Loading...
2012-05-15CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS REGULAR MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board SUBCOMMITTEE: - DATE: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 LOCATION: Council Chamber, City Hall, third floor PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Dinkin, Vice Chairman John Thomson, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz, David Mack, John Mullady, Michael O'Brien MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Harris OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director, Leah Zambernardi RECORDER: Diana Ribreau Dinkin called the Regular Meeting of Beverly Planning Board to order at 8:00 p.m. Mack made a motion to recess and reconvenes the Regular Meeting of the Beverly Planning Board. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 7.0.0. Continued Concurrent Public Hearings — Special Permit #129 -11 and Site Plan Review Application #105 -11 — 48 Dodge Street — Westward Apple Orchards Limited Partnership. Attorney Thomas Alexander stated that as requested a Transportation Peer Review has been completed and a written response from MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. has been submitted to the Planning Staff. Jeffrey Dirk, Vanasse & Associates, Inc. discussed the recent meeting with the Parking and Traffic Commission. Based on the requests made, Bohler Engineering has prepared a revised site plan that incorporates modifications to the following: 1. Dodge Street drive -way (addition of reflectorized stanchions to the flush serrated concrete island) and on -site circulation (addition of direction and regulatory signs and modification of the painted island proximate to the exit from the drive - through prescription facility to a flush serrated concrete island with reflectorized stanchions). 2. VAI has prepared a Conceptual Improvement Plan depicting recommended sign and pavement marking enhancements for the Route 128 Southbound off -ramp at its intersection with Dodge Street (Route IA) northbound that are designed to channelize off -ramp traffic to the north and to discourage crossing maneuvers to the gas Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board May 15, 2012 Page 2 of 10 This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board station/convenience store/Dunkin Donuts located along the west side of Dodge Street opposite the off -ramp. 3. Applicant has committed to the development of an optimal traffic signal timing, phasing and coordination plan for the signalized intersections along the Dodge Street corridor that include the Dodge Street/Conant Street /Shaw's Plaza driveway intersection. During the discussion, Dirk mentioned that the double yellow centerlines on Route I in front of the proposed site are meant to deter vehicles from cutting across the Rt. 128 exit ramp but the markings are faded such that motor vehicles may not see them. Thomson asked if anyone has talked with the Mass DOT about the faded double yellow centerline. Dirk responded no but they will have discussions with Mass DOT about the matter. Mack asked about signs other than the ground sign previously mentioned. Dirk stated that they are in the process of data collection and will provide a written response back addressing comments made. Signage will be added to the site plan at a later date and reviewed by the Design Review Board. Dirk stated the Applicant is not proposing to reconstruct the site's frontage. In addition, subject to MASS DOT approval, the plan will include optimal traffic signals addressing the traffic plan. Thomson requested further information pertaining to the strip of land owned by the City behind the proposed building site. Thomson stated that the Board would need to know if the City agrees to allow the Applicant access to landscape the area as an added buffer zone between the site and the residential homes that abut the site. Alexander responded that the plan is to berm the area and to place a fence and plantings on the Applicant's portion of the property. Alexander stated that the plans for the strip of land will meet the requirements of Beverly's Zoning Ordinance and the Applicant is planning to present the proposed plans for such to the City Council. Cheryl Oliphant, 2 Chipman Road, Beverly, stated that she is a direct abutter to the aforementioned area. Oliphiant asked if there is a Plan B if the City does not approve the Applicants request regarding the 50 ft. strip of land behind the proposed site. Alexander responded that regardless, they plan to have screening on their own property. The City property would be above and beyond the screening the Applicant will have in place. Thomson requested that there should be research done to determine the usage of the 50 ft. buffer zone area. Alexander concurred. Dinkin requested confirmation to the relief needed in relation to parking. Alexander responded that the Applicant is requesting a waiver of 5 parking spaces. The revised plans show 95 parking spaces - the Zoning Ordinance calls for 100 spaces. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board May 15, 2012 Page 3 of 10 This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board Josh Swirling from Bohler Engineering added that the parking reduction was a direct attribute to keeping the historical structure in place and the relief requested is easily translated with preserving the historical structure Thomson asked if in relation to the peer review there were any discussions or thought to angled parking spaces. Swirling responded that it was considered however angled parking spaces would result in further deviation to the total parking spaces on the site. Swirling explained the rights with respect to the other commercial establishments at the location and stated that those customers will come in the same entrance as shown on the plan and turn left for access to the other commercial establishments and vehicles for the entire site will exit the site using the shared Right of Way. Swirling added that the other parties involved are agreeable to a stop sign at the Right of Way. Flannery asked about hours of operation. Alexander replied that Walgreens is requesting the option for a 24 -hour facility. Rhuda added that Walgreens is not expected to be open 24 hours but that it is a standard request to have the option in the event they choose to do so at some point in the future. Normal hours of operation are between Sam -IOpm. Cheryl Oliphant, 2 Chipman Road, asked for clarification to the proposed entrance off Route IA. Swirling responded explaining that with the new plan, they would enter 10 ft. north than what is there today. All vehicles will enter to the right of the stanchions. Swirling stated that the stanchions are flush and are no more than a typical car length. Oliphant expressed concerns with making vehicular traffic turn right from the Route 128 exit ramp. Oliphant feels that vehicles would be diverted and forced to enter the site on Conant Street and neighbors are fearful that will happen. Swirling replied that according to the traffic study report there are less than 20 vehicles during peak hours coming off the ramp. Patricia Johnson, 34 Chipman Road, Beverly, stated that she recently wanted to take a right out of Chipman Road and it took two changes of the light to exit. Johnson added that she counted 14 cars in the cue at the light. Bill Lorigan of Moser Architects stated they have been working diligently with the Design Review Board on the design of the proposed building. Lorigan explained that with a smaller footprint they were able to have a second story, which adds positive elements to the residential street side. Lorigan stated the second story would be used for storage only. Lorigan discussed Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board May 15, 2012 Page 4 of 10 This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board the roof top units and the design to alleviate noise levels adding that the equipment will not be visible from the surrounding area. Lorigan reviewed the proposed materials to the external building in detail. Lorigan stated that based on the request from the Design and Review Board the "W" at the front of the Walgreens building has been made larger. The drive - through roof has been lowered 6 ft. which will give more attention to the entrance. In addition, an awning /canopy off the facade of the entrance area of the building has been added. Thomson asked for the height of the proposed building. Lorigan responded that the highest point is 33' -9 ". Thomson asked if there are any plans for landscaping around the building. Swirling responded that there will not be any landscaping and explained why they found it to be a maintenance problem. Swirling stated that the idea is to keep an open walkway wide enough - giving an example of those with a stroller and child. Swirling pointed out that they have incorporated a strip of green and an iron like fence to soften the asphalt at the front of the site. Flannery asked Alexander, relative to the design for Walgreens, if there has been any thought to restorations to the historical building. Alexander replied that they plan to mimic the front of the historical building on the backside of the building. Mullady asked if the illuminated sign on the building would be on 24 hours expressing his concern to residents on Conant Street. Lorigan responded that the sign will only be illuminated during business hours of operation and the design and materials used for the illuminated sign will not affect residents in any way. Flannery asked about size of the ground sign. Alexander responded that at the appropriate time the Applicant would request signage approval with the Design and Review Board. At this time, Dinkin opened the Public Hearing to comments from the public. Don Martin, 28 Berrywood Lane, Beverly, asked if there is a time frame before Walgreens becomes a 24 -hour establishment. Lorigan responded that there are no immediate plans. It is Walgreen's standard practice to have the option available to them if they choose to do so at some point. Rosemary Maglio, 30 Pleasant Street, Beverly, requested the flow of delivery trucks including waste removal on the revised plan be shown. Swirling responded that the new plans have rerouted the deliveries to the site, which is determined to be a suitable and safe plan. Swirling added that Walgreens deliveries are on average 1 -2 /week. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board May 15, 2012 Page 5 of 10 This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board Maglio asked about deliveries to the other commercial establishments and the future possibility of other commercial tenants moving into the site. Maglio stated that she has heard only discussions with Walgreens and the Applicant has not touched upon other businesses on the site. Rhuda responded that the other businesses on site do not have heavy retail use in the office spaces and most tenants take UPS or FedEx deliveries at the storefront. Rhuda added that they are reducing the impervious surface from the existing condition. Dinkin made reference to Maglio's concern and asked what other vendors will be making deliveries besides the 1 -2 Walgreen deliveries /week and how many other delivery trucks will be coming in and out of the site daily. Swirling responded that he made comment to Walgreen's deliveries only because they will be the larger truck deliveries. Other delivery trucks such as the bread /soda suppliers are much smaller than the Walgreen delivery trucks and are staggered throughout the week. Dinkin addressed Alexander for the record that it came to his attention it was made clear to neighbors at the neighborhood meeting that if this project is not approved the site would house even more intensive uses. Dinkin made it clear that those comments made at the neighborhood meeting sound threat like and that he will take those remarks into consideration on how the Applicant is presenting the plans to the general public. Alexander responded that it was absolutely not a threat in any way but rather educating the Boards and Neighbors to have a clear understanding of all options for the proposed site. Alexander discussed a situation in the past where they felt the public was not properly informed of the options for a site and then realizing after the fact that it could have turned out differently for greater or lesser. Dinkin stated that he disagrees. Bill Swiff, 509 Conant Street, Beverly, discussed his concerns on Conant Street and asked if there have been any discussions on marking the Conant Street exit with a right hand turn only out of the plaza. Taking a left makes it difficult for those residents taking a right out of Chipman Road. Lorigan responded that in relation to traffic, making a right turn only out of the site onto Conant Street would make it difficult for those that live on Conant Street or Chipman Road that use the site to get back to their home. Flannery stated that those vehicles should travel south on Route IA and take a right at the fire station and go around which is the way the traffic should flow. Flannery asked if dumpster is enclosed. Swirling responded yes. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board May 15, 2012 Page 6 of 10 This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board Scott Przybycien, 5 Conant Street, Beverly, stated that he has concerns with the Walgreens sign in relation to the hours it is illuminated and the direct impact with his home. Przybycien asked if it was appropriate to discuss those concerns at this meeting. Thomson responded that if the application is approved the Planning Board can add conditions at that time with respect to signage and lighting during hours of operation. Flannery made a motion to recess the Public Hearing for Special Permit #129 -11 and Site Plan Review Application #105 -11 until June 19, 2012 at 8:45 p.m. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0. Continued Public Hearing Pursuant to Land Court Remand Order: Modification to 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan — Montrose School Park, LLC. Thomson made a motion to waive the reading of the public notice. Motion seconded by Flannery. Motion carried 7.0.0. Attorney Brad Latham of Latham Law Offices, LLC, 643 Main Street, Reading, stated that since the last public hearing, both the Applicant and Council have provided new information to the Board. Latham stated that the main issue is the question of road length. Latham discussed in detail their view on the definition of a cul -de -sac and a dead -end street paraphrasing language from different documents he incorporated into the research including the Beverly Subdivision Rules and Regulations relating to the definition. Latham referenced a memo dated May 14, 2012 from Assistant Planning Director Zambernardi. Latham presented a sketch of the roadway pointing out that their determination is believed to be consistent with the Beverly Subdivision Rules and Regulations that he paraphrased earlier. It is their belief that applying the standard and principal for a cul -de -sac with a hammerhead is appropriate measuring from the starting point of the curvature to the center point. Latham stated that there is no logical reason to use a different standard simply because the turnaround is a t- shape versus a circular shape. Latham reminded the Board that the City Fire and Police Department as well as the City Engineer had approved the plans previously in which he believes they used the same logic to provide safe and adequate access for vehicles. Latham stated that by using the initial point of curvature, the road length would be 207', or by taking measurements to the center point would be 249' both of which the Applicant feels complies within the City's Rules and Regulations. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board May 15, 2012 Page 7 of 10 This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board Thomson asked for clarification from Latham that it is his position that the use of the word cul- de -sac and all dead -end streets are the same thing. Latham replied yes. Latham stated that he does not believe it has to be an actual dead -end street to apply the same logic. RJ Lyman, 852 Hale Street, Beverly — abutter to the site and also an attorney, stated that the Board is not obligated in any way to accept the Applicant asking for special treatment under the minor subdivision provision. Lyman stated that Rhuda is challenging and undermining the City Ordinance in which the City has worked so hard to create. Lyman paraphrased sections of the Zoning Ordinance in Section 4, subsection b, paragraph 5 and subparagraph C (Page 5 and 6 of the Zoning Ordinance) explaining the definition of a cul -de -sac. Lyman stated there is no geometric shape that has a diameter and is a circle. There is no diameter in a hammerhead. With respect to a hammerhead drive, Lyman stated that you couldn't use the definition explained for methodology of measurement. Lyman referred to the Ordinance section that reads "or other means of turnaround acceptable to the Planning Board ". Lyman agreed that under certain circumstances allowing a hammerhead turnaround is acceptable however you can't use the methodology for a cul -de -sac when the plans presented are clearly not. Lyman noted that the Applicant has wasted a lot of the neighbors' and City's time already and feels the Applicant needs to comply with what the City of Beverly's Subdivision Rules and Regulations state and is asking the Planning Board to do the same. Latham stated he disagrees with Lyman's statement. The Applicant has spent a lot of time working with City on the proposal. Latham stated the Applicant would not have appealed on their own as they were prepared to live with OSRD. Latham stated that they have fully researched and reviewed many documents including the Zoning Ordinance and they believe they have used what they consider to be the best measurement consistent with the Beverly Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Latham asked if the Planning Board is willing to vote before closing the Public Hearing or get a consensus from the Board with respect to the road length. Dinkin responded that he believes that deviation from the rules can be subject to an appeal. Thomson asked if there are any alternatives for the roadway that the Applicant may want to discuss before the Board's decision. Latham requested Chairman Dinkin's approval to have a moment with his client to discuss matters. Dinkin concurred. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board May 15, 2012 Page 8 of 10 This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board Latham asked the order of process to the waivers requested that are still before the Board. Dinkin responded that it has been the Board's practice to separate waivers from the main plan and to act on the waivers before acting on the main plan. Latham stated that the Applicant has nothing else to present at this time. Dinkin called the regular meeting of Beverly Planning Board to order at this time. Discussion/Decision — Modification to 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan — Montrose School Park, LLC. Dinkin clarified to those present that the Board will begin with their findings of fact with respect to the status of the roadway continuing with moving on to the waivers requested and concluding with the main question to the Subdivision. Thomson recognized the briefs from counsel and felt it was very helpful. Thomson stated he feels the Planning Board is bound by the City's Regulations and how they are written. Thomson agrees with the conclusion that not all dead -end streets are a cul -de -sac and that there is a distinction made in the Regulations between cul -de -sacs and other forms of dead -end streets. Thomson stated the only measurements described in the Rules and Regulations involve measuring the sideline of the through street to the beginning of the cul -de -sac with no guidance to measure other dead -end situations and leaves it to the Planning Board to work through the definition on their own. The Board has expressed its opinion that there is a clear difference between a dead -end road and a cul -de -sac. Logically the street goes all the way to the end of the street in this case, the "T" shape in a hammerhead. In the absence of the Regulations not stating otherwise, not to the beginning, not to center, but to the end of the flat end, as comments made by counsel, Thomson felt that is the only form of measurement the Board should take. Dinkin agreed with Thomson's view. Dinkin stated that a hammerhead does not have a measurable diameter and should be viewed and measured as any other dead -end street by measuring from the nearest cross street to end of the pavement. Thomson made a motion finding as a matter of fact, the dead -end street is 292.17 ft. long. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 8.0.0. Dinkin closed the Public Hearing at 9:20 p.m. Discussion/Decision — Modification to 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan — Montrose School Park, LLC. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board May 15, 2012 Page 9 of 10 This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board Dinkin requested waivers be read aloud for the record. Zambernardi read the list of other waiver requests as follows with motions from the Board individually: 1. Definitive plan shall show trees six inches in caliper measured four feet above ground. Thomson made a motion to grant the above - mentioned waiver request as submitted. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0. 2. Definitive plan shall show street address numbers for each lot. Thomson made a motion to grant the above - mentioned waiver request as submitted. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0. 3. Definitive plan shall show the location of proposed streetlights. Thomson made a motion to grant the above - mentioned waiver request as submitted. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0. 4. Definitive plan shall show the location of fire alarm system Thomson made a motion to grant the above - mentioned waiver request as submitted. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0. 5. Drainpipes shall have a 3' minimum cover. Thomson asked for the measurement to the cover being provided on the plan. Ogren responded the drainpipe covers on the plan are a little over 1 - '/ 2 ft. Thomson asked Zambernardi if there has been any guidance from the engineering department. Zambernardi responded that the City Engineer has reviewed and approved the plan with respect to the drain cover. Thomson made a motion to grant the above - mentioned waiver request as submitted. Motion seconded by Mack. Motion carried 7.0.0. Thomson stated that the plan was presented to the Planning Board as a Yield Plan and the assumption was that it was a minor subdivision. The Planning Board agrees that with modifications to the Definitive Subdivision Plan and the litigation before them, the Board is required to look at the entire subdivision plan, which may require other waivers. Regular Meeting Beverly Planning Board May 15, 2012 Page 10 of 10 This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Beverly Planning Board Thomson made a motion to deny the Subdivision Plan on the basis of the lack of a waiver for the dead end road length. Mack seconded the Motion. Motion carried 8.0.0. Matz joined the meeting at this time. 2. New or Other Business a. Request for Meeting Date for CPA Presentation — Community Preservation Beverly The Planning Board agreed to set the date for the CPA Presentation on June 19, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. b. Set Public Hearing date for new site plan special permit and inclusionary housing permit— Cabot Street Apartments, 130 Cabot Street, Jay Levy and Armando Maffeo, Trustees of 130 -140 Cabot Street Realty Trust. Flannery made a motion to hold the public hearing June 19 th , 9:30 p.m. for Cabot Street Realty Trust. Motion seconded by Hutchinson. Motion carried 7.0.0. Zambernardi reminded the Planning Board that there would be a joint public hearing between the City Council and the Beverly Planning Board on June 4, 2012 at 7:20 p.m. held in City Council Chambers and a Special Meeting after. Mullady made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion seconded by O'Brien. Motion carried 7.0.0.