Loading...
2009-07-28 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: Planning Board, Regular Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: July 28, 2009 City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd Floor Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Charles Harris, Ellen Hutchinson, David Mack, Stephanie Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Planning Director Tina Cassidy Andrea Bray Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. 1. Cleveland Road Subdivision #1 - Expiration of Construction Completion Date and Form G Covenant (Julv 28. 2009) - William Beard Cassidy states that in June the Board continued the completion date for this project to the end of this month, and that Mr. Beard submitted a request that the Board find the as-built plans and acceptance plans acceptable. Cassidy reads a letter from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering, stating that the plans are in compliance and recommending approval of the plans. Harris: Motion to accept the as-built plans for the Cleveland Road subdivision, recommend acceptance of the roadway acceptance plans to the City Council, and release the lot from the remaining restrictions of the Form G restrictive covenant posted as surety to guarantee project completion, seconded by Thomson. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. 2. San!:ent Avenue Extension Definitive Subdivision - Expiration of Construction Completion Date (AU2ust 9. 2009) - D. Jeremv Campbell Cassidy reads a letter from Bob Griffin, of Griffin Engineering, that outlines the construction's conformance and deviations from the approved subdivision plan and requests that the Board find the as-built plans acceptable. She also reads a letter from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering, in which he recommends approval of the plans and release of the performance bond. Planning Board July 28, 2009 Page 2 of8 Mack: Motion to accept the as-built plans for the Sargent Avenue subdivision and to release the remaining performance bond amount of $11,200 to the developers (Jeremy and Suzanne Campbell), seconded by Thomson. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. 3. Mass Development Finance A2encv - Plannin2 Board Notification of YMCA of the North Shore. Inc. Applications for the Revenue Bond Cassidy states that the Board has received notification of funding applications for revenue bonds for the YMCA and Beverly School for the Deaf. Dinkin recommends that these items be placed on file. 4. Approval of Minutes: June 15. 2009 Joint Public Hearin2 and Special Meetin2 and June 16.2009 Re2ular Meetin2 Dinkin asks if there are any corrections or additions to be made to the draft minutes of either meeting. There are none. Hutchinson: Motion to approve the minutes of the June 15,2009 Joint Public Hearing /Special meeting and June 16, 2009 regular meeting, seconded by Flannery. Motion passes 7-0 (the Chair abstains). Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Mack. Motion passes 7- o (the Chair abstains). Dinkin opens the public hearing. 5. Public Hearin2 (continued): Site Plan Review Application #99-09 - Beverlv Retirement Community - construction of 173-unit subsidized elderly housin2 facility with associated parkin2 and site improvements - 145 Conant Street - Estate of Thomas J. Flatlev and Harvest Development. LLC Thomson: Motion to waive the reading of the legal public hearing notice, seconded by Mack. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Attorney Mark Glovsky, representing Harvest Development, LLC, introduces the other representatives in attendance and states that Harvest is the largest owner of senior housing in the country and the third largest manager of senior housing in the country. He explains that the plan was previously approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and that they are here tonight seeking approval of the site plan. He describes the site as a 9.S-acre parcel on the northerly side of Conant Street and the westerly side of Cherry Hill Drive, on the Danvers line, and having a 40B multi-family housing project and an assisted living Planning Board July 28, 2009 Page 3 of8 facility nearby. He says that there is a deed restriction that ensures that the affordable units will continue in perpetuity. Glovky states that the plan includes 155 units in the main building, all without kitchens and having a congregate dining facility, and 18 units in 9 duplex structures with kitchens, and those residents will be entitled to 1 meal/day in the congregate dining facility. He adds that there are two driveway entrances from Cherry Hill Drive, and that the units will, most likely, be occupied by residents in their 70's and early 80's (a majority will be ambulatory), and not more than 10% of the units will be occupied by couples. Glovsky states that the project includes 153 parking spaces, and estimates that only 20% of the units will be occupied with cars. He explains that there will be 24-hour management on site, and 20 staff members will be employed. Glovsky reviews the conditions set forth by the ZBA, which include: 1. Management shall inform all prospective tenants of the property's proximity to the Beverly Airport 2. Specifications for buildings must require noise-rated glass on all doors and windows 3. To be environmentally friendly, no hazardous chemicals shall be used for ice/snow removal 4. Should the Planning Board require any design changes, they will be instituted without need to return to the ZBA S. Landscaping shall be maintained as necessary 6. FAA and Mass Aeronautics Commission approval is required Glovsky explains that an abutter, Steve Connolly appealed the ZBA approval. After negotiating with him, Harvest has reached by agreement with Connolly by adhering to some additional conditions. Those additional conditions include adding trees to the greenbelt that runs along Conant Street and moving the building about 15' further from Conant Street. Senior Project Manager Rob McSorley with Sebago Technics representing the applicant, states that he met extensively with the various Beverly municipal departments to ensure that he was in compliance with all of the City's regulations. He confirms that he incorporated a second driveway into the plans to provide adequate room for emergency vehicles. He adds that adequate municipal facilities exist for utilities and sanitary maintenance. To comply with regulations set forth by the Conservation Commission, McSorley states that all construction will take place outside of the resource area and will not impact any natural resources. He says that they have developed a stormwater storage system plan, and there will be ample parking, and the landscape design will provide a park-like atmosphere with walking paths. Planning Board July 28, 2009 Page 4 of8 McSorley states that there will be a 7S-foot buffer between the development and Conant Street, with a combination of deciduous and conifer trees planted within it. Cassidy clarifies that the 7S-foot buffer remains but practically on the ground there will be approximately 90 feet of buffer. McSorley confirms this. Thomson asks if the appeal settlement requires that the applicants go back to ZBA for any sort of approval, and Glovsky states that it is not required. McSorley shows the architectural elevations of the proposed buildings. Architect Owens McCullough states that the siding will be concrete (hardi-plank) lap siding. Dinkin asks about the kitchen plan for disposal of organic waste. Mark Lowen of Curry Architecture states that the facility will have a grease interceptor, and the management will contract on a local basis with a service company that handles organic waste. He adds that a separate storage area, apart from the kitchen, will hold the waste until pick-up. Thomson asks if the low/moderate income housing (15% required) will consist of units that are the same as all of the other units. Lowen states that the affordable housing units are identical to all of the other units. He describes the breakdown of unit sizes, 63% I-BR, 12% 2-BR, and 25% Studio units, all of which are handicapped accessible. Lowen states that this project will not be an assisted living facility, but renters will be provided with three meals a day, and many activities that are unique to the area, such as field trips, quilting clubs, Wii tournaments, and a van service that will makes trips for medical visits and other activities. He explains that after a few months in residence, only about 20% of the occupants keep their cars. He states that there is an activities coordinator, and a Manager and Co-manager couple on site, trained in CPR and to assist the residents, and will check on them if they don't come down to lunch or other meals. But there is no medical component to the project. Hutchinson asks about the turnover rate. Lowen states that it is about 20-25% per year, and management evaluates and keeps the families of tenants apprised of the situation. He explains that these are rental units and leased as a bundle with all of the services included. Harris asks if they transition people into assisted living. Planning Board July 28, 2009 Page 5 of8 Lowen states that the project emphasizes independent living and they would contact a social worker if they discover that a resident needs to transition into assisted living type arrangements. Thomson asks how the rental subsidy works for the low/moderate income units. Lowen states that it is based on HUD income requirements based on household size and they will adjust the rent structure according to the requirements. Dinkin clarifies that the rent will be discounted, as opposed to government funded/subsidized. McSorley confirms this. He suggests that the role that the manager takes require social services qualifications in Massachusetts. Lowen states that they will refer these matters to the appropriate professional. Flannery asks about the location of the other four other sites in Massachusetts operated by Harvest. Owens McCullough, Vice-President of Engineering and Project Manager for Sebago Technics, states that the other locations are in Lenox, Agawam, Chelmsford, and East Longmeadow Massachusetts. Mack asks how long the construction will take. Lowen states that they usually need 14-16 months to build the facilities. He adds that marketing begins about 2/3 of the way into the project, and they might begin off-site marketing earlier. Williams asks for details on the landscaping on the Conant Street side of the property. McSorley states that there will be a row of trees (deciduous and conifer), 8-10 feet tall when planted, and 25-30 feet tall at maturity. He adds that 50% will be conifer trees. Dunn asks about the square footage of the units. Lowen provides the information on the square footage: . The studio is about 600 square feet . The I-bedroom is about 900 square feet . The 2-bedroom is about 1100 square feet . The cottage is about 1200 square feet Dinkin opens the hearing to the public and asks if there are any questions or comments on the proposal. There are none. Planning Board July 28, 2009 Page 6 of8 Glovsky states that there were many letters of support presented at the ZBA meeting. Cassidy reads the following letters received in response to this application: . Dated February 24,2009, Sgt Joseph Shairs, with the Police Department . Dated February 24,2009, from the Fire Department . Dated March 6,2009, from Kate Newhall, Associate Planner, for the Design Review Board . Dated March 11, 2009, from Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner, for the Conservation Commission . Dated March 13, 2009, from Art Daignault, ADA Coordinator . Dated March 13, 2009, from William Burke, Board of Health . Dated March 31,2009, from Richard Benevento, chairman of the Parking and Traffic Commission . Dated April 21, 2009, from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering . Dated July 28, 2009, from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering . Dated July 28,2009, from Stephen Connolly, which states that they have reached an agreement with the developer in response to his appeal of the ZBA decision. Dinkin closes the public hearing. 6. Discussion/Decision: Site Plan Review Application #99-09 - Beverlv Retirement Community - 145 Conant Street - Estate of Thomas J. Flatlev and Harvest Development. LLC Thomson: Motion to approve the site plan review application subject to the condition that all of the recommendations specified in the departments' letters be incorporated into the plan/approval, seconded by Flannery. Mack asks if they should incorporate the conditions of the ZBA and Dinkin states that it will not be necessary. The members vote on the motion. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. 7. Discussion: Potential OSRD min2 232-234 Essex Street - Walker Realtv Trust Cassidy states that Hancock Associates has filed a preliminary subdivision plan for the parcel behind the new day care center on Essex Street, and that the plan and application doe not fully comply with the OSRD ordinance. She has communicated that to the engineering firm and they requested an informal discussion to explain the proposed project to the Board and to discuss the applicability of the OSRD ordinance and regulations. Planning Board July 28, 2009 Page 7 of8 Engineer Katie Enright, Project Manager for Hancock Associates, states that the property is owned by Walker Realty. She submits an aerial photograph of the general neighborhood to the Board and states that she realizes that the plan and application do not meet all of the OSRD requirements and they were planning to meet the preliminary subdivision requirements. She adds that she is working on a yield plan. Enright states that they would like to build a residential neighborhood behind the childcare center, and currently there are a lot of pavement and pathways and stockpiling of construction materials on the site. She explains that the yield plan shows 21 lots including one lot for the existing (new) day care center. Dinkin advises her that the subdivision will in fact be subject to OSRD and to the City's inclusionary zoning ordinance as well. Roughly estimated, the ordinance requires 12% of the units to be set aside as affordable housing, so assuming 20 housing units get built, 3 units must be "affordable"). Enright describes the lot. She asks the Board for their feelings as to what features or areas of this lot might be important to keep in mind for protection as the project is designed. Thomson states that as the OSRD ordinance is set up, she needs to present the information about the lot's characteristics to the Board, and approach this from a land-use viewpoint instead of a subdivision viewpoint, and have the landscape architect identify the features that should or might be maintained/preserved. Concept plans would then be developed around that information. He adds that the Board has the ability to waive many of the City's subdivision construction requirements (and some of the zoning requirements) provided the plan meets the OSRD ordinance. He suggests that she come in with 2-3 conceptual sketches of alternative subdivision layouts, and he is looking for this to be a cooperative process. He explains that the Board's authority is not to turn the project down but rather to help the applicant develop a plan that can be approved by the City. Cassidy states that once the application is filed the Board has 45 days to hold a public hearing and reminds the Board that the applicant can agree to extend that deadline if necessary. Enright confirms that she should present alternatives and a yield plan, and then the Board will pick a preferred plan for refinement/approval. Much discussion ensues about the OSRD process. Dinkin states that this is not conventional land use regulation as it creates an uncertainty but the upside is that the ordinance gives the developer a great deal more flexibility in Planning Board July 28, 2009 Page 8 of8 maximizing the value of the land. He adds that the end product of developments such as this have higher value, and that under the Ordinance she is guaranteed to get the same number of lots as shown on the approved yield plan. Thomson suggests that she submit an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation as soon as possible with the Conservation Commission, since the OSRD ordinance requires that Board to delineate any wetland resources shown on an OSRD filing. Enright says she is planning to submit it tomorrow for discussion at the next Conservation Commission meeting. Thomson suggests that she send in a couple of concept plans to the Board, even if they are only pencil sketches, in advance of the next Planning Board meeting in September. Dinkin asks Enright to consider withdrawing her current application so that the Board will not have to take a formal vote to reject the application and plan she already submitted. Enright requests that the Board allow her to withdraw the application without prejudice. Thomson: Motion to grant permission for Walker Realty Trust to withdraw its OSRD initial review application without prejudice, seconded by Mack. Motion passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Dinkin asks if there is any other business for the Board to conduct. There is none. Mack: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Williams. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:30 pm.