Design Review Board

CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Design Review Board DATE: November 4, 2021 LOCATION: Hybrid Meeting; City Hall Conference Room A MEMBERS PRESENT: Joel Margolis (Vice-Chair), Ellen Flannery, Caroline Baird Mason, Rachel Poor STAFF PRESENT: Chelsea Zakas, Associate Planner MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandy Cook; Matthew Ulrich OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury Vice-Chair Margolis calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. This is a hybrid meeting with special meeting format as required to honor Governor Baker’s State of Emergency declared due to the national crisis of COVID-19. Signs 1. Barber’s Edge, 324 Rantoul St – Horell Cruz This is in the CC zoning district. The application includes 1 projecting sign with business name. The sign is externally illuminated and complies with the ordinance. Neither applicant nor representative are present. Members proceed to review the application. Members discuss the logo and branding as they are mismatched. Members do not approve of the mismatch or lettering. Members decide to continue the application to the next meeting. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Flannery: Motion to move to the December 2, 2021 meeting. Margolis seconds. The motion carries 5-0. 2. Blue Moon Smoke Shop, 15 Enon Street – Rickey Zeng This is in the CG zoning district. The application includes 1 wall sign with business name; 1 tenant replacement panel on the freestanding sign; both with internal illumination. Both signs are legally nonconforming. Zeng introduces himself to the board and presents his design plan. Zeng would like to keep the existing wall sign box frame to maintain consistency with surrounding area businesses. Flannery and Margolis discuss the box sign internal illumination. Members question the vinyl material and the effects of the internal illumination. The “o” in the word smoke has been replaced with business logo. Poor questions the logo visibility and believes the sign will look broken with the current proposed logo as the “o”. Zeng informs the board he can make the logo “o” bolder for better visibility. Margolis has a technical concern regarding a conflict of interest with the smoke shop in close proximity to the cannabis shop. Members are concerned with state regulations. Emily Hutchings joins the meeting. Hutchings provides perspective and policy clarification on the two businesses in close proximity to one Page 1 of 4  Design Review Board November 4, 2021 Meeting Minutes another. Smoke shops may not be close to schools, day cares, parks, libraries, etc.; per state regulation. There is nothing to enforce distance between smoke shops and liquor stores, convenience stores, etc. Smoke shops may not sell cannabis products. Members appreciate the policy clarification by Hutchings and will move forward with a determination on the design circling back to the light box. Zakas suggests conditions for the “o” to be bolder; Poor agrees. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Zakas: Moves to approve the sign as presented with the condition the “o” in smoke be bolder and the logo be easier to read from a distance. Flannery seconds. Discussion on the motion. Zakas amends the motion. The additional condition stipulates the applicant will submit a revised drawing to the Planning Department for administrative approval. Flannery seconds amended motion. The motion carries 5-0. 3. Home Décor Group, 13 Elliott Street – Jason Gagnon This is in the CC zoning district. The application includes 3 wall signs with business name and internal illumination. The signs are legally nonconforming. Jason Gagnon of Sousa Signs LLC, presents to the board on behalf of the applicant Jonathan Tapper. Under new ownership, Waters and Brown is now the Home Décor Group. In 2004 the Waters and Brown application came before the board with three wall signs internally illuminated. The applicant would like to keep the internal illumination as per the original application. The new signs will be illuminated but manufactured with less square footage. Flannery questions the illuminated signs for Waters and Brown. Gagnon reviews the current halo mount system on the wall façade. Members point out the difference in lighting style. The halo effect is softer. Flannery refers back to the 2004 application and does not see any illuminated internal signs. Zakas clarifies that currently the signs are not illuminated, but internal illumination is allowed by right. Members are not impressed with the change in illumination. It has a louder appearance, closely resembling a mall sign. Tapper informs the members the corporation is looking to bring everything in line with the rest of their locations. Poor is not impressed with their logo due to the many inconsistencies. Poor also agrees with the halo effect versus the internal illumination. Mason and members discuss the ordinance. Members are concerned with similar logo signs coming before the board. Zakas provides guidance for the members. Zakas offers to the board, they can recommend no internal illumination despite the logo sign and what is permitted by right. Gagnon interjects with a reminder he can install timer. All signs can be equipped with a timer to switch off one hour after close of business. Poor inquires what the business hours are. After learning the hours of operation (6 am – 5 pm); she does not express the same level of concern for the internal illumination. The light pollution will be significantly reduced with a timer. Margolis asks Tapper if they could try seeing what the signs would be like without internal illumination and is he open to keeping the halo lighting. Tapper is open to suggestions and will need to report back to the board with his findings. Mason inquires if the business could simply not keep the existing external light fixtures. Zakas asks Gagnon if he could coordinate with Tapper on a new rendering with an updated halo illumination design concept. Members would like a less intrusive/loud sign. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Zakas: Moves to approve the signs as presented with the conditions the applicant submit a revised rendering of the signage demonstrating dimmer lit halo lighting; and the time Page 2 of 4  Design Review Board November 4, 2021 Meeting Minutes frame for the illumination be from 6 am to 6 pm. Flannery seconds. The motion carries 4-1. Mason against. 4. Lux Salon and Spa, 232 Cabot Street – Paige Baxter This is in the CC zoning district. The application includes 1 wall sign with business name; 3 window signs with business name; none are illuminated. The signs comply with the ordinance. Applicant stated the wall sign will have external illumination with gooseneck fixture. Paige Baxter introduces herself and presents to the board. Members question the logo and branding. The signs are difficult to read. Poor discusses the logo, font and branding. Members discuss with Baxter her previous location and sign design. Poor is adamant the “salon & spa” must be legible; noting this is a business, not a brand. In order to build a brand, you must be recognizable. Discussion centers on font size, lettering, spacing, and placement. Poor offers suggestions and recommendations for Baxter to consider. “Lux” on top, “Salon and Spa” on the left side of the window with freedom to put anything on the other side of the window. Baxter will return to her designer with the boards suggestions to update her signs. Poor does not mind the window renderings, insists the top sign must be addressed. Margolis and Poor ask the applicant to return with updated renderings. Mason asks the board if the applicant can be approved with conditions to address the top sign. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Flannery: Moves to approve window and door signage as presented. Moves to approve the wall sign with the conditions to remove the “established 2017” lettering; shift, enlarge, and center the “Lux”; increase the size for “Salon & Spa”. The updated renderings shall be submitted for administrative approval to the Planning department. Margolis seconds. The motion carries 5-0. Sidebar: Three of the six applicants are not present. The board has a five-minute recess waiting for the next applicants. Zakas attempts to get in touch with the applicants. Zakas reviews the ordinance with members. Per the ordinance, the board must decide 60 days from submission to accept/recommend/deny the application. Zakas suggests the board review the applications sans the applicant. If the board does not approve any signs the applicants may return to the board with changes. 5. Essence of Nirvana, 137 Cabot Street – Sophana Hernandez This is in the CC zoning district. The application includes one wall sign with business name and no illumination. The sign complies with the ordinance. Neither applicant or representative are present. Members proceed to review the application. Expressing no comments or concern members decide to approve the application. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Mason: Moves to approve the signage as presented. Flannery seconds. The motion carries 5-0. 6. Ekletico School of Music, 3 Dodge Street – Clecio Almeida This is in the CC zoning district. The application includes 1 wall sign with business name and logo; 2 window signs with business name, hours of operation, and business type. Only the wall sign is externally illuminated. All signs comply with the ordinance. Page 3 of 4  Design Review Board November 4, 2021 Meeting Minutes Neither applicant nor representative are present. Members proceed to review the application. Poor inquires if everything complies with the ordinance. Zakas answers affirmatively. Flannery and Mason agree reading “Ekletico” in the main sign is difficult. Poor notes as long as “school of music” is readable that will draw business. Poor assures the board the important part of the sign is notifying the public to the business type. Members agree the door sign is busy. Members do not express any other questions or concerns. There being no further comments or questions regarding the matter: Flannery: Moves to approve the signs as presented. Zakas seconds. The motion carries 5-0. 7. New/Other Business a. Approve draft meeting minutes i. September 2, 2021 Flannery moves to approve the minutes as amended. Mason seconds. The motion carries 5-0. j. October 7, 2021 Flannery moves to approve the minutes as amended. Mason seconds. The motion carries 5-0. Margolis moves to adjourn. Zakas seconds. The motion carries 5-0. Meeting adjourned 8:18 p.m. Next meeting December 2, 2021. Page 4 of 4