October 23 2018 DRB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION
SUBCOMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:
RECORDER:
Design Review Board
October 23, 2018
Beverly City Hall Conference Room
Ellen Flannery, Emily Hutchings, Caroline Baird Mason, Joel Margolis,
Matthew Ulrich
Sandra Cook, Rachel Matthews
Aaron Clausen, Denise Deschamps
Donna Musumeci
Hutchings called the meeting to order at 6:32.
1) Site Plan Modification Applicant: Harborlight Community Partners for 2 Hardy Street
Kristen Carlson from Harborlight Community Partners (HCP) and Thad Siemasko from Siemasko &
Verbridge presented. Ms. Carlson described the project as a building with 6 units of affordable housing,
with both (2) units on the ground floor being fully accessible by ADA standards. Carlson noted that part of
the affordability is driven by operating costs; HCP has a potential donor to provide solar panels for the
building, which would cover approximately 75% of electrical costs. Thousands of dollars are expected to be
saved each year. Carlson noted that the major design alteration is changing the roof from a mansard roof
to a flat roof. Part of the reasoning behind this change is the solar panels; the other reasoning is due to
cost. The original mansard roof design is far more costly in terms of framing, flashing, and detailing.
Because of the priorities of affordability and solar, a flat roof is more appropriate.
Mr. Siemasko noted that the square footage and footprint have seen negligible changes. The site plan has
changed slightly due to accessibility codes requiring both entryways to be fully accessible. Siemasko noted
the location of the site and topography of the site and surrounding area, and showed some of the buildings
and physical features of the area (including a retaining wall) surrounding the site. The site plan shows a
24 -foot wide driveway with six parking spaces, and have added a pull -out space to ease parking and exiting
the site by vehicle. An additional walkway has been added to allow handicap access to the front door.
Planted slopes will be between the new walkway and the sidewalk in order to address the topographical
difference. The landscape plan is effectively the same as the original landscape plan, with the exception of
the new walkway. The building was moved slightly to adjust for the new accessible walkway. Also to
address accessibility, the trash shed was also moved from the northwest side of the north fagade to the
northeast side of the north fagade. The meters and utility equipment are located at the west side of the
building, where visibility from the street is minimal. On the northern perimeter of the building are some
arborvitae and ornamental grasses, the latter of which can be cut down in the winter to address snow
storage. Siemasko made additional note of how the walkways and site are planned in terms of the
topography and slope of the site and surrounding area.
Siemasko provided an overview of the floor plans, noting the main differences on the first floor as
accessible laundry and toilet rooms. On the second floor, height was reduced slightly to address cost
concerns. Due to the flat roof rather than the mansard roof, the third floor is slightly larger in area than the
original site plan showed. Siemasko described the roof lines, discussing how solar could be positioned on
H
a flat roof as opposed to a mansard roof. The original elevations with the mansard roof were shown to
provide a greater understanding of the changes that were made in the design and how solar panels would
better work with the flat roof. Siemasko then showed the new proposed elevations, noting the cornice lines
and architectural detailing, the shingle band between the second and third floors, the covered entry with the
brackets, and the bay windows. The grade and walkway were described with regard to the elevations.
Siemasko noted the other three -story residential buildings that are not uncommon in the area, and how
other architectural and landscaping details that are commonly used in the neighborhood are incorporated in
the site design. The building was described as a transition from the taller buildings on Rantoul Street to the
smaller, residential buildings in the surrounding neighborhood.
Siemasko described the potential colors to be incorporated, and noted a recent affordable housing project
located in Salem. Siemasko brought sample color schemes, and noted the opportunity to add more vibrant
colors to the neighborhood; surrounding buildings are more muted colors. Ulrich asked if the building
would have a white trim, and Siemasko confirmed an off -white trim color that could be highlighted by other
selected colors.
Hutchings referred back to the design and elevation, and asked about why the second bay on the southern
fagade does not reach the ground (is only on the second floor). Mr. Siemasko stated that the initial reason
was the short distance from the property line to the building and the need for a 4 -foot walkway to ensure
accessibility, which would have to be redesigned with a full bay. Additionally, there was a goal of making
the building symmetrical at the corner, which is done by having one half -bay on the southern fagade and
one half -bay on the eastern fagade. Siemasko noted other 3 -story homes in the neighborhood. Aaron
Clausen noted that having symmetry on Pleasant Street (the southern fagade) is appropriate as the fagade
is viewed as the front of the building, and asked how changing the southern fagade to include two full bays
that extend on the first two floors would change the accessible walkway. Siemasko discussed the
possibility to making both bays extend from the second story only, and Clausen stated that because of the
change to a flat roof, additional dimension is necessary, which having two full bays would bring to the
southern fagade. Hutchings noted that having the second -story bay on the southern fagade makes the
second floor feel slightly separated from the ground. Ulrich asked how the wall and walkway would be
impacted by adding the bay, and Siemasko described how the walkway would have to be reconfigured.
Margolis asked whether moving the building a few feet north would provide the width needed to add the
bay. Siemasko expressed concern over whether the driveway and northern walkway would be adversely
impacted. Ulrich asked about the possibility of bringing the bay on the east elevation down to the ground
as well, and noted how making all the bays extend to the ground or from the second story only would
improve the symmetrical nature of the building. Hutchings asked whether moving the bay on the east
fagade would enable extending the bay to the ground, and Siemasko noted that the floor plan creates
difficulty with regard to moving the bay. Flannery asked for clarification on the bays, and asked whether it
would be possible to, rather than having full bays on the first floor, adding windows and banding on the first
floor under each bay for the appearance of bays and to increase symmetry. The Board discussed how
such an approach would be carried out, and Ulrich noted that such a design would give the building a more
grounded feel. Clausen asked whether there was a precedent for such a style, and Siemasko stated that
other Gold Coast homes have similar styles. Hutchings noted that the architectural detailing could have
additional emphasis on the actual bays.
Ulrich asked about whether the shingle banding at the top of the second floor is necessary, and noted the
heavy feel. Clausen noted that the band added dimension, and asked whether the band could be made
thinner. The Board discussed the possibility of shortening the band to avoid the feeling of cutting off the
Pa
windows. Siemasko noted that such banding is common in many triple- decker buildings, and noted that the
shingle band could be slightly reduced in size.
Siemasko asked the Board's perspective on which colors could appropriately highlight the building and
architecture. The Board noted some concern with more orange colors, although having brighter colors
would add vibrancy to the neighborhood. Mason discussed having white trim, two deeper shades of gray
for the clapboard and shingle, and a bright - colored door; having the entire building be a mustard color may
be overwhelming. Ulrich noted that if the intent is to be bold with color, a plum might be more appropriate.
The Board discussed how the color and architectural detailing worked together on Harborlight's recent
Salem project. The Board discussed richer grays with white trim and a brighter color for the door.
Hutchings discussed the possibility of reducing the curb opening going into the driveway. Siemasko
expressed enthusiasm over reducing the curb opening. Clausen noted that he would confirm that the
openings to driveways and garages may be reduced to less than 24 feet across, and stated that, at a
minimum, the curb radii could be reduced.
Ulrich asked about the ground cover landscaping in the front of the primary fagade, and whether the
plantings are ground cover junipers. Siemasko confirmed. Ulrich stated that plantings with 2 -3 feet of
height would be more appropriate. Hutchings asked about the northeast corner of the site and why no
landscaping is shown. Siemasko stated the reasoning was to enable snow storage, and added that some
grasses could be added to the area.
Margolis asked if there was any possibility to enable solar without having an entirely flat roof, and stated
concern about a flat roof in a neighborhood of nearly all pitched roofs. Siemasko stated the difficulty of
placing enough solar on a roof that is not flat. Clausen noted the focus on architectural detailing on the
front fagade that will offset the flat roof.
The Board reviewed the trash shed, which was moved from its original location to the northeast corner of
the northern fagade. Siemasko showed the elevations, and described how the shed will be accessible and
centered beneath the windows on the second and third floors. The shed will be fully enclosed. Hutchings
asked whether moving the trash shed to the northwest corner and extending the walkway would be
appropriate. The Board emphasized that there was limited concern about the shed being closer to the
street, particularly with the landscaping and the shed being fully enclosed.
Clausen asked whether it would be possible to extend the pedestrian walkway along the northern perimeter
of the building, and whether the extra driveway space serves a specific function. Carlson noted that,
operationally, staff would be able to park on the extra paved space. Ulrich and Siemasko also noted that
there are limited opportunities for practical use of the space apart from parking.
Margolis asked about lighting, and Siemasko noted that the will be one 12 -foot street lamp on the northern
perimeter of the site, lighting the driveway. Clausen asked about the material of the front stairs, and
Carlson and Siemasko stated that the stairs will be concrete that will be capped and worked into the walls.
Hutchings: Motion to recommend the Planning Board approve the site plan modification with
the following revisions:
1. All three bays (two on the Pleasant Street elevation and one on the Hardy Street
elevation) will be partial bays that extend over the second floor only. However, the
0
portions of the first floor below each second -story bay will have windows and shingle
banding that mimics the second -story bays, with additional architectural detail to
emphasize the actual bays.
2. The shingle band above the second
floor
be
slightly shortened in height to have one
clapboard
— extending the sidewalk —
and
between
curb
the shingle
will
band
and
the
third
to improve
floor windows.
3. The landscaping along the southern perimeter of the building be plantings of a taller
species that are 2 -3 feet in height, rather than ground cover junipers.
4. The
curb opening
going
into the driveway be
narrowed
— extending the sidewalk —
and
the
curb
radii
will
be
reduced
to improve
pedestrian
access.
5. Both the site plan and Special Permit will be revised to reflect these changes.
6. Revised site plans will be filed with the Beverly Design Review Board when they are
submitted to the Planning Board, and revisions will be confirmed by Planning Staff.
Mason seconded. Motion carries (5 -0).
12) Adjourn:
Hutchings: Made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Flannery seconded.
The motion carries (5 -0).
The meeting adjourned at 7:49 pm.
2 1