Loading...
2003-10-21 City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: October 21, 2003 PLACE: Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; John Thomson, William Betts, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Daniel Hamm, Elizabeth McGlynn, Robert Rink, Donald Walter OTHERS PRESENT: Leah Zambernardi, Asst. Planning Director RECORDER: Jeannine Dion Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Thomson: Motion to recess for scheduled public hearings. Seconded by Flannery. Motion carries 9-0. Public Hearing (cont.): Chapman Corner Estates – 2 Boyles Street – Definitive Subdivision Plan – Manor Homes at Whitehall, LLC/David Carnevale Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice. Attorney Alexander states that due to an issue with the application, he is requesting a continuance to the November meeting. Thomson asks if he will also extend the time for Planning Board action. Attorney Alexander agrees. Thomson: Motion to continue the public hearing to the November meeting of the Board and to extend the time for Planning Board action on this matter from December 1, 2003 to January 30, 2004. Seconded by Rink. Motion carries 9-0. Dinkin reconvenes the regular meeting of the Board Repetitive Petition – Request for Planning Board approval to return to ZBA within 2 years of a variance denial – 10 Tall Tree Drive – Tom Carnevale Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice. Planning Board Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 2 Attorney Alexander states that Mr. Carnevale received an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission to build a house on the lot. The Order was appealed and the DEP issued a Superceding Order of Conditions. This Order included a request that the petitioner apply for a variance from the ZBA. The ZBA denied the variance last summer due in part to objections by the Conservation Commission. The Commission recommended that the petitioner relocate the house on the upland portion of the lot, to the west of a perennial stream. Since then, the petitioner found that relocating the house to the upland area was not possible due to a sewer easement at that location. They are now proposing to keep the house on the east side, but to reduce the size of the house so it is outside of the wetland area. This still requires a variance by the ZBA. The petitioner is now requesting that the Planning Board make a finding that there has been a specific and material change to the petition so that the applicant may reapply to the ZBA, as allowed by M.G.L. Chapter 40A §16. McGlynn asks what the difference in size is between the two dwellings. Attorney Alexander states that the dwelling was 4,500 square feet. It is now 3,000 square feet. Thomson : Motion to make a finding that there have been specific and material changes relative to the dimensional elements mentioned above. Seconded by Betts. Motion carries 9-0. Thomson : Motion to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearings. Seconded by Flannery. Motion carries 9-0. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #77-03 – Cummings Center – construction of a 3-story office building – (21,000 sq. ft./floor) attached to existing garage with access off McKay Street – Beverly Commerce Park, Inc. – Gerard McSweeney Mr. McSweeney states that Cummings properties proposes to construct a three-story office and research building consisting of approximately 21,000 s.f. per floor. The building will be located near the intersection of Elliott and McKay Streets and will be connected to the existing parking garage. The application also involves access onto McKay Street from the second floor of the parking garage. Mr. McSweeney states that the building will have a steel frame on piles with a glass and concrete façade. The plans have changed slightly since the original submission to accommodate the comments of the Beverly Design Review Board. The Conservation Commission and Parking and Traffic Commission have approved this petition. He states that this site originally had 3 curb cuts onto Elliott Street. Two have been eliminated and the remaining cut is Cummings Center Drive. Planning Board Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 3 He states there have been 6 traffic studies on this parcel since 1996. A study in 1998 recommended as a mitigating measure that a curb cut from McKay Street would help traffic. In 2000, they came back to the Planning Board for site plan review to make this curb cut. At that time, concerns were expressed by neighbors and the City about the curb cut in relation to improvements being done at the time on Elliott Street and McKay Street. The intersection signals and turning lanes had not been completed at that time. It is now finished and operates beautifully. He consulted with the Planning Director and the City Engineer and they suggested an updated traffic assessment of the building and the impact of the new driveway. Thomson : Motion to recess this public hearing until 8:45 p.m. so they can convene for the next scheduled public hearing. Motion carries 9-0. Public Hearing – Modification to Site Plan Review Application #76-03 – Shaw’s Supermarket – Relocation of two light poles – S.R. Weiner & Associates/Appledore Engineering Zambernardi reads the public notice. Steve Haight of Appledore Engineering states that he received site plan approval at the last meeting in order to construct a loading dock and to make parking and landscaping improvements to the former Ames building for the Shaw’s relocation. He states they overlooked adding two light poles near Hellard Road to the plan. Because these light poles are very close to existing residences, there was a need to bring the revised plan back to the Board for approval. Dinkin asks the Board if they have any questions. There are none. Dinkin asks the public if there are any comments in favor or in opposition to the proposal. There are none. Dinkin closes the public hearing. Dinkin calls the regular meeting of the Board back to order. Discussion/Decision- Modification to Site Plan Review Application #76-03 – Shaw’s Supermarket (former Ames Building) – Relocation of two light poles – S.R. Weiner & Associates/Appledore Engineering Flannery : Motion to approve the Site Plan as presented. Seconded by Rink. Motion carries 9-0. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s) Wood Lane – Anthony Jack Thomson states he would like a notation added to the plan recognizing that Parcel A is not a building lot and that any new house should have residential sprinklers. Planning Board Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Jack agrees to add these notations to the plan. Thomson : Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Seconded by Flannery. Motion carries 9-0. Melvin Avenue – Doherty and DeLuca – 35 Doty Avenue and 2A Tibbets Avenue, Danvers Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Seconded by Flannery. Motion carries 9-0. Approval of Meeting Minutes Flannery states that the Sabatini ANR plan was not recorded in the minutes. Flannery : Motion to reject the minutes so that they may be amended. Seconded by Thomson. Motion carries 9-0. Thomson : Motion to reconvene for scheduled public hearing. Seconded by Flannery. Motion carries 9-0. Public Hearing (cont.): Site Plan Review Application #73-03: Prescott Farms – Planned Residential Development (PRD) – Part of a 70-Unit Elderly Residential Development in adjacent IR Zone – Boulder Lane – The Miles Group Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice. Attorney Alexander requests a continuance to the January meeting of the Board. Thomson : Motion to continue this matter to the January meeting of the Board. Seconded by Dunn. Motion carries 9-0. Dinkin reconvenes the regular meeting of the Board. Discussion/Decision – Special Permit Application #107-03: One Pork-Chop Lot – 5 Elmtop Lane – Elmtop Realty Trust/Michael & Robert Hubbard, Tr . Attorney Alexander states that the neighbors and the petitioners have agreed that the conditions presented to the Board at the last meeting would be made through a private agreement. Attorney Robert McCann concurs. Attorney Alexander states that the petitioners agree that there will be no substantial or material changes to the plans Planning Board Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 5 submitted and on file with the Board without the presentation of such changes to the Planning Board at a public hearing. Thomson : Motion to approve the special permit with the conditions that there shall be no substantial or material changes to the plans submitted and on file with the Board without the presentation of such changes to the Planning Board at a public hearing, and that the plans are subject to the conditions suggested in the department head comment letters. Seconded by Flannery. Motion carries 9-0. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s) 5 Elmtop Lane – Elmtop Realty Tr./Michael & Robert Hubbard Flannery : Motion to endorse the plan as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law. Seconded by Betts. Motion carries 9-0. Flannery : Motion to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearing. Motion carries 9-0. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #77-03 – Cummings Center – construction of a 3-story office building – (21,000 sq.ft./floor) attached to existing garage with access off McKay Street – Beverly Commerce Park, Inc. – Gerard McSweeney Mr. McSweeney continues that the access drive will be used as a shortcut to the garage only. He states the most recent report states this access drive will not be a problem. Dinkin asks the Board for their clarifying questions. Walter asks about the curb cut going into the second floor of the garage. Mr. McSweeney states that the curb cut leads directly into the garage. It does not take people anywhere else on the site. Dinkin asks if the current plan is for both right and left turns. Mr. McSweeney states that it is. Hamm asks about cueing of cars waiting to get into the garage. Mr. McSweeney states that will probably not occur as there is much room in the garage for cars. The average utilization now is 30 percent. He states it is a 500-slot garage. Planning Board Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 6 Dinkin asks about the anticipated utilization rate due to the increase in access and additional demand. Mr. McSweeney states that it will be a 70 to 80 percent range and that the garage only fills up on snowy weekdays. Walter states that in the worst case scenario, everyone could leave the garage by taking rights on McKay Street. Mr. McSweeney stated that he anticipates most of the people would be using Elliott Street. Not many people would be traveling north on McKay. He anticipates that people traveling on Balch Street would use the Balch Street entrance. Dinkin asked about the nature of tenants in the new building. Mr. McSweeney states that the tenants would be tech firms and professional offices. There are many entrepreneurial businesses. He states that many of them have different office hours than 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Hope Benne, 44 Hillcrest Avenue, asks what the applicant’s plans are to come into compliance with Chapter 91. She questions how the applicant intends to have a seamless walkway from the McDonald’s site with the pond walk. She states the walkway would have to go through a parking lot area and the applicant is not in compliance with the license. McSweeney responds the Chapter 91 license was issued a couple of years ago when the walkway wasn’t done. Ms. Benne asks the Planning Board if the applicant should be allowed to start the new building when they aren’t in compliance with the license. Dinkin responds that he has a concern that the applicant is drifting from what is appropriate to this hearing. The board has no jurisdiction over the enforcement of Chapter 91 licenses. The discussion is very specific to a building and a curb cut. Mr. McSweeney states because the building permit rests on historic filled tidelands, it will require an additional Chapter 91 filing with the state DEP. A resident of McKay Street expresses concern about traffic on McKay Street. A resident of Elliott Street expresses concern about traffic. Zambernardi reads a petition to reject the proposal by Cummings Center for entrance and exit on second level west parking garage to McKay Street near the Elliott Street intersection. A longtime resident of Goodyear Street states she approves of many of the improvements made at Cummings Center but enough is enough. She states she can’t get out of her street and she has increased traffic cutting through her street as a result of the Cummings Planning Board Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 7 Center. She asks that the Planning Board take into consideration what the neighbors want. Susan Mueller, Executive Director of Beverly Chamber of Commerce, states she represents the Chamber, Board of Directors and the Executive Committee. She states the Cummings Center has always been a good corporate neighbor and has enriched the business community. Julia French, 90 McKay Street states that she appreciates what the Cummings Center has done for the community, however she has a problem with traffic. She expresses concern regarding pedestrian traffic, the proximity of the project to the playground and increasing traffic near the school for the deaf. She asks if the applicant could wait and see what traffic is going to be like when the Cummings Center is fully occupied and then reassess the situation. Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, states in a June 21, 2001 letter the applicant agreed to limit the size of the building to 42,000 square feet. Mr. McSweeney states the concept for the Cummings Center was to create a campus environment where there are services available on site so that when people come to the site in the morning to go to work, they don’t have to get in their car and leave every time they want a cup of coffee, sandwich, haircut, daycare, etc. Thomson asks how many people would work in the building of 63,000 s.f. Mr. McSweeney states that it could be anywhere from under 100 people to over 200 people depending on the business. Dinkin asks a question about the floor space to parking space ratio. Flannery asks about the location of the driveway. Thomson asks a clarifying question regarding landscaping. McSweeney responds full landscaping will be done and there will be a tremendous amount of additional plantings done. He states the amount of pervious surface will increase with this proposal. Dinkin asks if members of the public have any questions. A resident of McKay Street states traffic has increased on McKay Street immensely in the past six years and she has serious safety concerns. She has no problem with the building. A resident asks why another curb cut is necessary. Mr. McSweeney responds that the site is close to 2 million square feet of space and it has thousands of cars per day. The Marciano property across the street, which is a little strip mall (60,000 square feet) has 5 Planning Board Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 8 curb cuts and a traffic light. He states the property warrants an additional entrance and exit. Jim Latter, 145 Park Street, states there is universal opposition to this proposal in the neighborhoods. He asks what the difference is today, than 2 years ago. Mr. McSweeney states that the traffic signals and new turning lanes have been completed. He states that Tarsook questioned this proposal at length and he is of the opinion that the turning lanes are operating perfectly. Mr. Latter states that since the site has changed, another site walk should be done. He reiterates that most people are against the proposal and he thinks they need support from the neighborhood. John Burke, 13 West Dane Street states the homes on Elliott Street don’t share the same residential character as the homes on McKay Street. He also states the traffic study does not take into account the full capacity of a six-story that already exists. Mr. McSweeney responds that the last two traffic studies (2001 and 2003) both take into account the six- story 500 building. A resident on Pierson Street states that she believes everything done at the Cummings Center has been done in a responsible community-minded way. She does not blame McKay Street problems on the Cummings Center. Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, asks about the location of the truck delivery and asks what type of truck deliveries will be done. Mr. McSweeney responds that most of the deliveries will be FedEx, UPS and U.S. Mail. They could go in the front door and there will be a receiving door in the back of the building, too. Scott Robinson, 155 McKay Street, states that the light works well now but he has concerns about the effect of the curb cut. Maureen Troubetaris, Ward I Councilor, states her concern over the traffic study. Ms. Maglio asks clarification regarding the size of the building. McSweeney responds that the building size was estimated at 42,000 square feet a couple of years ago when the Planning Board and City Council asked for a Master Build-out Plan. The size of the building was only an estimation. Dinkin asks if there was an agreement that the building be no larger than 42,000 square feet. McSweeney responds they changed the size of the building from the first approximation. Planning Board Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 9 Dinkin states if the applicant came in with a building that was 45,000 square feet, he would agree that is approximately 42,000 square feet. He states he is having a hard time with 62,000 square feet being approximately 42,000 square feet. Mr. McSweeney responds that when the city requested Cummings to think about this was that the completely unused top floor of the garage might end up being converted to office space, which is approximately 42,000 square feet. The desire now is to build one more building. Ms. Maglio asks if there is adequate parking on the site to support the proposed space. Mr. McSweeney responds that he believes there is adequate parking. Dinkin states the board may want an analysis of the number of spaces versus the amount of space and usage. Ms. Maglio references a letter from Sergeant Tarsook dated April 16, 1998 recommending that there not be a curb cut onto McKay Street. Dinkin states Sergeant Tarsook was addressing a roadway configuration that existed at the time. In the current letter, he is addressing the roadway configuration that exists now. Katherine Summit, 88 McKay Street, expresses concern about traffic. Tom Levit, 38 McKay Street, expresses concern about the increase in traffic and safety. A neighbor states he is concerned about trucks on Balch Street. Mr. McSweeney states there is a sign saying no trucks on Balch Street. Rink asks about the trash area near the new curb cut and how trucks will access it. Thomson asks how critical the curb cut is to the design of the building. Mr. McSweeney states that the importance of the curb cut outweighs the concerns. The experts say this is ok. The Board should approve this. Julia French, 90 McKay Street, asks if the applicant would consider waiting until the Cummings Center is at 100% capacity and reassess the situation at that time to see what the need is. McSweeney responds that the current occupancy at the Cummings Center is 75% if you take into account the new building. If you disregard the new building, it is 90%. The last two traffic studies both projected the full build out of the new six-story 500 building. Dinkin states he is not necessarily opposed to the curb cut but he is interested in pursuing a conversation on traffic controls – traffic controls that go beyond a speed bump at the entrance to the garage. He thanks all of the members of the public for coming to the hearing. It is a difficult balance for the board because you don’t want to discourage those Planning Board Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 10 people in your community who want to take economic risk. If the applicant wants to build more space when it is at 75% occupancy, he wishes him luck because it is good for the community. How do you balance the need to not discourage those who want to take economic risk with the legitimate fears and perceptions of the people who surround the site of the economic risk. Zambernardi reads the following letters into the record: · A letter dated October 15, 2003 from the Fire Department. · A letter dated October 10, 2003 from the Board of Health. · A letter dated October 21, 2003 from the Engineering Department. · A letter dated October 20, 2003 from the Police Department. · A letter dated October 17, 2003 from the Design Review Board. · A letter dated October 20, 2003 from the Conservation Commission. · A letter dated October 21, 2003 from the Parking & Traffic Commission. The public hearing is closed. The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order. Discussion/Decision: Site Plan Review Application #77-03 – Cummings Center – construction of a 3-story office building – (21,000 sq. ft./floor) attached to existing garage with access off McKay Street – Beverly Commerce Park, Inc. – Gerard McSweeney Thomson suggests that a site visit be conducted. Thomson: Motion to schedule a site visit on November 15, 2003 at 10:00 a.m., . seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries Adjournment: Thomson: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Betts. All members are in favor. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned.