November 1 2018 DRB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
OTHER CITY STAFF:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
RECORDER:
Design Review Board
November 1, 2018
Beverly City Hall Conference Room
Sandra Cook, Ellen Flannery, Joel Margolis,
Rachel Matthews, Caroline Baird Mason
Aaron Clausen, Jennifer Bean
Emily Hutchings, Matt Ulrich
Donna Musumeci
1)
Batten Bros. Signs & Awnings
Applicant:
Communitas
The applicant
is replacing the existing wall sign with a
sign that is
similar in size, which
includes the name of the business. The client is going
through a
brand name change
from EMarc to
Communitas. The sign will be internally
illuminated. Cumming Properties
has approved
the sign and has a blanket variance for wall signs
that meet certain
criteria,
which
applies
to
this sign.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the signs as presented. Flannery seconded.
The motion carries (5 -0).
2) North Shore Bank, 140 Brimbal Avenue Applicant: North Shore Bank
The applicant is proposing three signs with channel letters and red stripes, all internally
lit. The three signs are the same size and comply with the Ordinance. Two of the signs
face the street, and the third sign at the back is actually the entrance of the business
and is visible from the street corner. The Board discussed the fact that the third sign is
not really visible from the street. However, the applicant noted that he was advised that
the Building Commissioner felt the third sign is visible and that all are in compliance with
the Ordinance.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Baird Mason: Motion to approve the signs as presented. Flannery
seconded. The motion carries (5 -0).
3) 4 Enon Street. Tread Tabata Applicant: Kathv Glabickv
The applicant is proposing a wall sign that says Tread Trabata and also includes the
words, "Run, Ride, Redefine ". Sign complies with the Ordinance. The Board discussed
that the graphics for the window appears to be non - compliant (cannot be more than
20% of the whole window for visibility); the upper part of the window is almost fully
covered. DRB recommended the sign company work on the window signage to ensure
H
it does not obscure more than 20% of all the windows, and recommended that applicant
may want to have one line of writing on the top of the upper window. The wall sign is in
compliance.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the signs as presented. Flannery seconded. The
motion carries (5 -0).
4) Peter Martayan, 380 Cabot Street Applicant: Back East Mediterranean Grill
The applicant is taking the location of the NY Bagel Deli & Cafe located on the corner of
Cabot and Rantoul Street, and is proposing to replace the existing wall sign with the
Back East Mediterranean Grill sign. The wall sign will be reduced by one foot to comply
with the ordinance and will be 19SF. The sign is simple with a pastel border. Applicant
also requests to have a projecting sign, but does not have insurance or a location for it
yet. The projecting sign will be a Cabot Street sign which is not allowed to have a wall
sign (the Ordinance only allowing one wall sign per business in the CN zoning district).
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Clausen: Motion to approve the signs as amended and submitted and
revised at a reduced size of 144" x 19", and eliminating the second
wall sign presented, to be replaced with a projecting sign to be
presented at a later date. Margolis seconded. The motion carries
(5 -0).
5) CEA Beverly, LLC Applicant: North Shore Crossing
The applicant is proposing a monument (freestanding) sign package for the new plaza.
The package was compared to the same as the Cummings entrance; the applicant feels
the sign package very much does fit into the guidelines for signage.
The first sign presented is the larger sign, meant to be a welcoming sign that mimics the
design of the building. This is the sign seen coming off Route 128. It resides on a wall
structure, the base of which mimics the stone that will be on the building itself. Letters
are attached to an aluminum structure; the background is a faux finish all hand painted
to match the wood on the building, and looks like wood planks to provide a depth to the
sign. Pole covers are custom fabricated aluminum and painted to match a brushed
aluminum finish that is on the roof of the building. Light downlighting provided as an
accent; letters themselves are halo illuminated, there is no light coming through the
face, rather a highlight of light behind them. Letters are three inches deep and two
inches off the wall so the light can reflect behind them. The sign if the largest at 217SF.
The second item discussed are two signs There are retaining walls on either side of the
entrance, and the lettering on these identifies the entrance. The letters are the same as
the other, three inches deep with the halo lighting but are not externally illuminated.
Pa
The applicant noted that the signs are 75SF each and are not really freestanding signs,
as the signs are on a wall so not considered a wall sign but if so, they would comply.
Discussion how these would be classified; Clausen indicated per zoning, all three signs
would be considered freestanding signs, just with a different shape to it, like a
monument sign.
Discussion on the larger sign being too big. If the sign was scaled down, the letters
would be smaller and the shape different and the sign is meant to be viewed for visibility
coming off the ramp from route 128. The point of view is back far from the rotary but the
sign is visible versus being right in the rotary to see it, then the other signs are there
allowing traveler to make a decision.
The signs require a special permit, and the Board discussed what is the right scale of
the sign and how big should it feel. Discussion of working the walls /signs with the
landscaping to step it down a bit, have the signs meet the landscaping, using it to finish
the line. Landscaping can solve a lot with its overall design.
The applicant will continue to work on the plan. The vendor can work on the height.
Revised plan should include the materials that will be used to show how the lighting is
going to work, the actual halos, and details on the letters. Also, the revised plan should
include what was approved on the landscaping; it is important to see how the final
landscape plan looks in context with laying it out with the signs.
Clausen wrapped up with requesting colors suggestions made by Matthews and work
on the design of the compass and overall use of the logo. In the revised plan, also show
the color changes in the stone and on the welcoming wall, and consider bringing it down
a foot in size.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Clausen: Motion to continue the sign package to the December 6 meeting.
Cook seconded. The motion carries (5 -0).
6) Diana Esshaki Applicant: NE Orthodontic Specialists
The applicant is proposing a wall sign. The application was submitted after a deadline
misprint so the DRB did not have time to review prior to the meeting. The applicant
needs a sign for their own visibility, due to confusion with parking from the new middle
school.
The sign appears placed on the roof line and above the cornice which makes it
noncompliant. There is not room for street sign due to the small sidewalk and a cross
walk. The Board determined that the sign drawing is not to scale, and the sign may still
require a special permit.
The Board recommended that the tag line fit in the negative space underneath the logo
or get rid of so the sign becomes more rectangular in shape and increase the weight of
the letters. The sign will be attached with metal brackets and be fit so they are not seen.
0
Applicant wishes to keep the tag line. The Board requested to have the revised sign
drawing done to scale and include materials. The Board noted that it is important to
show that the sign actually fits the roof band with the 36" available on each side, and
recommended the base of the sign shown separate of the cornice. The applicant will
return to the DRB in December with a revised application. DRB recommends applicant
does a temporary banner while going for the special permit for the sign.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Clausen: Make a motion to continue to the December 6 meeting, Flannery
seconded. The motion carries (5 -0).
7) Draft Meeting Minutes September 6, 2018:
Flannery has a question on page 1, last paragraph, second sentence references "upper
hand" what corner of upper hand should be referenced? Staff will listen to the tape and
make the correction and amend the minutes.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Clausen: Make a motion to approve the meeting minutes as amended.
Flannery seconded. The motion carries (5 -0).
8) Adjourn:
Cook: Made a motion to adjourn the meeting
The motion carries (5 -0).
The meeting adjourned at 8:35pm.
So moved, all in favor.
2 1