Loading...
1998-01-22Chairperson ~~ ~~/)~ Joanne Dunn Richard Dinkin ~<~,~ Ellen K. Flannery Vice Chairman Salvatore Modugno William Delaney D. Stephen Papa Planning Director Barry Sullivan Tina P. Cassidy John Thomson Minutes Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1998 Meeting Members present: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill Delaney, Barry Sullivan, John Thomson, Salvatore Modugno and Joanne Dunn; also present: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Director of Engineering Frank Killilea, Jr, and Susan Akerman, Secretary to the Board. Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearings, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. · Public Hearing: Site Plan Review application #36-97: addition to existing office building at 55 - 75 Cherry Hill Drive / Eaton Corporation Cassidy reads legal notice. Chuck Papalardo, Facilities Manager representing Eaton Corporation addresses the Board and explains a proposal to construct an addition to the existing facility at 55 - 75 Cherry Hill Drive as well as an expansion of the parking areas on site. Mr. Papalardo explains that the new building is being designed as a customer demonstration facility for semi-conductor equipment and for office space. Artis Cooper addresses the Board and reviews a composite photo of the existing building and explains that the applicant is proposing to construct the addition with the same material as that of the existing facility (ie: same tinted glass, same height, continuance of the same architectural design). Cassidy reads the following letters: -Letter from the Beverly Police Department dated 12/8/97. (On File) - Letter from the Beverly Board of Health dated 12/16/97. (On File) Ci~ Hall 191 CabotStreet Beverl~ Massachusetts01915 (978) 921-6000 Pax(978) 922-0285 Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Two - Letter from the Beverly Parking & Traffic Commission dated 1/21/98. (On File) - Letter from the Beverly Design & Review Board dated 1/22/98. (On File) - Letter from the Beverly Conservation Commission dated 1/21/98. (On File) - Letter from the Engineering Department dated 1/22/98. (On File) Bill Delaney joins the meeting at this time. Chairperson Dinkin asks if any of the Board members have questions. Sullivan asks if the Design & Review Board's letter in regards to mounding, is in response to an abutters' request. Cassidy responds no. Artis Cooper states that the applicant felt that a mound affect would be an improvement to the site and serve as an effective parking lot buffer. Thomson states that the plans do not incorporate the changes made yet. Cassidy responds right. Thomson questions the hydrogen gas tanks referred to on the other lot. Cassidy explains that the tanks will actually be located at the rear of the building; the existing tanks on the southerly property line belong to the abutters. Thomson asks for a review of the drainage/surface drainage scheme. Charles Wear, Engineer from Meridian Engineering Inc., addresses the Board and explains that the existing drain line and the existing drain system are equipped with catch basins, and that there are two locations where the system ties in; the first being the parking lot at Cherry Hill Drive, the second will be from the roof of the new proposed building. Mr. Wear explains that they investigated the impervious ground cover, and that the calculations consider these impervious surfaces and states that they made sure that the pipes would have the capacity needed to handle the additional flow. Dinkin asks if anyone from the public wishes to speak. Dinkin asks if there are any comments in opposition to the plan. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are any comment in support of the proposal. There are none. Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Three Dinkin declares the public hearing closed. Dinkin calls the Planning Board to regular session. Discussion/decision: Site Plan Review application #36-97: Addition to existing office building at 55 - 75 Cherry Hill Drive / Eaton Corporation. Thomson asks if the plan complies with the Board's Rules and Regulations. Cassidy states yes. Thomson: Motion to grant site plan review application #36-97 for 55-75 Cherry Hill Drive / Eaton Corporation, with the condition that the recommendations from the Design & Review Board and the Parking & Traffic Commission be incorporated into the site plan, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Delaney abstains from the vote. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) a. 13 Rowell Avenue/Occipinti Cassidy updates the members and explains that the plan shows the creation of a small non-buildable lot that would be transferred from the Occipinti's to the owners of #2 Longfellow Street. Cassidy states that this plan conforms with all zoning regulations. Delaney: Motion to endorse the plan of land for 13 Rowell Avenue as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Modugno. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. b. 'Prince Street/David Camevale, Prince St. Realty Trust David Peterson, Attorney representing Prince Trust addresses the Board and explains that after prior approval of an ANR, one abutter appealed. Attorney Peterson states that the land is partially registered. 'Thomson questions the hammerhead/T-shaped lot. Attorney Peterson explains that a portion of the lot has been partially conveyed to the abutters, but that the lower half of the lot is stilled owned by Prince Street Realty Trust and is to be conveyed to the abutters. Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Four Thomson states that his only concern is that (a) the plan doesn't clearly show the lines for determining the boundaries of Lot #13, that the plan needs better-defined lines and (b) the areas of the lots within private easements be added to the plan. Dinkin states that the prior easement doesn't affect the status of the line. Attorney Peterson states that he would like to request that the Board allow Prince Trust to submit a corrected plan, within three days, showing common ownership and identification of the driveway easement. Thomson: Motion that the Board endorse the plan of land for Prince Street provided a plan revised to incorporate the two corrections noted above is submitted within three days, seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Discussion/decision: Loeb/Mullen Estate Preliminary Subdivision Plan / Toll Brothers ~nd J~mes Mullen Thomson recused himself from discussion of this matter. Cassidy updated the members. Kyle Corkum of Toll Brothers addresses the Board and states that Peter Ogren has been detained at another meeting. Dinkin states that this matter will be laid on the table until the call of the Chair. Sunday Drive Subdivision: Request for reduction of performance bond / Gary Palardy and David Camevale Thomson-rejoins the meeting at this time. Cassidy updates the members and explains that the applicants have requested a reduction of the performance bond from $104,075.00 to $17,587.00. Cassidy reads a letter from Frank Killilea dated 1/22/98. (On File) Delaney: Motion to reduce the amount of the performance bond held for the Sunday Drive Subdivision from $104,075.00 to $17,587.00, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, MQdugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Five The Planters Subdivision: Request for reduction of performance bond / O.H.C. Realty Trust Cassidy updated the members and explains that the applicant has requested a reduction of the performance bond from $322,300.00 to $100,000.00. Cassidy reads a letter from the Engineering Department dated 1/22/98. (On File) Thomson asks what is left to be done. Cassidy states that landscaping of the tot lot, two fire alarm call boxes, as-built plans, street acceptance plan, a guardrail and grass plot and a tree planting guarantee still need to be completed. Thomson asks when the construction completion date is. Cassidy states April 30, 1998. Delaney expresses concern that the call boxes have not yet been installed, despite the developers' promise to do so by 12/31/97. Thomson: Motion to reduce the amount of the performance bond on The Planters Subdivision from $322,300.00 to $100,000.00, and that the Planning Director ask the applicants to attend the Board's next meeting to explain why the call boxes are not installed yet, seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Birch Woods Subdivision: Update on modification of approved design of sewer system / David Walsh Cassidy updates the members and explains that the developer has been asked to submit additional plans, as the result of a request by Frank Killilea, that the sewer line profile be shown on a plan for review. Cassidy reads a letter from Frank Killilea dated 1/22/98. (On File). Cassidy suggests that she meet with the property owners affected to explain the profile plan to them before the Board formally votes Thomson: Motion that this matter be tabled to the Board's next meeting, seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Six Approval of Minutes: November 18, 1997 regular meeting, December 9, 1997 regular meetinq, December 11, 1997 special meetinq Delaney: Motion to approve the minutes of the Board's November 18, 1997 regular meeting, the Board's December 9, 1997 regular meeting and the Board's December 11, 1997 special meeting as drafted, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Chairperson Dinkin calls for a two minutes recess. Chairperson Dinkin states that the Planning Board is back in session. New or Other Business a. Determination of adequacy of parking for car wash establishment / Attorney Thomas Alexander Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board on behalf of property owner Jeff Bunk and reviews the site plan for the establishment of a car wash. Attorney Alexander explains that the site location had a dilapidated wharf on it, and that Mr. Bunk received permission to tear down the wharf and build rip rap. Attorney Alexander states that a use variance to allow for a car wash on this site has been requested from the Board of Appeals and explains that in the proposal an existing building housing "Wayne's World", an automotive repair shop, will need to be torn down and a slightly larger building will be built in its place along with the car wash and several auto body and auto repair businesses. Attorney Alexander explains that Wayne's World will be relocated on the site. Attorney Alexander reviews the flow of traffic for the car wash and explains that the car wash would be 360 linear feet long with a stacking area large enough for 25 cars that are waiting to be washed. Attorney Alexander explains that there is no parking requirements in the City zoning ordinance for a car wash facility. Attorney Alexander explains that only two spaces would be needed for employee parking, and that the car repair use would be required to park all cars in the car repair use building area, and that the remaining 20 spaces would be designated for the car repair use. Attorney Alexander states that he has met with Building Inspector Tim Brennan who suggested that the applicant seek the Planning Board's recommendation regarding the number of off-street parking Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Seven spaces that should be required for the car wash establishment and the car repair use. Modugno asks where the water from the car wash would go. Attorney Alexander explains that the water will be collected, treated and recycled. Delaney asks what the status of the variance application is. Attorney Alexander explains that they are on the Board of Appeal's agenda for Tuesday, January 27, 1998 meeting, and hope to get a determination for the parking spaces in time for that meeting. Sullivan asks for a clarification on who spaces 1-6 are available for. Attorney Alexander explains that those spaces are devoted to general parking, patrons of the car repair shop or employees. Sullivan questions the parking spaces inside the repair bay. Attorney Alexander explains that those spaces will be used for either the cars in the repair shop or for employee parking, if necessary. Sullivan asks what the total number of employees on the site will be. Attorney Alexander states 6 employees or less will be on site at any one time. Delaney asks if the parking spaces next to the vacuum area are general spaces. Attorney Alexander explains that those spaces could also be used when the car wash and the car repair shop are at their busiest times, nights and weekends. Dinkin states that all off-street parking lots on that street is privately owned, but many allow the public to park in them. Dinkin asks if there will be products for sale. Attorney Alexander states that there might be car fresheners/car knickknacks, but that there will be no separate store. Dinkin asks if there will be floor space dedicated to a retail store. Attorney Alexander explains that the items for sale will be hanging along the walls. Modugno states that it would only be a little area. Thomson questions the fact that there will be no need for customer parking. Attorney Alexander responds right. Dinkin asks what type of product delivery will there be. Attorney Alexander states soap. Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Eight Dinkin asks if a space will be needed for a delivery truck on the site. Mr. Bunk explains that the delivery truck can park perpendicular. Dinkin asks if the terms of the lease for the repair shop will state that vehicles waiting for repair will be stored inside the shop. Attorney Alexander responds yes. Delaney states that the plan seems adequate and that he is prepared to move on this matter tonight. Thomson states that there is a short area coming out of the end of the car wash and questions what will happen if there is a back up in the street. Attorney Alexander explains that there is pull system that will stop the cars before they get to the street. Thomson: Motion that the Board recommends that 22 spaces is adequate for the car wash establishment as proposed on the variance plan, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. b. Receipt of waterways amnesty license / 58-60 South Terrace / Sally Arsenault Cassidy states that a Chapter 91 license for 58-60 South Terrace is on file with the Planning Board as required, and that it is available for Members to review. c. Resignation of Steve Papa from Planning Board Cassidystates that Steve Papa has asked the Mayor not to reappoint him to another term, but that he will be willing to serve until the Mayor finds a replacement for him. d. Sunday Drive subdivision / no-cut zone violations Cassidy states that there is two parts to this matter, the first being a letter request dated 1/10/98 from David Carnevale and Gary Palardy, (On File), that asks for permission to remove two trees within the established no cut zone on one of the lots that appear to be dead and/or dying and that the applicants will replace these trees with four 4½" caliper white pines. Sullivan asks if the City's arborist has reviewed the site. Cassidy explains that he was not able to do so before tonight's meeting. Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Nine Thomson: Motion to lay this matter on the table until the Board's next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 17, 1998, seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion passes. Cassidy explains that the second part to this matter pertains to several complaints received due to the fact that the property owners have extensively cut trees in the "no-cut" zone. Cassidy explains that she did a site visit and that approximately 25-30 feet of trees have been cut within the buffer zone. Cassidy states that she would like permission from the Board to write a letter to the property owners, inviting them to the next Board meeting to guide them and recommend some alternatives. Cassidy further states that she would recommend to the property owners that when they do come in for the Board's meeting that they have a proposal to show the Board members regarding replanting. Thomson: Motion to grant permission for the Planning Director to communicate with the property owners with some recommendations, and to invite them to the Board's next meeting, seconded by Delaney. Dinkin, Delaney, Thomson, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion passes. Discussion/decision: Loeb/Mullen Estate Preliminary Subdivision Plan / Toll Brothers and James Mullen Thomson recuses himself from discussion of this matter. Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board on behalf of Toll Brothers and states that the revised plan show a 58 conventional lot subdivision. Attorney Alexander states that two waivers are being requested, the first being a grade waiver, from the standard 6% to a 9%, which Alexander states is not unusual, because a 9% grade allows the applicant to work with the land better than with the 6%; the second being a roadway width waiver, with respect to the cul-de-sac, the applicant is seeking a 24' width of pavement; a 50' layout will still be provided. Attorney Alexander further states that the applicant will also be looking for some reverse curve waivers. Attorney Alexander explains that a draft fiscal impact of this design has been done, but that some figures/assumptions need correcting before it is ready for a public presentation. Attorney Alexander states that a traffic impact study has been done and introduces David Veigh to further explain this study. Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Ten David Veigh addresses the Board and explains that he drafted a study assuming 60 single family units and the routes these individuals would take to and from the development. Mr. DeBay states that in November he did traffic counts/24 hour counts during mornings and evenings to identify the number of trips that this 60 unit subdivision will generate. Mr. Veigh reviews these figures. Dinkin asks about income demographic factors. Mr. Veigh explains criteria and states that all trips were done assuming only a Hale Street entrance. Delaney asks if a written report was submitted to the Planning Board for review. Mr. Veigh explains that the report was just recently completed and submitted to Toll Brothers; the Planning Board has not yet received it. Delaney states that he would like to review the report before voting. Delaney states that he is surprised by the amount of additional traffic volume predicted for Common Lane, and that he felt some individuals might take an alternative route. Mr. Veigh states that he did some travel time studies as well, and that there was not a great difference in which route was taken, so he relied on the lesser travel time. Dinkin asks for the number of morning peak hour trips. Mr. Veigh responds 38 trips leaving the site per hour. Dinkin asks Mr. Veigh how he came up with that assumption. Mr. Veigh explains that that number is a standard reference that is recognized in the Transportation Standard Provider Manual. Dinkin asks what the Code 210 means. Mr. Veigh explains that it is a home typically in a suburban area, single family, not a clustered unit, not a condo, but detached. Delaney asks for a highlight of the major changes on this plan from the last plan. Kyle Corkum explains that there are two changes: the first by Hale Street, it is now considered a waiverless road, that they will be utilizing the existing driveway; the second change is that they pulled the subdivision back and graded an area where there will be no residential roads, it will be considered open land; this parcel abuts the Rezza Road area. Delaney asks if the roadway configuration is similar. Mr. Corkum states that it is. Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Eleven Delaney recalls that the initial preliminary plan reflected a concept for a cluster, and asks what the developers' rationale for abandoning that idea is. Attorney Alexander explains that there was a fair amount of feed-back that the neighborhood was not happy with that concept, and that the market is oriented to larger lots. Attorney Alexander further explains that they did a marketing research on another cluster development nearby, and found that the cluster subdivision did not go as well as the developers anticipated. Dinkin states that the plan shows several lots that narrow rapidly and asks if those lots meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Corkum states that they are workable if they do not, and can easily be reconfigured if necessary. Dinkin asks Mr. Corkum if it is their intent to file this similar plan as their preliminary plan. Mr. Corkum states that they introduced this concept as an alternative, that they are seeking feed-back on this plan, and if favorable, will advance with this being their preliminary plan. Cassidy states that if the applicant wants to keep the process going and advance to the next level, that the applicant should refine their plan to include all preliminary plan requirements, so that the public can review the plan with this information, and Cassidy further states that if the applicant does intend to go this way, then the applicant will need to submit a plan within the next 7-10 days so that it can be redistributed to the various City departments. Cassidy asks Mr. Corkum if this is a realistic time table. Mr. Corkum responds yes, and states that they will advance a plan, revised and edited within 7-10 days. Cassidy asks if they are going to withdraw their previous plan. Attorney Alexander states that they would like both plans on the table, that they are not looking to withdraw, that they would like the Planning Board to review both plans simultaneously. Delaney asks Mr. Corkum to discuss the second access point on Greenwood Avenue further, to explain what they intend to do and explain the recommendations of the Fire Department. Mr. Corkum explains that they need to provide a second means of access into the subdivision, that the City is not comfortable regarding the emergency access, that it needs to look like a City street to meet the Fire Department's requirements. Dinkin states that he does not support the idea of posting a sign "for emergency vehicles only", that a road posted "for emergency only" does in fact invite other uses, and that this road would be used for homes in close proximity. Posting such a sign only invites disrespect for traffic laws in general. Beverly Planning Board January 22, 1997 Meeting Page Twelve Delaney asks if the Board did approve a barrier device, would there be a need for other approvals/issues. Attorney Alexander explains that the Fire Department dislikes barriers of any sort. Delaney clarifies that the plan shows the road will be paved 24' wide and will be open, with signage. Mr. Corkumstates yes, unless the Board prefers a barrier, then we'd pursue that idea. Delaney asks if they plan to preserve some foliage. Mr. Corkum states that they would like to keep as many trees as possible, utilize as much foliage and try to enhance the property more than it is right now. Delaney asks since the subdivision has been pulled back to some degree, does this in any way affect drainage? Mr. Corkum explains, and says that the subdivision cannot contribute any additional water to these watersheds without improvements. Delaney asks for a review of the drainage scheme and where the bulk of water will be going. Mr. Corkum describes the water flow, noting that the water will have four different routes to take, that with 58 units and narrower roads, there will be less water that will leave the site. Dinkin lays this matter on the table subject the call of the chair. Dinkin asks what the Board would like as an alternative date for the Board's next meeting. Sullivan: Motion to schedule the Planning Board's next meeting for Monday, February 23, 1998, seconded by Modugno. Dinkin, Delaney, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion passes. Dinkin states that discussion/decision of the Loeb/Mullen Subdivision is off the table. Attorney Alexander submits a request for an extension of time for preliminary plan approval to February 28, 1998. Delaney: Motion to accept applicants request for an extension of time, seconded by Modugno. Dinkin, Delaney, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion passes. Adjournment Delaney: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Sullivan. Dinkin, Delaney, Sullivan, Modugno and Dunn in favor, no one opposed. Motion passes. Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.