Loading...
2000-11-21CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: RECORDER: Planning Board November 21, 2000 Beverly City Hall Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chaki,an William Delaney, Robert Rink, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Ftannery, Barry Sullivan, Peter Thnrms, Elizabeth McGlynn, John Thomson City Planner Tim Cassidy, City Engineer Frank Killilea Karen Bradley Chairman Dinkin Calis tl~ regular meeti-~ to ora_er at 7:35 p.m. 1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) a. 202 Dodge Street I John and Jane Coan and Domeniek Carnevale C~ssidy exphtins to the Bonrd that mi.~ plan is being filed to ~ a land swap to occur between John and Jnne Corm and Domenick ~ to correct a drivewny solely on their respective properties, a 775 square foot pn~el will be deeded to the Camevales, and a 535 squnre foot pnrcelwiH be deeded to the Corms. C.~sidy Dinkin asks if there are any questions or comments from the Board. There are Delaney: motion to endorse the plnn of 202 Dodge Sffeet as one not requiring xppmval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flaenery. All n~mhers in favor. Motion carries. b. 140 Hart Street / Loring Cassidy states that David Pickermnn is present to ~ the Essex Co..ty Cn'eenbelt Association- She explains that Mrs. Loting owns a 34=acres parcel and Dinkin asks the Board if there are any questions. City Engineer Frank IOIlilea asks ifthi.~ is the ~me parcel that the City plans on obtaining an easement on for a detention basin for Chubb's Brook. Cassidy and Killilea discuss the properties and dete~i~ that this is a different property. Planning Board minutes November 21, 2000 meeting Page two Dinkin asks if tbere are any questions f~m the members oftbe Board. There are nolle. Delaney: motion to endorse the plan of 140 Hart Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor. Motion carries. e. 2 Webber Avenue / Jonathan and Fay Kleemola Attorney Tho~r~ Alexander ~presents Jonatbnn and Fay Kleemoia, owners of the property on Webber Avenue. He states that the prope~y is located at the junction of Webber Avenue and River Street and is in an R6 zone. He explains that the owners are long-time residents of Goat Hill and are proposing to subdivide the property into two lots. He ~n~es that each lot will have a sln~ole-family home with the required 65 feet of frontage. He states that the existing garage on the property Dinkin asks ifthore are any questions from the members ofthe Board. Thonvon asks where the garage is located on the property and wher~ access to the second lot will be. Alexander states that the garage is located on the River Street side of the property and access to the second lot will be on River Street. Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the members of the Board. There are none. Delaney: motion to endorse the plan of 2 Webber Avenue as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor. Motion carries. ® Discussion/decbion: Hawk Hill Estates definitive subdivision plan / Symes Associates Inc. Dinicin n.~lc~ Cassidy to update the Board. Cassidy states that at the last meeting in November, Sergeant Denni-~ Tntsook explnlned his rationnle for supporting some of the waivers being requested by the developer. The Board also learned that a fire flow test had been conducted earlier that day at tbe hydrant at tbe end of Yankee Way and results have been subm~ed to Board. The Board elected to confer with.City Engineer Fr~nlr ICillilen for consideration and C~idy states that she hn~ received a letter from Killilea with his final recommen,~_~ion. Dinkin asks Cn-~idy to read Kiililea's letter at thi.~ time. Cassidy reads the letter dated November 21, 2000 (see file). The letter states that hi.~ recommeodntion to require the developer Planning Board minutes November 21, 2000 meeting Page three to replace the existing S-inch water line in Essex Street with a 12-inch line remains unchanged after his review of the fire flow test conducted on November 6, 2000. Also stated in Killilea's letter is the recommendation for 32-foot width paved roadways with vertical granite curbing. Cassidy explains that there are other o~s~Andlng issues that require action from the Board: Final decision for the proposed right ofway to the YMCA property; Submission ofa maintename plan and supporting documentation for the private maintenance of the detention structures; · Decision on the ten waivers being requested by the developer (see file). Dinkin states that he reqnesmd an incident report from Sergeant Tarsook. He asks Ca-,-~idy if she has received that report. Cassidy states that she has not. Dinkin asks SeffRhuda of Symes A~ociates if he has any comments on Frank Killilea's letter of recommendation. Rhuda states that he will agree to Killilea's recommendations. Dinkln asks if them are any questiom from members of the Board. Thomson asks who will be respondble for the rmlnt~,~e oftbe detention ponds. Rhuda states that the homeowner's association will be held respons~le. He states tl~t thin will be submitted prior to endorsement of the plan. Thomas states that he has spoken to Sergeant Tamook and he has some concern about a sidewalk only on one side of the roadway. He em~h~,izes the roadway adjacent to Essex Street and the need for sidewalks on both sides. Thornton asks for explanation on the waiver reqnesfin~ that the maximum roadway eml~nkm~.nt slope he 2-1 inst_~__~ of 3-1. Killilea explains that a 3-1 slope grade is much mere stable and will hold up beRer over time. He expl~in.~ that if the material is rogk as opposed to a gmmdar materinl, thena2-1 slope grade is acceptable. Thomson asks Rhuda to point out the ar~s where the slope diffemmes will be loc-~__ed tiwoughont the development. Thornton asks Cassidy if spurs will be required. Cassidy reads the Design Stn~,tnrd Section of the Subdivision Rules and RelP,baions and explains that the Planning Board makes the final plan for further development, only access by McCm~ Mnestranzi and residents of the development. Thom~n s~tes that there should be some type of policy put into place to control further developmem. Thomson asks if Symes would have any problem with restricting use by Dinkin asks if there ere any further comments from members of the Bonrd. Thomson states that each for the ten waive:- being requested should be discussed. Planning Board minutes November 21, 2000 meeting Page four Thomson states that roadway width should be the .~me for all subdivisions throughout the City. He also states that wide rozds are a nice thing and/s not in favor of narrower roadways. He also is of the opinion that sidewalks should be on both sides for the str-.~. He states that roadway width and sidewalks on both sides should be policy, not approved on a by project basis. Thomson asks Killilea what his opinion is on the reduction of cover on waiver. Kfllilea that there should be a limit on areas less than 3 feet. He explains that on areas less than 3 feet, Class V reinforced cona~te pipe and screened gravel beading is to be used. Kiililea asks the developer to point out the areas that are less than 3 feet. Rich Williams of Hayes Engineering points out those locations less than 3 feet and explains that the nature of these areas prolu'oit the use of 3-foot cover. Killilea states that as long as the cover is at least 2 1/2 feet deep ofsereensd gravel bedding over the pipe he will consider that to be acceptable. Thomson states that the homeowner's association should forever remain private and this should be incorporated into the plan so ns not to impose any obligation to the City. He nlm states that Thomm~ questiom an area of the roadway thet narrows. Williams states that the reason for that was to provide frontage for a particular lot. Killilea states that the existing homeowner allowed thh in order to make lzlodificatiorm to his prope~y. He staies this was an attempt to Dinkin states that he hn.~ some concerns with the integrity of the process with regard to pavement widtix He stntes that the chnng_e bei~ requested is not trivial. TbectuT~MasterPhnprocess may consider this useful at some point in time. For the Phnning Board to agree to this won_id be to ~on-circoit the City and its political process in up~in.~o the Master Plan. He concludes that he is more ~omfortable to let the Ms-,~er Plan process phy out to allow examination of the zoning ordinances and subdivision rules and regulations in order to make proper det~.~ioations. Dinkln asks the Board if there life ally additional aommeots. There are nom. Flanery: motion to divide the list of waivers so that each one can be considered separately, seconded by Dunn. Thomson, Thomas and Delaney abstain. Motion fails due to Lack of votes. Dinkin calls for a 5-minntc recess. Dinldn states that the Bo~d is requesting a homeowner's association draR that will require an extension. Rlv,a* agrees to this request and will produoe that document w~thln 48 hours. Cassidy draws up an extension document for Rhuda to sign. She explains that the extension is until November 29, 2000 mi a special meeting is scheduled for November 28, 2000. Planning Board minutes November 21, 2000 Page five Flannery: motion to grant the extension to November 29, 2000, seconded by D, nn Ali members in favor. Motion carries. Discussion/recommendation to City Council: City Council Order #328 / citizens' petition Dinkin asks Cassidy to update the Bonvd. Cassidy explni~s that on November 6, 2000 there was joint public henring on the citizens' petition. The Order proposes an mnendment to the "IG" zoning ai.~ict that would create a 150 foot minimum side, front, nnd rear ylLrd sotb/tck requimn~nt for buildings and pl~king on "IG" zoned lots that abut resiclent~ zoning distzi'"'""~ At that time the Board had asked the City Solicitor's opinion on whether or not the Board has the ability to _,~t_ ahlish different levels of setback requirements depending upon the size of the lot. She states that she has received a letter dated November 16, 2000 from Marshall Handly, the City Solicitor (see file). Alter reading the afomn~ioned letter, it is concl, a~d that thi.q would be an invalid practice. Di,kin asks if there are any questions or comments from members of the Board. Thomas asks ff thi.~ detea'minntion imluded the size of the building. Dini~in states that the dimen~onal requiremonm within a particular zol~n~ district must be ~ons~t~lt without ~ to other pract~. Thomson nsks if the Board must make their re~ommendat~n to the City Council. Cassidy states that the Phnning Board reeommepamion should be made to the City Coumil w~thin 21 days. Dinlcln states tlmt the Board's recommendation could be made using a d~ setb~k thsm what ls being proposed. Thornton suggests using a formula using depth of lot ratio. He states that thi.~ is the practice used in Belmont. Dinkin asks Cassidy that if thi~ practice were to be used, is there currently a definition in the zoning ordinance for lot depth. Cassidy states thst thi.~ could be ~ to clearly define, especially in the case of an odd .~haped iot. Thomas states that a z~'eening nnd Ixtffe~ zone similar to how the IR zones are defined should be imp~nented. Cassidy states that there ~ 19 lots that would be effected by this proposed setback change. Thomas states thnt the Board should review 5 or 6 of these lots. Planning Board minutes November 21, 2000 meeting Page six Thomson: motion to recommend to the City Council not to adopt this proposal and suggest the pursuit of a setback buffer for industrial and residential be further studied, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. Discussion/decision: Site Plan Review application ~61-00 for construction of 3 Story office building / Cummings Properties Dinkin asks the Planning Director to update the Board. Cassidy does so and states that the only m~s~snai~g matter was a conc~u voiced by Frank Killilca about the species of trees that would be planted over a City-owner sewer easement on the site. Cassidy asks Killilea to u~_n_t_~, the Bonnl on the issue at hand. Killilea explnlns thnt the City has a 25-foot sewer easement (dong Baich Street. In the section that poltnlns tO thi~ propo,qid, the sewer is approxhnntely 8 to 10 feet deep. Ite explains that he met withthe Cummlngs architect Bruce Oveson to discuss the plantings and was referred to a ~evised drawing that was submitted to determine where ench of these species will be located. He asks Bruce Oveson to explain. Oveson explains the code on the drawing and explains where each species will be located on the site plan. He states that basically, this drawing is following the same scenario that is on the south side nest the parking garage. Thomson asks what type of trees will go over the City-owned sewer easement. Oveson states that whatever gillilea and IOimnwicz decide on, Cummings will plant them over the easement. Dinkin asks Oveson to de~'ibe the butf~ng from adjoining residentlsl zones. Ov--~on explnln.~ the key of the drawlni,~ and points out the RI0 zones. He states that the only residential zone w~thin ok)se proximi~ is across the street on Balch Street and that it is approximately 500 ~ or more away. He explains that along Bnlch Street, they will be plan~ing a number of mature trees consisting of two difl'etem species of maple trees and evetgreem. He also states that there will Thomson asks for additional clarification on the Balch Street 9~-olno_._ Oveson states that the Uees will block views from someone's bsckyard. Thomson states that he is in agreement with dense scmening along B~h Street and suggests disbursing evergreem of at least 5 fi~et in height. Oveson states that other than corn:em of blocking view for children, he agrees with the use of de~lse st~reenln~o. Thomson asks if the trees will be planted inside or outside the sidewalk. Oveson states that the trees will be planted inside the sidewnlk_ gillilea s~ates that the City would like to redo Balch Street but that cannot be done until they repair the sewer on Balch Street. He states that new Planning Board minutes November 21, 2000 meeting Page seven construction would probably consist of vertical granite curb with a concrete sidewalk with no grass stripping to the property line. He explains that at the properly llne is where the easement begln.~ fol' the ~ 25 feel He suggests Cummings planting within the ~ 10 fl~ from the prope~y line. Thomson asks if the planting would be disturbed if the City were to repair Balch Street. Killilea states that the City would use trenchiess technology for the repairs to the sewer and not have to within the first 10 fl~ from tbe property line. Thomson has some conce~ for tbe visibility of the children in the area going to and from schooL He has concern with the density of the planting and states the possibility of a setback. Oveson states thet a change of species could he an option. He states that capping tbe ands ofthe p~ to keep visibility optimal would enhance the safety issue. Dinkin asks Killilea for hi, opinion on planting over an e~nent Killilea states he would like a more specific plan on the species and requests a complete landscN~e plan. Oveson states that once he receives IClim~wicz's recommendation and will t~do the Isndscape plan. Killilea states that he will get the necessary feedba~ from Klimnwicz and forward it to him_ Dinkin asks the Board iftbere are any .a~aional questions or commcals. Thomson: nmtion to approve the site plan subject to increased evergreen screening on Balch Street with the exception of some $ to 10 foot deciduous species on each end. The decision of density and species of the s~'eenin~ will he th~ of the City Arhefiat Phil Motion cm~s. $, DiscussionMecbion: 181 Elliott Street preliminary subdivision plan / Cummings Properties Bob Dtiscoll of Cummings Properties introduces himself_ He exphin~ that th~q plan has been submitted to create a ~ cul-do-snc offofEiliott Street. He stutes that thet~ ~e three purposes for thlg proposed subdivision: 1. Create a small lot along Balch Street; 2. CYeate frontage; 3. Adjust a lot line for the in~qurance rexluit~nt that any building he at least 10 feet away from the properly llne. Planning Board minutes November 21, 2000 meeting Page eight Driscoll states the list of waivers being requested: 1. The street shall remain private, build out of required street be w~ived; 2. Performance guarantee be waived; 3. Plan requirement for topography of the parcel, drainage report, cross section and sidewalk requirements are waived. Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the members of the BoarcL Thomson asks if ~hi.~ is a no build plan Dris~ll states that ill fact thi~ is a 11o build Dinkin asks the width ofthi., private road. Driscoll states that the road width is 32 feet. Thomas states that thi.~ is similar ill natllre to that of Boma~ Road. Thomson states that the waive~ are inconsequeniial since thi.~ area is already paved. Delaney recommends not taking any action at thi.~ tlm~. Dinkln calls for a 5-rain,to feces. 6. Sp~ial Permit ~8-97: R~t to ext~d expiration date of ~peeia! permit i~ed for mini-~torage faeili~y o,, L.P. He~der~o~ Road Cassidy updates the Board on the property and states that a one-year extension of ~ special Thomas Alexander is present on behalf of the applicant, Thoma~ FottL He states that the decision from the Board of Appeals should come ~oon, but he does not have that det~mination at thi.~ time. Dinkin asks if there are any ques~ns or ~omm~ilt5 from tho Board. I~illile~ stat~ that the City is prot:eed~ ~o clear lip ~hi.~ prope~t. ~,~Jai~ion~l testln~ will be po~,,~tl in order to declare it clea~ He states that thi.~ should be com?lete within three Delaney asks when the Order of Conditions was originally granted. Alexander state~ that the CoBsetvatioll Commi-~ion grallted the Order of Collditiolls in November or Deoomber 1999. Dela~ey: motion to grant a one-year extension of the special permit through November 21, 2001, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries~ Phaning Board minutes November 2 I, 2000 meeting Page nine 7. Approval of Minutes Dinkin asks if there are any additions or corrections. There are none. Thomtm: motion to approve the minutes from September 25, 2000 and October 17, 2000, seconded by Fisnnery. All members in favor. Motion c~s. 8. New or Other Busin~a~ a. Moor~ Cirel~ Subdivision: n~la~t to mlue~ amonnt of snrety sad extension of Tri-Parfite Agreement Cassidy states that she has a letter of re~omm,~-~mlnn from Frank Killile~ that the bond e~n of the TriPartite Agreement to the planni%o Board that is to expire on April 30, 2001. Delaney: motion to reduc~ the bond for the Moore Cirele subdivision to the amount of $4,312.00, to accept the extension of tha TriPafl~te Agreement to April 30, 2001. Motion ~eoonded by Thomas, all membe~ in favor. Motion carries. b. Sig~ plan: Bomae Road delinitlve aubdivisio~ plan C~idy asks the Board to sign tbe definitive plan that was approved on O~tobe~ 17, 2000. She explain, tl~ tho 20-day appeal period has ex~ired on November 17, 2000 and no appeals have been fil~. c. Dehne~ resips ~illiam Dclan~y stntcs flu~ he Im omcis]l~ resif~r~l as of ~ 3, 2000. Hc stmcs ~1~ fl~ reoMn foF h~q resisM~ion is th~ time comm~f~cnt invob~l. Plnlrin asks ~'t]~re is any other buMne~. The~ is none. l~11Bnery: Tnntion tO adjourD, :~coDdcd by D~mn_ ~ ~ in favor, motion C, IUTiCS. Tbe ,Z~'ting is ndjoumcd 8~ 10:00 p.m.