Loading...
09.13.22 BPB Minutes Final DRAFT CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMISSION: Planning Board DATE: September 13, 2022 LOCATION: Beverly Middle School BevCam (live stream on YouTube): https://bevcam.org/video/live-stream/ MEMBERS PRESENT: Ellen Hutchinson (Chair), Derek Beckwith (Vice-Chair) Ellen Flannery, Wayne Miller, Sarah Bartley, Rodney Sinclair, George Gomes MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Toulouse STAFF PRESENT: Darlene Wynne, Director of Planning OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Sharlyne Woodbury Call to Order Chair Wynne calls the meeting to order at 7:06 pm. 1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans a. Continued: 114 and 116 Livingstone Avenue—7 Porter Terrace LLC Marshall Handley presents to the board on behalf of Mr. Marks. Presentation includes the redraw of the sideline on lots 2 and 3. Lot 2 has sufficient lot area (9550 sq ft) as a result of the definition of lot in the Beverly ordinance. As a result, it would make the lot zoning compliant in terms of area. Members inquire if approving the subdivision would create a buildable lot. Handley expresses it would, however there is no current plan or application to change the lot status. What is before the board is not for a buildable lot but to settle the question of the easement language and increased frontage. Members and Handley discuss the City Solicitor's response. Handley and members discuss the easement bond. The easement is for the turnaround and functions as a grant of rights to public safety and to the traveling public to enter onto the lot. The grant has to be to the city, for public entry and use. The owner of the lot retains the fee interest. Hutchinson how does the easement factor into the modification request. Handley replies a private easement is excluded from the calculations of lot area for the purpose of zoning. The easement will be open to governmental agencies and the public as a turnaround. Sinclair, the additional square footage is permitted to be included in the lot size due to the ordinance. Sinclair, is the frontage impacted, Handley replies the frontage is not affected, only the lot area. Miller,the combined lot will become a buildable lot by right if Livingstone Avenue is extended. Handley confirms yes. Hutchinson, is the easement adopted by the Planning Board or City Council. Wynne, once the Planning Board adopts the easement it will go before the City Council. Motion: Flannery moves to adopt the easement at 7 Porter Terrace. Modification to the motion by Hutchinson, as indicated in the documents presented to the Board and as what shall be recorded in the registry of deeds. Sinclair seconds.The motion passes 7-0. Planning Board September 13, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 Discussion on the motion. Miller, are there parking exclusions included. Wynne confirms the parking was determined in the original approval. Handley, no parking shall be enforced by the City of Beverly. The homeowner's association has responsibility to maintain no parking signs per Wynne. Beckwith inquires why the easement requires separate approval. Motion: Flannery moves to endorse the ANR subdivision plan for 114 and 116 Livingstone Avenue—7 Porter Terrace LLC as presented. Sinclair seconds. Motion passes 5-2. Beckwith, Miller dissent. Discussion on the motion. Beckwith main concern is lot 2 being buildable. During past discussions it was expressed by neighbors that lot is not buildable. Handley explains this lot would still not buildable without consent of the city. Hutchinson agrees with Beckwith in that the lot is supposed to be not buildable. There is deep concerns about drainage and water. The approval at the time was predicated on the lot not being buildable. Sinclair asked what controls are in place to ensure the history is brought into the future conversations to deter development. Hutchinson notes the plan is in writing as well as recorded meeting minutes. Wynne advises the members on conditions attached to motions for plans. Beckwith asks if future conditions on plans can be conditioned as unbuildable. Handley takes issue with that sentiment in the sense that as long as a lot conforms to ordinance you cannot prohibit the buildability of lots conforming with the zoning laws. b. 973 Hale Street—Joan L. Mullen Connor Walsh presents to the board on behalf of Joan Mullen. In summary,the large property on Hale Street near the Manchester-by-the-Sea border seeks approval for a "pork-chop" lot. Leg 3 of the lot is the endorsement of the ANR plan. Conditions related to fire hydrants were all met. Captain Kreyling provided a letter confirming the conditions were met for fire hydrants. Beckwith addresses the public access by right for fire and safety vehicles, equipment and apparatus. Sinclair asks what the plans for the home are. Connor informs members the intentions are for Mullen to downsize her living space and move into the carriage house. Thereby remaining on the property; eventually sell the main house; and to limit/prevent further subdivision of the property. The current home is too large for her. Miller asks if there is any information on Greenbelt and the easement. Motion: Sinclair moves to endorse an ANR plan at 973 Hale Street. Flannery seconds.The motion carries 7-0. 2. Modification Request: OSRD#10-17 Hickory Hill Way—20,30,40 Webster Ave—Benco LLC Bob Griffin presents on behalf of the applicant. Griffin summarizes the original approval of the subdivision. The modification will add a 5-family garage for a total of 11 parking spaces. Drainage calculations are done to demonstrate OSRD drainage system is not overloaded. They continue to meet standards when the plan was approved. Hutchinson asks for the modifications to be itemized. Griffin, the property will continue to have 5 family residents, structural improvements, landscaping improvements, and the garage addition. Griffin points out this work was not contemplated in 2018. Flannery after the type of tree removal and quantity. Griffin said 14 trees will be removed. Flannery asks Planning Board September 13, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 what the new plantings and landscaping proposals are. Griffin acknowledges the landscaping plans have not been prepared. Flannery inquires if the removal of the trees impacts the drainage calculations. Griffin confirms no. Griffin informs the board the new garage will maintain the existing space. Members ask if the new garage impacts the neighbors and Griffin confirms the new garage is over 100 feet from the nearest building. Sinclair asks Griffin if the applicant went before any other boards and if so, are there are available records for the Board. Wynne discusses the circulation of the minor modification requests. Miller contends the modifications as presented are not minor. Wynne provides guidance on the site plan review qualifications. A modification or approved site plan is triggered for review if increased by 20% gross footage, which define as multi units over 10 or more than 2 townhouses. Hutchinson again asks for an itemized list of improvements listed below: • Improve driveway, make it wider • Concrete driveway with turnaround • Abandon access road • Add 5 car garage • Add minor additions to improve egress from the building (renovations to building) • Add a porch • Tree removal • Improve delineation of parking spaces Motion: Beckwith moves the Board deem the modification OSRD#10-17 Hickory Hill Way—20, 30,40 Webster Ave as minor in nature. Miller seconds. The motion fails 4-3. Beckwith, Hutchinson and Miller dissent. Discussion on the motion. Gomes asks if the vote must be two-thirds majority since this is in an OSRD. Wynne reads the requirements.Two thirds majority vote must be 5 approvals out of 7 members. Motion: Flannery moves to set the Public Hearing for October 25, 2022. Beckwith seconds. The motion carries 7-0. Recess for Public Hearings Flannery moves to recess for public hearings. Beckwith seconds. The motion carries 7-0. 3. Continued Public Hearing:Special Permit#182-22 and Site Plan Review#155-22—40 Dunham Ridge—40 Dunham OC, LLC a. Anticipated areas of discussion are parking and traffic Miranda Siemasko presents on behalf of the applicant. This is a 160-unit complex with over 55 age active adult senior living. The project received a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Asking for reduced parking as permitted by special permit. The Parking and Traffic Commission gave a recommendation to the board. Planning Board September 13,2022 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9 Matt Healey, traffic engineer, presents to the board. Discusses the trips (35 trips in the morning about 27 in the evening); and the use of existing traffic volumes in association with the Northshore traffic study program. Crash history was reviewed (2015-2019 data obtained from MASSDot). Intersections averaged less than 3 crashes per year.The site distance has two curb-cuts off Dunham Road. Healey reviews the parking response. Zoning requirements are 320 spaces (2 per unit), 170 ITE average supply, ITE average demand 120, proposed spaces are 213. MAPC parking study was also used for data compilation. Metro Boston Perfect Fit Parking Initiative Phase II, 2019. Essentially the project found the more spaces supplied the greater the demand.They seek parking relief in keeping with city green initiatives and to curb demand for parking. Parking relief measures include a modification to the layout with landscaping.They will be able to add 4 more spaces on site.There is an agreement with Cummings to provide 50 non-exclusive (shared) spaces in#48 Dunham Ridge garage. Beckwith what are "traffic calming" measures. Healey discusses the neighbor's concerns for speeding and how to improve safety and decrease speeding. Beckwith visited the site.There are limited site lines and a lot of s-winding curves. Beckwith questions the traffic study data used and is curious to hear what changed in the area noting the pandemic limited traffic during the Northshore Crossing study. Miller is interested in traffic comps; notes those numbers used and quoted are pre covid. Members would like to see updated traffic data. Miller summarizes the data they used is less than half of what they are requesting.The requested amount is nearly double. Beckwith asked for the comparison between the slides and the technical memo presented. Sinclair asks for Healey to clarify the trip generation comparison data table used.This information was used for Cummings when it was supposed to be a mixed-use industrial building. Healey replies the decrease is because the change in use went from mixed use to residential. Sinclair asks Healey to elaborate on peak hour traffic analysis.Wynne points out the draft conditions by the Parking &Traffic Commission (PTC). Hutchinson questions the data and parking circumstances. Unlike other recently constructed large scale residential buildings near public transportation, this location requires a car. Wynne notes the transit and suburban projects are studied differently.Jezienicki confirms when you build more parking people bring more cars to the site. Hutchinson notes the data used for 2020-2021 did not take into account the development at Dunham Ridge. Healey explains that is a 2020 existing base and then a 7 year's study with no build data. Hutchinson asks to review PTC draft conditions. Wynne reads the draft conditions found by the PTC some of which detailed below: • Shared agreement with Dunham Ridge LLC for 50 shared spaces on nights and weekend in the garage • 4 additional spots added to the site • Reserve parking spaces will require review of the PTC and PB. If additional spaces are needed the rain garden and walking path can be turned into a small lot with 15 spaces • The applicant will return to the PTC after one year occupancy to present a traffic study to the PB and PTC which further determines if additional parking is necessary(Jezienicki elaborates on the parking study requested by the PTC a year after the complex opens) • The applicant shall demonstrate the TDE is in effect prior to occupancy Planning Board September 13, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 Pedestrian improvements and ADA accessibility will be made along the public ways and the applicant shall work with the city to ensure the improvements. Jezienicki ensures the ADA ramps are at the driveways where there is public land and there is connectivity from the site over to College Lane. Applicant shall provide a follow up review when the occupancy reaches 80% (Wynne notes this is different than the reserve parking). Miller, is there any permeable surface for the reserve parking. Is the rest of the parking permeable. Jezienicki all the main parking is permeable. Chris Novak civil engineer also comments to the permeable parking. Sinclair returns to the future build condition's data sets and discusses with Healey. Sinclair points out residents need a better explanation to the increased development and how that will not impact the area traffic. Beckwith and Miller discuss the trip data noting that it is a lot for residents in the area. Miller, is there shuttle service and funding for it. Jezienicki discusses the shuttle pilot. That idea is open, they are working with the city and developers to help fund it. Barbara Salerno, 16 Dunham Road Appreciate the questions by the board. Expresses concerns about the traffic.The main businesses aside from the Cummings Properties are the North Shore Music Theater (NSMT), which has more than 500 cars in itself: Mastronzi Brothers and Iron Tree service. 1500 parking spaces not accounted for because the Cummings Center has not completed development. Salerno disagrees with the parking study numbers. The traffic is non-stop all day long. The data used is not complete. She points out the Cummings said people will be working from home more which should decrease traffic post pandemic. This has not fully occurred. She addresses the sidewalk issues and discusses the new project. Project developers contend the average age of the complex will be 72. At 72 typically there will not be a need to drive often. Salerno highly disagrees. If the average age is 72, instead of decreasing traffic it will be increased. Because at an advanced senior age there is a need for more home health aides, family and friends visiting.The traffic is going to be too much. Salerno asks members to please consider the traffic problems and most importantly the safety issues associated with increased traffic. Kathleen Feldmen, Ward 5 City Councilor Discusses the concerns of her Ward 5 constituents.This specific area cannot support more cars on the road prior to having a phase II overpass and reconstruction of the intersection. The traffic studies do not account for the building up of Dunham Ridge. This area is industrially zoned. Any more development is putting the cart before the horse. The infrastructure has not kept up with traffic. Knows the need for housing is immense, however cannot in good faith support the project without the infrastructure and safety plans in place. Looking for a commitment from the city and state for the phase II overpass. Cathy Burack, 6 Brimble Hills Drive Fully supports her Ward Councilor Feldman and agrees the Dunham Ridge Road is not safe. M. Siemasko addresses the concerns of the neighbors and Councilor Feldman. The project has been sensitive to the issues and concerns of the neighbors. However, the project makes sense and has two observations. The state awarded $1 million to put in a roundabout for Dunham Road and Brimbal Ave. The Phase II overpass has been in discussion since the mid-1990s. The overpass requires significant funding and extensive planning. The Cummings owns the property, and they will develop it by right.The 40 Dunham Ridge will be developed regardless of the phase II overpass. The only change would be if zoning changed. Hutchinson notes this becomes a question of quality of life. The project proposal is considerably less than what could otherwise be developed by right. Planning Board September 13,2022 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9 Members presents their concerns and questions for the project.They ask for updates on the construction for a roundabout with statistics.There are above ground utility poles that is a complicating factor. Siemasko and Healey address the information provided in the packet. Beckwith would like to revisit the actual traffic counts for Dunham Road. Siemasko notes there was a scoping session completed with VHB and Chair Benevento from the Parking &Traffic Commission.Those data points used were concluded to be satisfactory by Chair Benevento and the Planning Department. Covid adjustments were made to the data. Sinclair would like more time spent on future builds and trip destinations. Miller would like to know how many cars are currently driving by Mrs. Salerno's home. During the Whole Foods project there was a future build scenario, suggests adding that in. Beckwith would like a deeper explanation of traffic calming measure and safety impacts of narrow roads with sharrows. Sinclair, has there been a conversation about phasing the development.Jezienicki answers it's one big building and is not efficient. Beckwith, when would the projection for 80% occupancy would be. Miller,this is not transit oriented development. This is a green building, but not the least carbon intensive. Siemasko notes they can return with additional shuttle information. Salerno politely interrupts the members and asks the chair for additional floor time. Hutchinson grants the request. Barbara Salerno, 16 Dunham Road Points out she constantly hears this project is better than what it could be. She prefers an industrial complex. At least there would be no work commuters on the weekends, and they would be gone by the evening from the area. Salerno asks Councilor Feldman for more information on the roundabout. walking and biking are not permissible because the road is too narrow. Feldman replies there are no firm plans to date. Councilor Feldman further addresses the developers and the board. Even when the roundabout it built, it does not replace the need for an overpass. She also does not think it is realistic to expect anyone over the age of 55 to give up their cars. Additionally, it is remiss for a community to plan a residence of this scale and not take that truly into consideration. Tiffany Collin, Broadway Expresses safety concerns and the dangers of the residents walking from the campus to the Northshore Crossing complex. Asks the board and developers to keep in mind the distance from the campus to the shopping complex with weather conditions, physical exertion, etc. It is not an easy neighborhood walk. Motion: Beckwith moves to continue to October 4, 2022. Flannery seconds. The motion passes 6- 0-1. Gomes abstains. Motion: Flannery moves to recess for 5 minutes. Gomes seconds.The motion carries 7-0. Motion: Flannery moves to reconvene the regular meeting. Gomes seconds. The motion carries 7-0. 4. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review#156-22 and Inclusionary Housing#21-22-26,28 R Cabot Street:4-6,8 Rantoul Street and portion of 10 Rantoul Street(Map Lots 79,80: Map 4, Lots 160, 161, 162, 163)—Southwest Gateway.LLC Planning Board September 13, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9 Miranda presents the project on behalf of the applicant. This is a 60-unit apartment complex, mixed use building with associated garage. There are 4 studios, 21 single bedrooms, and 35 2-bedroom units. Chris Koeplin speaks to the proposed project. This project gave careful consideration to the resident and neighbors in the area. This is a great opportunity to create a gateway into Beverly coming over the bridge. Koeplin believes 60%AMI is appropriate for the area.This project by design will enhance the area, clean up disconnected buildings, and provide definition to the intersection and base of the bridge. Stefano Basso discusses where the design enhances the junction of Fish Flake Hill and Goat Hill. The building will provide a prominent corner upon entering the city. Basso presents multiple viewpoints from the street views of Cox Court, Goat Hill Lane, Rantoul and Cabot Streets. The mixed use includes a lounge, fitness area, and office space. The building mass is broken up along the street, to reduce size and scale the appearance of a block. It's a 4-story building from where the single-family homes are, increasing to 5 stories at the base of Goat Hill Lane. The intent is to accomplish a marine/nautical feeling to the building. A brick base will form a plinth, traditional windows, railings more nautical in character. The residential fagade will be simple, clean and monotone.Juliette balconies provide definition to reduce the size and scale of a single side. The balconies would mirror boat masts. Navy blue awnings top the windows, traditional black sash. The end units have prominent bay windows. The design will include small green spaces and pocket parks as you travel over the bridge.They resemble "lily pads". Landscaping is minimal. Small landscaping park along Goat Hill Lane. There are 43 spaces in the garage and 73 parking surface spaces. Beckwith expresses concern about the scale and height of the building. Suggests taking photos from an arial view. Miller asks about the underground flooding garage and the 30-year flood plan. The response is the project is above the flood plane using the same data from the Mission Boat House project. Hutchinson notes Basso wants a light and airy feeling, asks about the heavy use of black. Koeplin informs the Board they will return to Design Review Board with an updated color palette. Basso discusses the windows will appear larger with a black frame and white sash with appropriate contrast. Basso notes they are striking a balance of material palette with subtle nods to being modern and incorporating traditional nautical elements. Basso further details the nautical elements of porthole windows and beacon siding. The railings show a horizontal circular rail. Prominent bay windows are similar the bow of a ship. Sinclair and Basso discuss the setback Beckwith notes this does not evoke a sense of history for the city. The project does not make a statement to him. Hutchinson asks how many current housing units exist, and what will this replace. Koeplin replies 12 units plus a house. Hutchinson, are there other city services that will be less to this area. Koeplin replies less on police and fire. The number units of housing are not a draw on the services as opposed to building multiple single-family homes. Sinclair asks for rental costs and comparisons. Koeplin will return with that information. Beckwith notes this area has $57,000 median household income.The poverty rate is 21%. Beckwith, how many people who live in the neighborhood will be able to afford it after this is built. There are only 5 affordable AM[ units. This is part of Census track 2174. Beckwith would like a realistic look at the rental affordability of the units they are creating and the housing they are building. Beckwith wants numbers for rent and would like to compare to the medium income. Planning Board September 13, 2022 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 Siemasko notes it is their job to present how the project complies to zoning, how is this within the boards perimeters of zoning inquires under the by-law. Beckwith notes they do vote to accept the affordable housing plan. Beckwith is suggesting the affordable housing formula is not affordable to the residents in the area. Bartley notes there must be another venue or board to take up this question to a board that has solutions. Wynne notes is it a policy question. The inclusionary housing requirements are set by the state. The planning board cannot require having rent based off the census track. Wynne suggests all the boards and committees meet in a separate venue to discuss the most pressing issues facing the city and how to resolve the issues. Bartley advocates for a new forum and venue to discuss these important issues. Beckwith notes affordability is not an architectural thing, but it has something to do with how it fits into a neighborhood. He looks at how a project fits into the neighborhood. Hutchinson, the housing problems aren't the number of lots available, but an increase in the number of residents who cannot afford their rents. Wynne interjects. If you build more housing increasing the supply helps to slow the rental increases. No one has said you will reduce rents in housing costs. Discussion on parking and traffic is held for future meeting. Hutchinson asks if members would like a site visit. Siemasko agrees to continue to the later October Planning Board meeting. Motion: Flannery continues public hearing to October 25, 2022. Sinclair seconds. The motion carries 7-0. S. Approval of Minutes To be reviewed at the next scheduled meeting. 6. New or other business Hutchinson asks Wynne to clarify the administrative process for Peer Review. Wynne informs the members the P&TC asked for a traffic study peer review on two projects, the Leggat McCall Properties LLC for Cabot and Federal Streets and the Southwest Gateway, LLC. The Planning Board must authorize and recommend the peer review per MA General Law 53G. a. Planning Board Recommendation for Peer Review: Site Plan Review#154-22—218-224 Cabot Street and 18 Federal Street—Leggat McCall Properties LLC [the public hearing on this project will occur on October 4, 20221 Motion: Beckwith moves the Planning Board authorize and recommend a Peer Review of Site Plan Review#154-22—218-224 Cabot Street and 18 Federal Street—Leggat McCall Properties LLC; for parking and traffic study. Miller seconds. The motion carries 7-0. b. Planning Board Recommendation for Peer Review: Site Plan Review 156-22 and Inclusionary Housing#21-22, 26, 28, 28R Cabot Street:4-6, 8 Rantoul Street and Planning Board September 13,2022 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9 portion of 10 Rantoul Street(Map 1 Lots 79,80; Map 4 Lots 160, 161, 162, 163)— Southwest Gateway, LLC Motion: Beckwith moves the Planning Board authorize and recommend a Peer Review of Site Plan Review#156-22 and Inclusionary Housing#21-22, 26, 28, 28R Cabot Street: 4-6, 8 Rantoul Street and portion of 10 Rantoul Street;for parking and traffic study. Flannery seconds.The motion carries 7-0. 7. Adiournment Motion: Sinclair moves to adjourn. Flannery seconds.The motion carries 7-0. Meeting adjourns 10:58 pm