Loading...
9-21-10Staff Report September 21, 2010 Planning Board Regular Meeting 1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) a. If any. None submitted as of press time. 2. New or Other Business a. If any. This agenda item may include requests to set public hearing dates; requests to establish surety, sign plans, reduce or release performance bonds or other actions pertaining to the administration of subdivision approvals, which could include review and approval of preliminary subdivision plans; requests for minor modifications of site plans; requests for informal discussion over potential future projects; requests for administrative actions and /or recommendations pertaining to zoning amendments. 3. Continued Discussion/Decision — Proposed Adoption of "Submission Requirements, Procedures & Supplemental Regulations" pursuant to Section 29 -34 "Inclusion of Affordable Housing" and amendments to "Planning Board Regulations Governing Fees and Fee Schedules" Hearing Start: June 15, 2010 Hearing Closed: July 20, 2010 Members will recall that the public hearing on this matter began at the June 15, 2010 meeting and was closed at the July 20, 2010 meeting. As a refresher, Section 29 -34 "Inclusion of Affordable Housing" (the "Regulations ") was adopted by the City in July 2007. The Ordinance requires that all residential developments containing over 10 new dwelling units provide at least 12 percent of them as affordable housing. This housing is required on -site, although the Ordinance allows that the Board grant a special permit to allow that the units be located off -site, the developer pay a fee in lieu of on -site affordable units to the City, or the developer donate land to the City or an affordable housing entity. Section 29 -34.D. mandates that the Planning Board adopt Affordable Housing Regulations to administer the Ordinance using the procedures in MGL Chapter 40A, Section 11. A copy of the Ordinance and the proposed Regulations were provided in Appendix C of the June 15 staff report. Planning Staff has drafted these Regulations using a model from the town of Shrewsbury, with the assistance of the Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair. The Shrewsbury document was drafted by Judi Barrett of Community Opportunities Group and adopted by Shrewsbury in 2009. Ms. Barrett is the consultant this City hired to draft its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2006/2007. Planning Board Staff Report September 21, 2010 Page 2 Of particular note and requiring the Board's feedback and assistance is the method by which fees are charged for applicants seeking a special permit to allow a payment in lieu of providing affordable housing units on -site, found Section 3.2 "Fee in Lieu of Units ". As background, Planning Department Staff conducted a Fee study in which 5 methods of assessing fees were explored. These methods are based on Ms. Barrett's advice that the fee be the difference between the median market rate sale price over the most recent 3 years in the City OR per the Assessor's neighborhood code and the price affordable to a low- income household (i.e. Median Market Rate Sale Price — Affordable Unit Sale Price = Fee). A summary sheet of this Fee Study was also included in Appendix C of the June staff report. Planning Department staff recommends that the Planning Board select Option 3 or Option 5. These options are included in the Regulations Section 3.2.1 & 2. for members consideration. Members will recall that at the July meeting, concerns were aired over relying upon using the Assessor's neighborhood codes for determining median market rate sale prices in neighborhoods. At the same time, some members preferred using values that are consistent with neighborhood based sale prices rather than Citywide. Members will also recall that the Beverly Affordable Housing Coalition (now the North Shore Community Development Coalition — a newly merged organization replacing the Beverly Affordable Housing Coalition and the Salem Harbor CDC) submitted comments during the July meeting. Of particular note is their request that the Board raise the fee per condominium unit from $59,500 to a minimum of $100,000 (noting that $100,000 is still low). A copy of their letter is included in Appendix A. Also slated for the Board's consideration are amendments to the "Planning Board's Regulations Governing Fees and Fee Schedules" ( "Fee Regulations "). Said amendments are threefold as described below: 1. Add a fee for Inclusionary Housing Applications of $100. Please note that any project over 10 residential units also requires site plan review with the Planning Board, which imposes a separate fee depending on the size of the project ($350 minimum, $5,000 maximum). Planning Staff has determined that the proposed Inclusionary Housing fee is sufficient to cover the additional department administrative costs. 2. Amend the procedures for collecting Project Review Fees. The current Fee Regulations require that all applicants provide a project review fee up front using a predetermined schedule based on project size. Planning Department staff finds it more efficient to charge a project review fee "as needed" based on actual estimates from the selected peer reviewer. The City's Solicitor and Finance Director have reviewed and commented on the proposed language. 3. Amend the reporting requirements as recommended by the City's Director of Finance to more accurately reflect the City's accounting procedures. 4. Change the Planning Board's requirement for amending the fees annually. This section has been amended to give the Planning Board the option (rather than require them) to update the fees annually. Planning Board Staff Report September 21, 2010 Page 3 Please refer to the enclosed July 20 draft meeting minutes for a refresher of the July discussion. Eligible voting members (5 required) are Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery, Dunn, Harris, Matz and Hutchinson. 4. Minor Modification Reauest: Site Plan Review Annlication #101 -10 — 292 & 302 Rantoul Street — Italian Community Center Developer: Italian Community Center Location: 292 & 302 Rantoul Street Zoning District: CC Site Plan Filed: 4/7/2010 Hearing Started: 5/19/10 Hearing Closed: 7/20/10 Decision Date: 7/20/10 Members will recall that the Italian Community Center received site plan and special permit approval at the July 20, 2010 meeting for the expansion of their building at 302 Rantoul Street into their new property at 292 Rantoul Street. Site Plan approval was required because the percent increase in the building is over 40% in the CC Zoning District. A special permit was required because private clubs are only allowed in the CC- Zone by special permit from the Planning Board. In finalizing the building permit documents, several changes were made to the building permit plans to address building code issues and to further address some of the abutter's concerns. Of particular note, an emergency egress door that exits the abutter side of the building has been relocated closer to the Rantoul Street side of the building. This has eliminated the need for an exterior stairway on the abutter side because the door will now be at the Rantoul Street sidewalk grade. This was done to address some of the abutter's issues and building code. A copy of the developer's application, which explains the extent of changes and revised plans are included in Appendix B for members review and information. Copies of the original approved plans are also included for members reference. The Board's task at this meeting is to determine whether the proposed modifications are minor in nature. If the Board votes in the affirmative on that count, it can then vote on the substance of the proposed changes. Should the Board vote in the negative, members shall set a public hearing date for a major modification to the approved site plan. 5. Continued Public Meeting: Oven SUace Residential Design (OSRD) #2 -10 Initial Review — 875 & 875 1 /2 Hale Street — Montrose School Park, LLC Developer: Montrose School Park, LLC Location: 875 & 875 '/z Hale Street Zoning District: R -10 Filed: 1 -12 -10 Meeting Start: February 9, 2010 Action by: Not Applicable Members will recall that the Board closed the public hearing on the revised "waiver -free" 5 -lot Yield Plan and approved it in March. The developer presented a new Conceptual Plan at the June 15 meeting, where the Board members provided comments. This plan (SP -3, dated June 10, 2010) is included in Appendix C. The Board conducted a site visit Planning Board Staff Report September 21, 2010 Page 4 on June 26, 2010. The Open Space Committee and the Conservation Commission submitted comment letters on this plan, which are also included in Appendix C. With regard to comments received, and of particular note, the developers were asked to include the 2 ANR lots in the overall Tract calculation and to give an open space calculation based on this. There was also a suggestion that the boundaries of the ANR lots be adjusted and that the new homes be clustered a bit more and moved further back, away from the street. There were also suggestions that they use a narrower road or shared driveway instead of a roadway and that they meet the 50% open space requirement. Over the summer, the developer submitted a Notice of Intent application to the Conservation Commission for approval of a 6 -lot conventional definitive subdivision plan. The Board approved this request, allowing that the proposed roadway encroach upon the 100 -foot wetlands buffer zone and recently issued an Order of Conditions to this effect. The developer has notified Planning staff that they will submit a new 6 -lot Yield Plan and 6 -lot Conceptual OSRD plan as a result. This submission has not been received as of press time. Planning staff will forward the plans to members electronically upon receipt. Eligible voting members on this application (5 are needed) are Dinkin, Thomson, Flannery, Dunn, Hutchinson and Mack. 6. Set Public Hearing Date: 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan — Montrose School Park, LLC Developer: Montrose School Park, LLC Location: 875 Hale Street Zoning District: R10 Filed: 5/26/2010 Action by: 10/23/10 (Extension granted from original deadline of 9/23/10) Members will recall that Montrose School Park, LLC submitted a conventional definitive subdivision plan to create 6 new building lots and a 50 -foot wide dead end new roadway on the 2.7 -acre parcel. The developer signed a waiver of the timeframe in which the Board has to make a decision on this definitive plan filing by 30 days. The Planning Board has yet to schedule a public hearing on the matter. A hearing should be scheduled no later than the October 19 meeting or another time extension should be sought. 7. Remand Order - Foster Lane Cluster Subdivision Plan — 30 Foster Street — Hub Realty Trust, Robert Hubbard, Trustee Developer: Hub Realty Trust Location: 30 Foster Street Zoning District: R22 Planning Board Decision Date: 7/17/07 Appealed: July /August 2007 Court Order: June 1, 2010 Members will recall that in July 2007, the Board denied an application by Hub Realty Trust for approval of a cluster definitive subdivision plan at 30 Foster Street. The plan involved the subdivision of this 5 -acre parcel into 5 building lots having lot areas between 14,000 s.f. and 23,000 s.f and the creation of a 115,993 s.f open space parcel. The building lots would have frontage on a new dead end road with hammerhead Planning Board Staff Report September 21, 2010 Page 5 turnaround off Foster Street. A copy of the Board's denial letter and the lotting plan are included in Appendix D. The developer appealed the Board's decision to Superior Court and in May 2010, the Court ruled in favor of the developer and remanded the matter back to the Planning Board with instructions that the Planning Board approve the plan and conditions. Conditions included that the developer would implement off -site traffic safety upgrades on Foster Street and that the Board and the developer agree upon a method of surety. See page 4 of the Finding, Rulings and Order for Entry of Judgment ( " Remand Order ") document in Appendix D for the complete instructions and conditions. The developer recently submitted final Mylars to the Board for the Board's approval/endorsement /signature. Planning Department staff responded to this submission with a request for additional information pertaining to the Remand Order conditions noted above and made some additional requests (e.g. that the developer submit final drainage calculations, comply with the Board of Health comments made during review of the project, consider renaming Foster Lane for emergency response reasons, and that homes located more than 500 -feet from the looped water main be sprinklered). Please find a copy of Planning staff's September 8, 2010 request for information and a related Memo dated September 13, 2010 in Appendix D. As of press time and in reference to the Remand Order conditions, the developer has submitted a list of off -site traffic safety improvements to be reviewed and approved by the City. They have yet to submit a performance bond or other form of surety as required by the Court. With reference to the additional requests made by Planning Staff, the developer has submitted updated drainage calculations, but has not responded to the other requests. The materials submitted to date have been forwarded to the City Engineer and are included in Appendix D for members review. The Mylars may be signed pending the developer's satisfactory responses to the items listed in the Remand Order. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the developer must submit an acceptable form of surety for review and approval by the Board before the plans can be signed. 8. Approval of Minutes Minutes of the July 20, 2010 meeting are included for Members' review. 9. Adiournment