Design Review Board

CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board DATE: April 2, 2020 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall — Remote MEMBERS PRESENT: Sandra Cook (Chair),Joel Margolis (Vice Chair),Ellen Flannery, Emily Hutchings, Caroline Baird Mason, Rachel Poor, Matthew Ulrich MEMBERS ABSENT: None RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury Chair Cook calls the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Cook describes how, due to the Coronavirus outbreak Governor Baker has issued a state mandated order to suspend all public meetings and gatherings, and has permitted virtual meetings with certain conditions. Tonight's meeting will be held on Google Hangouts and will follow specific meeting requirements for live video feed and chat. Cook describes how the meeting will be recorded by both the City of Beverly and BevCam and will live streamed by BevCam. Cook describes how the meeting will progress, and states procedures for voting and for public comment. Cook takes roll of meeting attendees, and confirms the attendance of all Board members, Staff, and applicants. Sins 1. 254 Cabot Street North Shore Bank The applicant has withdrawn the sign application. 2. 408 Cabot Street Nana Nails & Spa The applicant, Kim Tainy, explains the sign designs. The application is for one projecting sign and two wall signs. Hutchings confirms the projecting sign complies with the Sign Ordinance and the wall signs replace previously existing signs and do not require a Special Permit. Hutchings notes the application includes two options for each sign, one including a phone number and one with only the business name. Members of the Board comment. The Board agrees the design without the phone number is the more appropriate design, as it permits focus on the building and business and provides a clean look. The members note the proposed projecting sign has equal or more visibility than the wall signs. Board members inquire whether the applicant would be comfortable with the projecting sign only. Ms. Tainy says she is alright with this option but would like the phone number visible and asks if the Board would allow a window decal. Cook agrees a window sign with the phone number directly below the projecting sign would be permitted. The Board agrees the approval of a window sign would be contingent upon the applicant returning to the Planning Department for final design review and approval. Hutchings explains to the applicant the requirements for window signs per the Sign Ordinance. Poor asks for clarification about the approval process, and Hutchings informs the Board how a motion may be crafted for this application and in light of the online meeting format. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Hutchings: Motion to approve the projecting sign without the phone number (Option 2 on the application) and approve a window sign with the business' phone number, with the condition that the applicant provides final designs for the window sign to the Planning Department for final review and approval. Flannery seconded. The motion carries 7 -0. Page 1 of 3  Design Review Board April 2, 2020 Meeting Minutes 3. 273 Cabot Street Amazing Pizza Vice Chair Margolis discloses his prior involvement with the sale of this business from its previous owner to the new owner. Margolis confirms he has no financial interest in the business or application, and he can be impartial with his decision. Cook acknowledges his statement for the record. Ed Batten of Batten Bros. Signs represents the applicant as the sign maker and describes the proposed wall sign and projecting sign. The projecting sign includes a pizza on a pizza peel, and the wall sign includes the business name and logo. Members voice concern about the projecting sign not being a minimum of 9 feet off the ground. Hutchings notes the application states the sign is 5 feet off the ground. Mr. Batten confirms that the lowest part of the sign is at least 8 feet from the ground and says he will send an updated rendering showing the sign at the correct height above the ground. Cook asks what the Sign Ordinance requires for projecting signs being a certain distance from the ground, and Hutchings states the Sign Ordinance recommends that projecting signs be no more than 15 feet from the ground and no less than 9 feet from the ground; however, it is a recommendation, not a requirement. The Board agrees that they are comfortable with the sign being at least 8 feet from the ground. Poor states the two signs lack cohesion and contradict one another. Mr. Batten explains the wall sign includes the business logo and states that the owner prefers the sign to use the logo to mimic the original location in Salem. Mr. Batten states they cannot change the logo; however, he can work on the spacing. Cook inquires about the pizza on the projecting sign. Cook informs the applicant of the Board's concerns regarding photographic images of food on signs. Mr. Batten assures the Board the pizza will not appear as a photograph and will be made from a separate material that offers texture and depth. The Board requests that renderings or design samples of the pizza material be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the erection of the projecting sign. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Cook: Motion to approve the wall sign and the projecting sign as presented, noting the lowest portion of the projecting sign will be at least 8 feet above the sidewalk, and with the condition that the applicant submits design examples that demonstrate the 3 -D nature of the projecting sign for Planning Staff to review and approve. Flannery seconds. The motion carries 7 -0. 4. 151 H Hale Street Bean Trust Coffee Bar, Bonny Breads The applicant, Erik Modahl, introduces himself and explains his company. He also introduces his daughter Stephanie Modahl, the owner of Bonny Breads. Mr. Modahl describes his company's mission to cultivate the community through coffee and bread. Mr. Modahl stresses he does not want to overreach his design concept and wants to remain appropriate to the neighborhood. He asks the Board for feedback and states he is open to revising the design. Hutchings notes that this application is for signs in an R10 zoning district, and she is still waiting to hear from the Building Inspector regarding what signage is grandfathered and therefore allowed by right. Hutchings states that the Board can still approve signs at this meeting with the condition that the Building Inspector confirms the sign does not require a Special Permit. Board members provide comment. Ulrich states he likes the blade sign and recommends keeping the graphic and font simple, with the font more legible. Poor agrees. Poor offers some design ideas to Mr. Modahl regarding the logo and font. Mason expresses she prefers a simple design with minimal graphics and lettering in the window. She encourages the applicant to keep the windows as open as possible and notes that open windows will enhance the aesthetics of the building. Hutchings agrees with Ulrich and Page 2 of 3  Design Review Board April 2, 2020 Meeting Minutes Poor regarding design concepts. Flannery states she also prefers a clean approach. Mr. Modahl seeks further assistance and Poor agrees to assist with the design. Margolis does not have a question relative to the sign but inquires to the seating capacity and interior design concept. Mr. Modahl confirms he does not intend to have seating; the interior is meant to mimic the espresso bars of Italy. The coffee will be take out only with a small bar for minimal gathering. Cook inquires about the desired time frame for signs to be approved. Mr. Modahl agrees he does not need immediate approval and would prefer to get the sign design right. He is amenable to returning to the Board next month with a new design. Poor agrees to review the design and assist as necessary. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Cook: Motion to continue the application to the May 7, 2020 meeting. Poor seconds. The motion carries 7 -0. S. 55 Dodge Street Phenix Salon Suites The applicant, Samantha Dwyer from FASTSIGNS in Woburn, introduces herself and describes the application for one wall sign that complies with the Sign Ordinance. Ms. Dwyer is joined by an associate, Nick, also from FASTSIGNS in Woburn. Ms. Dwyer explains that a revised design has been submitted to ensure the sign complies with the Sign Ordinance. Hutchings confirms the revised sign complies and does not require a Special Permit. Ms. Dwyer details the illuminated channel lettering and colors, which will appear black during the day and white at night when illuminated. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Margolis: Motion to approve the proposed sign as presented. Ulrich seconds. The motion carries 7 -0. 6. New /Other Business a. Draft meeting minutes — February 6, 2020 Hutchings: Motion to accept February 6, 2020 meeting minutes as presented. Cook seconds. The motion carries 7 -0. b. Sign Ordinance Discussion Members agree to continue the discussion to a later date. Cook: Motion to end discussion at this point and reopen at an appropriate time due to COVID- 19. Flannery seconds. The motion carries 7 -0. Adjourn: Cook: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Mason seconds. The motion carries 7 -0. Meeting adjourned at 7:31 pm. Next meeting May 7, 2020. Page 3 of 3