DRB Minutes 7.11.2019CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
SUBCOMITTEE:
DATE: July 11, 2019
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall — Council Chamber
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandra Cook, Caroline Baird Mason, Ellen Flannery,
Emily Hutchings, Joel Margolis, Rachel Poor,
Matthew Ulrich
MEMBERS ABSENT:
RECORDER: Emily Hutchings
Chairperson Cook calls the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
1) Appointment of Vice Chair of the Design Review Board
Cook states the need for the Design Review Board to appoint a Vice Chair, and opens
the floor to nominations. Flannery nominates Margolis. Cook asks Margolis if he is
willing to be the Vice Chair, and Margolis confirms that he is. Cook asks for a motion.
Flannery: Motion to elect Joel Margolis as Vice Chair of the Design Review
Board. Mason seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
Signs
2) 112 Rantoul Street — Frank (cont.) Applicant: FKM Brands
The applicant is continuing his application from the June 2019 meeting. The applicant
notes that he has made the discussed revisions and clarifications to his application
agreed upon at the previous meeting. Starting with the east elevation of the building, the
applicant shows a rendering of the entire building, and notes that Holmes (item 3 on the
agenda) has revised the proposed signage to match Frank's signage. The applicant
notes that with him is the graphic designer. The applicant shows an image of his
restaurant's storefront, and shows the signage that was originally proposed. The
applicant shows the two smaller wall signs and two of the blade (projecting) signs that
have been removed. Sarah Barnat, the property owner and applicant for Holmes,
describes the reasoning for the projecting signs for both Frank and Holmes, stating that
they are necessary for visibility. Poor asks if the building will be called "Holmes and
Frank' or "Holmes," and Barnat clarifies that Holmes is the residential portion of the
building, and Frank is the restaurant side. Poor notes that the same type of signage
may be confusing. Barnat states that "Holmes" is currently on the building as wall
signage, but is not prominent enough. Hutchings states that there is an intention with
the signage to emphasize the commercial space, rather than the residential space.
The applicant describes the north elevation and the changes that have been made,
stating that there is now one wall sign and window signage. The applicant states that
the projecting sign on the north fagade has remained, which is inside the colonnade.
Cook asks for perspectives from the Board, and Hutchings notes the improvement.
Cook comments on the appropriate revisions that keep the feel of the space, and the
applicant states he is happy with the revised application.
Hutchings notes the signs that are permitted by right and the signs that require a special
permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. There being no further questions or
comments regarding this matter:
Hutchings: Motion to approve (1) the primary wall sign on the east facade, (2)
the window signage, (3) the smaller projecting sign on the east
facade, and (4) the wall sign on the secondary facade as
presented. Hutchings seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
Hutchings: Motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that (1) the
larger projecting sign on the east facade, (2) the projecting sign on
the north facade, and (3) the secondary wall sign on the east
facade be approved as presented. Flannery seconds. The motion
passes (7 -0).
3) 110 Rantoul Street— Holmes (cont.) Applicant: Barnat Beverly LLC
The applicant is proposing two projecting signs, and emphasizes her goal to ensure
consistency in signage and clarify the name and the address of the development.
Hutchings states that the smaller of the two projecting signs is allowed by right and the
larger projecting sign requires a special permit due to the fact that only one projecting
sign is permitted per business and that projecting signs can only be 7 square feet. Poor
notes that the projecting sign for Frank has the start of the word at the top, while the
projecting sign for Holmes has the start of the word at the bottom of the sign. The
applicant states that the sign will be changed to be consistent, and that both signs will
read from top to bottom. Hutchings states that she still does not believe that the
projecting signs are necessary for a residential project, and that the signage removes
some of the unique aspects of Frank's signage. The applicant states that they also have
a product that they need to sell, and that the existing signage is attractive but does not
properly advertise the residential development. Hutchings notes that no other residential
project in the area has this type of signage, and typically only has one sign. The
applicant states that the intent was to provide a tasteful design, and Hutchings responds
that she is not against the design, but is just noting that the case is unusual for this type
of development, particularly as part of the signage requires a special permit. Margolis
states that the Zoning Board of Appeals will determine whether to approve the larger of
the two projecting signs. Hutchings confirms that two motions are required for this
application, one to approve the smaller projecting sign, and one making a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the larger projecting sign.
The applicant notes that due to the lack of front setback per the design intent of bringing
the building to the street, the wall signage is difficult to see.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the smaller projecting sign as presented. Cook
seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
Flannery: Motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the
larger projecting sign be approved as presented. Cook seconds.
The motion passes (7 -0).
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 2
Hutchings states that at a later time, the Board may want to discuss having only the
Chair sign the proposed signage representing the Board's approval (in order to expedite
approvals, as currently all present Board members sign approved signage).
4) 40 -60 Dunham Ridge — Dunham Ridge Leasing Sign Applicant: Michael Kelly
The applicant is proposing one freestanding sign in the IR zoning district. The applicant
states that he needs a Special Permit for the sign — there is a smaller leasing sign that
is currently up, and the property owner would like to erect a larger sign. The applicant
states that there is an old structure that appears to be the frame of an old sign, and
states that they would like to utilize the sign frame for increased visibility. Hutchings
asks if the applicant came before the Board regarding the smaller sign, and the
applicant states that he received a permit from the Building Department per zoning. The
Board reviews images of the location and proposed sign. Margolis asks how long the
sign will be up, and the applicant states until the end of the summer. Hutchings notes
that the sign requires a Special Permit due to its size and location. The applicant
confirms that the smaller sign will be removed when the larger sign is erected. Cook
states that the sign is large, but she is comfortable with the sign being up temporarily.
Margolis states that the Board should recommend a date when the sign will be required
to be taken down. The Board reviews time frames that would be considered
appropriate, at the end of which the applicant could return and ask for additional time if
needed. The Board determines that September 30, 2019, would be an appropriate time
when the sign should be removed (or the applicant should return and request additional
time.)
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the sign
be approved as presented with the condition that the sign be
removed by September 30, 2019. Flannery seconds. The motion
passes (7 -0).
5) 45 Enon Street — REV Kitchen & Bar Applicant: Nick Harron
The applicant is proposing two wall signs in the CG zoning district. The applicant states
that the restaurant is rebranding and reviews the proposed signage. Ulrich asks if the
proposed signs are the same size as the existing signs. The applicant states that the
sign on the parking lot- facing fagade is the same size, but the existing street - facing sign
is much smaller, and the new sign will be larger (although complies with the Sign
Ordinance). Hutchings states that regarding the parking lot- facing wall sign, there
appears to be very little space between the sign and the arch over the window, and
questions whether reducing the size of the sign will better articulate the arch and the
sign. Cook asks if the rendering is accurate, and the applicant states that they felt the
same way about the sign and actually reduced the size of the sign to take the
architectural features into consideration.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the sign as presented. Poor seconds. The
motion passes (7 -0).
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 3
Ed Juralewicz (representing the applicants for Microchip Corporation, items 6 and 7)
notes the timing of the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings and asks if it would be
appropriate for the Board to amend their recommendation to extend the date the sign
must be removed by the applicant. Hutchings states that she informed the applicant of
the timing, but it may be appropriate to extend the period of time by a few months.
4) Flannery: Motion to modify the motion regarding item 4 on the agenda (40 -60
Dunham Ridge), to modify the date that the sign must be removed
to December 31, 2019. Cook seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
6) 34 Tozer Road — Microchip Applicant: Microchip Corporation
Ed Juralewicz of United Sign Company is representing the applicant. The applicant
proposed one wall sign and one freestanding sign in the IR zoning district. The applicant
currently has signs reading "Microsemi," and the company is looking to change the
signs to "Microchip." Juralewicz notes that the size of the signs will not change.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Margolis: Motion to approve the sign as presented. Poor seconds. The
motion passes (7 -0).
7) 123 Brimbal Avenue — Microchip Applicant: Microchip Corporation
Ed Juralewicz of United Sign Company is representing the applicant. The applicant
proposed one freestanding sign in the IR zoning district. The applicant currently has a
sign reading "Microsemi," and the company is looking to change the sign to "Microchip."
Juralewicz notes that the size of the sign will not change.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Margolis: Motion to approve the signs as presented. Mason seconds. The
motion passes (7 -0).
8) 50 West Street — Beverly Farms Dental Applicant: Fastsigns of Quincy
Margolis notes for the record that he previously had a contract and business dealing
with the applicant; the contract has been fulfilled and there is no potential for conflict of
interest. The applicant is proposing one freestanding sign in the R -45 zoning district, to
replace an existing freestanding sign with a different business' name. The sign will be in
the same location, and the size of the sign has been reduced slightly in height and
expanded in width. The business owner notes that the existing landscaping will be
removed when the new sign is erected. The Board and applicant review the dimensions
of the current sign and the new sign. Hutchings states that the reasoning for the Special
Permit is that the sign is in a residential zone, but emphasizes that even if the property
were to be zoned commercial, the sign would require a Special Permit due to the
topographical /site design requirements for a freestanding sign (noting that a wall sign or
projecting sign would be visible from the street) and the fact that the proposed sign
shows an increase in width, depth, and overall square footage from the existing
nonconforming sign. Cook agrees that the sign appears to be large, and asks about the
letter heights. The applicant notes that the perspective in the renderings makes the sign
appear much larger, and reiterates the fact that there will be no landscaping around the
sign. Hutchings states that landscaping can soften the impact of a larger sign. The
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 4
business owner states that there is a stone wall around part of the perimeter of the site,
and the design endeavored to incorporate those stone elements into the base of the
sign. The business owner also notes the materials on the building, and how they
attempted to incorporate those into the sign as well. The applicant referred to Hutchings'
comment that a wall sign or projecting sign would be visible, and stated that the design
of the building means that there is no sign band and the design does not lend itself to a
projecting sign. The applicant noted that the current sign was also approved by Special
Permit, likely for the same reasons the applicant has noted. Mason states that the sign
appears to be too large, and notes that the commercial portion of West Street ends at
the railroad tracks just before 50 West Street, with the exception of an inn. Mason notes
that the character of the area means that people are driving slowly, and she does not
believe the proposed sign's size is appropriate relative to the site and the size of the
building. Cook agrees that the sign appears too big. Ulrich agrees, and confirms that the
landscaping softens the sign; the removal of the landscaping means that the sign will
appear much bigger than what it actually is. Ulrich notes his familiarity with the location,
and his belief that the applicant and business owner can accomplish the same goal with
a reduced size. Margolis asked about the width of the existing sign; the applicant stated
the existing sign is approximately four feet in width. Margolis asked if the applicant could
reduce the width of the sign to six feet and reduce the rest of the sign proportionately.
The applicant stated that it is possible, but it would be difficult to reduce the size of the
sign and keep the logo and the size of the letters to where they will be visible from the
street. Hutchings states that she believes the sign would be appropriate if it were
reduced in scale. Cook concurs, and recommends the size be reduced overall so the
width is six feet, effectively reducing the sign by 25 %. The Board agrees that such a
reduction would likely result in a more appropriately -sized sign. The applicant asks if
they can amend their application for a recommendation at this meeting, and Hutchings
states that she thinks the Board should see a rendering with the reduced sign prior to
making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Cook recommends the
applicant confirm the rendering is accurate and to scale. Hutchings recommends
continuing the item to the August meeting.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to continue the item to the August 2019 meeting. Flannery
seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
9) 71 Dodge Street — Starbucks Applicant: I.D. Sign Group Inc.
The applicant is proposing one small wall sign to the left of the current Shaw's sign and
one panel on an existing freestanding sign (one pylon sign) in the CG zoning district.
The applicant notes that the signs will be internally illuminated. The wall sign will have
the Starbucks logo only, and the panel will incorporate the Starbucks logo onto the
existing panel for Shaw's. The Starbucks will be located inside the Shaw's grocery
store. Hutchings states that the proposal complies with the Ordinance. Poor notes that
as far as the placement of the logo (wall sign) on the building, it may be more
appropriate to place it to the right of the Shaw's sign so it reads after the term "Shaw's."
The applicant states that the landlord requested the location of the wall sign due to the
location of the Starbucks within the grocery store. Poor states that one cannot tell from
the outside of the building where the Starbucks is located inside the grocery store, and
maintains that the wall sign should be to the right of the Shaw's sign, rather than the left,
as the signs read from left to right. The Board concurs, and Hutchings states that the
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 5
Board can approve the sign with the condition that the wall sign be placed to the right of
the Shaw's sign; Poor adds that the condition can require the proportions to remain the
same. Poor and Cook note that the distance between the Shaw's sign and the
Starbucks logo should remain the same. The applicant asks if the property owner can
have a rebuttal, and Hutchings states that the property owner is welcome to return at
the next meeting and respond if he has a strong preference for the location of the wall
sign.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the pylon sign as presented and to approve the
wall sign with the condition that it be added to the right of the
Shaw's sign and the same distance from the Shaw's sign as shown
on the application. Poor seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
10) 140 -150 Brimbal Avenue — Chelian Orthodontics
Applicant: Viewpoint Sign & Awning
The applicant proposed one wall sign in the IR zoning district. The applicant describes
the sign and notes that the additional size is necessary because the vantage point from
Brimbal Avenue is a significant distance from the storefront. The applicant states that
the sign is the same size as the Praxis sign, also at the North Shore Crossing plaza.
Hutchings notes that the sign does require a Special Permit, and states that her
concerns are that (1) the Praxis sign covers a double storefront, whereas Chelian
Orthodontics does not, and that (2) the proposed sign will not leave sufficient space
between the Chelian Orthodontics sign and the signage for the adjacent storefront.
Hutchings confirms that the sign is significantly larger than what is permitted by right;
the proposed wall sign is approximately 80 square feet. The applicant notes that there is
no pylon signage, and the proposed signage is not lit (with the exception of the logo).
Hutchings states that with the length of the business' facade being under 30 feet, the
size of the signage should not surpass 20 square feet to comply with the Ordinance.
Cook asks if the Praxis sign and the Mathnasium sign included in the rendering of the
building's storefronts currently exist. The applicant states that the Mathnasium sign is
existing, and that the Praxis sign is not up yet, but it is shown to scale as recommended
by the Board. The Board reviews the square footage of the respective signs on the
building. The applicant notes the importance of the additional sign due to the fact that
there is no pylon sign and the distance of the storefront from the road. Hutchings notes
that with this type of commercial development, the intent of the Ordinance regarding
wall signs is not necessarily visibility from the street — this is the reasoning for pylon
signs at older developments. Cook states that the signs on the building should have
similar proportions. Hutchings agrees, and notes that this development has large sign
bands. Margolis, Cook, and the applicant discuss if the logo could be reduced.
Hutchings states that the Praxis sign has not yet been approved by the Zoning Board of
Appeals. The Board discusses with the applicant and the business owner how the logo
may be slightly reduced. The Board agrees that a 5% reduction in the logo would likely
be appropriate.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 6
Cook: Motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the sign
be approved as presented, with the condition that the size of the
logo be reduced by 5 %. Poor seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
Site Plan Review
Margolis asks if any person will be audio or video recording the meeting from this point
on, and ask that, if so, they identify themselves.
11) 113everly Police Station —175 Elliott Street
Todd Costa from Kaestle Boos Associates, Inc., introduces the project. Kaestle Boos
was hired by the City of Beverly to manage the development of the new Beverly Police
Station. Costa introduces Seunghwan Lee, a designer for the project, and Jaryd
McGonagle, a landscape architect for the project. McGonagle describes the proposed
site plan, including site and building access points, parking, circulation, pedestrian
access, and courtyard /plaza areas. McGonagle provides renderings of proposed
materials, including courtyard pavers, retaining wall materials, and planting palette. Lee
provides renderings of the site and the building, and describes the building's interior
layout and how it impacts the exterior. Lee provides renderings of the elevations, and
notes how the Cummings Center and Elliott Landing informed the design of the building.
Lee reviews the elevations and describes the materials. McGonagle and Costa provide
additional reasoning for the site design, and note that the building is built up so it will be
elevated from the floodplain.
Ulrich notes that the design fits well with the Cummings Center, Flannery agrees. Cook
notes the benefits of the stepping and the overhangs. Ulrich states that veneer walls
would add to the site, but they may be cost - prohibitive. Hutchings asks to return to the
planting plan. Ulrich asks for specification regarding plant materials, and asks if the lawn
areas will have any programmatic uses. McGonagle states that they do not anticipate
any programming, and parts of the grass area will be used to bring up the grade. Ulrich
states that his comment on the landscape plan is regarding the grass area, and asks if a
wildflower seed mix may be more appropriate for non - usable areas. McGonagle cites
maintenance concerns about a wildflower seed mix, and notes that in courtyards that
will be used, trees have been added to soften paving and accentuate the buildings.
McGonagle notes the tree pits on the site and shows how the landscape will affect the
site.
Hutchings asks to return to the elevations, and, regarding the west elevation, asks why
the windows on the top floor do not span the building. Lee states that the internal space
is storage.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to recommend that the Planning Board accept the design as
presented. Ulrich seconds. The motion carries (7 -0).
12) Depot Square II — 134 -146 Rantoul Street & 1 -9 Park Street
Cook states that she will be recusing herself from the application as her company is
currently contracting with the developer Beverly Crossing on a separate project. Cook
leaves the room and Vice -Chair Margolis assumes responsibility as acting Chairperson.
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 7
Hutchings states that multiple letters have been submitted by the public regarding this
site plan. For those who are not present, Hutchings will read the letters; those who are
present will read their own comments. Hutchings provides copies of the submitted
letters to the Board.
Margolis states that he will be chairing this application. Margolis asks if any person will
be audio or video recording the meeting from this point on, and ask that, if so, they
identify themselves. Matt Pujo raises his hand, showing that he will be audio and video
recording the meeting. Margolis states that it is common practice for the Board not to
hear from the public pertaining to each application, as the meetings do not involve
public hearings. However, the chair may, at his /her discretion, allow members of the
public to speak; Margolis states that regarding this application, members of the public
will be allowed the opportunity to speak. Margolis states that members of the public will
be provided opportunity to speak after the applicant has made the presentation to the
Board. Margolis notes that there are several letters that have been submitted for the
record; they will be read after the presentation as well. Margolis states that members of
the public with comment for the board should state their name and address, and sign in
for the record. Margolis requests that comments be kept between three and five
minutes, and requests that comments do not repeat previous comments by other
members of the public. Margolis states that there will be a Planning Board meeting on
July 16, 2019, at which time a public hearing regarding the proposal is scheduled and
the public is encouraged to speak. Board members will have an opportunity to ask
questions of the applicant after the public is heard. Margolis reminds the Board and the
public that it is the role of the Board to focus on the project's design elements, including
landscaping; building materials and color; size, mass, and scope; lighting and windows;
and appearance relative to the building's surroundings. Margolis notes that it is the role
of the Board to focus only on the proposed project design.
Ulrich states for the record that he has filed a disclosure agreement with the City that in
2017 his company worked with Beverly Crossing on the development Link 480 at 480
Rantoul Street, Beverly, Massachusetts. Ulrich's firm worked for a few hours of time,
providing design ideas in the format of renderings and sketches. Ulrich notes that he
has no involvement in this project, and has not worked with Beverly Crossing since
2017. Ulrich notes that his firm does occasionally work with Siemasko + Verbridge (SV
Design), the architect hired by Beverly Crossing for this project, but has not worked with
SV Design on this Beverly Crossing project.
Margolis requests that the applicant share their presentation. Miranda Gooding of
Glovsky & Glovsky, attorney for the applicant, introduces the project, noting that the
applicant Depot Square Phase II, LLC, is an affiliate of Beverly Crossing. Gooding
introduces Chris Koeplin, President of Beverly Crossing, Kristen Poulin of Beverly
Crossing, and Thad Siemasko and Krista Broyles from SV Design, the architects for the
project. Gooding states that the proposed development is a new, mixed -use, six -story
building at the location on the corner of Rantoul Street, Pleasant Street, Railroad
Avenue, and Park Street, next to the Beverly Depot. Gooding states that the
development site is close to 29,000 square feet; is located in the CC zoning district,
Height Overlay District, and Depot Parking Overlay District; and is located in the core
pedestrian area under existing zoning. Gooding reviews zoning considerations, noting
that there are no setbacks pertaining to the property — the main dimensional control is
height. Gooding states that the applicant is seeking a determination from the Board with
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 8
respect to compliance with the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings, as required for
buildings in the Height Overlay District that are proposed to be taller than 55 feet in
height (where buildings may be allowed up to 75 feet in height). Gooding states that
there will be 115 apartment units within the 6 -story building, with 87 units being one -
bedroom units and the rest being a mixture of two - bedroom and studio units. Accessible
units will comply with code requirements, and the project will comply with inclusionary
zoning by providing ten affordable units off -site. Gooding states that the ground floor will
be activated with approximately 7,900 square feet of retail space, with three large retail
spaces available for retail /restaurant /commercial use.
Gooding states that the relief sought by the applicant from the City is a Special Permit
for the requested height; approval of the Inclusionary Housing provision being off -site;
and a Special Permit regarding the Depot Parking Overlay District. Gooding notes that
for the site, the parcels that abut Rantoul Street are part of the Depot Parking Overlay
District, while the rear lots within the site are not within the Depot Parking Overlay
District. Gooding notes that the two rear lots are the closest to the MBTA parking
garage, and states that relief will be sought from the Planning Board regarding parking
requirements to the entire site. Gooding states that she would like to acknowledge the
fact that there are strong feelings regarding this proposal, but that the design team has
worked hard to design the building, and the applicant feels the project is consistent with
steps that the City has taken in recognition that the area is appropriate for multi - family
housing at a greater density than other locations within the City. Gooding notes the
2002 Beverly Master Plan, the establishment of the Height Overlay District in 2007, the
establishment of the Depot Parking Overlay District in 2011, the 2017 Beverly Housing
Production Plan, and a zoning amendment to the CC zoning district made in 2017 to
further facilitate a mix of uses and density in the CC zoning district.
Koeplin notes the passing of Steve Dodge, previously the president of Beverly Crossing,
and states that he believes Mr. Dodge's intentions are built into the design and that the
project embodies his perspective on what Beverly could be. Koeplin states his
recognition that not everyone will have the same perspectives on the proposed mass
and scale of the building, but that he believes the proposed location is the best place in
the City for such density and building height. Koeplin states that they have worked to
engage the community, and over the past ninety days have had fifteen informal
meetings and discussions with Beverly leaders, City departments, civic associations,
local retailers, and neighbors. Koeplin notes Beverly Crossing's meeting with the Ward
2 Civic Association (W2CA) and the W2CA's subsequent formation of a subcommittee,
who met with Beverly Crossing and the development team a second time and
thoroughly reviewed the proposed development. Koeplin states that some ideas
presented by the W2CA subcommittee were incorporated into the proposed design.
Siemasko reviews how the proposed building continues the line of buildings along the
west side of Rantoul Street and terminates at the corner of Rantoul Street and Railroad
Avenue at Odell Park, and describes the urban fabric of the central portion of Rantoul
Street surrounding the proposed development. Siemasko describes the existing
buildings within the proposed site and how the proposed buildings are to be razed for
the project. Siemasko describes how the proposed building will appear from different
locations adjacent to the site, including from the Beverly Depot and coming east on
Pleasant Street. Siemasko discusses the grade change within the site, and how the
underground parking was designed with an entrance on Pleasant Street and visibility on
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 9
Park Street. Siemasko notes the corner of Rantoul Street and Railroad Avenue as the
"prominent corner" of the building. Siemasko provides an overview of the floor plans for
the building, starting with the two levels of parking beneath the building (noting
compliance with parking requirements with a few extra spaces under the Depot Parking
Overlay District requirements) and the commercial and residential space on the first
floor. Siemasko also provides an overview of the public plaza, with the plaza turned to
face Odell Park and being open and handicap - accessible. Siemasko reviews the floor
plans for the upper floors, which will be entirely residential. Siemasko notes the changes
on the fifth and sixth floors due to setbacks per the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings.
Siemasko discusses materials used on tall buildings in the area, and describes the
proposed materials for the Depot Square II development, noting the use of classic red
brick in keeping with the context of the urban fabric. Siemasko reviews fagade elements
of existing buildings in the immediate area, and how they informed the Depot Square II
development. Siemasko noted that the proposed development was influenced by the
statements from the Downtown Design Guidelines and Design Guidelines for Tall
Buildings noting that new buildings should not replicate historic buildings; the overall
structure should be masonry -clad; the top floors should be of a contrasting material and
color; contemporary materials may be used on the corner elements; and that buildings
composed primarily of glass should be discouraged. Siemasko states that the proposed
design attempts to be complementary of the surrounding buildings and history, but
should not attempt to replicate a historic era.
Siemasko reviews the elevations of the building. Regarding the Rantoul Street fagade,
Siemasko notes how the fagade has different sections in order to break up the building's
mass. Siemasko reviews the architectural elements of the Rantoul Street fagade,
including building cornices, the first floor's design elements, the corner element, and the
step backs utilized in the top two floors. Siemasko reviews the materials and design of
the corner element on Rantoul Street and Railroad Avenue, and notes the primarily
positive reaction of the subcommittee of the Ward 2 Civic Association. Siemasko
reviews the Railroad Avenue fagade facing the park and describes the different
setbacks of the u- shaped building, the balconies integrated into the fagade, and the
proposed courtyard area. Siemasko reviews the Park Street and Pleasant Street
fagades, and notes how the building will be viewed from the train. Siemasko notes the
recessed balconies on the Pleasant Street fagade, and how the cornice lines align with
the adjacent Depot 1 building. Siemasko shows renderings that provide greater detail of
the architectural features, including the windows and cornice details. Siemasko reviews
the ground floor, noting the design requirements for activating the ground floor and
providing public access, which Siemasko states the design does wherever permitted by
the grade. Siemasko reviews the materials, including red brick on a large amount of the
building, black brick used on a smaller portion of a storefront on the ground floor,
Nichiha panel on the corner element, and Hardie board on the upper step- backed floors.
Siemasko and Broyles run a brief video providing imagery of the building and site from
various angles.
Siemasko further describes the courtyard and pedestrian plaza facing the park, and
reviews the landscape design and plantings, street furniture and bicycle racks, and
pavement and hardscape plan. Siemasko reviews the exterior lighting that will be
placed on the different fagades of the building to encourage activity and ensure
pedestrian safety. Siemasko describes a conversation with Sue Goganian, the
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 10
Executive Director of Historic Beverly, and notes her opposition of integrating the fagade
of the Casa de Lucca building into the proposed building design. Siemasko notes that
Goganian stated that a commemorative exhibit would be more historically appropriate
than attempting to integrate the fagade of a historic building into a new building design.
Siemasko reviews a proposed interactive exhibit that uses a clock tower element and
other framed exhibits that celebrate the history of the area, to be placed on the corner of
Rantoul Street and Railroad Avenue, within the extended pedestrian area. Siemasko
notes the height of the building in relation to the street grade, as well as the continuity of
the cornice lines and scale of the Holmes building at 112 Rantoul Street and Depot 1
building at 116 Rantoul Street. Siemasko reviews ways in which the proposed
development follows the respective design guidelines, including widening the sidewalk
to provide expanded pedestrian space, street tree plantings, providing a continuous
street edge to define the adjacent park, and providing a tall building element to define
an important corner. Siemasko shows a sun study done on the building, noting that the
project will have a limited impact on the adjacent park in terms of shading. This ends the
presentation by the applicant.
Hutchings shares letters provided by the public regarding the proposed project.
The first letter is from Babette (Elizabeth) Loring, 573 Hale Street, addressed to the
Planning Board but also directed to the Design Review Board. Ms. Loring's letter notes
the historic prominence and the need for an exemplary design for the site. Ms. Loring's
letter reviews aspects of the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings, states the need for
increased standards due to the site's relationship to Odell Park and the historic
landmarks including the Post Office and the train station, and requests that additional
consideration be given to the site due to its unique location.
The second letter is from Joan Johnson, 677 Hale Street, also addressed to the
Planning Board but also directed to the Design Review Board. Ms. Johnson's letter
states the need to consider the context of the site with regard to Odell Park and the
historical buildings including the Post Office, the train depot, and the Casa de Luca
building. Ms. Johnson's letter states the importance of retaining the Casa de Luca
building as a cornerstone of the area.
The third letter is from John Hall of John Hall Design Group at 95 Rantoul Street and
resident at 143 Colon Street. Mr. Hall's letter states that the site's location requires a
more stringent design process, and cites the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings, 2002
Beverly Master Plan, and the Beverly Downtown Design Guidelines with regard to scale
and urban fabric, cultural and historical assets, definition of a prominent corner, and
architectural standards. Mr. Hall's letter states that the proposed design does not fit
within the historic district and urban context, and requests that the Board use its
authority to require a design that better integrates the City's historic urban fabric into the
site's design.
The fourth letter is provided in an email from Joanie Vaughan Ingraham, 42 Thissell
Street, Prides Crossing. Ms. Ingraham's letter notes the history of the existing buildings,
and states her concern at the development of a tall building on the site, particularly with
its adjacency to the park. Ms. Ingraham's letter also cites her concern for parking.
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 11
Peter Johnson, 677 Hale Street, reads his letter to the Board. Mr. Johnson reviews
aspects of the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings, and states his disapproval of the
applicant's intent to demolish the historic Casa de Luca building and erect a 6 -story
building. Mr. Johnson urges the Board to instruct the applicant to incorporate the Casa
de Lucca building into their site design, and critiques the applicant's described
statements regarding the difficulty in retaining the Casa de Luca building. Mr. Johnson
ends his statement with a quote from the Globe Magazine, June 7, 2019, "15 Things to
Love and Loathe about Boston," regarding frustration with the Seaport area.
James Younger, 32 Butman Street, reads his letter to the Board. Mr. Younger notes that
he and his daughter are both descendants of the community, and describes some
family background within Beverly. Mr. Younger reviews the recent history of Cabot
Street, including its revitalization with the redevelopment of the Cabot and Larcom
Theaters, the addition of new businesses, and the restoration of historic buildings
including the Masonic Lodge, the GAR Hall, and City Hall. Mr. Younger asks the Board
to consider the architectural characteristics of Cabot Street prior to reviewing the
proposed Depot Square II development, and requests the careful application of the
Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings to the proposed development. Mr. Younger notes
aspects of the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings, and requests the Board recommend
further revision to the design prior to making a formal recommendation to the Planning
Board. Mr. Younger states that the current design does not fulfill the requirements of the
City's master planning efforts and the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings, and that the
design does not enrich the civic space.
Wendy Pearl, 21 Morningside Drive, reads her letter to the Board. Ms. Pearl notes the
unique and important character of the site, and its need for a higher standard of design.
Ms. Pearl states her concern regarding the treatment of the prominent corner, and the
need for the Board to consider the historic fabric of the City and the opportunity to use
the existing historic buildings (proposed for demolition) as historic design references.
Ms. Pearl asks the Board to review this project and carefully and thoroughly determine
whether the project complies with the Design Guidelines.
Gin Wallace, 34 South Terrace, speaks regarding the project. Ms. Wallace states that
she will be providing a different perspective from previous constituents, and notes that
the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings states that buildings should reflect the current
age, and that new development should follow buildings adjacent to them. Wallace states
that when she drives down Rantoul Street, she views the pedestrian level, and she
believes that the proposed development maintains that street edge and style. Wallace
states her personal support of the project, and notes the investment and effective
creation of a new neighborhood on Rantoul Street that Beverly Crossing and Barnat
Development have brought to the City. Wallace states that she believes the project is in
line with the Beverly Downtown Design Guidelines and the Main Street America design
guidelines. Wallace states her appreciation for the pedestrian elements of the project,
and states that the location is appropriate for additional housing and density. Wallace
notes that the design and layout of the units is attractive to singles and couples, rather
than families, so the development will have a limited impact on Beverly's school system.
Wallace states that she respectfully requests that the Board endorse and support the
project.
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 12
Scott Houseman, 27 Appleton Avenue, speaks regarding the project. Houseman notes
the charge of the Board to review design, and states that he objects to the proposed
design. Houseman states that while the applicant noted the support of various members
of the Ward 2 Civic Association (W2CA), Houseman states that he has spoken with
members who maintained concerns about the project. Houseman states that he is the
Beverly City Councilor for Ward 4, and although he is not speaking for the Council he is
speaking as a City Councilor. Houseman states that he has two questions: first, what is
the importance of the Depot Square II development in the City, and (2) what difference
should that importance make to the Board as civic officials in their deliberations.
Regarding the first question, Houseman states that the site location is the most
important gateway into the city in Beverly, noting the train station and pedestrian traffic.
Houseman reviews the area as a civic space, and emphasizes the architecture and
pedestrian scale as integral to the space. Regarding the second question, Houseman
asks the Board to hold the application to the highest standard of scrutiny per the City's
design guidelines. Houseman states that he opposes the proposed design, and states
that the Board should consider civic goals when reviewing the site. Houseman thanks
the Board for their service and for allowing the opportunity for the public to speak at the
meeting.
Matt Pujo, 11 Longwood Avenue, speaks regarding the project. Pujo cites the historic
significance of the site, noting the uniqueness of the space in terms of transportation
history. Pujo states that the National Main Streets Association (Main Street America)
was founded by preservationists, and that he believes their perspective is different than
Beverly Main Streets' perspective. Pujo notes his disappointment at the prospect of
demolishing buildings in a National Register historic district, and emphasizes the
importance of railroad history. Pujo states his disapproval for the proposed design, and
states that the City is missing an opportunity to preserve a historic place.
There being no other members of the public who wish to speak, Margolis asks the
Board for questions. Mason states her concern about the scale of the proposed
buildings, and asked the applicant to clarify a prior statement referencing "grade -A
architecture." Koeplin stated the intent to provide the best possible design, and noted
the credentials of Siemasko as an architect. Koeplin stated that in the apartment world
there are grades of apartments, as with offices and other development, in reference to
cost, and stated that Beverly Crossing does not charge the highest rents for apartments
in the City, and that the grading refers to classifications of apartments, not building
design. Mason repeats her concern about scale, and states that she does not believe a
building of such scale belongs on Railroad Avenue across from the Beverly Depot and
adjacent to Odell Park. Mason states that height is something to be considered, that not
every location in the Tall Building Overlay District is appropriate for such a tall building
and that this site is not appropriate for such a tall building. Mason states that this site is
critically important, and that it is the scale rather than the design she is objecting to.
Margolis agrees that the size and scale of the proposed building is too large, and that
he does not believe the building belongs at that location. Mason adds that the number
of units is not a consideration of the Board, but rather the scale, materials, and context
of the building. Mason states that it is her perspective that the proposed development
currently fails in the areas of context and scale.
Flannery asks Siemasko if there is another way to capture the historical aspect of the
district with design. Siemasko states in reference to the design guidelines, that with a
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 13
building of the proposed scale, tying it into historic aspects may not be appropriate.
Siemasko describes how more units are located on Park Street and Pleasant Street so
the building will have less of an impact on Odell Park. Siemasko notes how the Design
Guidelines for Tall Buildings encourage a strong corner element and notes how the
building corner is pushed back to add pedestrian space. Siemasko reviews the
positioning and design of the building and the intent to have the least amount of impact
on the park and provide an extension to the pedestrian space. Siemasko states his
agreement that this is an important project, both to the City and to Siemasko himself as
a resident and architect.
Margolis states his concern that economic feasibility was discussed by the applicant
when reviewing the design, and that that is not the focus of the Board. Hutchings notes
her review of the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings and 2003 Downtown Design
Guidelines, and states that she thinks the first floor of the building requires additional
articulation to create a greater focus on the pedestrian experience. Poor agrees that
currently there are certain places where the first floor is lost in the building. Hutchings
and Poor discuss the use of black brick on the first floor of the Railroad Avenue fagade,
and Poor notes that the material feels dark and uninviting. Hutchings reviews specific
aspects of the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings and states that the building does not
currently meet the recommended setbacks for the uppermost floors of the building.
Siemasko discusses the reasoning for the differing setbacks for the fifth and sixth floors,
and states that the differing setbacks create a less heavy look for the top floors.
Siemasko reviews the cornice line of the fourth floor on the Rantoul Street fagade and
how the cornice visually connects the proposed building to the Depot I building.
Siemasko discusses the articulation of the first floor on the Rantoul Street fagade and
the reasoning for the proposed design.
Hutchings comments on the prominent corner of the building, noting it is very large and
that the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings state that a maximum of 25% of the fagade
should have the prominent corner element, whereas the current design shows closer to
45% of the Rantoul Street fagade as a prominent corner element. Hutchings states her
concerns that the corner element feels like a large building, rather than a featured
element. Hutchings noted her appreciation of how the building is broken up into two
more distinct elements and how they break up the building. Ulrich questions the use of
the Nichiha panels with the green accents, and asks if additional detail can be provided
on the windows. Ulrich reviews the corner element and notes how the building feature
on the right side of the Railroad Avenue fagade echoes a mill building design, which he
considers beneficial. Ulrich discusses the importance of the pedestrian plaza and the
need for additional work to create a unique space that invites pedestrian activity and
connection to Odell Park. Hutchings references additional aspects of the Design
Guidelines for Tall Buildings, including what percentage of the site should be built to the
maximum height, side and rear wall setback requirements that, Hutchings notes, are not
met on the Park Street and Pleasant Street fagades. Ulrich discusses the mass of
building and how the design might be revised to reduce the appearance of a larger
scale building. Hutchings states the importance of the Park Street fagade, and how it
will be viewed from the train from multiple angles. Ulrich states that the materials on the
Park Street and Pleasant Street fagades make the building feel dark and heavy.
Poor asks if the window muntins are on the inside or outside of the windows. Siemasko
and Broyles show that the muntins will be applied to both the outside and inside on the
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 14
majority of the building, but on the Railroad Avenue fagade the muntins will be between
the panes of glass. Mason comments on the different feel between Rantoul Street and
Railroad Avenue, restates her concern about the scale and mass of the proposed
building and its impact on Odell Park, and recommends removing units and decreasing
the overall size of the building. Koeplin asks about the corner element with regards to
the Boards comments versus the Design Guidelines, and Hutchings clarifies that where
the guidelines discuss the tall corner element, the guidelines refer to putting the height
at the corner and reducing the height elsewhere on the building. Gooding notes the
team's appreciation of the Board's review and comments, and that this proposal will
take a longer review process. Gooding closes by noting that the Design Guidelines for
Tall Buildings are guidelines, and notes that some guidelines require interpretation and
do not read consistently. Gooding states her recognition of many comments being an
issue of massing rather than design, but notes that the site is in the middle of the Tall
Building Height Overlay District and that the mass is not unusual in the area.
Margolis asks about the applicant's timing regarding the Planning Board, and Gooding
states that the project will begin before the Planning Board on Tuesday, July 16, 2019,
in order to start the public process, and that they will return to the Design Review Board
at the August 2019 meeting.
Flannery: Motion to continue the item to the August 2019 meeting. Hutchings
seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
New /Other Business:
Margolis asks if there are any new minutes for review. Hutchings states that there are
no new minutes.
Margolis requests that in the future for recommendations to another Board, the Design
Review Board explicitly outline recommended conditions in a bulleted format in letters to
the respective boards. Hutchings states that any recommendations need to be explicitly
stated in the motions. Margolis agrees that recommendations should be carefully
incorporated into the motions.
Adjourn:
Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Hutchings seconds.
The motion carried (6 -0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm.
July 11, 2019 — Design Review Board - 15