Loading...
2008-07-08 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Planning Board, Special Meeting July 8, 2008 City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd Floor Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Ellen Hutchinson, David Mack, Leo Panunzio, Stephanie Williams Charles Harris Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi Andrea Bray Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. 1. Informal Discussion on Zone Chan2e - Brimbal Avenue/Sohier Road Parcel- CEA Grou)) Attorney Tom Alexander provides a history of the property stating that it was once owned by the Boston Archdiocese. He adds that the applicant's team worked, along with Planning Director Tina Cassidy and Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi, to craft something that reflects the intent of the Master Plan, and to arrive at something that will accommodate reasonable zoning in that area. He introduces Ken Buckland of Cecil Group who wrote the Master Plan, and Steve Cohen with the CEA Group. Alexander says that this plan provides a formula for some shared parking. He distributes a copy of the proposed new zoning for the members to review. Steve Cohen states that there are actually three copies of the proposal, including one with comments from Cassidy and Zambernardi. Zambernardi points out that there is some misrepresentation as to the source of some of these comments. Cohen apologizes and agrees to look into this. Mack asks if a fast food restaurant would be allowed. Alexander states that the definition of a fast-food restaurant, according to zoning, is an establishment containing a drive-through and this would not be allowed in this zone. Planning Board July 8, 2008 Page 2 of 10 Mack clarifies that theoretically a McDonalds could be there without the drive-through. Alexander states that in his experience with McDonald's, the drive-through for McDonalds represents about 70% of their business, and they would probably opt not to open a location if they could not have the drive-through. Thomson states that the Board would still have the opportunity of turning down an application for a fast food establishment in this location. He asks if this is intended to be an overlay district. Alexander states that it is similar to an overlay district. Dinkin states that the original intent was to change zoning from IR and now this zoning is much more restricted. He asks Alexander what the thinking was behind this change. Thomson asks the group to show the Board the difference between the current and proposed permitted uses. Ken Buckland states that when he wrote the Master Plan, he originally wrote that this would be an appropriate area for rezoning. He shows the diagram of lots and uses. Dinkin asks them the thinking that brought them to proposing a much more restricted area than the original application. Steve Cohen states that from the beginning the intent was to remain as closely as possible to the Master Plan, but he saw that commercial uses are more appropriate for properties that front on Brimbal Ave. Dinkin says that he prefers regulatory simplicity to regulatory complexity and asks why they don't just request a special permit instead of rezoning. Thomson discusses the concept of an overlay district. There is much discussion about overlay districts and the term "Legal Frontage". Thomson states that it does not make much sense to have just one layer of properties, with actual frontage on Brimbal Avenue being the only criteria for inclusion in the new overlay. He refers to lots 20a and 20b stating that these should be included in the overlay, and 26a should not. He states that is doesn't make much sense to have properties that can only be accessed via Brimbal Ave as industrial. Thomson states that the lots that are similarly situated should be treated the same. Cohen clarifies that similarly situated in this case refers to access. Planning Board July 8, 2008 Page 3 of 10 Dinkin suggests that the lots that would apply in this case be named. Alexander thanks the Board members from their input and states that they look forward to a joint public hearing in September. Dinkin confirms that no action from the Board is needed at this time. Flannery: Motion to recess for public hearing, seconded by Panunzio. Passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. 2. Continued Public Hearin2 - Cluster Subdivision Plan for Chapman's Corner Estates (Settlement Plan) - create 28 new lots - Eisenhower Avenue. Hale & Bovles Streets and Birch Woods Drive - Manor Homes at Whitehall. LLC & Matthew Kavana2h Thomson: Motion to waive the reading of the public hearing notice, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. Thomson clarifies that the old house will be fixed up within six months from the finalization of all permits. Zambernardi asks if the neighborhood has received a copy of the affordable housing proposal. Alexander states that they have not and distributes some copies to the neighbors in attendance and to the Board. Upon reviewing the affordable housing proposal Dinkin states that he doesn't like what he sees, and that more money will be needed to buy the applicant out of his obligation to provide affordable housing. Alexander cites the 252 and 254 property as originally proposed for affordable housing, and states that it would be difficult to place maintenance obligations for these properties on low/moderate income families. He adds that after reviewing the project the applicant has come up with $100,000 as a fee in lieu of placing the third affordable unit on site. He says that the Beverly Affordable Housing Coalition (BAHC) can leverage $100,000 to get much more money for a project. He speaks at length regarding the terms of the funding for affordable housing projects. Dinkin asks Alexander to share the math with him. Planning Board July 8, 2008 Page 4 of 10 Alexander states that the BAHC has done research and they wrote a letter stating that this amount is very competent and competitive. Dinkin states that this relationship is not between the applicant and the BAHC, but between the applicant and the City. Alexander states that the proposal can ensure historic preservation of a unique structure on the site. Mack asks Alexander to share the research. Alexander states that he was not the one that did the research. He adds that the Ventron site applicants donated $55,000, acknowledging that this number did not set precedent. Dinkin states that the reality is that there is a benefit to having that third unit on site. He states that he is looking for the difference between the market value of the unit and the affordable unit's sale price, and the real value of a unit would be higher than $500,000. Thomson asks Dinkin how this is relevant to this decision. He states that the Board would like to ensure that the units get built. Dinkin states that if the inclusionary housing ordinance was in effect at the time of this original application, the developer would be required to build 4 affordable units, not 3. Dinkin and Thomson discuss the formula for determining this payment. Thomson states that if the old house is used for affordable housing, the owners would not have the resources to preserve the structure. Mack states that he would like to see the research that arrived at the $100,000 number. He states that he would vote in favor of this proposal if he voted now. Alexander states that if the Board disagrees with this proposal for the payment, then the applicant will build the units on site. Thomson states that he wishes to hear the views of some of the neighbors. Alexander points out that all other issues have been resolved, including the traffic and drainage. Dennis Crimmins speaks about the settlement agreement terms including the mandate to remove a driveway that goes up from Boyles Street, and that Lot 30 (28 Boyles St) would not be further subdivided, and they will limit the street lights. Planning Board July 8, 2008 Page 5 of 10 Panunzio asks Dinkin what amount he would like to see for the fee. Dinkin states that he would like the fee to be $350,000. Panunzio asks if they are set with all of the other issues in the rest of this plan. Dinkin states that they are. Thomson confirms that the settlement with the neighbors does not have any conditions regarding the affordable housing. He asks if there are any neighbors that wish to speak on this issue. Joanne Avalon of 17 Boyles Street and Board member of the BAHC states that she recused herself from the affordability proposal discussion with the BAHC. She states that she has no objection to using affordable housing on site, or with the two-family dwelling on site. She says that the $100,000 represents a fair number for the BAHC, and she understands that it is a low number, and she hopes that it does not set a precedent. Don Preston, President of the BAHC, says that this number came up when talking with Planning Director Tina Cassidy. There being no further comments from the public of the Board Dinkin closes the public hearing. 3. Public Hearin2 - 2nd Modification to Special Permit #86-95 - 30 Bovles and 44 Bovles Street Manor Homes at Whitehall. LLC and Matthew Kavana2h Zambernardi reads the legal public hearing notice. Tom Alexander reviews the original plan for the special permit with the condition that limited vehicular access, and confirms that the Board voted to delete numbers 1 and 3. He clarifies that he is requesting a modification to make this condition reference the settlement plan. Thomson asks for clarification on the changes to the plan from the original special permit approval. Crimmins says there is a small strip that will be conveyed to the abutter. Dinkin opens the meeting up to the public for comment. There are no questions or comments. Zambernardi states that no departments are in opposition to this. Planning Board July 8, 2008 Page 6 of 10 Dinkin closes the public hearing. 4. Public Hearin2 - 2nd Modification to Site Plan #84-04 - allow for restaurant and anv other allowed uses within existin2 West Parkin2 Gara2e structure on Map #19- Lot #130 - Cummin2s Center - Beverlv Commerce Park. LLP Zambernardi reads the legal public hearing notice. Stephen Drohosky, Vice President and General Manager, Cummings Properties, states that this is a modification of an existing site plan. He says that this is the "hotel site, restaurant site, function center site" on the plan. He adds that the plan is now becoming more specific by explaining exactly where these structures will go. Thomson asks for clarification on the change. Drohosky clarifies the parking space and the restaurant space on the plan. Flannery expresses concern that some parking has been eliminated from the plan. Drohosky states that the size of the garage is too big and there are 180 spaces that have been blocked off by jersey barriers. Dinkin asks if they are eliminating parking spaces and replacing it with a retail space that requires parking spaces. He asks Drohosky for calculations that will substantiate the claim that there will still be adequate parking. Drohosky says that he has those figures and points them out. Zambernardi states that the Parking and Traffic Commission has issued a positive recommendation letter, although they have asked for a few conditions to the Board's approval. Drohosky provides general numbers for parking stating that they are required to provide 3290 spaces and currently have 4102 spaces. He further states that 190 spaces will be added at the north end of this unit. He confirms that on completion they will need 3119 spaces and will have 4138 spaces. He acknowledges that parking spaces have moved on the site, but assures the Board that there is still more than enough parking. Dinkin asks the owner of the American BBQ, Steve Pierra, if his restaurant is a franchise or his own concept. Pierra says that it is his own concept and he distributes menus. He adds that he has a location in Rowley. Planning Board July 8, 2008 Page 7 of 10 Hutchinson asks the square footage of the restaurant. Drohosky states that it is 3400 square feet. Zambernardi states that the DRB has postponed meeting until Thursday so they do not yet have any recommendation, but she reads letters from all of the departments. These letters include: . Dated July 3, from the Parking and Traffic Commission, Richard Benevento. . Dated July 8, from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering . Dated July 3, from William T. Burke, Director of the BOH . Dated July 7, from Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner . From Sergeant Joseph Shares, Police Department . Dated June 30, from Wayne Francis, Deputy Chief, Fire Department Mack asks how this condition works with the recommendation of the Parking and Traffic Commission. Drohosky states that it will not affect this condition. He adds that under the hotel plan this space on the ground floor was to remain parking. He says that the signage there is adequate and he offers to add another speed bump. He clarifies that the eastern half of the parking garage will be restaurant space. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street states that this is not a modification of a site plan, and the special permit has expired and they can't tack on the restaurant to the original plans. She adds that he can't put a restaurant on the first floor. Thomson clarifies that the applicant can seek approvals in any order he chooses. Maglio points out that the application makes no mention of how the trash will be handled. Drohosky says that the trash will be handled in the same way it is currently being handled. Joan Murphy of36 Longmeadow Road asks where the front door will be. Architect David Harris states that the door will be inside the parking area. Murphy expresses concern about the traffic out to McKay Street. She states that there is a designated walkway used by many people and this one section is dangerous. She encourages them to develop a plan to provide for the safety of the pedestrians. Much discussion ensues about this pedestrian area. Planning Board July 8, 2008 Page 8 of 10 Drohosky states that this plan will not affect the pedestrian access. Dinkin asks Drohosky if they are in compliance with the Chapter 91 permitting. Drohosky states that they are. Dinkin asks Drohosky if the change will bring them out of compliance with the Chapter 91 permitting. Drohosky states that the change will not affect the Chapter 91 permitting. Rosemary Maglio of30 Pleasant Street states that this is a ZBA issue, because they are requesting a new use. Dinkin clarifies that the Board will not be approving a use. Mack: Motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Thomson. Passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. 5. Discussion/Decision: Cluster Subdivision Plan Chapman's Corner Estates (Settlement Plan) - Eisenhower Avenue. Hale & Bovles Streets and Birch Woods Drive - Manor Homes at Whitehall. LLC & Matthew Kavana2h Dinkin suggests that the Board vote on two issues, the affordability plan, and the remainder of the settlement plan. He adds that he would like to first discuss the affordability plan. Dinkin states that he is offended by this plan and it is not fair to the City or the Board. He expresses concern that allowing this plan will encourage applicants to engage in side negotiations with organizations that are hardly in a position to say no. Thomson asks if approval of this number would prevent the Board from using a different number in the future. Dinkin states that he thinks not. Panunzio asks if it would be appropriate to ask them to go back and rethink it. Dinkin states that he has asked that question and they have answered it. Alexander takes exception to the comment that the BAHC had no leverage. He states that the discussion began with the BAHC first requesting $100,000, and the final number is $100,000, so the BAHC got exactly what they asked for. Planning Board July 8, 2008 Page 9 of 10 Hutchinson agrees with Dinkin and states that she would be happier if this number was higher. Williams cites the letter from Mickey Northcut with the BAHC, and says that his primary interest is increasing affordable housing in the City. She adds that this situation is unique because this building has historic interest and is highly visible and she would not like to see this building detrimentally affected. Thomson says that this is one of those situations where the members don't all agree on the issue and he feels that it is time to draw this discussion to a close. Thomson: On the affordability issue, only because the old building will be used as an affordable unit if the developer is not allowed to go outside, and not otherwise, having two units on site is good enough and the $100,000 fee is adequate, move to approve the $100,000 payment in lieu of the third affordable unit built on site, with the understanding that this property will be restored within 6 months of all approvals, seconded by Panunzio. Dinkin says that he intends to vote against this motion. He adds that he doesn't know how many times you can say that you are not creating a precedent before it becomes a precedent. He states that he would like to see the commitment made by this developer upheld. He takes issue with developers that make threats in order to get what they want. The members vote on the motion. Passes 5-2-1. The Chair and Hutchinson vote in opposition. Williams abstains. Thomson gives credit to the neighbors for working out this settlement plan. Thomson: Motion to approve the settlement plan with the conditions 5-8, provided that 254 Hale Street will be restored within 6 months after all appeal periods are final, seconded by Dunn. Passes 5-2-1. The Chair and Hutchinson vote in opposition. Williams abstains. 6. Discussion/Decision: 2nd Modification to Special Permit #86-95 - 30 Bovles and 44 Bovles Street - Manor Homes at Whitehall. LLC and Matthew Kavana2h Thomson: Motion to approve the request, seconded by Flannery. Passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. 7. Discussion/Decision: 2nd Modification to Site Plan #84-04 = Cummin2s Center- Beverlv Commerce Park. LLP Planning Board July 8, 2008 Page 10 of 10 Thomson: Motion to grant the modification of the site plan incorporating the suggestions from the departments, seconded by Flannery. Williams expresses concern regarding the recommendation from the Parking and Traffic Commission. Dinkin suggests the Board retain jurisdiction for 1-2 months so the applicant can return to the Board with a new parking plan which will address the recommendation of the Parking and Traffic Commission. Thomson agrees to amend his motion to reflect Dinkin's suggestion. Passes 7-0. The Chair abstains. Mack: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. The meeting is adjourned at 10:00 PM.