Loading...
2011-01-18CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: - DATE: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, Council Chamber, Third Floor MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman John Thomson, Michael O'Brien, Ellen Flannery, Charles Harris, David Mack, James Matz MEMBERS ABSENT: Ellen Hutchinson OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Diana Ribreau Chairman Dinkin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m Subdivision approval Not Required Plans (SANR's) 100 Sohier Road — City of Beverly — Beverly High School Zambernardi gave an overview of the plans. She mentioned that the plans presented show the southern end of the lot on the corner of Cabot Street and Herrick Street. The City of Beverly applied for and received a $500,000 grant funded through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. The grant is to help fund a new sports park on the high school campus. The grant will specifically fund Phase One of the Beverly Sports Park Project, which involves the installation of a synthetic turf playing surface inside the existing track at Beverly High School. Through the ANR, the City will break off that part of the high school lot that is planned to support the new turf field and transfer its care and custody to the Beverly Parks and Recreation Commission. The ANR proposes to split an 8.5 acre parcel off from the 49.56 acre high school parcel. The parcel is in a R10 Zoning District and has +/- 1,000 ft on Herrick Street where 100 ft is required and +/- 370,000 square feet of area where 10,000 square feet is required. Thomson asked about the access to the new turf field. Zambernardi responded that there is ample access. Thomson: Made a motion to approve the ANR that proposes to split an 8.5 acre parcel off from the 49.56 acre high school parcel as presented. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. 2. New or Other Business a. 26R Michael Road Definitive Plan - Zambernardi reminded the Board of the approval of the subdivision plan back in November for Michael Road Extension. A request from Michael Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board January 18, 2011 Page 2 of 11 McNiff for a bond amount of $44,000 was presented to cover the improvements needed. He is also requesting signatures on the Mylar(s). The Letter of Request; Letter of Credit; letter from the City Engineer approving the bond amount; and the plans were provided. Mr. McNiff was present and said that he appreciates the Planning Boards help and is requesting a favorable vote to accept of letter of credit in amount of $44,000. Zambernardi added that in addition to the aforementioned letters, Form F and Form W forms were submitted. Thomson: Made a motion to accept the letter of credit in the bond amount of $44,000 for improvements and for signatures on the Mylar. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. b. 10 -12 Congress Street — Expiration of Special Permit - Zambernardi reminded the Board of a special permit that was approved back May, 2007 for a condo project located at the former Ventron site, which is due to expire May 29, 2011. She read a letter to the Planning Board from Attorney Tom Alexander dated January 8, 2011 asking that the Board concur with the 2 year automatic extension as provided in the Commonwealth's Permit Extension Act. Thomson: Made a motion to reaffirm the automatic 2 -year Extension as stated in the Permit Extension Act. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. c. Regular April Meeting Date - Zambernardi stated that the Board needs to set a date and location for the Regular Planning Board Meeting for the month of April. The Board agreed on April 26, 2011. Zambernardi said the location is to be determined. 3. Approval of Minutes Zambernardi suggested the following amendments be made to the December 20, 2010 minutes: Page 8, Continued Discussion/Subdivision Plan - 875 Hale St. Definitive Subdivision Plan. The vote should read: 6 -0 -2 rather than 7 -0 -2 also adding a lower case w to With. Page 8, second to last line "as offered" stated twice in error and to omit as needed. Page 9, should read that Mack made a motion and the date should be January 2011 not 2010. Harris: Made a motion to approve the minutes dated December 20, 2010 with the amendments as stated. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 4 -0 -2 with Chairman Dinkin and Michael O'Brien abstaining. Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board January 18, 2011 Page 3 of 11 4. Election of Officers Dinkin stated that the Planning Board needs to vote on the reelection of Chairman and Vice Chairman for the calendar year 2011 and asked Vice Chairman Thomson to take the gavel and be Acting Chair Person at this time. Thomson requested a motion for elect a Planning Board Chairperson for 2011. Flannery: Made a motion to reelect Richard Dinkin as Chairperson for the Planning Board for the year 2011. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with Dinkin abstaining. Thomson passed the role of Chairperson back to Dinkin at this time. Dinkin requested a motion to elect a Vice Chairman for the Beverly Planning Board for 2011. Harris: Made a motion to reelect Thomson as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board for the upcoming 2011 year. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with Thomson abstaining. At this time, Dinkin requested a motion to recess the regular scheduled meeting and open up the public hearing. Thomson: Made a motion to recess the regular meeting and begin the public hearing at this time — 8 p.m. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. 5. Concurrent Public Hearings: 363 -393 Rantoul Street/Burnham Apartments — Special Permit Application #126 -10, Site Plan Review Application #102 -10, and Inclusionary Housing Application #01 -10 — Windover Properties, LLC. Zambernardi read the Public Notice aloud for the record. Attorney Mark Glovsky was present representing the applicant Windover Properties, LLC. Glovsky gave a brief overview on the history and current conditions of the property located at 363 -393 Rantoul Street. He stated that the property has been vacant for many years. Windover Properties, LLC acquired the property in 2007 and has been actively marketing the property over the past few years. There were plans for a prior project that was feasible with the tax credits at that time but due to many different reasons the project was withdrawn. The cost of development and the economy have been the main reason there have been no buyers since. Glovsky said that Windover Properties sees the economic situation brightening up and feels it is the right time to move forward with the proposed project. Glovsky stated that Windover Properties has been actively involved and is heavily invested in the City of Beverly. They feel that not only is the Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board January 18, 2011 Page 4 of 11 proposed project in the best interest of the City, it is also in the best interest of Windover Properties to redevelop the site at this time. Glovsky continued to say that the property is currently a phased condominium project. The existing Weaver Building was the first phase. The second and last phase would be the construction of the proposed 38 rental units. He said that the proposed plans are to raise the existing building, referring to the site plan. Constructing the new building would include 25, 1- bedroom units and 13, 2- bedroom units. Five (5) of the units or 12% of the units will be affordable units. At this time Glovsky introduced Lee Dellicker, President of Windover Properties, to discuss specifics in relation to the special permit request. Dellicker said that in recognizing the requirement of 25% commercial retail space in a mixed use zoning, their concern has been economics. There has been no interest at all in retail space. Dellicker said that the last thing they want is for the property to sit vacant like so many others have in these economic times. Commercial use, especially retail, would not be good in his opinion as it has shown to be tough to keep retail businesses long -term. Windover wants to do what makes economic sense. Thad Siemasko and John Harden, Architects, from Siemasko and Verbridge were present Siemasko reviewed the Site Plan for the proposed project. Siemasko stated that the plans are to push the building forward right up to the street line (Rantoul Street). This allows accessible parking around the back under the building and brings the space as far as they can from neighbors on the adjacent street. In addition, a fence will be added to the existing retaining wall that includes landscape plantings. The fencing will be Eft and 4ft respectively to be level with the grade of the wall. During the Design Review Board meeting it was asked that they use more native plantings on the site, which they have now included in the plans. Two units will be accessible units as noted on the first level of the plan. He reviewed the 2" 3r and 4 plans in relation to the remaining proposed units. Siemasko also reviewed the entryways to the building as well as the exterior design and materials used adding that the building would be a 4- story building that stands approximately 45 ft. tall in a 55 ft. zone. Siemasko stated that they gave great consideration to the neighbors behind the proposed project and have ensured that lighting is positioned appropriately along with the fencing on the wall and the building itself to minimize any lighting pointing towards residents on the adjacent street. At this time Charlie Weir, Civil Engineer, Meridian Engineering, introduced himself and began a review of utilities and materials for the project which included; Water, Sewer, Gas, and Electric on Rantoul Street. The project proposes to bring an electric stub in to connect to the existing transformer on Rantoul Street and plans to connect to City water and gas lines. The site itself is Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board January 18, 2011 Page 5 of 11 slightly less than one acre with no non - impervious surfaces on site. The site is well graded for drainage to run across the site then onto Rantoul Street. Presently there are no drainage structures on Rantoul Street but drainage goes into catch basins around the corner on West Dane Street. They are proposing to mimic that which gives a 10% reduction in impervious surfaces. Weir said that the details of the plans should also satisfy the comments in the letter from the Planning Department as noted earlier. Miranda Gooding was present to discuss the Inclusionary Housing application. She noted that it is an "As of Right' Inclusionary Housing application and that the plans are complying with the regulations in full. The plans as noted earlier propose 5 affordable units (12 %). They include a mix of 4, 1- bedroom units and 1, 2- bedroom unit with a 1- bedroom unit being an accessible unit. She noted that the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) was pleased to see an accessible unit designated as an affordable unit. Windover Properties is doing everything the ordinance requests as a fall back. Gooding informed the Planning Board that certain conditions need to be reviewed prior to the issuance of a building permit under the ordinance, which is as follows: 1. The Planning Board has to go through the site plan review process and review the Inclusionary Ordinance Requirements. 2. The Planning Director needs to approve a marketing plan that will comply with the ordinance. The form of an affordable marketing plan has been discussed and it has been agreed to use the same Monitoring Agent they used with the Depot Square project. 3. Plan is condition upon applicant entering with a regulatory agreement with the City of Beverly and the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). This agreement will be recorded with the Registry of Deeds. Gooding noted that she worked with Leah Zambernardi to find the appropriate Regulatory Agreement form and it is appended on the application. Zambernardi read the following letters into the record: January 18, 2011 — Parking and Traffic Commission January 14, 2011 — City of Beverly Engineering Department January 18, 2011 — Response from Meridian Associates regarding drainage January 13, 2011 —Police Department January 11, 2011 — Beverly Design and Review Board Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board January 18, 2011 Page 6 of 11 January 7, 2011 — Board of Health January 5, 2011 — Conservation Commission January 4, 2011 —Beverly Fire Department January 10, 2011 — Albert B. Popek and Lisa McElrath- Popek, Neighbors Glovsky responded to the requests and concerns with respect to the aforementioned letters. He noted that he is aware that the City Planning Department has done a study on the average parking spaces for similar buildings on Rantoul Street. Glovsky made it clear that it wouldn't make any sense with an investment of this size to not have adequate parking or you lose market value. He agrees that it is logical to add 2 additional handicap parking spaces as noted in the Parking and Traffic Commission letter. Weaver Glass next door has agreed to provide 2 additional parking spaces by way of easement so that they satisfy the parking and traffic requirements. Parking across the street on a lot also owned by Windover Properties was questioned. Windover Properties does not feel that designating that entire lot for parking spaces will be needed or necessary. Windover Properties feels it makes more sense and is more appropriate to redevelop the site across the street as a mixed use building in the future Weir reiterated the response to drainage on site and concerns brought by the City of Beverly Engineering Department in their letter dated January 14, 2011. At this time Dinkin opened the meeting up to any questions by members of the Board. Matz asked about visitor parking and what the expectations are for it. Glovsky responded saying the parking lot will be open and will not have designated spaces. Glovsky further stated that the Zoning Ordinance and Parking Requirement are designed in part to take into consideration visitor parking and service parking and that is where the numbers come from. In addition, there is direct experience with Depot Crossing and other projects such as the Edwards Harborview Condos that have the same parking ratio. There have not been any problems with visitor parking at those establishments that they are aware of Matz asked if there are any thoughts to "Green" building in the design. Siemasko responded by noting that going "Green" is somewhat built into the building code with the exception of fancier materials such as windmills, etc. Siemasko and Verbridge do incorporate and use many "Green" materials such as exhaust, dumpsters, building materials and other things that work well from a development perspective. Matz mentioned a personal issue he has with trash being everywhere outside of these types of buildings. Siemasko assured him they have adequate dumpsters and recyclable units on the site. Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board January 18, 2011 Page 7 of 11 Matz also stated for the record that he understands the reasoning however he is disappointed that mixed use is not working out on Rantoul Street at the present time. He would ideally like to see more commercial use come to Rantoul Street. Having two generations of auto and auto repair and sales at the site, Matz asked if there are any environmental concerns with soil and ground water contamination. Glovsky said that there was a significant amount of financing into the site and a 21E site assessment was performed in the past. When Windover Properties bought the property in 2007, there was another assessment at that time. The assessment concluded that there were no hazardous materials nor has anything appeared since then. Mack asked if there is adequate room onsite for snow removal. Dellicker responded yes Harris said that with all due respect to the architect, whom he noted has done wonderful work on many projects, he is not in favor of the exterior design of proposed project. He added that the outward appearance looks like it could have been an old building that was rehabbed. He believes the City is trying to get the downtown area to look and have a New England style to it. Harris did say he feels it is an improvement from what is currently there but wondered if the design could be modified to soften it up a bit. Mack asked what the anticipated parking spaces per unit would be. Glovsky said that the experience has been less than one space per unit at Depot Crossing. This holds true to other similar type rental buildings with a commuter rail on the same street. In addition they will be installing bike racks and other smart growth acts for public transportation, promoting mass transport. Mack asked what their thoughts and expectations are to get the ZBA variance with the limited parking presented. Glovsky responded that it is up to them to provide hardship to get the relief that they are requesting. The favorable report from the Planning Department is a plus as well as the outcome of tonight's meeting. They are guardedly optimistic but won't know until they get there. Tina Cassidy, Planning Director, was present. Cassidy said that due to concerns from residents regarding parking and making an existing situation worse, she did some research to develop an analysis of parking spaces with similar type buildings on Rantoul Street. With the assistance of the City Assessors Office and the City Finance Director she was able to obtain the number of excise tax bills sent out to Rantoul Street resident. The report was distributed to the Planning Board for review. Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board January 18, 2011 Page 8 of 11 Dinkin said that the Jaclen Towers Apartments should not be included in the study as it has very little in common and is of very different nature to the other multi - residential unit buildings. Cassidy said she chose it because it has rental units. Matz agreed and said that if Jaclen Towers is removed then the percentage will be just over 1.0% based on the total number of cars that are registered. Thomson asked if the other buildings included in the report also have 2 bedroom units. Cassidy stated that she did not get the mix of bedroom sizes between buildings in the report. Thomson asked Zambernardi to confirm his understanding that parking is subject to a zoning variance therefore parking is not relevant to the Planning Board's decision making. Zambernardi agreed. Thomson said he would still like to know if there is a back -up plan if denied by the ZBA on a parking variance. Dellicker responded that although they are anticipating a favorable vote for the variance, there are other possibilities and options if absolutely necessary. Dellicker said that additional parking might be obtained by Weaver Glass. Thomson mentioned the graphic shown on the plans, which show a grade change between Rantoul Street and the Chase Street side. Dellicker stated that the grade shown has an existing wall that belongs to Windover Properties. Thomson recalled an unrelated story that had an issue with ownership to a retaining wall and said he would like a commitment from Windover Properties that it belongs to them. Thomson asked about any updates to the drainage system in place on Rantoul Street. Cassidy responded saying the City has hired a consultant that has presented a 25% design plan reconstruction of Rantoul Street, which will include areas such as new utilities, sidewalks, and subsurface, however it is not expected to happen for at least a few years. Cassidy did say that although likely, she is not 100% sure on the drainage system being redone. Matz questioned the discrepancy in the height of the proposed building at 48ft and 60ft as mentioned in a letter from the Popek's dated January 18, 2011. Glovsky said that it is due to the grade on the street and presented a picture of what the neighbors would be looking at. Matz asked if Beverly Main Streets has looked at the plans. Gooding stated that she is Co- President of Beverly Main Streets and said that the entire board has not viewed the entire plans. Matz expressed his feeling that the design does not fit in the neighborhood and asked for an explanation as to why Windover Properties feels that it is a good fit for the area. Siemasko responded in detail. At this time, Dinkin opened the meeting to questions or comments from members of the public Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board January 18, 2011 Page 9 of 11 Juliana Dejenava was present and stated that she owns several properties in Beverly and is a Beverly high school teacher. She expressed her concerns with the direction in which Beverly is going. She mentioned other projects within the City that she does not like and said she doesn't feel that the City is taking the neighborhoods into consideration. She agrees that something needs to go into the existing site but believes there must be a way to do less than putting a 4- story building that includes 38 units. She asked who plans to maintain the property. Glovsky responded that Windover Properties would be responsible for maintaining the property or will hire out to a reputable company to maintain it. Glovsky also added that the proposed building is actually 10 ft. less than the maximum permitted height. Glovsky continued to say that the plans are less detrimental to the neighborhood than what could be if open for commercial use or what exists there now. Glovsky ended by saying that Windover Properties feels that the proposed project is absolutely an appropriate use of the property and they have not exceeded the permitted number of units determined by the zoning regulations. Dinkin made a statement as to how the Planning Board deals with its urban core understanding not very far behind it exists all over the core of the city. He feels that the Windover Properties project will help maximize the value of the urban core in Beverly. Dinkin also said that Windover Properties has done an admirable thing by moving the building up to the street keeping more space between the neighbors and the building. This project and others to follow will also bring more sidewalk traffic which Rantoul Street desperately needs. Dejenava also asked about the effect it would have on the school system enrollment. Dellicker stated that Depot Square to best of their knowledge has no children there. Dinkin added that most likely there would be little to no children over the age of 5 as historically the next step for families is to buy a single family home. Harris asked if anyone knew what the mix of new buildings vs. rehabbed buildings on Rantoul Street is. Siemasko said there are many new buildings on Rantoul and reiterated the reasons they feel the design of the proposed building is a fit. Harris stated that he thinks the City should start to change the architecture. Zambernardi mentioned that the City has downtown design and review guidelines. Dinkin added that he personally doesn't feel it is a misfit to the street. Thomson is supportive to the project but a key decision still needs to be made by the ZBA. He suggested keeping the Public Hearing open until the final ground rules are presented. He noted that if changes are needed from the outcome of the ZBA meeting then the Planning Board needs to reconsider the project again. Glovsky replied that the relief they are looking for is not out of the norm other than parking and it is a risk they are willing to take. Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board January 18, 2011 Page 10 of 11 Mack said he is in favor of the project and would like to see it go forward. He feels it is a substantial improvement from what is there. However, the downside to closing the Public Hearing is that there is only a seven member board with one member not present and there is a requirement of a minimum of a 6 vote in favor. Glovsky replied that Windover Properties is eager to control a commitment they have made to the City of Beverly and are respectively requesting a vote tonight. Mack: Made a motion to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Thomson. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. The Public Hearing closes at this time. Discussion and Decision on Special Permit #126 -10, Site Plan Review #102 -10 and Inclusionary Housing Application #01 -10. Dinkin suggests a motion be made to separate the issues since majority differs. Thomson: Made a motion to sever the issues. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. Special Permit Thomson discusses the conditions to be met for the special permit application. He stated that the site was an appropriate location for the proposed use, noting that a one hundred percent (100 %) residential use would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood than those uses allowed by right in the CC Zoning District. The Board concluded that the character of adjoining uses would not be adversely affected and that no factual evidence indicated property values in the district would be adversely affected by such use. The Board contemplated that property values would improve over the existing site conditions. The Board found that there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact, finding that the one criticism entered into the record by an abutter was erroneous in the calculation of the proposed height of the building. The Board noted that the proposed 4 -story height of the building coupled with its siting at the front of the lot would not vary significantly from existing conditions on the lot and would have a more minimal impact to abutters on the east side of the lot. The Board also found that no undue traffic, nuisance, or hazard would result from this development, as the amount of traffic generated by this development would not be more than a use allowed by right. In addition, the Board found that adequate and appropriate City services would be available for the proposed use. Thomson: Made a motion to grant the special permit as requested. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. Site Plan Public Meeting Minutes — Planning Board January 18, 2011 Page 11 of 11 Thomson acknowledged that this project is subject to review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and that the applicant may need to request an amendment of the Planning Board's approval in the event that changes are made to the plan during the ZBA process. Thomson addressed the proposal for thirty -eight (38) parking spaces on site, plus two (2) additional dedicated parking spaces in the parking lot of Weaver Glass, which directly abuts the project to the north. In addressing this proposal, they considered information on parking usage in residential developments along Rantoul Street presented verbally by the applicant and in a study entitled, "Selected Parking Needs/Use Summary January 2011" submitted by Planning Director Tina Cassidy. Based on this information, the Board found that current usage in similar developments is roughly one (1) space per residential unit, with perhaps a couple more. The Board therefore found that the proposed parking is satisfactory so long as two additional parking spaces are provided in the Weaver Glass parking lot as noted above. Thomson confirmed that the retaining wall along the east side of the property is under the control and ownership of the applicant and they would maintain it in good condition. Further, Thomson noted the recommended conditions of approval contained in the letters from various City Boards and Department heads. Thomson: Made a motion to grant the site plan as presented and with the terms discussed incorporated as conditions of approval. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining. Thomson assumed the chairmanship. Dinkin mentioned that since the passage of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, this is the first project to come to the Planning Board that is in full compliance. Dinkin: Made a motion to accept the Inclusionary Application #01 -10. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 7 -0 -0. Mack: Made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with the Chair abstaining.