Loading...
2006-06-05 joint meeting CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board and the Beverly City Council - Joint Public Hearing and Special Meeting of the Beverly Planning Board held immediately afterward SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: June 5, 2006 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall – City Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Charles Harris, Peter Thomas, David Mack, Ellen Flannery (Planning Board); Paul Guanci, Timothy Flaherty, William Coughlin, Miranda Gooding, John Burke, Kevin Hobin, Donald Martin, Patricia Grimes, Maureen Troubetaris (City Councilors) MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Walter, Eve Geller-Duffy OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Eileen Sacco Joint Public Hearing Gaunci calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. A joint public hearing of the Beverly City Council and the Beverly Planning Board was held on Monday, June 5, 2006 at Beverly City Hall in the City Council Chambers for the purpose of discussing the recommendations on the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance to create a new WDR Zoning District and to re-zone the parcel at 10-12 Congress Street from its current IG zone to WDR.. Council President Gaunci called on Atty. Thomas Alexander to address the Council and the Planning Board on the proposed amendment. Atty. Alexander of 1 School Street, Beverly, Massachusetts addressed the Council/Planning Board and reviewed the history of the Ventron property and noted that it is a former manufacturing site which has been cleaned up by the Department of Energy. He noted that the site is 3.78 acres on the Danvers River. Atty. Alexander explained that his client purchased the site two years ago and has done studies on the potential uses for the site. He also noted that his client met with the neighbors in November of 2004. He also noted that the property was marketed for office space and due to the economic times that did not bode well. Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board June 5, 2006 Page 2 Atty. Alexander explains that they are now looking at a residential use and notes that if the site had never been used as an industrial site it would have been residential. Atty. Alexander reviewed the Master Plan and notes that this proposal satisfactorily meets the goals and objectives of it including goals for residential uses and open space. He also reviewed the goals for economic development and noted that older industrial sites should be rezoned and reused. Atty. Alexander estimated that the fees that would be generated from this project would be close to $500,000.00 and he estimated that the tax revenue generated would be about $460,000.00. Atty. Alexander stated that they did a market study which shows that 40% - 50% of those who purchase units would be Beverly residents over the age of 55. He noted that they would be one and two bedroom units and would not be conducive to children so there would not be an additional burden on the schools. Atty. Alexander noted that the current zoning may not maximize the use of the property. He noted that a residential use with recreational space would be a good use of the site. Atty. Alexander reviewed the proposed density for the site and explained that the 3.78 acres would come to about 22.2 units per acrea. Atty. Alexander stated that they are not subject to Chapter 91 and therefore do not have to provide public access. He noted that they are including walkways and have planned for significant view corridors from Congress Street. He noted that it is an aesthetically pleasing design. Atty. Alexander introduced Craig Sassay to review the environmental condition of the property. Mr. Sassay reviewed the history of the property and explained that there was a clean up of uranium on the site and explained that the soil was removed as well as contaminated mud from the tidal flat. He stated that there is no risk to human health. He further noted that the Department of Energy certified that the site was clean in 2003. He also noted that DEP issued a response action on the site as well. Mr. Dinkin asked if there is a use restriction on the property. Mr. Sassay stated that there was an activities and use limitation on the site but that has since been lifted by DEP. Michael Abend of Abend Associates addressed the Council/Planning Board and explained the traffic study that was done on the area. He explained that they did a comparative study on the previously proposed office use and the proposed residential use and explained the process that they used to do the study. Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board June 5, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Abend explained peak commuter hours and noted that there would be about 1800 vehicle trips in the off peak hours and 550 residential trips. He noted that Saturday trips would increase to 600 for residents and Sunday he estimates 360. Mr. Abend reviewed journey to work data and explained their findings. He also compared that data to the previously proposed office use data. Mr. Abend reviewed proposed improvements that could be implemented to improve traffic flow. He suggested turn restrictions that may control traffic and more stop signs. He also noted that they do not want to exacerbate the Goat Hill traffic problems and hope to enhance the access to route 1. Mr. Dinkin noted that he is concerned about cut through traffic on Wellman Street for vehicles headed to Salem or the bridge area. Mr. Abend stated that their calculations show that no more than 20% of the traffic will end up on Wellman Street. He also noted that the traffic estimation is based on the maximum build out as the zoning change is written. Atty. Alexander noted that there would be an agreement prior to rezoning to site this specific project. He also noted that they are not intending to build out to the maximum. Mr. Dinkin asked if the property was built out to the maximum allowed by zoning, how many units would there be. Atty. Alexander stated that there is no direct answer to that as it is determined by calculations. He stated that they could provide that information for the next meeting. Councillor Coughlin questioned if the traffic study shows that people over 55 use cars less. Mr. Abend stated that they did not factor that in at all and explained how the numbers would change if they did take that into consideration. Councillor Martin noted that 84 units maximum are proposed for the site and asked if the proposal is to restrict the number to 84 units. Ken Knowles addressed the Council/Planning Board and explained the engineering for the site. He explained the existing condition of the site and noted that they have applied to DEP but have no final determination. He also noted that the project does not infringe on the filled tidal land. Mr. Knowles explained that two buildings will be defined as access points and explained them on the plans. Mr. Knowles also noted that there is a public landing at the end of Congress Street and that will be a subject of discussion with the Beverly Conservation Commission. Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board June 5, 2006 Page 4 Councillor Burke asked if there was any lighting planned for the walkway. Mr. Knowles stated that there is some lighting planned. Atty. Alexander noted that there is a provision in the site plan review process that calls for the review of lighting on the site and it can be further addressed at that time. Councillor Gooding questioned why a residential development would not be subject to a Chapter 91 License. Councillor Grimes stated that she does not want to lose sight of the fact that we are here for a zoning change from IG to WDR. Thad Simasko, architect, addressed the Council/Planning Board and explained the design of the project. He noted that they have designed the project to fit with the Master Plan and their intent is to have as little affect on the neighborhood as possible. He explained the plans and stated that they will be nice quality units and explained the parking proposal for the site. He explained that they are providing 2 per unit for a total of 182 spaces and 19 additional spaces for visitors. He reviewed the plans and noted the locations of the buildings in relation to the neighborhood. Mr. Simasko explained that 20% of the site is planned to be open space and they will work with the Conservation Commission on natural mitigation and planting plans noting that they propose native plantings for the site. Mr. Thomson referred to the parking area and noted that the grade of the site drops off. Mr. Simasko explained the parking plans for the site and noted the locations on the plans. Councillor Gooding asked why the zoning change asks that the requirement for height be changed. Mr. Simasko explained that the IG allows for a maximum of 35 feet and they are proposing 40 feet heights for the buildings. Councillor Gooding asked why the additional height was necessary. Atty. Alexander explained that they have done more detailed research and they propose to build up a little to create a little more open space. Atty. Alexander stated that the new district will have no impact on existing zoning. Mr. Thomson noted that R6 only allows 35 feet and expressed concern about the impact of the new buildings on the view of the neighbors. Mr. Simasko stated that they studied six houses in the neighborhood and explained the locations and showed aerial photos and the areas where there might be an impact. President Gaunci addressed those present and suggested that the Public Hearing be continued to September 5, 2006 at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board June 5, 2006 Page 5 Planning Board Special Meeting Mr. Dinkin calls the special meeting of the Planning Board to order. Members take a roll call vote to enter Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation and state they will reconvene for regular business at the conclusion of the Executive Session. (Minutes recorded in a separate document) Mr. Dinkin calls the special meeting back to order. Sargent Avenue Extension – Preliminary Subdivision Plan – Michael and Suzanne Fiore Atty. Thomas Alexander addressed the Board and explained that they would address questions from the last meeting. He notes that one question was if the property could be completed without waivers. He explained that it could be but the proposal with waivers will have 18 feet of pavement. Atty. Alexander reviewed the history of the property. He also noted that it would not make sense to build out the road going from 13 feet to 38 feet. Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering reviewed the plans for the existing house and explained that they are widening the street to provide 18 feet of pavement from beginning to end. He also explained the drainage on the site and reviewed the locations on the plans. Mr. Griffin also noted that the fire department has requested an additional fire hydrant and noted that in the original filing they had requested a waiver for this. Ms. Zambernardi explained the northern lot line of the site and the location of the new house lot. She also noted that the plan calls for a full radius cul-de-sac. Mr. Griffin explained the lot lines and how he measured and arrived at the lot lines. Mr. Dinkin questioned whether the proposed road would be public or private. Atty. Alexander stated it would be private. Ms. Zambernardi reviewed the regulations and noted that they meet the frontage requirements by definition. It was noted that a letter has been submitted regarding proposed project improvements for Sargent Avenue. Atty. Alexander reported that five residents of Sargent Avenue have signed a petition in support of the improvements to the road. Mr. Thomson states that he is concerned about the 18 foot roadway and would prefer it to be 24 feet wide. He also questioned the definition of a front yard. Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board June 5, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Thomson questioned the drainage calculations. Mr. Griffin explained the location of the catch basins and explained the drainage plans. He noted that they are increasing the amount of impervious surface on the site. Mr. Dinkin noted that there are existing water problems up there and questioned if this would impact that. Mr. Griffin explained the plans and explained the location of the catch basins and the discharge points on the plans. He also reviewed the location of house lot #2 and explained the direction of the drainage for that lot as well. Atty. Alexander noted that a letter has been submitted from City Engineer Frank Killilea recommending approval of the project. Chairman Dinkin explained that the Planning Board can vote to approve the preliminary plan or not to approve the plan or take no action. Mr. Thomas moved to take no action on the plan. Ms. Dunn seconds the motion. The motion carries (5-2) There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Mr. Thomas to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Dunn seconds the motion. The motion carries. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.