Loading...
DRB Minutes 6.6.19CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board SUBCOMITTEE: DATE: June 6, 2019 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandra Cook, Ellen Flannery, Emily Hutchings, Joel Margolis, Caroline Baird Mason, Rachel Poor, Matthew Ulrich MEMBERS ABSENT: None RECORDER: Amy McDonough Meeting is called to order 6:32pm. SIGNS 1) 132 Dodge Street, Suite 1 — Beverly Bikes Applicant: Michael Kerr The applicant is proposing one wall sign, similar to another tenant's sign. The applicant described the logo, and explained that the business has a new name. Applicant says the sign is to -scale as much as possible. Hutchings states that the sign complies with the Ordinance. There being no further comments or questions regarding this matter: Cook: Motions to approve the proposed signage as presented. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (7 -0). 2) 142 Brimbal Avenue — Praxis Applicant: Viewpoint Sign & Awning The applicant is proposing one wall sign that requires a Special Permit due to its size. The applicant provides renderings of the sign, including a rendering showing the entire fagade of the building. The applicant explains that the sign is larger due to a double storefront, and only the term "Praxis" will be illuminated (not the entire sign). The applicant also provides a night view of the signage on the storefront to show the illumination of the sign. The Board inquires about the size of the sign, and Hutchings says the sign is 96 square feet. The applicant says to ensure the letters are readable, the "swoosh" part of the sign needs to be larger. The applicant states that the term "Praxis," including the swoosh, is part of the business' logo. The Board notes that the sign is larger than necessary. Poor suggests reducing the height of the term "Praxis," as it currently extends to the edges of the sign band. Hutchings agrees that with the change, the size of the sign would be more appropriate. There being no further comments or questions regarding this matter: Hutchings: Motion to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed signage with the condition that the height of the signage (the portion stating "Praxis" with the swoosh logo feature) will be reduced from 60 inches in height to 56 inches in height, so that an additional 2 inches of space on the sign band will be both above and below the sign. Ulrich seconded. The motion carried (7 -0). The applicant asks about frosting the windows. Hutchings notes that there are regulations about visibility into storefront windows, but frosting does not qualify as signage. The Board encourages the applicant to ask the Building Inspector. 3) 244 -246 Elliott Street — The Healthy Animal Applicant: Signarama The applicant is proposing one wall sign and one pylon sign on an existing freestanding sign. The applicant provides the Board with documentation that the landlord approves the proposed signage, and describes how the wall sign involves changing the sign letters, which will not be illuminated. There being no further comments or questions regarding this matter: Cook: Motion to approve the proposed signage as presented. Mason seconded. The motion carried (7 -0). 4) 112 Rantoul Street — Frank Applicant: FKM Brands The applicant is proposing wall signage on the primary and secondary facades, five projecting signs, and window signage. The applicant describes the various pieces of signage to the Board, and states that the business will open after Labor Day. The applicant noted that the property owner /developer was enthusiastic about the applicant's signage, and decided to update signage using the same style of projecting signs. The Board says there is a significant amount of signage that states the name of the business too many times. The Board recommends simplifying the signage. Board requests a revised set of drawings demonstrating which signage will be removed. The applicant agrees to come back to the next regular meeting on July 11, 2019. The application is continued to the next regular meeting on July 11, 2019. 5) 110 Rantoul Street — Holmes Applicant: Barnat Beverly LLC The applicant is proposing two projecting signs in addition to the previously approved wall signage. The applicant is not present and is represented by Frank McClelland from FKM Brands. Hutchings notes that the applicant already has wall signage and does not need the additional projecting signage. The Board agrees that the total signage proposed for the building facade is not appropriate for the building. Mr. McClelland states that he will provide the applicant with the Board's feedback and return to the next regular meeting. The application is continued to the next regular meeting on July 11, 2019. 6) 100 Cummings Center, 181 Elliott Street — Oxford Applicant: Oxford Global Resources United Sign Co., Inc., the sign maker, is representing the applicant. The applicant is proposing a wall sign, and states that the intention is to simplify the existing sign. The proposed sign will be slightly smaller than the existing sign. The sign maker confirms that the signage is approved by the property owner. There being no further comments or questions regarding this matter: Flannery: Motion to approve the proposed signage as presented. Poor seconded. The motion carried (7 -0). 7) 81 Bridge Street — Room to Bloom Applicant: Kristin Besse United Sign Co., Inc., the sign maker, is representing the applicant. The applicant is proposing a wall sign of the same size as the existing wall sign. The existing sign will be refaced and repainted, and decals will be added. There being no further comments or questions regarding this matter: Margolis: Motion to approve the proposed signage as presented. Mason seconded. The motion carried (7 -0). 8) 42 Dunham Ridge — Harmonic Drive Applicant: The Sign Center The applicant is proposing one wall sign. The applicant summarizes the signage, describes the business, and states that the business hopes to be in the building (which is currently under construction) by September. The applicant notes that the rendering shows white letters, but the color may be closer to silver. Hutchings notes that this proposed signage is extremely similar to what was presented as example signage when the Board reviewed the site plan for the building. There being no further comments or questions regarding this matter: Cook: Motion to approve the proposed signage as presented. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (7 -0). 9) 199 Rantoul Street — Canvas Applicant: Beverly Crossing 10) 211 Rantoul Street — Canvas Applicant: Beverly Crossing The applicant is proposing both permanent and temporary leasing signage. The applicant discusses both the signage for items 9 and 10 on the agenda as connected; the Board considers the applications for both addresses together. The applicant describes the reasoning for the proposed signage. For permanent signage, the applicant is proposing one wall sign for each building and signage on the glass door of each building. The applicant describes the signage and how the wall sign will be above the main residential entrances to each building. Hutchings notes that the permanent signage complies with the Sign Ordinance. Poor questions the readability of the sign. The applicant describes the reasoning for the design of the sign, and discusses the locations of signage that commercial tenants will have. Cook: Motion to approve the proposed permanent signage for both 199 Rantoul Street and for 211 Rantoul Street as presented. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (7 -0). The temporary signage includes one banner sign on each building and signage on one corner of each building. The applicant describes the buildings and how the temporary signage will be placed. The applicant emphasizes that the goal is to show the leasing information for the development, and describes how the temporary leasing signage will be visible to traffic. The applicant compares the proposed signage to other temporary signage that had been placed on the development at 131 Rantoul Street. The Board asked about appropriate time limits for the temporary signage. The applicant stated they would like to have the signage up for six months. Hutchings suggests setting a specific date when the signage would need to be taken down. The applicant noted that it would be beneficial to keep the signage up until spring 2020. Cook noted that if the temporary signage is put up on August 1, 2019, allowing the signage to be up for nine months would mean the signage would be removed at the end of April 2020. Hutchings asked about timing for leasing. Cook: Motion to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed temporary signage for both 199 Rantoul Street and for 211 Rantoul Street as presented, with the condition that the signage may be erected from August 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (7 -0). 11) Site Plan Minor Modification, 199 & 211 Rantoul Street. Applicant: Beverly Crossing The applicant states that they are requesting to put four exterior lights on the front of each building, and that the lights will be placed at the first floor level. The applicant stated that the lights are not bright and are meant to be accent lighting. The applicant describes the Link 480 development at 480 Rantoul Street, and notes that when residents turn their balcony lights off, the street can feel dark. Hutchings asks how high the lights will be placed. The applicant states that he thinks they will be lower than street lights. The applicant describes the space and how the lighting will impact the street. No concerns are expressed by the Board regarding the lighting. The other part of the application involves the rear of building at 199 Rantoul Street. The applicant describes how a portion of the first floor that would be filled in to create interior trash and a maintenance area would not be visible to residents. The applicant shows floor plan view and describes how the building will be changed. The applicant notes that the changes are not visible from Rantoul Street, and are mainly visible from the parking area. The applicant describes how the proposed changes will benefit the residents of the building. No concerns are expressed by the Board. Ulrich: Motion to recommend that the Planning Board approve the proposed Minor Modification to a Site Plan as presented. Mason seconded. The motion carried (7 -0). 12) Site Plan Review, 175 Elliott Street Applicant: Kaestle Boos Associates Hutchings states that the applicant has requested a continuance to the next regular meeting on July 11, 2019. 13) New /Other Business: a) Review Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2019 Flannery provides minor edits to the meeting minutes, including typos and scrivener's errors. Flannery: Motion to approve the May 2, 2019 minutes as amended. Hutchings seconded. Motion passes (7 -0). b) Update on Signage at 260 Cabot Street Hutchings stated that Paper Asylum had decided to move forward with their original concept for signage at 260 Cabot Street in order to keep from impacting their grant from Beverly Main Streets. Hutchings noted that Paper Asylum had also not seen the entire sign package proposed by Holistic Therapies 4 Life. The Board asked Holistic Therapies 4 Life would be returning to the Board. Hutchings stated that she had spoken with Holistic Therapies 4 Life and Beverly Main Streets about potential options for signage that would be benefit the fagade and not impact the existing sign that has received a grant. Holistic Therapies 4 Life has not yet submitted a revised application. Hutchings noted that the signage on the rear of the building for Holistic Therapies 4 Life was not impacted; the business is able to erect that signage. c) Mason noted her concern for preparing for future site plan review in the downtown, particularly the upcoming Depot II development, as shown to the public at the Ward 2 Civic Association meeting. Mason notes the unique character of the site, and her concerns regarding the scale and context of the development. Ulrich stated his agreement that the project is an important one, and that the Board has the opportunity to prepare for reviewing upcoming projects. Hutchings notes that the Board has access to the Downtown Design Guidelines and the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings, and the Board can prepare by reviewing those guidelines. The Board discussed how to prepare for the project and that the project is still under development. Margolis asked if the Board could review existing buildings on Rantoul Street as a group. Hutchings stated that she would look into scheduling a site walk and asked about timing. d) Hutchings noted concerns for North Shore Crossing sign at 140 -160 Brimbal Avenue. The Board discussed their recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and Hutchings stated that the sign technically complies with the Special Permit. The Board discussed how the minutes reflect that the applicant stated that sign would be erected at street grade. However, the grade is not discussed as a condition of the Board, or as a condition of the Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Hutchings stated that she would inquire about whether recourse is possible. Cook: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Flannery seconded. The motion carried (7- 0). The meeting adjourned at 8:42pm.