March 7 2019 DRB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
SUBCOMITTEE:
DATE: March 7, 2018
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall Conference Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandra Cook, Caroline Baird Mason, Ellen Flannery,
Emily Hutchings, Joel Margolis, Rachel Poor
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Ulrich
RECORDER: Sophia Wetzig
1) Ford, 420 Cabot Street Applicant: Batten Bros., Inc.
The applicant proposed one freestanding sign in the CG zoning district. The
freestanding sign includes the name of the business and the term "Pre -Owned
Vehicles," and will be internally illuminated. The proposed sign is not in a location where
a freestanding sign may be permitted by- right, and requires a Special Permit. The
applicant explained that the new sign would be 19 feet tall, and near the location of the
existing sign frame. The applicant provided an aerial view of the site to the Board and
stated that the sign would be set 6 feet back from the lot line. The applicant stated that
the new sign would be 4 feet shorter than the currently existing main freestanding sign,
and would be an additional sign rather than a replacement. The Board inquired as to the
purpose of the sign, with Cook stating that it was unnecessary given the business
location and current signage. The applicant explained that the sign had stood at a
previous business and that the owner would like to repurpose it. Mason expressed
concern about the negative effects of the signage on nearby residents, especially
redundant signage. Cook agreed, saying that the second sign would be intrusive to
nearby residents. Hutchings suggested that the message on the proposed signage
could replace an existing wall sign on the dealership building. The applicant expressed
that the owner would prefer a sign to be more easily readable for passing drivers than
wall signage would be. The Board concluded that a second pylon sign was unnecessary
at the location, especially given the established history of a car dealership at this
particular location.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve pre -owned vehicle sign as presented. Flannery
seconded. All opposed. The motion did not carry. (0 -6)
2) John's Bar & Grill, 392/397 Cabot Street Applicant: Arianit Rush
The applicant proposed one awning sign and one wall sign in the CN zoning district.
The awning sign will be at 392 Cabot Street and include the name of the business. It will
not be illuminated. The applicant submitted an alternative design which included more
than one line of text and requires a Special Permit. The applicant explained that the
style of business would be a sit -down, family restaurant with a bar, hence the proposed
1
sign best fit the style and feel of the establishment. The Board discussed that a special
permit was required only because the proposed sign technically contained two lines,
one line of text with a logo wrapping around. The DRB also noted general issues with
the ordinance as relating to flat- fronted awning. Cook noted that vertical awning was no
different than a wall sign and should not be subject to separate signage regulations.
Cook explained to the applicant that though the sign requires a special permit, the
chances of approval were favorable. Cook recommended that the applicant apply for
special permit at the April 2019 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, while the Board
approve a temporary banner for the interim period. Poor suggested the possibility of a
fork and knife to replace the " &" sign which would keep the text to one line. The Board
affirmed that the applicant's preferred design as an accurate depiction of the family -style
restaurant. The applicant proposed a second sign to replace an existing wall sign at the
parking area across the street. Its design will be consistent with the new sign logo, but
does not require a special permit because it is replacing an existing sign and is for
directional purposes.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to recommend the John's Bar and Grill sign for special
permit to be approved by the ZBA, and motion to approve the wall
sign. Cook seconded. The motion carried. (6 — 0)
Rachel Poor left the meeting (6:55pm).
3) Cabot Plaza, 407 Cabot Street Applicant: Goldberg Brothers Real Estate
LLC
The applicant proposed the expansion of a freestanding sign in the CG zoning district.
The applicant proposed the expansion of the freestanding sign for a shopping plaza to
allow for four additional panels, as the plaza has an increased number of business
units. The expansion requires a Special Permit. The applicant explained that the current
sign consists of a top piece that states "Cabot Plaza" and three 4'x8' sign cabinets —
each of which have four slots for individual pylon signs — for individual tenants. The
individual slots at the bottom of the sign become covered in snow during the winter, so
the applicant proposed to raise the sign so that the bottom is 18" higher than its
currently position. The applicant also proposed to add one additional 4'x8' cabinet. The
applicant explained that the proposed changes are tenant - driven: some of the larger
vacancies in the plaza have recently been split and rented to multiple tenants, which
has created a demand for more signs. Tenants are concerned that customers cannot
find or see their businesses, as they are set back from the street. Mason asked why the
Dunkin' Donuts sign is significantly larger than other businesses listed. The applicant
explained that Dunkin' Donuts is a premier tenant and its sign was negotiated in the
1960s. Margolis asked about the height regulation at this site and Cook consulted the
ordinance to confirm that the regulation is 15 feet in height and 12 inches in depth,
confirming that the current sign is already over the ordinance, standing at 21 feet in
height. The applicant proposed to increase the height by an additional 6'3 ". The
applicant stated that that the top portion of the pylon sign would be decorative.
Pa
Hutchings expressed concern about setting precedent, should the increased height be
approved. Mason pointed out that the location of the current sign is unobtrusive, and
that at this specific location height may be the only way to improve and increase
signage. Mason also noted that proper signage is important in fairness to tenants. The
DRB discussed that the location is non - residential and that this is a significant factor in
permitting the proposed changes. The DRB also considered that the current sign is
consistently and appropriately turned off at night (11:OOpm). The applicant further
explained that each sign cabinet in the pylon sign was separated by an 8 to 9 inches.
DRB noted that special permits are granted on a case -by -case basis.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Margolis: Motion to recommend to the ZBA to approve the sign as presented.
Cook seconded. The motion carried. (5 -0).
4. Old Planters Brewing Co., 232 Rantoul Street Applicant: Old Planters
Brewing Co.
The applicant proposed one projecting sign in the CC zoning district. The projecting sign
includes the name of the business and will be externally illuminated. The sign complies
with the Ordinance. The applicant presented the sign and facade improvements as part
of the application to Beverly Main Streets' Facade and Sign Improvement Grant. The
applicant explained that the property had been purchased in October 2018 and is
currently being converting into a brewery and a tap room with an upscale, industrial
style. The applicant presented design plans to the DRB, featuring rolling glass garage -
style doors and standing -seam awning. The proposed sign would be a 30" projecting
sign made of PVC painted to look like wood. The applicant presented a sample of the
metal detailing that would be on the door framing and awning. Hutchings noted that
Beverly Main Streets and the Planning Department are comfortable with the design of
the sign and the facade. Cook and Flannery both stated their appreciation for the
design. The applicant explained that the business is hoping to open in June 2019, and
will sell beer only. The applicant explained that the business site is two segments of
three connected shops. The applicant also requested an extension of approximately two
months for a temporary wall sign until the building facade is completed. A temporary
sign had previously been approved and was up for two weeks. The applicant requested
additional time while construction is underway.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the proposed blade /projecting sign as presented
and to approve an extension of the temporary sign for 60 days.
Motion to recommend to Beverly Main Streets that the Facade
Improvement Grant application be approved. Hutchings seconded.
The motion carried (5 -0).
3
5) 59 Dunham Road (44 Dunham Ridge) — Site Plan Review Applicant:
Dunham Ridge, LLC
The applicant submitted a site plan to construct a two -story high -bay building for
manufacturing, office, and storage use, with an associated surface parking facility. The
applicant explained that the new building is planned to be 50,000 sq. ft and 2 floors,
designed to accommodate flex -users seeking industrial and office space. There will be
high -bay clearance in both levels. Flannery asked the applicant to explain the location of
the site, to which the applicant replied that Dunham Ridge was located between the
Salem News building and the North Shore Music Theater. The applicant explained that
the 55 -acre site contained several buildings. Several units of land have been sold to
industrial and other developers. The 50 Dunham building was on the site when the
current owner purchased the land. The current owner has since built a 5-story, 150,000
sq. ft. building attached to a 500 -car parking garage and 3 pedestrian bridges. The
owner also has a permit in place for a site at 52 Dunham Ridge, where the steel frame
for a building has already been erected earlier than expected due to steel tariffs. The
owner sold two units of land to third parties. One, Vitality Senior Living, began plans to
construct a 118 -room assisted living facility, but has since left the project. The site is
now actively marketed as a fully - permitted and designed site for assisted living. The
other, Harmonic Drive, is currently building a 100,000 sq. ft. manufacturing site.
The applicant explained that this new building at 44 Dunham is on a 4 -acre site and is
designed to meet the high demand for flex space that includes both light manufacturing,
production and office space on the North Shore. The applicant described the building as
a 2 -story that would be set into the slope with access from both the lower- and upper -
level with a footprint of 138' x 183' x 35'. The design is a mixture of glass and brick to
include elements from both surrounding campuses and to create design cohesion. The
applicant described the design as incorporating elements from the building at 48
Dunham Road, 52 Dunham Road, 44 Dunham Road, and the Harmonic building. The
applicant described a feature - corner at the main entry of lower side of the proposed
building and a curtain -wall system with metal banding and an overhang at front
entrance. In response to Margolis' question, the applicant confirmed that the site plan
included wide - access for 18 -wheel trucks that would likely require regular access to the
building. The applicant explained that the final design plans will depend on the future
tenant's needs. The applicant confirmed that the site included pedestrian access to the
48 Dunham Road building, and that the campus included a reserved space for a
restaurant that will service all buildings in the area. Cook inquired about outdoor spaces
for employees, and the applicant confirmed that the site was connected to walking trails
in the Norwood Pond Recreation area. The applicant also stated that there would be
seating immediately outside the new building, and further seating sprinkled around the
campus. Mason commented on the forethought of designing a campus with continuity.
Margolis asked if there were plans for access to Route 128. The applicant confirmed
that this had been considered but there was no permit for access nor was the project
designed with access in mind. The project was designed considering the next 15 -18
years. The applicant stated that there had been previous general consideration of an
interchange north of the Brimbal Ave access, but that 59 Dunham Road was designed
assuming only the current highway access. Margolis then asked for a projected traffic
2 1
count, to which the applicant replied that the maximum capacity would be around 3,000
trips per day and that the applicant had already paid the City of Beverly $330,000 to
widen the mouth of Dunham Road and Brimbal Ave, and to install a traffic light at
Brimbal and Dunham and a traffic light at the south exit from Route 128. The applicant
would like this construction to happen in summer 2019. Hutchings commented that the
site plan appeared appropriate based on location. The Board and applicant discussed
vegetation and trees around the site, and the Board encrouaged the applicant to include
trees at the front of the building. Flannery also emphasized the importance of
incorporating solar panels on the roof(s).
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Mason: Motion to recommend that the Planning Board accept the design as
presented. Cook seconded. The motion carried (5 -0).
8) New /Other Business:
a) Review of February 2019 Minutes:
Flannery noted the following corrections to be made to the minutes:
• Correction to page 1, item 1, paragraph 1, line 8, which should read
"municipalities ".
• Correction to page 1, item 1, paragraph 2, "proposed dimensions"
included an extra space.
• Correction to page 5, under "New /Other Business ", item A, the paragraph
does not identify the applicant or signage. The applicant was Whole
Foods /Northshore Crossing.
• Correction to page 7, the last sentence, "attend" should be added.
Cook: Motion to approve February 2019 minutes with the corrections.
Flannery seconded. The motion carried (5 -0).
9) Adjourn:
Cook: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Flannery seconded.
The motion carried (5 -0).
The meeting adjourned at 7:48pm.
0