Loading...
2002-02-12 CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: February 12, 2002 LOCATION: Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice-Chairperson John Thomson, Robert Rink, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery Elizabeth McGlynn, Peter Thomas, Patricia Grimes MEMBERS ABSENT: Barry Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: Acting Planning Director Debra Hurlburt, Engineering Director Frank Killilea RECORDER: Karen Bradley Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Thomson: motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Thomas. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. Public Hearing (continued): Site Plan Review Application #67-01 – Cabot Crossing – construction of commercial building and mixed-use commercial/residential building – 495 Cabot Street/Town & Country Homes Hurlburt reads the legal notice for the public hearing. Dinkin states that this public hearing has been reopened for the limited purpose of discussing the traffic study and any other new information that has become available since the September meeting. Attorney Thomas Alexander is present to represent Town and Country Homes. Also in attendance are Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering, Paul Hajec of Hajec Associates, and George Belleau of Town and Country Homes. Alexander updates the Board stating that the Conservation Commission is of the opinion that this project is not in compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act, therefore denying this project. He states that this project is presently under the review of the Department of Environmental Protection. Alexander states that as a result of the traffic study, Town and Country Homes has agreed to some mitigation that was recommended by the City’s traffic consultant. He states that the final conclusion of the traffic study is that this project will have an imperceptible and insignificant impact on traffic in this area. Alexander explains that an abutter expressed some concern regarding the drainage plan. He states that the drainage setback has been redesigned so that it does not cross the City’s drainage easement. Planning Board minutes February 12, 2002 meeting Page two Alexander states that this project has been excessively reviewed and approval has been granted by the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Parking and Traffic Commission, the Design Review Board, the City Engineer and the Building Inspector. He states that the Public Services Director has strictly reviewed the drainage for this project and suggested some changes that have been incorporated into the revised drainage plan. Hajec provides a detailed review of the traffic study that was performed by Bayside Engineering including trip generation and trip assignment. He states that upon review of this traffic study, the findings did not change by any great degree. Hajec next provides a detailed review of the mitigation for this project which will include a stop light and stop bar to provide controlled exits and do not enter signs at the two exits, and appropriate markings (striping of lanes) for the school exit at the developer’s expense. Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the members of the Board. Grimes asks for clarification of appropriate markings out of the school driveway. Hajec states that they will stripe the road as necessary to ease flow of traffic out of the school exit. He reminds the Board that there will be a stop sign at the exit of the project. Thomson asks for definition of a stop bar. Hajec explains that it is a stop line of either white paint or white plastic material put on the pavement at the exit, whichever material the city determines most appropriate. Thomas asks why the egress is situated on the left side; he states that it is usually situated on the right. Hajec states that the location of the egress for this project allows more efficient operation with respect to the location of the school exit. Thomas raises some concern for parking along the roadway in this area. Hajec states that installation of curbing and signage in this area should prevent parking. Thomas asks if parking was observed in this location during the traffic study. Griffin states yes, and adds that it was recommended by the City Engineer to install granite curbing and no parking signage once the drainage is complete. Griffin states that the road striping should also serve to limit parking on the roadway. Thomas asks if lighting is required at this four-way traffic location in accordance to the State regulation. Griffin explains that the requirement is 75 vehicles per lane exiting one of the sites during peak hours. He states that this location does not come close to that requirement. Thomson asks the location of the crosswalk in this area. Hajec points out that it is 20 feet north of the driveway of this project. Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the Board. There are none. Dinkin asks if there are any clarifying questions from the public. Planning Board minutes February 12, 2002 meeting Page three Beverly resident, Tim Smith, states that he has concern for where all the traffic will go. Hajec states that the level of service analysis shows that there will be an additional delay of one second, but no greater volume. Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, asks if all internal roadways for this project will be 18 feet in width. Hajec states yes. Maglio asks if 18-foot roadways will create congestion. Dinkin reminds the public that this public hearing is restricted to the impact of the traffic study. Alexander states that internal parking and traffic lanes for this project have been designed in accordance with the City of Beverly zoning ordinance. Lorelei Azarian, 509 Cabot Street, states that she is concerned for doubling ways of traffic in this area as well as buses managing turns within the striped lanes. She is of the opinion that it is unfair to the children at the school to create any additional traffic. She mentions the numerous businesses in this area and asks what is the enforceability to limit commercial businesses on this site since it is private property. Hajec states that the enforceability is for the site itself, not outside of that private property. Hajec states that he understands her concern for the children. Roger Morency, 8 Columbia Road, asks how many vehicles will be generated from both the commercial and residential properties on this site. Hajec explains the trip generation in detail. He states that in the a.m. peak hour there will be 53 new trips and 14 pass-by trips, and in the p.m. peak hour there will be 28 new trips and 7 pass-by trips. Hajec states that these numbers have been revised and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Bill Squibb, 509 Cabot Street, asks if there will be a crossing guard at the school and if there is not, will there be an additional cost to the city to have a crossing guard. Alexander states that there is a crossing guard at the school already; therefore there will be no additional cost to the city. Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, asks how it is possible to estimate traffic in this area if commercial uses have not been determined for this project. Hajec explains that the trip generation is based on the square footage of the commercial retail space for the project. The square footage of commercial retail space for Building 1 is 4,950 square feet and for Building 2 is 7,200 square feet. Hajec explains in detail the different categories of commercial uses that are typically used for this type of estimation. He explains that specialty retail is a collection of sites with different end uses. Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the public relative to the traffic study impact. Bill Squibb, 509 Cabot Street, states that he is of the opinion that the commercial uses for this site should be specifically determined. Alexander states that not all site plans that come before the City of Beverly have specific tenants identified due to the process of collecting necessary permits. He states that the likely uses have been identified for this project. Dinkin states that there are a number of site plan approved with specific uses identified. Planning Board minutes February 12, 2002 meeting Page four Dinkin asks Killilea for comments on the traffic study. Killilea states that Hajec has properly presented the transactions that have transpired with both Hajac Associates and Bayside Engineering for the traffic study. Dinkin asks Hurlburt to read any communications she has received. Hurlburt reads correspondence received from the Engineering Department (dated 2/12/02), the Design Review Board (dated 2/12/02), Mr. & Mrs. David Harman of 16 Roosevelt Avenue (dated 2/12/02), the Principal at the Memorial Middle School (dated 12/19/01) that was submitted to the parents of the middle school, and the Conservation Commission to George Belleau of Town and Country Homes (dated 2/12/02). Dinkin reminds the public that the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission work as two separate entities and cannot condition upon one another. He states that the two entities operate based upon very different statutes. Dinkin asks if there are any additional clarifying questions from the public. Lorelei Azarian, 509 Cabot Street, states that the original rebuttal from the Planning Board questioned the consistency of the numbers on the traffic study. She asks for clarification on this issue. Killilea states that this question will have to be referred back to the traffic consultant. He states that he does not recall that discrepancy. Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the public. There are none. Dinkin asks for a review of the revised drainage plan. Griffin explains the changes to the drainage plan in detail. He states that they will be using a 15- inch pipe instead of a 12-inch pipe out connect out to the main pipe. Dinkin asks if there are any questions from members of the Board. Thomson asks if the larger 15-inch drainage pipe will serve to remove surface water drainage from this site. Griffin states yes and adds that this drainage pipe will also handle any additional drainage runoff from Roosevelt Avenue. Dinkin asks Killilea for his opinion on the revised drainage plan. Killilea states that he reviewed the initial redesign of the drainage pipe with Mike Collins and Dick McNeil and they recommended relocating the drainage pipe along the sidewalk to avoid breaking up the area of the road that was recently repaved. He states once the drainage is installed, the developer will then add vertical granite curb and concrete sidewalk to the southern end of their property, which will be an improvement to this area. Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the public on the drainage plan. Planning Board minutes February 12, 2002 meeting Page five Claudette Turner, Roosevelt Avenue, asks how flooding in this area will improve if the driveway for this project will be 1 ½ to 2 feet higher in elevation. Griffin explains that the new drainage pipe will serve this area more efficiently than what presently exists. Turner states that she is of the opinion that the proposed location of the replicated wetlands will create more flooding in her yard. Bill Squibb, 509 Cabot Street, states that this is not the same plan that is on file in the Planning Department. Griffin states that this plan was submitted in January 2002. Squibb states that MassHighway requires trench cover and replacement if the highway starts within 30 feet of the project. A detailed discussion takes place on the State requirements. Griffin states this project will follow any necessary State requirements. Killilea provides clarification on the State requirements issue. He states that most of the construction that Town and Country Homes is proposing is within the City’s portion of Cabot Street. Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the public. There are none. Dinkin asks for comments in opposition from the public. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, provides detailed comments voicing her opposition to this project due to the high volume of traffic in this area. Beverly resident, Tim Smith, states that he is strongly opposed to this project and is of the opinion that the neighbors’ opposition to this project should be considered. Roger Morency, 8 Columbia Road, states that there are seven schools with ½ mile of this project. He states that 1/3 of the students get to school by bus, 1/3 of the students walk, and 1/3 of the students are driven by parents. He states that there is no need to add additional vehicles into this area. Claudette Turner, Roosevelt Avenue, states that she is in agreement with Morency. She states that the lights at Henry’s Market will also add to the traffic problems in this area. She states that she is a bus driver and witnesses parking along the side of the road in this area everyday. She is of the opinion that “No Parking” signs will not alleviate this problem. Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, states that the plan is technically incorrect since it does not properly show the abutting properties. She provides detailed comments voicing her opposition to this project due to severe overcrowding in this area. She raises many other concerns as follows: · Questions developers rights to mixed uses; · Questions multi-family in CN zoned area; nd · Questions where frontage is for 2 commercial building; · Questions where are the required setbacks for the townhouses; · Questions use of an 18-foot roadway - avoids subdivision control laws. Planning Board minutes February 12, 2002 meeting Page six Maglio states that a subdivision requires two ingresses and two egresses. She questions the approval of the Fire Department and the Public Safety Commission based on this fact. Dinkin asks for comments in support from the public. There are none. Dinkin asks the developer if they wish to close the public hearing and the Board vote on the plan as it stands, or if they wish to recess the public hearing to correct the technical defects of the plan and provide a description of the proposed commercial uses. Alexander states that they would prefer to recess the public hearing to correct the plan to show abutting buildings to the site. Alexander takes the opportunity to speak regarding some of the comments in opposition. He states that this is not a subdivision plan, nor a plan requiring any special permits or variances. He states that this is an as-of-right project that is in accordance with the City of Beverly Zoning Ordinance. He also states that this project complies with Public Safety requirements as well as the Parking and Traffic Commission and the Design Review Board. Alexander states that this project will have an insignificant impact on the traffic in this area based on the most recent traffic study. He states that the project will follow appropriate neighborhood uses in accordance with the Zoning Inspector. Thomson: motion to recess the public hearing for 495 Cabot Street to March 19, 2002 at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. Dinkin reconvenes and calls the regular meeting to order at 9:05 p.m. 1. Meeting Place Circle – Acceptance of Street Acceptance Plans and As-built Plans, Performance Bond Reduction, Extension of Tri-Partite Agreement & Construction Completion Date – Dana Tower/Tower Homes Dinkin asks the Planning Director to update the Board, which she does. Hurlburt reads communications that she has received. She reads two letters from Thomas Neve (dated 2/18/02 and 2/8/02), and a letter from the Engineering Department (dated 2/12/02). Dinkin asks if there are any questions from the members of the Board. Thomas asks if any information was received regarding the drainage issue. Killilea states that this is being addressed as a separate issue and a $25,000 bond has been posted. He states that the major drainage has been complete but two items remain outstanding. Dinkin asks if there are any additional questions from the members of the Board. There are none. Planning Board minutes February 12, 2002 meeting Page seven Thomson: motion to grant an extension of Tri-Partite Agreement and construction completion date to February 28, 2003 for Meeting Place Circle, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. Thomson: motion to grant Performance Bond Reduction to $5,500 for Meeting Place Circle, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. Thomson: motion to accept As-built Plans and Street Acceptance Plans for Meeting Place Circle, seconded by Flannery. Grimes asks if members of the Board review the As-built Plans. Killilea states that the Engineering Department reviews the plans and submits their recommendations to the Planning Board. He states that the plans are available for the Board members to review at any time. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. 2. Discussion/Decision: Cabot Crossing – Site Plan Review Application #67-01. Construction of commercial building and mixed-use commercial/residential building – 495 Cabot Street/Town & Country Homes Hurlburt reads communication from Attorney Thomas Alexander (dated 2/12/02). Thomson: motion to accept the request to extend Planning Board action for 495 Cabot Street to March 19, 2002, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. 3. Proposed Zoning Amendment – City Council Order #29 – Section 29-23.D.1 & Section 29-23.D.2.c or Zoning Ordinance of the City of Beverly – Recommend Joint Public Hearing – 1, 2 & 3 Cailin Road/Cailin Road, LLC and Cabot Beverly, LLC Dinkin asks the Planning Director to update the Board, which she does. Hurlburt reads communication received from Attorney Mark Glovsky (dated 1/10/02). Thomson: motion to request joint public hearing with the City Council on proposed zoning amendment – City Council Order #29, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. 4. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (ANR’s) a. Beaver Pond Road – Chris Albano Hurlburt updates the Board stating that in November 2001 an ANR was approved by the Board for this land that is slightly different from the ANR that is being presented this evening. Planning Board minutes February 12, 2002 meeting Page eight Mike Zafiropoulos, 327A Watertown Street, Newton, is present to represent BC Nominee Trust. He explains that the Land Court has requested that a couple of minor calculations be shown on the common driveway and also that the lots be renumbered from 26A, 26B, 25A and 25B to 27, 28, 29, and 30 respectively. He states that nothing else has changed. Thomson asks if any of the lot lines have changed. Zafiropoulos states no. Dinkin asks if the plan remains in technical compliance. Hurlburt states yes. Thomson: motion to endorse the plan for Beaver Pond Road/Chris Albano as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. 5. Hawk Hill Subdivision Settlement Plan – Acceptance of Form G Covenant and sign Plan – Symes Associates Dinkin asks the Planning Director to update the Board, which she does. She states that she has deferred this matter to the Assistant City Solicitor, Bob Munroe. Munroe is present and explains that this plan meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Control Law and requests that the Board sign the Plan. Dinkin explains that the Board signs all plans at the conclusion of their meetings. Hurlburt reads communication received from Joshua Latham of Symes Associates requesting the submission of a Form G Covenant to proceed with the project. Dinkin asks Assistant City Solicitor to review the document. Dinkin recesses the meeting until 9:25 p.m. to allow Munroe to review the document. Dinkin calls the regular meeting to order at 9:25 p.m. Dinkin asks Munroe if the document is acceptable. Munroe states yes. Thomson: motion to accept Form G Covenant for Hawk Hill Subdivision Settlement Plan, seconded by Dunn. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. 6. Approval of minutes a. Regular Meeting – December 18, 2001 Hurlburt reminds the Board that she was not present at this meeting and any recollection and assistance would be helpful. A discussion takes place regarding the suggested amendments. Planning Board minutes February 12, 2002 meeting Page nine Thomson: motion to accept the meeting minutes as amended for the December 18, 2001 regular meeting, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. b. Executive Session – December 18, 2001 Thomson: motion to accept the meeting minutes for the December 18, 2001 Executive Session, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. c. Regular Meeting – January 15, 2002 Thomson states that the motion to defer the public hearing for #67-01 – Cabot Crossing (page 1) was made by him. Thomson: motion to accept the meeting minutes as amended for the January 15, 2002 regular meeting, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. 7. New/Other Business a. Signature of Planning Board Officers for Registrar b. Request for public hearing Hurlburt states Attorney Thomas Alexander has requested a public hearing to modify the Commodore Restaurant Site Plan. She states that the request is for an 11,000 square foot reduction to the plan. Thomson asks if the site plan modification has been submitted to the Planning Department. Alexander states yes. Thomson: motion to schedule the public hearing for the Commodore Restaurant Site Plan Modification on March 19, 2002 at 8:30 p.m., seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. 8. Adjournment Thomson: motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries 8-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:35 p.m.