Loading...
2000-01-18CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Planning Board January 18, 2000 Beverly Public Library, Barnett Gallery Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairman Bill Delaney, Robert Rink, Ellen Flannery, John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Elizabeth McGlynn, Peter Thomas Barry Sullivan City Planner Tina Cassidy Tina Cassidy Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Delaney: motion to recess and reconvene for public hearings, seconded by Thomson. All members in favor, motion carries. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review application #54-99: construction of two level Oarking deck at Curaminl~s Center Cassidy reads the legal notice. Bruce Oveson, representing Cummings Properties, explains the layout of the site and the location of the proposed garage at the end of the existing building numbered as "800-900" Cummings Park. He explains that there are currently 104 parking spaces at the location where the deck will be constructed. That number will increase to 106 once the deck is built; the deck will have 81 spaces on the furst level and 81 on the top level. Thomas asks about the total number of handicapped parking spaces on the site. Oveson responds that Cummings will include the number of spaces suggested by the City's Disabilities Commission, but in any event will provide the minimum number of spaces required by the law. Delaney asks what treatment will be used on the faqade - will the material be stucco finish or cast panels similar to those used on the existing parking garage? Oveson answers that they will use panels like those of the existing garage. Delaney asks for the total height of the proposed deck. Oveson responds that the deck will be 25' high at the top of the structure; the upper deck surface will be about 23' in height. Rink asks for details of the proposed lighting scheme for the structure. Ovesen answers that the top deck will be lit by using existing lighting on the faces of the surrounding buildings. Unlike the existing garage, no separate lighting stanchions will be used on the upper deck. The lower levels will have lights mounted in the ceilings. Dinkin asks Cassidy to read letters on file ~'om the various City departments; she reads letters from the Police and Fire Departments, the Design Review Board, and the Harbor Management Authority (see file). Planning Board minutes January 18, 2000 meeting Page two Dinkin asks Oveson to explain the status of the Chapter 91 licensing process. Oveson explains the history of the issue and Cummings'various filings and correspondence on this subject, Thomson asks Oveson if he is correct in understanding that the walkways required by the Planning Board for the site plan for the garage are in fact constructed. Oveson states that much of them are, by virtue of using the existing walkways and sidewalks around the buildings. Dinkin asks if there are any members of the public who wish to comment on the proposal. Mr. Bill Goldberg asks if Cummings will be using the same kinds of panels on the new deck as were used on the existing garage. Oveson answers yes. He asks if Cummings envisions building a third garage at some point in the future. Oreson states that while Cummings has no current plans to coustmct one, a third parking structure is a possibility in the future if future tenants/demand require the constniction of one. Goldberg urges the Board to consider changing the design of the fm;ade of the deck, and references an article ~'om a local newspaper comparing the "more aesthetically pleasing" design of a public garage in Salem with the design Cummings chose to use for the existing garage. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, asks if Cummings will need to go to the Conservation Commission for this project. Oreson responds that yes, they will need to file with that board, and hope to file in time for the February Conservation Commission meeting. Oveson also briefly explains the location of an existing drainage culvert through the property, and states that the deck will be located at least ten feet tiom the pipe. Dunn asks for the number of parking spaces in the existing garage. Oveson answers there are about 450 spaces. She asks if it is usually full. He states that the garage use varies; on snowy days the garage is full, but in good weather people use the garage less. He states that people generally like to park close to where they work, which affects the use of the garage. Thomas asks when the Jersey barriers on Elliott Street will be removed. Oveson answers that the barriers are them to block what will be a turn lane onto McKay Street. That comer will be reconstructed as part of the Route 62 improvement project, and that's when the barriers will he removed. Goldberg asks what species of tree currently line the location where the new deck will go. Oveson answers mostly maples and birches, but there are some other species. Oveson states that the existing trees at this location are about 15' tall and three years old. They intend to either a) leave the trees in place while construction takes place, or b) remove the trees temporarily and replant them once construction is completed, or c) remove the Planning Board minutes January 18, 2000 meeting Page three trees and replant them elsewhere on site, and then replace those trees with new ones of the same size. Dinkin asks if them am any other comments from members of the public, either in the form of questions or in favor or against the proposal. There are none. Hearing none, Dinkin closes the public hearing. Thomson states that with respect to the recommendation/request contained in the letter from the Harbor Management Authority (to condition approval of the site plan on the condition that no occupancy permit be issued by the Building Inspector until all necessary permits are obtained) is not possible. He does not believe the Board has the authority to condition approval of a site plan in this way. Rink asks why the applicant is using a steel structure instead of cast concrete. Oveson says the decision was made for masons of timing and availability of materials. Dinkin states that he would like to see evergreen/coniferous trees added to the screening to provide a year-round buffer that deciduous trees cannot. Oreson states that he sees no reason why evergreens carmot be added. Dinkin states that year-round screening is important to buffer the view from McKay Street. Delaney adds that he believes screening is needed between the garage and the pond, not between the pond and McKay Street. Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions or issues. Delaney: motion to approve the site plan subject to the condition that the existing screening on the McKay Street side of the structure be retained and augmented; the number of 15' tall deciduous trees that currently exist at this location shall be retained, and six evergreen trees shall be incorporated into the landscaping at this location, such new trees to be at least six feet in height at the time of planting. Motion seconded by Flannery; Dinkin, Delaney, Flannery, Rink, Thomson, Dunn, MeGlynn in favor, Thomas in abstention. Motion carries 7-0-1. 2. Subdivision AOOroval Not Required Plans (SANR's) a. 58-60-62 South Terrace / Arsenault and Heaphy Cassidy explains that this parcel contains three dwellings, all of which existed when the City of Beverly adopted its first zoning ordinance. In accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance, the applicant is seeking to divide the lot with a minimum of non- Planning Board minutes January 18, 2000 meeting Page four conformance in such a way that each house will be located on its own lot. She states that the Board saw a similar plan for this property several years ago, and at that time it was believed that an outcropping of ledge would preclude access over the frontage for one of the lots. It has subsequently been determined that in fact there is no ledge outcropping prohibiting access, but rather fill that can be removed if needed to provide the required access. Dinkin asks the applicant if she has any additional information for the Board. She has none. Thomson: motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, motion carries. b) East Coming Street and Tyler Road / Harding Cassidy introduces the plan and states that the owner's attorney, Mark Glovsky, is present to explain the filing. Glovsky states that both of the proposed lots will meet the minimum area requirements of the zoning ordinance. One lot will have frontage on East Coming Street and will contain the existing house. The new lot will have frontage on Tyler Road, which is a graded, graveled way. He summarizes the types of ways that can provide frontage acceptable for ANR plan endorsement, and states that this way existed prior to the adoption of the subdivision control law in Beverly. He is asking the Board to determine that the way is of adequate width, grades, and constrnetion methods to service the needs of the proposed lot (single-family house lot). Thomson asks if Glovsky has any evidence to prove that the way did in fact exist prior to the adoption of the subdivision control law. Glovsky states that he has personal anecdotal evidence that it existed before 1954, but would be happy to provide affidavits from individuals if needed. Thomson asks if the Hardings have the legal right to use and/or improve Tyler Road. Glovsky answers that they do. Dinkin asks if the City plows the way, and Harding answers yes. Cassidy states that she had asked that question of the City' s Public Services Department and was mid that that portion of Tyler Street was not on the City' s list of streets to be .plowed. He asks if the City picks up trash on Tyler Road - Harding states that they do. Delaney says that he has no concerns with respect to the adequacy of Tyler Road to provide access to the lot. Thomson states that he is concerned abent encouraging the use of unpaved, substandard ways as frontage for new building lots. The issue of setting a precedent is of concern to him. Planning Board minutes January 18, 2000 meeting Page five He asks if the applicant would consider improving Tyler Road. Glovsky states that there is no statutory requirement to improve the way, and believes that the abutters on Tyler Road and Museum Road would object if the Hardings paved it because it would likely increase the use oftbe madway as a through street. Delaney states that he understands Thomson's concerns about establishing a precedent, but adds that there have been a few occasions in the past where the Board has determined similar ways to be adequate, and those determinations have not resulted in a plethora of similar findings. He believes that sometimes it is advisable to leave a roadway in its current state, without improvement, since it is less disruptive to the neighborhood. He asks if the abutters know whether the Hardings are attempting to create another building lot. Harding states that both immediate abutten are aware of his efforts. Delaney: motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. Rink, Delaney, Flarmery, Dinkin, Dunn, MeGlynn, Thomas in favor, Thomson opposed. Motion carries 7-1-0. Discussion: amendments to approved site plan for the former Haiku Haiku restaurant / John Athanasopolous Attorney Thomas Alexander, representing the owner, explains to the Board that his client would like to make several changes to the approved site plan. The hank which was intending to locate on this site has decided not to locate here, so the owner would like to eliminate the drive-through lane originally proposed and instead connect the new retail building to the existing restaurant building. The owner would use the former restaurant space as office space instead of retail. Part of the building originally slated for 100% retail use would he used for offices instead. Lastly, the owner would retain the structure at the rear of the lot that was originally proposed for demolition. A new restaurant would be located in that building. Alexander asks that the Board consider approving the "infill' of the drive-through lane, and would be prepared to file a new site plan application for the restaurant at the back of the lot. Dinkin states he is troubled by the suggestion that the Board could justify modifying a part of the site plan without a public hearing, but wouM conduct a public hearing on another aspect of the modifications. He states that his position is that the Board should refer the matter of site plan modifications to the City Solicitor for an opinion on the appropriate method of handling these requests. He adds that he believes the changes should require a public hearing. Thomson states that he is concerned with the new element being proposed, that is a new restaurant at the back of the lot. Planning Board minutes January 18, 2000 Page six Delaney states that it is possible that having a restaurant at the hack of the lot may significantly change the flow of traffic on the site, and for that reason the proposed changes should be reviewed by the city departments that may be concerned with that issue. Alexander ash that instead of referring the matter to the City Solicitor the Board schedule a public hearing on the revised site plan for its next meeting. Thomson: motion to schedule a public hearing on a revised site plan for the former Haiku Haiku restaurant for the Board's February 15, 2000 meeting beginning at 8:30 p.m. Motion seconded by Flannery, all members in favor. Motion carries. Set date for public hearing on site plan review application #55-00: Liberty Publishins Cassidy explains that the Board has received a complete site plan review application for construction of a new office building for Liberty Publishing on land on Sam Fonzo Drive. Delaney: motion to schedule a public hearing on this site plan application for 9:00 p.nt on Tuesday, February 15, 2000. Motion seconded by Thomson, all members in favor. Motion carries. 5. New or other Business Cassidy explains that the City's Parks and Recreation Commission would like to invite members of the Planning Board to attend its next meeting to discuss the subject of tot lots. Cassidy states that she will inform members of the date of the meeting, which will likely be February 3rd. Next, the Board disensses the election of a Board chairman and vice-chairman for the year. Thomson: motion to nominate Richard Dinkin as Chairperson and Bill Delaney as Vice-chairman, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin asks if there are any other nominations for either office. There are none. Vote on the motion was unanimous. Thomas: motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn. All members in favor, motion carries. The meeting is adjoumad at 9:23 p.m.