Loading...
1999-11-16CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: DATE: PLACE: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: RECORDER: Planning Board November 16, 1999 Beverly City Hall Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill Delaney, Robert Rink, Peter Thomas, Ellen Flannery, Joanne Dunn, John Thomson City Engineer Frank Killilea, City Planner Tina Cassidy Tina Cassidy Chairman Richard Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Thomson: motion to recess for public hearings and reconvene, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review application #52-99: proposed Dunkin Donuts establishment at 110-114 Eiliott Street Cassidy reads the legal notice. Attorney Mark Glovsky, representing the owner, Dinart Serpa, explains to the Board that site plan review for development of the property at 112- 114 Elliott Street had been granted by the Planning Board in June of this year. The owner has since purchased the property next door at 110 Elliott Street, and hopes to incorporate the land into the site plan for a new Dunkin Donuts. The site plan which is the subject of this public hearing reflects the development of the newly-acquired lot. Changes to the site plan resulting from this acquisition include a larger building,. additional parking and landscaping on the site, additional queuing capacity on the site :for' the drive-through window operation, and more distance between the Elliott Street curb cuts. Dinkin asks Cassidy to read letters received from the various City departments, including the Fire Department (letter dated 11/9/99), the Design Review Board (letter dated 11/9/99), the Conservation Commission (letter dated 11/4/99), the Police Department (letter dated 11/4/99), the Engineering Department (letter dated 11/16/99), the Board of Health (letter dated 10/10/99), and the Parking and Traffic Commission (letter dated 11/9/99). Planning Board minutes November 17, 1999 meeting Page two Dinkin ash the members if they have any questions. Delaney asks Glovsky if the changes recommended by the Design Review Board have been incorporated into the current site plan now before the Board. Glovsky says they have been. Thomson asks if the details of the proposed lighting on the site are the same as the earlier site plan. Glovsky answers that the lighting details are in fact the same. Flannery asks Serpa what the hours of operation of this establishment will be. Serpa answers that although he has not made a final decision on that issue, he expects the store wouldn't open before 5:00 a.m. and would be open until 10:00 p.m. Dinkin asks if there is a possibility that the store might be open later than 10:00 p.m., and Serpa states he is not sure at this time. Dinkin asks if there are any members of the public who wish to speak on the application or ask questions. Abraham Cohen, 115 Elliott Street, states that he is representing his entire family in their opposition to this project. He lives on Elliott Street across the street tirom this site and he has seen incredible increases in traffic on Elllott Street over the years because of the Cummings Center and Stop & Shop developments, and the industrial activities in his hackyard. He urges the Board not to allow this additional commemial activity. Dinkin asks if there are any other comments from members of the public. Hearing none, he closes the public hearing. 2. Meeting Place Circle Definitive subdivision plan Dinkin asks Cassidy to read the legal notice published last month for this development; Cassidy reads the notice. Dinkin asks Cassidy to update the Board. She states that this hearing was opened at the October meeting and cominued to tonight so the Board could conduct a site visit to the property on November 6th. Since the October meeting, the City' s Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions for this proposed project. The developer has not yet filed an application with the Commission to resolve the question of whether there is actual access to lot #8 over its frontage on Essex. Street. Thomas Neve, project engineer, addresses the Board and presents a plan that was requested at the last Planning Board meeting. The plan shows a proposed roadway layout that the developer hopes not to build. The road shown on the plan would eliminate the need for the developer to request a waiver of the Board's maximum dead-end roadway length regulation, and is presented only to show the members that it would be possible to develop this site without the dead-end waiver. This alternative plan would be more disruptive to the environmental and result in a less-than-desirable layout for the development he states. Dinkin asks Neve to explain his position on the issue of access for lot #8. Neve states that he would prefer not to file an application with the Conservation Commission for a Planning Board minutes November 16, 1999 meeting Page three fictional driveway for lot #8. He states that a filing would cost the property owner additional money to permit a driveway he never intends to build. Neve adds that he is reluctant to burden the Conservation Commission with an unnecessary filing if there is another way to address the Planning Board's concern. To that end the developer has hired an environmental consulting firm to render an opinion on the possibility of receiving approval for a driveway near the pond. Cassidy reads the letter from the Gulf of Maine Research Center, Inc. dated 11/9/99. Cassidy states that with respect to the issue of the driveway and the recent Conservation Commission approval, Neve should explain to the members that the developer has appealed the Conservation Commission' s Order of Conditions. Neve states that his client objected to the wording of a condition that required a 20' no-cut zone around the delineated wetland boundary. Cassidy asks if in fact this condition stands, would it preclude the construction of a driveway for lot #8 from Essex Street. After some discussion, Neve states that in fact the condition as presently worded would physically preclude construction of a driveway off Essex Street. Neve asks the Board to consider voting on the request for a waiver of the 500' dead-end road requirement and to indicate whether the letter from the Gu!fofMaine will suffice with respect to the frontage issue for lot #8. Thomson asks Killilea to address the Board with respect to the concerns and questions that have been raised about drainage in this area. Killilea explains the developer's proposal from last month to design drainage improvements to the brook that runs from Willow Pond, behind the homes on Old Essex Road, and toward Evelyn Road. He states those improvements, if designed properly, could alleviate the drainage problems in the neighborhood. Neve adds that the owner is willing to grant an easement over the pond to the City as well so that it can use the pond as a detention area in the future and make improvements to it if the City desired. He states this might be advisable because the pond is presently an integral part of the City's drainage system. Dinkin and Thomson both ask Neve for an estimate of the cost of the drainage improvements off-site, Neve estimates the improvements would cost $20,000 - $30,000. Thomson asks for an estimate of the construction costs of the theoretical road "b". Neve answers approximately $50,000. Dinkin asks if any members of the public have questions. Gene Kokoska, 26 Meadow Road, questions Neve's statement that this development will have little effect on Willow Pond. Ms. Pollock, 346 Essex Street, asks the Board what improvements the City intends to require to correct the drainage problems the neighbors are experiencing. Dinkin explains that the Board can only make sure that the development does not exacerbate any existing drainage problems. The Board cannot guarantee the development will improve Planning Board minutes November 16, 1999 meeting Page four conditions. Kokoska states that Willow Pond is owned by Resolution Trust Corporation, not by the Willow Pond neighborhood association. Dinkin calls a ten minute recess. Dinkin reconvenes the public hearing on the Meeting Place Circle subdivision. He states that it appears to be the collective wish of the board that the public hearing be continued to another meeting because there are several issues that remain outstanding at the moment. He asks if the Board would like to consider the waiver request for the dead-end roadway length. Delaney, Sullivan, and Flannery indicate they are not prepared to vote on that matter this evening, and the balance of the Board concurs or defers. Dinkin indicates that the Board will be holding a special meeting on December 6, 1999, and that this matter can be tabled until then. Thomson asks if the developer has an extension of time for Board action on this matter. Neve submits a letter signed by both the owner and the applicant extending the statutory time throe to December 3 I, 1999. Thomson: motion to accept the time extension submitted for the Meeting Place Circle subdivision plan, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. Sullivan: motion to recess the public hearing on this application to Monday, December 6, 1999 at 8:30 p.m., seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. Dinkin calls the regular meeting hack to order. 3. Revised site plan for Dunkin Donuts at 110-114 Elliott Street Dinkin asks the members fithey have any additional questions or issues on this revised plan. There are none. Thomson: motion to approve the revised site plan for the proposed Dunkin Donuts subject to the conditions a) that all comments received from agencies and departments of the City be incorporated into the site plans, and b) that the hours of operation of this establishment be limited to the hours between 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. 4. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) a. 251 Essex Street / Edmond and Mary Hoggard Planning Board minutes November 16, 1999 meeting Page five Cassidy explains that the owners of this property on Essex Street have filed a plan to divide their lot in two. The new lot would have 125' of ~'ontage on Essex Street and 15,615 sq. ft. of land. There is one issue with the plan, and that is that there must at least 15' between the existing garage and the lot line for the new lot. The version of the plan this evening does not hold the 15' setback consistently. Thomson suggests that if the plan is entitled to endorsement as an ANR, the Board could authorize the chairman to sign the plan once the lot line is revised to reflect the required sethacks. Thomson: motion to authorize the chairman to endorse a revised version of this plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, on the condition that the revised plan is submitted by noon on Thursday, November 18. Motion seconded by Thomas, all members in favor. Motion carries. b. East Coming Street and Tyler Road / Charles Harding Cassidy explains that the owner is seeking to create a new building lot at this site. The new lot would have frontage on Tyler Road. Cassidy explains that although the note on the plan indicates that Tyler Road is a public way, it in fact is not. This portion of Tyler Road is unconstructed, and Cassidy states that she is of the opinion that the Board should not endorse this phn until further clarification can be obtained from City Solicitor Marshall Handly with respect to the status of this portion of Tyler Road. Mr. Harding, who is in the audience, provides the Board with an extension of time for final action by the Board on this plan to December 8th. Thomas: motion to accept the extension of time for action on this ANR plan to December 8, 1999, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. 5. Hawk Hill Estates preliminary subdivision plan Jeff Rhuda, representing Symes Associates, explains that the Dallas family owns two parcels near Essex Street. One lot contains the existing home, and the second parcel is just north of a parcel owned by Ms. Aileen L'Abbe. The properties owned by Dallas and L'Abbe are both included in the Hawk Hill Estates preliminary plan. A new road of approximately 2,000 feet in length would be constructed from Essex Street to Yankee Way, and several small cul-de-sacs would also be created to service a total of 33 lots. He indicates that the developer expects to file an application with the Conservation Commission in time for its January meeting. Planning Board minutes November 16, 1999 meeting Page six Rhuda also explains the five waivers that are being requested for this development: a) waiver of the minimum centerline radius requirement, b) waiver of the reverse curve tangent requirement, c) 28' pavement width instead of 32', d) permission to install one sidewalk instead of two, and e) a waiver to allow sloped faced granite curbing instead of vertical curb. Dinkin asks Rhuda to explain the planning reasons for the waiver requests. Rhuda answers that the curve tangent and centerline radius waivers will eliminate the need for a roadway intersection requirement so it would be more residential in character, and less roadway pavement and one sidewalk will lessen the environmental impact of this project. With respect to sloped curbing, he states that is more attractive. Thomson asks what the pavement width is of Meadow Road. Rhuda responds that it is 32' wide. Thomson asks if there are sidewalks on both sides of Meadow Road. A resident of Meadow Road says there are two sidewalks. Thomson asks Rhuda to explain the existing and proposed drainage schemes. Rhuda answers that lots northeast of the proposed mad will drain to a swale in the hackyards of homes along Meadow Road. There are two existing wet areas on the site that are isolated, and are not piped anywhere. Delaney asks if the developer has conducted any drainage studies to this point, and Rhuda answers no. Dinkin asks the developers if they have considered how to use the extra land ifa waiver of the sidewalk requirement was granted. Rhuda states that they would plant trees within the grass belt, and the extra area would be loamed and seeded. Thomson asks if the developer expects that blasting will be necessary. Rhuda states yes, there will be blasting of ledge areas and for construction of the drainage ponds. Dinkin asks if the estimated amount of blasting will require excess material to be trucked from the site. Rhuda answers that they expect to use all blasting material on the site to fill low spots. Dinkin asks members if there are any additional questions this evening. Thomson: motion to continue discussion of the Hawk Hill Estates preliminary subdivision plan to the Board's December 14, 1999 meeting, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. Virginia Avenue Extension subdivision: request for extension of Tri-Partite Agreement and construction completion date Dinkin asks Cassidy to update the Board. Cassidy explains that the completion date for this subdivision is due to expire on November 30, 1999 as is the Tfi-Partite Agreement Planning Board minutes November 16, 1999 meeting Page seven posted as surety. She outlines the remaining work to be completed in this project, and informs the board that the developer has made very little progress on any construction items since early spring. The Board holds a general discussion on the lack of progress in this subdivision. Thomson: motion to extend the construction completion date for this subdivision to April 30, 2000. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. Thomson: motion to accept an extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement posted as surety for this project to May 1, 2000. Motion seconded by Delaney, all members in favor. Motion carries. Sullivan: motion to instruct planning staff to send a letter to Mr. Curtis Jones requesting that a detailed timetable for completion of all outstanding construction items and obligations by April 30th of next year be submitted to the Board for its December 14, 1999 meeting. Motion seconded by Thomas, all members in favor. Motion carries. Morgan's Island subdivision: request for bond reduction and extension of construction completion date Cassidy updates the Board by explaining that the Board currently holds $32,175 as surety for this subdivision, and the Board has received a letter from the City's Engineering Department recommending that the bond amount be reduced to $10,875.00. Thomson asks Killilea's opinion as to whether planting of street trees can still be done at this time of year. Killilea states that it can be done. Delaney: motion to reduce the mount of surety posted for the Morgan' s Is. land subdivision to $10,875.00, and to extend the construction completion date' to April 30, 2000. Motion seconded by Sullivan, all members in favor. Motion carries. 8. Worthington Green subdivision: bond release, acceptance of as-built plans Cassidy updates the Board by explaining that the City Engineer has estimated the cost of the constructing a sidewalk on Grover Street to be $5,700, and that the developer has agreed to provide this amount of money to the City for it to use for the sidewalk installation when the City-sponsored Grover Street reconstruction project commences in the spring. Lastly, as-built plans have been reviewed by the City's Engineering Planning Board minutes November 16, 1999 meeting Page eight Department and several corrections were needed. The developer is in the process of having those corrections made, and expects to deliver the corrected plans to the City by the end of the week. Delaney: motion to accept $5,700 from developer John Sanidas as fulfillment of the obligation to construct sidewalks on Grover Street, and to instruct the City Solicitor to begin bond revocation proceedings on this subdivision unless acceptable as-built plans are submitted to the City by November 26, 1999. Motion seconded by Sullivan, all members in favor. Motion carries. 9. Winthrop's Grant subdivision: acceptance of public easements Cassidy informs the Board that the developer of this now-completed subdivision has submitted roadway and utility easements to the City for acceptance. Dehney: motion to recommend to the City Council that the roadway and utility easements for the Winthrop's Grant subdivision be accepted, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. 10. Cherry/Hill Drive subdivision: recommendation to City Council regarding acceptance plans Cassidy explains that the Flatley Company has submitted acceptance plans to the City for the acceptance of Cherry Hill Drive as a City street. Thomson: motion to recommend to the City Council that the acceptance plans of Cherry Hill Drive be accepted, seconded by Delaney. All members in favor, motion carries. 11. Approvalof Minutes Dinkin asks if members have any suggested corrections to the dratt minutes of the October 19, 1999 and November 6, 1999 meetings. There are none. Delaney: motion to approve the October 19, 1999 and November 6, 1999 meeting minutes as drained, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. 12. New or Other Business The Board has a general discussion about holding a board dinner at a Beverly establishment during the month of December. The night of December 21st is chosen. Planning Board minutes November 16, 1999 meeting Page nine Thomas: motion to adjourn, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries.