11-15-2016 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board:
Planning Board Meeting
Date:
November 15, 2016
Location:
Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Members Present
Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ned Barrett
(arrived 7:05), Catherine Barrett, Ellen Flannery, David Mack,
James Matz, Wayne Miller, Mike Rotondo
Members Absent:
None
Others Present:
Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Assistant Planning Director
Darlene Wynne
Recorder:
Mary Alice Cookson
John Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The Board discusses the Regular Meeting minutes of April 4, the Joint Public Hearing (JPH)
Minutes of October 3, and the Regular Meeting minutes of October 18. Minor typographical or
grammatical edits were discussed.
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the April 4 minutes, as amended. Flannery seconds the motion.
The motion passes (8 -0).
Flannery: Motion to approve the October 3 Joint Public Hearing Minutes, as amended.
Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0 -1) with Thomson
abstaining.
Hutchinson: Motion to approve the October 18 minutes, as amended. Flannery seconds the
motion. Motion passes (8 -0).
N. Barrett arrives at 7:05.
Hutchinson: Motion to recess for the public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion
passes (9 -0).
Continued Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #125 -16. Special Permit
Application #151 -16 and Inclusionary Housing Application #10 -16 — Construct six- story,
mixed -use, 70,000 +/- sa. ft. building with 5,200 +/- sa. 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
Beverly LLC.
Mack: Motion to waive reading of the public notice. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The
motion passes (9 -0).
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Developer Sarah Barnat of Barnat Beverly LLC reviews the plan. She notes they are increasing
the ground floor retail space to 5,100 sq. feet. The workforce housing component of the project is
progressing, she says, and she had success with the Parking and Traffic Commission, which said
while there is an increase in new vehicle trips, it is at an acceptable level of service. She
reiterated they are taking access to 7 surface parking spaces currently used by the adjacent retail
users in Depot Square and are, in turn, setting aside an additional 7 spaces in the garage for
condo users. She noted that another 7 parking spaces will be created as on- street parking.
Barnat also discussed bicycle parking and potential commuter rail incentives for the residents. A
supplemental traffic study was conducted to assess pedestrian connections at the intersection of
River and Pleasant Streets. Barnat will provide a $38,000 contribution to the City for
improvements.
Barnat also discussed that the MBTA was not supportive of the reduction to 2 drive aisles
entering the garage, causing her to revert to the 3 drive aisles as currently exist. Architect Nancy
Ludwig of ICON Architecture discussed creating a protected walk way into the garage at that
location to protect pedestrians, resulting in the loss of one parking space.
Ludwig notes they have reduced the width of the covered pedestrian walkway to add another
band of retail and thinks the Board will be happier with the percentages, noting that retail space
now represents 47 percent of the ground floor. In addition, she presented the shadow study that
had been requested by the Board. It showed that at the spring equinox and winter solstice,
shadows are right around the building and are not long shadows.
Attorney Tom Alexander, One School Street, notes that the team has satisfied the permit
requirements and that the project has been the subject of a lot of study and has had much input
from the City. He indicates the appearance is a step up for Rantoul Street with no undue traffic
and that he believes property values in the area will increase.
Thomson opens the floor to the Board.
Rotondo asks if there will be meters in front of the building. Aaron Clausen, Planning Director,
answers that the City will be installing metered or time - restricted parking. He expects long -term
parking would go to the garage and short -term parking to the street spaces, noting that there is
long -term parking on River Street that it is metered.
Hutchinson notes that the Chairman of the Parking & Traffic Commission (P &TC) voted not to
recommend the project. Clausen responds that he spoke with the Chairman of the P &TC, who
indicated that he wasn't completely happy with the way the traffic mitigation was presented to
the P &TC but not with the project itself. Specifically the Chair was looking for a comprehensive
strategy to improve pedestrian connectivity given that it is a TOD project. Clausen said Barnat's
financial contribution would support the City in making improvements to the intersections and
adding ADA- accessible ramps that aren't there yet.
Page 2 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Miller asks Barnat to review the heights of the buildings in the area. Barnat says the Millery
across the street is 75 feet high; the Beverly condominium to the right is upward of 65 feet, she
thinks; and the Gateway Terrace is in the range of 70 feet.
C. Barrett congratulated Barnat on a terrific job and says she is happy to see the increase of retail
space. She wonders about the MBTA requiring the three drive lanes. Barnat said it isn't the
standard practice, but they want this to be a "gold standard' garage. C. Barrett asks when
Rantoul Street will be re- surfaced. Barnat responds it will be before the project begins noting that
they intend to make utility connections beforehand, with the spring thaw.
C. Barrett commented that she is starting to be concerned about the cumulative effect of all the
projects on Rantoul Street. Sam Gregorio, the project engineer with TEC (The Engineering
Corp.), responds that his firm was the traffic consultant for the other projects and the study
includes them.
Board members discuss concern for a canyon -like effect of the building. Barnat said that the
setback of her building was to address that issue. Alexander notes that the CVS on Rantoul was
supposed to be built right at the street, but CVS set it back. Wynne points out that the City's
design guidelines for downtown call for them to be at the sidewalk edge and this is consistent
with good urban design because it provides a strong pedestrian environment.
Matz talks about the 7 parking spaces [surface lot] and its effect on the residents of the adjacent
condo. Barnat says she isn't a party to the settlement because it is the MBTA's land, but she
notes they have provided spaces in the garage.
Mack asks what the letters from the residents said, if there have been any objections. Barnat says
no.
N. Barrett asks about the intersection at River and Federal Streets. Barnat says it will be studied
in 2021. N. Barrett asks about the application for the 14 units of affordable housing. Barnat says
they are still committed to the program but are waiting for Mass Housing to develop regulations
and documents. She says it will be their first project, but she's hopeful it will be feasible. She
indicates that if the Mass Housing program is not feasible, she will still provide the required 12%
of units as affordable per the City's regulations.
Thomson expresses concern about how the retail parking will be enforced and whether there will
be signage. Barnat indicates signage exists and similar signage will remain.
Thomson invites members of the public to speak.
Sharyn Rogers, 116 Rantoul Street (Depot Square Condominiums) Unit 507, says she and her
husband are concerned the building will overwhelm the area. She says if green space, light and
air, and a sense of pedestrian friendliness is reduced, she isn't sure it accomplishes the goal of a
renaissance for Beverly. She is worried that the inclusionary housing exceeds the requirements.
She is concerned about enhancing the area and retaining housing values. She would prefer to
Page 3 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
eliminate the top two floors or at least have a setback on the side of the building in addition to
the front.
Ms. Rogers expressed concern about trash collection and associated noise and aroma. She asks if
trash could be contained within the building and positioned at the far end of the building so it
doesn't intrude on the condo building but rather to the MBTA side that is not residential. She is
in favor of redevelopment of the area, but thinks the concerns of existing residents need to be
taken into consideration while there is still the possibility to make modifications to the building.
Peter Bachini, 60 Rantoul Street, points out that Beverly's tag line is the Garden City and says
we are losing an important piece of green space. He suggests chopping off the top two floors to
make a more - palatable three- or four -story building. He calls the drive through into the building
"ridiculous" and says Beverly is going to look like Chelsea. He says people are going to be
circling the garage looking for overnight parking for free since they won't want to pay for
parking and says this poses a unique problem in this part of Rantoul St.
Bachini would like to see the developer build over the parking garage instead and build a
playground on the site instead. He also suggests shrinking the size of the building and buying
some other property on Rantoul Street.
Bachini suggests permanent on -site management should be mandatory. He also wants to know if
there is a restriction put on the building that there is to be no Section 8 housing in the building.
Thomson clarifies that is illegal. Bachini says that taking 70 spaces of the garage from transit
users diminishes the value of the parking garage. He says the area is saturated with restaurants
already. He notes if there isn't a way to not do the project at all, he would want it to be built
somewhere else on Rantoul Street instead of there.
Bruce Rogers, 116 Rantoul Street Unit 507, asked where the trash was going to accumulate and
asked if it fumes and added trash from the proposed cafe next to the Depot Square condo had
been taken into account.
Dan Burke, 116 Rantoul Street Unit 510, asks if the developer has done an analysis to determine
if the revenue will help the police and fire departments grow. Thomson replies that the tax
revenue goes into the pot of the City and the City decides on the budget.
Larry Sparrow, 7 South Terrace, an architect, introduces himself as a friend and colleague of
Sarah Barnat and speaks in favor of her and the proposal.
Deborah Pinciaro, who owns two units at the Edwards Condominium (45 Rantoul Street),
laments the elimination of green space and thinks that having a dog run behind the new building
won't be utilized as much as her front lawn. She notes that their parking lot is being used as a
cut - through to avoid lights or look for parking. She comments that every nook and cranny will be
used by people in cars looking for free parking. She says she is worried that the train is already
overcrowded. Thomson advises her to direct that concern to the MBTA.
Page 4 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Lesli Woodruff, 95 Rantoul St., says that while affordable housing is near to her heart, people
aren't going to want to pay for parking in the garage, and if you are adding 70 to 100 people,
they are going to come into the neighborhood for parking.
Rick Marciano, 141 McKay Street, says he thinks they should build the housing over the parking
garage. Taxpayers spent money to put three stories on top of the garage, he says. He's not going
to park in the garage if he can park in the neighborhood and save money.
Gin Wallace, 34 South Terrace, representing Beverly Main Streets (BMS), says that they look at
four factors before taking a stance:
1) The Master Plan and specifically Downtown 2020, and she says that TOD is certainly in
this plan. She notes that the City is conducting a Housing Study which shows that
Beverly not only needs more housing, but it also needs an increased number of affordable
units.
2) The design, which she says is well thought -out with its top setback and open space that
reduces the impact on the street.
3) The retail, which, while it doesn't meet the 25% threshold, she acknowledges that's a
really high bar. She says the retail space is twice what was originally proposed, which
Wallace says is a good move. She indicates BMS is working with Barnat to find retailers.
4) A developer that's proud of what they're building. She points out that Barnat reached out
to people who come to Planning Board meetings, and other parties, and is spending more
money than she originally planned for mitigation. She notes that all of this make it a
project Beverly Main Streets fully supports.
Estelle Rand, 3 Abbott Street, Ward 2 City Councilor, says she has heard from people who like
the project— abutters who've supported it quietly. She says there is confusion about the vision
for Rantoul. She sees a lack of understanding that the vision for Rantoul is urban development –
building up to the sidewalk and to a certain height is allowed. She encourages the City to better
communicate with constituents.
Rand notes that there is a playground behind the Millery that not everybody knows about. She
also comments that the Depot Square is a new building and her guess is that during its
permitting, people said about it things similar to what is being said tonight. She acknowledges
that height is something people struggle with, but overall she states it is a reasonable project and
appreciates the changes that have been made.
Dorothy Couture, 60 Rantoul St., asks if the Board has visited the site. Members say yes. She
asks if the dog walk area will be fenced in, if it is just for the residents, who will clean up after
the dogs, and if waste bags will be available.
Richard Lampman, 57 Cross Lane, says he and his wife are long -term residents and that Beverly
is an attractive place and there must be housing to accommodate the needs. With increasing
urbanization he says, you take the good with the bad. On Cross Lane, they've adjusted to the
traffic on their street. He is in favor of the project and looks at the bigger picture.
Page 5 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Ms. Rogers speaks again. She says she is a proponent of transit- oriented development (TOD) and
was the creative director for the branding firm that worked with Avalon Developments. She
thinks people are underestimating the value of a TOD project and what people would pay to live
in Beverly near the train station. She is impressed with the applicant, but thinks her history as a
developer is not long enough.
Barnat responds to questions from the public. She says the trash in the building will be internal,
showing its location in the middle of the building's rear, with a chute down. The trash
compacters are rollable and the maintenance person will roll the trash out to the small parking lot
for pick -up. The retail trash will also be collected internally.
Barnat says that dogs are allowed in the units and dog waste will be maintained by the
maintenance staff and that area will be fenced in. Regarding fumes from the restaurants, she says
that should the restaurant require a black duct or vent, it will be provided and they will plan for it
in advance by providing area for a grease trap and black duct.
Mack asks if the dog park will be open to the general public. Barnat respond that it would be nice
for the dog park to be an amenity for the neighborhood but it may not work for security reasons.
Miller asks about recycling and composting. Barnat says that recycling will also take place
within the building, in the trash area and that there would be single - stream recycling.
Miller asks about parking for the 67 units and how many will have cars. Barnat hopes that 3 /4 of
renters will have cars. She says there are Zipcars in the building for non -car owners. She
anticipates that the majority of the units will have one car. If they have a second car, they'd have
to pay for the parking. Miller questions if the parking should be included in the rent and
discounted for those who won't use it. Barnat indicates it is a marketing question and will
evaluate the best option for a more suburban environment. She will also provide the commuter
rail free for the first month.
Miller mentions that there is a concern for losing green space and notes Goldway Park [Ahearn
Park] nearby, as Councilor Rand pointed out. Barnat shows the location and notes that it suffers
from a lack of visibility. She says she has spoken with the Millery owners about improving the
connection and says perhaps there could be a connection back to that park. Millers asks if, in lieu
of having green space on the site, if Barnat would you consider supporting a playground with a
yearly stipend. Barnat indicates that she's spent the majority of her mitigation dollars already and
that she is interested to engaging in a conversation to improve visual cues and access.
Mack: Motion to close the public hearing. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion
passes (9 -0).
Hutchinson: Motion to return to the regular meeting. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion
passes (9 -0).
Thomson asks if the Board would like to resolve this matter or move to the next hearing. Matz
says the Board should resolve the matter at this time.
Page 6 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Thomson summarizes the actions required.
Miller notes that the building is not at the 25% retail and inquired about the math. Barnat says it
is a total of 6,562 sq. feet of retail including the walkway and 1,752 of commercial vehicular
access which accounts for 15% of the total building and 45% of the ground floor. Wynne
clarifies that with solely the retail square footage, it represents 9.5% of the total building area.
Hutchinson: Motion to grant the Special Permit for a residential use comprising more than
75% of a mixed -use building; for a building height which exceeds 55 ft; and for a
deviation from the parking requirements for the commercial retail use. Mack
seconds the motion.
N. Barrett says he's concerned about the residents not wanting to pay for parking and that it
could cause a parking problem in the City. In the best interest of the City, he asks the Board to
consider a condition for a look back at parking six months after occupancy. Thomson clarifies
that it would be for informational purposes only, but would have no regulatory teeth.
Mack poses the question of how to make that a condition that doesn't become a basis to have the
special permit revoked. He says that while he thinks it's a good idea, he's concerned about
making it a condition. He says anecdotal evidence that some people might want to drive around
rather than pay for parking is not enough to prove a nuisance.
Barnat agrees to a request by Thomson to voluntarily to report to the Board six months after full
occupancy. Since the parking situation is important to the City, she says she is happy to do that
but would rather not make it a condition of the permit.
N. Barrett says the Board needs to distinguish between providing parking and providing the
opportunity to park for a price. Thomson indicates the Board has no authority over whether the
applicant charges for parking.
Mack says they will either find they've created a nuisance or they haven't, but says it is a market
issue that isn't within the Board's control to regulate or impose on the developer. He notes they
have not required a deviation from residential parking requirements. He says that he thinks
covered parking is a luxury that most people would want, especially in the winter.
Clausen says that the Board could make it a condition attached to the site plan that the applicant
provide a parking study 6 months after Certificate of Occupancy. He notes this is done for other
projects. He says that from a parking perspective, decoupling of the parking spaces with the
residential units is a preferred option for the City. What you'll see are fewer people with two
cars, he says.
C. Barrett also thinks Barnat should come back to the Board to see what the demand is for
parking—if people are willing to pay the fee or if they will have people looking for parking on
the street.
Page 7 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Rotondo asks if people will be given the option not to pay for parking. Barnat says historically
she has decoupled the parking in urban areas, which encourages people to make that decision.
Most likely there will be one car per unit. She says she wouldn't want to force people into
renting parking spaces if they don't choose to own a car. She acknowledges that she is paying for
the spots to the MBTA anyway and has an incentive to make sure she's setting the price
correctly to recoup her costs.
Hutchinson says she believes that the special permit criteria has been met.
The motion carries (8 -1) with N. Barrett opposed.
Hutchinson: Motion to grant site plan approval subject to the conditions set forth by the letters
submitted by the various Boards, Commissions and Departments in the City who
responded; and the condition that Barnat Development LLC will conduct a
parking study of parking utilization by the residents 6 months after 90%
occupancy of the building, for study purposes only. Flannery seconds the motion.
Matz says he's heard people complain that Beverly Crossing is the only developer in the city and
he says that isn't true here, and that the board welcomes new developers from outside of the
City. He says that lopping off the top two floors won't make this project financially viable. He
says he becomes concerned when he hears concerns about exceeding goals for workforce or
middle- income housing. He's lived here for almost 25 years and says this city is better for its
diversity. As for the open space issue, he says that the City has active open space, and we should
get in front of Parks and Recreation and make Goldway Park [Ahearn Park] a better place.
Diversity is critical part of preserving and growing our community, he says. He doesn't want to
short - shrift the abutters and looks forward to being a patron there.
Miller raises a question about whether the setback could be on side of the building instead of just
the front. Barnat says she doesn't think a setback on that side of the building would have a major
effect on the aesthetics of the building. The building as designed is financially feasible and they
would have to go back and take a much harder look at it.
Motion carries (8 -1) with N. Barrett opposed.
Thomson explains that the applicant is exceeding the requirement for providing affordable
housing and that if they do not use this program, the applicant would have to come back to the
Planning Board, but would still have to meet the City's standards. Thomson says he personally
thinks the applicant should be applauded for providing workforce housing and notes the findings
of the City's ongoing housing study.
Mack: Motion to approve the Inclusionary Housing Permit. Hutchinson seconds the
motion. Chair votes in favor. The motion passes (9 -0).
Board takes a 5 minute recess.
Page 8 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Public Hearing — 133 & 143 Brimbal Avenue Definitive Subdivision Plan — Creation of
Private Way /Cul -de -Sac and 2 Lots— 133 Brimbal, LLC and Vittori -Rocci Post #56
Flannery: Motion to recess for the public hearing. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The
motion passes (9 -0).
Wynne reads the legal notice.
Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering Group, LLC refreshes the Board's memory about the location
of the land. He says that at the suggestion of the Board during review of the Preliminary Plan, the
two owners got together and they propose adding a large cul -de -sac rather than two adjacent cul-
de -sacs. He says they are proposing minimal improvements, such as removing the sidewalks and
replacing them with asphalt so it looks like roadway going into the property. He says they are
losing a couple of parking spaces due to running fire trucks through the turning motions and says
they will provide improved sight lines for cars entering and leaving the site. He notes that traffic
exiting is right turn only.
Griffin notes they have asked for a number of waivers and he summarizes the proposed waivers,
including to provide an adequacy of ways analysis, to provide a drainage analysis since they are
not adding impervious areas, to install a hydrant on this side of the street, to install underground
utilities, to provide granite monuments, and to construct the turnaround within two years.
Wynne asks if there was anything that the applicant was not amenable to in the letter from the
City Engineer. Griffin indicates they are amenable to all of the comments. He points out a few
comments that are carry overs from the preliminary plan, noting they now meet those
requirements. He adds none of the comments require changes to the plan.
Griffin explains that the Fire Department requested a new hydrant on the site and indicates that,
should a new project be constructed, they will then address the fire hydrant issue. Griffin
addresses the comments from the Planning Department.
Mack asks if they will still be meeting the parking requirements. Griffin says that there is no
significant change to the parking and they are losing 3 spaces that can be added elsewhere. He
notes they are looking not to construct the cul -de -sac, therefore there will be no parking changes.
Mack asks if this is a "paper only" subdivision, with the exception of the curb work. Griffin
confirms. Mack asks if there will be a structure or signage saying "No Left Turn" at the exit.
Thomas Roccio (the applicant) says that there is signage on the two primary exits.
Miller asks for confirmation on the hydrant. Griffin says that the fire department would rather
not have the waiver granted, but he indicates it will be considered when /if the subdivision is built
out. Wynne asks about the conformance with zoning regarding parking requirements. Griffin
respond parking will also be addressed when /if the subdivision is built out.
Miller asks if all comments have been addressed. Wynne notes that the outstanding question is
what's going to happen to Lot 3. Griffin says no decision has been made.
Page 9 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Thomson says it is his understanding that the applicant has no intention of building this and it is
being done just to freeze the zoning. However, he notes that the waivers are somewhat
contradictory because the Board wouldn't want to grant those waivers should something be built.
He notes that the Board would rather not approve a plan on a condition that it cannot be built. He
notes that the Board has the option to deny the plan due to the waivers being requested.
Thomson notes that the waiver for the time period is not necessary because if the applicant fails
to meet that standard they still have the benefit of the zoning freeze. Attorney Thomas Alexander
agrees. Thomson suggests that the Board could approve this plan without granting any of the
waivers and without a requirement to come back to the Board.
Mack asks if the applicant could seek a modification at a later date. Thomson indicates they
could and would have to.
C. Barrett says she doesn't think the Board should be approving waivers for a plan that's never
going to be built.
Thomson says that by granting this plan, they are not putting their imprimatur on the zoning
freeze.
Mack: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion
passes (9 -0).
Mack: Motion to deny the applicants' request for all of the waivers requested. C. Barrett
seconds the motion. The motion to deny the waivers carries (9 -0).
Mack: Motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan without the requirement to
resubmit unless and until they desire to construct. N. Barrett seconds the motion.
The motion carries (9 -0).
Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #126 -16 and Special Permit Application
#152 -16 - Construct four -story building to house an assisted living facility with ground
floor commercial space and 52 -car 2ara2e; deviation from parking requirements for
elderly housing - 50 Dunham Road — Vitality Senior Living, LLC.
Hutchinson: Motion to open the Public Hearing. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion
carries (9 -0).
Wynne reads the public notice.
Miranda Gooding of Glovsky & Glovsky takes the floor. She says she realizes that they will be
presenting but not concluding this evening. She introduces Jerry Pucillo, Project Manager
representing Vitality, Jonathan Giori design architect from Levi + Wong Associates, Andy
Truman, of Samiotes Consultants, Inc, civil engineers, and Mike Dissette, Glovsky & Glovkky.
Page 10 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Gooding says that this property is the entirety of a site owned by Anderson Clarke LLP and
managed by Cummings Properties. She describes the larger site is approximately 54 acres and
the proposed project would be constructed on a parcel of 5 acres in the IR zoning district, which
will be managed as a commercial condominium. She indicates that the focus of this application is
a specific parcel of the larger site.
Gooding describes the plan is for a 135,000 sq. feet mixed -use, four -story building that will have
118 assisted living suites (90 as assisted living units and 28 as memory care units) in the majority
of building that will be sold to and then operated by Vitality Senior Living LLC. In addition, she
notes there will be approximately 6,000 sq. feet of retail /commercial space that will be developed
as complementary uses and some ideas are a cafe and a daycare tenant that might provide an
opportunity for shared use with the seniors.
Gooding describes the average age of the residents as between 75 and 80 or older and that these
are people who are still ambulatory and need assistance with laundry, meals, etc. She notes there
will also be a health and wellness component and common areas associated with that.
Gooding notes that the building is allowed with respect to zoning and that it complies with the
frontage requirement and all of the front, rear and side setbacks. She notes that the project does
require a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals because of the proposed use and it
also requires a variance because the 15% inclusionary affordable housing that is difficult to meet
with a private assisted living facility. She notes they are requesting a variance so they don't have
to provide the affordable units on site and suggesting a sizable payment in lieu of that, which is
being negotiated with the City.
Gooding notes they are also applying for a special permit from the Planning Board for having a
reduced parking ratio. She describes a 0.75 ratio is required and they are asking to reduce it to
0.46, noting that the bulk of visiting happens on the weekends when it's after hours at the office
park and more parking is available. She notes they feel they can adequately support the parking
use.
Thomson notes there are parking spots on the roads there that could be available for excess
parking, noting that they will have to account for staff parking and visitor parking, but the
residents won't require that much. He asks for clarification that all of the parking for the
residents is underneath the building. Gooding indicates that 52 spaces are located inside the
garage. Gooding calls out additional parking to support the commercial use (14 spaces plus
another 12), which is an arrangement with Cummings Properties.
Hutchinson says she has concerns about the parking, saying that the applicant hasn't taken into
account the many visiting health workers coming in and out. Parking will be a major issue, she
says, with 26 used by staff, 20 for residents plus an additional six. The 52 brings you to 40
percent less for the residents.
Jerry Pucillo speaks to the parking ratio, saying the amount is higher than what is typical. His
experience with family visitors is that they come after work, at the end of day and on weekends.
That's when the staff goes home.
Page 11 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Gooding notes that typically 15% of residents need parking. Pucillo notes that those in the
memory care units don't drive. Gooding explains they are assuming 20% of the 90 units have
cars, so that's 18 spaces for residents, 26 for staff at maximum staff time, leaving 10 swing
spaces. If you push that to 25 %, you are left with 5 swing spaces.
Mack asks what the number of anticipated full -time staff will be. Gooding answers that the
maximum staff at any one time is 26. The shift is from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Pucillo agrees it includes
maintenance staff, dining, services, etc. Mack echoes Hutchinson's concern and says he would
encourage a prearranged agreement for parking for the future. Gooding notes that the Building
Inspector had suggested that they identify reserve parking areas. She indicates they can provide
that and Cummings is open to a discussion of giving them some parking, according to Pucillo.
Wynne notes that any shared parking arrangement would require an agreement be shared with
the City.
Gooding noted that the Design Review Board approved the design unanimously. Though the
Board did not have the benefit of reviewing the commercial component. Thomson says he
believes the Board can review the building design, but that they should be more concerned with
the stormwater management and the traffic. Wynne notes that the City Engineer has not yet
submitted review comments. Thomson indicates the Board cannot act without those comments.
Matz says he'd like to see a traffic study that contemplates all the people coming and going on
the site and takes into account the proximity of the North Shore Music Theater, which will have
shows at the same time that people are coming and going to see clients. Gooding notes the traffic
study was submitted with Board materials. Gooding says the traffic generated is low compared to
other uses that could go on that site as- of- right, suggesting it is less than 1/3 of the traffic
generated at peak times. She notes that the study incorporates the other developments in the
vicinity. She notes that Parking and Traffic Commission has provided a clean recommendation
acknowledging this finding.
Matz asks about the potential impacts to resources areas, noting the Conservation Restriction that
was obtained for this area. He asks why a corner of the building appears to cross a resource area.
Andy Truman explains that it does cross the no disturb zone, which was a negotiated agreement;
noting this one piece was unavoidable. The subject is being reviewed by the Conservation
Commission and he expects they will resolve any concern. Pucillo notes the building is
irregularly shaped because it was designed to fit within the no disturb zones, and the team has a
big commitment to sustainability and health and wellness. He notes they hope to incorporate the
vernal pool in their path system for benefit of the residents. These resources attracted them to the
site.
Mack asks if there will be a shuttle bus and if it would park on site. Pucillo said it was the
intention that there will be some means of transportation and that there will be a designated van
space in the garage. Mack notes this means parking is reduced to 51 spaces. Thomson suggest
the discussed expansion ability should address concerns about parking.
Page 12 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
Miller asks how many other facilities does Vitality own and operate. Pucillo answers that
Vitality is a new corporation and they are building three in Chicago and purchasing one in Texas.
This would be their first project in Massachusetts. He adds that the principals each have 20 plus
years of experience in the assisted living industry and the company is backed by the West
Companies, out of California. He notes this is the beginning of a new brand.
C. Barrett says that her main concerns are traffic, access, and congestion. She adds her primary
concern is that there's only one way in and one way out, noting the other users mentioned before
and multiple buildings are on the parcel. She questions what the traffic condition would be like
on a Saturday, when the NSMT has shows and North Shore Crossing is operational. She said she
would be interested in hearing from Mr. Emery of Jacobs Engineering Group. Gooding reiterates
that these uses have been included and that the study shows no negligible change in any of these
intersections. She respects that the Board has concerns about this, but notes that this use is not
causing the impact. She offers to have Mr. Emery at the next meeting if the Board desires.
Thomson suggests that C. Barrett put the questions she has to the applicant.
Mack: Motion to continue the Public Hearing until the December 20, 2016 meeting.
Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (9 -0).
Mack: Motion to reconvene the regular meeting. Flannery seconds the motion. The
motion passes (9 -0).
The Board takes a 2 minute recess.
Preliminary Subdivision Plan — Trask Lane — Creation of Cul -De -Sac and 1 Lot — Folly Hill
Associates Trust.
Attorney Mark Glovsky, who represents Folly Hill Associates Trust discusses the creation of a
cul -de -sac on Trask Lane with a subdivision plan that relates to approximately 76 acres. He notes
that at the Board's last meeting it agreed to extend the deadline for making a decision to
December 20, 2016. The plan is simple in its objectives, he says, and is in anticipation of further
development on the parcel. He introduces Peter Ogren, Hayes Engineering.
Ogren explains that he didn't think the purpose of the plan was clearly understood. He notes they
are looking to not extend ways, but to extinguish existing ways that were approved under prior
Board approvals, and shows them on the plan. He notes the means to do this is through the
subdivision process.
He notes that apartment houses are anticipated, of 3 or 4 stories and that these roadways are no
longer necessary. The Preliminary Plan is a precursor to the Definitive Plan. He notes that the
only construction will be the new cul -de -sac on the existing way, as shown. He suggests he can
meet independently with the City Engineer and Planning Department to review the plan.
Thomson indicates it's difficult to provide comments on such a plan and asks where the
buildings are and new lots being created. Ogren says they are not creating any lots. He notes that
Page 13 of 14
Beverly Planning Board Minutes
November 15, 2016
RSD zoning does not rely on the creation of individual lots. Glovsky confirms the purpose of the
plan is for the reconfiguration of ways.
Mack confirms that they do not have to take any action on the plan and inquires what type of
feedback they want from the Board. Wynne confirms that should any Board members have
comments, this would be an opportunity.
Wynne notes that there was no narrative with the plan, which could have made the application
more clear. Glovsky indicates the plan would not require waivers.
Thomson asks about the various ways shown and if the applicant has the rights to abandon ways
by taking them off the plan. Ogren responds they were laid out by Planning Board approval and
never constructed. He says that is why this procedure is required to eliminate the way. He notes
the City of Beverly makes use of the way. Thomson suggests The Board doesn't have to act on it
until the next meeting of December 20, 2016.
Ogren indicates the Preliminary Plan is binding on neither the Board nor the applicant. Glovsky
indicates he would like to file a Definitive Plan that is responsive to the Board's concerns.
Thomson asks for any Board comments. Ogren notes that the Plan is complete and wetlands
were flagged a few years ago. He explains there will be no buildings shown, but he points out
building areas. The building plan will be done through a Site Plan Review.
Seeing no relevant issues, Thomson suggests taking no action. Mack suggests that Definitive
Plan include a significant narrative to clearly describe what's going on, for the purposes of
informing the public.
Mack: Motion to take no action. Miller seconds the motion. The motion passes (9 -0).
New Business
Wynne has an announcement that the City has received a grant to do a Coastal Resiliency Plan.
She notes there will be 3 workshops from now until June and that James Matz has agreed to
serve on the project's Advisory Group. Wynne notes there is a significant educational component
regarding with climate change to the project.
Wynne notes that she distributed a proposed 2017 Calendar and asks for the Board's availability
during February vacation week. Hearing too many conflicts, the meeting will be scheduled the
week before.
Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 11 p.m. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The
Board votes to adjourn the meeting (9 -0).
Page 14 of 14