09-20-16 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board Meeting
Date: September 20, 2016
Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Members Present Chair John Thomson, Ned Barrett, Catherine Barrett, Wayne
Miller, Ellen Flannery, David Mack
Members Absent: James Matz, Michael Rotondo, Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson
Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne
Recorder: Mary Alice Cookson
John Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m.
Subdivision Approval Not Required (ANR) Plans —100 Hull Street — Geraldine Driscoll
Realty Trust / MJP Properties
[Heard concurrent with below.]
Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Waiver Request — 100 Hull Street — Geraldine
Driscoll Realty Trust / MJP Properties
The applicant has asked the Board to consider waiving the property's applicability as a "covered
project" for the OSRD Ordinance because the plan includes a significant amount of wetlands that
will remain conservation areas; 3 acres of the 4.2 acres will remain as habitat with only 1.2 acres
developable.
Thomson reminds the Board that they saw this plan the prior month and the Board to hear the
two items concurrently. Typically the ANR would be heard first but the two items in this case
hinge upon one another. Thomson asks Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne to discuss
the waiver being considered and asks if the Board members present all agree that a waiver of the
OSRD requirements is appropriate.
N. Barrett: Motion to endorse the SANR Plan with the following language concerning
restriction added to it: "The lots shown on this plan are subject to the perpetual
restriction, as more particularly set forth in decision of the Planning Board
granting an OSRD Waiver dated September 20, 2016, to be recorded herewith
that the lots shown on this plan may not be further divided so as to create
additional building lots, whether or not together with or in conjunction with
adjacent land." C. Barrett seconds. The board votes (6 -0) to endorse the plan.
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2016
Additional discussion ensues confirming that the land will remain open space because it is actual
wetland.
N. Barrett: Motion to waive the requirement that this property be subject to Section 300 -54,
Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan of the Beverly Zoning
Ordinance. C. Barrett seconds. The Board votes (6 -0) to grant the waiver.
Continued Public Hearing — OSRD Site Plan #9 -16 and Definitive Subdivision Plan —122
Cross Lane — To Create 3 New Residential Lots — Benco, LLC
Flannery: Motion to waive a reading of the public notice. N. Barrett seconds. Chair votes in
favor. Motion passes (6 -0)
Thomson notes that N. Barrett, who was absent from the last meeting, has certified that he has
reviewed the evidence, and is now in compliance with Massachusetts law to vote on the matter.
Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering Group, LLC introduces himself and the applicant Ben
Carlson of Benco, LLC, who seeks approval to create 3 residential lots at 122 Cross Lane.
Griffin introduces the minor changes to the plan since the last meeting and he is open to Board
input hoping they have had a chance to make field visits. He details changes concerning the
turning radius and diameter of the cul -de -sac for the three lot configuration. The applicant and
Planning Department have had the opportunity to discuss this layout with the Fire Department,
who is satisfied with the layout. He indicates Carlson has asked that the road be named Greening
Way.
Griffin discusses minor changes to the grading (made it flatter), stormwater management
detention basin location, reducing the encroachment, reduced the pavement width from 20 feet to
18 feet, renumbered lots due to a land court issue and added house numbers, added a note about
homeowners association doing the tree trimming. Additionally they've addressed requirements
of the Engineering Department.
Wynne says that the Fire Department was comfortable with the plan preferred by the Planning
Board, which showed a steeper grade, reduced cul -de -sac and reduced width of the paved
roadway, so long as all of the houses have sprinklers. She confirmed the Fire Department
provided a letter to this effect.
Griffin notes the site will include a trailhead into Sally Milligan Park from Cross Lane. He
indicates on the plan the area of land associated with Sally Milligan Park that will be conveyed
to the city.
Wynne has prepared a list of suggested conditions. She recommends the Board adopt the
standard practice for conveying open space. She mentions that the Ordinance requires that the
Board set a bond amount for maintenance when there is a homeowners association in case
maintenance fails to be done. In addition, there can be a one -time endowment typically given for
the open space, which is optional.
Page 2 of 10
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2016
Carlson says he would be happy to post a bond. The Board discusses and agrees on an amount of
$10,000 to be renewed annually. As for the endowment, Griffin says they're giving the land to
the city and isn't sure that should also require a financial commitment. Thomson asks if there are
trails going back to the park. Wynne responds to a question from Thomson about where the
money would go, saying it goes to the Conservation Commission. N. Barrett brings up the need
to create a trail head out to the street and for signage there. Carlson says he'd be happy to
contribute a $3,000 endowment for that purpose. Thomson thanks him for his generosity.
Wynne notes that the Conservation Commission wants permanent markers installed on the
property prior to construction. However, the Board's conditions will allow temporary markers to
be in place until construction activity is completed. Thomson notes that there will be no
disturbance of the open space at all (replacing the suggested language of "minimal" disturbance).
Miller: Motion to approve the OSRD Site Plan 99 -16 subject to the bond, endowment,
and conditions outlined. Flannery seconds. Board votes in favor (6 -0).
Barrett: Motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan, with Thomson noting it does
comply with the conditions set forth. Flannery Seconds. Board votes in favor (6-
0).
Flannery: Motion to recess for public hearing. C. Barrett seconds. The motion carries 6 -0).
Public Hearing — Major Modifications to Site Plan Review Application #119 -16 and Special
Permit Application #148 -16 — Demolish existing building, construct new facility containing
approx. 65,000 square feet of manufacturing space and 23,000 square feet of office space;
deviation from off - street parking requirements — 55 Cherry Hill Drive — Krohne, Inc.
Attorney Thomas Alexander, One School Street, Beverly, addresses the Planning Board on
behalf of Krohne, Inc. He notes the plan was approved in February but the applicant has since
decided it wants to modify that plan and tear down an existing 40,000 sq. ft. building on the
property instead of redesigning it. He indicates the applicant also seeks a special permit for
variations from the parking regulations. Alexander maintains that what they suggest on the plan
is sufficient for the company's needs; however, he notes that the parking will be increased by
11 spaces with this new plan.
Alexander explains that the site will be the North American headquarters for Krohne and will
allow for approximately 110 to 120 manufacturing jobs. He adds they are a German family
company that makes industrial process implements and that the company has been in existence
for nearly 100 years. Alexander introduces members of the Krohne team in attendance. He alsc
notes that the proposal was reviewed and approved by the Parking and Traffic Commission.
Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering, describes the site, two lots of 9.05 acres, which has sufficient
frontage along Cherry Hill Drive in Beverly. He explains that the revised proposal involves
tearing down the existing building on the site and constructing a 9,200 sq.ft. office building
connected to the 64,500 sf.ft. manufacturing building by a walkway. He pointed out the area that
Page 3 of 10
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2016
will be used for parking has been increased from accommodating 164 cars to 175 cars. He notes
they intend to utilize all existing pavement.
Ogren talks about the entrances in and out of the site and the location of the loading docks.
Ogren reviews the changes since the prior approval and states that most of the changes to the site
plan are responses to requests from City departments and a few were made by the applicant. He
describes that a sidewalk was added to the front of the building along with a bike rack to the
front entrance, in response to P &TC comments. He adds that they addressed stormwater
management and drainage issues, sewer lines, additional details, and erosion controls.
Ogren adds that this plan differs from the prior stormwater management plan in that they intend
to do it underground. He notes they will put chambers underground to discharge into the existing
drainage system. He adds changes by the applicant were a minor relocation of the loading dock a
bit to the north and modified forklift access and dumpster area. He notes that a proposed
basement in the office building for storage, approximately 10,000 sq.ft., was eliminated from the
plan. Wynne clarifies that it does not change the total amount of square footage and was not
factored into parking calculation.
In response to a question from Thomson, Ogren describes how the employees access the
manufacturing building via the walkway from the office building, but that there are access doors
in the manufacturing building. Mack noted that the parking is somewhat remote from the
buildings causing the employees to have to walk a bit of a distance. Alexander confirms there is
no distance requirement for parking areas.
Harry Samolchuk, Connolly Construction, addresses the Board to discuss lighting, landscaping,
and building layout. He says they will re -use the existing light poles onsite and will replace
existing heads with LED fixtures on top of poles. He notes there is no danger of glow emanating
from the property. He adds that wall packs will be added to the building in certain locations.
Samolchuk notes the landscaping proposal is to leave all the mature vegetation and supplement it
with clusters of evergreens and deciduous trees as well as shrubs and perennials at the
entranceway. He adds the landscaping plan is consistent with commercial landscaping these
days.
Samolchuk notes that the major difference is the existing building will be razed and in its place
will be two buildings connected by a bridge walkway on the mezzanine level. Under the
mezzanine will be primarily storage. He notes the roofs will be flat and in the same plane, though
the base of the office building is lower. He describes the exterior materials, including insulated
metal panel and terra cotta - colored accents. He notes that the storefront glass will be on all sides
of the office building and that will be replicated with punched windows on the manufacturing
building.
N. Barrett asks about the hours of operation (they are 8 to 5). He expressed concern about
lighting, particularly at night when the facility is closed, and wondered if consideration will be
given to adjusting light levels at night. Samolchuk notes that the light levels are low already but
indicates perhaps lights could be set by a time clock or controlled by photo sensors. Miller
Page 4 of 10
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2016
inquires about the air condition units. Samolchuk confirms there will be rooftop units that are not
currently shown. Thomson asked if the glass is reflective (it will not).
Mack asks for more information about the deviation from parking requirements. Alexander
explains that an analysis was done on the existing site in Peabody, where they have 48
employees and 55 parking spaces, for a ratio of 1.08 parking spaces per employee. The approved
plan provided parking at a ratio of 1.49 parking spaces per employee; this modification provides
1.59 spaces per maximum number of employees. Mack asked about visitor parking. Bob Senk, of
Khrone, Inc., explains that they observe 8 to 22 visitor cars per day.
Thomson asks if there was an area that could be used for expansion parking if needed at a future
date. Ogren responds that there are areas where additional parking could be provided and shows
on the plan and that the site could possibly accommodate the 90 required spaces, if needed.
Thomson notes it would seem to make sense to identify the far -right driveway be marked
"Entrance Only" and as "Truck Entrance ". Ogren confirms. David Mack asks about snow
storage adequacy. Ogren points out the areas where snow can be stored and notes they don't
anticipate needing to truck it off.
C. Barrett asks about the number of employees at the current location in Peabody. Alexander
answers there are 48, but notes they are looking to get up to 110 employees over time.
Thomson asks if anyone from the public wants to be heard on the matter. There are none.
Mack: Motion to close the public hearing on both approvals. Flannery seconds. Motion
carries (6 -0).
Thomson confirms that the number of parking spaces is 175 as shown on the plan, and that the
application form contained an error. Thomson confirms that the applicant is in agreement with
all the suggested conditions provided in the Planning Department's staff report. Miller asks if
there is a condition that could be included regarding the outdoor lighting.
Wynne says that the Board could ask for a final plan set which shows all the discussed changes
and that they may add a condition to address the lighting issue if they wanted to do that.
Mack: Motion that the Board grant the request for a special permit, noting that all of the
factors in the Ordinance (a -f) have clearly met those requirements and specifically
in regards to the reduction in parking and the number of driveways provided,
subject to the conditions in the Staff Report and the suggested conditions made
this evening. Those new suggested conditions include that the southernmost
entrance be marked "Truck Entrance Only ", that all of the pages of the plan be
finalized, submitted and stamped. Regarding the issue about preserving the night
sky, Mack says he doesn't see the lighting issue as a mandate because the
proposed lighting now has been deemed not overly intrusive. N. Barrett suggests a
condition that the applicant explore ways to minimize the effects of the lighting.
C. Barrett seconds. The Board votes in favor (6 -0).
Page 5 of 10
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2016
Mack: Motion to approve the site plan review subject to all the conditions in the Staff
Report, by other City Departments, and the added condition that the final plans be
stamped and submitted to the Planning Department and that the southernmost
entrance be marked "Truck Entrance Only ". Miller seconds. The Board votes in
favor (6 -0).
Set Public Hearing Date — Site Plan Review Application #125 -16. Special Permit
Application #151 -16 and Inclusionary Housing Application #10 -16 — Construct six - story,
mixed -use 70,000 +/- sq. ft. building with 4500 +/- 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
Beverly LLC
Thomson says the Board will entertain a short informal preliminary view of the project named
above. The applicant is Barnat Beverly LLC.
Flannery: Motion to set the public hearing on these applications referenced above for the
meeting on October 18, 2016. Mack seconds the motion. The motion carries (6 -0).
Sarah Barnat introduces herself as the owner of Barnat Development and Barnat Beverly LLC,
the developer of this project. She shows some projects in Boston that she's worked on and says
she and Nancy Ludwig have done over 1,000 units together, much of them involving the MBTA
and increasing housing density around transit. She further describes her experience, including as
the Executive Director of the Urban Land Institute. She notes why she was drawn to the project:
1) because she has experience working with the MBTA; 2) because the City is welcoming of
economic development; and 3) because she is excited about the City's efforts to increase density
around transit. She introduces the members of her project team: Nancy Ludwig of Icon
Architects, Meridian Engineering, TEC / The Engineering Company, DMLA, and contractor
NEI Construction.
Barnat describes the proposed project. She notes that the MBTA parking garage is designed to
high standards and looks great but the parking there is underutilized. She acknowledges that the
long -term goals was for this lot to have a mixed -use development. She indicates that the parking
garage is not well- suited to have development over the top of it but that the front lot lays out well
for a mixed -use, double - loaded corridor building.
Barnat indicated she wanted to the building to have a more gracious lobby amenity and therefore
proposed a 6,128 sq. ft. of lobby and 3,101 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor. She notes that the
civic leadership, including staff and Ward 2 leadership clearly wanted really great, ground -floor
retail; therefore, she enlarged the ground floor retail to 4,500 sq. ft. She notes that they are
building to 70 ft. rather than to the 75 ft. height limit and that they have included setbacks on the
upper floors.
Ludwig then presents an overview of the design of the building, which will offer views of the
river for its upper floor residents. She notes that by reducing the ground floor lobby area, the
amenities for the residential building would move up to the second floor. She notes they are
Page 6 of 10
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2016
proposing to make the entries and exits down to one lane each way and will seek approval from
the MBTA.
She discusses the 12 ft. setback on the top floors and shows that in perspective. She notes that the
setback is set at 48 ft, even though 45 ft is specified in the Tall Building Design Guidelines,
because it enables them to provide suitable floor to ceiling heights in the retail space and
residential floors and they believe it is a better proportion for the building. She describes the
building materials proposed includes masonry, metal - shingle, and a cement siding material. She
indicates they would like to start construction as early as spring.
Ludwig notes that there is no physical connection to the garage; they are leaving a 15 -feet space
between the buildings, which they may use for a dog run. In addition, it is where loading and
trash will go, plus allowing for fire access. The existing entrance to the MBTA garage (glass
stairwell) will be in view from Rantoul Street. She points out a small parking lot with seven
spaces, which they'd be leaving for retail parking and fire access purposes.
Thomson asks why 15 ft needs to be maintained between the garage and whether the building
could be moved back 5 ft more. Barnat indicates that 10 ft is the minimum required. She
comments that providing the 15 ft provides greater light and air to residents and allows for
loading and trash to occur in the rear. Ludwig notes the importance of the building holding the
urban line of buildings sitting at the back of the sidewalk and notes where they have included
setbacks on the fagade to add interest.
Barnat describes the public outreach she has conducted. C. Barrett asks if this is the same
presentation being given at the library. Barnat answers yes.
C. Barrett asks about the parking. Barnat notes that the total square footage of the building is
70,000 and they are providing one parking space per residential unit in the garage (70 spaces),
which will be assigned to the residents. Thomas Alexander, Alexander & Femino, describes that
they are seeking a special permit because they will have less parking for the retail area than is
required, but that it is not required for the residential parking. Barnat notes the seven spaces in
the parking lot and the seven on- street parking spaces can be used for the retail, and other spaces
may be available in the garage.
Miller asks if she's entertained a living roof. Barnat indicates that it requires additional
engineering and will probably not pursue, but that they will provide a white reflective roof to
reduce heat. She adds that they hope the building will meet LEED standards. Ludwig notes that
each unit will have its own condenser on the roof. There are existing solar panels on the garage.
Thomson asks if Barnat expects to have an answer from the MBTA by the next meeting. Barnat
says yes and notes the MBTA has already reviewed the project. She will work as diligently as
possible to get approved plans by then. He advises her that she should postpone if not ready with
them in time for the public hearing. Thomson recommends postponing if there is no
determination from the MBTA.
Page 7 of 10
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2016
N. Barrett notes there is a lot going on on Rantoul Street. He says it is a hot - button topic,
especially concerning the height, footprint and feel of the building. He expresses concern about
the "canyon effect." He notes that starting at 55 feet, a special permit is required for height and
this project is 70 feet. He mentions the alley in the rear might be a potential problem. He adss
that the retail component is important. Barnat says she appreciates the Board's input and has
been hearing that as they go around the neighborhood.
Thomson notes that the applicant is proposing to provide a higher percentage of affordable
housing than required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which is 12 %. Barnat describes a
new program provided by Mass Housing to help fund this project, which will require her to
provide 20% of the units as affordable. She adds that workforce housing rents would run $1,100
to $1,400 per month.
Thomas Alexander mentions that the garage went through a lot of public hearings and mixed -use
was envisioned for the site. There was a concern back then, he says, that there be more than a
garage on the site. He stresses that the housing, retail, etc. was a part of the plan all along and not
something that was tacked on later. The retail component will add to vibrancy to the area, he
notes, adding that in terms of height and density, as you get closer to transit, a little more density
works. He notes this is the definition of transit- oriented, being a 100 -yard walk to the train depot.
Lastly, he notes that this project is something the Board has encouraged by its zoning regulations
over the last few years.
The Board thanks Barnat for her presentation. Wynne reminds the Board that this was not a
public hearing and they should be prepared to ask questions in the next meeting(s).
At 9:29, Mack excuses himself from the meeting, needing to leave for work reasons.
Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review #112 -14 — 52 Dunham Road —
Anderson Clarke, LLC
Wynne says the applicant has submitted a letter asking to continue this matter to the regular
meeting in October.
N. Barrett: Motion to accept the request to continue to October 18, 2016. C. Barrett seconds.
The Board votes unanimously to hear the request at its next meeting.
Open Space Residential Design Site Plan (OSRD) and Definitive Subdivision Plan —
Sunnycrest Circle — 11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue — Land Court Plan Endorsement — PD
Building LLC
Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering addresses the Board.
Griffin details some minor changes that were made to the boundary of the lot subsequent to the
Board's approval on March 22, 2016 as a result of the land court process. He says that since
1980, Land Court has had the philosophy that if a plan refers to a monument or something like a
stone wall and you know it hasn't moved in all these years, perhaps you should hold that
Page 8 of 10
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2016
location. The modifications were made due to such monuments they found based on the site.
When they filed the plan they had found 19 of them and went back to look for more, which they
found (approximately 25 to 27 total). Griffin says it has taken several months to get through that
process. They also note that they have prepared an 81X certification that will allow them 30
additional days to record the plan.
N. Barrett: Determination that the modifications are minor. Second by C. Barrett. The Board
votes in favor (5 -0).
N. Barrett: Motion that the Board accept the modifications as shown on the plan and endorse
the Land Court plan. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The Board votes in favor and
endorses the plan (5 -0).
N. Barrett: Motion to certify that there have been no other modifications to the plan other
than that presented this evening, pursuant to the 81X Certification. C. Barrett
seconds. The motion carries (5 -0). Wynne notes that the certification gives them
30 extra days to record the plan.
Open Space Residential Design Site Plan (OSRD) and Definitive Subdivision Plan — Essex
Crossing — 232 Essex Street — Request for Extension of Construction Completion Date (Oct.
21, 2016) and Bond Reduction — DUC Residential LLC
Wynne describes that the subdivision is making good progress but is not yet complete and
describes some of the remaining work to be done. Therefore the applicant would like to extend
the construction completion date for a year from October 21, 2016 to October 21, 2017. She
notes that the City Engineer has approved the reduction in surety.
Flannery: Motion to grant the extension of the construction completion date to October 21,
2017. N. Barrett seconds. The Board grants the extension (5 -0).
Flannery: Motion to reduce the bond amount from $193,522.07to $76,559.96. N. Barrett
seconds. The Board grants the extension (5 -0).
C. Barrett compliments the developer and comments that the project is going well. Wynne
agrees. Additional discussion ensued on the status of open space and trails related to this project.
Bass River Estates Definitive Subdivision (a.k.a. Fol2er Avenue Extension) — Request for
Extension of Construction Completion Date (September 30, 2016) — Joseph J. Phelan III,
Bass River LLC
Wynne notes there are two issues. First, some of the neighbors do not want trees planted in their
yards (as the Board has required). Second, the fact that a portion of the roadway is private.
Wynne explains there is a segment of roadway before the subdivision starts that was never
accepted by the City. The City is working to resolve the matter, which is complicated because
some of the parcels are in probate and the owners are not interested in pursuing. The developer is
working with the City Solicitor to resolve the issues.
Page 9of10
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
September 20, 2016
Regarding the second issue, Thomson states that this issue is between the Board and the
developers and not the Board and the homeowners. Thomson says the Board is not interested in
modifying our requirements. N. Barrett agrees, we need to reinforce that we want the trees to go
in there.
N. Barrett: Motion to grant the extension of the construction completion date to September
30, 2017, including a statement that the Board requirement to plant the trees
remains in effect. Miller seconds. The motion carries (5 -0).
New or Other Business
Thomson notes the upcoming joint public hearing with the City Council is confirmed for
Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting is to discuss a proposal to change the Folly
Hill RSD zoning to R22 zoning. Documentation on that will be coming, according to Wynne. N.
Barrett says he wants to express his support for the change. Thomson says that enough Board
members might not be present at that meeting to hold a vote so the vote could take place at the
next regular meeting.
Adjournment
N. Barrett: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Flannery seconds the motion. The
Board votes unanimously to adjourn.
Page 10 of 10