2000-07-10CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Planning Board
Beverly City Hall
Chairman Rich Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill Delaney, Robert
Rink, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Barry Sullivan, John
Thomson
Elizabeth McGlynn, Peter Thomas
City Planner Tina Cassidy, City Engineer Frank Killilea
Karen Bradley
Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Delaney:
motion to recess for, public hearing, seconded by Sullivan. All members in
favor, motion carries.
Public Hearing: Hawk Hill Estates definitive subdivision plan / Symes Associates,
Inc.
Cassidy reads legal notice and Dinkin explains the format of the public hearing.
Jeff Rhuda, representative for Symes Associates, introduces himself and Rich Williams, Project
Engineer from Hayes Engineering. Rhuda explains Symmes Associates will develop 30 lots (plus
two lots to owner, one existing house lot) for tho 15.3 acre Dallas and L'Abbe properties off
Essex Street. The present ownership of property is as stands:
11.5 acres Dallas (fronts on Essex Street)
2.0 acres L'Abbe
5.5 acres Dallas
Rhuda explains thc proposed roadway system that will include three new roads; Hawk Hill
Aileen Way, and Yankee Way (continutation of existing road), and also explains
properties. He explains an encroachment of an abutter, Jeff and Janice Swanson, on Yankee
Way.Rhuda explains they will add fill to Swanson property, are asking for a sidewalk waiver
there, and will add a row of pine tress along the property line.
Rich Williams explains that all lots will be on nnmicipal sewer and water. He points out the
proposed stormwater manegement areas and existing watershed areas. He states that the rate of
runoff from the property will not be increased, and in some areas will be reduced. The developer
expects to file plans with the Conservation Commission next week.
Planning Board minutes
July 10, 2000 meeting
Page two
Williams then explains that subdivision traffic will not have a significant impact on existing
roads. Traffic at peak hours would he 15 subdivision cars in each direction on Essex Street, and
Cassidy reads comment letters received from Fire, Police, Health & Engineering Departments,
and Conservation Commission (see file).
Williams explains the waivers being requested by the developer:
· Due to the generally wooded nature of the site, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the
requirement that trees 6 inches in caliper be shown on the plan;
· a waiver from the requirement that the highest known water mark and the contour line 4 feet
above said high water mark be shown on the plan;
· a waiver from the requirement to show proposed street lights, underground electric and fire
alarm systems on the plan. Instead, the design would he furnished prior to endorsement of
the plan;
· a waiver from the requirement of a minimum center line radius of 300 feet, and proposing a
minimum center line radius of 240 feet;
· a waiver from the requirement to provide a tangent of at least 150 feet between reverse
curves in order to provide for a more desirable curvilinear alignment;
· a waiver from the requirement that 32 feet of pavement be provided. Alternately, the
applicant is proposing to pave a 26-foot width on all roadways;
· a waiver from the requirement that vertical granite curb be provided, and, in place thereof;
the applicant is proposing sloped granite curb;
· a waiver from the requirement that the maximum roadway embankment slope be 3-feet
horizontal to 1-foot vertical with a maximum grade to 2-feet horizontal to 1-foot vertical in
order to reduce the impacts of roadway grading on the site;
· a waiver from the requirement that sidewalks be placed on both sides of the street, proposing
sidewalks on one side only;
a waiver from the requirement that all drain pipes be provided with 3 foot cover, proposing
2.5 foot minimum cover on drainage with the use of Class V reinforced concrete pipe where
cover is less than 3 feet.
Dinkln asks if there are any questions from members of the Board.
Thomson questions stormwater management areas. Williams explains the purpose of
retention/detention ponds. Thomson salts where the overflow from those areas goes. Williams
explains that while the areas are not designed to overflow in heavy rains, runoff flows to
wetlands associated with Willow Pond. Thomson asks why the developer is proposing to install
a sidewalk only on one side. Williams explains the cul-de-sac side of the main road wouldn't
have a sidewalk. Thomson asks if the submitted drainage calculations are predicted on 32/t.
roadway pavement widths and two sidewalks. Williams states that they are.
Planning Board minutes
July10, 2000 meeting
Page three
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the audience.
Dean Rubin, 9 Meadow Road, asks about YMCA traffic that might use the proposed right of way
leading to the Y property. Rhuda explains that it is only a provision of access and not for traffic.
Steila Mae Seamans, Hale Street questions the tree waiver and availability of GPS to provide
that information. Rhuda says that GPS cannot provide that level of detail.
Janet Pollock, 346 Old Essex Road. wants to know if her street was included in the traffic study.
Williams states that it was not. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, asks why Old Essex Road was not
included as part of the traffic study. Rhuda explains that the traffic has been considered on Essex
Street, not Old Essex Road.
Jim Pica, 24 Meadow Road, states that his house abuts the creek and wants an explanation of the
impact this project will have on thecreek. Williams states the project should not change the
volume of water that already exists in the creek.
A resident at 241 Essex Street asks if the proposed retention pond will flow to the wetland near
the existing house on Lot 33. Williams states that it will and will be addressing that with
Conservation Commission. Planning Board member Rob Rink asks if an independent review of
the drainage analysis has been done by an independent consultant. Cassidy states that it has not
yet been independently reviewed and states that there may be funds available to complete that
analysis.
Janet Pollack, 346 Old Essex Road, asks if the City or the developer will be paying for a larger
water line from Cole Street. City Engineer Frank Killilea suggested the developer pay to extend
a water main 450 feet from Cole Street to Essex Street. Dinkin states that the Planning Board
cannot compel off-site improvements but that developers often volunteer to do it. Pollack asks if
the site has been tested for contamaninants. Rhuda replies that it has.
Councilor John Murray asks how many trees will be removed. Williams has no estimate of the
number.
Lynn Allen, 6 Clipper Way, asks for the location of the water table. Williams explains that the
existing water table should not be affected.
Robert Buchsbaum, 12 Bertram Street, asks if Symes Associates has considered other designs,
i.e. cluster zoning. Rhuda states that they have and that doesn't work for them.
Candace Pike, 291 Essex Street, questions the number of car trips to be generated by the traffic
study. She believes there will be more vehicles than reported.
Thomson asks Rhuda why he believes the Planning Board has jurisdiction over Yankee Way
improvements.
Planning Board minutes
July 10, 2000 meeting
Page four
Tom Stevens, 6 Meadow Road, asks how many trees will be left between the proposed and
existing houses. Rhuda explains there will be a covenant in the deeds prohibiting the cutting of
trees within ten feet of the lot line.
Cassidy states that she believes the end of Yankee Way was never officially accepted as a City
street. Murray says that his recollection is the same as Cassidy's.
Renee Mary, Hale Street, asks if a site walk has been scheduled.
Steve Pike, 291 Essex Street, asks if roadway to YMCA could be used for the development of
that parcel and if construction trucks could access the landfill site from it.
Dinkin asks if there are any additional comments in favor of or in opposition to the application.
Jeffrey Swanson, 4 Clipper Way, supports 26-foot width on all roadways.
Dinkin explains that the Board will probably conduct a site visit and permission will be asked for
public participation.
A resident from 241 Essex Street is concerned about embankment waiver.
Dean Rubin, 9 Meadow Road would like to see waivers denied.
Swanson states that reduced width of roadways is of particular importance to him.
Ward 5 City Councilor Don Martin asks for an independent drainage review to be conducted,
which is what the Board did for the Meeting Place Circle subdivision.
Delaney: motion to schedule a site visit prior to the September meeting, instruct the City
Planner to explore consulting funds to conduct the independent drainage study,
and continue the public hearing to the Board's September 25, 2000 meeting.
Motion seconded by Thomson, alil members in favor. Motion carries.
Following a brief discussion, memhem decide to schedule a site visit to the property for
Saturday, September 16, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. Participants should meet on Yankee Way.
Dinkiln asks if Symes Associates can grant the public permission to attend the site visit. Rhuda
answers yes, but participants will be asked to sign a liability waiver.
2. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review application #60-00: redevelopment of former
Commodore Restaurant site / Enon Street LLC.
Cassidy reads the legal notice. Dinkin explains the purview of site plan review and the hearing
process. Attorney Tom Alexander explains the development plan and detention basin. He
Planning Board minutes
July 10, 2000 meeting
Page five
explains the Parking and Traffic Commission review and recommendations and the Design
Review Board review outcome. Alexander explains that a 6-foot high stockade fence and a row
of arbor vitae shrubs will be added along the northern, property line as well as the existing trees
that will be preserved to buffer the development from the adjacent neighborhood. Architect
Thad Siemasko of Siemasko and Verbridge explains the architecture of the proposed buildings
and outdoor lighting.
Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering explains the under-building parking for 96 vehicles. He also
explains that the rate of discharge in to the pond will not change. The developers plan on
planting native species in the wetland buffer zone since the soils are good for that habitat.
Cassidy reads comment letters received from Parking and Traffic Commission, Design Review
Board, Police and Fire Departments, the Board of Health, and Conservation Commission (see
file).
Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the Board.
Dinkin asks about the location of freestanding sign. Tom Alexander points out the location of
the sign.
Sullivan asks if there is any security planned for the parking lots. Alexander explains that hiring
security personnel has not been discussed, but the property will receive standard police patrol as
does any other business in community. Sullivan expresses concern for vandalism late at night
and thinks security would be a good idea, particularly for the parking areas under the building.
Dinkln asks if the under-building parking will be just for employees. Alexander says it will be
for customers also. Sullivan expresses safety concerns about that. Alexander states that gates
could be added to the under-building parking areas to close off the area after business hours.
Flannery asks for clarification on the lighting plan. Ogren explains the lighting proposal in
greater detail.
Dinkin asks how many stairways there will be to the storefront level fiom the under-building
parking areas, and asks whether an elevator will be provided. Siemasko states that the
developers are still deciding whether the elevator will be for freight only or for freight and
passengers.
Dinkin ask what type of retail tenants would occupy the retail space and the amount of
additional traffic that would be generated by the development. Alexander explains that small
retail shops would occupy the storefronts and that the Kourkoulis family will run the proposed
Planning Board minutes
July 10, 2000 meet
Page six
Rob Rink questions whether the aisles in the under-building parking lots would be dead ends.
Alexander says yes. Delaney asks for the total number of parking spaces. Alexander explains
that zoning will require 278 spaces and 333 are provided on the proposed site plan. There will
be 53,000 square feet of retail space on the site.
Delaney suggests taking some spaces away in
order to allow flow-through traffic in the under-building parking areas. Ogren says that
approximately 6 spaces would have to be eliminated to do that.
Thomson asks if there would be access to the Stop & Shop parking lot from this site. Ogren
explains that only a pedestrian access would be provided. Alexander states the developers are
not interested in encouraging vehicle access because of the likelihood it would only become
default overflow parking for the Stop & Shop store.
Dinkin asks if there are any questions or comments from the public.
Bill Coughiin, 4 Frankwood Avenue, says sidewalk on Enon Street should be plowed and under-
building parking should have a looped aisle to turn around instead of backing out. He would like
to see the building motif and landscaping plan reviewed by the North Beverly Civic Association
Arthur Powell, 17 Walnut Street, asks what area of the site will have the under-building parking.
Alexander explains the site layout.
Resident Tom Gale asks if a traffic study was done. Ogren explains that a traffic review was
done as part of an Environmental Notification Form filed some years ago, and the state said a full
traffic study was not needed. Gale asks what the lot coverage is now. Ogren explains that
currently only 48% of the property is covered with impervious area. The new plan proposes that
71% of the property will be covered by impervious material; 75% is the maximum allowable
coverage.
Dan DeAngelis, Brimbal Avenue, questions the grades of the site. Ogren answers that the
proposed elevation will be very similar to that of the Stop & Shop site. 15,000 yards of fill will
be needed to reach the grade proposedl on the plan. Alexander states that the owners hope to gan
construction of the site this fall.
Joan Murphy of Longmeadow Road asks if there is a maintenance schedule in place for
maintaining the catch basin grease traps.
Kathy Burack Brimbal Hill Drive, asks if the building will look like 2 stories from behind.
Alexander explains that at the existing grade level, you'll see 1 ½ stories and mature trees will
buffer the view for the residents.
A resident asks about the proposed hours of operation. Alexander answers that the hours for the
restaurant will be 11 a.m. to 1 a.m. and the retail stores will likely by open from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Plapning Board minutes
July 10, 2000 meeting
Page seven
Dinkin asks if there are any additional comments in favor or against the site plan.
Joan Murphy, Longmeadow Road says there is too much of the lot being covered and that there
should be a maintenance agreement for the grease traps. She says the Varian consultant (IT
Corp.) says this is in the Wenham Lake Watershed Protection Overlay District.
Stella Mae Seamans, Hale Street, states that according to a 1993 state traffic study 31,000 cars
use Enon Street daily and that there has been a 10,000 car increase in the area over time.
Councilor Don Martin, Dartmouth Street, expresses concern about dumpster service and asks if
owners would agree to a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. dumpster service timeframe. Alexander states that the
owners will use their best efforts to accommodate that request.
Pam Kampersal of the Norwood Pond Associates explains that proposed lot coverage will not
allow pollutants to filter out before reaching the ground water.
Dinkin asks if there are any other comments. Hearing none, he closes the public hearing and
reconvenes the regular meeting.
3. Hawk Hill Estates subdivision: extension for public hearing / Symes Associates Inc.
Delaney: motion to continue public hearing to September 25, 2000. Motion seconded by
Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries.
4.Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
Tyler Road / East Corning Street
Cassidy explains that the owner wants to revise the lot lines for his property. She states that both
lots will still meet all zoning requirements and suggests it be enacted.
Delaney: motion to endorse the plan for East Corning Street as one not requiring approval
under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor,
motion carries.
b. Cox Court/Summit Avenue
Cassidy explains that the plan proposes to reconfigure three separate lots into two lots, including
one which will house the Anchor Pub. She states that the lots meet all zoning requirements.
Delaney: motion to endorse the plan for Cox Court and Summit Avenue as one not
requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery.
All members in favor, motion carries.
Planning Board minutes
July 10, 2000 meeting
Page eight
c. Prince Street / David Carnevale / Bradford Paul
Cassidy explains that this plan shows the pork chop lot approved by the Board at last month's
meeting. She states that the plan meets all requirements for ANR plans, but recommends that the
plan not be released until the appeal period expires, and proof of no appeals is obtained.
Delaney: motion to endorse this plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision
Control Law and to instruct the City Planner not to release the plan until proof is
obtained that no appeals were filed, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor,
motion carries.
d. Elliot Street / Cummings Properties
Cassidy explains that Cummings Properties has filed an ANR to subdivide their land at 181
Elliott Street. She explains that there are several plan deficiencies that should be corrected.
Dinkin does not want to endorse the plan until the deficiencies are corrected. Thomson asks if
there is a compelling reason why the plan can't be corrected and signed in September. Bruce
Oveson, representing Cummings Properties, says although they would like to have the plan
signed now, there will not be any problem if it was signed in September. Thomson asks if the
plan has technically been filed. Cassidy states that it has not. The Board agrees that the plan
deficiencies should be corrected before the plan is signed at the September meeting.
Discussion / decision: Site Plan Review application #60-00: redevelopment of former
Commodore restaurant site
Delaney states that he would like to see a reconfiguration of the under-building parking areas to
provide a one-way travel loop and would like to see the elevator made usable by passengers as
well as freight. Alexander consults with the owner who agrees to a combined freight/passenger
elevator and will submit revised plan to create a looped one-way traffic aisle in the under-building
parking areas.
Thomson expresses concem about the water service to satisfy the Engineering Department. City
Engineer Frank Killilea states that the issue of water service connecting to Enon Street needs to
addressed quickly. Thomson states that water service connection nees to be completed
before roadway construction.
Thomson recommends approval of the site plan also be subject to the conditions outlined in the
letters received from the various boards and departments in the City.
Planning Board miqutes
July 10, 2000 meeting
Page nine
Thomson: motion to approve site plan review application #60-00 subject to the following
conditions:
1.That the parking areas proposed to be located under the buildings be reconfigured so that
vehicular traffic shall be one-way traffic and that traffic shall be looped through the
parking aress to avoid dead-end aisles;
2.That all deliveries to the establishlments on this site must be confined to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 mm. and 8:00 p.m. on
Saturdays and Sundays;
3.That all Dumpster services on this site must be confined to the hours between 7:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and
Sundays;
4.That a detention pond at the rear of the lot must be completed enclosed on all sides with a
chain link fenee;
5.That the proposed elevator must be available for both freight deliveries and for
passengers;
6.That a siltation fence and haybale structure shall be placed along a line delineating the
100-buffer zone line for the wetland on this site prior to the commencement of any work
and shall remain in place until all work on the site is completed;
7.That all recommendations contained in a letter from the Beverly Board of Health
July 5, 2000 be adhered to;
8. That the sizes of the existing water and sewer lines in Enon Street must be verified, and
the proposed water and sewer services on the site must be designed, to the satisfaction of
the city's engineering director; and
9. That the owner must obtain all required permits from the Engineering Department and
resolve all applicable water services changes prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Motion seconded by Sullivan; all members in favor. Motion carries.
6. Virginia Avenue Extension: expiration of construction completion date and Tri-
Partite Agreement posted as surety / Curtis Jones
Cassidy explains that Mr. Jones successfully completed most of the outstanding work on this
subdivision in advance of the Board's last meeting in June. The final coat of road paving had
Planning Board minutes
July 10, 2000 meeting
Page ten
just been installed on the day of the meeting, and remaining work includes only the preparation
of as-built, easement and acceptance plans. Those have been submitted to the Engineering
Department and are currently being reviewed.
Delaney:motion to accept the extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement for the Virginia
Avenue subdivision to October 31, 2001, and to extend construction completion
date to September 30, 2001. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor.
Motion carries.
Cassidy notes the Engineering Department is also recommending a reduction in the bond amount
to reflect the fact that much of the construction work in this subdivision has already been
completed.
Delaney:motion to reduce the bond from $18,012.00 to $11,012.00. Motion seconded by
Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries.
7. Nicole Avenue subdivbion: expiration of construction completion date and Tri-
Partite Agreement posted as surety / Tom Carnevale
Cassidy explains that the developer has requested an extension of the completion date. She adds
that the engineering department has noted there has been little progress toward completion in the
last year, and that the engineering department has identified a potential grading problem with the
sidewalks that will likely require correction.
City Engineer Frank Killilea explains to the Board that the sidewalk is lower than the curb,
therefore preventing drainage to the street. He has suggested to the developer that the grass strip
area be regraded to carry water to the catch basin for proper drainage. Sullivan asks if the
developer must install a sidewalk on Hull Street. Killilea says he must, but the sidewalk can
only be 42" wide unless ledge is removed.
Attorney Tom Alexander is present to represent Mr. Carnevale informs the Board that a letter
will be sent to Mr. Camevale listing the sidewalk issues.
Delaney: motion to accept the extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement for the Nicole
Avenue subdivision to October 31, 2000, and to extend construction completion
date to September 30, 2000. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor.
Motion carries.
8. Approval of Minutes
Dinkin asks if anyone has any suggested corrections to the draft minutes of the Board's June 20th
meeting. There are none.
Planning Board minutes
July 10, 2000 meeting
Page eleven
Delaney: motion to accept the draft minutes of the Board's June 20, 2000 meeting. Motion
seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries.
9. New and Other Business
Cassidy explains to the Board that a meeting was held on the Meeting Place Circle subdivision
off-site drainage issue with the abutters. Within the next week, more details of the plan will be
in place and will be sent to the residents. She will update the Board in September.
Cassidy states the Board's September meeting night is the day primary elections will he held.
Members agree to schedule the regular September meeting on September 25, 2000.
Delaney: motion to adjourn seconded by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 11:00 p.m.