Loading...
1998-04-21 ~7//9/( / / ( / Z [ ./ i(.~ () (/']( Joanne Dunn Cha ,rpP,'son Ellen K. Flannery Rzchafd Dinkin ~ . "~ Salvatore Modugno Vice Chairman ~~~~~~ ,~, ,; Robert Rink With'am Delaney '2L,, ~ .~ Barry Sullivan Planning Director ' Y Peter M. Thomas Tina P. Cassidy ~' John Thomson Minutes Beverly Planning Board April 21, 1998 Meeting Chairperson Richard Dinkin Vice-Chairman Bill Members present: p , Delaney, Berry Sullivan, Salvetore Modugno, Ellen Flannery, and Peter Thomas; -~ Plannin~ Director Tina Cassidy, and o~so present: Susan Akerman, Secretary ~ the Board. Chairperson u~ ~,, ~Q ~ ~,,= meeting ~ order Qt 7: Del~ey: Motion to recess for -ublic hearings, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. P~lic HearinqS P~lic Hearing: Site pl~ review application ~37-98: construction of 3-level parking garage ~d mainten~ce building addition / Beverly Co~erce Park ( C]~mmings ~opg_r_~L~,_~%~.t)_/181 p~liott Street Bruce Oveson, Project Architect, addresses ~ ~ ~n~ explains a proposal ~ construct a 3-1evel parking garage and an addition to the existing maintenance building. Mr. Oveson states that a traffic study has been conducted by HTSD and that Richard Benevento and Art Scarneo ~ HTSD are present and wi~ ~ ~ explain the results of the traffic study later ~. this evening. Mr. Oveson states that Cu.~minGs Properties is seeki.~ ~~i from t~he ~ for a level pS"~'~,~ vc~G~ ~ 6XD~'4~ ~'~ ' ' ., ,: . ., . ,:,-,. , _ -~ ~ -', . " ..... ~-' Planning Board April 21, 1998 Meeting Page Two storage of building materials, that the on-site construction operation will be scaled back and that 30-40 people will be on the site at the end of the construction phase. He further explains that the "Y" will remain as the "Y", that they plan to tie in the fire alarm system for the addition with the "Y's", that the sewer lines are in place and will tie in, that all infrastructure is in place, and that the building will be 23' high. Mr. Oveson then explains the proposal for the parking garage, noting that they are asking for approval for one parking structure, that the parcel is zoned v~, that it will be a 35' three-story garage with 600 parking stalls, that it will be an open structure with concrete spindriles, that there will be no elevator, the exit will be stairs, that there will be an internal ramping system, and then goes over access into the property. Mr. Ovason explains that the parking lot traffic islands are all in and landscaped with trees, and states that they have purchased 500 additional junipers that will be going into these islands for this years phase for landscaping. Mr. Oveson explains that they added landscape strips in order to plant trees, and to date, 450 trees have been planted within these islands, and that they are adding trees to all the islands. Mr. Oveson states that they intend to buy 30 good size specimen trees to plant along the western property line, that discussion has been opened up to ~= neighborhood for their input as to where they would like to have these trees planted, and if additional trees are needed, more wi~ be bought as part of the package Mr. Oveson states that he wants the Planning Board to be aware that they are in the process of obtaining a Chapter 91 Waterways License for the garage structure. Mr. Ovason then reviews what benefits can be given to the City and notes that they have proposed that the waterfront access walkway be continued, that they replace/repair the access bridge by the dam, th-* they will re-re ~elkway/pathway heading up toward the schoo3~ end that there maybe ~-~ possibility of a continuation el! Y~e way around. in ~he iuYure. Mr. Oveson explains that one part of Cummings' submission is a traffic study, which was a concern that came up, and states that ~,,e proposed parking garage and maintenance facility don t have o~ impact on traffic, and that the maintenance building will have no residency, that it is designed for maintenance storage only. l,Cr. Oveson states that one of MEPA's conditions was that Cummings Properties work in conjunction with the City to prepare this traffic analysis, and explains that MEPA analysis requires that in Beverly Planning o^__~ April 21, 1998 Meeting Page Three this study the building be based on a 95% occupancy, and notes that their traffic report assumesl00% occupancy. Richard Benevento of HTSD addresses the Board and explains that HTSD is already under contract with the City for the Rt. 62 project, and that HTSD was asked to perform this study because they already have acquired a lot of the information that is required for a traffic study. Art Scarneo of HTSD addresses the Board with respect to the traffic analysis and highlights the issues regarding: concerns of City/Cummings Properties; local roads what ones are critical; and the 4 of the 5 intersections that were included in this study. Scarneo explains that the counts were performed in March of 1998, that they were adjusted to include , and notes that they took a look at the inventory, signal controls, and what goes on during morning and afternoon traffic. Scareneo discusses how a traffic analysis is conducted explaining that they first take existing and future conditions, factor in a 1% growth rate, then add in figures concerning new background growth (ie: new projects, schools, the Stop & Shop project); then take those background developments; trip generation rates for a business park; and existing facilities and come up with a fare assessment of the road. Art concluded that during peak hours 629 vehicle travel the area in the morning, and 668 vehicles travel the area in the evening. Scareneo then states that the next phase of the report concentrates on projections/theories; how to apply this information to the roadway network (coming from/going to), future build conditions, etc. Benevento explains that they used a 20 year projection, that they have signals proposed throughout the City, that all the signals are state of the art equipment or "smart equipment", and that they are traffic responsive systems that automatically adjust to traffic parterres. Bruce CvesoT~ s u that this traffic study was requested by %he City and 51EPA, and ~hat Cummings Properties has purposely stayed out of the study for a fair assessment and explains that an ~dditionsi three intersections (1. Bridge St., 2. Bridge St. at River St., 2. River S~. at Federal St.) were included in this study at the request of the City, but that this study was submitted under separate cover. Mr. Oveson concludes that. they will be using a pre-cast concrete system for the parking garage, that the same texture of the Beverly Planning Board April 21, 1998 M6cting building will be used and that landscaping is to be done on the first level of the building. Cassidy reads the following letters: - Letter from the Beverly Police Department dated 4/16/98. (On File) - Letter from the Parking & Traffic Commission dated 4/16/98. (On File) -Letter from Beverly Board of Health dated 4/10/98. (On File) - Letter from the Design Review Board dated 4/17/98. Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the Board. Delaney asks Oveson to address the size of the parking spaces. Oveson explains that the parking spaces are 10 x 18, and that handicapped spaces have not been incorporated in the structure itself, but that they already have handicapped spaces existing on the property, adjacent to the building. Delaney asks Oveson to address lighting. Oveson explains that they are proposing to instal~ 25' high poles down the center line square box fixtures, but notes that it has been recom~mended that a lower pole be used due to the glare factor (maybe a i0' pole) and place li ht with back ~r fixture ~+~ away from ~cKa- ct~e~+ g Delane~ asks if the~ plan to have an~ illuminated si~na~e. Mr. Oveson responds no, not in connection with the site plan. DelaneV asks for an explanation with respect to the scale of the ~+~rsections and ~ ~rade levels Scarneo reviews the delays of graol ~ ~ ~, traffic system. n~ eney asks ~ ~ any inf~m~+~ ~n was made aval R,,+ ~-~ ~ ~-.~ umcn~ ~"~i~ ~ based ~ ~r~ year ..... ~ ..... Modu~no asks ~ the +~ ;loor ~ the garage is ..... or closed Oveson states open. Beverly Planning Board April 21, 1998 Meeting ~age Five Modugno asks if one would see the roof tops of the cars. Oveson responds yes. Modugno notes that only two homes on McKay Street would be affected. Flannery asks if the west entrance will be permanently closed. Oveson states that a chain will go across the entrance to allow for City emergency access, but that it is shut and will be kept shut with respect to through traffic. Flannery asks with respect to the west element will two lanes be created £rom the new construction. Oveson explains that there will be two through lanes, but that there will be three west bound lanes taken through the intersection. Flannery asks when East Drive is finished will you be able to make a left hand turn or will East Drive be a right turn only. Oveson explains that the curb cut restricts left hand turns, that it will be a right turn only entrance. Scarneo states that he would like to limit it to a right in/right out. Thomas asks if a fire engine will have access to the third floor of the parking garage. Oveson states no, but explains that they will have dry stand pipes and intermediate hose cabinets for use by the Fire Department if necessary. Thomas asks with respect to noise/light conditions, how much of a barrier will there be to reduce sound. Oreson explains that the second floor will be a good part of the barrier and that car movement will barrier sound, that concrete spindrails will barrier some sound for the upper level. Oveson explains, are you going to hear noise, yes; will you hear everything, I don't think so. Thomas states that he doesn't feel comfortable having a chain going across the west entrance, that a gate would be a better idea, and suggests that they put up signs in the parking 9ar'age Skdteboarding" L~n~in c~ if t2~er~ are t.- b ..... spaces in ti~e aa~ace states yes, and that 150 spaceb are already existi~g on the surface ~nd will be covered by the garage. ~3.]]jq]j'j 3y)o~j_reb ii Ule ii]~]~i of use ~ tl~e pa~xmn~ c~ooe, j.~ Lena~[s, stores, etc., not for' leasing spaces. Oreson states thai there 'v~i].i be no ]edsi~9 Of space~. Dinkin asks if there are 2nd and/or 3rd shift tenants. Oreson responds yes. Beverly Planning Board April 21, 1998 Meetin9 Page Six Dinkin asks if anyone from the public wishes to speak. Naomi Cohen of 31 Colgate Road states that with respect to the traffic study there was no mention of how much traffic would be generated due to people leaving the facility for lunch, the possibility of the Commuter Rail system being extended to Newburyport, the potential extension of the Blue Line into Beverly, and questions how this might effect the traffic and timing of the signals. Ms. Cohen further adds that the number of service vehicles (Police/Fire) would increase the traffic generated in this area if the City decides to build a new station there and questions whether or not this was included in the study. Ms. Cohen then states that there should be more than one fire hydrant within the facility and questions if there is enough water pressure. Benevento explains that the traffic study focuses on peak hours, that at noon time some people stay at the facility, some go out, that the volume of traffic at noon time is not as much as during peak hours, and explains that the study concentrates on the most critical hours and worst case scenarios. Oveson explains that the installation of the "smart signal system" is an advantage, that the system can adapt for that noon rush. Benevento then addresses the possibility of the railroad systems being extended and explains that typically the railroad trains have the right of way, that they have taken the trains into consideration, and explains that the system is equipped with an "Opticom" system that allows emergency vehicle operators to "trip~' the lights as needed. Oveson explains that there are two other fire stations currently in Beverly, on the east side of the tracks, that there is emergency response on both sides, and that the emergency vehicles will find another way or wait for the train. Oveson next states that there are approximately 20 hydrants located a_,.ou,:~d ti-~ ~oui].~ty ~iti~ more tl'~a~ adequate ~atez- pressure, arid i~--, <~dj_l.t]o~: t].~e~-e are pumping stations withir~ the facility. w_tij. u~ open all the Lime. [-~i. Ovesor~ states no, the~'e security system, that the facility will run just like it but t/]~at tbev wj ] ' c~'eate a oat]-~,,,ay for pe~,estlalj a~-~ Ovesu~,~ respor~ds probably not. Art D~i?~ault of 4½ Laural Street and a me,t~3er of Beverly's Beverly Planning Board April 21, 1998 Meeting Page Seven parking spaces on the property and none in the parking garage and that in his opinion that is not adequate. Oveson explains that the handicapped parking spaces are located on the first level of the garage at the front door, that they are very accessible, and that they are not adverse to adding handicapped stalls in the parking garage, that they can put them in. Oveson invites Mr. Daignault to come down to the site, inspect it, and make suggestions. Delaney asks if there are any regulations with respect to the nun~er of handicapped parking spaces required. Oveson responds yes, dictated by the State Builing Code. Gardner Trask of 7 Galloupe Avenue asks if they will be storing vehicles with gasoline inside the maintenance building and if so will the building be maintained. Oveson responded yes, absolutely. Trask asks if the parking garage traffic study was based on 100% occupancy. Oveson states yes, and explains that they expect a 92% plus or minus occupancy range, that they had a difficult time identifying the current make-up of occupancy, so they fell back on MEPA guidelines. Trask asks if there is a need for an environmental impact study because they plan to increase the parking spaces by 1,000. Oveson explains that they dropped one garage totally, that they are only adding 450 spaces net to the site, that this number is less than one half of MEPA's parking requirement, so there is no requirement for an EIR, and states that a waiver was granted based on construction of this building. Trask questions night deliveries and asks if idling of trucks is prohibited in the parking lots while waiting for a loading dock. Oveson explains that there are three main loading docks, that two are covered and enclosed, that they don't face a public street, and that a fourth loading dock is on the table for construction if three are deemed inadequate. Renee Mary of 274 Bale Street asks if they notified MEPA that one of the garages was dropped. Oveson responds yes.. Iris. 1,:ary asks if uhe main garage is away from the residents. Oreson responds yes. Z,Cs. :,iauy asks if t)3ere is going to be a security person in the building. Oveson responds no. Ms. Mary asks what happens if the computer for the trafficsignal crashes. Benevento explains that the equipment is all state of the art, that the equipment is installed with alarms to alert the City ~c an~,~ ma]f~nctjcn~, Beverly Planning Board April 21, 1998 Meetin9 Page Eight Dinkin asks if there are any comments in support of this proposal. · Ms. Mary states that she is in favor of the project. Dinkin asks if there are any comments in opposition to this proposal. There were none. Dinkin declares this public hearing closed and recesses the Board for 10 minutes. Dinkin reconvenes the Board back to regular session. Discussion/decision: Site plan review application #37-98: construction of 3-1evel parking garage and maintenance building addition / Beverly Commerce Park (Cummings Properties, Inc.) / 181 EiiiotL Street Delaney states that he would prefer to table additional discussion of this matter so that members will have an opportunity to digest the t~affic study and to give mefi~ers a chance to do individual site visits in order to get a better feel for the project. Delaney: Motion to table this matter for discussion to the Board's next meeting scheduled May 19, 1998, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Fiannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SAh~'sl Hillcrest Road / William and Mary Brady Cassidy updates the members and explains that the plan creates a non-buildable parcel of land within the layout of a private way (Hillcrest Road). Attorne-y Elizabeth HcGlynn .-epresen[ing Lh~ Bzady~ ~dd._-esses uhe B~dld ~d ~zpldin~ thdL Lh~ B~ady~ us~ Lhis pa~c~i ~f land, that iL wds never used as part of a private way/ thaL L}~e p]d;i ~:SS ;ecwzded in i~26, dad hj~dt khe B~'~dys d~ cui~t~nding Lh~y ow~ it by adverse pussession. ~"""'~iy ~,~ x law the Bradvs ...... -. ~e/'15~,,'s Attorr-:ey ~,~ nn states ~-.~ b~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ' buuo~ Z'~L) d~u. Ln~{_ th~y pldn Lu fi].~ d Gumplaint in tl~e Land Court fo~ the re.naining i/15t~h portion -' the parcel uz because the Hofln{d!i~ ai ~ ~ ~e~ ~ .... ~ ~-heir ~ ' ~el. Snip ~u~ ivan states that he ';o~Id feel more comfortable with a separate designation on the Plan (Parcel A/Parcel B) definiag the undisputed ]cn.d from the area jn dispute. Beverly Planning Board April 21, 1998 Meeting Page Nine Dinkin places the matter on the table until the call of the chair. Delaney: Motion to set a special meeting for Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Dinkin removes the matter from the table. Delaney: Motion to continue this matter to the Board's special meting scheduled for April 28, 1998, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Attorney McGlynn grants the Board a written continuance up through April 30. Delaney: Motion to accept the extension of time for Board action, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Cherry Hill Drive / Eaton Corporation Cassidy updates the members explaining that Eaton Corporation recently acquired two lots of land on Cherry Hill Drive, one lot was vacant, the other lot housed the former Fisons building, and that Eaton Corporation is seeking to eliminate the property line of record between the two lots so that they can construct an addition to the former Fisons building. Delaney: Motion to endorse the plan of land for Cherry Hill Drive as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Thomas. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries 6-0. Branch Lane ANR Cassidy updates the members and explains that this lot was divided into two to create another buildable lot, that this filing occurreO in the early 90's, and that a notation was attached indicating that the road was deemed adequate for only one house lot. Cassidy reads the notation which is contained in a letter from Planning Board to Buiidin9 Inspector. (On File Attorney Jack Keilty representing the owner explains that the applicant is seeking to build a house for his sister on the second lot, that the road as since been asphalted to ]_8' wide. Beverly Planning Board April 21, 1998 Meeting Page Ten Dinkin asks if they will create lots on the other side. Attorney Keilty responds no. Attorney Keilty states that he would like to withdraw this plan from consideration by the Planning Board without prejudice at this time. Delaney: Motion to allow the requested withdrawal, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries 6-0. Maplewood Subdivision: Request to replace Tri-Partite Agreement with passbook / Symes Associates Cassidy explains to the members that Symes Associates is seeking to replace the Tri-Partite Agreement with a passbook in the amount of $4,480.00; no changes in the amount of surety will take place. Sullivan: Motion to accept passbook (in the amount of $4,480.00 as a replacement of the Tri-Partite Agreement (in the amount of $4,480.00), seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries 6-0. Sunday Drive Subdivision: Expiration of construction completion date / David Carnevale and Gary Palardy Cassidy updates the members and explains that the construction completion date expires at the end of April, and that the developer is seeking an extension of the completion date to June 30, 1998. Delaney: Motion to extend the construction completion date for Sunday Drive Subdivision to June 30, 1998, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries The Planters Subdivision: Expiration of Tri-Partite Agreement and Cassidy updates the members and explains that both the Tri-Partite Agreement and the construction completion date are set to expjre on Apr'i1 30, ~998, and that she has not yet received an extension from tBe bank. Attorney Jack Keilty addresses the Board and states that he did jUSt receive the extension from the bank and explains that what is left to do is the as-builts, the fire alarm call boxes (which are due to be installed on Thursday), planting guarantee and the tot Beverly Planning Board April 21, 1998 Meeting Page Eleven lot. Attorney Keilty explains that the material for the tot lot has been picked out, but not ordered. Sullivan asks when the tot lot will be completed. Attorney Keilty states that the tot lot will be finished by the summer months. Delaney states that a lot of input has been generated from the people who live there, that they would like the tot lot finished immediately. Cassidy states that the Board might want to grant a shorter time extension with respect to the fire alarm call boxes and the tot lot and asks if the performance bond should be amended to add a note with respect to all other terms and conditions of the original agreement remaining in full force and effect. Dinkin asks Attorney Keilty to forward an amended extension to the Board in time for next Tuesday's meeting. Dinkin lays this matter on the table until the Board's special meeting scheduled for April 28, 1998. Brimhal Hill Drive Extension: Request for extension of construction completion date / K & L Realty Trust Cassidy explains that she has received a letter.of request from the developer seeking a 6-month extension of time for the construction completion date in order to solve their legal situation. Delaney asks if there is any indication from the City Solicitor that this might be resolved. Cassidy states that Marshall Handly says there is a good potential for this matter to be resolved. Delaney asks if this is a reasonable request. Cassidy states yes. Delaney: Motion to extend the construction completion date on the Brimbal Hill Drive Extension for a period of six months to 10/28/98, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, Thomas opposed. Motion carries 5-i. Cassidy states that a Chapter 91 Waterways License application for 2 Margin Street is on file with the Planning Board as required, and that it is available for Members to review. Beverly Planning Board April 21, 1998 Meeting Page Twelve Approval of Minutes: March 17, 1998 meetinq Delaney: Motion to approve the minutes of the Board's March 17, 1998 meeting as drafted, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Adjournment Delaney: Motion to adjourn meeting, seconded by Thomas. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomas, Sullivan, Modugno, and Flannery in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.