10 18 16 Planning Bd MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board:
Date:
Location:
Members Present
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Recorder:
Planning Board Meeting
October 18, 2016
Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Chair John Thomson,Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ned Barrett,
Catherine Barrett, Ellen Flannery, David. Mack, James Matz,
Wayne Miller, Mike Rotondo
None
Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne
Mary Alice Cookson
At 7:03 p.m. John Thomson calls the meeting to order.
Subdivision Approval Not Required (SANR) Plan — 141 Hale & 151 Rear Hale Street —
Irene G. Christ / 145 Rear Hale Street Realty Trust
Darlene Wynne describes the plan, noting the changes since the Board's endorsement in Juneare
inconsequential. The Board previously endorsed a SANR for these properties at its June 2016
meeting. The revised plan represents very minor changes, primarily to the 141 Hale Street lot,
due to land court review.
Miller and Matz arrive at 7:05 p.m.
Hutchinson: Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring subdivision approval. Flannery
seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0 -2), Miller and Matz in abstention due
to their late arrival.
Approval of Minutes
The Board discussed the Regular Meeting minutes of March 15 and April 27.
Flannery: Motion to approve the minutes as amended. Mack seconds the motion. The
motion carries (9 -0).
Recess for Public Hearing
Hutchinson: Motion to recess for the public hearing. N. Barrett seconds. The motion carries
(9 -0).
Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #125 -16, Suecial Permit Application #151-
16 and Inclusionary Housing Application #10 -16 — Construct six- story, mixed -use, 70,000
+/- sq. ft. building with 4,500 +/- sq. ft. of commercial/retail use and 67 residential units:
deviation from parking requirements for commercial/retail use height limit and
percentage of residential floor area — MBTA parcel —112 Rantoul Street — Barnat Beverlv
LLC.
Beverly Planning Board
October 18, 2016
Thomson clarifies that the purpose of the hearing is for the applicant to explain the project and to
hear comments and questions from the Board and the public.
Wynne reads the public notice. She thanks those in the audience for attending and apologizes for
some confusion that occurred when a notice went out saying that the public hearing had been
canceled and continued. She stresses the meeting this eveningwas never canceled, as some had
mistakenly believed.
The applicant, developer Sarah Barnat of Barnat Beverly LLC, introduces herself. She says this
will be a rehash or what's been presented previously. She introduces the members of her team
and gives a brief history of her career, which includes major projects in downtown Boston
surrounding the MBTA.
Barnat indicates that the MBTA is looking for economic development surrounding the train
Station and she believes that problems with the commuter railwill be fixed. She gives the history
of the 500 -car parking garage at the Beverly Depot and says it was always a part of the plan to
have housing there. She says that downtown walkable neighborhoods is where she wants to be
and believes others will want to be. She mentions the work that will be done to transforrn
Rantoul Street and its connection from Broadway to Cabot Street. She applauds the Board for
wanting to see affordable housing and the work that's been done to support transit - oriented
development (TOD). She notes that the plan will include a walkway to the MBTA Garage on the
ground floor and mentionsretail space and outdoor seating there. She gives an overview of the
number of units proposed: 67 units — 10 studios f 41 one or one -plus bedrooms 1 16 two
bedrooms(with rent from $1,100 to 51,400 a month). She notes these are still expensive units but
there will also be 14 units provided as "workforce housing" through a MassHousing program.
This represents 20% of the total units and is more than the City requires. She is proposing4,500
s.f. of ground-floor retail with outdoor dining — divisible for two or three tenants.
Bamat introduces Attorney Tom Alexander, offices at I School St., Beverly, who mentions
Barnat's "pedigree" and describes the ties she's had to key developers who have shaped Beverly.
He stresses that this site is more than an appropriate location for the proposed use. He mentions
that the MBTA's parking garage plan has all along included plans for residential space. He notes
they are seeking a special permit for parking and no variances are being requested. Atty.
Alexander is pleased to have support from Beverly Main Streets. He notes that not only will
property values not be adversely affected, but they will be positively affected. He indicates there
will be no undue traffic or nuisance as a result. The purpose of TOD is not to create traffic,he
says, but to appeal to the folks who travel by train into Boston. He mentions that if you live in
the Depot district, your commute is faster than it is from some of the communities on the subway
lines. Parking will be more than adequate in the underutilized garage he adds.
Wynne explains that the Zoning Ordinance allows parking for non - residential uses to be
provided on -site, on- street, or off -site within 500 feet of the subject property, if it meets certain
conditions. She questioned whether the application meets these conditions and therefore would
not require the special permit. In this case, the parking is offsite but within 500 feet of the
property. Thomson clarified that applicants are permitted to count parking towards their required
Page 2 of 9
Beverly Planning Board
October 18, 2016
amount that is not physically located on their lot as long as it meets the criteria. Atty. Alexander
indicated they applied for the special permit out of an abundance of caution.
Project engineer Sam Gregorio with TEC (The Engineering Corp.) speaks to the traffic impact
analysis conducted forthe development. He explains they met with the Parking & Traffic
Commission on Oct. 4. who requested they conduct supplemental analysis for the intersection of
River Street at Pleasant Street. Looking at ways to incorporate transportation demand measures,
i.e., bike accommodations, carpool, commuter rail pass sub sidieslincentives.
James Matz asks what the projected percentage of the traffic increase will be.Gregorio says
about 8% in the horning and less than that for evening.
Gregorio then speaks to the parking issue. He says 70 spaces will be used for residents in the
500 -space garage. Additionally there will be 7 spaces along the frontage plus 7 existing shared
spaces for short -term retail.
Hutchinson asks whether the traffic impact study takes into account all the other new
construction projects in town that will exist at that point in time. Gregorio answers yes.
Gregorio then looks at construction and parking. While under construction, the MBTA garage
will use the Court Streetentrance with no significant impact to Pleasant Street or Railroad
Avenue intersections. The applicant is proposing to reduce the MBTA driveway from three -lanes
to two -lanes and don't expect a negative impact. There are 102 on- street parking spaces currently
in the immediate area surrounding the site, currently at 68% occupancy from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m.
Nancy Ludwig, Principal withlcon Architecture and architectof the project, shows renderingsof
the site and views looking both ways on Rantoul Street. She highlights the various features of the
building, noting the building is sandwiched in between some taller buildings already there. She
says that during construction, the Rantoul side of the parking will be shut down. Ludwig then
discusses lobby space, the sidewalk and dog run against the edge of the garage and the recessed
entries. She talks about landscaping plans for the outdoor area, noting,it will feel spacious as you
move under the building. She talks about the decision to use brick and switch to metal shingle
material on the upper floors. She shows rooftop view of the building and mentions the views
afforded of the river from the upper level residential units. She stresses that this building isn't as
talI as the building next -door.
Barnat discusses the timeline, saying the project should take about a year to construct.
Thomson opens up the discussion for Planning Board questions /input.
Catherine Barrett asks to reconfirm Gregorio's answer to the question Hutchinson posed about
whether all the other projects happening in the city (i.e., 131 Rantoul St., 480 Rantoul St.) are
being taken into consideration in the traffic projections. Gregorio says that yes, they arefor the
year 2023. His group did the traffic studies for those other Rantoul projects also.
Page 3 of 9
Beverly Planning Board
October 18, 2016
C. Barrett then asks about the 7 -space surface lot and if that is for retail. He says the 70 spaces in
the garage are for residential but the 7 surface spaces will be short-term spaces for the consumer.
C. Barrettasks what a one -plus bedroom is.Barnat answers it is a unit that allows for a study,
which is a smaller room than another bedroom. C. Barrett asks for the definition of middle -
income housing.Barnat answers it is a family of two that earns about $45,000 per year and can
afford the approx. $1,200 /month rent. C. Barrett clarifies this is different from what is considered
"affordable housing."
C. Barrettasks about the rooftop terrace and whether it will be used by residents. Barnat says yes,
the rooftop space would be an amenity for residents, not the public. C. Barrett asks if there is any
outdoor space on the ground level. Barnat answers yes, the outdoor seating area and the dog run.
In response to C. Barrett's question about the building set -back from the sidewalk, Barnat says,
there is a deep recess for the doors.
C. Barrett thenasks about fire access. Barnat responds that fire trucks can't currently fit into the
garage but the design will maintain access to the outside, and this meets the approval of the Fire
Department.C. Barrett asks if there is guest parking for the residential units. The answer is no.
Guests would have to pay to park in the garage.
C. Barrett asks if more retail space could be provided later, noting that the Board requirement is
about 25% retail and this doesn't have that much, only like 6.3 %. She also comments that the
lobby seems large. Barnat answers that it's important to have a quality lobby and says this will
be an active space with seating areas for the residents to meet and greet friends, providing a
sense of community. C. Barrett's last question is how many businesses will be in the entire retail
space? Bamatanswers up to three. C. Barrett says the Board's retail space percentage of 25% is
hard to achieve, but says they would at least like to see that percentage in the teens rather than
single digits.
Matz asks what commissions have given their Q.K. Barnat says all except for the Parking and
Traffic Commission, which wants further study.
Mack asks about the drop -off area and whether that might become congested. Barnat says there
won't be any cue issues.Mack asks if there will need to be any change to the design after the
MBTA gives their recommendations. Barnat says she doesn't expect that.
Ellen Hutchinson wants to clarify that they will be increasing the units of affordable housing
from 9to 14. Barnat answersthat if funding comes through from Mass Housing, through the
Workforce Housing Development Program,they will offer 14 units of workforce housing.
Hutchinson asks about whether there might be a cavern effect and wonders if this could be
studied. Barnat says a shadow study could be done. Hutchinson echoes her colleagues'
comments, noting that 93% of the project is residential space and commenting that once
commercial space is gone, it is gone forever.
Wynne asks what the percentage of retail to residential would be if the whole ground floor was
retail. Barnat answers that it would be 10 %(7,000 sq. feet in the 70,000 sq. ft. building). She
Page 4 of 9
Beverly Planning Board
October 18, 2016
notes, though, that they need to maintain access for people to get to the MBTA Garageand says
the walkwaymakes for nice outdoor space.
Thomson opens the floor to the public for 20 minutes, first, to the people who cannot be at the
next meeting and need to be heard this evening.
Steve Olney addresses the Board. He and his wife live at 116 Rantoul St. He asks about the 7
spaces given for the retail and says those are now accessed by his condo association. Barnat says
the spaces will be replaced with spaces in the garage, according to a deal with the MBTA.Olney
asks if they will he free of charge. She says that she would say yes, but didn't have firm info. She
also says there will be a shared use agreement with the retailers and the condos. A woman
questions this and says it is her understanding that the seven spaces are for the retailers and not
the condo owners.
Thomson asksBarnat to please clarify the parking situation between the developer, the MBTA
and the condos by the next meeting. She agrees that she will.
Olney also asks if there's any requirement with a building this large to have a certain percentage
of green space. The answer is no, according to Alexander.
Olneyvoices concern that developers will ignore parking problems. He says that people coming
to the restaurant at the sitearen't going to want to pay for parking in the garage and would instead
opt to park on the street, and he's concerned about the success of restaurants. Barnat says they
could do something with parking validation and these issues were being looked at.
Connie Payette, 116 Rantoul St., says she's concerned about her condo's value because she
would now be looking at this new building. She says that people visiting Toscana aren't going
into the parking garage as they should be and are coming onto their property and into their lot to
park making it full.
Peter Bachini, 60 Rantoul St., says he wants the Board to reject the project because it is jamming
a lot of development in that end of Rantoul Street and he wants to see open space. He wonders if
there are other parts of Rantoul Street that could better handle it. His question to the developer:
are you targeting this project for people who live and work here or are you targeting it to those
who work in Boston? Both, says Barnat. They want toencourage people who are living in Boston
and getting priced out to have a place to live and take the train. He thanks her for clarification
and concurs with the concerns of others about the parking. Bachini saysthat people who are
currently renting in the area will not only have to pay rent but will also have to pay for parking
since more people will be competing for spaces on the street. He asks if there is a dollar amount
associated with parking in the lot. Barnat responds that she is renting them from the MBTA for
$125per month per space.
Bachini also asked whether the City hadn't already met its threshold of affordable housing.
Thomson replies that 10% is the minimum percentage of where the City wants to be.lt is
currently at 11.78 %. Bachini asks if there's a possibility of reducing the mass of the building by
perhaps lopping off a couple of floors. He says he thinks other ideas should be considered.
Page 5 of 9
Beverly Planning Board
October 18, 2016
Nancy Priest, 95 Rantoul St., says she's a condo owner who has lived there4years and doesn't
understand why such a huge building and one small green space. She says there are plenty of
buildings that could be repurposed along Rantoul. She says that since the parking garage was
built, it is "a nightmare" every time there is a snow emergency. On- street parking in the
neighborhood is really bad, she notes.
Thomson says they are not going to close the hearing, but will continue it. He asks Barnat to talk
about the shadow study at the next meeting, and says the Board would like to see the traffic
study. Wynne says she has it and will distribute it. Wynne says that people are welcome to
submit comments to her at her email address on the website.
Barnat says that she connected with the property manager at Gateway Terrace (condos) and will
be meeting with them at their Nov. 3 meeting. She will also be meeting with the MBTA and will
be happy to answer questions in the interim.
N. Barrett asks that Bamat report back in terms of the shared use parking agreement and also
wants a letter of interest from the state regarding the state designation for middle- income
housing.Wynne mentions she has it. N. Barrett alsoasks Barnat to report back after meeting with
the MBTA regarding inducements, such as reduced fares, etc. She says she will but wants to
clarify that the issue is between the condos and the META.
Mack: Motion to recess the public hearing and continue it until Nov. 15. Flannery
seconds the motion. The Board votes unanimously (9 -0) to continue the hearing
on Nov. 15.
Thomson asks for a three- minute break. The Board reconvenes. Wynne informs the Board there
are two requests for continuances.
Continued — Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review #112 -14 — 52 Dunham
Rd. — Anderson Clarke LLP.
The applicant has requested a continuance until at least the November meeting. According to
Wynne, when they come back before the Board, they will summarize where they are with their
plans for tearing down a slope and building a wall and for straightening Dunham Road. The
Board determines to accept the request, but not to set a certain date. Since no public hearing is
involved a vote is not necessary.
Continued — Preliminary Subdivision Plan — Trask Lane — Creation of Cul -De -Sae and 1
Lot — Folly Hill Associates Trust.
The applicant has formally asked for an extension of the 45 -day review period while they are
discussing solutions with the City. Their submission date was Sept. 30, so their expiration date is
the day before the Board's Nov. meeting. They would like to have a continuance until the Dec.
20 meeting.
Mack: Motionto accept the request for a continuation to Nov. 15 and extend the review
period to Dec. 20. Hutchison seconds the motion. The motion passes (9 -0).
Page 6 of 9
Beverly PIanning Board
October 18, 2016
Re guest for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review #38 -09 — McDonald's — 230 Elliott
Street — McDonald's USA, LLC.
John Kucich, a professional engineer and associate with Bohler Engineering, details the project
that is being done to improve the efficiency of the existing drive -thru that would allow for side -
by -side ordering, noting that ordering is the longest component of the drive -thru process. The
proposal is to eliminate some parking spaces to the rear to accommodate the widened drive -thru.
He notes 25 spaces are required; 51 are there now and they would be reducing that to 45.The
perimeter of the site would remain unchanged. There would be some facade modifications,
including a reduction in signage area.
Miller asks if there would be any changes to the hours of operations. Kucich says no. Lighting
would remain unchanged. Miller asks if it might be a good time to upgrade to more efficient
lighting and Kucich says they can look into it. C. Barrett asks if the business will remain
operating during construction and Kucich says yes.
Wynne asks if the client is still willing to maintain the site per their original agreement. Kucich
responds yes. Matz recuses himself because Bohler Engineering is a former client.
Mack: Motion that the Board deems the matter to bea minor modification. N. Barrett
seconds. The motion carries (8 -0 -1) with Matz abstaining.
Mack: Motion to approve the modifications as presented, and subject to the same
conditions as the original decision. Miller seconds. The motion carries (8 -0 -1)
with Matz abstaining.
Preliminary Subdivision Plan — Livingstone Avenue — Alternative A (Create 3 New Lots)
and off Porter Terrace — Alternative B (Create 2 New Lots) — Wendp-ail Realty Trust.
Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering Group, LLC addresses the Board on behalf of Wendgail
Realty Trust. The subject property is just underone acre in size, a mile away from the Depot train
station and Ayers elementary school. It is located between Porter Terrace and an unconstructed
portion of Livingstone Ave, a paper street. That section of Livingstone Ave. was laid out in
1912. There is an area of wetlands. He noted the City owns oneadjacent parcel. Wynne notes the
purpose of the Preliminary Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant.
Griffin presents two alternatives, Plans A and B, to the Board for their questions and input. The
alternatives include constructing either 2 or 3 additional houses. There is one existing houseon
the site, which will remain. The site is flat. He also notes that sidewalks are inconsistent in the
area and this plan is shown with no sidewalks.
Mack notes that the unpaved portion is a private way and that as owners of the property the
applicant has the right to improve the way.
Page 7 of 9
Beverly Planning Board
October 18, 2016
Thomson asks if under Plan A, they are building out the full length of the road. Griffin
respondsthat it would be completing the street, thus creating a loop. The plan needs a couple of
waivers. They are proposing 24 feet of pavement instead of 32.
Mack asks if the applicant could build out the road and then do an ANR instead.Griffin says that
is essentially what we are doing, making a roadway improvement plan but starting with a
subdivision.
There is some discussion about this potentially being an OSRD, but that depends on how the
property is built out. Thomson says that if four lots are there it could be an OSRD. The
subdivision plan shows 8 lots from 1912.
With Plan B, Griffin proposes a cul -de -sac with 2 newlots around it. Lot 1 has a "tail" to it, with
land divided in a somewhat odd way to meet minimum lot size standards. Thomson suggests
ifthe Board waives down width of roadway, it couldpreserve more open space and perhaps that
tail portion of the lot would have less of a tail.
During the discussion, it was determined that most Board Members prefer Plan B. Mike Rotondo
says he has no prefercncc.N. Barrett prefers Plan B if they could make that extraneous part of
Lot 1 into green space.Griffin sayswhat drives his preference is that a Beverly developer is more
interested in Plan B.C. Barrett agrees with Plan B but wants them to do something about the dog
tail to make it not such a strange looking lot. Miller has a slight preference for Plan B, but wants
to walk around it.Hutchinson likes Plan A; she says it is just personal thing. She is tired of cul-
de -sacs. Hutchinson is also interested in visiting the site. Thomson prefersPlan B. Flannery leans
slightly toward Plan B. Mack likes Plan B, sayingit is less disruptive, affects less people. Matz
initially liked Plan A because it looked more like a natural subdivision but is now thinking of
Plan B because it is only two new buildings. He would want to minimize the impact on Lot 1.
After giving its recommendations, the Board decided not to take formal action on the plan.
Set Public Hearine Date —133 & 143 Brimbal Avenue Definitive Subdivision Plan —
Creation of Private WaylCul -de -Sac and 2 Lots -133 Brimbal LLC and Vittori -Rocci Post
Mack: Motion to set the public hearing date for the Definitive Subdivision Plan
application for 133 & 143 Brimbal Ave for Nov. 15. Hutchinson seconds. The
motion carries (9 -0).
Set Public Hearing Date — Site Plan Review Application #126-16 and Special Permit
Application #152 -16 - Construct four-story building to house an assisted living facility with
round floor commercials ace and 52 -car garage; deviation from parkin2 requirements
for elderly housing - 50 Dunham Road — Vitality Senior Living,_LLC.
Flannery: Motion to set the public hearing date for Site Plan Application #126 -16 and
Special Permit Application $152 -16 for Nov. 15. Mack seconds. Motion carries
(9 -0).
Page 8 of 9
Beverly Planning Board
October 18, 2016
Open Space Residential Design OSRD Site Plan #9 -16 and Definitive Subdivision Plan
122 Cross Lane — Acceptance of Covenant — Endorse Plans — Benco LLC
Wynne explains that the 20 -day appeal period has passed for the OSRD Site & Definitive
Subdivision Plan for the above -named project which was approved at the September meeting.
She confirms that the Mylar plans have been reviewed as has a Form G Covenant, which
establishes the construction completion deadline as Sept 21, 2018. There being no further
discussion.
Matz: Motion to accept the Form G Covenant for the OSRD Site Plan #9 -16 and
Definitive Plan at 122 Cross Lane. C. Barrett seconds. The motion carries (9 -0).
Matz: Motion to endorse the plans forOSRD Site Plan #9 -16 and Definitive Plan at 122
Cross Lane. C. Barrett seconds. The motion carries (9 -0).
Update of Table 1— Fee in L_ ieu of Affordable Housing Units Fiscal Year 2017 per Chapter
315.
Thomson inquires if the Board has had time to review. Hutchinson asks if the Board needs to act.
Wynne confirms that the Board is required to accept the new schedule annually. Thomson
clarifies that it is a formula.
Mack: Motion to accept the fee schedule as provided. Flannery seconds. Chair votes in
favor. The motion passes unanimously (9 -0).
New Business
Wynne reminds everyone there is a housing plan public meeting Nov. 2 at 6 :30 p.m. and invites
everyone to attend. Hoping to hold it in Briscoe's auditorium and currently waiting for the
principal to approve that.
Mack: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The
Board votes to adjourn(9 -0).
Meeting adjourns at 9:50 p.m.
Page 9 of 9