign as presented. Finch seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0). Sign: Chive Events - 30 Rantoul Street The applicant is proposing a temporary sandwich board sign. This is a new location for the business that is currently at 252 Rantoul Street. There are brackets on the building for a permanent sign. It is noted that all sandwich board signs need to be approved by City Council. Finch observes that there are a lot of words on the sign. Cook notes that it may Design Review Board Meeting Minutes May 4, 2017 Page I of 4 be hard to read for drivers driving by. The applicant responds that the aim is to attract the foot traffic passing by. Margolis asks if the sandwich board sign will go when a permanent sign is installed. The applicant responds that they may still use the sandwich board for special event or meals they would like to host at the new location. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Crosbie: Moves to recommend the sandwich board sign as presented. Finch seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0). Informal Site Plan Review: Barnat Development - 112 Rantoul Street Modifications The applicant is almost ready to pull permits for the project and describes modifications to the plan since approval. The retail square footage had been reduced, but is now back to that originally presented. One glass door in the middle bay may be removed depending on the number of retail units. If removed, it would be replaced with glazing. The door to the lobby will become a double door. In the rear of the building, a portion of the pre -cast concrete wall will be removed to allow plantings and to block access to the drive lane of the MBTA garage. Since both lanes will be used, the applicant states that it made sense to discourage pedestrian access. They proposed removing windows to the building along the drive aisle and two windows removed from the side of the building on the fifth and sixth floor. These windows ended up being in closets and there were concerns about sight lines to the adjacent Beverly Depot project. Brick and roof deck materials have been purchased. A roof tower will exceed the allowed height because of elevator code requirements and will need to be reviewed by zoning. The windows for the units will not be double hung, but will have openings at the bottom. The applicant feels they are a much better quality. The window trim will be a dark bronze material. The applicant is still waiting to select the brick color, which will also drive the color selection of the metal panels. They are trying not to match or contrast the material colors of the Station 101 building. The construction office will be located at 126 Rantoul Street. Construction fencing should go up in late May. The front entrance to the MBTA garage will be closed for the first seven weeks, but the rear entrance to the garage will still be open. The goal is to have a certificate of occupancy by June 2018. Crosbie asks if it is possible to have windows along the wall facing the drive aisle to break up this facade. The applicant responds that windows were considered at the top of this wall, but the MBTA's lighting requirements for the drive aisle are such that harsh light would shine directly into those windows. Cook notes that the wall space calls for a tile mosaic or some other art work, but sees how this may be too costly. The applicant responds that they do not want the drive aisle to be too inviting to pedestrians, but asks if Design Review Board Meeting Minutes May 4, 2017 Page 2 of 4 a different material might help break up the facade. The applicant states they could consider some artwork at the front portion of the garage entrance wall. Margolis notes that if any restaurants are located in the retail space, then garage door openings (such as those used at A &B Burger) could be a nice feature. Cook asks if landscaping could be used along the end of the garage entrance /exit instead of the screen currently proposed. The applicant responds that they do not own the land just past the garage entrance /exit and that it is used for access to an apartment in the adjacent building, so there may not be room for any landscaping. Cook states that she is concerned about the appearance of just a screen to the garage drive aisles. The applicant responds that samples of the screen can be provided for review. Crosbie and Margolis express their preference for windows on the fifth and sixth floor remaining. They are referring to the windows that would be located in closets. Even if the windows were false windows, they feel it is a more cohesive look. The applicant responds that the windows can be put back into the plans, and they will use narrow windows to match those on the other side of these floors. Margolis asks if there are any plans to convert the apartment units to condos. He is concerned about the displacement of residents that results from conversions of rental units to condo units. The applicant responds that the project is designed as long -term rentals, but she is unable to offer any formal commitment to this because it could have implications on the financing of the project which has already been secured. Crosbie asks if the elevator tower will be visible from the street. The applicant responds that it is set back as much as possible and they are hoping the visual impact will be minimal. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Cook: Moves to recommend approval of the changes presented with the condition that: 1) the fifth and sixth floor windows on the north side of the building be put back, 2) artwork is included on the front end of the wall facing the garage entrance 3) the DRB will review brick samples and metal colors before they are selected, 4) the DRB will review a sample of the screen or landscaping plan for the end of the garage entrance /exit, and 5) the DRB will review any changes to the retail doors or windows used. Finch seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0). Design Review Board Meeting Minutes May 4, 2017 Page 3 of 4 Sign: Beverly Crossing - 116 Rantoul Street The applicant is proposing a projecting sign and is trying to match the existing signage for the building. Crosbie expresses concern about the sign of the size. A special permit is required for projecting signs that are more than seven square feet in area. This sign as proposed is 46 inches by 30 inches, or 9.58 square feet. The applicant states that the sign will be in the same location as the Aveda sign. It will be the same size as the Aveda sign as well, but the frame for the sign is larger. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Cook: Moves to recommend approval of projecting sign to the ZBA under special permit, and as presented. The sign requires a special permit because of its size. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0). March Draft Meeting Minutes Crosbie asks if there are any questions or edits to the March and April meeting minutes. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Crosbie: Moves to approve the March 2, 2017 minutes. Finch seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0). Flannery: Moves to approve the April 6, 2017 minutes. Crosbie seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0). Adjournment Cook asks if there is any other business to come before the Design Review Board this evening. There being none: Finch: Moves to adjourn the meeting. Crosbie seconds the motion. The motion carries (5 -0). The meeting is adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Design Review Board Meeting Minutes May 4, 2017 Page 4 of 4