Loading...
2002-07-16 City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: July 16, 2002 PLACE: Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Ellen Flannery, Robert Rink, Patricia Grimes, Elizabeth McGlynn, Joanne Dunn ABSENT: Barry Sullivan, John Thomson OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Hurlburt (Planning Director) and Leah Zambernardi (Assistant Planning Director) RECORDER: Jeannine Dion Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Grimes: motion to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearings, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. Motion carries. Public Hearing – Modification to Site Plan Review Application #57-00 – Reduce size of proposed construction of a one-story, 10,000 sq. ft. building for manufacturing and distribution purposes – 480 Rantoul Street – Rantoul Street LLC & Force Realty LLC c/o Dinart Serpa/Dunkin Donuts Hurlburt reads the legal notice into record. Attorney Mark Glovsky appears on behalf of the applicant. He introduces Dinart Serpa, the General Manager. Glovsky states that the property is at 480 Rantoul Street. It contains approximately 68,000 square feet with 80 feet of frontage on Rantoul Street. The applicant was before the Zoning Board, Planning Board, Design Review Board and Parking & Traffic Commission in the year 2000. The same project, a single-story masonry and steel building, which is approximately 10,000 square feet in size, is proposed this evening. It would be used as a commercial bakery for Dunkin Donuts. Donuts and other baked goods would be made at night and delivery would be in the morning to approximately 30 Dunkin Donuts stores on the north shore. The project was designed with 42 parking spaces, which exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. It was not a project that required dimensional relief. A variance was obtained in 2000 because the property was made up of two pieces. One of the pieces is in the CC zoning district and the main portion of the property is in the IG zoning district. Because the applicant was using a portion of CC property for parking and access to the IG property, the variance was needed. The variance was granted by the Zoning Board. When the Zoning Planning Board Minutes July 16, 2002 Page 2 Board granted relief, there were certain conditions that were added to the variance, which are still in effect. The conditions deal with hours of operation and a significant amount of landscaping that was being proposed between Rantoul Street and the building itself. The Site Plan was approved by the Planning Board on March 21, 2000. In the approval letter, the conditions of the Zoning Board and comments from a March 21, 2000 letter from Frank Killilea were incorporated. The applicant is now proposing a slight modification. The modification is a reduction of 287 square feet on the corner of the building, which is the portion of the building that was originally going to be constructed over an existing storm water main. It was determined that relocation of the water main was going to be very difficult and expensive so the better solution was to make the building a little smaller by angling the corner of the building. Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the board. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the public. John McHale, 492 Rantoul Street expresses concern regarding the parking and hours of operation. Glovsky responds that there will be no retail traffic at all. There are approximately 30 employees and the parking will have approximately 42 parking spaces. Dinkin asks if there are questions in support. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are questions in opposition. Rosalie Cohen, 115 Elliott Street states she is opposed to the project. Domenic Secondiani, 485 Rantoul Street asks, if other than the footprint reduction, if the proposal will be the same. Glovsky responds that it will be. Hurlburt reads the following correspondence into record: · Letter from Frank Killilea, dated July 16, 2002. · Letter from the Board of Health, dated July 15, 2002. · Letter from the Design Review Board, dated July 15, 2002. Hurlburt asks Killilea to offer his comments. Killilea states that the Planning Board should have the stamp and signature of a registered architect from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the architect’s plans as is required of all plans that come before the City of Beverly. He states that the 6-inch water main goes directly into the building and that the City requests a more detailed plan showing a tee-off with a smaller domestic line. He suggests the Planning Board may include this as a condition. He pointed out to the Planning Board Minutes July 16, 2002 Page 3 developer that if they come in with a smaller domestic line there will be a smaller water demand charge, if he revises the drawings. Glovsky states the applicant would be happy to incorporate Mr. Killilea’s comments. The public hearing is closed. The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order. Discussion/Decision – Modification to Site Plan Review Application #57-00 – Reduce size of proposed construction of a one-story, 10,000 sq. ft. building for manufacturing and distribution purposes – 480 Rantoul Street – Rantoul Street LLC & Force Realty LLC c/o Dinart Serpa/Dunkin Donuts Flannery asks Mr. Glovsky if everything else is the same on the plan besides the proposed modification. Glovsky responds that everything is the same, including all of the previous conditions. Dinkin states that two out of three sheets are not signed. He asks Mr. Killilea his recommendation. Killilea responds that if the Planning Board gets the assurance that they will be signed, the board can vote this evening. Flannery: motion to vote in favor of #57-00 – 480 Rantoul Street including the conditions stipulated by Mr. Killilea (signatures of registered architect) and those conditions in the original approval, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries. Birch Woods Subdivision – Request for Extension of Completion Date – J. J. Phelan & Sons, Inc./Joseph Phelan Hurlburt reads a letter from Joseph J. Phelan dated July 11, 2002 to the Planning Department requesting an extension of the Performance Bond in the amount of $1,595,193.75 and the official completion date to September 30, 2002. Hurlburt reads a letter from Frank Killilea recommending approval of the request for extension of time. Flannery: motion to grant the extension of the construction completion date to September 30, 2002, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries. Planning Board Minutes July 16, 2002 Page 4 Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s) a. 865 Hale Street/Kevin Barry Hurlburt states that this is a conveyance of a sliver of property from one owner to another. The reason for the conveyance is that Lot 1 is putting an addition on the house. The plan is technically compliant. Flannery: motion to endorse the plan for 865 Hale Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Site Plan Review Application #72-02 and Special Permit Application #105-02 – 92 Congregate Elderly Units – 2 Boyles Street – Whitehall Realty Trust – Set Public Hearing Attorney Thomas Alexander appears on behalf of the applicant. He states that the applicant is requesting a date for a public hearing in September. Flannery: motion to set a public hearing for Site Plan Review Application #72-02 and Special Permit Application #105-02 – 92 Congregate Elderly Units – 2 Boyles Street for September 19, 2002 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries. Master Plan Discussion (The following members of the Master Plan Steering Committee are in attendance: Wendy Frontiero, Maureen Troubetaris, Joanne Avallon, Linda Goodenough, Don Preston, Virginia McGlynn, Scott Houseman and George Simon) Dinkin states that the discussion with the Master Plan Steering Committee is part of the process of the adoption of the Draft Master Plan. It will consist of dialogue between the Planning Board and some members of the Master Plan Steering Committee. There will not be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions. Grimes states that she has four (4) proposed amendments to the Draft Master Plan. Amendment #1 Amendment #1 (on pages 28 and 29 of the Draft Master Plan) – Grimes expresses concern about the rights of property owners in relation to setting guidelines and standards for the neighborhood organizations. Planning Board Minutes July 16, 2002 Page 5 Grimes recommends that the Draft Master Plan be amended by deleting the three paragraphs following the label “Establish Neighborhood Associations.” Goodenough states that the Master Plan Committee was here one month ago and has spent hundreds of hours working on the draft Master Plan. She states the purpose of this section was to put more teeth into regulations, zoning requirements and design. The intent is not to give the neighborhood groups a regulatory role. Avallon states she is a member of a neighborhood association in the Boyles Street neighborhood, which was completely defunct until there was potential for 92 units to be built in the middle of the neighborhood. It is not intended to be a regulatory or legislative authority. It simply exists to advise the Planning Board. Avallon proposes instead of deleting text from pages 28 and 29 to add the following: Neighborhood Associations do not embody any regulatory or legislative authority. Thus are merely advisory boards on the discretion of the Planning Board. Preston states the intent of neighborhood associations is to be inclusive not exclusive. Dinkin asks if there are questions from members of the board. Dinkin states that the Planning Board is the adopting authority and there are members of the Board who have certain specific objections to very specific areas of the plan. There should be a dialogue. The board would be derelict in its duties if it simply accepted the document without question and made the acceptance process a rubber stamp process. Dinkin states that his issue is that with enshrining neighborhood associations in a document accepted by the City, the message that you send is if you want your voice heard, the only way you can have your voice heard is through the neighborhood association. Grimes states that the intent of the text on pages 28 and 29 is meaningless. It is not needed, it is meaningless and it has the potential to be really dangerous. The mechanisms are in place right now. She asks if people are going to decide what the taste and design of the homes in the neighborhood should be. She questions what kind of enforcement power the neighborhood association would have. Houseman states that the true spirit and intent is to say that as a City, our vision cumulatively includes the Planning Department partnering with, listening to, and seeking the participation of the neighborhood associations as well as citizens. The intent is to recognize that we have these organizations and they have value in the community. Planning Board Minutes July 16, 2002 Page 6 Dinkin states he believes there is potential that the Draft Master Plan could be evidentiary, the language deserves a certain amount of care. Houseman states that the Master Plan is a vision statement and a culmination of many comments. Avallon suggests doing something quite simple. Grimes states that she is willing to come to a compromise. Dinkin recommends that the group run through those sections that members of the board take issue with and then appoint a small subcommittee (representatives from the Planning Board and Master Plan Steering Committee) to do rewrites. Amendment #2 Amendment #2 (on page 56 of the Draft Master Plan) – Grimes recommends deleting the chapter beginning, “Although the city may meet its 10% requirement for Chapter 40B …” Grimes states she is absolutely for affordable housing in Beverly. She interprets the text to say that even though the City of Beverly meets the 10% standard, we should go beyond the 10% and we should be able to establish affordable housing anywhere in the city in any zone. She states that would circumvent zoning and would blow apart the zoning protections that residents rely upon. Houseman states that he interprets the text differently. Goodenough states that she thinks the intent was for the city to pay attention to the 10% requirement and to be ahead of 40B. Dinkin recommends the following: It is the obligation of the community to be proactive keeping the availability of affordable housing above 10%. Amendment #3 Amendment #3 (on pages 67 & 68) – Grimes states that any reference to the Community Preservation Act (CPA) should not be in an official document. It is a political issue. She believes a city official can take a stand on the topic, however, an official document should not be taking a stand on a political issue. She believes it is illegal. Flannery agrees that it would be logical to delete reference to the CPA. Planning Board Minutes July 16, 2002 Page 7 Houseman states the CPA was viewed as a potential funding source. It is advocacy of an idea. Grimes states that the CPA is up to the voters and the voters did not vote for it when it was on the ballot. Hurlburt states if the CPA comes back before the voters, the Master Plan could insert text about the CPA. She is in agreement with Grimes because it has gone to the voters and they did not support it. She states the Master Plan could be amended in the future and the text could be reinserted. Amendment #4 Amendment #4 (on page 71) – Recommendation for tradition design. Grimes states she views the text to make open space subdivision design the preeminent design and the traditional subdivision to be allowed only by special permit. She recommends deleting all of the text in the box on page 71 under the caption “Recommendations for Traditional Designs” and inserting the following text: “Retain traditional subdivision design and allow the use of CSD standards upon the issuance of a special permit by the Planning Board.” Houseman states that he would not want to see the Master Plan handcuff the discussion of the open space subdivision. If it is not clear, he has no problem changing it, but he does not want to handcuff the community before discussions even happen. Dinkin states he appreciates all the time and effort the Master Plan Committee has put into the document. He states that he has some background in Master Plans and he believes the document is more than acceptable. Rink asks a clarifying question about the essence of the vision for the waterfront. Goodenough states that there was a lot of emphasis placed on commercial development, mixed use (commercial/residential). There was consensus that the waterfront will drive new development downtown. There is a natural beautiful harbor, which is underutilized. Massive rezoning will need to occur. Avallon adds that there should be support of the fishing industry. Dinkin states that he has one philosophical issue (on page 86) referring to additional layers of government. He proposes the deletion of Section 4 on page 86 beginning at the second sentence. Planning Board Minutes July 16, 2002 Page 8 There is discussion regarding the future of the role of the Master Plan Steering Committee. Dinkin states he believes that empowering the same body to create and monitor a plan is horrible internal control. He asks the Planning Director for her opinion. Hurlburt states that it could be a double-edged sword. It could be good from a historical perspective. However, there is a lot that falls on the Planning Department in terms of staffing various boards and the department may not have the ability to really monitor the plan. Dinkin recommends creating a subcommittee to work on the rewrites pertaining to the five issues discussed this evening. All parties agree to the following members for the “rewrite subcommittee”: Grimes and Rink from the Planning Board, Simon and Avallon from the Master Plan Steering Committee and Leah Zambernardi (Assistant Planning Director). Flannery: motion to conduct a special meeting on August 1, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. to vote on the amendments to the Draft Master Plan so that that the Planning Board can move forward on the vote, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries. Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting, June 18, 2002 Flannery: motion to accept the minutes dated June 18, 2002 as amended, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor. Motion carries. City Council Order Hurlburt states that Councilman Tim Flaherty has submitted an order for the creation of an ordinance relative to construction under 25,000 square feet. This order is a measure that the City can use to increase design standards for certain development in Beverly. He has referred this order to the Planning Board for its review and support. The Planning Board is being asked to review this order and to take the strategies and formats of the model ordinances, supplied as an attachment in the staff report, into consideration while discussing whether it supports such design standards for Beverly. Dinkin states he does not want to bring this to a vote and suggests that the Planning Department treat it as a request from a member of City Council to draft a proposed ordinance for review and introduction to the City Council. Planning Board Minutes July 16, 2002 Page 9 Adjournment Flannery: motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunn, all members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 10:00 p.m.