Loading...
2014-12-16Minutes December 16, 2014 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: December 16, 2014 Location: Beverly Senior Center Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, John Mullady, Catherine Barrett, James Matz, David Mack, and Ned Barrett Members Absent: Wayne Miller Others Present: Assistant City Planner Leah Zambernardi, and City Planner Aaron Clausen Recorder: Eileen Sacco Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Flannery: motion to recess for public hearings. Miller seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans 14 Beaver Pond Road — Carmen and Elizabeth Frattaroli Attorney Thomas Alexander with offices at 1 School Street, Beverly, MA., addresses the Board and informs the Board that his client has withdrawn the application at this time. He explains that planning staff have raised questions regarding the plan and they are withdrawing at this time and anticipate that they will be filing in time for the next meeting. Flannery: Motion to allow the applicant to withdraw the application for a SANR at this time without prejudice. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). Concurrent Public Hearings — Site Plan Review Application #112 -14 and Special Permit Application #138 -14 —Site Plan Review Application to Construct Five Story Building with Associated Surface Structured Parking, Solar Support Structure, and Special Permit to Deviate from Required Parking at 50 Dunham Road Steve Drohosky addresses the Planning Board and explains that they are requesting a Special Permit and Site Plan Review to construct a five story building with associated surface structured parking, a solar support structure and a special permit to deviate from required parking at 52 Dunham Road. Drohosky explains the site and the location of the proposed building. He notes that they have been through a five month review process with the Beverly Conservation Commission for a Page 1 of 7 Minutes December 16, 2014 Notice of Intent and the Commission has issued an Order of Conditions which has been recorded with the Registry of Deeds. Drohosky reported that the Conservation Commission issued 15 special conditions for the project and reviews them with the Board. Drohosky also reports that they went before the Beverly Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance from height requirements to finish the grading for the site and the variance was granted on November 10, 2014 and has been recorded with the Registry of Deeds. Drohosky explains that they are seeking a Special Permit from required parking. He explains that they believe that there will be less of a need for the required parking due to the use of the space in the buildings which will be manufacturing and office space. He notes that they have reviewed Smart Parking models at the request of the Planning Department and notes that they reviewed Cambridge, Westwood and Sudbury. He also notes that the wave of the future is to build the amount of parking that is actually needed for a site. He notes that the Sudbury proposal calls for the addition of border parking only if needed. Drohosky explains that Beverly Zoning calls for 4 spaces per 1,000 s.f of floor area and explains the expected parking practices for the site. He states that they are using much less parking than zoning requires at the Cummings Center. He explains that they are proposing 3.2 spaces per 1,000 s.f. at Dunham Road. He also notes that they will be using aTransportation Demand Manager to reduce traffic. Thomson asks for questions from the Planning Board members at this time. N. Barrett asks if any consideration has been given to using shuttles between the train stations and the Dunham Road site Drohosky states that they have no plans to do so at this time. He notes that the expansion of the 451 bus route is something that could be looked into. He also notes that Thermo Fisher a tenant at the Cummings Center tried providing shuttles for their employees and it did not take hold. N. Barrett suggests that it might be an opportunity to contact the MBTA if there is a demand and if not they could revisit it as time goes on. Thomson notes that included in the application is a list of TDM recommendations. Drohosky explains that they are some employer incentives such as bringing in lunch, suggesting carpooling, hiring local residents etc. Zambernardi explains that the city will soon be adopting a transportation demand management ordinance and since the city does not have one on the books at this time we can suggest it but not require it. Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Rose Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street addresses the Board and states that it is her understanding that projects with over 1,000 parking spaces require an EIR. Drohosky reports that an EIR has not been done and notes that the Conservation Commission has thoroughly reviewed the project. Page 2 of 7 Minutes December 16, 2014 Matz asks if any of the thresholds that would have required an EIR met. Drohosky explains that none of the thresholds have been met that would trigger the EIR. Flannery asks if they have met with the Dunham Road neighbors regarding the project. Drohosky reports that an open house was held and Dunham Road neighbors were invited as well as the residents of the condos at North Ridge. He states that about 30 people from the condos attended and most were supportive of the project. Mack refers to the comment letters from the City Engineer and the Parking and Traffic Commission regarding the project. Zambernardi reviews the letters with the Board. City Planner Aaron Clausen explains that as part of the process the Parking and Traffic Commission requested two mitigation items. He explains that one was to widen the road at Dunham Road and Brimbal Avenue and the other was the installation of a traffic signal at that site as well. He explains that the applicant felt that the traffic signal would not be needed a future time to be determined, if it is found to be needed at all, and offered a monetary contribution of $225,000. He notes that the traffic signal does not appear to be warranted at this time. Clausen reports that the City Engineer reviewed the cost estimates for the widening of the road and the cost of the traffic signal and notes that the total cost estimate is more likely to be in line with $328,000, noting future elements of installation and a3% escalation in the estimate. Drohosky states that there should be some tweaks in that estimate noting that $50,000 would be a more reasonable escalation noting that Jacobs Engineering estimates the cost to be $225,000 and the city included the cost for the widening of the road. He also stresses that the traffic signal may not be needed and they have agreed the money could be used for other traffic improvements in the area. Thomson suggests that the matter be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Board on January 21, 2015 and that should give the city and the applicant time to come to an agreement on the cost of the mitigation. Mack: moves to continue the Public Hearing for 50 Dunham Road to January 21, 2015. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). Concurrent Public Hearings — Site Plan Review Application #113 -14 and Special Permit Application #139 -14 —Site Plan Review Application to Build out North Shore Crossing — 140 Brimbal Avenue — CEA Beverly Thomson addresses those present and notes that the discussion this evening will be on the response to the review of the engineering issues raised by the consultant for the Planning Board and traffic will be discussed at a special Planning Board meeting to be held on January 13, 2015 at the Beverly Senior Center at 7:00 p.m. He asks that those with comments keep them to engineering issues this evening. Page 3 of 7 Minutes December 16, 2014 Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board on behalf of the applicant CEA Group and notes that he is joined this evening by Steve Cohen, Ron Goleb, Matt Madden, Steve Kramer and Carlton Quinn. He recalls that at the last meeting civil engineering matters were discussed and they have responded to the review of the project by Devellis Zrein Inc. Mr. Cohen addresses the Board and states that the hope this evening is to address the stormwater management, landfill and environmental issues, and any issues other than traffic. He notes that there are 21 comments from the peer review done for the city and they have responded to them. Mr. Cohen notes that one of the issues is the North Ridge pipe that drains onto their property. He explains that they have taken that into consideration and their concerns regarding another portion drains on their site will be addressed. Mr. Cohen also reported that there is a 24 inch city drain pipe on the site that needs to be repaired or replaced and or relocated and they are proposing that if necessary they would take a condition that the drain pipe be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Carlton Quinn of Allen & Major addresses the Board and notes that he is the project engineer that designed the drainage for the site. He reviews the responses to the issues raised by Devellis Zrein Inc. regarding the drainage for the site. Devellis Zrein addresses the Board and states that they have completed a review of the response to their review and agree that the remaining issues are technical issues regarding the offsite drainage for the condos. Thomson clarifies that the overall design is collecting runoff that will be carried to where it needs to go and there is agreement in concept but they need to make the design work. Zrein agrees. Thomson asks if members of the Planning Board have any questions at this time. Mack suggests that there should be a contingency plan in place if both have misjudged the capacity of the 24 inch pipe. Quinn states that typically most systems are designed for 10 -25 year storms and they have designed this for a 100 year storm, noting that we have had 100 year storms in the past. He explains the plan and the areas of pavement on the site. He states that they feel that they have a good design that will work. Zrein states that at the end of the day they have to agree that it works and notes that the key to it is maintaining the property. Matz questions what the upstream of the site is. Quinn notes the location on the plan. He notes that the site is designed for a 100 year storm. C. Barrett asks how old the 24 inch pipe is. Quinn estimates that it was probably installed in the 1950's. Page 4 of 7 Minutes December 16, 2014 N. Barrett questions if there is a positive impact on the DOT project if there is a contingency plan if a redesign of the project is needed. Quinn explains that DOT is removing certain flow from the area. Cohen states that if the DOT project does not go forward then this project will not go forward. N. Barrett suggests that they take some flow out of the 24 inch pipe noting that if there is any change in the stormwater management there will be a domino effect. Dave Dillore of North Ridge addresses the Board and states that they are concerned about drainage backup on their property. Quinn explains that there will be a swale to collect runoff that will discharge into the 24 inch pipe. Cohen states that the open issues will be addressed by the engineers. He explains that the 24 inch pipe has been inspected and they have a video of it. He explains that they know that the pipe is in need of repairs. Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Rick Marciano of 143 McKay Street addresses the Board and states that he thinks that the pipe was installed in 1947 according to the Beverly GIS. He notes the areas that are of concern to him and requests that the applicant be required to provide a complete layout of the drainage down to the Cummings Center. Quinn explains that they are not increasing the flow to the 24 inch pipe. Rose Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street addresses the Board and states that there is a lot of impervious surface on the site. She states that the project is going to exacerbate the impervious surface on the site. Cohen calls on Matt Madden to review the environmental issues regarding the landfill. He notes that the site has been under the careful watch of DEP and in 2009 they issued approval to build on the site. He notes that there have been some modifications to their approval because the site plan has changed but the landfill issues have not changed in any substantive way. Madden reviews an overview of the landfill noting the history of the property. He notes that there has been extensive testing done on the site since 2005 noting that they have done test pits and ground water monitoring wells and there has been no ground water impact. He notes that there has been discussions with DEP regarding landfill gas but ground water is not an issue for the site. He notes that they have been in discussions with DEP since 2009 and they are prepared to review the new site plan. He also notes that the development will be done under the close supervision of DEP and they will comply with all requirements. Matz states that he did not realize that the landfill was closed in 1961 and there are rumors regarding what is buried there noting batteries sludge and municipal on the site. Page 5 of 7 Minutes December 16, 2014 Cohen explains that they have done 50 -60 test pits as well as 15 -20 monitoring wells on the site and reviews the findings. He notes that there was a layer of fill on top and 1 -3 feet of material such as bricks and broken glass. Matz asks if there was any visual evidence of hazardous waste. Cohen reports that there was none. Cohen explains the process that they would go through with DER regarding the landfill. Matz expresses concern about the landfill gas and questions how the potential pathways will be mitigated noting that it is important to keep the utility areas sealed. Madden explains that previous mitigation consisted of a series of vents and trenches to vent the gas. He also notes that the new design has less infiltration overall and is not a concern to DEP. Zrein notes that Tetra Tech has worked on a number of mitigation projects. Chris Snow of North Ridge addresses the Board and states that he is very concerned about the landfill. Madden reports that there has been signs of debris on the site and notes that test borings show that material has decomposed to a certain extent. He notes that the old municipal landfill was closed using DER solid waste regulations and this development will meet all of those requirements. Cohen introduces Steve Kramer of Haley and Aldrich to discuss the geotechnical aspects of the project. Kramer addresses the Board and states that he is sensitive to the public concern about the landfill closure and explains his experience with projects. He explains the measures that are proposed to be taken to make sure the site is in compliance with DER regulations. He notes that the building will have a proper foundation and the roadways and pavement on the site will have enough pitch for runoff He also notes that the groundwater on the site is as clean as he has ever seen and he does not expect any effects on water quality. Pam DeAngelis of Brimbal Avenue addresses the Board and notes that DOT was concerned about building on the site and refers to a letter from them that goes into detail on the matter. Dan DeAngelis of Brimbal Avenue addresses the Board and notes the location of the driveway between the A & B buildings and asks if there is any proposal to re- engineer the road. Mr. Cohen states that it will be discussed at the next meeting regarding the traffic study. Rich Marciano addresses the Board and asks to have the location of the brook clarified. Madden locates the area of the brook on the plan. Thomson states that he would like to stop here for this evening and notes that the Planning Board is holding a special meeting on January 13, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. He notes that the meeting will be exclusively about traffic. Flannery: moves to continue the public hearing to January 13, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Beverly Senior Center. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion carries. Page 6 of 7 Minutes December 16, 2014 Request to Set Public Hearing Date — Special Permit 141 -14 — 51 Standley Street — RC Realty Trust Zambernardi explains that the applicant has submitted an application for a special permit to create a pork chop lot on which an existing dwelling is located having frontage of 90.81 feet of frontage. She notes that the Board needs to set a public hearing date for this matter. She notes that the hearing should be held by January 24, 2015 unless an extension of time is granted by the applicant. Thomson suggests that the Board request an extension of time on the matter. Attorney Alexander states that they would agree to an extension. Cluster Subdivision Plan — Chapman's Corner Estates (Settlement Plan) — Expiration of Letter of Credit (1/15/2015) and Request for Bond Reduction — David Carnevale, Manager, Manor Homes Development Zambernardi explains that the Letter of Credit is posted to guarantee the completion of the project and it is set expire on January 15, 2015. She notes that the developer will be submitting a new Letter of Credit for acceptance by the Board. She also explains that the developers engineer Griffin Engineering has submitted a request to reduce the bond amount from $160,113 to $141, 940 indicating that the developer has installed approximately 160 feet of sidewalk and 420 feet of granite curbing, 125 feet of wooden split rail fence along the block retaining walls at the wetland crossing. She note that the work completed amounts to $25,173. Zambernardi also notes that this has been reviewed by the City Engineer and he agrees. Hutchinson: Motion accept the new Letter of Credit and to reduce the amount of the bond for the Chapman's Corner Estates to $141,940. Mack seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0) Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Planning Board meetings held on May 5, 2014, May 20, 2014, June 16, 2014, and July 15, 2015 were presented for approval. Mack moves to approve the minutes as amended. Mullady seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Mack to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Hutchinson. The motion carried (9 -0) The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Page 7 of 7