2000-02-15CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION:
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
Beverly Harming Board
February 15, 2000
Beverly City Hail
Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice-
Chairman Bill Delaney, Robert Rink,
Peter Thomas, Elizabeth McGlynn,
Ellen Flannery, John Thomson,
Joanne Dunn
Barry Sullivan
City Planner Tina Cassidy,
City Engineer Frank Killilea
Recorder: Tina Cassidy
Chairman Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Thomson: motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by Delaney.
All members in favor, motion carries.
Public Hearing (continued): Meeting Place Circle definitive
subdivision plan
Cassidy reads the public hearing notice, and explains to the Board that
the public hearing on this filing was tabled at the December Board
meeting to this evening. The reason for that continuance was the
Board's vote to have the consulting firm of CDM conduct a study of the
area around the development with respect to existing and potential
future drainage problems. The study has been completed, and she
distributes copies of the CDM Guidance Memorandum to the members.
Dinkin asks Thomas Neve, the project engineer, if he would like to make
any comments on the CDM memorandum. Neve states that he has read
the report and is glad but not surprised that the document does not
suggest any changes to the design of the drainage system he proposes for
this subdivision.
Members discuss the recommendations contained in the report,
including the improvements to the brook and pond outlet structure that
were originally suggested by Neve. In response to a question from the
Board, Killilea states that his office would manage the process of having
these improvements completed. The process would include construction
Planning Boad minutes
February 15, 2000 meeting
Page two
contracts, work inspections, and obtaining necessary easements from
private homeowners.
Dinkin raises two questions: what is the value of the work that needs to
be done, and will Neve be expected to perform the work or will the City
hire a contractor? Cassidy answers that Neve has estimated that the
work will cost $25,000 to complete. She also states that she has spoken
with Killilea on the question of whether the developer or the City should
do the work, and the question remains an open one at this point. There
are both advantages and disadvantages to hiring an outside contractor.
Thomson asks Killilea if he thinks $25,000 is sufficient to perform the
work outlined in the CDM memo. Killilea answers that $25,000 would be
sufficient to clean the stream bed, replace the outlet structure at the
Willow Pond subdivision, and to clean out the plume of accumulated
material where the brook reaches the smaller pond on the applicant's
property. It would not cover the cost of reworking the culvert under
Essex Street, which would be extraordinarily expensive.
Delaney asks Cassidy to outline the waivers that have been requested.
Cassidy informs members that two waivers are being sought: a waiver
from the Board's requirement that dead end roads be no longer than
500', and a waiver from the requirement that all trees six (6) inches in
caliper or greater be shown on the plans. Dinkin asks if the developer
has agreed to comply with the Fire Department's recommendation that
all houses in the subdivision be equipped with residential sprinkler
systems. Neve answers that the developer is prepared to sprinkler all
houses.
Delaney states that he is pleased to learn that CDM feels the drainage
situation can be improved. He is concerned about the timetable for
implementing the improvements. He would not want to see construction
of the subdivision begin before the drainage improvements were in place.
Delaney adds that while CDM indicates the design of the Meeting Place
Circle subdivision is acceptable, he is concerned with the fact that the
subdivision will be adding volume to Willow Pond. Neve confirms that
the project will add water to Willow Pond, but also states that his project
represents only 8 acres of the 100 acres in this watershed. Additionally,
this project is located at the lower end of the watershed, and that water
from this subdivision will therefore be the first water "through the pipe"
in all rainfall events.
Planning Board minutes
February 15, 2000 meeting
Page three
Thomson asks if the first drainage improvement will be replacing the
outlet to Willow Pond. Neve says that it could be, and notes that as a
general rule drainage work should start at the downstream end of a
project and progress upstream. Thomson asks if the work that must be
done to the streambed will be confined to the developer's property. Neve
states that only about half the work will be on the developer's property,
and recommends that none of the work begin until all the approvals
needed for the work are obtained.
Neve states that he would fix the outlet structure at Willow Pond first,
before the spring runoff, and work on the center reach during the
summer when conditions are driest. The pond and stream should be
excavated during the summer season. Thomson asks if the cost of each
of the three components of the drainage improvement project can be
estimated as line items for bonding purposes. Neve answers that they
can be.
Delaney asks Killilea if doing this work without addressing the issue of
the Essex Street culvert will create problems downstream. Killilea
answers that instead of removing the existing pipe in the culvert, the City
can clean the culvert more frequently. Neve suggests that the culvert
could be cleaned with a water jet and a bar grate added on the pond side
of the culvert to keep debris from further clogging the pipe.
Cassidy informs members that the Board has received a letter from the
City's Department of Public Services regarding the planting locations for
street trees. The department would like to see either an 8' wide tree belt
or street trees planted outside of the street right-of-way. Cassidy states
that she has discussed the matter with Mr. Neve, who is amenable to
planting the trees on the house lots themselves. She adds that such an
arrangement would require that an easement be created along the front
of each lot giving the City the sole right to maintain the trees. Neve
states that he is willing to create the easement, and simply needs to
know whether the City prefers a 10' wide swath of easement along each
side of the road, or whether individual easements around each tree
location are preferable. Cassidy says that she would expect to finalize
the easement document during the 20-day appeal period.
Rink asks if the estimated $25,000 cost would include dredging the small
pond on this site. Neve answers no, but that it would be possible to
create a sump area in front of the culvert in the pond for that amount.
Full dredging of the pond would cost more than that.
Planning Board minutes
February 15, 2000 meeting
Page four
A resident of 3 Old Essex Road asks if work on the outlet would create a
problem for the homeowners on Old Essex Road.
Dinkin asks if there are any members of the public who have questions
or would like to make additional comments on the proposal. Hearing
none, he closes the public hearing and returns the Board to regular
session.
Thomson states that he shares Delaney's concern that granting the
waiver requests should be predicated on the drainage contributions
offered by the developer. Dinkin suggests that if the cost of the
improvements is included in the bond for this project, then the developer
can either do the work, surrender the bond money to the City so it can
complete the work, or he can seek a modification of the Board's approval
at a later date. Including the money in the bond should address any
concern about what happens if all the apprgvais needed for this
maintenance project are not obtained.
Thomas states that the Board should identify a contingency plan in the
event the work cannot proceed due to penidtting issues.
Dinkin notes that the Board must start the second public hearing slated
for this evening.
Delaney: motion to recess the meeting for public hearings, seconded
by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries.
2: Public hearing: Site Plan Review application for construction
of new office building on Sam Fonzo Drive / Liberty Publishing
Cassidy reads the legal notice.
Christopher Sparages, engineer with Hayes Engineering, introduces
himself and Mr. Al Woods of Spaulding and Slye to the Board. He
explains the plan and the location of the project on Sam Fonzo Drive. He
states that the company has already received an Order of Conditions
from the Conservation Commission.
Spaages explains that there will be 114 parking spaces on the site, and
that the zoning requires at least 112 spaces. Cassidy reads comment
letters from the various City boards and departments on this filing (see
file).
Planning Board minutes
February 15, 2000 meeting
Page five
Dinkin asks for an explanation of the use of the building. Sparages
answers that the building will be used for both office use and light
publishing activities. Thomson asks for an explanation of the proposed
drainage patterns from the site after construction. Sparages explains the
proposal, and shows the wetlands areas on the site and the locations of
proposed detention areas. Thomson asks ff any runoff will be directed
toward the residences on Cabot and Trask Streets. Sparages answers
no.
Flannery asks what the hours of operation will be. Sparages answers
that while he cannot state specific hours, he knows the plan is to be
open normal business hours. Flannery requests that the lighting scheme
for the site by explained to the public, and Sparages points out the
locations of light poles and states the light poles will be 22' high and
equipped with "shoe-box" style fixtures. Dinkin asks if the operations of
the company will generate liquid toxic waste. Sparages says that there
will be no outside storage of these types of materials, but that a very
limited amount of potentially toxic waste may be generated by the
activity of cleaning the printing presses. These materials are stored in
specially-designed containers and handled as required by law.
Dinkin asks if any members of the public have questions or comments.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, asks the applicant to point out the location
of all wetlands, which Sparages does. Dinkin asks if there are any other
questions or comments from the public. Hearing none, Dinkin declares
the public hearing closed.
Public Hearing: Modification to approved site plan for the
former Haiku Haiku restaurant on Enon Street / John
Athanasopolous
Cassidy reads the public hearing notice. Attorney Thomas Alexander,
representing the property owner, explains the nature of the changes
being proposed to the approved site plan. First, the owner wants to
eliminate the drive-through lane and connect the new retail building to
the former restaurant. The old restaurant would be used for office space
instead of as a restaurant, and the owner would like to retain the
existing building at the back of the lot and reuse it for an upscale
restaurant. He states that the total floor area of buildings on the site has
decreased from the original site plan. He introduces Mr. Elvin Phillips
from Siemasko and Verbage and Mr. Jack Kelleher of Kelleher
Construction.
Planning Board minutes
February 15, 2000 meeting
Page six
Dinkin asks if there is any pending litigation between the property owner
and the existing tenants on the site. Alexander states that there is no
pending litigation, that the tenant withdrew his complaint.
Thomson asks for the lighting scheme to be explained. Phillips states
that all lights will be replaced with new fixtures that will direct light
downward. Alexander states that the owner would be amenable to a
condition that required the replacement of all light fixtures. Delaney
asks how deliveries will be made to the establishments, and what types
of vehicles will make the deliveries. Phillips answers that delivery
vehicles will use the designated travel lanes. He says there will be double
doors at the back of the retail structure, and that trucks will pull into the
parking spaces to make deliveries.
Delaney asks how many retail establishments will be located in the new
retail building. Phillips says there will be three. Delaney asks if each
one will have a set of loading doors. Phillips says that two
establishments will have single doors in the rear of the building, and that
the Hit or Miss establishment will have the set of double doors. Delaney
asks if they have included an area for deliveries that will not conflict with
the parking calculations. Phillips states that he believes so.
Dunn asks how many employees are expected to need all-day parking.
Alexander answers that there will be 13 people for the office use. Dinkin
asks what the hours of operation are for the liquor store. Alexander
answers 9:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. Alexander adds that the restaurant hours
are expected to be 10:00 a.m. to midnight, and that the owner will be
seeking a beer and wine license.
Thomas asks if the restaurant will have live music. Athanasopolous
answers no, there will not be any musical entertainment. Dinkin asks if
the restaurant will have a lounge area. Alexander states that there may
be a small bar for patrons to sit at while waiting for a table. Delaney
asks if the restaurant will be a sit-down style restaurant. Alexander
states that it will be a sit-down style restaurant.
Ms. Paula Colahan from Bayberry Lane asks where the parking for the
restaurant will be located and where deliveries will be made. Phillips
states that parking for the restaurant will be located near the restaurant
and that deliveries will be made on the side of the restaurant nearest the
Planning Board minutes
February 15, 2000 meeting
Page seven
train tracks. Colahan asks what the capacity of the restaurant will be.
Phillips answers that the patron area will be 800-900 square feet in size.
Thomson asks if the stockade fence is an existing feature or one that is
being proposed to help screen the uses on this lot from the abutters.
Alexander answers that the stockade fencing is proposed. Flannery asks
if both dumpsters will be screened. Alexander answers yes.
Mr. Shawn Potter, operator of the Depot Wine Shoppe, addresses the
Board and states that the revised plan he reviewed - which was the basis
for dropping his earlier complaint against Mr. Athanasopolous - did not
include a restaurant at the rear of the lot. Parking is an issue for him, as
is the fact that the building he is currently in has a loading area and
three dumpsters at the back of the building that are not shown on the
site plan. Dinkin asks Potter if he thinks this revised site plan can meet
either the spirit or the letter of the agreement he had with
Athanasopolous. Potter says that it cannot. · Alexander notes that
submitting this plan to the Board was not the result of the agreement
mentioned earlier.
Dinkin asks if the existing loading areas are posted, and whether the
parking spaces proposed at the back of the existing building are located
in the way of the existing loading ramp. Potter says that they are.
Dinkin asks Alexander where the dumpsters will be relocated. Alexander
answers that there are only two dumpsters being proposed on this site,
and their locations are shown on the plan.
Thomas states that he would like to see the dumpster located nearest the
restaurant be relocated on the other side of the structure, away from the
residences on Bayberry Lane.
Dinkin asks if any members of the public have any questions on the site
plan. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are any comments from
members of the public. Shawn Potter from Hamilton objects to the
proposed parking scheme which will block his loading dock, and the
elimination of the dumpsters that both he and the other existing tenant
are using. Jeff Bennett, 12 Bayberry Lane, is concerned about the future
use of the buildings on this site. Paula Colahan, 14 Bayberry Lane, has
the same concerns as Mr. Bennett, including noise from the
establishments, deliveries, and dumpster locations.
Dinkin asks if there is any other public comment. Hearing none, he
closes the public hearing.
Planning Board minutes
February 15, 2000 meeting
Page eight
Chairman Dinkin declares a five-minute recess, and reconvenes the
Board thereafter.
4. Discussion |continued]: Meeting Place Circle definitive
subdivision plan
Thomson offers his opinion that the developer has met every concern
raised by the Board. Delaney agrees, and states that while the timing of
off-site and on-site drainage improvements as they relate to construction
of the subdivision may not be perfect, the work will not aggravate
drainage problems in the neighborhood.
Dinkin asks if there is any additional discussion on this subject.
Thomson:
motion to approve the Meeting Place Circle definitive
subdivision plan, subject to the following conditions:
that the recommendations contained in all
depaxhnental and board letters regarding this project
be incorporated into the Board's approval and the
definitive plan where appropriate;
That as part of the bond posted to guarantee
completion of this subdivision, the developer shall be
required to contribute $25,000 in funds (or in the
alternate contribute $25,000 worth of work) to address
drainage problems created by the design of the
drainage system in the Willow Pond subdivision. Such
work shall include modification of the outlet structure
to Willow Pond and the cleaning of the 18" outlet pipe,
the cleaning of the brook behind the houses on Old
Essex Road, and the cleaning of the pond on lot #8 in
this subdivision. The City shall endeavor to address
the remaining recommendation of the CDM Guidance
Memorandum regarding off-site improvements to the
culvert under Essex Street;
That a 10' wide easement be created along both sides
of the proposed new roadway for the purpose of
allowing for the proper maintenance of street trees by
the City of Beverly. The easement can be reduced to
Planning Board minutes
February 15, 2000 meeting
Page nine
individual easements around each proposed street tree
if deemed appropriate by the City; and
All homes in this subdivision shall be equipped with
residential sprinkler systems.
Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion
carries.
5. Discussion: Site Plan Review application for Liberty Publishing
Dinkin asks if there is any additional discussion on this subject. There
is none.
Delaney: motion to approve the proposed, site plan for Liberty
Publishing on Sam Fonzo Drive, subject to the
recommendations contained in letters from the various City
boards and departments. Motion seconded by Thomas, all
members in favor. Motion carries.
Discussion: Modification to approved site plan for former
Haiku Haiku site on Enon Street
Delaney states that while a number of concerns can be addressed
through the imposition of conditions, he is troubled by the parking
issues raised this evening. Alexander states that the owner will create a
loading space behind the liquor store and one behind Hit or Miss.
Flannery asks how often dumpsters will be emptied. Alexander and
Athanasopolous state that the dumpsters will be serviced twice a week.
Flannery questions whether twice-weekly service will be sufficient.
Alexander states that the dumpsters can emptied as often as necessary.
Dinkin asks if there is any additional discussion on this matter. There is
none.
Delaney: motion to approve the modified site plan for this site subject
to the following conditions:
That all curb cuts on Enon Street conform to the
requirements of the Massachusetts Highway
Department;
Planning Board minutes
February 15, 2000 meeting
Page ten
That no trash collection activities or deliveries be
allowed on the site between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m.;
That all lighting on the site be directed downward onto
the property and all existing lighting fixtures be either
removed or replaced with "directable" heads;
That a stockade fence at least six (6) feet in height be
erected along the southeast property line;
That the use of the existing structure at the rear of the
site shall be for a "sit-down" style restaurant, and that
the hours of operation of the restaurant shall be
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and midnight; this
condition shall mean that all patrons of the
establishment shall be outside of the building by 12:00
midnight;
That the proposed dumpster located adjacent to the
restaurant shall be relocatdd from the location
originally proposed to the west side of the restaurant;
That at least one loading area shall be designated
behind the new retail building and two loading areas
shall be designated behind the existing retail building
on the site; the loading areas shall be designated as
such by utilizing signage and/or painting. The
parking spaces eliminated as a result of the creation of
these loading areas shall be relocated to areas
adjacent to the restaurant as indicated during the
public hearing;
That all comments contained in letters received on this
application from the various boards and departments
be incorporated into the plans and hereby made a
condition of site plan approval;
That approval of this site plan is predicated on the
uses as shown on the site plan, and any changes to
the site plan or the proposed uses shown thereon
must be resubmitted to the Planning Board for review
and approval;
That the owners include a provision in all subsequent
leases that employees of the establishments on this
site must park in the parking areas behind the retail
building or on the side of the retail buildings;
That, to the extent they can be added, additional
plantings shall be installed along the rear property line
Planning Board minutes
February 15, 2000 meeting
Page eleven
to provide additional screening between the
commercial uses and the abutting properties; and
A revised site plan be submitted to the Board reflecting
the conditions of approval.
Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor.
carries.
Motion
7. Approval of minutes
Dinkin asks members if there are any suggested changes to the minutes
of the Board's December 14, 1999 and January 18, 2000 meetings.
There are none.
Delaney: motion to approve the minutes of the Board's December 14,
1999 and January 18, 2000 meetings, seconded by Dunn.
All members in favor, motion carries.
8. New or Other Business
Dinkin asks if there is any other business for the Board to conduct this
evening.
Dunn: motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members in
favor, motion carries.