Loading...
2008-05-20 Planning Board May 20, 2008 Page lof9 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: Planning Board, Regular Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: May 20, 2008 City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd Floor Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Charles Harris, Ellen Hutchinson, David Mack, Leo Panunzio Stephanie Williams Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi Andrea Bray MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. 1. Concurrent Public Hearim!:s - Special Permit Applications #117-08 and #118-08 and Site Plan Review #95-08: raze former automobile sales and service facility and construct new four-story buildim!: containim!: thirty-two dwellim!: units at 363-399 Rantoul Street and allow parkim!: as the principal use of 380 Rantoul Street - CC Zone - Burnham Apartments - Windover Properties. LLC Zambernardi reads a letter from Wind over Development, which requests that the board allow then to withdraw their applications without prejudice. Mack: Motion to accept the withdrawal request, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7- O. The Chair abstains. 2. Continued OSRD Initial Review #01-08 Beaver Pond Road - Gwenn Evitts Attorney Frattaroli presents plans for the member to review. He cites the law 7.1 which limits the board's power regarding roads that are not created by OSRD, and law 7.2 which says that some setbacks cannot be reduced. Regarding Title 5, Frattaroli discusses the setbacks for the well and the soil absorption systems. He states that these setbacks cannot be waived and that these systems must be on the lot. He cites Joe Reales' letter, which states that these lots must have a minimum area of 40,000 square feet. He explains that the credit land for nitrogen loading systems, has never been used before in Beverly. Frattaroli iterates that this project does not meet the profile for the typical OSRD project. He says that they visited the 3 other open space projects in other communities, which are Planning Board May 20, 2008 Page 2 of9 on large tracts and built by major developers (AI Martin, C.P. Berry, and Al Symes), and which he feels are dissimilar to the Beaver Pond project. Frattaroli acknowledges that the board doesn't vote on a concept plan, but on a yield plan, and he must submit a yield plan before he presents a preferred plan. Frattaroli explains his submitted preferred plan, stating that he has requested 40,000 square-foot lots. He describes the do-not-disturb area, consisting of 34% conservation area, three open space parcels, and the setbacks (the street is not included in this equation.), as equal to about 40% of the tract. He states that the landowners can own the do-not-disturb land or it could be deeded to the city. Thomson asks if the yield plan meets the BOH requirements for setbacks. Frattaroli states that it does. Thomson states that the yield plan demonstrates that they can get four lots on this tract. He asks if the 3 open space lots are formed, what would happen to lots 5 and 6. Frattaroli states that they have been labeled as non-buildable and they may stay with the immediate abutter or they could be deeded to the city. Thomson asks if he is proposing that lots 5 and 6 would be in CR. Frattaroli states that these lots have been placed in CR. He expands on this stating that the plan will state that the do-not-disturb lots will be lots 5 and 6 and the 3 open space lots and the setbacks. Dinkin states that he would like to know how the City Solicitor interprets the Title 5 and well setbacks. Zambernardi defines a cluster development, and explains that this development may qualify for a shared septic system. Thomson states that theses could be separate systems in a common area. Much discussion ensues regarding the septic system possibilities. Dinkin iterates his desire to get the opinion of the City Solicitor. Mack asks why lots 5 and 6 are separate, and why they can't be part oflot 4. Frattaroli states that it is because they were considering the lot size in this development. He adds that these lots could be merged back to their respective lots. Planning Board May 20, 2008 Page 3 of9 Thomson states that the board should try to solve this issue tonight. He says that the issue that the board is debating is due to the two flaws in the OSRD. He says that the real goal is finding a way protect the open space. He says that if the board waives the conveyance requirement, in his opinion the least important requirement, they can still have the open space with the same size lot consistent with the zoning. Dinkin asks if they will have the same Title 5 issue. Thomson says that they will not because his definition of the building envelope will include the septic and well areas. He clarifies that the use, not the land, will be conveyed away. Frattaroli confirms that this means they would go back to zoning, allow for some building room, and the leftover will be open space. He expresses concern that his lot owner will not have enough room for the building envelope, and he thinks that he will not have anything close to 50% open space. Thomson says that the lot owners will be happy to know that there will be a wide undisturbed area between each house. Harris says they are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and this tract on Beaver Pond Road is not big, and consists of only four house lots. He states that this is not the right time or place to apply OSRD. He understands the arguments from John Thomson, but he disagrees. Mack agrees with Harris but states that they now have this ordinance and they need to see how this parcel will apply. He states that he sees no problem with the preferred plan, but there is no easy solution to making this development conform to OSRD. Dinkin asks if they have an interest in voting on the preferred plan. Mack and Thomson say they would like to vote tonight. Dinkin states that one of the purposes of OSRD was to deal with development of marginal land and create building envelopes on land that was marginal. This land is too marginal for OSRD to be applicable. Frattaroli states that this land is not marginal in any way. Zambernardi reads a letter dated May 20, 2008, from David Lang, Conservation Commission Chairman, requesting that a curvy lot line at the area of depression be used as in plan 1, but the overall plan conform to plan 3. Planning Board May 20, 2008 Page 4 of9 Renee Mary of 274 Hale Street reads a letter from Pam Kampersal on behalf of the Norwood Pond Association and the Safe Drinking Water Alliance. The letter requests that an environmental impact study be conducted. Thomson: Motion that based on the yield plan showing the wells and septic system four lots can be placed on this parcel, seconded by Hutchinson. Passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Thomson: Motion to recommend approval of this lot layout if the applicant comes back with the do-not-disturb areas to a maximum extent, seconded by Flannery. Mack asks if Thomson would approve this plan subject to Frattaroli coming back with the do-not-disturb areas and the conservation commission comments preferring plan 3. Thomson states that there needs to be more non-disturb area. Dinkin says the board is beginning to formulate how these envelopes should appear. He states that the board should be more specific in the motion with suggestions for specific modifications. Mack says the board should keep it simple and vote, yes or no, on the presented plan. Thomson clarifies that his motion was not to approve the plan but to approve this concept if it provides for more non-disturb areas. Dinkin states that he isn't sure the board can approve the lot lines without approving the plan. Thomson withdraws his motion, seconded by Flannery. Mack: Motion to approve the presented plan subject to adherence to the comments of the Conservation Commission regarding open space parcel #3 and merging lots 5 and 6 back into the abutting lots, seconded by Harris. Dinkin states that he will vote against it because he agrees with Thomson's view that they request the maximum amount of non-disturb area. Mack states that he respects his opinion but he disagrees. Frattaroli expresses concern about the treatment of the depression and asks that lot 4 be given some additional space to accommodate for this change. Dinkin asks if this will affect the setbacks for the septic or the well. Planning Board May 20, 2008 Page 5 of9 Frattaroli states that neither one of these items will be effected. Much discussion ensues about the possible modifications for this plan. Mack withdraws his motion, seconded by Harris. Mack: Motion to approve the preferred plan with the following amendments: . that the non-disturb areas be shown on the plan . that the Conservation Commission's recommendation to extend the open space on plan 3 by making the lot line in the depression a curvy line . that lots 5 and 6 be removed so 5 goes back into lot 4 and 6 goes back into lot 3 the steep slope and rhododendrums be included in the area not to be disturbed. The motion is seconded by Harris. Hutchinson asks Dinkin how much more open space he would like. Dinkin states that he would like the open space to be larger than one-third of the remaining parcel after taking out the conservation restricted land. Thomson states that he will vote against this motion because it doesn't achieve the goals for open space. The motion passes 6-2. Thomson and the Chair vote in opposition. 3. Review of Facade: One Stop Market - 309 and 311-317 Cabot Street pursuant to Condition #7 of Site Plan Review #92-07 - Jaspal S. Gill. Trustee. God Bless America Realty Trust Attorney Matthew Kavanagh reminds the board that when this plan was approved the board maintained jurisdiction over the fa<;ade. He introduces architect Greg Hepner to discuss possible designs for the fa<;ade. Architect Greg Hepner presents three architectural schemes for the fa<;ade, and describes each one. The first scheme is the original scheme presented in February, and approved by the DRB, with the columns and the recessed panels in two brick tones. He clarifies that with all three schemes the limits of the detailing on the right wall is similar to the limits of the window pattern on the left side. In the second scheme, Hepner says that it replicates the aluminum and glass storefront on the left side with Medium Density Overlay (MDO) with anodized brown mullions, and a darker green trim on the cornice and the columns. Planning Board May 20, 2008 Page 6 of9 For the third option, Hepner states that they will integrate the panel sections with clapboard. Hepner states that he and the owner, Mr. Gill, prefer scheme number 2 because it is the most contextual and sympathetic solution to this problem. Harris asks why there is no glass. Hepner states that there will be a refrigerator behind the wall on the right side. Kavanagh states that there is a safety concern with this area, which provided the reason for the refrigerator to be on the front wall, in easy view of the register. Zambernardi states that the DRB recommended that they create a series of recessed brick panels along the wall. Harris asks if there is any way they can make the right side of the building look like it has glass. Hepner iterates that the intent has been to tie the two halves of the building together by using the same fascia element with soffet lights, and with the double columns along both sides. Kavanagh states that there will be more glass under the entryway. Much discussion ensues about the plans. Harris: Motion to request that the applicant return with another design, which is more aesthetically pleasing, no second. The motion fails. Mack: Motion to approve the plan 2, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-1. Harris votes in opposition. 4. Cleveland Road Subdivision #2 - Expiration of Construction Completion Date - May 31. 2008 - David Campbell Zambernardi states that the deadline is May 31, 2008, and at the last meeting, Mary Vitolo requested that the bond be released, but two issues remained, so the board declined to release the bond. She explains that now there is another request for the release of the bond, and the outstanding issues have been addressed except for the wooden palettes with blocks in the middle of the right of way, with must be removed. Planning Board May 20, 2008 Page 7 of9 Mack: Motion to release $8700 of the bond today and the remaining $50 upon site clean-up, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. 5. Cleveland Road Extension #1 - Expiration of Form G Covenant and Construction Completion Date - June 16. 2008 - William Beard Zambernardi explains that this subdivision has not been completed because they were waiting for the abutter to remove the wall, and now that it is finished, they are requesting a 3-month extension. Motion to extend the construction completion date to September 30, 2008, seconded by Hutchinson. Passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. 6. Minor Site Plan Modification: Chan2es to architectural plans - Modification #1 to Site Plan Review #28-97 - 138 Conant Street - The Connolly Partnership 1984 Jay Connelly presents the minor modifications to 138 Conant Street which include: The front entrance will change to make a full window wall with granite cladding Dinkin states that the board must first determine that these changes are minor, and, if so, must vote on the changes. Thomson: Motion to find these changes to be minor and that the development otherwise conforms to the approved plans, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Thomson: Motion to approve the modification, seconded by Dunn. Passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. 7. Minor Site Plan Modification: Chan2es to li2htin2. 2ara2e door. vinyl sidin2. handicapped parkin2 and landscapin2 - Modification #1 to Site Plan Review #66-01 - Federal Hei2hts - 48 Federal Street - Atlas Mort2a2e Company Ken Chase of Atlas Mortgage at 77 Pond Avenue, Brookline, reviews the modifications: . The exterior lighting has changed from a total of 8 lights on the rear of the building to 5 lights, which are 10 feet higher. . The garage door has changed from a panelized door to a rolling door. . The vinyl siding on the south elevation has changed from green to beige. . The parking plan has changed to reduce the number of handicapped spaces from 2 to 1. This was approved by the ADA Coordinator. Planning Board May 20, 2008 Page 8 of9 . The landscape plan has changed with the removal of a street tree in favor of having lower plants and flowers. Mack: Motion to find that these changes are minor and that the development otherwise conforms to the approved plans, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin states that the rule to find some changes are minor is new, and two to the proposed changes (to the landscaping plan and the handicapped space) go to the core of the site plan review. He recommends that the board find these changes to not be minor. Chase states that he would be happy to place the street tree anywhere the board requires. He adds that he can place the handicapped space there if the board desires it. Mack: Motion to amend his original motion to require the location of the street tree, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Mack: Motion to allow the modifications, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-0. 8. Subdivision Approval Not ReQuired Plans (SANR) - 11 & 17 East Cornin2 Street Zambernardi states that the two lots will be swapping parcels. Thomson: Motion to endorse the ANR, seconded by Harris. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. New/Other Business 9. Bass River Estates - update on wall completion. dust and erosion control Zambernardi states that a portion of the neighbor's property has been cut and there were erosion control issues. She reads a letter into the record stating that all the items have been 100% completed. 10. Informal Discussion: Rezonin2 of Parcel. Corner of Sohier Road and Brimbal Avenue - CEA Group Steve Cohen presents the plan and states that if the board approves they will seek a new zoning amendment Tom Alexander presents relevant pages from the master plan that addresses this area. He states that they are proposing a special permit within the IR zone. Ken Buckland describes how this rezoning might occur with an elegant solution. He states that he has prepared design guidelines. Planning Board May 20, 2008 Page 9 of9 Steven Cohen describes these guidelines stating that he feels that it would be appropriate if these guidelines are adopted by the Planning Board, but this would be left totally to the board's discretion. He clarifies that these guidelines would apply to all of the parcels south of 128 on Brimbal Ave to Broughton Drive in the IR district. Thomson states that this makes sense to have this rezoning done with general application as opposed to rezoning a single parcel. Buckland states that they wish to allow mixed-use with dwellings in the commercial zone. Dinkin states that dwellings are essential components of this project because they reduce vandalism and create a built-in consumer base for the retail space and create a village feel. He adds that he has another agenda, which is to continue to build the affordable housing stock. Cohen iterates that they suggest the design guidelines as a tool for the Planning Board and it is up to the board as to whether they adopt them. Thomson states that design guidelines would be a good idea. 11. Set Concurrent Public Hearin2s: Site Plan #96-08 and Special Permit #119-08 Mack: Motion to schedule the public hearing for June 17, 2008, at 7:30 PM, seconded by Hutchinson. Passes 7-0. 12. Set Public Hearin2: Chapman's Corner Cluster Subdivision - Settlement Plan Mack: Motion schedule the public hearing for to June 17,2008, at 8:30 PM, seconded by Hutchinson. Passes 7-0. Flannery: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Dunne. Passes 7-0. The meeting is adjourned at 11: 15 PM.