DRB Minutes 8.1.2019CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board
SUBCOMITTEE:
DATE: August 1, 2019
LOCATION: Beverly City Hall — Council Chamber /Conference
Room B
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.
Signs
1) 50 West Street— Beverly Farms Dental Applicant: Fastsigns of Quincy
The applicant is proposing a freestanding sign in the R -45 zoning district. The applicant
is returning to the Board after making the requested revisions to the proposed signage.
The applicant stated that the width had been scaled down to six feet, with the height
also reduced, as requested by the Board. No changes were made other than the height
and width of the sign.
Flannery asked for a reminder of why the sign requires a special permit. Hutchings
stated that there is currently a nonconforming but grandfathered freestanding sign in the
same location as the proposed freestanding sign. A special permit is required because
the proposed sign is larger than the existing sign. Hutchings described the dimensions
of the existing sign versus the proposed sign. Cook asked what the requirements would
be if there were no existing freestanding sign. Hutchings clarified that freestanding
signs are not permitted by right in the proposed location, as the lot and zoning do not
meet the requirements for freestanding signs.
Mason noted that she does not believe a larger sign is necessary, given the location
and the character of the neighborhood. Hutchings concurred that the sign does not
necessarily need to be larger in area than the existing sign, given the nature of the area
and the location of the sign being raised up from the street. Cook noted that the sign is
25% larger than the existing sign, and Margolis stated that the increase in area is due to
the logo. The applicant noted that there is a gas station across the street with larger
signs, and he believes that the proposed sign is aesthetically appropriate. The
applicant also noted that at the previous meeting the Board had stated that the sign was
too wide, and had requested a reduction to six feet in width. Hutchings stated that if the
logo were not included the sign would be smaller than the existing freestanding sign.
The Board agreed that the applicant had done what was recommended by the Board.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Hutchings: Motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the sign
be approved as presented. Flannery seconded. The motion carried
(6 -1, Mason dissenting).
The Board restated that the applicant had responded to the Board's request regarding
the specific reduction in dimensions. Hutchings noted the Board is, in this case, making
a recommendation, and that the Zoning Board of Appeals could require an additional
reduction in the size if necessary.
2) 95 Rantoul Street — Channel Marker Brewing Applicant: Tim Corcoran
The applicant proposed one projecting sign in the CC zoning district. The applicant is
using White Light to develop the sign, and requested a modest sign that complies with
the Ordinance and that allows the location to be more easily identifiable to the public.
The sign includes the business' logo, with the base being eleven feet from the sidewalk,
and the area being seven square feet. There are some mounted LEDs to provide
external lighting. The lighting will be shining out to allow minimal impact and not affect
the above residents. The lighting will be shut off at 10:00 pm.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the sign as presented. Mason seconded. The
motion passed (7 -0).
3) 208 Rantoul Street — Greg's Tavern Applicant: Grigor Qiriazi
The applicant in opening a tavern restaurant and is redoing both the interior and the
exterior of the building. The applicant proposed awning signage in the CC zoning
district. Hutchings stated that the signage complies with the Ordinance, as confirmed by
the Building Inspector.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the signage as presented. Flannery seconded.
The motion passed (7 -0).
4) 497 Cabot Street — New England Orthodontic Specialists
Applicant: Dawn's Sign Tech, Inc.
The applicant proposed one wall sign in the CN zoning district. The applicant stated that
they are returning to the Board after previously attending the November 2018 meeting.
The previous design was submitted not to scale and with additional details being
required. The applicant has addressed the Board's notes and concerns. The "smile on
the sign will be halo lit, and is the only part of the sign that will be illuminated. Hutchings
stated that she spoke with the Building Inspector, and the sign qualifies as a wall sign —
which is permitted by the Ordinance — rather than a roof sign, which is not permitted.
The applicant demonstrated the bracketing system, and stated that it will be painted to
match the roof so to blend in.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the sign as presented. Margolis seconded. The
motion passed (7 -0).
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 2
5) 150 Cabot Street — El Jalisco Mexican Grill Applicant: Oscar Burrion
The applicant proposed one awning sign in the CC zoning district. The awning sign has
been revised slightly so only one line of text is on the sign. With the revision, the sign
complies with the Ordinance. The applicant also brought a swatch of awning cloth to
better show the color of the awning.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the sign as presented. Flannery seconded. The
motion passed (7 -0).
6) 144 Brimbal Avenue — Loyal Companion Applicant: Star Sign Company
The applicant proposed two wall signs in the IR zoning district. The wall signs comply
with the Ordinance in terms of size and location. The letters will be made of plexi and
aluminum and will be internally lit.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Cook: Motion to approve the signs as presented. Poor seconded. The
motion passed (7 -0).
7) 260 Cabot Street — Holistic Therapies 4 Life
Applicant: Holistic Therapies 4 Life
Margolis stated for the record that he had a previous business relationship with the
applicant. The business relationship no longer exists, and Margolis stated his ability to
be completely impartial on the subject.
The applicant is proposing a projecting sign in the CC zoning district. Hutchings stated
that the sign complies with the Ordinance, and that the repositioning of the sign for
Paper Asylum's sign has been approved.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Flannery: Motion to approve the sign as presented. Margolis seconded. The
motion passed (7 -0).
Site Plan Review
8) Depot Square II — 134 -146 Rantoul Street & 1 -9 Park Street
Cook stated that she had previously recused herself from the application; she will be
leaving the meeting and returning after the Board has finished reviewing this
application. Cook left the room and Vice -Chair Margolis assumed responsibility as
acting Chairperson.
The applicant is proposing a six - story, mixed -use development in the CC zoning district,
and is returning after the application was continued from the July 2019 meeting.
Attorney Miranda Gooding introduced herself, Beverly Crossing President Chris
Koeplin, and architects Thad Siemasko and Krista Broyles from SV Design on behalf of
the applicant. Gooding stated that the applicant is returning to the Board, and that Depot
II is the unofficial name of the development; the official name will very likely be different.
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 3
Gooding stated that the applicant has taken comments from the Board and members of
the public who spoke at the July Design Review Board meeting, as well as initial
perspectives from a preliminary discussion with the Planning Board, and has worked to
address those comments. The applicant is prepared to address the comments and the
Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings, and describe how the revised building and site
design is substantially in compliance with the Design Guidelines.
Siemasko restated that the revisions are based on comments from the Design Review
Board and preliminary comments from the Planning Board. Siemasko stated that the
revised design has reduced the size of the building by four units; there are now 111
units in the proposed building. The parking count remains the same. Siemasko noted
the intent of tonight's meeting is to address the revised exterior elevations of the
building, and stated that comments fell under three categories: (1) reduce the mass and
the scale of the building, (2) create more of an aesthetic sensibility that feels more
historic, and (3) increase the connectivity to the adjacent park and the historic post
office. No changes have been made to the parking and underground levels. On the
ground level, the courtyard has been redesigned and porticos have been added to
reflect the architecture of the Post Office, including the use of cast stone. On the
second, third, and fourth floor, no changes were made to the building mass, but
additional definition has been added on the Rantoul Street elevation to separate the two
sections of the building. Building volume and mass has been removed from the fifth
floor to create a strong fourth story cornice. The prominent corner dimension has been
reduced. Siemasko described how the prominent corner has been altered in light of the
comments from the Board and with regard to the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings.
The most significant reduction in volume was on the sixth floor, specifically along the
Railroad Avenue elevation abutting the park. The reduction resulted in the loss of three
units. With the reduction, the design comes closer to meeting the Design Guidelines'
requirement that no more than 50% of the site be built to maximum height; currently
54% of the site is built to maximum height, a significant reduction from the original
design. Siemasko described how the building could be redesigned to meet that height
requirement, but public courtyard space would likely be reduced.
Siemasko showed the original and revised exterior elevations on Rantoul Street, and
described how the new design reduces the height on the prominent corner and
introduces new materials, particularly the use of cast stone that relates to the post
office. Siemasko described how the architectural elements and materials relate to the
existing streetscape, buildings, and Design Guidelines. Moving to the Railroad Avenue
fagade, Siemasko described the change in the design and materials, including the
prominent corner with the cast stone, and how the upper floors have been pushed back
to remove mass on the elevation facing the park. The plaza has been revised, including
the elimination of the majority of the barriers between the plaza and the park and the
widening of the stairs. On the Park Street fagade, the height of the stair tower has been
increased to emphasize the element, and architectural elements have been revised.
Siemasko described how the materials and the push back of the sixth floor affects the
Park Street fagade. No major changes have been made on Pleasant Street; Siemasko
described architectural and design features of the fagade.
Siemasko described specific design features and materials in detail, including windows
and the cast stone work. Siemasko described the materials, and discussed the removal
of the black brick and green Boral panels and the introduction of the cast stone.
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 4
The revised courtyard was shown, and Siemasko described the increased porosity of
the area, the widening of the stairway, the plantings, street trees, and street furniture,
and the proposed bump -outs to improve pedestrian access to the park.
Gooding provided an overview of how the proposed building and site plan focus on
meeting the general intent of the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. Gooding
described the intent of the Guidelines and how they recommend design features should
be addressed. Gooding noted that the role of the Design Review Board for this type of
project is to make a finding whether the design of the proposed development is
consistent with the general intent of the Guidelines; the Guidelines cannot be applied
strictly, as specific design guidelines conflict with each other and are context -
dependent. Gooding provided a handout to the Board that enumerates the different
guidelines, describes how the proposed development does or does not meet each
guideline, and provides reasoning if the development does not meet certain guidelines.
For the first guideline that is not met on its face, stating that "vertical setbacks should
correspond to the predominant cornice height for adjacent buildings to a maximum of 45
feet," Gooding notes that although a cornice height of 47 feet is proposed, it is to ensure
the cornice aligns with the cornices of the adjacent buildings at Depot Square and
Holmes Beverly, to provide consistency with a separate guideline.
For the guideline stating that horizontal distance to a vertical height of setback should
be in the ratio of 1:1, Gooding stated that although the Railroad Avenue fagade
complies, the Rantoul Street fagade has a modified setback, previously discussed with
the Planning Department, so not to make the building appear top- heavy.
Regarding the section about side and rear wall setback guidelines, Gooding stated that
the intent is to address development abutting residential areas; Gooding argued that the
intent of the section was not directed at this particular development, which is a
standalone block and does not abut any residential district. The specific guideline states
"Walls need not be set back when they are perpendicular to a major street (Rantoul or
Cabot Street), but should be set back at a ratio of 1:2 above 55 feet if along a side
street; this does not apply to vertical elements on prominent corner buildings." Gooding
stated that although the development does not meet the guideline on the Pleasant or
Park Street fagades, the intent does not necessarily apply to this development, and
taking the mass off the park- facing fagade was the focus.
The next guideline discussed states that a "maximum of 50% of the site should be built
to maximum height limit and the remaining 50% should be a minimum of 10 feet (1
story) below the height limit or as determined by other setback guidelines." Gooding
stated that the proposed design has approximately 54% of the area built to sixth floor
height, nearly in compliance. Gooding also noted that the revised design has seen the
amount of the site built to the maximum height limit be substantially reduced; the
revised design is close to compliance, and much closer than the previous design.
Gooding described the guidelines regarding corner buildings and corner elements, and
described reasoning for not meeting these guidelines on their face — including the
objective of creating additional public space through the plaza. With regard to the civic
centers and open space guidelines, one guideline states that buildings facing Veterans
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 5
Memorial Park should provide a consistent street edge to define the open space.
Although the street edge is softened by the public plaza, this is to accommodate
pedestrian activity. Siemasko noted that the additional space and connectivity with the
park is compliant with other guidelines, sometimes judgment calls must be made
regarding appropriate design. Regarding the Post Office and landmark guidelines,
Gooding noted the building height is only six feet over strict compliance. Siemasko also
noted the guideline emphasizing tall corner elements, and how that contradicts the
guideline regarding building height in relationship to landmarks.
Gooding noted compliance with the other guidelines, with the exception of the
transformer being within the public plaza, as required by National Grid. Siemasko noted
the opportunities to screen the transformer based on its location. Flannery noted the
similarity to the transformer at the Enterprise building. Hutchings stated that the
transformer's location also provided opportunities for creativity.
Siemasko described the context of the area, including multiple existing taller buildings.
Siemasko showed buildings along the west side of Rantoul Street, including the
Gateway buildings, the Holmes Beverly building, and Depot I alongside the proposed
development. Siemasko noted that due to an 8.5 -foot grade change, the proposed
development does appears shorter comparatively speaking. Siemasko described the
height of various elements and the overall size of the proposed building and how they
compare to other buildings along Rantoul Street. Siemasko described elements of the
building with regard to the park, and how step -backs are utilized. Siemasko provided
various renderings demonstrating the distance of the building from the Post Office and
areas of the park, as well as the context of the general area, including the park, the Post
Office, the Depot station, and surrounding development. Siemasko also provided photos
taken within the park and solar studies, and described the limited nature of the impact of
the proposed development on the park.
Margolis stated that, as acting chair, members of the public will be permitted to speak,
as they were at the previous meeting. Margolis noted the importance of the proposed
development, and also noted the "Too Big for Beverly" petition, which argues that the
proposed development is too large in mass and scale. Margolis opened the floor to
members of the public.
Scott Houseman, 27 Appleton Avenue, City Councilor for Ward 4, spoke. Houseman
stated that he was pleased to see how the applicant has considered the location as a
gateway, and how it relates to the adjacent civic space. Houseman noted that the
applicant stated that the Design Guidelines have inconsistencies, which create both
difficulties and opportunities. Houseman stated that he was invited to meet with Chris
Koeplin to discuss the project, and at that meeting discussed the Design Guidelines with
relation to the prominent corner, where the Casa de Luca building is currently located.
Houseman continued to state that although one perspective is that the prominent corner
should have a height element, Houseman suggested that another option is the
preservation of the Casa de Luca building, and how that would impact the civic space.
Houseman noted that this evening's presentation by the applicant did not include
anything that made reference to the historic buildings that are to be demolished for this
project. Houseman argued that preserving the Casa de Luca building is an appropriate
alternative option for the site, and stated that the proposed development does not
preserve the unique character of the space. Houseman would like to see the applicant
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 6
develop a design option that preserves the Casa de Luca building presented to the
Design Review Board, and stated that he hopes the Board will consider such an option.
Houseman referred to the aforementioned petition, and that it demonstrated that
hundreds of residents are concerned about the site and the design and scale of the
proposed development.
John Hall, 143 Colon Street, spoke. Hall noted his participation in developing the
aforementioned petition to gauge the public's perspective on the project. Hall stated that
the petition has currently received approximately 1500 signatures, and he estimates
approximately 800 to be Beverly residents. Hall stated that the petition provides the
opportunity for signers to comment, and that he brought some of these comments to
present to the Board. Hall stated that architecturally there are aspects of the proposed
building that he can appreciate, separate from the location and the mass. Hall
presented a document including comments from the petition to the Board, and stated
that many of the comments are respective to the mass of the building. Siemasko stated
that the applicant had presented a thorough presentation to the Board; Siemasko noted
that his concern regarding the petition is that a few images of the proposed
development are presented and the public does not have the ability to see the entire
presentation and its various aspects. Siemasko stated that the petition would have
greater credibility if those who signed the petition had attended this meeting and viewed
the presentation in its entirety. Siemasko asked if the site with the petition shows the
entire presentation on the proposed development; he had only seen one rendering of
the proposed development on the site with the petition. Hall stated that he understood,
but most of the comments that he has presented are thoughtful comments about what
the space means to them and concern about the mass of the proposed development.
Matt Pujo, 11 Longwood Avenue, spoke. Pujo discussed attending the recent public
workshop for the PlanBeverly master plan, where historic preservation was discussed.
Pujo stated that with the proposed demolition and redevelopment of the block, a
National Register District will be destroyed. Pujo noted that when Siemasko had argued
for the demolition of the Thomas Ford building, previously at 211 Rantoul Street,
Siemasko cited the building as being outside the Beverly Depot — Odell Park Historic
District as a reason in favor of the Historic District Commission approving the demolition
of the building. Pujo stated that during the PlanBeverly public workshop, the public
emphasized that historic preservation and celebrating Beverly's history should be a
priority. Pujo described the proposed memorial of the historic square, and stated that
memorials do not capture the essence of an area, and that history should be preserved.
Pujo asked if moving the buildings is an option, if the buildings could be moved to
another location in the City or if the buildings could be donated to a nonprofit. Pujo
ended with noting that due to the summer season, many Beverly residents are out of
town and are not able to participate in the discussion.
Houseman added that when he was discussing the concept of adaptive reuse for the
Casa de Luca building with Koeplin, he discussed the building being utilized in a
creative, public, activate manner that could be incorporated into the design of the block.
Members of the Board began discussion of the project. Ulrich noted the progress and
improvement that has been on the project since the previous meeting, particularly the
Rantoul Street and Railroad Avenue elevations. Ulrich stated that many of his concerns
had been addressed, including the management of the prominent corner and the mass
of the building. Ulrich stated that he believes that the applicant is meeting the spirit of
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 7
the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings. He noted that the proposed building does not
appear to interfere with the Post Office as a landmark due to the distance between the
two buildings. Ulrich stated that his main concern was regarding how the rear and side
walls have been addressed, and that the Park Street elevation is very visible to the
public from the train station. Ulrich asked about how to address the corner at Park and
Pleasant Streets in terms of step backs, and materials. Although the Park Street facade
may be considered the back of the building, in this case the back of the building is very
visible. Hutchings agreed that the Park Street fagade feels large, and should not
necessarily be treated as a rear wall due to its visibility. The Board agreed the Park
Street fagade is very visible, particularly when coming from the train station.
Hutchings agreed with Ulrich about the progress on the design and the appropriateness
of the design in reference to the location. In response to comments made by members
of the public, Hutchings voiced her concern about attempting to incorporate the Casa de
Luca building or its elements into the design of the proposed building, and was
concerned that doing so would create a "fagadism" feel. Poor agreed that the designs of
the respective buildings would clash, and what is special about the Casa de Luca
building is the iconic corner. Poor noted that the applicant had made some positive
decisions in creating a new iconic corner and pulling in elements of the Post Office.
Poor noted that an iconic corner does not have to be in terms of height, but creating a
prominent feature; the use of the architectural features, such as the columns, creates an
engaging space. Poor agreed that the incorporating the Casa de Luca building into the
proposed building may not make sense, and Hutchings stated that she is uncertain
there is a way to incorporate the Casa de Luca building into the proposed development
in a way that respects the historic building. Margolis responded that he still has
concerns about the mass and scale of the building, and that he believes it important to
incorporate the history and important features of the Casa de Luca building into the
development, even if it is only the fagade.
The Board agreed that additional review and revision is required, and that a vote would
not yet be proposed. Poor agreed with Ulrich on the improvement of the Rantoul Street
and Railroad Avenue fagades, but that the Park Street and Pleasant Street fagades
need additional consideration. Siemasko discussed the use of materials and design on
the Park Street fagade, and noted that the fagade does not appear as large when
looking from the train station. Siemasko described how the fagade was designed to
reduce the appearance of mass, and stated that he was uncertain if a step back on the
top floor would improve the scale and mass of the building. Koeplin asked if there was
something on the top of the elevation that could be revised. Ulrich asked if the corner on
Park Street and Pleasant Street could be stepped back, such as on other corners of the
building. The Board agreed that although the building may not feel large from certain
perspectives, when coming from the train station and walking toward the MBTA garage,
the fagade will feel big. Hutchings asked if changes in materials, rather than step backs
at the corner, could be used to break up the building. Siemasko agreed to review the
fagade and see how materials, cornices, and other architectural details could be used to
break up the building.
The Board discussed the Pleasant Street fagade, including building materials and how
the fagade will be visible from the street. The Board discussed the brick wraparound on
the first floor on the left side of the building, and whether the brickwork may be extended
or removed. Koeplin noted that there does need to be a back of the building that does
not necessarily receive the same articulation as the other fagades. Siemasko stated
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 8
that materials could be revised. Hutchings asked about the recessed balconies;
Siemasko described the reasoning for the recessed balconies and how the fagade
would be viewed coming down Pleasant Street.
Mason asked what the highest point on the building is from average grade. Siemasko
responded that the highest point is 72 feet, 6.5 inches. Mason stated her appreciation
for the increased porosity of the plaza and its connectivity with the park. Mason stated
that, from a Historic Commission perspective, she is concerned about the legacy of the
park. Mason read a portion of the Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings (page 12,
paragraph 2), noting that tall buildings have the ability to significantly impact existing
landmarks and historically significant structures and districts. Mason noted her concern
about the height of the proposed building and the impact on its surroundings —
particularly the park — and stated that the context also includes the historic buildings that
will be removed if the building is approved. Mason stated her appreciation of the
changes made, including the additional step backs on the fagade facing the park, to
ensure the building does not overwhelm the park.
Hutchings asked if the Board wanted to discuss the landscape plan, and Ulrich stated
that he has not had time to review the proposed revisions, as they were not submitted to
the Board ahead of time. Margolis asked the applicant when the revised plans will be
available to the Board and the public. Koeplin stated that they wanted to see the Design
Review Board's perspective at tonight's meeting. Koeplin would like to speak with
Councilor Estelle Rand about sharing the revised plans with the Ward 2 Civic
Association. The revised plans will be presented to Beverly Main Streets' board and e-
board at their meeting on August 14, 2019. Gooding stated that the filing deadline for
the August 20, 2019 Planning Board meeting is August 12th. The applicant has not yet
made a formal presentation to the Planning Board; the intent is to submit the revised
designs to the Design Review Board by August 28th, the filing deadline for the
September 2019 Design Review Board meeting. Mason stated that the plan should be
shared with the public to the greatest extent possible, not just Ward 2. Margolis
concurred. Gooding stated that the Planning Board meeting includes a Public Hearing
where members of the public have the ability to review the proposal and comment;
plans submitted formally are posted on the Beverly, MA website. Gooding noted that
she anticipates that the plans and relevant information will be publicized on the City's
relevant web pages to ensure the public is aware of the revised proposal. Gooding
emphasized that the Public Hearing at the Planning Board meeting provides an
appropriate time to present the proposal to the public, and anticipates a significant
number of constituents at that Public Hearing.
Margolis acknowledged a comment from the public. Bill Squib, 509 Cabot Street, spoke.
Squibb voiced his agreement that the location is important to the City, and encouraged
an additional presentation to the public due to the project's significance. Squibb
emphasized the impact that the proposed building will have on the area due to its scale.
Squibb encouraged Koeplin to incorporate the Press Box building at 9 Park Street into
the design of the proposed development. Squibb described the restoration of an historic
building in another part of the country, and its positive impact on the surrounding area;
Squibb noted the possibilities of having a similar impact by preserving the historic Press
Box building.
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 9
Flannery asked Koeplin about the possibility of restoring the historic buildings on the
site or moving them to a different location. Koeplin stated that they have not been
approached by anyone who would like to move the buildings, and stated that he would
be willing to help facilitate moving the buildings. Koeplin stated that Beverly Crossing
has moved and saved old buildings in the past, citing the McKay School and the
buildings at 60 Pleasant Street and 50 Broadway. The possibility of a hotel has been
investigated.
Hutchings stated that when the Planning Department receives a Site Plan application, it
is posted to the City website on its Projects and Development page, ensuring that the
public has ready access to such plans.
Margolis asked Koeplin if a plan had ever been considered that incorporated the Casa
de Luca building and /or the Press Box building into the larger, new building, potentially
creating a small hotel with apartments. Koeplin stated that the team has looked at the
possibility of incorporating the historic buildings into the design, and that every option
has been exhausted. The applicant has looked at the feasibility using tax credits, full or
partial preservation, the possibility of saving one building or the other, and has met with
Capital Hotel Management to discuss the feasibility of creating a small or micro - hotel. It
was determined that developing a hotel in one of the historic buildings is not financially
feasible, although Koeplin stated his enthusiasm at developing a hotel if a hotel
developer was interested in the space.
Pujo stated that the reason he believes no one came forward about the historic
buildings is that they did not know what the applicant's plan for the buildings was, and
that there was no publicity about the buildings. Hall concurred. Koeplin responded that
any member of the public could have asked about the buildings. Margolis concluded the
discussion on Depot Square II and noted that there are multiple options for the historic
buildings and the site.
Hutchings proposed a brief recess, whereby the meeting was moved from the Council
Chamber to Conference Room B, still at Beverly City Hall. Margolis left the meeting.
Cook rejoined the meeting and re- called the meeting to order at 8:49 pm.
9) 108 Bridge Street
Attorney Thomas Alexander introduces the project, representing owners John and
Nancy Frates, who are not in attendance. The project is a four -unit townhouse
development. The location used to be an ice cream stand, and is currently a small retail
store located in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district. The Zoning Board
of Appeals has approved a variance to allow the conversion and expansion of the
existing building from a commercial space to a residential dwelling and the addition of
three townhouse style residential dwellings to the rear of the existing building and
fronting on Carleton Avenue. Alexander described the Site Plan Review process and
the role of the Design Review Board in the process. Alexander noted the
neighborhood's support of the project and stated that the project would be an
improvement to the area. Alexander introduced George Zambouras as the project
engineer and Lyle Folkestad as the project architect.
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 10
Zambouras described the existing site, including the building, parking space /gravel, and
green space. Zambouras noted that prior to the lot being subdivided, the lot for 106
Bridge Street extended behind the lot for 108 Bridge Street and out to Carleton Avenue.
An approved ANR plan subdivided the properties to what is currently existing. An
existing garage that straddles the two sites was built prior to the subdivision, and will be
demolished to accommodate the proposed project. Zambouras went on to describe the
surrounding area.
Zambouras stated that the proposed structure will retain the existing garage (attached
to the existing building, which does not straddle 108 and 106 Bridge Street) and include
the development of three new attached residential units to the rear of the existing
building. Zambouras described the parking and driveways, utilities, and stormwater
plans for the site, and noted that the runoff conditions regarding stormwater will be
improved. Alexander noted the significant grade change along Carleton Avenue.
Folkestad presented and described the proposed development, the site and floor plans,
entryways, and landscaping, and noted the easement to be provided to 106 Bridge
Street for access through the rear of the site. Folkestad presented the elevations and
described the intent for the interior of the development. Folkestad discussed the
proposed materials and colors, noting that the siding will be vinyl and that the units will
be defined with different colors. The windows will be black without trim. Folkestad
described the architectural details, including eyebrows on the west elevation of the first
three units, on the rear and front elevations, and on the east elevation of the first unit.
Folkestad described the exterior lighting and further described the proposed materials.
Folkestad reviewed the proposed landscape materials and design.
Cook asked about the materials of the corner boards and the trim, and whether they
would be of a material other than vinyl. Folkestad stated that the material would be
vinyl. Hutchings stated her concern about the use of vinyl and the impact on the
surrounding neighborhood, and asked if a HardiePlank or other material would be more
appropriate. Cook stated that the reason she asked about the materials of the corner
boards and trim is that if PVC or boral is used instead of vinyl for the corner, the visual
impact of vinyl siding can be significantly improved. Cook asked about other areas of
trim, and Folkestad stated that a composite material would be used. Flannery asked
about what the Board needs to be considering, and Hutchings stated that the Board
does review materials. Hutchings restated her concern about vinyl, and how it may not
fit with the character of the surrounding area. Cook stated that the appearance of vinyl
is improved when it is applied to new construction, rather than putting on historic
buildings, and noted the cost savings. Cook stated that having solid corner boards and
trim and vinyl siding may be an appropriate and more aesthetically appropriate
compromise. Ulrich asked about how the vinyl siding would be applied next to the
windows with no trim, and Folkestad stated that no trim on the windows is a design
preference. Cook stated that putting solid trim on the windows would be another
improvement that would positively impact the appearance of the vinyl siding. Mason
concurred with Hutchings regarding the use of vinyl and the more appropriate
appearance of clapboards. Cook agreed, but noted the significant cost increase
associated with using clapboards rather than vinyl, and the cost of different types of
siding. Folkestad asked if it would be helpful to provide photographs of homes with vinyl
siding, and Alexander noted that there are homes in the neighborhood that have vinyl
siding. The Board and Folkestad discussed the use of vinyl versus other materials, the
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 11
use of vinyl on new construction versus as replacement siding, and methods for
improving the appearance of vinyl siding. Cook reemphasized the positive visual impact
of solid corner boards and trim — including window trim — on vinyl siding.
Hutchings asked about the materials of the garage level of the building, including the
material around the garage doors. Folkestad discussed potential materials with the
Board, and Hutchings and Cook requested additional details about the proposed
materials for the garage level. Hutchings asked about the materials at first floor on the
Bridge Street elevation, and Folkestad described a vertical board and batten siding.
Ulrich asked about the materials of the siding, and stated that that material should not
be vinyl. Folkestad stated that the material for that part of the building should be a real
wood. Folkestad described the materials and design of the first unit and the terrace
connected to the first unit and abutting Bridge Street.
Hutchings asked about why an eyebrow was not included on the fourth unit's Carleton
Street fagade. Folkestad stated that the unit could benefit from an eyebrow, and agreed
that one should be included. Flannery asked where the HVAC units would be located,
and Folkestad showed the location and described the screening of the units. Hutchings
asked if it would be possible to add windows to the rear elevation. Folkestad stated that
adding windows is possible. Cook and Folkestad discussed the possibility of adding a
window to the first floor based on the layout of the kitchen.
Alexander asked if a recommendation from the Design Review Board would be possible
at tonight's meeting, and the Board agreed that currently too many additional details are
needed to make a determination. Alexander asked the Board to specify which details
are needed from the applicant. The Board noted (1) the material and composition of the
Bridge Street fagade and fencing (noting that the materials should match and be an
organic material), (2) materials and architectural detail on the garage level of the
building, (3) how the building will appear with the window trim and corner boards, (4) the
addition of an eyebrow on the fourth unit, (5) adding windows to the rear elevation, and
(6) colors of the units. Folkestad and the Board discussed potential materials for the
garage level of the building. Flannery asked about whether the project would include
solar, and Alexander stated it would not. Cook stated that she would share images of
homes that use vinyl siding. Folkestad and the Board discussed vinyl versus hardie
plank or wood siding, including the design and the cost. The applicant agreed to provide
the requested details at the Board's September meeting.
Informal Site Plan Review
10) 1 Water Street
Miranda Gooding, attorney for the applicant, introduced the project team: Marty Bloom,
owner and principal for the proposed restaurant, site engineer Scott Cameron from the
Morin - Cameron Group, Inc.; Bruce Bisbano, Jim Souza, and Erin Nardelli from Bisbano
+ Associates, Inc.; and landscape architect Michael Radner from Radner Design. The
application is for a restaurant — Mission Boathouse — in the Beverly Harbor District
facing the harbor. Gooding noted that the intent of this review is to receive informal
feedback from the Design Review Board prior to filing for formal Site Plan Review with
the Planning Board, with the project returning to the Design Review Board for formal
review at the September 2019 meeting. Gooding noted that the project requires Site
Plan Review, some Special Permits from the Planning Board, review by the
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 12
Conservation Commission, and some state permits, due to the location of the site.
Mason asked for clarification on why special permits from the Planning Board are
required. Gooding stated that the Special Permits are for (1) the use for a restaurant in
excess of 5,000 square feet in the Beverly Harbor District, (2) granting a bonus in floor
area ratio, which is permitted by Special Permit by meeting certain conditions, and (3) to
alter a design guideline specific to the Beverly Harbor District relevant to view corridors.
Cameron described the site, including the frontage, topography, proposed circulation
and parking, public access, and building orientation. Cameron discussed the reasoning
for the building orientation and goal of activating the site and providing public access
and connectivity to adjacent site. Cameron described the public amenities that will be
available onsite, and how the site is governed by M.G.L. Chapter 91, regarding public
access to waterways. Radner described the landscaping, site lighting, and hardscape
improvements that will be available to the public. Radner discussed specific plantings,
materials, and street furniture, and described how the proposed terrace would be
designed to be welcoming to the public and appropriate to the location and
environment. Radner discussed the proposed light fixtures and the reasoning for height
and design, emphasizing the scale and needs for the use.
Souza provided an overview of the elevations. Souza described the elevation facing the
harbor, including the use windows and fenestration to provide an openness to the
waterfront. Souza described the floorplan and how the open design and view of the
waterfront informed the interior. Souza described the elevation facing the street, and
reviewed the proposed art to be seen from the street, including depictions of sailboats
on the right side of the elevation. Of the four window spaces on the left side of the
street - facing elevation, two will be actual windows, and two spaces will locations for
additional artwork. Souza reviewed the architectural details and the signage on the
street - facing elevation, which will be illuminated with an external outrigger LED light.
Souza reviewed the west and east (side) elevations, and discussed materials utilized for
the exterior of the building. The applicant brought imagery of other restaurants that
provided inspiration for the design, and showed artwork that may be considered for
public art on the building and site. Souza reviewed examples of the artwork intended for
exterior portions of the building, and described the artist's methods for creating
paintings. Bloom also noted the illustration on the Historic District Commission's
applications; the illustration is a drawing of historic Beverly as seen from the harbor,
including the Fish Flake Hill historic district, the original bridge to Salem, and 18th_
century schooners in the harbor. Bloom noted an artist had penciled the Mission
Boathouse into the drawing. The drawing may provide an additional opportunity for art
on the site.
Bloom described the floorplans of the restaurant and the unique needs of a multi -story
restaurant. Bloom discussed the layout of the first floor, including the foyer, prep
kitchen, a bar and lounge, snack shop, and small retail area. Bloom described the
layout of the second floor, which will be open for business year -round and include a
general dining room, private dining room, kitchen, and bar. Bloom reviewed the third
floor /roof deck, and noted that the space is open, although the floor is mostly covered
by roof /awning elements. The third floor will be open seasonally. The applicant
completed the presentation and asked the Design Review Board for questions.
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 13
Cook asked for clarification regarding the artwork on the windows on the street - facing
elevations. Souza clarified that there will be four window frames on the left side of the
street - facing elevation. Two will include actual windows, and two (due to the interior
floorplans) will be faux windows with graphics /artwork visible to the public. Cook asked
if the artwork would be exposed to the open air, and Souza stated yes. Poor asked how
the artwork would be treated to last, and Souza stated that the artwork would be applied
in a method similar to graffiti. Flannery asked Hutchings if that type of application is
permitted, and Hutchings stated that yes, it would be considered public art — not
signage — as long as there is no advertising. Cook noted that the window art appears to
compete with the sailboats on the right side of the elevation, and Poor concurred that
the window art may be distracting from the left side of the elevation.
Mason noted the importance of the location and concern about the design and materials
not fitting with the character of the harbor. Mason asked about the reasoning for the use
of the faux stone siding. Bloom noted that there is a restaurant that he saw in Malibu
that utilizes the same siding and stated that he would like a more contemporary design.
Cook noted that she does not see design connections between the proposed
development and the oceanfront restaurants shown by the applicant — including The
Boathouse in Edgartown — which the applicant stated informed the proposed design.
Poor stated that the proposed design does not elicit a New England feel, and Ulrich
noted the classic aspects of The Boathouse in Edgartown. Mason asked why the
applicant felt that the proposed design was more appropriate rather than a more classic
New England design. Bloom stated that in the more classic designs, the interior spaces
do not work as well, and that customers like more open floorplans. Poor agreed, but
noted that the Board was referring to the exterior aesthetic, not the interior. Mason
stated that the exterior needs improvement had concerns about the scale. Hutchings
stated that she was not as concerned about the scale as the exterior materials, and has
concerns about the red awning and cornice elements. Poor and Ulrich agreed that the
bright red elements do not fit with the design. Ulrich recommended reviewing and taking
cues from the surrounding architecture and character, which would allow the building to
fit into the area. Ulrich noted his enthusiasm about the project and the floorplan, and
stated that he was not as concerned about the mass of the building. Bloom stated that
the exterior materials can be revised, but the windows and layout are more difficult to
change. Bloom described his restaurant Mission on the Bay, and how it used cedar
shingles and more traditional materials. Ulrich stated that he agrees with other members
of the Board that the stone does not seem to fit. Mason stated that more muted colors
and materials may be more appropriate. Mason asked about the reasoning for
corrugated metal awnings, and the applicant referred to the historic fish manufacturing
uses that had been on the site in the 1700s and 1800s.
Hutchings asked about the material of the sailboats and maritime artwork on the left
side of the street - facing fagade. Souza stated that the material has not yet been decided
— it could be a signboard or PVC. Cook asked about how the artwork would be applied
to the building, and Souza stated that it would be framed in metal and finished. Souza
stated that the boats would be projected at different distances from the building to
create a feeling of depth; the boats would be painted slightly different shades. Hutchings
stated that she had some concerns; the materials, design, and application would all
have a significant impact on the aesthetic. Hutchings noted that the project does not
want a "paper boat" look, although she likes the idea of visually striking artwork on the
fagade.
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 14
Mason asked if the applicant has retail at his other restaurants, and Bloom responded
that no, the retail aspect is required for this location as part of the zoning. Mason noted
interest in visiting the Mission on the Bay restaurant to better understand exterior design
elements. Bloom noted that the interiors of the respective restaurants will be very
different so not to split the market. Cook asked about whether the stone elements might
be more appropriate if it were only on the base of the building. Bloom responded that
they would explore options.
Cook noted that it was unfortunate that the trash door has to be facing the street.
Hutchings asked if there was a way to screen the door. Bloom stated that this was the
only place to put the trash door, and the door will require continuous maintenance;
however, he is open to the Board's recommendations regarding materials.
Poor complimented the historic artwork shown with the Mission Boathouse drawn in,
and asked if there were plans to integrate it into the building's design in any way. Souza
noted that in Hemenway's Restaurant in Providence, RI, a sepia mural of the old
waterfront was utilized. Poor recommended leaving the artwork black and white rather
than sepia- toned. The applicant described the artist for that mural, Morris, and some of
his background.
Hutchings asked if it would be possible to add a shade tree on the east side of the
property to add some shade relief for pedestrians. Ulrich noted that that would be a
good location for a bike rack. Flannery asked if the proposal included a bike rack, and
Bloom stated that one would be added. The Board concluded its discussion.
Adjourn:
Cook: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Hutchings seconded.
The motion carried (6 -0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm.
August 1, 2019 — Design Review Board - 15