Loading...
2014-05-20Beverly Planning Board May 20, 2014 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Date: Location: Members Present: Planning Board Meeting Tuesday, May 20, 2014 Beverly Public Library Chair John Thomson, Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, James Matz, Catherine Barrett, Wayne Miller, Ned Barrett Members Absent: David Mack, John Mullady Others Present: Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi Recorder: 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. Recess for Public Hearing Flannery moved to recess for a public hearing at this time. Hutchinson seconded the motion. The motion carries (7 -0) Continuation of 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, Paul DiBiase of DiBiase Corporation and John Ogren of Hayes Engineering are present to review the OSRD application. McGrail recalled that at the last meeting members expressed concern over approving a Yield Plan with waivers without having first seen the number of lots that could be developed under a waiver free plan, meaning that waiver free shall mean only waivers of the Boards Subdivision Rules and Regulation. McGrail states that they have submitted a waiver free plan which shows a 19 lot yield plan. McGrail states that his client is committed to the 16 lot plan reviewed by the Board at their April 8, 2014 meeting. He notes that the plan includes waivers requested. He 1 Beverly Planning Board May 20, 2014 also notes that they have received an Order of Conditions from the Beverly Conservation Commission. He also notes that a memo was sent to other city Boards and Departments and the Department of Public Services responded as well as the Fire Department which notes that they have no objections to item 2. McGrail reports that the Open Space and Recreation Committee has requested a meeting if this plan goes forward to discuss the open space relative to Kelleher Pond. He notes that his client has pledged to work with the neighbors and the city as a whole and would welcome a special condition on this moving forward. Flannery states that the Planning Board did not ask for a plan showing 19 lots. She explains that they asked for a waiver less plan but did not specify the number of lots. McGrail introduces Mr. Ogren of Hayes Engineering to review the 19 lot waiver free yield plan. Ogren explains the waiver less plan that has been submitted to the Board. He compares the plan to the previously presented plan so that the Board can look at both. Ogren explains that the lay out is similar in terms of lots and the biggest difference is in the radius of the access drive. Zambernardi reports that the Planning Board requested that the Engineering Department review the waiver less plan and they have no issues with it. Hutchinson questions how the subdivision connects to Ice House Lane and if an easement is granted by both parties. McGrail states that it would be an emergency access only easement and it would involve one property. McGrail notes that the purpose of the yield plan is to establish the number of lots that can be built as of right and the concept plan submitted shows 16 lots. Katherine Mills Myers of 176 Colon Street addresses the Board and states that she supports the project. She further states that the developer has built a trusting relationship with the neighbors. Matz asks if comments have been submitted from other departments noting that this is a concept plan and is theoretical, not being proposed. Ned Barrett states that he would like to see viable building lots rather than simply parsing out lots. Pa Beverly Planning Board May 20, 2014 Ogren addresses the Board and notes that the wetland resource areas have been determined and an Order of Conditions from the Conservation Commission has been issued. He also notes that there is a steep slope at the rear of the property and they expect that there will be some flattening and smoothing, removal of ledge and material will be moved around. McGrail states that the preferred plan of the developer is the 16 lot plan. Hutchinson asks if the Board needs to vote on the waiver less plan. Thomson states that he feels that the waivered plan is the one that the Board should be addressing. He states that this looks to be minor in nature and typical of what the Board has granted in the past. Hutchinson: Motion to approve the Request for Waivers of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations as Applied to the Yield Plan Under OSRD and to approve the Yield Plan. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). McGrail states that two concept plans were submitted and describes them to the Board. Zambernardi reviews comment letters from the following Boards and Departments: Conservation Commission: Reviewed the plan at its April 29, 2014 meeting and requested the following: The area for stockpiling should be removed. McGrail notes the area proposed for stockpiling on the plan. He notes that they did a number of test pits on that site and the soil is not suitable for housing, noting that it is all top soil; Requested that lot #16 be moved noting stormwater retention basins. Katherine Mills Myers addresses the Board and stated that she attended the Conservation Commission walk through the site and explained that the Commission did not want the house too close to the pond. C. Barrett asked how many feet is the house proposed from the pond. McGrail explains that lot 16 is 105 feet from the pond. Board of Health: Has reviewed the plan and made recommendations for the Board to consider in approving the plan as follows: Prior to site work start up and during site construction shall employ a licensed pest control firm for site evaluation and service. Acceptable methods for dust control and street cleaning shall be implemented. If fill is brought to the site the applicant must comply with Board of Health regulations regarding Soil and Solid Fill Regulations. The design proposal must concur with the Engineering Department, Inspections Department, and Conservation Commission for 3 Beverly Planning Board May 20, 2014 all utility connections, water supply, gas, sanitary waste etc. In accordance with the Beverly Noise Control Regulations, noise sources associated with the construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real property shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekday, including Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays or federal, state and local holidays. The final surface must be graded so as to create any stagnant water and or runoff which could create objectionable conditions. All wastes generated by the development activities must be appropriately stored and removed in a timely manner. McGrail states that the Board of Health comments are straight forwards and they have no issues. Open Space and Recreation Committee reviewed the plan and requested the following: Access to Kelleher Pond to the city by gift to the city and that the trails in the area of the Hannah School be maintained. Sidewalks be installed on both sides of the street to maintain the integrity along the pond. Conservation Restriction be granted to the Beverly Land Trust McGrail states that they will meet with the OSRC to review their proposals. He also states that they are open to working with the Conservation Commission and the OSRC on all aspects of the open space and they are happy to do it. Matz reports that the OSRC's concern is to make sure that the existing trail systems are maintained within the property as open space and that the public continue to have access around the pond. McGrail states that they can talk about sidewalks but it goes against the design parameters and they would think that one sidewalk would be adequate. Hutchinson states that the second concept plan shows two back lots and questions if there is an easement proposed. McGrail explains that is how the grading worked out. Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on the matter. Zambernardi explains that the task before the Board is to select the preferred plan. She also states that the Board can impose conditions if they so choose. She also explains that the site plan submitted will have to be consistent with the preferred plan but does not have to be exact, noting that this is a basic layout. Thomson asks if the Fire Department has reviewed the design. Mr. DiBiase states 4 Beverly Planning Board May 20, 2014 that they met with the Fire Department and they have no objections to the minimum width of the road and they also have no objection to putting up a chain. Zambernardi explains that during the Site Plan Review process the Board will solicit comments from other City Boards and Commissions as well as the City Departments. Hutchinson: Motion to approve concept plan #2 and to incorporate the comments received from the Beverly Board of Health, the Open Space and Recreation Committee, and the Beverly Conservation Commission. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Zambernardi informed the developer and his representatives that the next meetings of the Planning Board are June 17, 2014 and July15, 2014 in consideration of the filing of the Site Plan Review for the project. Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan #111 -13 — 50 Dunham Road — Anderson Clark. LLC Steve Drohosky is present for the applicant. Drohosky addresses the Board and explains that the Board approved the site plan on July 23, 2013 for the new development at 50 Dunham Road for the construction of the five story, first class, mixed use building and a precast concrete open parking garage which is currently under construction and various landscaping and parking features. He explains that since then their design, engineering, and construction groups have advanced several minor modifications to the approved site plan, primarily due to the fact that they have encountered abundant ledge and poor soil conditions on the site. Drohosky explains that the modifications can be described as tweaks to the parking lot layout, improvements to site drainage, and an expansion of the 48 building to the west. He reviews the following modifications: 1. Addition of five parking spaces and reconfiguration of curb lines at the Grade Level Loading Area at the north end of the existing 50 Dunham Road building. 2. Reconfiguration of parking areas on the east, west and north sides of 48 Dunham Road 3. Reconfiguration of parking areas and vehicle access on the east, west and south sides of the parking garage. 4. Elimination of the "bioretention cells" on the west side of 48 Dunham Road and east side of the parking garage, and replacement with a more beneficial system of multiple stormcepters and a subsurface stormwater recharge system. These drainage modifications were unanimously approved by the Beverly Conservation 5 Beverly Planning Board May 20, 2014 Commission at its meeting on April 29, 2014 5. Expansion of 48 Dunham Road to the west, which expansion does not require full Site Plan Review in an IR zone. The drainage modifications associated with this expansion were incorporated into the above mentioned Conservation Commission approval of April 29, 2014. 6. Enhancement of the landscaping throughout the construction area and adjacent areas. Hutchinson asks how big the proposed addition is to 48 Dunham Road. Drohosky states that it is 24,000 s.f. Miller questions how the modification on the parking garage is considered a minor modification. Drohosky explains that the ramp is being moved outside and increases parking without changing the size of the building. Thomson notes that the Conservation Commission has issued an amended Order of Conditions allowing the proposed changes. Drohosky agrees noting they issued normal conditions and they agree with the handling of the drainage on the site. Matz asks Drohosky to explain the subsurface infiltration system. Drohosky explains how the system will work on the site. Matz asks if the water will be filtered. Drohosky states that it will not be filtered. Matz asks if this exceeds the threshold for the requirements of a major modification review. Zambernardi reviews the regulations for the review of a minor modification and notes that the percentage of increase in the gross square footage shall not exceed 30% of the building and the proposed change is about 20% of the existing building. She also noted that the Planning Department has reviewed this request and recommends that the Board favorably consider reviewing the changes as a minor modification. Thomson agrees noting that there seems to be nothing contrary to the public interest. Miller questions if the Parking and Traffic Commission has reviewed the changes to the parking requested. Drohosky reported that the Parking and Traffic Commission has reviewed the plan and has requested a parking study on the level of service for the intersection of Dunham Road and Brimbal Avenue and to review it with them a year after the certificate of occupancy is granted. Zambernardi reports that Sean Ciancarelli of the Engineering Department has reviewed the changes proposed and he has no issues with them. R Beverly Planning Board May 20, 2014 Hutchinson: Motion to find that the requested modifications to the approved site plan for 50 Dunham Road are minor in nature. Flannery seconded the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Hutchinson: Motion to approve the minor modifications requested for site plan #111- 13 as submitted. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan #108 -12 — Inclusionary Housing #04- 12- Cabot Street Apartments —130 Cabot Street LLC Attorney Chris Latham is present for the applicant. Latham addresses the Board and explains that the minor modifications being requested are being made to comply with changes to the City of Beverly Zoning Ordinance. He explains that the city amended the ordinance relative to parking in ways that directly impact this project. He further explains that they cannot account for required parking in public lots within 500 feet in excess of 25 %. Latham explains that they have submitted a revised proposal which involves a modified site plan and a modified Inclusionary Housing Permit. He explains that no special permits are requested and the plan conforms to existing zoning requirements, including parking. The density of the project has been reduced to a new 3 story building with 11 residential units and two commercial spaces. The proposed commercial spaces have not changed in size and the mix of the residential units is 1 studio, (8) 1 bedroom units with a den, and (2) 3 bedroom units. The total bedroom count has been reduced from 25 bedrooms to 15 bedrooms. Thirteen (13) parking spaces are required for the residential units and they are provided on site in the rear lot. The parking spaces for the commercial units are provided for on the municipal lot across Cabot Street. Latham further explains that the proposed parking space on Vestry Street has been eliminated and replaced with additional landscaping. There is a National Grid transformer with bollards that will be placed in that vicinity on the property. Flannery notes that the original plans called for 13 one bedroom units and now they are proposing 8 one bedroom units with a den. N. Barrett questions if the changing of two one bedroom units to 1 bedroom with a den is an end run to get around the parking requirements. Zambernardi reports that the Planning Department consulted with the Building Department and they indicated that the see no reason why this cannot be done in the INA Beverly Planning Board May 20, 2014 regulations. Thomson states that he would like to see them install French doors with glass panels between the rooms to prevent the "den" from becoming a bedroom. Latham explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission reviewed this proposal in terms of traffic flow. He noted that the parking presented this evening is consistent with what was approved the last time. Thomson states that the lack of parking was an issue during the first approval process and this could be the equivalent of an end run. He asks Planning Board members if they feel that a condition regarding sleeping in the dens of the one bedroom units would be appropriate. He notes that they are not restricting the number of occupants. Ward Two City Councilor Estelle Rand addresses the Board and asks which units in the project would be affordable units. Latham responds. Hutchinson questions if a condition regarding no sleeping in the den is enforceable. Miller asks if there are any compact parking spaces proposed. Latham explains that there are two compact spaces proposed. N. Barrett notes that there was a great deal of public interest in this project when it was before the Board last year and he would like to give the public a chance to weigh in. He further notes that it appears that this is a by right plan but he does not want to short change people. Hutchinson: moves to find that the requested modifications to the approved site plan #108 -12 — Inclusionary Housing #04 -12- Cabot Street Apartments — 130 Cabot Street LLC is a major modification. N. Barrett seconded the motion. The motion carries (5- 2). Thomson informs the applicant that the Planning Board will schedule a public hearing on the matter for their next meeting on June 17, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. Miller suggests that the Parking and Traffic Commission should review this. Flannery notes that there are no changes to the outside of the building so there is no need for the Design Review Board to review it. Request for Extension of Permits: Special Permit #122 -10 — 865 Hale Street — Kevin Barry W Beverly Planning Board May 20, 2014 Zambernardi states that Mr. Barry has submitted a letter to the Board requesting acknowledgement of the additional 2 year automatic extension granted by Section 74 and 75 of Chapter 238 of the Acts of 2012 to May 19, 2016. Hutchinson: Motion to acknowledge the new completion date for 865 Hale Street to May 19, 2016. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0) Special Permit #114 -07 — 10 -12 Congress Street — Beverly Office Development LLC Zambernardi states that the applicant has submitted a letter to the Board requesting a one year extension beyond May 29, 2015 making the new date May 29, 2016. The reason cited for the delay in construction is the softness of the condominium market and the recent death of one of the principals of the partnership owning the property and a delay due to the modification of the project to provide for rip rap along the boundary of the Danvers River. Hutchinson: Motion to acknowledge the new completion date for 10 -12 Congress Street to May 19, 2016. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0) Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly City Council Zambernardi informs the Board that the City Council has scheduled a Joint Public Hearing with the Beverly Planning Board for Monday, June 16, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. for the amendment to the Beverly Zoning Map to include the Beverly Harbor Interim Planning Overlay District and amendment to the Beverly Zoning Ordinance Chapter 38 -31 introducing a new section (38 -31 F) entitled "Beverly Harbor Interim Planning Overlay District" (BHIPOD) N. Barrett: Motion to concur with the City Council that the Joint Public Hearing with the Beverly City Council be scheduled for June 16, 2014 at 7:20 p.m. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Zambernardi will distribute the zoning amendments to members via email prior to the meeting. 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) �; Beverly Planning Board May 20, 2014 The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 10