Loading...
2000-07-10CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: RECORDER: Planning Board Beverly City Hall Chairman Rich Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill Delaney, Robert Rink, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Barry Sullivan, John Thomson Elizabeth McGlynn, Peter Thomas City Planner Tina Cassidy, City Engineer Frank Killilea Karen Bradley Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Delaney: motion to recess for, public hearing, seconded by Sullivan. All members in favor, motion carries. Public Hearing: Hawk Hill Estates definitive subdivision plan / Symes Associates, Inc. Cassidy reads legal notice and Dinkin explains the format of the public hearing. Jeff Rhuda, representative for Symes Associates, introduces himself and Rich Williams, Project Engineer from Hayes Engineering. Rhuda explains Symmes Associates will develop 30 lots (plus two lots to owner, one existing house lot) for tho 15.3 acre Dallas and L'Abbe properties off Essex Street. The present ownership of property is as stands: 11.5 acres Dallas (fronts on Essex Street) 2.0 acres L'Abbe 5.5 acres Dallas Rhuda explains thc proposed roadway system that will include three new roads; Hawk Hill Aileen Way, and Yankee Way (continutation of existing road), and also explains properties. He explains an encroachment of an abutter, Jeff and Janice Swanson, on Yankee Way.Rhuda explains they will add fill to Swanson property, are asking for a sidewalk waiver there, and will add a row of pine tress along the property line. Rich Williams explains that all lots will be on nnmicipal sewer and water. He points out the proposed stormwater manegement areas and existing watershed areas. He states that the rate of runoff from the property will not be increased, and in some areas will be reduced. The developer expects to file plans with the Conservation Commission next week. Planning Board minutes July 10, 2000 meeting Page two Williams then explains that subdivision traffic will not have a significant impact on existing roads. Traffic at peak hours would he 15 subdivision cars in each direction on Essex Street, and Cassidy reads comment letters received from Fire, Police, Health & Engineering Departments, and Conservation Commission (see file). Williams explains the waivers being requested by the developer: · Due to the generally wooded nature of the site, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement that trees 6 inches in caliper be shown on the plan; · a waiver from the requirement that the highest known water mark and the contour line 4 feet above said high water mark be shown on the plan; · a waiver from the requirement to show proposed street lights, underground electric and fire alarm systems on the plan. Instead, the design would he furnished prior to endorsement of the plan; · a waiver from the requirement of a minimum center line radius of 300 feet, and proposing a minimum center line radius of 240 feet; · a waiver from the requirement to provide a tangent of at least 150 feet between reverse curves in order to provide for a more desirable curvilinear alignment; · a waiver from the requirement that 32 feet of pavement be provided. Alternately, the applicant is proposing to pave a 26-foot width on all roadways; · a waiver from the requirement that vertical granite curb be provided, and, in place thereof; the applicant is proposing sloped granite curb; · a waiver from the requirement that the maximum roadway embankment slope be 3-feet horizontal to 1-foot vertical with a maximum grade to 2-feet horizontal to 1-foot vertical in order to reduce the impacts of roadway grading on the site; · a waiver from the requirement that sidewalks be placed on both sides of the street, proposing sidewalks on one side only; a waiver from the requirement that all drain pipes be provided with 3 foot cover, proposing 2.5 foot minimum cover on drainage with the use of Class V reinforced concrete pipe where cover is less than 3 feet. Dinkln asks if there are any questions from members of the Board. Thomson questions stormwater management areas. Williams explains the purpose of retention/detention ponds. Thomson salts where the overflow from those areas goes. Williams explains that while the areas are not designed to overflow in heavy rains, runoff flows to wetlands associated with Willow Pond. Thomson asks why the developer is proposing to install a sidewalk only on one side. Williams explains the cul-de-sac side of the main road wouldn't have a sidewalk. Thomson asks if the submitted drainage calculations are predicted on 32/t. roadway pavement widths and two sidewalks. Williams states that they are. Planning Board minutes July10, 2000 meeting Page three Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the audience. Dean Rubin, 9 Meadow Road, asks about YMCA traffic that might use the proposed right of way leading to the Y property. Rhuda explains that it is only a provision of access and not for traffic. Steila Mae Seamans, Hale Street questions the tree waiver and availability of GPS to provide that information. Rhuda says that GPS cannot provide that level of detail. Janet Pollock, 346 Old Essex Road. wants to know if her street was included in the traffic study. Williams states that it was not. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, asks why Old Essex Road was not included as part of the traffic study. Rhuda explains that the traffic has been considered on Essex Street, not Old Essex Road. Jim Pica, 24 Meadow Road, states that his house abuts the creek and wants an explanation of the impact this project will have on thecreek. Williams states the project should not change the volume of water that already exists in the creek. A resident at 241 Essex Street asks if the proposed retention pond will flow to the wetland near the existing house on Lot 33. Williams states that it will and will be addressing that with Conservation Commission. Planning Board member Rob Rink asks if an independent review of the drainage analysis has been done by an independent consultant. Cassidy states that it has not yet been independently reviewed and states that there may be funds available to complete that analysis. Janet Pollack, 346 Old Essex Road, asks if the City or the developer will be paying for a larger water line from Cole Street. City Engineer Frank Killilea suggested the developer pay to extend a water main 450 feet from Cole Street to Essex Street. Dinkin states that the Planning Board cannot compel off-site improvements but that developers often volunteer to do it. Pollack asks if the site has been tested for contamaninants. Rhuda replies that it has. Councilor John Murray asks how many trees will be removed. Williams has no estimate of the number. Lynn Allen, 6 Clipper Way, asks for the location of the water table. Williams explains that the existing water table should not be affected. Robert Buchsbaum, 12 Bertram Street, asks if Symes Associates has considered other designs, i.e. cluster zoning. Rhuda states that they have and that doesn't work for them. Candace Pike, 291 Essex Street, questions the number of car trips to be generated by the traffic study. She believes there will be more vehicles than reported. Thomson asks Rhuda why he believes the Planning Board has jurisdiction over Yankee Way improvements. Planning Board minutes July 10, 2000 meeting Page four Tom Stevens, 6 Meadow Road, asks how many trees will be left between the proposed and existing houses. Rhuda explains there will be a covenant in the deeds prohibiting the cutting of trees within ten feet of the lot line. Cassidy states that she believes the end of Yankee Way was never officially accepted as a City street. Murray says that his recollection is the same as Cassidy's. Renee Mary, Hale Street, asks if a site walk has been scheduled. Steve Pike, 291 Essex Street, asks if roadway to YMCA could be used for the development of that parcel and if construction trucks could access the landfill site from it. Dinkin asks if there are any additional comments in favor of or in opposition to the application. Jeffrey Swanson, 4 Clipper Way, supports 26-foot width on all roadways. Dinkin explains that the Board will probably conduct a site visit and permission will be asked for public participation. A resident from 241 Essex Street is concerned about embankment waiver. Dean Rubin, 9 Meadow Road would like to see waivers denied. Swanson states that reduced width of roadways is of particular importance to him. Ward 5 City Councilor Don Martin asks for an independent drainage review to be conducted, which is what the Board did for the Meeting Place Circle subdivision. Delaney: motion to schedule a site visit prior to the September meeting, instruct the City Planner to explore consulting funds to conduct the independent drainage study, and continue the public hearing to the Board's September 25, 2000 meeting. Motion seconded by Thomson, alil members in favor. Motion carries. Following a brief discussion, memhem decide to schedule a site visit to the property for Saturday, September 16, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. Participants should meet on Yankee Way. Dinkiln asks if Symes Associates can grant the public permission to attend the site visit. Rhuda answers yes, but participants will be asked to sign a liability waiver. 2. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review application #60-00: redevelopment of former Commodore Restaurant site / Enon Street LLC. Cassidy reads the legal notice. Dinkin explains the purview of site plan review and the hearing process. Attorney Tom Alexander explains the development plan and detention basin. He Planning Board minutes July 10, 2000 meeting Page five explains the Parking and Traffic Commission review and recommendations and the Design Review Board review outcome. Alexander explains that a 6-foot high stockade fence and a row of arbor vitae shrubs will be added along the northern, property line as well as the existing trees that will be preserved to buffer the development from the adjacent neighborhood. Architect Thad Siemasko of Siemasko and Verbridge explains the architecture of the proposed buildings and outdoor lighting. Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering explains the under-building parking for 96 vehicles. He also explains that the rate of discharge in to the pond will not change. The developers plan on planting native species in the wetland buffer zone since the soils are good for that habitat. Cassidy reads comment letters received from Parking and Traffic Commission, Design Review Board, Police and Fire Departments, the Board of Health, and Conservation Commission (see file). Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the Board. Dinkin asks about the location of freestanding sign. Tom Alexander points out the location of the sign. Sullivan asks if there is any security planned for the parking lots. Alexander explains that hiring security personnel has not been discussed, but the property will receive standard police patrol as does any other business in community. Sullivan expresses concern for vandalism late at night and thinks security would be a good idea, particularly for the parking areas under the building. Dinkln asks if the under-building parking will be just for employees. Alexander says it will be for customers also. Sullivan expresses safety concerns about that. Alexander states that gates could be added to the under-building parking areas to close off the area after business hours. Flannery asks for clarification on the lighting plan. Ogren explains the lighting proposal in greater detail. Dinkin asks how many stairways there will be to the storefront level fiom the under-building parking areas, and asks whether an elevator will be provided. Siemasko states that the developers are still deciding whether the elevator will be for freight only or for freight and passengers. Dinkin ask what type of retail tenants would occupy the retail space and the amount of additional traffic that would be generated by the development. Alexander explains that small retail shops would occupy the storefronts and that the Kourkoulis family will run the proposed Planning Board minutes July 10, 2000 meet Page six Rob Rink questions whether the aisles in the under-building parking lots would be dead ends. Alexander says yes. Delaney asks for the total number of parking spaces. Alexander explains that zoning will require 278 spaces and 333 are provided on the proposed site plan. There will be 53,000 square feet of retail space on the site. Delaney suggests taking some spaces away in order to allow flow-through traffic in the under-building parking areas. Ogren says that approximately 6 spaces would have to be eliminated to do that. Thomson asks if there would be access to the Stop & Shop parking lot from this site. Ogren explains that only a pedestrian access would be provided. Alexander states the developers are not interested in encouraging vehicle access because of the likelihood it would only become default overflow parking for the Stop & Shop store. Dinkin asks if there are any questions or comments from the public. Bill Coughiin, 4 Frankwood Avenue, says sidewalk on Enon Street should be plowed and under- building parking should have a looped aisle to turn around instead of backing out. He would like to see the building motif and landscaping plan reviewed by the North Beverly Civic Association Arthur Powell, 17 Walnut Street, asks what area of the site will have the under-building parking. Alexander explains the site layout. Resident Tom Gale asks if a traffic study was done. Ogren explains that a traffic review was done as part of an Environmental Notification Form filed some years ago, and the state said a full traffic study was not needed. Gale asks what the lot coverage is now. Ogren explains that currently only 48% of the property is covered with impervious area. The new plan proposes that 71% of the property will be covered by impervious material; 75% is the maximum allowable coverage. Dan DeAngelis, Brimbal Avenue, questions the grades of the site. Ogren answers that the proposed elevation will be very similar to that of the Stop & Shop site. 15,000 yards of fill will be needed to reach the grade proposedl on the plan. Alexander states that the owners hope to gan construction of the site this fall. Joan Murphy of Longmeadow Road asks if there is a maintenance schedule in place for maintaining the catch basin grease traps. Kathy Burack Brimbal Hill Drive, asks if the building will look like 2 stories from behind. Alexander explains that at the existing grade level, you'll see 1 ½ stories and mature trees will buffer the view for the residents. A resident asks about the proposed hours of operation. Alexander answers that the hours for the restaurant will be 11 a.m. to 1 a.m. and the retail stores will likely by open from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Plapning Board minutes July 10, 2000 meeting Page seven Dinkin asks if there are any additional comments in favor or against the site plan. Joan Murphy, Longmeadow Road says there is too much of the lot being covered and that there should be a maintenance agreement for the grease traps. She says the Varian consultant (IT Corp.) says this is in the Wenham Lake Watershed Protection Overlay District. Stella Mae Seamans, Hale Street, states that according to a 1993 state traffic study 31,000 cars use Enon Street daily and that there has been a 10,000 car increase in the area over time. Councilor Don Martin, Dartmouth Street, expresses concern about dumpster service and asks if owners would agree to a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. dumpster service timeframe. Alexander states that the owners will use their best efforts to accommodate that request. Pam Kampersal of the Norwood Pond Associates explains that proposed lot coverage will not allow pollutants to filter out before reaching the ground water. Dinkin asks if there are any other comments. Hearing none, he closes the public hearing and reconvenes the regular meeting. 3. Hawk Hill Estates subdivision: extension for public hearing / Symes Associates Inc. Delaney: motion to continue public hearing to September 25, 2000. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. 4.Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) Tyler Road / East Corning Street Cassidy explains that the owner wants to revise the lot lines for his property. She states that both lots will still meet all zoning requirements and suggests it be enacted. Delaney: motion to endorse the plan for East Corning Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. b. Cox Court/Summit Avenue Cassidy explains that the plan proposes to reconfigure three separate lots into two lots, including one which will house the Anchor Pub. She states that the lots meet all zoning requirements. Delaney: motion to endorse the plan for Cox Court and Summit Avenue as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. Planning Board minutes July 10, 2000 meeting Page eight c. Prince Street / David Carnevale / Bradford Paul Cassidy explains that this plan shows the pork chop lot approved by the Board at last month's meeting. She states that the plan meets all requirements for ANR plans, but recommends that the plan not be released until the appeal period expires, and proof of no appeals is obtained. Delaney: motion to endorse this plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law and to instruct the City Planner not to release the plan until proof is obtained that no appeals were filed, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, motion carries. d. Elliot Street / Cummings Properties Cassidy explains that Cummings Properties has filed an ANR to subdivide their land at 181 Elliott Street. She explains that there are several plan deficiencies that should be corrected. Dinkin does not want to endorse the plan until the deficiencies are corrected. Thomson asks if there is a compelling reason why the plan can't be corrected and signed in September. Bruce Oveson, representing Cummings Properties, says although they would like to have the plan signed now, there will not be any problem if it was signed in September. Thomson asks if the plan has technically been filed. Cassidy states that it has not. The Board agrees that the plan deficiencies should be corrected before the plan is signed at the September meeting. Discussion / decision: Site Plan Review application #60-00: redevelopment of former Commodore restaurant site Delaney states that he would like to see a reconfiguration of the under-building parking areas to provide a one-way travel loop and would like to see the elevator made usable by passengers as well as freight. Alexander consults with the owner who agrees to a combined freight/passenger elevator and will submit revised plan to create a looped one-way traffic aisle in the under-building parking areas. Thomson expresses concem about the water service to satisfy the Engineering Department. City Engineer Frank Killilea states that the issue of water service connecting to Enon Street needs to addressed quickly. Thomson states that water service connection nees to be completed before roadway construction. Thomson recommends approval of the site plan also be subject to the conditions outlined in the letters received from the various boards and departments in the City. Planning Board miqutes July 10, 2000 meeting Page nine Thomson: motion to approve site plan review application #60-00 subject to the following conditions: 1.That the parking areas proposed to be located under the buildings be reconfigured so that vehicular traffic shall be one-way traffic and that traffic shall be looped through the parking aress to avoid dead-end aisles; 2.That all deliveries to the establishlments on this site must be confined to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 mm. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays; 3.That all Dumpster services on this site must be confined to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays; 4.That a detention pond at the rear of the lot must be completed enclosed on all sides with a chain link fenee; 5.That the proposed elevator must be available for both freight deliveries and for passengers; 6.That a siltation fence and haybale structure shall be placed along a line delineating the 100-buffer zone line for the wetland on this site prior to the commencement of any work and shall remain in place until all work on the site is completed; 7.That all recommendations contained in a letter from the Beverly Board of Health July 5, 2000 be adhered to; 8. That the sizes of the existing water and sewer lines in Enon Street must be verified, and the proposed water and sewer services on the site must be designed, to the satisfaction of the city's engineering director; and 9. That the owner must obtain all required permits from the Engineering Department and resolve all applicable water services changes prior to the issuance of a building permit. Motion seconded by Sullivan; all members in favor. Motion carries. 6. Virginia Avenue Extension: expiration of construction completion date and Tri- Partite Agreement posted as surety / Curtis Jones Cassidy explains that Mr. Jones successfully completed most of the outstanding work on this subdivision in advance of the Board's last meeting in June. The final coat of road paving had Planning Board minutes July 10, 2000 meeting Page ten just been installed on the day of the meeting, and remaining work includes only the preparation of as-built, easement and acceptance plans. Those have been submitted to the Engineering Department and are currently being reviewed. Delaney:motion to accept the extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement for the Virginia Avenue subdivision to October 31, 2001, and to extend construction completion date to September 30, 2001. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries. Cassidy notes the Engineering Department is also recommending a reduction in the bond amount to reflect the fact that much of the construction work in this subdivision has already been completed. Delaney:motion to reduce the bond from $18,012.00 to $11,012.00. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries. 7. Nicole Avenue subdivbion: expiration of construction completion date and Tri- Partite Agreement posted as surety / Tom Carnevale Cassidy explains that the developer has requested an extension of the completion date. She adds that the engineering department has noted there has been little progress toward completion in the last year, and that the engineering department has identified a potential grading problem with the sidewalks that will likely require correction. City Engineer Frank Killilea explains to the Board that the sidewalk is lower than the curb, therefore preventing drainage to the street. He has suggested to the developer that the grass strip area be regraded to carry water to the catch basin for proper drainage. Sullivan asks if the developer must install a sidewalk on Hull Street. Killilea says he must, but the sidewalk can only be 42" wide unless ledge is removed. Attorney Tom Alexander is present to represent Mr. Carnevale informs the Board that a letter will be sent to Mr. Camevale listing the sidewalk issues. Delaney: motion to accept the extension of the Tri-Partite Agreement for the Nicole Avenue subdivision to October 31, 2000, and to extend construction completion date to September 30, 2000. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries. 8. Approval of Minutes Dinkin asks if anyone has any suggested corrections to the draft minutes of the Board's June 20th meeting. There are none. Planning Board minutes July 10, 2000 meeting Page eleven Delaney: motion to accept the draft minutes of the Board's June 20, 2000 meeting. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. 9. New and Other Business Cassidy explains to the Board that a meeting was held on the Meeting Place Circle subdivision off-site drainage issue with the abutters. Within the next week, more details of the plan will be in place and will be sent to the residents. She will update the Board in September. Cassidy states the Board's September meeting night is the day primary elections will he held. Members agree to schedule the regular September meeting on September 25, 2000. Delaney: motion to adjourn seconded by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 11:00 p.m.