Loading...
2008-12-16 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Planning Board, Regular Meeting December 16, 2008 City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd Floor Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Charles Harris, Ellen Hutchinson, Leo Panunzio, Stephanie Williams David Mack Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi Andrea Bray Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order. 1. Recommendation to City Council - Council Order #230 - Proposed Zonin2 Amendment - creat new "IR Overlay" District Dinkin asks why they designated the Planning Board as the granting party for the special permit. Alexander says that the Planning Board is the special permit granting authority in some other zoning districts such as at the old Ventron site and the Watershed Protection Overlay District. He stated that the Planning Board tends to handle bigger, more complex kinds of projects, so it makes sense. Steven Cohen adds the amendment would require site plan review, which is handled by the Planning Board, and so it would be the most efficient way to proceed on the matter. Williams asks about 29.19.c.2, which pertains to restaurants, and cites a provision that already exists for ZBA to grant a special permit for restaurants. Alexander says the ZBA would still maintain jurisdiction where you have a separate restaurant going in by itself and they could put in some clarifying language on this. Zambernardi says that some clarification would be necessary. Williams says that this language should not contemplate the fast food type of restaurant. Alexander says there are a lot of restaurants that offer take-out service, such as Siam Delight. Planning Board December 16,2008 Page 2 of 11 WilIams states that she doesn't want a Dominos-type of place, and she doesn't want it to turn into a rest area, and that the language may not be clear enough. Dinkin asks why they included the Northridge property in the overlay district. Alexander says they don't have a problem with excluding the Northridge property, and they were just trying to follow the recommendation of the Master Plan. Dinkin states that the Northridge property might be inappropriately zoned but that is not a subject for this discussion. Williams asks about the provision relating to the freestanding signs, and if as a matter of right they are allowed one sign up to 30 square feet. There is much discussion regarding the language for the signs. Dinkin says all of the uses listed exist successfully at the Cumming's Center without multiple freestanding signs, and he sees no reason why this zone should differ from the other zones in the city. Thomson says that the ordinance reads that the exact size of the sign would be up to the discretion of the Planning Board and the DRB would still evaluate the design of the sign. Zambernardi says that the DRB would not interpret zoning, only the design. Much discussion ensues regarding the language in this provision. Alexander offers an alternative language for the sign provision. Dinkin states he cannot conceive of any reason why this overlay district should have signage regulations that differ from any other commercial district in the City. Zambernardi reads the current freestanding sign provision for the CC, CG, IR, and IG districts. Dinkin states that he is happy to permit language like that. Thomson asks if their plan is essentially what they are proposing to build on this lot if the zoning is approved. Cohen states that it is. Thomson questions the proximity of the buildings to the Northridge site. Planning Board December 16,2008 Page 3 of 11 Alexander says some of the N orthridge buildings come within 1.5 feet from the lot line. Thomson: Passes 7-0. Motion to recess for a scheduled public hearing, seconded by Flannery. Dinkin recesses the regular meeting. Dinkin reopens the regular meeting. Dinkin states that he is generally supportive of the zoning amendment and the proponents shall make no influence on the disposition on any projects that might come up subsequently. He adds that he wishes to have no change in the signage regulation, and that Northridge should be excluded from this overlay zone. Dinkin confirms that special permitting authority for the Planning Board rather than the ZBA is not inappropriate, and he supports the proposal for shared parking mindful that this will create an additional significant burden on the applicant and this board to show that there is adequate parking for any business. Harris states that he was not persuaded at last night's hearing that the traffic considerations have been properly addressed. He says he has reservations about approving this amendment, he is concerned about whether the site will have proper ventilation, and he is not satisfied that they have convinced him and the neighbors that this plan should go forward. Dinkin clarifies the matter before the board, stating that this is a discussion on the appropriateness of creating an overlay district as proposed or to be amended. He adds that he believes that for the most part the issues that Harris brought up are appropriately raised when considering a specific project, and that there was not enough detail provided last night to deliberate on any project, and there is no project to be considered now. Williams says that in light of the many concerns raised by the neighbors, putting aside DEP issues, the owner has a right to build there and she lists the various types of projects that they currently could build. She adds that they are not creating all of these new rights, but just adding retail, and they will have a heavy burden to demonstrate that the traffic will be controlled. Dinkin states that this amendment creates a more streamlined permitting process to create a project of these types, and that is a positive thing. Hutchinson states that the proposal for the overlay district supports the great work that was done on the Master Plan, and the overlay district gives this Board more authority to Planning Board December 16,2008 Page 4 of 11 control the projects, and this is what the Master Plan called for. She supports the amendment. Williams: Motion to approve the proposed amendments for new IR overlay district as described in the legal ad with the following changes: change the provision for restaurants to be those for consumption of food both on and off the premises and change the provision for signage to allow one freestanding sign of up to 35 square feet only, seconded by Flannery. Discussion on the motion: Thomson states that he would vote for this except for the inclusion of Northridge. Thomson: Motion to amend the above stated motion with the exclusion of the Northridge Property (Map 55, lot 28), seconded by Flannery. The members vote on the amendment. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 8-0. The members vote on the main motion. Passes 7-1. Harris votes in opposition. Stephanie Williams steps out. New/Other Business 2. Subdivision Approval Not ReQuired (SANR) - 105 & 107 Preston Place - Soursourian and Klein Zambernardi states that the Board received a written request to withdraw this application without prejudice, because the road has not yet been completed. Flannery: Motion to allow the applicant to withdraw the application and plan without prejudice, seconded by Hutchinson. The motion carries unanimously. 3. Public Hearin2: - Site Plan Review Application #98-08 - Demolish existin2: structures and construct sin2:le-story. brick and precast concrete buildin2:. containin2: approx. 13.000 SQ. ft.. with ancillary facilities includin2: but not limited to seventy parkin2: spaces. ATM facility. and landscapin2: improvements for use as a CVS/Pharmacy with drive-thru at northeasterly corner of Elliot and Rantoul Streets - G.B. New En2:land 2. LLC. R Me2:uerditchian & ARDI Co.. LLC Dinkin opens the public hearing. Thomson: Motion to recess this hearing and reconvene at 8:30 PM, seconded by Flannery. 7-0. Planning Board December 16,2008 Page 5 of 11 Dinkin recesses this hearing. Dinkin reopens the hearing. Zambernardi reads the legal notice. Attorney Mark Glovsky states that the site contains approximately 1.5 acres with 300 feet of frontage on Rantoul Street and 155 feet of frontage on Elliot Street, and they are proposing to raze the existing 3 buildings and build one single story structure with 70 parking spaces and an ATM facility. He adds that there are only a few permits required, such as a demolition permit, and Planning Board site plan approval. Glovsky says they met informally with the DRB and Beverly Main Streets and there has been significant enhancement to the plan subsequent to the filing. Chris Iannuzzi enters into the record full-sized plans and hands out half sized plans. He provides a general description of the site, stating that the layout has not changed substantially since the filing, and it is a 13,000 square foot CVS store with a Bank of America ATM facility, all of which will be accessed by 2 full-access driveways (one from Elliot Street and one from Rantoul Street) and 70 parking space, including accessible spaces. He describes the main features of the building, including the main entrance facing Elliot Street, a double drive-thru, a loading area, which will be used for 45 minutes once-per-week by the CVS delivery truck. He adds that the drive through opens one hour after the store opens and closes one hour before the store closes. Regarding the deliveries other than the those from the weekly CVS delivery, Iannuzi states that daily deliveries, for items such as soft drinks, newspapers, and snack foods, will take place from an area other than the loading dock and will only take about 5-10 minutes. He describes the ATM facility in the southwesterly quadrant of the site. Iannuzzi says there will be an aluminum fence replica of an iron fence around the perimeter. He states that the DRB requested that they reduce the number of pear trees planned, in favor of a more varied plant palette. He adds that they added period-style lighting along the perimeter, lumineers in the parking lot, all of the lighting will not overflow into bordering properties, and benches will be installed at the corner. He describes three pedestrian routes into the property, one on Rantoul Street, one on Elliot Street, and one at the corner near the ATM, all of which will use lighted bollards for protection of the pedestrians. Iannuzzi states that the parking lot will be screened with landscaping and the aluminum fence. He says that the DRB insisted that they provide the largest caliper tree that could be found. Planning Board December 16,2008 Page 6 of 11 Iannuzzi states that this entire property is in conformance with AAB/ ADA accessibility standards, and substantial improvements will be made to the storm drainage system as it will be repositioned and upgraded. Hutchinson asks if it will be difficult for a car to make a left turn into the driveway from Elliot Street. Thomson asks about the right of way for the drainage. Iannuzzi says they have proposed to move the old drainage line. Dinkin asks if any of the apartments in the corner building, which is scheduled for demolition, are occupied. Property owner Meguerditchian says no. Panunzio asks if they have met with the Parking and Traffic Commission. Iannuzzi says that they met with the Parking and Traffic Commission, but they have not yet responded to this plan. Panunzio ask if parking at the ATM would create a back up. He expresses concern about the traffic issue on Elliot Street. Traffic Engineer Greg Russell states that he completed a full traffic study and met with the Parking and Traffic Commission who decided they needed more time to review the study. He adds that the Fire Department asked them to create a fire lane and stripe it as such along the ATM area. He explains that they expect the majority of traffic to use the Rantoul Street driveway, and that this development is not expected to have a significant impact on the traffic at Park Street. Panunzio says that Park Street is a significant consideration because it is busier than ever now. He adds that he needs to see more on the traffic study before he can make a decision. Dinkin asks for clarification on his statement about most of the traffic entering and exiting on Rantoul Street. Russell reviews his study. Dinkin says that the nature of this business might impact these patterns. Russell says the changes in travel patterns would be due to pass-by trips. Planning Board December 16,2008 Page 7 of 11 Dinkin clarifies his concern stating that this increase in business would be accompanied by a significant increase in traffic. Russell says they will have more information at the next meeting. Iannuzzi distributes the images of the fa<;ade. Architect Robert Kuhn says that the structure is an 80/20 stucco/brick building. He describes the requests from the DRB, which include, softening the stucco color, lowering the windows, using a robust red brick, using transparent glass for the windows and medium bronze trim, adding a window at the southerly corner of the building, and breaking up the brick at the long sides of the building with pilasters, and corbels. He adds that they will use grey mortar with the red brick. Dinkin states that this fa<;ade is not the same as the other new CVS at Endicott Plaza. Kuhn describes the difference between this design and the design of the new CVS at Endicott Plaza. Glovsky states that they met with Main Streets, who preferred a wooden structure, but the DRB preferred brick because it was consistent with other structures on Rantoul Street. Thomson says that this area ofRantoul Street doesn't strike him as brick. Glovsky says that the Century Bank is brick and the Stop N Shop down the street is brick. Thomson asks why they are not designing a plan that will form more of a streetscape. Project Engineer Brian Fairbanks says that this building is on the site to service the customer and the vast majority of the people accessing this site will come by automobile and this design is driven by the interior of the store. He adds that the streetscape plan would limit parking and limit accessibility. Dinkin says that this proposed design is a significant distance away from the urban- friendly design that the city is seeking. Panunzio asks about the area of the existing CVS. Iannuzzi says it is 8800 square feet. Panunzio asks if they plan to sublet any space inside their new store, and Fairbanks says no. Planning Board December 16,2008 Page 8 of 11 Fairbanks says that this store is not going to have a clinic. He says a temporary pharmacy will be housed about 2 blocks away during construction. Hutchinson says that the loading dock and dumpsters will not create a good visual from Rantoul Street. Fairbanks says that it isn't a raised loading dock and it is at ground level. Glovsky says the DRB asked for large windows, ornamental iron, and the columnar evergreens on the side of the drive-thru and the loading dock. Zambernardi reads the following letters: . Dated December 10, 2008, from Kate Newhall, staff representative for the DRB . Dated December 15, 2008, from the DRB . Dated December 8,2008, from William Fiore, Sergeant of Fire Prevention . Dated December 15, 2008, from the Parking and Traffic Commission . Dated December 16, 2008, from Frank Killilea, Director of Engineering . Dated December 11, 2008, from DGI working with Mike Collins . Dated December 16, 2008, email from Mike Collins, Engineer for Beverly . Dated December 10, 2008, from the Police Department, Joseph Shairs . Dated December 11, 2008, from Amy Maxner, Environmental Manager . Dated December 10, 2008, from Art Daignault, ADA Coordinator . Dated December 9,2008, from BOH Director, William T. Burke Harris asks about the delivery hours. Iannuzzi says deliveries would come in during normal business hours. Harris asks how the traffic can get around these trucks. Iannuzzi states that the drive-thru would be closed during the time that the truck is parked in the loading area. Nancy Scialdone of 478 Rantoul, whose property runs along the back of the building, asks about the fence and the drop off. She states that there is trash being thrown into that low area now. Iannuzzi says they will not clear that area but they will be placing a fence at the top of the slope. Scialdone says that there is no property line because there is some erosion there. Iannuzzi says the property line is close to the top of the slope. Planning Board December 16,2008 Page 9 of 11 Scialdone asks if parking will continue to be permitted on Rantoul Street. Iannuzzi states that the Parking and Traffic Commission will determine that. Barbara Stevens at 103 Elliot Street, unit 13, states that they are having a problem with drainage and she asks how this project will impact it. Iannuzzi says that all of the storm water will be captured on this site, so she can expect to have no run off to her property from the CVS property. Renee Mary of274 Hale Street asks if the store will house a clinic, and Iannuzzi says no. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street confirms that there are 2 drive-thru lanes so they are expecting lots of traffic. Iannuzzi says that this provides convenience for the customers, who might be sick or who might have sick kids. Gin Wallace, executive director of Beverly Main Streets, says they sent a letter to the Planning Board. She expresses concerns about the size and scale and the fa<;ade and the materials, and she doesn't see this as a downtown property. She says they differ from the DRB in the landscaping plan, and that this design is a decision that they will live with for 30-50 years. She speaks in opposition to the project. Harris asks what type of architecture they proposed. Gin Wallace says they proposed a wooden structure. She shows a picture of the building- type that she suggested. Harris compliments Wallace on her taste in selecting such a beautiful design. City Council President Tim Flaherty of 1 Michael Road states that he doesn't want this project to look like Walgreens across the street. He states his preference for clapboard instead of brick. Rosemary Maglio of30 Pleasant Street speaks in opposition to the project. Thomson: Motion to continue this public hearing until January 20, at 8:00 PM, seconded by Flannery. Passes 6-0. 4. Mass Development Finance A2:ency notification of Harborli2:ht Montessori School applicant for a revenue bond for proposed proiect Planning Board December 16,2008 Page 10 of 11 Zambernardi explains that Mass Development has sent the Board a notification of this project and has asked the Board to comment on whether this project is in conflict with the Master Plan. Thomson states that he sees not problem with this. He says this is across the street from Kelleher's Pond. Dinkin agrees. Members decide to receive and place on file this item. 5. Chapman's Corner Settlement Plan Performance Guarantee and Board Member Si2natures for Recordation of Plan - Dennis Crimmins Dennis Crimmins says they are working on the street and utilities and the art gallery building, and moving toward a closing. He describes the covenant stating that they have to provide some guarantee of security for the City with respect to the completion of the roads, and utilities, and they cannot convey individual lots to individual buyers without this completion. He requests that the Board approve the covenant in concept, as surety, subject to review by the City Solicitor. Zambernardi states that they worked on the covenant over the past two weeks, keeping the Solicitor informed of the changes being made through emails. She stated that the covenant is acceptable to her in form and she states that an option for the Board is to approve the covenant pending final review and comment by the Solicitor's Office. Dinkin expresses concern about a conditional approval, particularly without the approval of the City Solicitor. Thomson says they could approve it in substance and authorize it to be signed by the Chair once it is reviewed by the Solicitor's Office, and if there are changes in substance it would have to come back to the Board for approval. He asks Zambernardi what will happen to the plans. She states that if the Board is inclined to sign them tonight, she will hold them in the Planning Department until the covenant is finalized. Thomson: Motion to approve the signing of the covenant by the Chair if it is approved by the City Solicitor, seconded by Dunn. Passes 6-0. The Chair does not vote. 6. Beaver Pond Road OSRD Site Plan - Update on Conservation Restriction and Open Space Mana2ement Plan Zambernardi says that Mr. Fratarolli is pursuing approval of the conservation restriction language with the state. Regarding which entity in the City wants control of the open space parcels - she states that the Conservation Commission was interested in only one Planning Board December 16,2008 Page 11 of 11 of the three parcels and the other two will go to the City as a whole. She says she will keep the Board updated as this moves forward. 7. Approval of Minutes - September 23.2008. October 6. 2008 (2 sets). October 21. 2008. and November 18. 2008 Meetin2 Dinkin tables the approval of the minutes until the January meeting. Hutchinson: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Flannery. All members and the Chair vote in favor. The motion passes 7-0. The meeting is adjourned at 10:40 PM.