Loading...
2006-09-05 Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board September 5, 2006 Page 1 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: September 5, 2006 Board: Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly City Council Location: Beverly City Hall –City Council Chambers Planning Board Richard Dinkin, John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Members Present Flannery, Donald Walter, Charles Harris, David Mack, Peter Thomas City Councilor’s Paul Gaunci, Timothy Flaherty, William Coughlin, Present Miranda Gooding, John Burke, Kevin Hobin, Donald Martin, Patricia Grimes, Maureen Troubetaris Members Absent: Eve Geller-Duffy Recorder: Eileen Sacco Gaunci calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. City Clerk Frances Macdonald called the roll. Gaunci led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Gaunci recognizes Judy Gillespie who has been an active member of the community for many years and is planning to move to Florida. He read a resolution from the Beverly City Council recognizing her many years of service to the City of Beverly. Gillespie addresses the Council and thanks them for their unexpected and most appreciated honor. Public Hearing – Ventron Rezoning Proposal Gaunci invites Dinkin to join him at the podium. The public hearings of the Planning Board and the City Council are opened. Atty. Tom Alexander addresses the City Council and the Planning Board and recalls that the public hearing was opened last June and gave an overview of some of the highlights of the proposal. Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board September 5, 2006 Page 2 Alexander explains the location of the Ventron site and notes that they are proposing rezoning the area to WDR (waterfront residential). He explains that they are proposing 84 units and public access along the water front area. He also noted that the Master Plan recommended that this site be rezoned for 25 units per acre. He noted that the 84 units that they are proposing would fit that criteria. Alexander recalled that there were items that were raised at the previous meeting and explained them as follows: ?? What is the maximum number of residential units that could be provided for on the site? He explained the method for calculating the number of units on site and noted that it generally depends on the zoning and what is allowed. He noted that there is no square footage requirement ?? Traffic was a concern and Michael Abend will be making a presentation on traffic this evening. ?? How would the City Council and the Planning Board know that what is presented is what we will end up with. He suggested that they would agree to a condition of approval regarding that. He explained that restrictions are put in writing and given to the city solicitor to hold in escrow pending the rezoning. He noted that this process was used on the Stop and Shop site. He also cited legal cases in which this process was used as well. He noted that the courts have looked favorably on voluntary restrictions. Alexander referred to a letter from the Beverly Economic Community Development Council that was sent on May 6, 2006. He noted that page six of the letter recommends approval of the plans for the Ventron site and noted that it conforms to the Master Plan. Michael Abend of Abend Associates addressed the Council and Planning Board and explained his traffic survey. He explained the difference between the proposed residential site and the former proposal for office space on the site. Abend explained the traffic calculations that they performed in the area. He noted that the traffic impact on the neighborhood would be reduced just by rezoning. Abend noted that there are a lot of opportunities to improve traffic and safety in the neighborhood and explained that one-way streets and traffic signs would improve that. He noted that the developer could make specific improvements and work with the traffic committee on those improvements. Alexander introduces Thad Siemasko to make a presentation on the maximum number of units that can be built on the site. He noted that he was asked to look at how many units could be put on the site. He noted that at the time his answer was that it was unknown because it depended on a number of variables. He stated that the number of units that Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board September 5, 2006 Page 3 could be put on the site under the zoning is 96 units and explained the calculations and the criteria that he used to arrive at that number. He also explained the proposed parking in relation to the Conservation Commission restrictions. He also noted that there would be two spaces of parking per unit. Councilor Troubetaris addressed Mr. Siemasko and asked if there would be enough parking to accommodate the residents as well as visitors. Mr. Siemasko explained that there would be two spaces per unit and five visitor spaces. Troubetaris stated that she wants to be sure that the Planning Board would require that enough parking would be on the site. Troubetaris also noted that there should be public access for fishing. Mr. Ken Knowles of Meridian Engineering explained that they have heard from Chapter 91 and they will be subject to Chapter 91. He explained the area and noted the locations on the plan that relate to Chapter 91. He noted that Chapter 91 would require some public dedicated use and explained the proposal for public access to the waterfront. Coughlin asked if there would be parking on both sides of Congress Street. Mr. Knowles explained the parking in that area. Troubetaris requested an explanation of the public access area and asked if it would be handicap accessible. Mr. Knowles stated that it would be accessible to the handicapped. Gooding noted that there is fishing down there and wants to make sure that fishing will be allowed. Hobin asked if they have looked at the view corridor in relation to the buildings. Mr. Siemasko stated that they looked at the view corridor and evaluated it and they are proposing to make the least impact on the view of the abutters. Hobin expressed concern about the impact of the build out on the neighborhood. Alexander noted that the Chairman of the Planning Board asked him to prepare a restriction and to make a presentation on how that would work. He noted that he has done that and explained the process. He noted that it would be part of the site plan review process of the Planning Board. He also noted that there would be an agreement/contract provided to the city solicitor to be held in escrow and when the zoning is approved it would be filed at the Registry of Deeds. He noted that they are proposing this at this time so that they know what they have been looking at is what will be built. He distributed a "bare bones" draft. Gooding referred to a letter from the residents of the area and the Ward Two Civic Association expressing their concerns about the increase in height from 35 feet to 45 feet. She questioned what the project would look like and what the density would be if they had to live within the current 35 feet that is allowed. Alexander noted that if they lower Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board September 5, 2006 Page 4 the height they would spread out more on the site. He explained that it would be a less aesthetically pleasing project. Gooding noted that the Master Plan clearly envisioned a residential use in this area but it also called for a mixed use. She asked why a commercial use is not included in this proposal. Alexander noted that on this side of the bridge it is a 100% residential use and explained that where this is a primarily residential area it made sense to limit it to a residential type traffic. He also noted that access was a consideration as well. Gooding noted that they are willing to put restrictions on the property and noted that another huge issue for the neighborhood is the impact of traffic. She suggested that mitigation should be included to address their concerns. Alexander stated that they would be addressing that as they go along. Dinkin referred to the information on contract zoning handed out. Alexander explained that it is from Mark Bobrowski's articles, a common reference tool for land use attorneys. Dinkin noted the worst-case scenario and questioned if a bankruptcy court in an effort to assist a creditor could void the restriction presented to the city. Alexander noted that the buyers are cash buyers and there will be no mortgage. He explained the mortgage foreclosure process and the effect it would have on the restriction. Gaunci opened the hearing up for public comment at this time. Colleen Bruce addressed the Council and reviewed the parking as being two spaces per unit and 5 visitor spaces. Abend explained the parking proposal. Dinkin noted that there is room on the lot for parking for 96 units and suggested that they include the extra twenty parking spaces on the site. Abend explained that they have a lot of green space and noted that by changing the height they are able to have the green space and the additional parking would take away from that. Siemasko explained the proposed parking locations on the site in relation to the proposed green space. He noted that they have an extra 10 visitor spaces shown on the plan and explained that they will deed one space per unit and the rest will be used for additional parking or will be purchased by the owners who choose to purchase. Alexander stated that he thinks that there will be significantly more parking on this site than there is a the Gateway. Councilor Burke asked how much open space there is in excess of the required 20%. Siemasko explained that there is a fair amount of open space and explained the setbacks and the conservation restrictions. He noted that if they placed significantly more cars on the site it would have an impact on open space. Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board September 5, 2006 Page 5 Gooding referred to parking and expressed concern about two parking spaces per unit and they would be deeding one space per unit, noting that is all well and good but noted that people could elect not to pay for an additional space. Siemasko explained that typically if people have only one car they are not likely to want to pay for an additional space. Gooding noted that she is concerned about people who do not purchase the additional space for a second car parking on Goat Hill. Siemasko explained that they estimate that there will be 50 additional spaces available for additional parking for residents. Grimes referred to parking and noted that she agrees that some people will not want to pay for a second parking space. Siemasko explained that not purchasing a parking space does not mean that they cannot park on site, it just means that they will not have a guaranteed parking space. Abend noted that he has done a lot of work like this in the region. He referred to projects in Westboro and Franklin. He explained that of 84 units, half of the parking would be deeded to the units and the rest would be available to the residents on first come first serve basis. He suggested that the city could require designating certain parking areas. He also noted that a big selling point of this is that you can walk to the downtown. State Representative Mary Grant addressed the Council and asked if there would be restrictions to keep commuters from parking there. She also expressed concern that if they don’t sell all of the parking spaces they could be sold to commuters. Siemasko stated that the parking would just be for residents. Alexander stated that he thinks that selling parking spaces to commuters would violate zoning. A resident asked how the proposed architecture relates to the architecture of the houses in Goat Hill. Siemasko explained that they looked at the neighborhood and described the various styles in the neighborhood. He noted that they are set back and the materials are cedar clapboard or cedar shingles. Michelle Gordon addressed the Council and stated that she is a resident at the Gateway. She explained that a selling point of the Gateway was parking and she noted that when she moved there parking was not an issue but in the last fifteen years a lot of businesses have been developed and often the undesignated spaces are used and there is a major problem in the downtown with parking. She also suggested that they need two handicapped parking spaces on the site and noted that they are providing public access on the site. Gooding asked the developer to superimpose the proposed development into a picture that will show what this development will look like as you come over the bridge. She stated that she has mixed feelings about it but that it might be helpful to have a visual of what it will look like. Siemasko stated that they could take a picture from the top of the bridge and do that. Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board September 5, 2006 Page 6 Troubetaris stated that she does not want to travel to the gateway of the city and see something like what was developed on the Parker Brothers site in Salem. Gooding noted that the reason for her question is that she thinks it is important to see what the gateway to the city will look like. She noted that people might look at this differently if they can see what it is going to look like. Siemasko stated that they want to give people a true representation of what they are going to see there. Judy Gillespie noted that the Architect for the project, Thad Siemasko is a great architect. She noted that there are a lot of issues and recommended that they take thinks slow but not so slow that nothing gets done. She also noted that parking at the Gateway was inadequate when it was approved. She noted that it is a beautiful neighborhood and she does not want to see it turned into a parking lot. Gaunci informed the public that they would be continuing the public hearing to October 2, 2006. Gooding moved to continue the public hearing to October 2, 2006, seconded by Coughlin and approved. The date was then changed to October 16, 2006. The Planning Board also continued their public hearing to the same date. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Special meeting of the Planning Board held immediately after the close of the joint public hearing Dinkin notes that the Board will not be taking up the rezoning issue this evening as the public hearing was continued to October. Cleveland Road Extension Leah Zambernardi explained that Bill Beard submitted a letter of request for the extension of the Form G Covenant. She noted that a letter from Frank Killilea regarding this has been received and read the letter to the Board. The letter recommended the approval of the extension so that underground utilities can be installed without damaging pavement and curbing. Mr. Killilea recommended a nine-month extension of the covenant. Thomson moved to approve the extension of the covenant for nine months, seconded by Thomas and approved. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan (SANR) – Brackenberry Lane Public Meeting Minutes - Beverly Planning Board September 5, 2006 Page 7 Leah Zambernardi explained the Form A and noted that they are dividing one lot into two lots and noted that there are easements on the property but they don’t fall into the category that they would have to be excluded. There was a question on whether the applicant has to designate where they will have their frontage. A discussion was held on frontage. Zambernardi reviewed the frontage requirements with the Board. Zambernardi noted that this plan is a re-division noting that it was subdivided in 1992. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter a motion was made by Thomson to approve the SANR, seconded by Walter and approved. 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 9:00 p.m.