Loading...
May 2 2019 DRB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: RECORDER: Signs Design Review Board May 2, 2019 Beverly City Hall Conference Room Sandra Cook, Ellen Flannery, Emily Hutchings, Joel Margolis Caroline Baird Mason, Rachel Poor, Matthew Ulrich Sophia Wetzig 1) 299 Rantoul Street — Supreme Pizza (continued) Applicant: Kevin Shrestha The applicant had proposed one awning sign and window signage in the CC zoning district at the April meeting. After deliberation, the Board continued the application to the May meeting. A representative (Bhim Gurung) was present at the meeting and presented a revised design which Cook and Hutchings had assisted him with earlier in the day. The design featured a red backdrop with black, six - inch -high lettering reading "Supreme Pizza," and window signage at the bottom of the windows. The window design was words only, no images, in the same font as the awning sign and with 4 -inch letters. Cook included the words "Morro" and "FroYo" on the window to advertise items from the restaurant menu. Hutchings explained that as of the morning of May 2, 2019, the application had not been perceived as complete and there had been concern. In response, Cook and Hutchings met with the applicant to complete the application so that DRB would be able to review it and vote on it at the meeting. The completed application does not require a special permit. There being no further comments or questions regarding this matter: Hutchings: Motion to approve the proposed signage as presented. Flannery seconded. The motion carried. (4 -0) 2) 47 River Street — Salem Plumbing Supply Co. Inc. Applicant: Salem Plumbing Supply Co. Inc. The applicant is proposing one wall sign in the IG zoning district. The wall sign includes the term "Best of Boston Home 2019, Awarded by Boston Magazine." The wall sign is larger than what is permitted by right and requires a Special Permit. The sign is temporary in nature, and the owner /applicant has indicated that the sign will not remain up for an extended period of time. The owner /applicant brought the applications to the April meeting, and was not required by the Planning Department to provide additional copies. Digital copies of the application will be emailed to DRB members for the May meeting. Due to the fact that the application was not on the agenda for the April meeting, the Board determined to review and vote on the application at the May meeting. The applicant notified staff that he is unable to attend the Design Review Board meeting due to a conflict with another City meeting. However, the applicant provided a written summary of the signage and his application to the Design Review Board. The written summary was emailed to the Board and circulated at the meeting. In follow up from the April 2019 DRB meeting, Hutchings confirmed that it is indeed correct protocol for DRB not to review or discuss applications that have not been listed on the agenda for a published meeting. The DRB saw no issues with this application but discussed the appropriate time limits for a temporary sign, especially one that had been hung without approval. Margolis suggested 6 -12 months. Hutchings recommended that the DRB suggest to the ZBA a specific date for the sign to be taken down. Cook suggested one year, and the DRB discussed the timeline of through the 2019 calendar year, as seemed appropriate to a 2019 "Best of sign. The DRB considered the publication timeline of Best of Boston awards, and when the 2019 sign may have first become available to the business. The Board concluded that the end of the calendar year seemed appropriate as a deadline. Hutchings stated concern that both the original sign and the new sign were nonconforming by a significant amount. There being no further comments or questions regarding this matter: Cook: Motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a special permit for the temporary sign to hang until December 31, 2019. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (4 -0). 3) 228R Cabot Street — Atypical Yoga Studio Applicant: Colleen Mullen The applicant is proposing one wall sign in the CC zoning district. The wall sign includes the name of the business and will not be illuminated. The signage is for a rear location on Cabot Street and will be visible from the parking lot, Federal Street, and Chapman Street. The sign will be hung above the main entrance to the business. The sign complies with the Ordinance. At this point in the meeting, Hutchings stated that the applicant had contacted her previously in the day because of a minor time conflict and had requested to be put last on the agenda. The DRB agreed and continued on to review agenda item #4 until the applicant was present. At 7:40pm, The DRB reviewed the application and determined that it was in full compliance with an appropriate design and location upon the building. There being no further comments or questions regarding this matter: Cook: Motion to approve the signage as presented. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (4 -0). 4) 260 Cabot Street — Holistic Therapies 4Life Applicant: Adam Schoenhardt The applicant is representing a business that is opening on Cabot Street in the CC zoning district, with its main entrance at the rear of the building from the public parking lot and the secondary entrance at the front of the building facing Cabot Street. The applicant is proposing one wall sign and one projecting sign on the Cabot Street facade, and one wall sign and one awning sign on the parking lot- facing fagade. Staff Report notes and follow -up regarding the signage on the Cabot Street fagade: Staff noted that the projecting sign is not located within the business' frontage (which consists only of the door into the establishment) and has necessitated the movement of the Paper Asylum projecting sign, for which a Sign Improvement Grant was provided by the City /Beverly Main Streets. Any revisions to Paper Asylum's signage plan will require approval from the Beverly Planning Department and Beverly Main Streets. Staff has asked the Building Commissioner to clarify whether a projecting sign would be permitted by right in the proposed location given the question of frontage. Staff Report notes and follow -up regarding the signage on the parking lot - facing fagade: The applicant argued that the awning sign should be considered a wall sign due to the architectural style of the awning, which is flat and only extends approximately 10 inches. Previous to the meeting, staff conferred with the Building Commissioner, who determined that the sign is considered an awning sign, and a Special Permit is required, as there are two lines of text and the text is larger than 6 inches in height. At the meeting: Margolis stated for the record that he had formerly conducted business with the business, namely that he had previously leased a property to the business, and that the business transaction had since concluded. He stated that he would be an impartial judge of this application. The applicant noted that there would be changes to the submitted sign design for the rear of the building, due to a misunderstanding about the permitted square footage. The applicant described a proposal for signs on the front and rear of the building: For the rear fagade, the applicant brought a revised proposal for signage for the parking lot- facing fagade — which included two wall signs — and stated that the combined size of both signs is 20 square feet. One wall sign would be located directly over the door, and one would be located next to the first wall sign on the building wall. Cook noted that this proposal was in fact two signs, one with the business name and the other with the logo. Hutchings noted that though two signs, the display was compliant in terms of square footage. Staff noted that the Sign Ordinance is not designed as a Form -Based Code (which would consider the total amount of square footage and may not consider whether the total signage included multiple, seemingly fragmented signs), and that the Building Commissioner would need to be consulted to determine whether the wall signs may be considered together and be permitted by right. The DRB discussed alternatives, such as one larger sign over the door or a sign directly on the door itself. The applicant explained visibility issues of a loading dock and parked cars. Hutchings stated that the Building Inspector would also need to confirm that the signage could be considered as one wall sign. Cook inquired if the DRB could recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a special permit pending the Building Inspector's permission, and Hutchings confirmed that they could. The DRB generally agreed that the rear facade was attractive and appropriate. Signage for the front fagade (Cabot Street) would consist of one blade sign over the window directly above and to the right of the door, and one wall sign over the shared doorway. The Paper Asylum blade sign would be moved down above the window on the far left (the third window). The applicant stated that updated lighting fixtures will be erected on the building, differing slightly from the lighting fixtures presented in Paper Asylum's Grant Agreement. Board members questioned if one business was permitted both a blade side and wall sign. Hutchings stated that as per the Building Inspector's analysis, each business is allowed both signs. Hutchings expressed concern from the Downtown Design Guidelines perspective about two projecting signs hanging so closely. The signs would likely block each other. Cook noted that they would not block each other as the two blade signs were more than 10 feet apart. Hutchings read aloud concerns from Poor, (absent), asking if the projecting sign was necessary and if the two would block each other. Poor noted the awkwardness of two blade signs in close proximity. Hutchings read aloud comments from Mason (absent), expressing concern about size of the wall sign and about multiple signs clustered on the Cabot Street fagade. Hutching's personal concern was that the blade sign would hang over the Paper Asylum's window - front. The applicant responded that there was only one entrance for both businesses and noted that the blade signs give charm and rhythm. Hutchings noted that when driving south, the blade signs block the wall sign. Cook added that it was unusual to hang a blade sign for the applicant's business over the Paper Asylum fagade front. The DRB discussed various options to give both businesses Cabot Street visibility, considering options such as two blade signs, one blade sign and one walk sign, and door signs. Hutchings expressed concern that these changes would substantially affect a grant that had been awarded to the Paper Asylum by Beverly Main Streets, and which stipulated a projecting sign over the door. The DRB clarified that Fagade Improvement Grants are awarded per fagade and not per business. The applicant stated that they had discussed the rearrangements with the Paper Asylum, and that the Paper Asylum understood the situation and was willing to move their sign. Margolis stated that he would most like to see the previously discussed five lights added to the fagade and that perhaps the DRB should consider this as a condition of approval. Cook noted that a new door color has also been proposed in fagade grant and had not yet been implemented. Hutchings reiterated that the multiple signs of this application would require the Paper Asylum to return to the Planning Department and Beverly Main Streets because the facade would be significantly altered from the original plan that had been approved for the grant. Cook noted that the changes seemed minor, but Hutchings noted that the new, proposed signs would hang over the door, which directly affected the terms of the grant. Flannery commented that it was unfortunate because there were two businesses in the building when the grant had been awarded, and that it seemed wrong to penalize one over the other. Hutchings commented that Cabot Street was a secondary entrance for the applicant, but other DRB members disagreed, stating that the business address was Cabot Street and that many customers parked on Cabot to access the building. Margolis commented that he would prefer to see a smaller wall sign. The applicant answered that he could create a single wall sign with letters and blade with logo, which would match the sign in the rear. Cook noted that the front sign would be more effective if a border were added. Hutchings stated that though the ordinance permits one blade sign per business, the blade at this location contradicts the Downtown Design Guidelines specification that signs not detract from architectural detail. She argued that both a wall sign and blade sign were not complimentary in this location. Flannery stated that the two signs did not appear oversized at this location, while Cook commented that she liked the blade sign and that the wall sign looked too flat. Hutchings agreed that blade signs were very appropriate for downtown and clarified that her concern was about the cluster of signs, not the sign itself. Cook stated concern about the Paper Asylum being pushed aside and proposed a compromise that the Paper Asylum be allowed a design for the glass door in exchange for returning to renegotiate the terms of the grant. Margolis stated that it may be necessary for the DRB to advocate to Beverly Main Streets what it would like to happen in terms of a resolution. Cook agreed to speak with Beverly Main Streets on behalf of the DRB. Cook: Motion to approve signage for parking lot- facing fagade as presented on condition that the Building Inspector confirms that the signs do not require a special permit. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (4 -0). Cook: Motion that if the Building Inspector says the signage requires a special permit, the DRB recommend to the ZBA approve the package as presented and grant a special permit for the two signs. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (4 -0). Hutchings: Motion to approve the wall sign and projecting sign on the Cabot Street fagade with the condition that logo be removed from wall sign and the wall sign be reduced to fit over the door, and with the condition that both signs be altered to include a black border. Cook second. The motion passed (3 -1, Hutchings opposed). Hutchings: Motion to make a finding that the Paper Asylum signage as revised is appropriate for a Fagade and Sign Improvement Grant. Cook seconded. The motion passed (3 -1, Hutchings opposed). Hutchings explained to the applicant that the next step regarding the Cabot Street - facing signs would be to wait for go -ahead from Beverly Main Streets, and that the Building Commissioner would need to confirm that the signage on the parking lot- facing fagade does not require a special permit. The applicant inquired about the possibility of a temporary sign in the case that the parking -lot facing signage requires a Special Permit. Hutchings explained that a temporary sign that is up for more than two weeks requires DRB review and approval, and recommended that the DRB approve a temporary sign in the case that the proposed wall signs require a special permit. Hutchings: Motion to approve a temporary wall sign to be located on rear of building that is no more the 20 square feet and the design may be approved administratively. It will be removed at no later than June 30, 2019. Cook seconded. The motion passed (4 -0). New /Other Business: 5) Minutes from April 4, 2019: Flannery commented that on page 3, second paragraph, line 1, the word "be" should be deleted. Cook: Motion to accept the April 4, 2019 minutes with the corrections from Flannery as written. Flannery seconded. The motion passed (4 -0). Adjourn: Cook: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Hutchings seconded. The motion passed (4 -0). The meeting adjourned at 7:47pm.