9-21-10Staff Report
September 21, 2010 Planning Board Regular Meeting
1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's)
a. If any. None submitted as of press time.
2. New or Other Business
a. If any. This agenda item may include requests to set public hearing dates; requests
to establish surety, sign plans, reduce or release performance bonds or other
actions pertaining to the administration of subdivision approvals, which could
include review and approval of preliminary subdivision plans; requests for minor
modifications of site plans; requests for informal discussion over potential future
projects; requests for administrative actions and /or recommendations pertaining to
zoning amendments.
3. Continued Discussion/Decision — Proposed Adoption of "Submission
Requirements, Procedures & Supplemental Regulations" pursuant to Section
29 -34 "Inclusion of Affordable Housing" and amendments to "Planning Board
Regulations Governing Fees and Fee Schedules"
Hearing Start: June 15, 2010
Hearing Closed: July 20, 2010
Members will recall that the public hearing on this matter began at the June 15, 2010
meeting and was closed at the July 20, 2010 meeting.
As a refresher, Section 29 -34 "Inclusion of Affordable Housing" (the "Regulations ") was
adopted by the City in July 2007. The Ordinance requires that all residential
developments containing over 10 new dwelling units provide at least 12 percent of them
as affordable housing. This housing is required on -site, although the Ordinance allows
that the Board grant a special permit to allow that the units be located off -site, the
developer pay a fee in lieu of on -site affordable units to the City, or the developer donate
land to the City or an affordable housing entity. Section 29 -34.D. mandates that the
Planning Board adopt Affordable Housing Regulations to administer the Ordinance using
the procedures in MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11. A copy of the Ordinance and the
proposed Regulations were provided in Appendix C of the June 15 staff report.
Planning Staff has drafted these Regulations using a model from the town of Shrewsbury,
with the assistance of the Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair. The Shrewsbury
document was drafted by Judi Barrett of Community Opportunities Group and adopted
by Shrewsbury in 2009. Ms. Barrett is the consultant this City hired to draft its
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2006/2007.
Planning Board Staff Report
September 21, 2010
Page 2
Of particular note and requiring the Board's feedback and assistance is the method by
which fees are charged for applicants seeking a special permit to allow a payment in lieu
of providing affordable housing units on -site, found Section 3.2 "Fee in Lieu of Units ".
As background, Planning Department Staff conducted a Fee study in which 5 methods of
assessing fees were explored. These methods are based on Ms. Barrett's advice that the
fee be the difference between the median market rate sale price over the most recent 3
years in the City OR per the Assessor's neighborhood code and the price affordable to a
low- income household (i.e. Median Market Rate Sale Price — Affordable Unit Sale Price
= Fee). A summary sheet of this Fee Study was also included in Appendix C of the June
staff report. Planning Department staff recommends that the Planning Board select
Option 3 or Option 5. These options are included in the Regulations Section 3.2.1 & 2.
for members consideration.
Members will recall that at the July meeting, concerns were aired over relying upon using
the Assessor's neighborhood codes for determining median market rate sale prices in
neighborhoods. At the same time, some members preferred using values that are
consistent with neighborhood based sale prices rather than Citywide.
Members will also recall that the Beverly Affordable Housing Coalition (now the North
Shore Community Development Coalition — a newly merged organization replacing the
Beverly Affordable Housing Coalition and the Salem Harbor CDC) submitted comments
during the July meeting. Of particular note is their request that the Board raise the fee per
condominium unit from $59,500 to a minimum of $100,000 (noting that $100,000 is still
low). A copy of their letter is included in Appendix A.
Also slated for the Board's consideration are amendments to the "Planning Board's
Regulations Governing Fees and Fee Schedules" ( "Fee Regulations "). Said amendments
are threefold as described below:
1. Add a fee for Inclusionary Housing Applications of $100. Please note that any
project over 10 residential units also requires site plan review with the Planning
Board, which imposes a separate fee depending on the size of the project ($350
minimum, $5,000 maximum). Planning Staff has determined that the proposed
Inclusionary Housing fee is sufficient to cover the additional department
administrative costs.
2. Amend the procedures for collecting Project Review Fees. The current Fee
Regulations require that all applicants provide a project review fee up front using
a predetermined schedule based on project size. Planning Department staff finds
it more efficient to charge a project review fee "as needed" based on actual
estimates from the selected peer reviewer. The City's Solicitor and Finance
Director have reviewed and commented on the proposed language.
3. Amend the reporting requirements as recommended by the City's Director of
Finance to more accurately reflect the City's accounting procedures.
4. Change the Planning Board's requirement for amending the fees annually. This
section has been amended to give the Planning Board the option (rather than
require them) to update the fees annually.
Planning Board Staff Report
September 21, 2010
Page 3
Please refer to the enclosed July 20 draft meeting minutes for a refresher of the July
discussion. Eligible voting members (5 required) are Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery, Dunn,
Harris, Matz and Hutchinson.
4. Minor Modification Reauest: Site Plan Review Annlication #101 -10 — 292 & 302
Rantoul Street — Italian Community Center
Developer: Italian Community Center Location: 292 & 302 Rantoul Street
Zoning District: CC Site Plan Filed: 4/7/2010
Hearing Started: 5/19/10 Hearing Closed: 7/20/10
Decision Date: 7/20/10
Members will recall that the Italian Community Center received site plan and special
permit approval at the July 20, 2010 meeting for the expansion of their building at 302
Rantoul Street into their new property at 292 Rantoul Street. Site Plan approval was
required because the percent increase in the building is over 40% in the CC Zoning
District. A special permit was required because private clubs are only allowed in the CC-
Zone by special permit from the Planning Board.
In finalizing the building permit documents, several changes were made to the building
permit plans to address building code issues and to further address some of the abutter's
concerns. Of particular note, an emergency egress door that exits the abutter side of the
building has been relocated closer to the Rantoul Street side of the building. This has
eliminated the need for an exterior stairway on the abutter side because the door will now
be at the Rantoul Street sidewalk grade. This was done to address some of the abutter's
issues and building code. A copy of the developer's application, which explains the
extent of changes and revised plans are included in Appendix B for members review and
information. Copies of the original approved plans are also included for members
reference.
The Board's task at this meeting is to determine whether the proposed modifications are
minor in nature. If the Board votes in the affirmative on that count, it can then vote on
the substance of the proposed changes. Should the Board vote in the negative, members
shall set a public hearing date for a major modification to the approved site plan.
5. Continued Public Meeting: Oven SUace Residential Design (OSRD) #2 -10
Initial Review — 875 & 875 1 /2 Hale Street — Montrose School Park, LLC
Developer: Montrose School Park, LLC Location: 875 & 875 '/z Hale Street
Zoning District: R -10 Filed: 1 -12 -10
Meeting Start: February 9, 2010 Action by: Not Applicable
Members will recall that the Board closed the public hearing on the revised "waiver -free"
5 -lot Yield Plan and approved it in March. The developer presented a new Conceptual
Plan at the June 15 meeting, where the Board members provided comments. This plan
(SP -3, dated June 10, 2010) is included in Appendix C. The Board conducted a site visit
Planning Board Staff Report
September 21, 2010
Page 4
on June 26, 2010. The Open Space Committee and the Conservation Commission
submitted comment letters on this plan, which are also included in Appendix C. With
regard to comments received, and of particular note, the developers were asked to include
the 2 ANR lots in the overall Tract calculation and to give an open space calculation
based on this. There was also a suggestion that the boundaries of the ANR lots be
adjusted and that the new homes be clustered a bit more and moved further back, away
from the street. There were also suggestions that they use a narrower road or shared
driveway instead of a roadway and that they meet the 50% open space requirement.
Over the summer, the developer submitted a Notice of Intent application to the
Conservation Commission for approval of a 6 -lot conventional definitive subdivision
plan. The Board approved this request, allowing that the proposed roadway encroach
upon the 100 -foot wetlands buffer zone and recently issued an Order of Conditions to this
effect. The developer has notified Planning staff that they will submit a new 6 -lot Yield
Plan and 6 -lot Conceptual OSRD plan as a result. This submission has not been received
as of press time. Planning staff will forward the plans to members electronically upon
receipt.
Eligible voting members on this application (5 are needed) are Dinkin, Thomson,
Flannery, Dunn, Hutchinson and Mack.
6. Set Public Hearing Date: 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan — Montrose
School Park, LLC
Developer: Montrose School Park, LLC Location: 875 Hale Street
Zoning District: R10 Filed: 5/26/2010
Action by: 10/23/10 (Extension granted from original deadline of 9/23/10)
Members will recall that Montrose School Park, LLC submitted a conventional definitive
subdivision plan to create 6 new building lots and a 50 -foot wide dead end new roadway
on the 2.7 -acre parcel. The developer signed a waiver of the timeframe in which the
Board has to make a decision on this definitive plan filing by 30 days. The Planning
Board has yet to schedule a public hearing on the matter. A hearing should be scheduled
no later than the October 19 meeting or another time extension should be sought.
7. Remand Order - Foster Lane Cluster Subdivision Plan — 30 Foster Street — Hub
Realty Trust, Robert Hubbard, Trustee
Developer: Hub Realty Trust Location: 30 Foster Street
Zoning District: R22 Planning Board Decision Date: 7/17/07
Appealed: July /August 2007 Court Order: June 1, 2010
Members will recall that in July 2007, the Board denied an application by Hub Realty
Trust for approval of a cluster definitive subdivision plan at 30 Foster Street. The plan
involved the subdivision of this 5 -acre parcel into 5 building lots having lot areas
between 14,000 s.f. and 23,000 s.f and the creation of a 115,993 s.f open space parcel.
The building lots would have frontage on a new dead end road with hammerhead
Planning Board Staff Report
September 21, 2010
Page 5
turnaround off Foster Street. A copy of the Board's denial letter and the lotting plan are
included in Appendix D.
The developer appealed the Board's decision to Superior Court and in May 2010, the
Court ruled in favor of the developer and remanded the matter back to the Planning
Board with instructions that the Planning Board approve the plan and conditions.
Conditions included that the developer would implement off -site traffic safety upgrades
on Foster Street and that the Board and the developer agree upon a method of surety. See
page 4 of the Finding, Rulings and Order for Entry of Judgment ( " Remand Order ")
document in Appendix D for the complete instructions and conditions.
The developer recently submitted final Mylars to the Board for the Board's
approval/endorsement /signature. Planning Department staff responded to this submission
with a request for additional information pertaining to the Remand Order conditions
noted above and made some additional requests (e.g. that the developer submit final
drainage calculations, comply with the Board of Health comments made during review of
the project, consider renaming Foster Lane for emergency response reasons, and that
homes located more than 500 -feet from the looped water main be sprinklered). Please
find a copy of Planning staff's September 8, 2010 request for information and a related
Memo dated September 13, 2010 in Appendix D.
As of press time and in reference to the Remand Order conditions, the developer has
submitted a list of off -site traffic safety improvements to be reviewed and approved by
the City. They have yet to submit a performance bond or other form of surety as required
by the Court.
With reference to the additional requests made by Planning Staff, the developer has
submitted updated drainage calculations, but has not responded to the other requests.
The materials submitted to date have been forwarded to the City Engineer and are
included in Appendix D for members review.
The Mylars may be signed pending the developer's satisfactory responses to the items
listed in the Remand Order. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the developer must
submit an acceptable form of surety for review and approval by the Board before the
plans can be signed.
8. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the July 20, 2010 meeting are included for Members' review.
9. Adiournment