Loading...
2015-09-15Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: September 15, 2015 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair John Thomson, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, Catherine Barrett, James Matz, David Mack, Ned Barrett, Wayne Miller Members Absent: None Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Eileen Sacco Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans 12 Enon Street — Stanley Walkup, Philip Walkup, and Virginia Turner Stanley Walkup addresses the Planning Board and explains that they have submitted an SANR plan to transfer 5,878 s.f of land, divided from the property located at 12 Enon Street which is an "L" shaped lot to the adjacent property located at IOH Enon Street and 10 Enon Street. He explained that each property will receive 2,939 s.f of land identified as each Parcel A and Parcel B on the SANR plan. He notes that the land transfer will not alter the frontage of either of the properties, both of which front on Enon Street and are currently non - conforming lots. The 12 Enon Street property will retain 14,528 s.f of frontage following the land transfer and will comply with lot area requirements but not the frontage, which is a pre- existing non - conforming condition. Walkup explains that the receiving parcels are both existing non - conforming lots with less than 10,000 s. f. of frontage and the land transfer will bring them closer to conformity relative to lot area requirements. Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne stated that Planning Staff has reviewed the plan for conformance with the Board's requirements for a SANR plan and recommends endorsement of the plan. Thomson asked if there are any questions regarding this plan from members of the Board. Mack questioned the adequacy of frontage of the three lots. Wynne clarified that all lots are existing non - conforming. There being no further questions or comments regarding this application: Page 1 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 C. Barrett: Motion to endorse the SANR as submitted 12 Enon Street. Matz seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). 32/40 Brackenbury Lane — Jeffrey and Janeen Barnett Thomson recuses himself from discussion of this matter and Mack assumes the Chair. Hutchinson arrives to the meeting at approximately 7:35. Janeen Barnett addresses the Planning Board and explains that they are requesting endorsement of an SANR plan to re- divide, or redraw the lot line between Lot 4C -2 (32 Brackenbury Lane) and Lot 6A (40 Brackenbury Lane). She explained that no new lots will be created and notes that the plan creates Parcel A and Parcel B which are each 267 s.f. Parcel A will become part of Lot 6A and Parcel B will become part of Lot 4C -2 and the proposed plan effectively straightens the lot line between the two parcels which will bring her property into conformance and allow them to build an accessory building on her property. Wynne reported that Planning staff have reviewed the plan for conformance with the Board's requirements and recommends endorsement of the plan. Mack asks if members of the Board have any questions. C. Barrett questions if there is an addition being built on one of the lots. Applicant indicates there is an addition proposed and it is the reason for the lot line change. There being no further questions or comments regarding this application: C. Barrett: Motion to endorse the SANR as submitted 32/40 Brackenbury Lane. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Thomson returns to the meeting at this time. 159 Lothrop Street and 16 Orchard Street — Lawrence and Patricia Scanlon Atty. Thomas Alexander with offices at 1 School Street, Beverly, addresses the Board on behalf of his clients Lawrence and Patricia Scanlon. He explains the history of the ownership of the property and explains that the Scanlon's have submitted a SANR for endorsement to clarify that the lots shown (Lots 4 &5 and Lot 19) are two separate lots. He notes that no new lots will be created. He explains that while the lots are currently under common ownership as a result of probate, the properties have been separately assessed for water, sewer and taxes by the City and the applicant is requesting the SANR to formally recognize the two lots as two distinct lots. Atty. Alexander explains that 159 Lothrop Street is an existing non - conforming lot in regards to the front and side setbacks. He notes that the approval of the SANR will not make Lots 4 &5 any Page 2 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 more or less conforming. He also explains that 16 Orchard Street (Lot 19) is an existing non- conforming lot in regards to size, frontage and rear setbacks and approval of the SANR will not make Lot 19 any more non - conforming. Thomson confirms that the lots have always been shown on plans as separate lots. Thomson also confirms that the applicant is looking to ratify the existing state of facts. Applicant's attorney agrees. Thomson asks if members of the Board have any further questions regarding the SANR plan. There being no questions or comments regarding this application: C. Barrett: Motion to endorse the SANR for 159 Lothrop Street and 16 Orchard Street as submitted. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Thomson states at this time that the Board will take the posted agenda out of order to take up the matter of a Performance Bond Reduction for DUC Residential LLC. Open Space and Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan and Definitive Subdivision Plan — Essex Crossing 232 Essex Street — Performance Bond Reduction — DUC Residential LLC Paul DiBiase addresses the Board and explains that he is requesting a surety bond reduction for the OSRD Site Plan and Definitive Subdivision Plan for Essex Crossing located at 232 Essex Street. He explained that he has met with City Engineer Greg St. Louis who has reviewed the currently completed pavement binder installation work. He explained that he is requesting that the bond be reduced from $293,998.67 to release $100,476.60 leaving $193,522.07 as surety for the anticipated completion of construction and street acceptance activities at Essex Crossing. Wynne read into the record the recommendation by Greg St. Louis, City Engineer. Mack: Motion to approve the reduction in the Performance Bond for Essex Crossing as proposed. N. Barrett seconded the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Continuation of Public Hearing — Off Nelson Avenue — Definitive Subdivision Plan — Creation of Two new Lots and Extension of Nelson Avenue — Matthew E. Power. Trustee of Fairlee Nominee Real , Trust Mack moves to waive the reading of the legal notice. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries. Atty. Henry Rappa addresses the Board on behalf of the applicant and recalls that at the July 21, 2015 Planning Board meeting the Board opened the public hearing on their submission of a Minor Subdivision Plan to extend the end of Nelson Avenue 100 feet to create frontage for two new single family building lots partially located in Beverly and Wenham, with the buildings Page 3 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 located in Beverly. He explains that the property located within the City of Beverly is subject to an Agreement for Judgment of Land Court whereby Mr. Power has title to the parcel of land totaling 22,669 s.f of land. Atty. Rappa explains that at the public hearing, Chairman Thomson requested a copy of the Declaration of Access Easement of Restrictive Covenant resulting from the judgment and they have submitted that to the Board. Atty. Rappa also explained that there has been one major change to the plan and explains that one of the houses has been pushed outside of the MBTA easement. Thomson notes that they are asking for a waiver from construction of the roadway to a private driveway. Atty. Rappa explains that they are requesting a private driveway that will be maintained by the property owner and that a Declaration of Covenants has been provided in the packets which assigns maintenance responsibility to the lot owners, via a Homeowner's Association. He also notes that they have provided an access easement to the City of Beverly to access other City -owned lands, which was part of the judgment with the City, as well as a restricted covenant regarding what can be built in Wenham. Atty. Rappa also noted that there was a question as to which community will provide municipal services and explains that they have submitted an Inter - Municipal Agreement between the City of Beverly and the Town of Wenham which indicates what services will be provided by each community and what will be privately maintained. Thomson questioned if the Homeowner's Association includes all three lots. Atty. Rappa indicated the Homeowner's Association only includes the two lots in Beverly. Thomson opens the public hearing up for questions from the members of the Planning Board at this time. Upon a question by Flannery, Atty. Rappa showed that the Wenham property is accessed through Nelson Ave. Matz stated that protection of the environment is a concern of his and asks what kind of fill they would be using. Atty. Rappa stated that 50% of the fill will be imported, noting that the Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions. Matz noted that from an engineering standpoint differentiated fill material can cause differential settlement and is looking for reassurance that settlement won't be an issue. Atty. Rappa noted that the engineer reviewed the fill, drainage, and elevations at the July meeting and showed the impacts would be minimal. Matz asks for an explanation of compensation of displaced flood storage shown on plan. Atty. Rappa indicates that the engineer addressed stormwater management at the prior meeting. Miller asks which community would be providing trash removal for the site. Atty. Rappa reported that trash removal and recycling would be provided by the City of Beverly for the two properties in Beverly only. Page 4 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 Miller asked if the utilities for the site would be underground. Atty. Rappa reported that all utilities would be underground. Thomson explains that the applicant is requesting seven (7) waivers and asks Wynne to review the requested waivers. Wynne explains the requested waivers as follows: 1. Section III, 2, D — Identifying Existing Trees Reason for Request: Small and insignificant trees are existent. Once the entire development is laid out, a conservative effort will be made to preserve vegetation. 2. Section III, 2, O — No Roadway Profiles were provided Reason for Request: The request is a minor extension of the roadway (100 feet) 3. Section III, 2, Q — No existing sizes of pipes were provided for water and sewer Reason for Request: Once plans are further developed all pipe sizes will be added. 4. Section III, 2, S — No proposed street trees were provided Reason for Request: Small and insignificant trees are existent. Once the entire development is laid out, a conservative effort will be made to preserve vegetation 5. Section III, 2, T — Proposed pavement width is 24' not 32'. No curbing will be provided. (Granite not bituminous concrete). Sidewalks will not be provided. Reason for Request: Existing 32' roadway is very wide. 24' is adequate for this minor extension. 6. Section III, 2, U — No proposed street lights will be provided. Reason for Request: The request is a minor extension of the roadway (100 feet) 7. Section IV, A, 1, B — No turnaround will be provided for these two lots, not a typical cul- de -sac configuration Reason for Request: Turnaround will occur in the Town of Wenham Wynne notes that the majority of the requested waivers are in line with the fact that the plan proposes a common driveway rather than a public roadway. Miller seeks clarification as to why the applicant would not identify existing trees. Atty. Rappa notes that this is a fairly small project with two (2) lots with a small private driveway and it makes it economically viable to have waivers from some of these standard subdivision rules. C. Barrett asked why they are requesting a waiver from street lighting and asks if there would also be no street lighting on the Wenham side of the project. Atty. Rappa confirmed that there will be no lighting on the Wenham side of the project. Page 5 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 Mack asks what the rationale is for the reduction in the roadway to 24 feet. Atty. Rappa explains that the road would not have a significant amount of traffic and 24 feet will serve the three houses. He also explains that it will cut down on the disturbance to the area. Rappa also adds that the project will clean -up the area and provide some access to the Wenham property. Thomson notes there are comments from other Boards and Commission regarding this matter. Wynne reports that the comments from other City Boards and Commissions were reviewed at the last meeting and no additional comments have been received since then. Thomson opened the hearing up for public comment at this time. Steve Borgison of 31 Wirling Drive addresses the Board and expressed his concerns about the fill proposed for the site and the impact that the project will have on his property. Clausen explains that the fill proposed is additional material that will be placed below the flood elevations during a 100 -year storm. He also explains that new material will be used in the flood elevation and the applicant is required to provide compensation elsewhere on the site. The plan has been reviewed by the Beverly Conservation Commission and they have issued an Order of Conditions. Atty. Rappa confirms that the City of Beverly has the authority to adjust the City's access easement, but that is not a guarantee that it will do so. The easement was a result of the judgment between the applicant and the City. These agreements have been reviewed by the City Solicitor. David Butler of 42 Nelson Avenue addresses the Board and states that he is concerned that if the property is paved it is going to change the direction of the runoff on the site and will impact his property. Clausen explains that the regulations do not allow for an increase in stormwater now and notes that the City Engineer will be making sure that the stormwater now will not increase on the site. Cory Paulette of 27 Wirling Drive addresses the Board and recalls the Mother's Day storm and the flooding issues that they had on their property. He stated that he is concerned about flooding at the cost to the taxpayers and the homeowners in the area. Planning Board member Miller notes that the plans show that the applicant is proposing flood storage compensation of the displaced flood storage on the northern portion of the Wenham property and asked the applicant to show it on the plan. Atty. Rappa explained that the area is located north of the lots and reviews the plan with the Board. Matt Power, applicant, addresses the Board and further explains the location of the area and notes that they are filling about a half foot of the area. Hutchinson asks for demonstration of how the runoff from the two properties will flow. Mr. Power explains the plan and notes the direction of the runoff to a drainage basin on Nelson Avenue. Page 6 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 N. Barrett clarifies that the requested waivers for the project do not involve the stormwater runoff and that stormwater management has been discussed with the City Engineer. Clausen notes that the City Engineer's comments have not been yet responded to and that the Board can condition an approval upon the response to those questions. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Hutchinson: Motion to close the public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. C. Barrett questions if the waivers requested are fairly typical of small projects. Clausen explains that a lot of the waivers requested directly improve the stormwater and from the City's perspective it is a positive redesign of the road width. He notes that the Fire Department feels that they have adequate access and it is safe to reduce the standard. There being no further questions or comments: Hutchinson: Motion to grant each of the seven (7) waivers requested: 1. Section III, 2, D — Identifying Existing Trees 2. Section III, 2, O — No Roadway Profiles were provided 3. Section III, 2, Q — No existing sizes of pipes were provided for water and sewer 4. Section III, 2, S — No proposed street trees were provided 5. Section III, 2, T — Proposed pavement width is 24' not 32'. No curbing will be provided. (Granite not bituminous concrete). Sidewalks will not be provided. 6. Section III, 2, U — No proposed street lights will be provided. 7. Section IV, A, 1, B — No turnaround will be provided for these two lots, not a typical cul- de -sac configuration Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -1, with Matz opposing). Hutchinson: Motion to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan — Creation of Two new Lots and Extension of Nelson Avenue — Matthew E. Power, Trustee of Fairlee Nominee Realty Trust, subject to the clarifications set forth in the comments by various City Departments. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -1, with Matz opposing). Continuation of Public Hearing — Special Permit Application #147 -15 — Request to Share On -Site Parking for Mixed Use Property (Section 38- 25.D.1) — Appleseed's Square Condominium Trust 50 Dodge Street Matz recused himself from discussion of this matter. Mack moves to waive the reading of the legal notice. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Page 7 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 Attorney Thomas Alexander and Jeff Rhuda were present for the applicants. Atty. Alexander with offices at 1 School Street addresses the Commission and explains that they are requesting a Special Permit from the Planning Board for relief on the number of parking spaces required per zoning under Section 38- 25.A(4) and Section 38 -25.13 (1). Alexander explains that the Planning Board has the ability to grant a Special Permit to reduce parking requirements by 50 percent provided a mixed use project subject to a number of conditions are met. Alexander reviews the conditions as follows: 1. The extent to which projected parking demands for the proposed uses overlap or conflict is not substantial. 2. The mix of proposed uses can reasonably be expected to share spaces compatibly. 3. In the event that conditions such as use change, or the shared parking arrangement is discontinued, the owners shall notify the Building Commissioner and Planning Board in writing within 10 days of such change or discontinuance. Alexander explains that the change is requested due to the closing of the Country Curtains shop and it will be replaced with a Doctor's Express Urgent Care, a medical office land use. He notes that they will occupy the same square footage in the same space that was formerly Country Curtains and there will be no changes to the site layout, parking layout, or the footprint of the building are proposed. Alexander explains that the applicant has engaged a transportation engineering consultant to prepare a Parking Demand Analysis for the consideration of the Commission. He reported that the analysis in summary found that the required number of spaces for the site well exceeds the observed peak demand at the site. He explains that the peak demand for spaces is 46 on a weekday and 22 on Saturday. He explains that of 95 spaces, 73 were available on Saturday and 49 on weekdays. He noted that the number of spaces required for the use of the doctor's office is 23 spaces and further notes that there are excess spaces on the site to accommodate this request. Alexander reported that the Parking and Traffic Commission has reviewed this request and have made a unanimous recommendation to the Board. As a condition of that approval, the applicant has agreed to come back to the Board for further analysis should a future change of use be proposed. He introduced Bernie Guen from Uanasse Associates. Thomson opens the public hearing up for questions from members of the Planning Board at this time. Mack asks how the 23 spaces for the doctor's office were determined. Mr. Guen explains that zoning requires 1 space per 150 s.f for retail. Mack also asks how a future change of use will be determined. Atty. Alexander confirms it will be according to the zoning ordinance use table. Page 8 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 C. Barrett asks how many patients and employees are expected to use the parking. Atty. Alexander explains that there will be 1 medical doctor, 2 nurses, an X -Ray Technician and 1 office manager. He stated that it is estimated that they would see about four patients per hour. Thomson asks how much parking will be dedicated to the retail spaces on the site. Guen explains that 23 spaces are required for office and 11 spaces were required for the retail, therefore 12 new spaces would be required. Mack recalls that Walgreens was allowed to waive the parking requirements as well. Atty. Alexander noted that the parking analysis indicates that there are a lot of extra spaces on the site. C. Barrett requested confirmation of the number of users on the site and the number of vacancies; Country Curtains being the only vacancy. Miller asks if the Planning Department and the Building Department have determined that the Doctor's Express is a medical office use as defined in the zoning. Atty. Alexander and Mr. Clausen confirm that it is an allowed use for the zoning in the area. Thomson opens the public hearing up for public comment at this time. Theresa Sciavo, Cross Lane, addresses the Board and states that parking is not the issue for this site, it is the configuration of the parking lot and the queue traffic that is created by the Dunkin Donuts. Thompson explains that the City and Symes have little control over the roadway configuration. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter; Miller: Motion to close the public hearing. Mack seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Miller: Motion to approve the Special Permit Application #147 -15 — Request to share on- site parking for mixed use property for new tenant (Section 38- 25.D.1) — 50 Dodge Street — Appleseed's Square Condominium Trust with a condition that any future change of use on the subject property that results in a change of parking requirements be approved by the Planning Board with a formal review and recommendation by the Parking and Traffic Commission. Mack seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Public Hearing and Public Comment Period — OSRD #8 -15 — Initial Review and Yield Plan — Create 6 new lots —11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue — PD Building LLC Page 9 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 Matz returns to the meeting at this time. Wynne reads legal notice. Robert Griffin, Griffin Engineering, is present for the applicants. Griffin addresses the Board and explains that the applicant PD Builders has submitted an OSRD application and Preliminary Subdivision Plan to divide the property at 11 -15 Sunnycrest Avenue into six (6) new building lots. Griffin explains that the project is located on 6.1 acres in the Ryal Side neighborhood and proposes to extend Netherton Avenue to provide access to the new residential lots. He notes that the neighborhood surrounding the site is zoned R -10 and includes many non - conforming single family residential properties. He also notes that the land abutting the site is almost exclusively residential properties. Griffin explains that the Sunnycrest and Netherton Avenue public right of ways abuts the site at the northeast corner and a 50' wide strip of land connects the site to the Hayes Avenue public right of way at the south. He notes an approximately 2 acre parcel of undeveloped land abuts the site along its western boundary. Griffin explains that there are two residential buildings on the property — 11 and 15 Sunnycrest Avenue. He notes that 11 Sunnycrest is a single family ranch style building constructed around 1973 and 15 Sunnycrest is a two - family, two -story colonial style built in approximately 1900. Griffin explains that there are wetland resource areas near the south end of the property. The site receives stormwater runoff from an off -site wetland directly east of the site. He notes that this stormwater runoff enters an approximately 170 foot long 15 inch drainage pipe and flows west within the site, discharging at a wetland area that parallels Hayes Avenue. He also notes that the wetland area receives overflow from the subject property and the wetland area carries flow to a municipal drain located between 27 and 29 Hayes that conveys flows to Hayes Avenue and then west towards Danvers. Griffin explains that the property is densely wooded and there will be significant grading required and reviews the elevations for the site. He notes that the Beverly Conservation Commission issued an Order of Resource Area Delineation (ORAD) in June confirming the boundaries of the wetland resource area on the site. He also notes that most of the area is outside of the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission, noting that there are no flood zones, no vernal pools, and no riverfront areas on the site. Griffin reviews the Yield Plan for the proposed project. He notes that the yield plan shows the demolition of the existing two family residence at the site and construction of eight new residences on two conventional cul -de -sacs. He explains that combined with the existing single family residence at 11 Sunnycrest Avenue, this yields a total of nine single family housing units at the site, an increase of six units as compared to the current use of the property. He clarified Page 10 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 that the basic maximum number of dwelling units under the OSRD ordinance for this application is nine (9). Griffin explains that the proposed lots are positioned along two new streets to Sunnycrest and Netherton Avenues and all of the proposed lots conform to R -10 zoning requirements. He further explains that the proposed streets are short dead end streets and contain cul -de -sac turn areas. The dimensional requirements of the proposed streets are consistent in all respects to the City of Beverly Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land. He also notes that the layout of the site provides ample land for stormwater management at two locations uphill of the wetlands along Hayes Avenue. Discussion on the Yield Plan ensued. Atty. Thomson asks that the yield plan would require no waivers from the City's Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Griffin confirms. Miller requested clarification on the existing drainage system on the east end of the property. Griffin provided additional detail on its condition. Thomson asked the City staff for confirmation that Sunnycrest and Netherton are through streets and not extensions of cul -de -sacs. Wynne confirmed. Thomson notes that there are buildings shown within the 100 foot buffer zone. Griffin explains that there are two house lots that encroach the 100 foot buffer zone and notes that they are not proposing any other encroachment on the plan. Wynne read a summary of the comments on the Yield Plan, indicating that the Conservation Commission observes that the yield plan does not appear to require waivers from the 25 foot No Disturb Zone associated with the wetland and it is the Commission's sense that preparing a Notice of Intent for a yield plan that will not get constructed is not time well spent. Thomson explains that the Planning Board's rules require all approvals to be granted before approval and that this seems to be an exception to that. Matz asks if the yield plan is a waiver less plan. Wynne confirms. Thomson explains the OSRD process and notes that the applicant provides an estimate to satisfy the Planning Board requirement to confirm the maximum number of lots that could be built on the site under a traditional subdivision. The applicant has shown the ability to demolish one existing unit, keep the other existing unit, and develop 8 new units. Thomson opens the public hearing to public comment at this time. Steve Romsavich of 3 Netherton Avenue addresses the Board and asks if there are plans for 17 lots on this site. Thomson explains that the maximum number of lots that could be built on the site is 8. Romsavick also expresses concern about the demolition of a house that is 115 years old. Thomson explains that it is the owner's prerogative and notes that they will have to go to the Beverly Historic District Commission for a permit to demolish and the HDC can delay demolition for up to a year. Page 11 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 Mike Joens of 4 Sunnycrest Avenue addresses the Board asking for confirmation of the number of lots proposed. Griffin explains that in the yield plan they believe they can build 8 new houses plus the 1 existing house for a total of 9 units. Further, the three concept plans presented this evening show various layouts and notes that two alternatives have a total of 7 units and one has a total of 9 units. Joens expressed the opinion that all traffic will go down Sunnycrest and asked the Board whether the road will have enough capacity. Clausen explains that Sunnycrest is a public way and as part of the subdivision plan approval the Planning Board could require improvements to accommodate the new traffic impacts. Thomson indicates this could include widening of the roadway. Joens expressed preference that the road not be widened. Joens expressed a concern for the size of homes to be constructed. Griffin noted that the home sizes will be consistent with the R10 neighborhood, such as that at 11 Sunnycrest. He estimated they will be 3,000 — 3,500 square foot homes but have not looked at architecture yet. Miller notes that the Landscape Architect visited the site during the winter months and the Open Space and Recreation Committee suggested that they should visit the site again during the growing season. Griffin reported that the Landscape Architect visited the site in early March and has done several inspections since then and notes that the conclusions of the March memo did not change as a result of the additional inspections. He offered to provide a follow -up memo. Ursula Romsavich, 3 Netherton Ave, expressed concern for the amount of traffic to be generated from additional housing units. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Mack: Motion to approve the Yield Plan as presented and confirmed by Planning Staff as a waiverless plan in compliance with Planning Board regulations, upon the condition that the applicant provide an updated memorandum from the Landscape Architect confirming no changes from the March observations. Flannery seconded the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carried (8 -0). Griffin reviews the Concept Plans submitted for the project. Griffin explains that Concept Plan A consists of a development containing 7 single family lots (6 new dwellings). He notes that the house lots are clustered together with reduced roadway frontage and minimized setbacks between dwellings. He further notes that the residence at 11 Sunnycrest remains and the residence at 15 Sunnycrest Avenue is removed to provide suitable access to the flat, elevated "potential development area ". He explains how and where stormwater collection would occur, including a detention pond above the 100 foot buffer from the wetland zone. He notes that it would require no further review by the Conservation Commission. He also notes that the cul -de -sac turn - around will meet subdivision regulations and be ample for the Fire Department. Page 12 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 Griffin noted that each concept maintains the same open space area (3.1 acres, without the detention pond), which is significantly above the required amount of open space (2.4 acres) under the OSRD ordinance. Similarly, the concepts exceed the required No Disturb Area. There will be one waiver request on all three plans for work to occur within the required 25 foot buffer to provide access to the detention pond for maintenance. The applicant is not proposing access off of Hayes Avenue. Griffin explains that Concept Plan B is similar to Concept A noting that it anticipates saving the existing residence at 11 Sunnycrest and removing the residence at 15 Sunnycrest Avenue for a proposed roadway, with similar roadway, stormwater management systems, and overall developed area. In addition to the existing single family residence, Concept B anticipates constructing four new duplex style, two family dwellings with a dividing lot line located at the common interior wall. A total of 9 dwelling units is proposed under Concept Plan B. Griffin explains that Concept Plan C shows the construction of six single family residences, similar to Plan A, but without frontage. He explains that Plan C creates more space between the structures and a one way common driveway loop to provide access to the residences. He notes that the one way loop creates a common open space area in the middle of the loop which could be used for stormwater management or landscaping. He further notes that the more distributed layout provided by Plan C provides more opportunities for landscaping around the dwelling units and greater privacy between the units as compared to Plans A and B. Griffin reviews the site utilities and stormwater drainage. He notes that existing drainage patterns will generally remain the same and a conventional pipe and detention basin system is anticipated within the new roadway to collect stormwater from the proposed paved roadway, driveways and a portion of the residences. He explains that the stormwater will be piped to a detention pond within the open space area to promote groundwater recharge and dampen peak flows before being conveyed to the southerly wetland resource area. He also notes that drywells, berms, and other stormwater management methods are anticipated to address stormwater from the residential building lots. Griffin reviews the requested waivers for the project as follows: Section VI.3. (b)(ii) - The applicant requests a waiver from the requirement for a 25 foot buffer area for certain portions of the site. The waiver would apply to buffer areas that are currently disturbed and will be maintained as such. No new impervious surfaces are proposed within the 25 foot buffer areas. Section VI.3.b.viii - The applicant requests relief from this section of the OSRD ordinance which requires mapping trees greater than 10" DBH within areas to be disturbed. The densely vegetated nature of the site makes this requirement impracticable. Thomson explains the OSRD process in relation to the alternative concept plans submitted and notes that, though something will get built, the task before the Planning Board is to protect open Page 13 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 space and natural site features. To do so, the Board allows the reduction of some dimensional requirements. Thomson suggests that the Planning Board continue this matter to the next meeting of the Planning Board. He asks members of the Board if they wish to conduct a site visit, which the Board agrees. Matz questions if there is a possibility at some point that the Board could request a traffic management study of this neighborhood. He notes that adding 7 driveways to Sunnycrest is a lot of additional traffic for a neighborhood of this size. Clausen explains that looking at a street network, those that are connected have better access and options, rather than creating dead end streets. He explains that there will be better fire safety access if both streets remain open because of the connections in multiple locations. Thomson opens the public hearing up for comments from the public on the Concept Plans. Sal Krasney of 4 Kennedy Drive addresses the Board and states that his main concern is drainage noting that he has lived downhill from the site for 47 years and currently has drainage issues. He sought confirmation on the number of detention ponds. He also asked if there would be blasting. Thomson explains that City policies require that no additional runoff is allowed over the existing conditions and the rate of runoff may not increase either. Griffin confirmed the presence of ledge outcrops and the possibility of blasting, which is subject to strict protocol. Thomson confirms the topography will change. Mr. Joens addresses the Board again and states that traffic will be an issue in that area and he would not be supportive of widening the road. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Mack: Motion to continue the public hearing to the October 20, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Hutchison seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). The Board reviewed suggested dates to conduct a site visit. The Board will hold a site visit on Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Thomson called for a five minute recess at 9:15 p.m. Hutchinson moved to take a five minute recess at this time. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carried. The Planning Board reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Page 14 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 Concurrent Public Hearings —Open Space and Residential Design (OSRD) — Site Plan Review and Definitive Subdivision Plan- #7 -15 Cove Village —50 -54 Boyles Street — Symes Development and Permitting LLC Matz recused himself from discussion of the matter. Mack moved to waive the reading of the legal notice. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Rich Williams, of Williams & Sparages, the Design Engineer for the project is present for the applicant. Williams addresses the Board and explains that they are proposing to divide the property at 50 and 54 Boyles Street, located in the R -22 District into 6 building lots. He explains that the existing houses at both 50 and 54 Boyles Street will remain. Approximately 2 acres of 50 Boyles Street would be added to 54 Boyles Street and made part of the subdivision. Williams states that the Yield Plan and the Preferred Plan, Concept 1 were approved by the Board at their June 2015 meeting. He also notes that the preliminary subdivision plan was approved in May with the condition that as much of the natural state be preserved as possible and consistent with OSRD requirements, the proposal includes setting aside 50% of the property as permanently protected open space. Williams explains that the proposal includes creating 6 new lots for a total of 7 lots including the existing house at 50 Boyles Street. He also explains that they will be constructing a new roadway off Boyles Street with sidewalks on one side of the street. He explains that the new roadway will provide access and frontage to the six proposed building lots. He reports that the new homes will be served by water, sewer, and underground utilities and the existing house will also be connected to the sewer and be disconnected from its septic system. Williams explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission reviewed the plans and have issued a recommendation to the Board. He notes that the PTC recommended removal of trees and vegetation located along the west side of Boyles Street, north of the project site roadway and situated within either the project site or the public right of way. These will be trimmed or removed and maintained in order to afford the required minimum lines of sight to and from the project site roadway consistent with the sight distance plan. Williams reports that there are three locations in the stormwater management plan that affect the open space and explains their locations behind lot #6, to the left of lot #1, and at the end of the circle. These are designed to mimic the existing conditions; he notes that they are slightly reducing runoff on the site and are providing approximately ten times more infiltration than is required. Page 15 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 Williams notes a comment was made that they are not showing the required 25 foot boundary between the site and the property that was subject to ANR (50 Boyles Street) because he believes this property is part of the site. Williams acknowledges that there were a significant number of comments. Thomson asks for a summary and if there are any concerns. Williams addresses the concern from Planning and Engineering Departments regarding lot lines being so close to the homes and notes that they have the ability to increase lot sizes. Thomson states that he believes the concern is that the lot lines are clearly marked and notes that he wants to be sure that the owners do not think that the open space is part of their property. Williams presented a sketch showing revised lot lines in which they could still meet the open space requirements. Williams acknowledged he will respond to the comments and presented the revised plan. Jeff Rhuda of Symes addresses the Board and explains that they met with the Engineering Department and members of the Planning staff and confirms they intend to meet all comments. He explains that they are looking for some direction from the Board on the width of road and the sidewalk and expressed interest in reducing the width of paving. He noted that this would be a private way. Clausen indicates that a 24 feet roadway width would be accepted as a public way by the City, as long as it is designed to city standards, such as pavement width, curves, and curbing. N. Barrett asked the applicant to explain why they want less roadway width. Rhuda explains it reduces the impervious surface, but not necessarily the cost for the developer, and is consistent with the principles of OSRD to use as little pavement as possible. Williams confirms that Boyles Street currently ranges from 19 to 23 feet. Rhuda confirms they will stick to the same standard of construction regarding underlay and pavement, as that speaks to safety. Thomson opens the hearing for public comment at this time. James Bretton of 55 Boyles Street addresses the Board and states that he is concerned about the elevation of the site and the location of his property. He also stated that he would like to see less pervious surface on the site. He also stated that he does not think that anyone would use the proposed sidewalk. Hutchinson states that she understands the desire to try and maintain the rural character of the neighborhood, but reluctant about not having a sidewalk. She cautioned that it may be short sighted to trade off the rural feel of the area for the safety of the neighborhood. She questions if we would be perpetuating a problem by not putting in sidewalks. Bretton reports that there are no sidewalks on Boyles Street. Rhuda states that the traffic study predicts a car every 12 minutes during peak hours on the new street. Page 16 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 Mack states that he feels that the sidewalks would be underutilized in this size of a neighborhood noting that it is a cul -de -sac. He states that he would lean towards not requiring sidewalks but not so much for reducing the width of the paved roadway. Miller concurs. C. Barrett stated that she agrees that the sidewalks will be underutilized noting that she would rather see the road be built to city standards so that it may eventually be accepted as a city street. Thomson states that he finds that people tend to walk in the street in small developments. N. Barrett agrees that less pavement is better and asks what the landscaping plan for the site is. Rhuda explains that they will be planting two street trees per lot. Flannery asks about the curbing. Williams indicates the plan shows granite at the roundings and at the circle and bituminous berm between those areas. Thomson indicates the City standard is granite all the way around. Miller asks if there will be any restrictions that may be placed on the road, as a private road. Applicant indicates there will not. Thomson clarifies that Board members are in agreement that the sidewalk can be removed while the width of the road shall be kept to 24 feet and other City roadway standards met. The Board indicated unanimous agreement. Hearing no further Board or staff questions, Thomson opened the hearing up to the public for questions. Teresa Sciavo, 109 Cross Lane, asked for clarification regarding the grading of the street and the lot lines and inquired about street lighting and trees. Rhuda explained the grading and the lot line changes and indicated that no street lighting is anticipated. Rhuda offered to plant additional white pine trees at the end of the cul -de -sac. Rhuda anticipated the houses will be 3,000 square feet, 2 '/2 story colonial homes. Thomson notes that there is no street lighting planned for the site. Clausen stated that it would be up to the Board to require street lights and would suggest that if there is not a sidewalk and people are walking in the street, there should be some lighting for safety. Thomson asked about green space in the cul -de -sac. Clausen indicated there is opportunity to landscape the cul -de -sac. Thomson believes a landscaped center would make sense. Miller asks if there is any solar power planned for the site. Rhuda explains that the roofs will be angled so that there is the potential for homeowners to have it installed in the future. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter at this time: Hutchinson: Motion to continue the public hearing to October 20, 2015. Flannery seconded the motion. The motion carried (7 -0). Page 17 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 Concurrent Public Hearings — Open Space and Residential Design (OSRD) and Definitive Subdivision Plan — Standlev Street Gardens— OSRD #5 -14 — Create 8 new residential lots — 44 and 52 Standlev Street — Thomas Carnevale, Trustee of RC Realty Trust Matz returns to the meeting at this time. Flannery moved to waive the reading of the legal notice. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion carries. Atty. Thomas Alexander with offices at 1 School Street, Beverly, addresses the Board on behalf of his clients and explains that the proposal before the Board is an OSRD and definitive subdivision plan to subdivide 44 and 52 Standley Street located in the R -22 district. Atty. Alexander acknowledges the comment letters that were received and discusses those with which the applicant has concern. He notes that this new roadway is taking the place of an existing public way and providing access to a significant amount of open space located to the north and west of the project. The new roadway will truly be a public way and be designed to City standards. Atty. Alexander notes that the City Engineer's comment #5 expresses concern with the less than 10 feet yard setbacks on some lots, which are permitted by the OSRD. Atty. Alexander notes that comment #12 states that any future street lighting may be provided from the private residences as deemed appropriate by the applicant and the Planning Board. He responds that the City would typically be responsible for lighting in a public way. Atty. Alexander stated that comment #18 recommends that the subsurface drainage infiltration system to be removed from the street Right -of -Way and that the infiltration systems be provided with cleanouts at the end of each row for access and maintenance; both of which they are okay with. He notes that the City Engineer also requested that they provide an Operation and Maintenance plan with a schedule for Homeowners Association maintenance. Alexander explains that they are looking for the street to be accepted by the City and the City be responsible for the drainage system because it services the City street. The applicant's engineer explains that most of the drainage comes from the street, but also from the lots that flow onto the street; but recharge occurs in the open space. Thomson asks for clarification on the drainage and open space parcels. Applicant's engineer states it is currently one parcel of open space. Atty. Alexander notes the Conservation Commission (letter September 10, 2015) indicated that they will accept the open space. Thomson clarifies that the applicant agrees with all the comments except numbers 5, 12, 18, and 40 of the City Engineer. Clausen clarifies that the City would not accept the maintenance of the stormwater management Page 18 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 system in the open space and cites 232 Essex Street OSRD as a model. He recommends that the open space containing the infrastructure be kept under the HOA. Thomson asks if street lights are included in the plan. Applicant's Engineer stated that there is none proposed and that the ordinance is vague on the requirement. He notes that the City Engineer discussed the possibility of having lanterns in front of all of the houses. Atty. Alexander notes that the lights would be a cost to the developer but would like the City to pay for power and maintenance. Thomson notes that the public way is not only for the residents, but it also provides access to the Community Garden in the back of the site and therefore he recommends not to rely on private homes to turn on lights. Applicant's Engineer notes that the access to the Conservation Commission property to the west is being maintained via an 18 foot gravel access drive and the new roadway will be public to ensure continued public access to the open space as requested by the Conservation Commission. A sidewalk will be provided along one side of the roadway. Wynne asks for clarification on removing the stormwater management system out of the cul -de- sac. Atty. Alexander confirmed they will. Wynne also asked for an explanation of drainage at the steep cut slope behind homes, based on the Design Review Board's comment. Applicant's engineers discussed options for a retaining wall with underdrain to direct water away from homes. Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There is no one present who wishes to comment on this project. Miller asks who will be responsible for maintenance of site distance on Standley Street. Applicant's Engineer expects the City will maintain it after the initial cutting. He also clarified that they expect the open space areas adjacent to lots will be manicured by the homeowners, and as such did not include them in the undisturbed area calculations. Atty. Alexander notes that they will be marking the boundaries of the open space with markers. Thomson summarizes comments and discussion. He notes that the City does not want to maintain the drainage structures, which suggests there needs to be two different open spaces, one to the south without any drainage structures and one to the north with drainage structures. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: C. Barrett: Motion to divide the open space into two parcels, the northern one to the homeowners and southerly one to the City of Beverly. Flannery seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Mack: Motion to approve the overall OSRD plan for 44 -52 Standley Street, subject to Page 19 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 the comments made by the City Engineer in his letter, with the exception of #5 and #12, and any other conditions set forth by other city Boards and Commissions, including that the Conservation Commission take ownership of the southerly open space parcel. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Hutchinson: Motion to require that public street lighting be provided. Flannery seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Clausen recommends that the applicant submit revised plans to the Planning Department reflecting the rest of the Engineer's comments and the divided open space. Thomson clarifies the expectation is that the Board will approve the revised plan at a future meeting. Modification to Definitive Subdivision — Bass River Estates — off Folger Avenue — Bass River Beverly Kathryn Morin, with offices at 68 Main Street, Andover, addresses the Board on behalf of her client Bass River Estates and explains that all of the houses in the subdivision have been built and most of them have been sold. She explains that they are requesting a modification to the approved plan and explains that during construction, the retaining walls were mistakenly constructed inside the previously approved Right of Way. She explains that the modification that they are requesting is to reduce the width of the Right of Way for the distance covered by the retaining walls. Morin also explains that they are requesting waivers in connection with this application for a modification as follows: 1. Waiver of Right of Way width requirements in Section IV A.3 of the subdivision rules and regulations to allow for a right of way 33 feet in width as to that portion of the subdivision right of way in front of subdivision Lot 4 and in front of Parcel A (designated as N/F Tanzella on Exhibit A in the Form C application and land N/F Carnevale). 2. Waiver of vegetated space as depicted on original subdivision plan located between the edge of pavement and edge of right of way to the extent the roadway is narrowed as shown on Exhibit A to the application. Matz states that this mistake impacts the right of way and there is a loss of green space as a result. He noted that he is annoyed by this and questions if there is a potential detriment to the City. Clausen reported that construction has been going on for 10 years and stated that he feels that the modification makes sense because there is no detriment to the public safety and this change will not affect the ability of it to be accepted. Page 20 of 21 Beverly Planning Board Minutes September 15, 2015 There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Mack: Motion to find that the requested modification is a minor modification. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Mack: Motion to approve the minor modification for Bass River Estates — off Folger Avenue, with the requested waivers. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Update on Inclusionary Housing "Submission Requirements, Procedures & Supplemental Regulations" — Fee in Lieu of Affordable Housing Units Fiscal Year 2016 Mack: Motion to table the matter to the October 20, 2015 Planning Board meeting. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). Approval of Minutes — May 20, June 15, June 16 (revised draft), and July revised draft) Mack: Motion to table the matter to the October 20, 2015 Planning Board meeting. Hutchinson 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 Flannery. The motion carried (8 -0). The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Page 21 of 21