Loading...
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