Loading...
2009-03-02 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: Planning Board MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Monday, March 2, 2009 Beverly Public Library - Barnet Gallery, 32 Essex Street Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairperson John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, Charles Harris, Ellen Hutchinson, Stephanie Williams David Mack Assistant Planning Director Leah Zambernardi Eileen Sacco Chairperson Dinkin calls the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Thomson: Motion to recess for public hearing and to continue a public hearing, seconded by Flannery. The motion carries 6-1-0. 1. Continuation of Public Hearin2 - Site Plan Review Application #98-09 - CVS- Corner of Elliot and Rantoul Streets - G.B. New En2land 2. LLC and R. Me2uerditchian & ARDI Co.. LLC Thomson: Motion to waive the reading of the legal notice, seconded by Flannery. The motion carries 6-1-0. Attorney Mark Glovsky addresses the Board and explains that they opened the public hearing at a previous meeting and they are here this evening with some revisions to the plans. He notes that the building now proposed is significantly different from the original submission. He states that they feel that they have benefited from the time spent on this project working with the Design Review Board and Beverly Main Streets. Glovsky explains that they have tried to make the site more pedestrian friendly and notes that they have included pedestrian walkways on the site. He notes that the design is more compatible with the neighborhood. Glovsky introduced Chris Gerard of VHB, Brian Fairbanks, Greg Russell, Paul Beck and Kevin Patton, architect. Thomson suggests that the applicant explain the changes that have been made to the proposal. Gerard addresses the Board and explains the plans. He notes that the front entrance to the site will be on Elliot Street and it will have a dual drive through and loading dock area. He explains that there will be two full access curb cuts, one on Rantoul Street and one on Elliot Street. He Beverly Planning Board March 2, 2009 Page 2 of8 further explains that there will be a Bank of America ATM on the site and notes the area on the plan. Gerard explains the pedestrian access proposed for the site. He also states that they are proposing a decorative aluminum fence on Elliot and Rantoul Streets as well as landscaping throughout the site and on the corner landscaping and benches are proposed. He notes that there will be a stockade fence in the rear of the property. He also notes that 70 parking spaces are proposed on site. Kevin Patton, architect addresses the Board and explains the changes to the fa<;ade of the building. He notes that the current design is completely different from the one originally proposed. He explains that it has a pitched roof and a brick base noting that they tried to break the architectural elevations up and they have included residential style windows. He explains that there are dormers on the top of the building with windows in the gables. He reviews the elevations of the building with the Board. Patton states that the HV AC equipment for the building will be on the roof, but shielded by the roof structure therefore it would not be visible from the street. He also notes that the drive through design is consistent with other CVS locations. Thomson notes that the side of the building facing north and questions why there are no window elements on that side. Patton explains the location of the pharmacy and notes that the only window proposed on that side is a bullet proof window for the pharmacy. He explains that CVS does not want to invite the illusion of an entry point along that wall. Thomson notes that the blank wall will be facing a fair amount of traffic, and further notes that he likes the new design and states that they did a good job redesigning it. Harris states that he has a concern about a blank wall as well. Patton states that a fake window might be an invitation to break in. He suggests that they could do a trellis on that side of the building. Zambernardi notes that in North Beverly they used trellis's to break up the building. Thomson notes that they talked previously of a decorative trellis. Patton explains that they looked at that but did not think it would fit with this building. Dinkin asks about the decorative aluminum fence. Patton explains that it will be heavy grade all commercial fencing. He also notes that it will be industrially coated and will not be painted. He notes that the streetscape view of the site shows a rendition of the fence. Glovsky states that the full details of the fence were thoroughly reviewed by the DRB. Hutchinson states that it appears that the new design has an increase of 150 s.f. Patton explains that there are a few jogs or thickening of the walls in the new design but it is not space that can be occupied, but it does add to the square footage of the building. Beverly Planning Board March 2, 2009 Page 3 of8 Williams refers to the pedestrian access and questions if there are enough openings in the fence to invite people to the site. Patton explains that there will be plantings and lighted bollards on the site and brick stamped asphalt that leads to the front of the building at Elliott and Rantoul Streets. He explains the locations on the plans. He notes that the fence is waist high and you can easily see the breaks in it. Glovsky states that if the Board is not satisfied with the proposed fence they could take a look at that, noting that they are not committed to it. Patton suggests that they could widen the openings in the fence or angle the opening to make it more visible and add some more landscaping. Thomson questions the function of the ATM on the site. Gerard explains that it is a contractual agreement that the owner of the property has with Bank of America. He notes that it is a long term agreement and they are unwilling to vacate so they worked with them on the design to include it on the site. Thomson suggests that ATM should be next to the building. He notes that he is concerned about people parking in the fire lane to use the ATM in the proposed location. Harris notes that CVS has a contractual agreement with Sovereign Bank. Gerard agreed and explains that generally if there is another ATM in the area, Sovereign will waive the right to have an ATM in the CVS. Glovsky explains that they tried to provide specific parking for the ATM but the Parking and Traffic Commission had concerns about the fire lane access. He notes that this design is similar to the one at Commodore Plaza. Thomson states that the location makes no sense and it should be at the corner of the CVS building. Gerard notes that if the ATM were in the corner of the building it would take up prime parking from CVS. Patton explains that the set up is similar to a number of shopping centers where pedestrians walk through the drive aisle to get to the stores. Thomson notes that it is being treated as a free standing ATM, but it will be a destination and it will not be accommodating to CVS customers. Dinkin questions if the lease with Bank of America specifies a specific location on the site. Mr. Meguerditchian, the owner of the property addresses the Board and states that they have a very short time left on their lease. Zambernardi asks what the design of the ATM building is. Patton explains that it was designed to be architecturally compatible with the CVS building. Beverly Planning Board March 2, 2009 Page 4 of8 Hutchinson asks if there are any substantive changes to the site plan in this revision. Patton states that there are no major significant changes to the plans. Glovsky notes that they sent a letter to the Board dated December 16, 2008 that identifies the changes to the plans. Harris notes that the proposed CVS is not proposed to be open 24 hours and asks if the lighting is designed to accommodate 24 hours should they decide to change that in the future. Patton explains the lighting plan. Zambernardi notes that the proposed driveway on Rantoul Street is two way and asks if they considered making it a one way. Patton explains that the problem with a one way is that it would affect the circulation of the site. Glovsky notes that the Parking and Traffic Commission suggested no exiting from the site going left on to Elliot Street, which is a problem if that drive is one-way. Dinkin opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. James Maroney of 1 Lincoln Road addresses the Board and asks if they have considered putting a monument to the victims of the fire on the site. Glovsky states that they are waiting for something to be designed and CVS has also indicated that they would be willing to contribute to that. John Langley of the Oasis Condominiums addresses the Board and states that he likes the design but he is concerned about drainage from the site. Patton explains that their proposed drainage will improve the drainage in the area. Dinkin asks for comments in support of the project. Gin Wallace, Director of Beverly Main Streets addresses the Board and states that Main Streets appreciates the changes made to the design and they are in favor of the project. Dinkin asks for comments in opposition of the project. There are none. Dinkin asks for further comments from the Board. Thomson asks for clarification on the traffic signal. Greg Russell addresses the Board and explains that the majority of the traffic will be from Rantoul Street and they expect it to be minimal on the Elliot and Park Street side, during peak hours. He explains that the existing level of service at the site is C and they expect that to continue with the new building. Thomson asks if they are proposing that the exit on Elliot Street be a right turn only. Russell explains that the PTC was interested in that, but they believe that it can operate efficiently and safely as a full exit out. Zambernardi explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission submitted a recommendation to the Planning Board and VHB responded to the recommendation. She notes that a meeting was to Beverly Planning Board March 2, 2009 Page 5 of8 have been held this morning but was cancelled due to the snow storm. She notes that the recommendation has not been resolved. Thomson asks to have them explain what a fully activated response traffic signal is. Russell explains that loop detectors would be installed under the pavement to signal the light to turn green. He notes that it is costly and it is likely that it will be torn up or replaced when the City's Rantoul Street project begins. Glovsky explains that they suggested to the Parking and Traffic Commission that they would take a second look in six months or a year after the completion of construction and if there needs to be changes made they will look at it at that time. Zambernardi explains that the intersection will be redesigned and the City's consultant, Dewberry will be submitting a design to MassHighway in the next couple of months. Glovsky reported that they had Dewberry review this site plan to be sure that there would be no conflicts. Zambernardi reports that she talked with City Planner Tina Cassidy, who conferred with Richard Benevneto and Sgt. Shairs of the Parking and Traffic Commission and they recommend that perhaps some money could be set aside for new technology at the intersection so that the public works department can put the signals in if needed in lieu of CVS doing the actual work. Zambernardi reads letter from the Beverly Parking and Traffic Commission, which recommends the following: 1. That traffic exiting the proposed driveway onto Elliot Street shall not be allowed to turn left onto Elliot Street. Instead, exiting traffic should only be allowed to turn right, on to Elliot Street westbound; 2. That the applicant be required to erect a "Do Not Block Entrance" sign on the south side of Elliot Street, facing eastbound drivers on Elliot Street, in advance of Park Street; 3. That on-street parking be eliminated on the westbound side of Elliot Street, from the intersection of Elliot and Rantoul Streets for the length of the CVS lot's frontage; 4. That in lieu of changing signal timing as proposed by the applicant, the applicant be required to provide a new controller and install loops so that the traffic signal system at the Rantoul and Elliot Streets intersection is fully actuated and traffic responsive; 5. That any and all other recommendations/improvements contained in the VHB report be incorporated into the site plan; and 6. That the applicant be required to re-appear before the Parking and Traffic Commission (and if necessary the Planning Board) for a more detailed analysis (and possible additional site remediation/site plan changes) six months after the store is open of business on the following two issues: Beverly Planning Board March 2, 2009 Page 6 of8 (a) Whether left turns into the proposed Elliot Street driveway should be allowed from E111iot Street; and (b) Whether existing on-street parking spaces on the west side of Rantoul Street ( southbound lane) in front of this site should be eliminated Zambernardi reads a letter from the Beverly Design Review Board. Zambernardi reads a letter from the trustees of the Oasis Condominiums. Zambernardi reads a letter from Beverly Main Streets. Thomson questions if the Planning Board should close the public hearing this evening, noting the concerns of the Parking and Traffic Commission. Dinkin states that the Board could leave the hearing open, but notes that the PTC makes recommendations to the Planning Board and the Board could proceed with the information that they have. Glovsky notes that there are two concerns of the PTC that are in question, the traffic signal and the left exit onto Elliot Street. He states that they would accept a condition that these issues be left open pending final resolution with the PTC. He notes that this has been a long process and they have narrowed the issues down. He also states that they would consider setting aside a sum of money for the Elliot and Rantoul Streets traffic improvements in lieu of an actuated traffic signal. Zambernardi notes that if the Planning Board closes the public hearing, they have 65 days to issue a decision. Williams questions whether the Board will be able to hear additional information once the public hearing is closed. Dinkin states that the Board has held discussions on additional information after the close of the public hearing in the past. Gerard addresses the Board and states that they would concede the left turn out onto Elliot Street recommendation of the PTC. He states that he is hesitant to agree to the actuated traffic signal with the possibility that it will be ripped up when the Rantoul Street redesign work is done. Thomson agrees that setting aside money is a good possibility and questions how much that should be. Zambernardi suggests that Mike Collins, the Commissioner of Public Services should have input into what the amount should be. Glovsky states that they could accept the suggestion of the PTC that they come back six months after the store is open for business for more detailed analysis and possible additional remediation/site plan changes on the issue of whether left turns into the proposed Elliot Street driveway should be allowed from Elliot Street and whether existing on-street parking spaces on the west side ofRantoul Street (southbound lane) in front of this site should be eliminated. Beverly Planning Board March 2, 2009 Page 7 of8 Dinkin opens the hearing up for comments from the Planning Board members. Williams states that she does not think that Bank of America sees the location of that ATM as being there for CVS customers. She explains that she thinks it is a location for the convenience of people heading out of town. Dinkin notes that moving the ATM closer to the CVS will give the site less of an urban shopping center feel and he would like to see it remain where it is. Discussion ensues regarding relocating the ATM to part of the CVS building. Williams states that it would be nice to know if there is a strategy on the part of Bank of America as to the location of the ATM. Dunn states that she does not have a problem with the location of the ATM. Flannery agreed noting that she thinks one in ten CVS customers would use it. Gerard states that they would prefer that there not be an ATM on the site, but there is a lease to honor. Williams agrees and notes that she does not have a concern about the location of the ATM, and noted that Mr. Thomson's concerns are not unreasonable, with regard to public safety. Gerard states that they would agree to signage or line striping to make people aware of the pedestrian crossing. Thomson agreed that signage on the fence to indicate that the parking is for the ATM customers would be acceptable. Zambernardi questions if the overhang on the gable is going to project over the driveway. Gerard states no. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Dinkin declared the public hearing closed. Thomson: Motion to reconvene the Special Meeting of the Planning Board, seconded by Flannery. The motion carries 6-1-0. Discussion on Decision on Site Plan Review Application #98-09 - CVS- Corner of Elliot and Rantoul Streets - G.B. New En2land 2. LLC and R. Me2uerditchian & ARDI Co.. LLC Thomson states that this is an excellent project as it has evolved and he suggests approving the plan with the following conditions: 1) That the applicant/owner comply with all written recommendations from vanous City departments submitted to the Planning Board in connection with this filing. 2) That the Board'sapproval is contingent upon the applicant's compliance with the letter from the Parking and Traffic Commission. That the Board recognized that the applicants do not agree with condition # 1 and #4 but they directed that the proponents come back to the Board to request a modification of these conditions in the future. That the Board found that a modification request would not be considered a minor modification to this site plan approval, but would require a full site plan review modification request with a public hearing. Beverly Planning Board March 2, 2009 Page 8 of8 3) That attractive signage shall be installed designating parking spaces located at the westerly comer of the lot for ATM users. 4) That the ends of the pedestrian walkways within the site opening to Elliott and Rantoul Streets be expanded so they are more visible to pedestrians as entrances. Such expansion may include widening the entrances at the sidewalk and/or angling them. 5) That additional architectural features shall be incorporated on the north side of the building from the loading area to the drive-thru window to break up the "blank wall" appearance. Such features may consist of windows, faux windows, pilasters or other column like fixtures that are colored to contrast with the background colors of the building. 6) In recognition of the drainage problems occurring at the abutting property, but not holding this property owner accountable for those problems as a result of this decision, that measures be taken to assure that no drainage from the project is directed toward the Oasis Condominiums at 103 Elliott Street during construction. Thomson states that he does not suggest this as a condition but states that he would like information from the City regarding construction plans for Rantoul Street prior to considering a modification to the plan for traffic reasons. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Dinkin asks for a motion. Thomson: Motion to approve the Site Plan Review Application 98-09 with the mentioned conditions. Williams seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-1-0 (Dinkin in abstention). Glovsky thanks the Planning Board for holding a special meeting for this approval. Approval of Minutes - February 17. 2009 Thomson: Motion to approve the minutes of the Beverly Planning Board meeting held on February 17, 2009. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-1-0. Adjournment Williams : Motion to adjourn. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-1-0. The meeting is adjourned at 9: 15 p.m.