Loading...
2004-02-19 City of Beverly, Massachusetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: February 19, 2004 PLACE: Beverly City Hall BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin; John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Daniel Hamm, Elizabeth McGlynn, Donald Walter OTHERS PRESENT: Tina Cassidy, Planning Director; Leah Zambernardi, Asst. Planning Director RECORDER: Jeannine Dion (by tape) Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Thomson moves to recess and reconvene for scheduled public hearings, seconded by Hamm. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Public Hearing: (cont.) Site Plan Review Application #78-04 Construction of a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Retail-Pharmacy with drive-thru, reconfigured parking field landscape islands & demolition of existing Papa Gino’s & Fleet Bank ATM kiosk – S.R. Weiner Associates/Appledore Engineering Zambernardi reads the legal notice. Zambernardi reads the following letters into record: · A letter from the Board of Health dated October 21, 2003. · A letter from the Engineering Department dated January 20, 2004. · A letter from the Police Department dated October 15, 2003. · A letter from the Fire Department dated October 15, 2003. · A letter from the Conservation Commission dated January 20, 2004. · A letter from the Parking and Traffic Commission dated January 20, 2004. · A letter from the Open Space and Recreation Committee dated September 2, 2003. Steve Haight, Appledore Engineering provides an overview of the site plan. He states the · The town engineer had a question regarding the four sewer connections to the building and several notes were added to the plan. · The Design Review Board issued a positive recommendation. The board asked for landscaping trellises and landscape islands on the side towards Dodge Street. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 2 · There was also a question regarding parking for the overall site. Zambernardi reads the following follow-up letters, which were received after the last public hearing into record: · Letter from the Design Review Board dated February 13, 2004. · Letter from the Frank Killilea, Engineering Director dated February 19, 2004. · Letter from Robert Nelson, Building Commissioner, dated February 19, 2004. Dinkin asks if members of the board have clarifying questions. Thomson asks if there is new lighting being proposed. Haight responds that there is lighting proposed and it will be the same style as is currently on the site. He states it will not shine out onto Dodge Street Thomson asks if anyone in the Planning Department has reviewed the parking calculations presented by the applicant to determine if they are accurate. Zambernardi responds that the parking is adequate, which has been confirmed by the Building Commissioner. Flannery asks if there will be a dumpster. Haight responds that there will be an enclosed dumpster. Thomson asks if there is a fence along the boundary of the residential properties. Haight responds there will be a 6 foot fence. Dinkin asks if members of the public have clarifying questions. Dinkin asks if members of the public have comments in opposition. There are none. Dinkin asks if members of the public have comments in support. There are none. The hearing is closed. The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order. Discussion/Decision: Public Hearing: (cont.) Site Plan Review Application #78-04 Construction of a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Retail-Pharmacy with drive-thru, reconfigured parking field landscape islands & demolition of existing Papa Gino’s & Fleet Bank ATM kiosk – S.R. Weiner Associates/Appledore Engineering Thomson: Moves to grant Site Plan Review approval of the Site Plan as presented subject to conditions mentioned in the supporting letters from City Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 3 Departments, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Site Plan Review Application #77-03 – Cummings 3-Story Building Approval Plan – Consultants report of system prohibiting left turns into and out of parking garage onto McKay Street Zambernardi states that at the December meeting, the Board requested more detail on the plans for limiting left hand turns into and out of the access drive. This information was submitted and Engineering Director Frank Killilea forwarded it to Bayside Engineering for an independent review. Zambernardi states in summary the report says that while Bayside Engineering believes there is no need for the right turn only restriction, it does work from an engineering standpoint. She reads a letter from Frank Killilea dated February 19, 2004 into record. Thomson states his primary objective is to avoid cross-over traffic from one side to the other on a busy street. He suggests that this be placed on the agenda again in one year to assess the success or failure of the device. Thomson: Moves to accept the plan of the final stage of the Site Plan and that the Planning Board look at it again in one year, seconded by Dunn. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR’s) Plan of Land – 875 Hale Street & 903 R Hale Street - Whittier and Browne Zambernardi states the application involves the conveyance of a 1,871 square foot parcel from land of Katherine Whittier to land of Alfred & Abigail Browne on West Street. Both lots meet the requirements for endorsement of an ANR and she recommends that it be endorsed as such. Thomson: Motion to endorse the plan for 875 Hale Street & 903 R Hale Street as one not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, subject to the plan having a notation put on it that Parcel A is not a buildable lot, seconded by Dunn. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #79-04 and Special Permit Application #108-04 – Bushby Estates Demolition of existing used-car lot with related automotive repair, rehab existing 5-unit residential structure into 2 units Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 4 and build 14 units totaling 12,990 sq. ft. attached to 1,152 sq. ft. of commercial space. 58-64 Dodge Street – Mart Management, Inc. – Alexander & Femino Zambernardi reads the legal notice. Attorney Thomas Alexander, representative of the applicant, provides an overview of the project. This project has been reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals and approved by a 5-0 vote for the proposed use (mixed commercial/residential use). The original plan for the property called for a demolition of the existing 5-unit house on site. The applicant went before the Historic District Commission and as a result of that process, the project was redesigned to reincorporate the existing 5-unit house into the project. The house will be preserved and made into a 2-unit duplex. Alexander states the plan was reviewed by the Parking and Traffic Commission. The Commission had some suggestions regarding remarking “No Parking” areas. The Design Review Board has reviewed and approved the plan and their comments have been incorporated in the site plan. Because the project falls within the Watershed Overlay Protection District, the Salem Beverly Water Supply Board has also reviewed and approved the plan. This Board requested that the Planning Board condition the plan that the owners of the property be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the subsurface drainage system. Chris Sparages from Hayes Engineering provides an overview of the project. David O’Sullivan, O’Sullivan Architects, provides an overview of the landscaping plan. The Design Review Board has reviewed the plan and their comments have been incorporated into the plan. Alexander states the applicant originally applied for a Jiffy Lube for the site and it was voted 3-2 in favor by the Zoning Board of Appeals. It required a 4-1 vote. At that time it was indicated by neighbors and the Board that a residential use would be preferred and this design was the result of several meetings with the Planning Department, City Solicitor and neighbors. Leah Zambernardi reads the following letters into record: · A letter from the Parking & Traffic Commission dated February 10, 2004. · A letter from the Engineering Department dated February 19, 2004. · A letter from Mr. Thomas Knowlton, Superintendent of the Salem Beverly Water Supply Board dated February 18, 2004. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 5 · A letter from the Fire Department dated February 10, 2004. · A letter from the Conservation Commission dated February 10, 2004. · A letter from the Police Department dated February 10, 2004. · A letter from the Board of Health dated February 17, 2004. · A letter from the Design Review Board dated February 9, 2004. Thomson asks for an explanation of the variance. Alexander responds that a Special Permit was granted to go from one non-conforming use to another. The Special Permit provides that you can’t expand the non-conforming use by more than 25%. The variance was a dimensional variance to allow for an expansion of more than 25%. Thomson asks if there could be a description of what kinds of uses would be allowed. Alexander responds that the use would be for professional offices. Thomson asks if it is a condition of the zoning decision that the historic building be preserved in its current state. Alexander responds that there is a 6-month demolition delay on the property imposed by the Beverly Historic District Commission. Dunn asks a clarifying question regarding parking. Alexander responds that the zoning requires that there are two parking spaces per unit. There are six spaces for the commercial use, which will be a professional office with 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. hours. The six parking spaces could be used for guest parking on weekends and evenings. Dinkin asks if Alexander addressed how many units will be allocated to affordable housing. Alexander responds that he did not address that. Dinkin states one of the affects of this project would be to the removal of four or five units of affordable housing from the housing market to be replaced with 16 units of market housing. He asks if, in consideration of the fact that five units of affordable housing are being removed from the market, the applicant would be willing to allocate a small number of the 16 units to be set aside as affordable. Alexander responds that the applicant had not anticipated or intended that. The applicant is adding to the housing stock in the City of Beverly and by doing that it has the affect of increasing housing opportunities throughout the city. Dinkin asks what the expected market price of the units will be. Maury Needham, developer, responds approximately $330,000. Dinkin asks what the last monthly rental rate is of the five units that are being destroyed. Maury Needham responds that they were approximately $150 per month because the Bushby family rented to family members. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 6 Dinkin asks again if the applicant would be willing to set aside a small number of the units for affordable housing. Alexander responds that the economics on the project have been scaled down to take care of the historic building and the project would not be able to accommodate that. Dinkin asks if there are clarifying questions from members of the public. Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, asks a clarifying question regarding the use of the buildings. She asks how 16 units could be approved in the R10 Zone. Dinkin responds that the Zoning Board of Appeals awarded a Special Permit and it is not at issue at this hearing. Terence Storm, 110 Dodge Street asks if there is a requirement for a handicap spot in the parking lot, would it also imply that there is a handicap unit. Alexander responds that there is presently no handicap unit. Terence Storm asks how many of the units will be for private purchase or rental. Alexander responds that they are all private purchase. Laurie Chitro, of Hamilton, states her husband is part owner of Hannah Village, which abuts the property. She states there are currently 112 units and there are problems with parking. She expresses concern that the proposed project’s problems might become her parking problems. Alexander responds that there is a proposed landscaping plan along the back property line to separate the two properties, making it impossible to pass. It would be easier to park in the North Beverly Plaza across the street. Laurie Chitro expresses concern that people might use the dirt road, which is intended for a fire lane, not for public use. Alexander responds that there is no intent to do anything with the dirt road. Matt Pujo, 11 Longwood Avenue asks for clarification regarding the traffic lights. Alexander responds that the traffic impact of a residential use is very minimal on a roadway like Route 1A and he does not anticipate it will have any impact on the existing traffic situation. Alexander states information was provided to the Parking & Traffic Commission, which compared the existing site use versus the proposed site use. The existing site use generated approximately 89 trips per day and the proposed site use (professional office and residential) generates approximately 136 trips per day. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 7 Alexander states that the Traffic Sergeant, Sergeant Tarsik visited the site and supported the project. Terence Storm asks how many spaces will be dedicated to the professional offices. Alexander responds that there are a total of seven spaces (6 conventional and one handicap space). Dinkin asks if there are comments in opposition. Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street states the parcel will be overdeveloped. Dinkin asks if there are comments in support. There are none. William Robert, 70 Dodge Street states he has lived at his home for 45 years and the property has been a dump. The proposal is a fantastic idea and he is in favor of the project. The hearing is closed. The regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board is called to order. Discussion/Decision: Site Plan Review Application #79-04 and Special Permit Application #108-04 – Bushby Estates Demolition of existing used-car lot with related automotive repair, rehab existing 5-unit residential structure into 2 units and build 14 units totaling 12,990 sq. ft. attached to 1,152 sq. ft. of commercial space. 58-64 Dodge Street – Mart Management, Inc. – Alexander & Femino Thomson states he agrees that it is a pretty dense site but it was the jurisdiction of another board. He states that the developer should be commended for historic preservation. In terms of possible uses, this seems to be the least intensive use that could be made here. This development is probably the best of both worlds as opposed to leaving the development alone. He states his disappointment over not including at least one affordable housing unit. On the other hand, he states that some might suggest that in Beverly $330,000 is affordable. He states that overall the property will be improved. Thomson : Moves to grant a Special Permit for Bushby Estates, Application #108-04, subject to the conditions of the Department Head comment letters, seconded by McGlynn. Discussion on the motion: Dinkin states he is disappointed regarding the developer’s unwillingness to dedicate even a single unit as an affordable unit. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 8 Recommendation to Building Inspector – Re: Section 29-24 of Beverly Zoning Ordinance – Off Street Parking Requirements Re: Proposed Addition to North Shore Community Baptist Church – 9 Hart Street Dinkin informs members of the public that this is not a public hearing and only members of the board and professional staff will be permitted to speak. Zambernardi states the Planning Board received a letter dated February 5, 2004 from Building Inspector, Bob Nelson. She reads the letter into record. Bob Nelson is requesting that the Planning Board look specifically at the use of the “Fellowship Hall” addition to determine whether adequate parking is available. Bob Nelson states if the Planning Board believes this is outside of a recommendation, then this matter will probably go to the Zoning Board under an appeal. Dinkin states he is reluctant to impose additional regulatory burdens on religious institutions. While it is not clear that the church is exempt from a parking requirement, it is largely exempt from most zoning requirements. He states he is particularly reluctant to impose a parking requirement on a church because of another case that is currently going on in Massachusetts. He states his personal feeling is that no relief is necessary but he would prefer that the entire board discuss this. Nelson states there was no parking available on site for many years. There has been expansion and property has been acquired to provide for parking. A large addition is now being proposed and some of the concerns of the neighbors are warranted. There is a parking situation and the issue of safety has been discussed. Thomson asks if there is nothing in the ordinance that states what the parking requirement is for this type of addition. Nelson responds that is correct. Thomson states his concerns over making a recommendation. Thomson: moves that the Board vote to not make a recommendation to the Building Commissioner. Seconded by Flannery. All members in favor. No one in apposition. Motion carries. Recommendation on City Council Order #13 – Proposed Zoning Amendment – to Rezone Parcel at the Corner of Rachel and Edward Street from RHD to CC. Dinkin takes up this matter under New or Other Business. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 9 Zambernardi states there was a Joint Public Hearing between the Planning Board and City Council on February 17, 2004 where the public was given an opportunity to voice their concerns regarding the proposed rezoning. The City Council has referred the matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation and also referred the matter to their subcommittee. Zambernardi states Assistant City Solicitor Munroe was asked if members of either the Planning Board or the City Council, who were absent from a portion of or all of the public hearings for the proposed zoning change, are disqualified by reason of that absence from voting on the change proposal. His answer was “no.” Former City Solicitor, Marshall Handly, issued an opinion, in which he determined that absence from a hearing in a legislative proceeding does not require the disqualification of the absent member from participating in making the decision on the legislation. Thomson suggests that members who were in attendance at the Joint Public Hearing share their observations on the discussion that occurred with those members that were absent. Dinkin asks a member of the public to observe the Board's rules relative to public comment outside of a public hearing. Thomson continues discussion. Dinkin interjects and states that a member of the public is out of order for making repeated comments outside of a public hearing. He orders the removal of this person and requests that staff seek assistance in this regard. He puts the meeting in a 10-minute recess. The regular meeting reconvenes after the ten-minute recess. Thomson states the parcel is currently zoned for residential use only and the proposal is to allow a change to CC (Central Commercial), which not only allows residential but also commercial use. Any commercial use might be made of the property. Thomson asks Tina Cassidy if the Planning Board approves this, could the board discourage a change in the appearance and size of the structure for what would be there if we stuck to the current zoning. Cassidy responds that with respect to changes in what would be allowed in terms of the building, the height and set back requirements would ironically stay the same. The setback requirements are tied to the abutting residential district. The building issues would remain the same. The variety of uses would open up to allow commercial. The reason for requesting the zoning change is predominantly due to the increase in the number of Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 10 residential units that can be placed in the building. While there is no guarantee that there wouldn’t be commercial in that building, the appraiser for this property felt the market for commercial space in that part of town is “soft.” The intention is not to encourage commercial use or to encourage the expansion of the building. Cassidy summarizes that the expectation is that the redevelopment proposals will rely heavily on residential but there very well be a proposal or two that have a commercial component. Dinkin states he is concerned about the possibility that an RFP that would require a successful bidder to file a Special Permit on award. Should the City Council decide that rezoning the property to the CC zone is appropriate, a proposal that was 100% residential would require a Special Permit. While indeed the successful bidder should come up with a proposal that would require a Special Permit, he does not think the board should imply the necessity of that. Dinkin states if the board did that, it would be a back door to spot zoning. Dinkin states he grew up in an urban neighborhood and in urban spaces he is certain that density is not a horrible thing. Density can provide healthy environment communities. Density in urban spaces creates a synergy, which encourages the growth of the commercial sector and creates a significant kind of lifestyle for a particular segment of the population. Dinkin agrees that if you look at a residential development of 16 units, you are going to have to hold a gun to a developer’s head to get even one affordable unit. On the other hand, if you have 40 units, the developer can throw four units at affordable housing. He states that is significant in the community. Dinkin states the biggest problem that communities like the City of Beverly have, is not the availability or accessibility of private education. On the other hand, affordable housing is a crushing need. Thomson refers to the Waldorf School's interest in the property and its opposition to the Zoning change. He states that a school does have very high traffic. He states that the City would not be foreclosing the Waldorf School from bidding. It is up to the Waldorf School to make a financial bid on the RFP. He states that the City should look for a profit on the building while preserving the essential elements of the building skin. Hamm states he is opposed to the Zoning change. He thinks that parking and traffic are an issue in the neighborhood. Dinkin states that cuing of cars picking up and dropping off students for a school causes traffic problems also. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 11 Thomson: moves that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council approve the Zoning change but suggests that if the Council does so, that it recommends to the Mayor that the RFP include the following statements: 1. That a façade restriction be included preserving the architectural elements on the three (3) street facing facades. In addition this restriction shall prohibit any height increases or substantial increases in the size of the building. 2. That 100 percent residential use of the building be encouraged, if not required. 3. That at least 10 percent of those residential units be deemed affordable in perpetuity, in accordance with the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development requirements for affordable housing. 4. That at a minimum, 2 parking spaces are provided per residential unit, regardless of the number of bedrooms per unit. Flannery seconded the motion. Motion carries 5-2 (Thomson, Dinkin, Flannery, McGlynn and Dunn in favor) (Walter and Hamm in opposition). Planning Board – Project Review & Administrative Fees – Set Public Hearing Dunn: Moves to set a public hearing to discuss project review and administrative fees for 8:30 p.m. on March 16, 2004, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. Waiver of Frontage Application – 23 Sturtevant Street and 41 Pearson Street – Set Public Hearing Zambernardi states the applicant has submitted a definitive subdivision plan seeking a waiver from the City’s frontage requirements. The Board of Appeals granted a variance in December 2003. Hamm: Motion to set a public hearing on this matter for 8:00 p.m. on March 16, 2004, seconded by Flanney. All members are in favor. Motion carries. New/Other Business Zambernardi states this is regarding a plan for the Loring property at 569-571 Hale Street. Land West has asked the Planning Board’s opinion regarding splitting a lot into different parcels with an ANR. The issue that she has is that parcel A would have to cross over a wetland for access. Dinkin states the applicant would need to have approval from the Conservation Commission. Members concur. Planning Board Minutes February 19, 2004 Page 12 Meeting Minutes Thomson: Motion to table the meeting minutes to the Board's next regular meeting. Adjournment: Dunn: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned.