BPB Minutes January 20 2016_revBeverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board Meeting
Date: January 20, 2016
Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Members Present Chair John Thomson, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, Catherine
Barrett, David Mack, James Matz, Ned Barrett, Wayne Miller,
Michael Rotondo
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne
Recorder: Eileen Sacco
Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
Thomson asks Wynne if there are any Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans this
evening.Wynne reports that there are no SANR's this evening.
Approval of Minutes
Thomson reports that the minutes of the Beverly Planning Board meeting held on November 17,
2015 are presented for approval. Hutchinson moved approval of the November 17, 2015 meeting
minutes. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (9 -0).
Set Public Hearing Date — Open Space and Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan #88 -15
and Definitive Subdivision Plan — 11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue - PD Building LLC
Thomson explains that the Board has received an Open Space and Residential Design (OSRD)
and Site Plan Review application for 11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue to create 6 new residential lots
for a total of 7 lots on the site.He explains that the action required this evening is to set a public
hearing date.
Thomson notes that the next meeting of the Board is February 9, 2016.
Hutchinson: Motion to set the Public Hearing date for the Open Space and Residential Design
and Site Plan #88 -15 and Definitive Subdivision Plan for 11 -15 Sunnycrest
Avenue for February 9, 2016.Mack seconds the motion.The Chair votes in
favor.The motion carries (9 -0).
Page 1 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Set Public Hearing Date — Site Plan Review Application #118 -16 —130 Sohier Road —
Lockwood Investments LLC
Thomson explains that the Board has received a Site Plan Review Application #118 -16 for the
construction of a one story masonry block building for a Skilled Nursing Facility at 130 Sohier
Road.He explains that the action to be taken by the Board this evening is to set a date for the
public hearing.
Hutchinson: Motion to set the public hearing date for the Site Plan Review of Application
#118 -16 for 130 Sohier Road for February 9, 2016.Mack seconds the motion. The
Chair votes in favor.The motion carries (9 -0).
Set Public Hearing Date — Site Plan Review #119 -16 and Special Permit Application #148-
16 — 55 Cherry Hill Drive — Krohne, Inc.
Thomson explains that the Board has received an application from Krohne, Inc., for Site Plan
Review and a Special Permit for the renovation of an existing building and the construction of
42,000 +/- GSF for light industrial and associated office use, and deviation from off - street
parking requirements at 55 Cherry Hill Drive.He notes that the action required by the Board this
evening to set a date for the public hearing.
Hutchinson: Motion to set the public hearing for Site Plan Review of Application #119 -16 and
Special Permit Application #148 -16 for 55 Cherry Hill Drive — Krohne, Inc. for
Tuesday, February 9, 2016.Miller seconds the motion.
Matz notes that there are four public hearings scheduled for February 9, 2016 and suggests that
in order to give everyone a fair shake the Board should consider scheduling one of the hearings
for the March meeting of the Board.
City Planner Aaron Clausen addresses the Board and notes that the Krohne Application is time
sensitive and explains that they will be going to the City Council for approval of a Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) Plan and they are looking to occupy the location in March.
C. Barrett asks if any of the Public Hearings that the Board has this evening will be continued to
the February 9 meeting.
Atty. Alexander states that the 25 Jewett Road project will be continued this evening as the
applicant is requesting a continuance at the request of an abutter who is unable to attend this
evening.
Thomson asks if there are any other questions or comments regarding this matter.There are none.
Thomson calls for a vote on the motion to schedule the public hearing for February 9, 2016 made
by Hutchinson and seconded by Miller.The motion carries (9 -0).
Page 2 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Continued Public Hearing — 25 Jewett Road — Definitive Plan — Extend Roadway 75 Feet
within the existing Right of Way to Create Accessible Frontage for Existing Parcel —
Francis and Marcia Byrne
Flannery: Motion to open the public hearing for 25 Jewett Road.Hutchinson seconds
themotion.The motion carries (9 -0).
Atty. Alexander addresses the Board and explains that they are requesting a continuance this
evening at the request of the abutter who is unable to be here this evening.
Attorney Alexander reports that they have met with Mr. Bostridge and have agreed to provide
additional drainage onto their site and enter into a maintenance agreement that calls for them to
share the maintenance and the utilities with him.He also explains that they have agreed to a
condition by the Board that should the property be sold, prior to the sale they shall provide surety
to the Board to cover the cost of the work that they have agree to do.He also explains that they
have agreed to provide underground utilities on the site and have agreed to put up no parking
signs at the end of the turnaround and they have enlarged the shoulder of the way so that it is
wider to provide the ability to store snow.He notes that they will have revised plans and the
agreement with Mr. Bostridge for the next meeting.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter:
Mack: Motion to allow the request for a continuance to February 9, 2016.Flannery
seconds the motion.The Chair votes in favor.The motion carries (9 -0).
Atty. Alexander informs the Board that the 130 Sohier Road project has some time constraints as
well noting that they reviewed the project in some detail at the hearing for the zoning change that
was granted on the site.He states that he does not anticipate that it would be a long public hearing
on February 9cn
Continued Public Hearing — Modification to Site Plan Review #113 -14 and Special Permit
#139 -14 — Changes to Proposed Curb Cut off Connector Road, Internal Driveway Access at
Sohier Road and Footprint Modification of Building B — North Shore Crossing — 140
Brimbal Avenue — CEA Beverly
Hutchinson: Motion to open the public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion.The motion
carries (9 -0).
Flannery: Motion to waive the reading of the legal notice. Hutchinson seconds the
motion.The motion carries (9 -0).
Atty. Thomas Alexander addresses the Board and reviews the requested modification to the
approved plans for the project.
Atty. Alexander explains that they have made a slight modification to the Sohier Road accesss
and explains that they have widened the driveway on Sohier Road from 24 feet to 26 feet, and
Page 3 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
increased the landscaped area between Sohier Road and Northridge K Building from 10 feet to
18 feet and added a 10 foot landscaped area to Building A on the Northridge side of that
building.He explains that they have eliminated 13 parking spaces next to Building A to
accommodate the widened driveway and landscaped areas.
Atty. Alexander reports that since the last meeting the Peer Reviewer has reviewed the proposed
changes relating to traffic and has recommended some changes, all of which they have
adopted.He also notes that they have received comments from MEPA regarding the draft
Environmental Impact Report and have suggested a change to the radius of the driveway on the
connector road.He notes that they have incorporated this into the plans and this will be done at
the expense of the developer.
Atty. Alexander also notes that they have agreed to all of the conditions suggested by the Parking
and Traffic Commission and further notes that the Design Review Board has reviewed the plan
and has approved it and recommend approval.
Atty. Alexander introduces Ron Golub of CEA to address the Board and explain the changes
that were recommended by the Peer Reviewer, Rebecca Brown.
Ron Golub addresses the Board and explains that they have reviewed the changes that Ms.
Brown recommended for the project and have incorporated them into the plans.He reviews the
changes and notes that they are identified on the amended plans in red.He explains that the peer
reviewer recommended that size of the sidewalk be consistent with the shared use sidewalk, that
grades be consistent with ADA and that the striping clearly show that the driveway at the
Connector Road is one -way only. The Peer Review also recommended that the crosswalk be
located at the narrow one -way section of the main drive aisle to minimize vehicle /pedestrian
conflicts and that pedestrian warning signs be installed.
Thomson asks for clarification on the MEPA process and the suggestion for the change in the
radius. Golub explains that it was recommended to move the curb approximately one foot to the
left.He further explains that the prior design was for 25 miles per hour travel and this design
change will slow the cars down to 23 miles per hour.
Mike Myers of TEC addresses the Board and explains that he is filling in this evening for
Rebecca Brown who is out on maternity leave.He states that he has reviewed her memo on the
project dated November 30, 2015 and confirms that everything that was recommended by Ms.
Brown has been added to the plan dated January 11, 2016.
Myers reported that they have reviewed the VISSIM analysis files for input related to the off -site
traffic accommodations for the project and have found that they reasonably and accurately
prepared the geometric network of roundabouts and driveways, incorporated build volumes, and
used reasonable parameters for other traffic operations and operator characteristics.He states that
they believe that the simulation presents a reasonable depiction of the traffic conditions that can
be expected post- occupancy of the site and are consistent with the level of service analysis
results presented previously.He notes that Kevin Dandrade of TEC issued a letter on January 12'
Page 4 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Matz stated that he attended the Parking and Traffic Commission meeting and viewed the
VISSIM model again.He notes that he did not see any representation of the traffic from the
Brimbal Avenue roundabout yielding and questions if the peer reviewer saw it the same way.
Myers stated that he did not view the model himself but offered to take a look at it and report
back. He notes that it is definitely a yield condition and that the geometry shows quite a bit of
deflection noting that one would almost have to come to a complete stop.
Matz questions the potential queuing for Sohier Road traffic entering the rotary on Brimbal
Avenue and asks what the potential queuing will be.Myers explains that entering the roundabout
at Sohier and Brimbalthe TEC memo indicated there would be 3 additional cars and there are
multiple lanes to keep the traffic moving.They do not see any issues with queuing at that
location.
Matz notes that there was a letter received by the Board from a constituent who refers to the
forecast modeling going out to 2035 and asks if that is correct.Myers notes that Ms. Brown's
previous reviews noted that trip generations were on the conservative side and that perhaps that's
why the model is showing a decrease in the numbers.
Ron Muller, of Ron Muller Associates, states that they looked at 2022, which was required, and
MA DOT also required them to look at a 203 5 condition and that it include the Phase II of the
reconstruction project when completed.
C. Barrett states that she also attended the Parking and Traffic Commission meeting and notes
that 75% of the traffic will be exiting North Shore Crossing on to Sohier Road with a right turn
only at the same time that traffic is coming off exit 19 from 128 and questions what the queuing
will be between 5 -6 p.m. when people are coming home from work.
Muller explains that the volume has not changed as a result of the access change. That change
does not impactthe approach from the 128 ramp and explains the flow of traffic on the plan.
C. Barrett clarifies that she is asking about those entering the roundabout from the opposite
direction on Sohier.Muller states that regardless of the direction, there will be a change in queue
from 80ft to 13 Oft on the Sohier Rd approach.
Hutchinson notes that the circulation of the traffic within the site has 75% of the traffic exiting at
the southeast corner near Building A and asks if there are any concerns about that internal
intersection handling all of that internal traffic.Muller explains that they did look at internal
circulation after the last meeting. He explains the circulation of the traffic planned for the site
and notes that the worst case would be on a Saturday which is the busiest day in retail and that
the Level of Service would be a B which is very good.
Matz states that he asked a question at the Parking and Traffic Commission meeting regarding a
suggestion to alleviate traffic congestion near Buildings A and B by opening a driveway to take a
right turn into the parking lot.
Page 5 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Muller explains that the concern could be that the curb cut would be fairly close to Brimbal
Avenue and there would be a risk of rear end collisions. He further notes that it would be better
to let the traffic go all the way to the end and notes the location on the plan.Matz notes that City
Engineer Greg St. Louis explained to him at the Parking and Traffic Commission meeting that
another concern would be that the queuing for the driveway would back up on Brimbal Avenue.
Hutchinson notes that one of the conditions proposed by the Parking and Traffic Commission
included a Traffic Impact Review at 6 and 12 months following the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. She questions at what the level of occupancy would be at 6 and 12 months and might
it be premature to study at that point.
Muller explains that the State Department of Transportation is also requiring a Traffic Impact
Review once per year for five years following full occupancy and that would be in addition to
the reviews by the Parking and Traffic Commission.He explains that it is true that the site may
not be fully occupied at 6 months.
Hutchinson asks what they consider full occupancy. Muller states that they usually consider full
occupancy to be 90% and notes that tenants come and go.
Mr. Cohen addresses the Board and states that they expect that the site will be fully occupied at
6 months but in the event that there is a shortfall he is confident that it would be fully occupied at
12 months.
Thomson asks Wynne to review the written comments received by the Board since the last
meeting.
Wynne explains that the Board has received a letter from the Beverly Fire Department and notes
that Fire Inspector Chris Holleran had concerns at the Parking and Traffic Commission meeting
regarding the access of the ladder truck to Building C.His letter to the Board indicates that his
concerns were satisfied that the ladder truck will be able to access Building C.
Wynne reports that the Board received a letter with recommendations and suggested conditions
from the Parking and Traffic Commission dated January 19, 2016.Thomson asks her to read the
suggested conditions into the record.
Wynne reviews the suggested conditions from the Parking and Traffic Commission as follows:
The project shall be contingent on the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT) approving access permits required for proposed access /egress drives located
on the connector road and Sohier Road.Further, a Certificate of Occupancy shall not be
issued for the project proposal until Phase I of the Exit 19 Interchange project and
Brimbal Avenue improvements proposed by the City of Beverly in partnership with
MassDOT and funded through the MassWorks program is substantially
complete. Substantial completion of the Phase I work shall be determined by the
Commission.
Page 6 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
2. The project proponent has offered to contribute a total of $200,000 to the City of Beverly,
for which the City will use to implement traffic improvements, in the City's sole
discretion, within the project area focused along the Brimbal Avenue corridor.Future
traffic improvements associated with the contribution shall be reviewed and approved by
the Commission.
3. The project proponent will conduct a traffic impact review at both six months and one (1)
year following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project and present its
findings to the Commission.The scope of the review will include all study locations
identified in the applicant's original study area.
4. The project proponent will make payment within 30 days after the Planning Board
approval and expiration of any appeal period(s) and the issuance of the building permit.
S. The project proponent agrees to implement a limitation and restriction of all deliveries to
the subject site during the afternoon/evening weekday peak traffic period, specifically, no
deliveries of any kind to be allowed weekdays between the hours of 4 — 6 P.M.
6. Parking spaces proposed north and west of Building A will be restricted to Whole Foods
employees only, signage to that affect to be installed on the building and at the entrance
of the access drive southwest of the building.
7. The project proponent will work with the City and MassDOT to implement the modified
geometry changes to the Sohier Road roundabout if and to the extent required by
MassDOT. Any additional costs over and above the $5 million MassWorks grant to
implement the design or construction of the modified Sohier Road roundabout will be the
sole responsibility of the project proponent.
8. The project proponent shall develop and implement a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan as proposed in the DEIR to reduce the number of single
occupancy vehicle trips to and from the project site. The final TDM plan shall include
measures enumerated in the DEIR, approved by the Parking and Traffic Commission,
and implemented prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for any of the
buildings located on the property.
Thomson recognizes Atty. Thomas Alexander at this time.
Atty. Alexander clarifies that the $200,000 in mitigation funds for traffic improvement
implementation is the same mitigation that was originally approved by the Board and is not
additional money.
Thomson notes that the Board received written comments from Joshua Morris and asks Wynne
to review the letter and the recommendations offered by Mr. Morris with the Board.
Page 7 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Wynne states that she has reviewed the letter with City Planner Aaron Clausen and reviews the
letter noting that some of the suggestions are similar to what are in the draft Environmental
Impact Report and notes that there are some that the Board should consider.
Wynne explains that the request for a truck restriction would be difficult if not impossible to get.
She explains that items 2,3, and 4 are similar to what the Parking and Traffic Commission has
suggested. She also notes that the suggested conditions on the traffic monitoring plans suggested
by the Parking and Traffic Commission and MA DOT. She notes that some of Mr. Morris's
suggestions are more detailed and suggests that the PTC and DOT plans combined will provide
for a total of 6 reviews of the traffic impact over five years.
Wynne notes that since the applicant has agreed to contribute $200,000 in mitigation funds,
additional monetary conditions are not necessary.
Wynne states that the suggestion regarding lighting is good but notes that it may have already
been addressed in the plan.
Wynne explains that the landscaping proposed next to Building K at Northridge is proposed to
be installed prior to the start of construction to provide additional buffer for the Northridge
residents during construction. She states that she does not think that all of the landscaping could
be installed prior to construction because of timing.
Wynne explains that #8 is related to city standards, #9 is a state regulation, and #11 goes without
saying.With regard to #10 makes sense.
Thomson notes that the Planning Department staff is recommending items 2,3,4, 6,7, and 10 of
Mr. Morris's suggestions.
Mack addresses the Board and states that the letter from Mr. Morris is very comprehensive. He
also states that the matter before the Board is a modification and from his stand point he does not
think that the proposed modification opens the entire project up for a rehashing and further notes
that the Board spent 8 months reviewing this project.He suggests that as advisable as these
proposed conditions maybe he feels that they should pertain to the proposed modification.
Thomson states that he tends to agree with Mr. Mack but notes that if the applicant has reviewed
them and is agreeable to them there is no harm, no foul.
Atty. Alexander addresses the Board and states that he has received a copy of the letter and
reviewed it.He states that they don't mind the provisions that have been offered by the Parking
and Traffic Commission, whose Chairman is a traffic engineer, the Design Review Board that
reviewed the lighting, and other conditions offered by the experts.He requested that the
conditions be limited to the ones recommended by the Parking and Traffic Commission, Peer
Review consultant, Design Review Board, City Department heads and the MA DOT.
Page 8 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Thomson states that he has to determine that Atty. Alexander has indicated that they are not
volunteering to take additional conditions beyond what the City's committees and experts have
stated as conditions.
C. Barrett addresses the Board and clarifies that the Parking and Traffic Commission letter
indicates that the Board unanimously approved the recommendation for the proposed
modification and notes that there was one member of the PTC absent from the meeting and
another left the meeting early so it was not unanimously approved by all members of the
Commission.
Flannery addresses Atty. Alexander and asks if the delivery restriction proposed between the
hours of 4:00 — 6:00 p.m. includes all deliveries. Atty. Alexander confirms that there will be no
deliveries allowed between the hours of 4:00 — 6:00 p.m. for all occupants.
Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time.He explains to those present that
the comments should relate only to the proposed modification to the approved plans that are the
result of the State not allowing traffic to exit the site onto the connector road and that is the only
change in front of the Board this evening.
Louis Bourgeois of 9 Walnut Avenue states that no one seems to mention pedestrian traffic and
he thinks it is very important.He states that the roundabouts have been a nightmare so far noting
that he drives through that area 5 -6 times a day. He states that sometimes they work well but
notes that people are really discouraged and he is concerned about the safety of the people of
North Beverly and their families.
He states that he was at the PTC meeting and told them about the pedestrian traffic concerns and
notes that the number of vehicles depicted on the VISSUM model worked like clockwork, but
there was no mention of pedestrian traffic.He notes that there is a crosswalk at the
VittoriRocciPost and notes that he is concerned about bicycle traffic as well.
Thomson notes that this modification does not involve the rotaries as it is a different project. He
also notes that traffic is no longer directed onto the connector road.
Bourgeois notes that the roundabouts opened after this project was approved.He states that he
believes this is a political agenda to make sure that the Mayor gets what he wants.
Myron Hood addresses the Board and states that he has been fighting stormwater for 51 years
and refers to a Salem News article that says that drainage has to be addressed. Thomson states
that the matter being discussed this evening are pertaining to the modification to the plan and
drainage is not one of them. Hood asks if anyone is attending from MA DOT.
Hood states he is concerned about one catch basin taking all of the water from that area and
notes that it is going to freeze and salt and calcium will be in the Beverly drinking water. He
Page 9 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
thinks there will be a problem related to ice on the 128 exit. He states that it is not fair to the
taxpayers for an out of towner to come in and do that.
David Foss, 4 Aileen Way addresses the Board and states that he is interested in understanding
how the traffic coming off 128 will be handled.He states that he is wondering if the changes to
the curve are going to change the gap time in the rotary. He observes that there is currently an
insufficient gap time to get into the rotary and questions if the gap will be increased or reduced
from this modification.
Thomson notes that the only reason we are here is because of the lack of an exit onto the
connector road.
Muller states that the answer is no because that traffic is not affected by this change because the
volume of traffic is not going to change. He clarifies that the only change in the volume is from
the exit onto Sohier Road from the site.
Rick Marciano of 144 McKay Street addressed the Board and thanked BevCam for taping the
meetings.He read excerpts from previous meetings he gathered from BevCamregarding the
percentage increase in traffic, which he believes had not been answered, and expressed concern
that the traffic is really being increased by 150% from the previous plan.
Marciano reviews a handout he gave to the Board and states that an additional roundabout on
Brimbal Avenue could take away some of the burden of the traffic increase on Sohier Road.He
reviews comments that were made at the last meeting by Mr. Cohen regarding this suggestion
and notes his statement that when they considered another roundabout for Brimbal Avenue the
neighbors were opposed to it.Marciano states that he reviewed the area and the land that would
need to be taken to accommodate another roundabout on both sides of Brimbal Avenue and
reviews his findings with the Board noting that the most land would probably come from the
developers site.
Marciano asks what the length of a parking space should be.Wynne states that it is 18 feet. Atty.
Alexander confirms the landscape changes for the driveway between Building A and Northridge
K Building, as described above.
Marciano states that he handed out a simulation of the extra traffic that would be coming out of
Sohier Road.He discusses his understanding of the movement of traffic around the roundabout.
Thomson states that the roundabout are a fixed item as far as the Board is concerned and they
can't condition them, noting that they don't just service this project, they service the City of
Beverly. Marciano stated that the added traffic going out on Sohier Road will be affecting those
roundabouts.
Marciano asks if anyone has a record of the traffic accidents in the area.Thomson notes that the
roundabouts have not been complete and noted that he is not aware of any traffic accident data
from that area.
Page 10 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Marciano states that he sent aletter to Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and questioned
whether the installation of a drainage pipe at a cost of $300,000 is included. Thomson explains
that the cost of installing the drainage system was part of the original approval and notes that
everything in the original decisionremains in effect.
Thomson asks if members of the Planning Board have any more questions or comments
regarding this matter.There being none, Thomson states that he would entertain a motion to close
the public hearing at this time.
Mack: Motion to close the public hearing at this time.Hutchinson seconds the
motion.The motion carries (9 -0).
Thomson states that he would entertain a motion regarding the application at this time.
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the modification for the Special Permit for 140 Brimbal
Avenue, including the conditions set forth by the Parking and Traffic
Commission, the Design Review Board, Beverly Board of Health, Fire
Department and any other City Board or Commission or City Department that
recommended conditions for the project.
Hutchinson states that the Board also finds that the special permit criteria have been met:
1. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and
that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected.
2. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will
be adversely affected by such use.
3. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result.
4. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper
operation and maintenance of the proposed use.
5. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on
demonstrable fact.
6. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the
proposed use.
Millerseconds the motion.
Discussion on the motion:
Matz addresses the Board and thanked the residents of the Brimbal Avenue community for
coming out and attending the public hearings regarding this project.He notes that they made
thoughtful comments while being respectful of others and treating the Board with the dignity
that they deserve as volunteers.
Page 11 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Matz states that it takes 400 volunteers to run the City and they are passionate about what they
do.He further expresses his opinion that there is no place for the type of divisiveness that has
existed in this process.He notesthat quality of life and public safety have been top concerns in
this process andhe is insulted that anyone would insinuate that he or anyone on this Board does
not care about families in this City.
Matz summarizes changes that might improve the quality of life from the prior approval,
including moving the driveway further from the Northridge K Building, while queuing impacts
may not. Matz states that he reviewed data regarding the sales price of homes in the 01915 zip
code and reviews his findings, where prices have appreciated 11.5% in the last five years.He
notes that people are moving to Beverly because they want to get into the City's schools and
further notes that he does not think that a Whole Foods will drive down housing prices.
Matz states that his biggest concern remains the traffic. He acknowledges that there will be
queuing, but herelies on the Beverly Parking and Traffic Commission for their opinions and he
agrees with their recommendation in their letter to the Board.
Mack addresses the Board and states that he has not seen anything in the proposed modification
to prevent this from moving forward and states that the Board has to rely on the experts on
traffic who have previously approved this.He states that the Board should grant the motion to
approve the modification.
Thomson asks if there is any further discussion on the motion.There being none, Thomson calls
for a vote on the motion made by Hutchinson and seconded by Mack to approve the
modification to the plan.
A vote was taken, the Chair votes in favor and the motion carried (7 -2 with C. Barrett and N.
Barrett opposed).
Thomson calls for a five- minute recess at this time.
Hutchinson moves for a five- minute recess.Flannery seconds the motion.The motion carries (9-
0).
Public Hearing — Modification to Site Plan Review #88 -07 and Special Permit #114 -07 — 10,
12, 16 Congress Street — Windover Development LLC
Wynne reads legal notice.
Atty. Thomas Alexander with offices at 1 School Street, Beverly is present for the applicant.He
explains that this is a modification of an approved site plan and special permit and notes that by
right they can build 72 units on the site.He explains that Windover Development has the site
under agreement and they are proposing to reduce the number of units on the site by 10 units for
a total of 62 units.He also explains that the number of bedrooms on the site is being reduced
Page 12 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
from 164 to 87. They are requesting to reduce the parking to allow for one parking space per
bedroom, which is actually more parking per unit than previously approved due to the change in
bedrooms sizes.
Atty. Alexander explains the site's history and public process related to prior zoning and
development approvals. He also recalls that the project was well vetted by the Planning Board
and the Board of Appeals for a zoning change. Atty. Alexander states that they feel that this is
better than the previous plan as it allows for more open space, reduces the amount of impervious
surface on the site, allows for better view corridors, and reduces the height.He notes that the
developer held a public meeting and the project was well- received by the neighborhood.
Atty. Alexander introduced Steve Dodge of Windover Development to make a presentation to
the Board on Windover Development.
Steve Dodge of 15 Rantoul Street addresses the Board and explains that Atty. Alexander
suggested that he make a presentation to talk a little bit about Windover and what they do; this
was encouraged by Mayor Cahill.He also notes that he thought it was an opportunity to clear up
any inaccurate information that sometimes comes up.
Dodge reviews the history of Windover and notes that they are a small closely held private
company located in Beverly and is not a big company from out of town.He reported that his staff
are smart and engaged in what they do and they welcome and encourage dialogue and questions
regarding their projects.
Dodge explains that at one time he owned Windover Development and Windover Construction
and Windover Construction was sold to Lee Dellickerrecently.He also notes that they hire
Windover Construction for projects which further confuses people about this; but they will also
hire other firms.
Dodge states that they do not expect to be the only significant multifamily developer in
Beverly.He notes the current development at the Cummings Center and states that they
encourage other developers.
Dodge explained that they build homes to sell them and apartments to beheld.He notes that they
have developments in Beverly, Wenham, and Manchester, as well as in parts of Florida.He notes
that this is where he lives in the summer and the winter and he spends a lot of time observing
and thinking about how to make it a better place.
Dodge states that a lot of good things can happen in Beverly with careful planning. He notes that
his projects in Florida are winding down and he will be focusing their resources on this area.He
explains that we are in the midst of transit oriented development and that makes Beverly
attractive noting the train station and the access to Boston.
Page 13 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Dodge explains that he has a long time connection to Beverly and reviews his family history in
Beverly and the area.
Dodge explains that it 2004 he began buying property around the Beverly Depot area and he was
encouraged to do so by former Mayor Scanlon.He also reported that he took an interest in the
Monserrat College of Art neighborhood and worked with the City and the College to fund raise
and build student housing.He stated that the college is important to Beverly.
Dodge also reported that he has been working with the talented group of people who are working
to keep the Cabot Cinema in downtown and noted that architect Thad Siemasko recruited him
for their efforts and states that this is an important project for the City of Beverly and he believes
in that group and their efforts to renovate the Cabot.
Dodge states that he believes in the leadership of the City and notes that Mayor Cahill is
accessible, smart and asks tough and thoughtful questions and is motivated and wants what is
good for the city.He also notes that he judges a manager by the people they hires and notes that
Kevin Harutunian and Aaron Clausen are great members of his staff and are good to work with.
Dodge explains what makes Beverly special and notes reviews a list of amenities that Beverly
offers such as the schools, beaches, and airport, train station, an active Beverly Main Streets
program and rational and engaged City boards and commissions. He also notes that more
housing is needed for the downtown and further notes that more 1 and 2 bedroom apartments
will not over burden the schools.He also reports that the majority of the residents are expected to
be commuters and the city will enjoy new revenues.
Dodge reviews slides of various projects that Windover has completed in Beverly and other
areas.He notes on the last slide that the Congress Street project is their current proposal for
Beverly and notes that they are trying to be responsive to the neighbors' concerns.
Atty. Alexander introduced Thad Siemasko, the Architect for the project to explain the proposed
changes to the plan.
Siemasko addresses the Board and reviews the site plan for the project.He notes that as Atty.
Alexander previously explained they are proposing 62 units with 87 bedrooms and the building
footprint is smaller than the approved plan.He notes that the FAR went to 0.4 from 1.04 as a
result of the changes.
Siemasko explains that they are proposing one parking space per bedroom and explains the
formula they used.He also notes that there will be five public parking spaces and a walkway that
will be open to the public, which is a Chapter 91 requirement.
Siemasko reviews the elevations for the buildings and notes the location of the water views from
the site and surrounding neighborhoods.He also reviews the landscaping plans and notes that
Page 14 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
they have included a wooden boardwalk structure as well a robust landscaping plan using
suggestions made by the Design Review Board on plantings and lighting.
Siemasko explains that Building A will retain the same footprint from the original plan, and
notes that Building B has lost a whole wing of the building.He reviews the floor plans for the
buildings and notes the mix of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments.He notes that Building B has more
common space and will also house the management office.He also explains that the buildings
will be three stories high and there will be common areas and elevators on each floor.
Siemasko reported that the rooftop equipment will be hidden between the peaks of the roof He
also explains the materials for the exterior of the building and notes that they have incorporated
recommendations from the Design Review Board on the materials and color schemes for the
buildings.He also notes that there is a fair amount of glass being used in the lobby areas etc.
Siemasko introduces Charlie Weir to review the stormwater management for the site.
Weir explains that they have reduced the footprint of the building and as a result there will be a
reduction in traffic.He reported that water and sewer usage on the site will be cut in half due to
the reduction of the project.He also notes that the approved stormwater system has not changed
and notes that the impervious surface on the site has been reduced by 3 %.He explains that they
left the stormwater management system alone because the possible changes would have
triggered state involvement and what is approved is appropriate for the proposed
development.He also notes that there are no changes to the water side of the site and it is exactly
what was approved; the impacts are greatly decreased.
Weir reported that the plans have been reviewed by City Engineer Greg St. Louis and he made a
few suggestions regarding handicap access on the sidewalk on Congress Street and that has been
incorporated into the plan.
Atty. Alexander stated that this is a smaller project than the approved plan and notes that a lot of
time and effort went into the planning of this and they hope that the Board will vote on this
tonight.
Thomson asks that they talk about the zoning conditions for the project.Atty. Alexander explains
that it is regarding the floor area ratio (FAR) and explains that they are still over the .25 FAR
increase but notes that they have included the items required to meet the provisions of the
ordinance.
Wynne explains that the special permit was granted for an increase in the FARwhere certain
conditions were met and while the FAR is being reduced in the proposed project, it still exceeds
the maximum of 0.25. She explains that there are four criteria that they must meet regarding the
FAR and explains them as follows:
Page 15 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
1. The provision, including construction and maintenance of a public pedestrian walkway
along or near the water, a minimum of 12 feet in width, the exact location to be
determined by the Planning Board, designed to connect to exiting or future harbor front
walkways on adjoining properties. Access from the public street to the harbor front
walkway may be required at the discretion of the Planning Board.The walkway shall be
open from sunrise to sunset.
2. For property which abuts Congress Street the provision, including construction (but not
maintenance) of a public right -of -way along Congress Street, so that there can be five
foot sidewalks
3. All buildings shall be so designed and placed to allow 50 feet wide views to the
waterfront at least every 220 feet from the street to the harbor.The longer side of each
building shall appropriately be sited in order to preserve water views from the street
4. The provision of an area of the land or buildings having an area of a minimum of 20% of
the floor area for a restaurant or water dependent use, public space which is defined as
public walkway, parkland dedicated to public use, public fishing area and public parking.
Wynne states that all four of the conditions must be met and they meet all of the requirements.
Thomson asks Wynne to review the comments received by the Board from other City Boards
and Commissions regarding this project.
Wynne reviews letters from the Design Review Board, Parking and Traffic Commission, Board
of Health, Fire Department, and the City Engineer.
Thomson notes that the Board of Health letter mentions that the dumpsters shall be located 10
feet from the lot line.
Wynne notes that the Fire Department has a concern as to whether the ladder truck has access to
three corners of the buildings.Atty. Alexander states that they have access for the ladder truck.He
also notes that it is a standard condition of the fire department that they have added to their
comment letters.
Wynne reports that the Open Space and Recreation Committee has requested maintenance of
access to the walkway and signage that states "Please Enjoy This Public Way" be installed at the
entrance to the walkway.
Wynne reports that the Parking and Traffic Commission reviewed the proposal at their January
meeting and recommends the following conditions:
1. Construction vehicles associated with this project be limited in access to between
Congress Street, Route I and Goat Hill Lane and not to other streets
Page 16 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
2. $15,000 is provided to the City by the applicant for future off -site traffic mitigation to
address roadway and intersection safety concerns in the neighborhood, the specific use of
which is to be determined by the City
I Rules and regulations of the residential project include a provision prohibiting parking by
residents and their visitors in the five (5) public parking spaces at the west end of the site
4. The applicant shall reset and replace curbing along Congress Street as shown on the site
plans and pave Congress Street from curb to curb with minimum thickness of 2 inches.
Wynne reported that the Police Department has no issues with the proposal and the Board of
Health letter included its standard comments. She noted that Mr. Siemasko previously addressed
the comments from the Design Review Board.
Thomson opens the hearing up for comments from members of the Planning Board at this time.
Hutchinson states that she has never heard of the use of rain gardens to handle stormwater
runoffWeir explains that they are becoming trendy and explains that there are small, shallow
depressions which will be planted with a variety of native species plants that retain water. They
will look like a part of the landscaping rather than a detention basin. Miller asks if they will be
native species. Weir confirms.
C. Barrett asks if all of the parking on the site will be exposed. Siemasko states that the parking
spaces will be exposed.Barrett asks how many visitor parking spaces will be provided.Atty
Alexander and Siemasko explain the parking on the site and note their locations on the
plans.They note that there are 25 excess parking spaces in addition to the parking provided for
the units. Siemasko further notes that the unit parking will assigned spaces.
C. Barrett asks what the route will be for the public walkway. Siemasko explains the route of the
public walkway on the plans noting the starting point and back to Congress Street.
C. Barrett asks if the walkway connects to the waterfront on the other side of the
bridge.Siemasko states that it does not connect to that area.He notes that Mass DOT has a
pathway project currently under construction on that side of the bridge that will provide more
public space on that side.
C. Barrett asks how tall the building will be at the tallest point. Siemasko states that the building
will be 41 feet at the tallest point.
C. Barrett asks about the Chapter 91 license. Atty. Alexander explains the process of Chapter 91
approval and notes there is no requirement for public access to the water, nor would that be
desirable given this topography. Thomson confirmed that the conditions required to meet the
Chapter 19 license are not changing.
Miller asks if the public parking provided on the site is in close proximity to the boat
ramp.Alexander explains the ramp is not on the project site and that the public parking is located
Page 17 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
at that end of the project near the ramp.He notes that there is $15,000 for mitigation that the City
could use in any way. Alexanderalso notes that there will be benches on Congress Street for the
use of the public as well.
Miller asks how many parking spaces will be provided per unit.Alexander explains that there
will be one space assigned to each unit and notes that the total parking on the site amounts to 1.4
spaces per unit. Chris Koeplin, Windover Development, reviews the calculations for the units and
notes that there will be 87 bedrooms and 87 spaces on the site.
Miller states that there may be a need for more parking noting that single people would have one
vehicle but a couple with kids may have two cars.
Alexander explains that the Planning Department did a study on the number of parking
spacesper unit in several developments downtown, including the Edwards School, the Gateway
Condominiums, and several Windover projects,and found that at the average usage of the
parking spaces on site was a range of 0.89 to 1.21cars per unit. He also notes that the Parking
and Traffic Commission looked at this closely and made a recommendation on the plans.
Mack notes that they are proposing a payment in lieu of providing affordable housing and asks if
they have recalculated the amount of the payment based on the reduction of the number of
units.Alexander explains that they are proposing to pay the original amount proposed and notes
that it is more than what would be required if they recalculated it.
Matz questions if they have provided for a storm surge.Weir explains the elevation is 10 and
states that they planned for a 100 -year storm.
Matz notes that in 2007 the Ventron Site handled uranium and there has been concern about
contamination on the site.He asks if there are any deed restrictions on the site. Koeplinstates that
they are currently doing a comprehensive study on the site noting that the site was previously
cleaned up by the Federal government.He explains that they are looking at all of the reports done
prior on the site and doing testing currently to be sure that what is there meets DEP standards of
today.
Miller states that they have not included any solar energy on the site and asks if they are planning
to. Weir explains that they will be looking at government incentives etc. and notes that they
would use solar for the common areas and the units would be individually metered.
Thomson opens the public hearing up for public comment at this time.
Joe Kelleher of 15 Congress Street addresses the Board and explains the location of his property
in relation to the site.He states that he is concerned about the width of Congress Street as
represented on the plan and notes that he has concerns about a four way intersection in that
area.He also states that he is concerned about the proposed location of a dumpster on the site that
would be visible from his home and he is concerned about rodents and the public using the
dumpster to dispose of trash.
Page 18 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Mr. Kelleher also stated that he is concerned about traffic noting that he works in Salem and he is
concerned about 62 other cars using the same route that he does noting that the road way behind
the Anchor restaurant is basically a parking lot and it is tough to navigate as it is.
Thomson asks City Planner Aaron Clausen to address Mr. Kelleher's concerns about
traffic.Clausen explains that because there has been a reduction in the number of units from 72 to
62 there will be a reduction in the number of trips which will be an improvement over what is
existing.
Alexander states that there will be a significant reduction in traffic from this site over what they
are currently permitted to build.
Chris Koeplin, of Windover Development, addresses the concerns about the dumpster locations
and explains that they have had discussions about the location of them and will be moving them
and notes the location on the plan.
Fred Cwik, 16 Wellmann Street, addresses the Board and states that he is concerned that the
trucks entering and exiting the site will not make the turn from the parking lots onto Congress
Street. He also notes that he has seen water go over the wall at the site during a nor'easter
storm.He further states that he does not see any plans for handicapped units.
Weir states that they use a template to determine the turning radius for trucks and notes that the
road is 24 feet wide and will handle the trucks.
Thomson states that this is not a public project and they are not required to provide handicapped
units. Siemasko explains that they are fully ADA compliant and explains that they are regulated
by the Federal government and the state and explains that the building is accessible.
Rick Marciano of 141 McKay Street addresses the Board and questions if there is any proposed
mitigation for the roadway, noting that was a big concern the last time.Atty. Alexander explains
that the layout remains the same and notes that they are required to reset the curbs and repave
and resurface the sidewalks and the roadway.
Marciano asks about the location of the HVAC equipment. Siemasko explains that they will be
located on the roof and be shielded from public view and each unit will be 3'x 4'
Marciano asks if there are any plans to repair the wall, noting it is in poor condition.
Alexander explains that the original permit was modified as part of the Chapter 91 License and
explained that rip rap will be installed all around the site noting that it will last longer and
provide habitat for sea creatures.
The question was asked if the Federal government would be responsible to clean up the site if
anything is found on the site.Alexander states that the federal government did the original
cleanup and if anything is found they would have to address it in some way.
Page 19 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
City Councilor Estelle Rand, 3 Agate Street, addresses the Board and commended Windover for
their public process regarding their plans for this site. She states that she feels that this is a good
project and notes that the main negative feedback she has received is regarding pre- existing
traffic and that is something that she will be working on with the administration.
City Councilor Scott Houseman addresses the Board and states that he agrees with Ms. Rand's
comments, commending Windover on their public process and that this is a great project.He
states that he is concerned about the traffic in the area particularly at the left turn light that takes
traffic behind the Anchor Pub.He states that the area is not conducive to a lot of traffic and he
thinks that over time there will be a need to address that set of intersections.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Thomson states that he
would entertain a motion to close the public hearing at this time.
Hutchinson: Motion to close the public hearing.Mack seconds the motion.The Chair votes in
favor.The motion carries (9 -0).
Thomson states that the Board will nowreturn to their regular business and asks for a motion.
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the modificationsto Special Permit #114 -07to the plan for
10,12, and 16 Congress Street, Windover Development LLC, subject to the
conditions that were part of the 2007 approval; subject to the conditions that have
to be met for the increase in FAR; subject to an exception that a payment of
$385,000 shall be made to the City of Beverly Affordable Housing Trust; subject
to the assurances of the applicant that the proposed dumpsters be relocated as
indicated by the developer; and subject to any and all conditions and
recommendations made by the Board of Health, Design Review Board, City
Engineer, Open Space and Recreation Committee, Conservation Commission,
Parking and Traffic Commission and any other city Boards and Commissions be
included.
Matz clarifies that if there are any issues resulting from the comprehensive assessment that they
are doing on the site, and there are restrictions on the site, the applicant would have to come
back with a new project.
Atty. Alexander explains that the comprehensive assessment has already been done on the site
and it has been declared an unrestricted site for residential.The applicant is simply doing their
own due diligence. Dodge comments that no one is more interested in the environmental state of
the site and if there is any uncertainty, they won't buy it. The indications so far are very good.
Flanneryseconds the motion.The Chair votes in favor.The motion carries (9 -0).
Page 20 of 21
Beverly Planning Board
January 20, 2016
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the modification to the Site Plan #88 -07 for 10, 12,16
Congress Street as presented by the developer.Mack seconds the motion.The
Chair votes in favor.The motion carries (9 -0).
Election of Officers
Chair of the Planning Board
Hutchinson: Nominated Mr. John Thomson to serve as the Chair of the Beverly Planning
Board for the year 2016.Mack seconds the nomination.The motion carries (8 -0)
with Thomson abstaining.
Vice Chair of the Planning Board
Mack: Nominated Ms. Ellen Hutchinson to serve as Vice Chair of the Beverly Planning
Board for the year 2016.Flannery seconds the motion.The motion carries (8 -0)
with Hutchinson abstaining.
Old/New Business
Wynne reported that the City Council will be scheduling a joint public hearing on the zoning
changes proposed for February 16, 2016.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board at this meeting, N. Barrett
moved to adjourn the meeting. Hutchinson seconds the motion.The motion carries (9 -0).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Page 21 of 21