2014-04-08 (2)Draft Beverly Planning Board
April 8, 2014
Board:
Date:
Location:
Members Present
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Recorder:
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Planning Board Meeting
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Beverly City Hall
Vice Chair John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Ellen Hutchinson,
James Matz, Edwin Barrett, Catherine Barrett, David Mack and
Wayne Miller
John Mullady
Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi
Eileen Sacco
Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Subdivision Approval Not Require Plans
There are no subdivision approval not required plans this evening.
Continued Discussion Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan #106 -12, Special Permit
#130 -12 and Inclusionary Housing #03 -12 — Enterprise Apartments — 79 Rantoul Street —
Windover Enterprise, LLC
Attorney Miranda Gooding of Glovsky and Glovsky addresses the Planning Board and recalls
that at the last meeting they explained several variations that were made to the plans and the
Board requested that the Design Review Board review the appropriateness of the changes. She
reported that they met with the DRB last Thursday and explained the changes and how they
came to be.
Gooding reported that the DRB approved the changes and recommended approval of the request
for a minor modification to the plan subject to some further landscaping near the vault doors on
the Edwards Street facade.
Flannery states that she is a member of the DRB and confirmed that they reviewed the changes
and made a recommendation regarding additional landscaping near the vault doors. She explains
that they also requested that the red lettering on the door be redone.
Gooding stated that they agreed to a two phase process and explained that to see if a combination
of paint and landscaping would solve the concern and if at the discretion of the Planning Board,
install an awning over the door and revisit this in six months.
Hutchinson stated that she is a little surprised that the DRB didn't have more to say about the
change of the Juliette balconies. Gooding explains that the change was made in the rear of the
building due to the proximity of the building to the neighbors on School Street. She noted that it
was an issue of privacy and fire codes because they would have intruded on the setback between
Page 1 of 6
Draft Beverly Planning Board
April 8, 2014
the buildings. She further noted that the positioning of the buildings would have resulted in the
ability to look directly into the neighbors unit.
N. Barrett stated that he is not convinced that the changes made were out of the control of the
developer and he is concerned that the Planning Board was not kept in the loop on them. He
advised that in the future, the developer should go through the proper channels when considering
changes to an approved plan.
Gooding stated that the message was very clear that communication is the key to a successful
development and while occasional issues arise that are unavoidable she does not expect to see
them to the degree that they have in the past.
Miller asked if there was any discussion about the grates at the DRB. Gooding explains that the
decision was made in the field by the architect on a suggestion by Beverly Main Streets that they
would be more pedestrian friendly. She also noted that the DRB was uniformly appreciative that
the changes that were done with good intentions.
Flannery stated that there is a far more symmetrical cleaner look and the modifications work.
She agreed that the DRB were very much in favor of the changes.
Miller expressed concerns about security. Peter Boudreau from Windover stated that grates
being higher did not present a safety issue.
Clausen agreed noting that the DRB looked at the benefit of the lower grates.
Mack: Motion to find that the proposed modifications are minor in nature. Flannery
seconds the motion. The motion carried (7 -0).
N. Barrett requested that the DRB condition referred to in their letter noted Step 2 be included in
the approval.
Mack: Motion to approve the proposed changes in substance finding that the scope and
nature of the original permits have not been expanded. These approvals were
made subject to the condition that all work adhere to the descriptions and
stipulations within the following documents: 1. February 20, 2014 submittal
(with plans) from Miranda Gooding to Leah Zambernardi; 2. April 8, 2014 letter
to John Thomson from Aaron Clausen on behalf of the Design Review Board; 3.
The plan entitled "Vault Planting Area ". Further the applicant is required to go
back to the Design Review Board and the Planning Board six months following
project completion, as further described in the April 8, 2014 letter to John
Thomson from Aaron Clausen on behalf of the Design Review Board.
Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion carried (7 -0).
Flannery moved to recess for a public hearing and public comment period at this time.
Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Page 2 of 6
Draft Beverly Planning Board
April 8, 2014
Public Hearing and Public Comment Period — OSRD Initial Review Application #4 -14 and
Request for Waivers of Subdivision Rules and Regulations as Applied to the Yield Plan
Under OSRD — 232 Essex Street — DiBiase Corporation
Atty. Brian McGrail and Paul DiBiase of DiBiase Corporation are present to review the OSRD
application.
McGrail explains that they are proposing a 16 lot subdivision and they are under agreement for
the property. He explains the history of the DiBiase Corporation noting that they have been in
business for 37 years and they have a history of working cooperatively with cities and towns and
the neighbors of their properties. He reported that they held several meetings last summer that
were well attended by the neighbors and city officials as well and they have incorporated their
suggestions and concerns into the proposed plans.
McGrail stated that they are not utilizing Ice House Lane for full access. He also noted that they
are open to suggestions from the Planning Board as to the treatment of the pond.
McGrail explained the location of the site and noted that the 18.8 acres are behind the YMCA on
Essex Street and Kelleher Pond and is in an R15 zoning district.
McGrail reviews the 2 OSRD concept plans. He explains that there are 4.4 acres of buildable
area and there will be 8.99 acres of open space in the plan.
Thomson asked about sensitive areas on the site. McGrail reviewed the plan and noted that the
plan shows 16 lots. He explained that they met with the Fire Department and a break away chain
gate will be installed at Ice House Lane for emergency access only.
McGrail stated that the other option is similar to #1 noting that the open space was calculated
using 50% of the buildable land which resulted in a kind of locked plan that would minimize the
site.
McGrail explains the dimensions of the OSRD lots. He explained that the lots would have
access driveways and sidewalks on one side of the street. He also explained that they took into
consideration the requests of the neighbors and moved the homes away from the pond and the
access road.
N. Barrett questioned if anyone from the Next Generations Children's Center has been involved
in the discussions regarding the location of the access road. McGrail stated that they would get
in touch with them and that the point is well taken.
Miller noted that there have been two changes of ownership of abutting properties and asked if
they have been notified of this. McGrail states that all of the abutters have been notified using a
certified abutters list from the assessor's office.
Matz stated that there is a significant trail system from the Hannah School to the YMCA
property for years and the OSRC should have significant input into this. McGrail stated that they
Page 3 of 6
Draft Beverly Planning Board
April 8, 2014
would be willing to work with them and questioned if the city would be looking for a permanent
easement. Matz suggested that the OSRD plan should be forwarded to the Open Space and
Recreation Committee for review.
Ward 4 Councilor Scott Houseman addressed the Board and stated that he has been involved in
the neighborhood meetings that were held with the developer. He stated that he was impressed
with Mr. DiBiase during the process and noted that he has communicated well with them sharing
information on social media etc., answering their questions and concerns, noting that he listened
and responded. He also noted that he may not have agreed with all of their suggestions. He also
noted that Mr. DiBiase addressed their request regarding the buffer zone behind Ice House Lane
and made it wider in response to their concerns.
McGrail explained that there are two options for the pond and explains that it could be owned by
a homeowners association but they have not had any discussions with the city. Thomson stated
that it is really not a Planning Board decision.
McGrail explained that the main road into the cul de sac will have two shared driveways via an
easement agreement and an emergency access road.
C. Barrett questioned if lot 16 would encroach on any wetlands. McGrail reported that it is
within the 100 foot buffer zone but outside of the 25 foot no disturb zone and noted that the lot
would be in the jurisdiction of the Beverly Conservation Commission.
C. Barrett asked if the road into the cul de sac would be public or private. McGrail states that it
would be up to the city whether they accept it or not.
Thomson asked if the emergency road access to Ice House Lane would be granted with an
easement. McGrail states that the title insurance company has confirmed the right to build a full
road there.
McGrail reviewed the landscaping plan with the Board, noting that topography of the land. He
noted that they are staying away from restricted areas, wetlands, and open spaces etc.
Matz stated that he would like to see the plans in an electronic version if possible, noting that
they are hard to read in black and white. He also stated that these are the most meaningful plans
that he has seen on this project.
N. Barrett asked if they have given any consideration to saving the existing mature trees on the
site. Mr. DiBiase stated that would have to come down for safety reasons but they are offering
replacement trees that will be appropriate for the open space. DiBiase also explained that
preblast surveys and video surveys of the abutting properties will be done under the rules and
regulations of the fire department. He noted that the school is probably outside of the blasting
zone but they will notify them of the blasting schedule.
Matz stated that Kelleher Pond plays a role in the water flow in the neighborhood and asked if
any discussions have been held on that. McGrail explained that they have spoken with the DPW
Page 4 of 6
Draft Beverly Planning Board
April 8, 2014
regarding drainage calculations and the DPW reviewed them and found them to be consistent,
noting that they will be reducing impervious surface from what is there now.
Matz stated that he knows the Kelleher drainage well and noted that the outlet is under designed
and under managed and described the surface water flow. He also noted that the tall pine trees
will start falling once you start moving the soil around.
Thomson opened the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Katherine Mills Meyers addressed the Board and stated that the neighbors are very involved in
this project and praised the developer for his response to their concerns. She noted that 8 -10
meetings have been held and they have walked the property with the developer and she feels that
the neighbors are very well informed.
She also noted that the Ice House Lane residents feel strongly that they do not want it used as an
access road and they are fine with it being used for emergency access.
Meyers also noted that the developer moved the project back from the pond after many months
of discussion and they feel that they have developed a relationship of trust with him and the
neighbors are in favor of this plan.
John Ogren from Hayes Engineering reviewed the Yield Plan for the site. He explained that R15
zoning requires 15,000 s.f of lot area and 125 feet of frontage and the plan would yield 19 lots.
Ogren reported that they are requesting waivers for the Yield Plan as follows:
1.) Section IV.A.2.b The minimum centerline radii of curved streets shall be three hundred
feet (300'). The proposed centerline radius of the curve after the Childcare facility is
135'.
2.) Section IV.A.2c A tangent of at least one hundred fifty feet (150') in length shall
separate all reverse curves on principal and secondary streets. the tangent at the curve
after the Childcare Facility is 109.20' The tangent at the cul de sac (Ice House Lane) is
116.11'.
3.) Section IV.A.3 The minimum pavement width shall be thrity two feet. The existing
access drive next to the Childcare facility is 26' wide. The proposed subdivision will
transition from the existing pavement of 26' wide to the required 32' width
4.) Section IV.I.1 The typical cross section will be adjusted in order to transition from the
end of the existing pavement to the typical cross section. This adjustment will include
the width and location of the sidewalks and grass plots.
Hutchinson stated that she would like to see a waiver free plan.
Thomson agreed and stated that the Board should see a waiver free plan to show the Board what
can realistically be built. He reminded members that it is a theoretical plan.
Page 5 of 6
Draft Beverly Planning Board
April 8, 2014
Zambernardi reviewed section 38.24BIV of the regulations and noted that waivers can be
permitted and she advised the developer of this.
Thomson stated that the Board is not being critical of what has been presented by the developer,
noting that he is pleased with the plans that have been presented and also noted that the
developer has worked well with the neighbors.
McGrail expressed concern that the Board's request for a waiver free plan is inconsistent with
the ordinance explaining that they are required to show a waiver free plan or ask for waivers.
Mack stated that he would be more comfortable seeing a waiver free plan to test the baseline.
Zambernardi explained that the Board's task at this point. She stated the Board has started the
initial review process and the Planning Board has to take a vote on the Yield Plan and the
question of waivers. She noted that the deadline for voting on the waivers is June 18, 2014. She
stated that the Board's step, after voting on the Yield Plan, is to select a Preferred Plan.
has started the initial review process and the Planning Board has to decide which concept plan.
Thomson suggests that the Board continue this matter to the May 20, 2014 meeting of the
Planning Board. The Board would like to see a waiver free plan. By waivers, in this instance,
the Board means waivers from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations only.
Zambernardi noted that the public comment period is still open and those who wish to comment
can do so in writing or in person at the meeting on May 20, 2014. She also noted that the
Planning Board will be holding their meeting at the Beverly Public Library in the Barnett Gallery
at 7:00 p.m. that evening.
Hutchinson: motion to continue the Public Hearing and Public Comment Period to May 20,
2014 during a meeting that begins at 7:00 p.m. Flannery seconded the motion.
The motion carried (7 -0).
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was
made by Flannery to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Hutchinson. The motion carried (7 -0)
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Page 6 of 6