Loading...
2006-06-20 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: June 20, 2006 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Ellen Flannery, Don Walter, Joanne Dunn, Charles Harris, David Mack, Peter Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: John Thomson, Eve Geller-Duffey OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi, City Engineer Frank Killilea RECORDER: Andrea Bray Dinkin calls the meeting to order. 1. Subdivision Approval Not Required (SANR) Plan (Order of Remand) 675R Hale Street - Windover Development, LLC Dinkin states that board members denied endorsement of an ANR plan in December 2005 for the property at 675R Hale Street owned by Windover Development. The ANR proposed to divide an existing lot into two lots having frontage on Paine Avenue and Larcom Avenue. She reminds the board that the reason for denial was “the roadway used to provide access to and frontage for the proposed (new) lot does not have suitable widths or adequate construction for the proposed use.” Zambernardi states that following the Board’s action in December, the property owner filed an appeal of the decision with the Land Court. Planning Board members conducted an Executive Session with Assistant City Solicitor Robert Munroe at the June 5 meeting. At the end of this meeting, the Board decided to reconsider the filing in light of new information provided by the applicant. Mark Glovsky, Attorney for the property owner states that there have been prior approvals of Form A subdivisions in this neighborhood. Glovsky cites the Batchelder property across the street and the Croatti property further down on Haven Avenue as examples of similar subdivisions which were previously approved by the Board. He reminds the Board that his client is proposing to divide the property into 2 lots in an R-90 zoning district. Lot 2A has over 186,000 square feet and 567.6 ft of frontage. Lot 3 has 90,673 square feet with over 964 feet of frontage on Paine, Larcom, and Haven Avenues, all which is paved. While using these examples, Glovsky states that some prior actions of the Board indicate that this is an appropriate action for the Board to approve his client’s application. Planning Board Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 2 of 7 Dinkin asks where each lot will take frontage. Glovsky states that Lot 1 will take frontage on Paine Avenue, and Lot 3 will have frontage on three roads, Paine Avenue, Larcom Avenue, and Haven Avenue. Dinkin inquires about the width of pavement in front of these lots. Glovsky believes that the width of each road is about 14’-16’. He also notes that the Croatti property was approved as an ANR by this Board even though it was further down on Haven Avenue. Dinkin asks the Board members if they have any other questions for Attorney Glovsky. Dunn requests clarification on Lot 3 taking frontage on three roads. Glovsky reiterates that Lot 3 will have frontage on Paine, Larcom, and Haven Avenues. He notes that these lots may be accessed either by the front entrance to Paine Avenue or by entering the road beginning across the street from St. Margaret’s Church and crossing the railroad tracks. Thomas inquires as to Paine Avenue’s private status. Does the town maintain the road? City Engineer Frank Killilea states that the water system for that neighborhood is the City of Beverly’s responsibility. He adds that the sewer line into that street was privately installed and the people have hooked up to it. The road system on Paine Avenue is maintained by the residents. Zambernardi asks Attorney Glovsky to clarify his earlier statement about the subdivision of the Croatti property. While examining the plan of the Croatti property she doesn’t see any indication of a new lot being created. Glovsky looks over the site plan with Zambernardi stating that the lot was divided. He states that Lot 1B and 1C were originally one lot. Dinkin asks if the Board has any other questions. He then instructs the Board that this issue is a remanded decision. He states that the Board can only endorse or not endorse this plan as a plan not requiring subdivision approval. No conditions may be attached to this endorsement. Harris asks if the Board can make a condition for the property to have no more than two lots. Dinkin states that the Board may not place any conditions to the endorsement, not even the condition that the property have only two lots. Planning Board Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 3 of 7 Zambernardi asks Attorney Glovsky to speak to the capacity of this section of Larcom and Haven Avenues in terms of accepting the additional traffic and access for emergency vehicles. Glovsky states that the average 4 bedroom home averages 10 vehicle trips per day. There are currently many houses that use these roads and the roads have been adequate to meet the needs of the neighborhood. There will be essentially only one additional house on this property because it already had one residence. Glovsky states that he can see no reason why one additional residence would negatively impact the traffic patterns in this location. Flannery: Motion to endorse the Plan for Windover Development, LLC, for 675R Hale Street, seconded by Mack. Six members are in favor, none in opposition, Dinkin in abstention. The motion passes 6-0-1. Thomas: Motion to recess for a public hearing, seconded by Flannery. All members are in favor. None opposed. The motion passes 7-0. 2. Public Hearing: Modification of Site Plan Review #52-99: Dunkin Donuts Zambernardi reads the public hearing notice. Zambernardi states that the applicants have filed a plan to modify the site plan (approved 11-16-99) for Dunkin Donuts on Elliott Street by changing the location of the parking lot access and egress, traffic islands and landscaping. They have filed for this modification to address a dangerous situation created by cars cueing on Elliott Street that are waiting to enter the drive-through window. Zambernardi further states that this cue sometimes reaches the railroad tracks abutting the property and results in cars idling on the tracks. Dinkin states that it is the position of this Board that any application for a site plan modification puts the whole site plan “up for grabs”. He then asks Attorney Mark Glovsky if he would like to present the new plan. Attorney Mark Glovsky states that he is here at the instigation of the city which was troubled by the occasional back-up of cars at the drive-through window of the Dunkin Donuts. Glovsky has worked with the Parking and Traffic Commission and the Design Review Board to rectify what some have considered an unsafe traffic pattern. He states that it is in the best interest of the City and Dunkin Donuts to create a site which is safer for pedestrians and vehicles. After receiving comments from the Planning Department, the Design Review Board, and the Parking and Traffic Commission, Glovsky and the property owners have modified the site plan to address all of the concerns raised by the City. Proper turning radius for the handicapped parking space is diagramed in a supplemental plan. One issue with the revised plan is the size of the curb cut. A 34 foot Planning Board Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 4 of 7 curb cut will be needed to accommodate two exit lanes and one entrance lane. This measurement exceeds the City Ordinance Section 29-4.D.2.e calling for a curb cut not to exceed 26 feet. Dinkin requests clarification of the two exit lanes. Glovsky states that two lanes will be needed to avoid a back-up on the lot for cars exiting to the left. He adds that the current curb cut closest to the railroad tracks will no longer be used as an entrance. The main entrance will be moved adjacent to the exit lanes. Cars could exit either by circling the building or by using what currently is the entrance near the railroad tracks. Dunn questions the new cueing pattern for the cars entering the drive-through. Glovsky states that by moving the entrance east on Elliot Street, the cars will cue up on the Dunkin Donuts property which will keep them off of the street. Zambernardi reads the following letters: 1. Engineering Department, Frank Killilea, dated June 20, 2006. 2. Beverly Fire Prevention Deputy Chief Wayne Francis, dated May 30, 2006. 3. Board of Health Director William T Burke, dated May 30, 2006. 4. Conservation Commission, Amy Maxner, dated May 26, 2006. 5. Parking and Traffic Commission Chair, Tina Cassidy, dated June 14, 2006. 6. Design Review Board, Leah Zambernardi, dated June 15, 2006. 7. Police Department Traffic Sergeant Chris Negrotti, dated June 19, 2006. 8. Office of the ADA Coordinator, Arthur Daignault, dated June 20, 2006. 9. Assistant Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi, dated June 16, 2006. Mr. Serpa of TRANID, INC, owner of the Dunkin Donuts states that he will need to move the City-owned dugout which encroaches onto the Dunkin Donuts property. The dugout is used on the City-owned ballpark which abuts the property. Flannery asks a clarifying question. Zambernardi inquires as to whether Mr. Serpa is willing to move the dugout. Mr. Serpa states that he may have to move the dugout to accommodate the new plan. Glovsky supports Mr. Serpa by adding that this is a friendly hearing, and the Dunkin Donuts owners are willing to cooperate with the City to find a solution to the traffic issues. He states that, as a way of cooperating with the City, his client may opt to assist in the cost of moving the dugout. Dinkin asks Glovsky to show the handicapped access on the plan. Planning Board Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 5 of 7 Glovsky shows Dinkin the plan and indicates the handicapped parking spot walkway. Dinkin refers to the need for a zoning variance, and states that the Board may not delegate approval of this plan to another Board. He adds that if voting tonight, the Board would not vote affirmatively, and asks that Glovsky requests to continue this hearing to a future date. Peter Thomas states that he is a frequent patron to this Dunkin Donuts location, and the only time that he has noticed any potential traffic problem is when the delivery trucks are there. He adds that he believes that this latest plan is unnecessary and appears as if the City is forcing Dunkin Donuts to do something that they really don’t want to do. Based on this, Thomas states that he could not vote to approve this plan. Don Walter agrees with Thomas. He feels that this modification isn’t necessary. Glovsky responds by requesting that the Planning Board rule that they will take no action until the Building Inspector determines whether or not a zoning variance is necessary. Thomas states that he has a problem with the new plan’s traffic flow in front of the egress to the building. Dinkin adds that he is concerned about the handicapped access and he claims that the marked passageway will not work. Much discussion ensues regarding the necessity for any redesign. Zambernardi asks if the handicapped parking spot could be located on the side parking lot. Mr. Serpa states that his goal is to place the handicapped parking as close to the entrance as possible. He adds that the marked walkway will be made very obvious and easy to see. Dinkin asks Glovsky if the Building Inspector will find that this plan is compliant. Glovsky states that he doesn’t know how the Building Inspector will react to the new plan. Killilea cites history of a problem with handicapped accessibility and the sidewalks on Elliott Street. Dunn asks if the City has had a problem that initiated this request for a new design. Planning Board Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 6 of 7 Glovsky states that the City has claimed that at times cars were cueing onto the railroad tracks. Dinkin asks the public for comments in support of or against the project. Joan Murphy of 36 Longmeadow Road comments on the traffic and the curb cuts. She cautions that one large curb cut may be dangerous for pedestrians. She adds that there are parking spots on Elliott Street near the corner of Rantoul Street which, if removed, would provide a right turn lane for cars turning south on Rantoul Street. Dinkin requests that Glovsky first go to the Zoning Board to get approval for the curb cut if needed. He wishes to continue the public hearing to July. Glovsky states that he is willing to do that, but questions the necessity of such action if the Planning Board has no intention of approving the plan. Zambernardi asks for a copy of Figure 1 as noted in the distributed letter. Glovsky gives all members a copy of Figure 1. th Flannery: Motion to recess the Public Hearing until June 18 at 8:45 PM, seconded by Walter. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 7-0. 3. Approval of Minutes Harris: Motion to approve the minutes of the May 9 meeting, seconded by Dunn. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 7-0. 4. New/Other Business Zambernardi states that September 19 is a Primary date and that the Board cannot meet on a Primary. She requests a change to the schedule for the September meeting to the thth 20 because the Primary is on the 19. th All members accept the change in schedule to September 20. Zambernardi reminds the members that there will be no regular meeting in August. Dinkin asks if there is any other business. No members respond. Dinkin requests a motion to adjourn. Planning Board Minutes June 20, 2006 Page 7 of 7 Thomas: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Mack. All members are in favor, none in opposition. The motion passes 7-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9:00 pm.