Loading...
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