2015-05-20 (2)Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Planning Board Meeting
Date: May 20, 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
Members Absent: Wayne Miller
Others Present: City Planner Aaron Clausen
Recorder: Eileen Sacco
Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
205 Hale Street — Donald and Roberta
Thomson states that he has to recuse himself from this matter and asks Ms. Hutchinson to
assume the Chair.
Ms. Hutchinson assumes the Chair and asks if the applicant or their representative is present.
In the absence of the applicant City Planner Aaron Clausen addresses the Board and explains that
the applicant has submitted an ANR plan for the creation of a new single family lot. He explains
that the parcel is located at 205 Hale Street with frontage on Hale Street and Neptune Street and
currently has 97,169 square feet of land and the property contains a single family home and shed
with driveway access from a shared drive off Hale Street.
Clausen explains that the proposed SANR will create a single family development lot labeled as
Lot 28A on the plan. He also notes that the lot will have 100 feet of frontage on Neptune Street
and a total of 15,952 square feet of land. He further notes that the Planning staff have reviewed
the plans and recommend approval of the ANR plan as presented.
Hutchinson asks if there are any questions regarding this matter. There are none.
Mack: Motion to approve the SANR Plan for 205 Hale Street as submitted. Flannery
seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Page 1 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Continued Public Comment Period and Public Hearing — Open Space Residential Design
#5 -14 — Initial Review and Yield Plan- 8 Lot Subdivision — 44 -42 Standley_ Street — RC
Realty Trust & Donna Sweeney
Thomson explains that at the last meeting on April 14 the Board requested that the applicant
generate project alternatives for consideration that offer hybrid alternatives of OSRD concept
plans #1 and #2 that were provided with the original submission. He reports that the applicant
has submitted concept plans 4 and 4A for the Boards consideration. He also notes that the Open
Space and Recreation Committee and the Beverly Conservation Commission has submitted a
letter regarding the new concept plans.
Thomson asks Clausen to review the letter dated May 19, 2015 from the Open Space and
Recreation Committee.
Clausen addresses the Board and reviews the letter from the OSRC noting that the Committee
appreciates that a continuous connection via an 18 foot gravel drive is depicted at the end of the
proposed cul -de -sac to allow for vehicular access to the Conservation Commission land for
possible future community garden use. The project engineer indicated that water service will be
built to the property line for future connection to the Conservation land. The Planning Board
should ensure that these amenities are depicted on any and all final approved plans.
After considering the revised Conceptual Plans 4 and 4 A, the Committee offers the following
comments and recommendations.
Clausen explains that with regard to Concept Plan #4A the Committee notes that this plan still
provides for a large portion of the undisturbed forested part of the site to remain as open space.
The Committee recommends that the limits of the open space be marked with monuments in the
field to avoid encroachment by future homeowners.
Clausen also notes that the Committee had originally suggested that a trail be installed behind
lots 1 -4 so as to create a short connection between the right or way on the opposite side of
Standley Street and the subdivision, however the developer's proposal to install a sidewalk
within the subdivision roadway and along Standley Street satisfies the Committee's objective just
as well.
Clausen also notes that the OSRC offered the following general comments and
recommendations:
The Committee continues to assume that the site will be cleaned of greenhouse remnants,
debris, and trash, and open space areas will be restored to a natural vegetated state, and
recommends that this a condition of approval.
Considering that the subject parcel directly abuts Conservation held land, the Committee
continues to support the donation of the open space to the Beverly Conservation
Commission.
Page 2 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Thomson asks if the applicant has any additional information to present. Mr. Rosati states that
they have nothing more to present at this time.
Thomson asks if there are any questions from members of the Planning Board.
C. Barrett asks if the proposed sidewalk would be on one side of the street. Rosati explains that
the sidewalks will be on one side of the street.
Attorney Alexander states that the owners of the property would like to address the Planning
Board if the Board would indulge them. Thomson asks if any of the members of the Board
object. There being no objections, Thomson allows the owners to speak.
Donna Sweeney addresses the Board and states that this has been a long process and notes that
the Waring School is appealing a decision of the Planning Board for her lot across the street from
this site at 51 Standley Street on the grounds that the Planning Board was not authorized to
approve the port-chop lot. She states that she hopes this will not be the case with regards to this
proposal noting that the other site will be held up for two years or so.
Thomson states that he cannot speak to what might happen with the appeals process but notes
that the representatives of the Waring School are not present this evening and that may indicate
that they do not have the same concerns about this property.
Mrs. Sweeney stated that the Waring School has expressed concerns about the additional traffic
that 8 additional homes would create and notes that they have 167 students enrolled in the school
and the traffic that generates twice a day is much more than what this project would create.
Paul Jacob Sweeney of 23 Mullholland Drive, Ipswich addresses the Board and states that he is
Mrs. Sweeney's stepson. He states that he grew up on Standley Street and it is a great area. He
also states that the addition of more homes will benefit the street. He also expressed concern that
the traffic generated by the Waring School impacts traffic in the area far more than the addition
of these homes will.
Joe Bertalino of 57 Standley Street addresses the Board and states that this is the first time that
he has seen this concept plan and he thinks it is fantastic. He also expressed concern about an
area across the street that requires some clean up and urged that the Conservation Commission
visit the site. He also expressed his feelings about the Waring School and their opposition to the
Sweeney's plans and urged the Board to allow them to proceed.
Thomson states that the matter across the street is out of the Planning Board's hands and explains
that this process is about the Open Space and Residential Design (OSRD) and deals with the
configuration of the project.
There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Thomson asks for a motion
to close the public hearing.
Hutchinson: Motion to close the public hearing on Open Space Residential Design #5 -14 —
Initial Review and Yield Plan- 8 Lot Subdivision — 44 -42 Standley Street — RC
Page 3 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Realty Trust & Donna Sweeney. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes
in favor. The motion carries (7 -0).
Matz: Motion that the Planning Board approve Concept 4A as the preferred plan as
submitted with the sidewalk and the water line extension as proposed. Mack
seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0)
Public Hearing — Special Permit Application #143 -15 and Site Plan Review Application
#115 -15 — Construct Five Story Residential Building within a Mixed Use Development and -
181 Elliott Street — Beverly Commerce Park, LLC
Hutchinson moves to waive the reading of notice. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion
carries (7 -0).
Steve Drohosky, General Manager of the Cummings Center addresses the Board and notes that
he is joined this evening by Mike Aveni the Senior Project Architect and Mike Slager the
Engineer for the project.
Drohosky explains that they are here this evening with three applications for a Site Plan Review,
Special Permit for a mixed use development, a Special Permit for Inclusionary Housing to
provide a payment of $556,000 in lieu of providing 9 affordable housing units.
Drohosky reviews the plans for the proposed 6 story residential building containing 73
residential units with the Cummings property at the corner of Elliott Street and McKay Street.
He notes that the City Engineer and the Parking and Traffic Commission have reviewed the plans
and requested a traffic study and a storm water management plan. He reported that at the last
meeting both were still pending for the review of the City Engineer and the Parking and Traffic
Commission and the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and submitted a letter to the Board
with his comments.
Drohosky explains that they have received positive feedback from the Beverly City Council,
Parking and Traffic Commission and the Police and Fire Departments.
Drohosky explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission required a full traffic and impact
study. He reported that there are 7 traffic lights along Elliott Street from Starbucks to Rantoul
Street. He stated that the report found that the proposed 73 units will have a negligible effect on
the traffic in the area. He reported that that the traffic increase of 22 trips in morning and 25 trips
in the evening peak and the impact on traffic would be negligible. He also notes that they have
agreed to assist the city with the study and recommendations to tweak the timing changes on
Elliott Street to aid in the traffic congestion that occurs at the Starbucks light and some of the
intersections along Elliott Street to Rantoul Street. He notes that adjustments are recommended
for traffic out of the Cummings Center heading east and exiting Stop and Shop heading west.
Drohosky reported that they held an open house at the Cummings Center of the abutters. He
explained that they send notices to 165 neighbors and not a single person attended. He notes that
he would like to talk to residents about the project because he thinks it is a great project.
Page 4 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Drohosky explained the 6 criteria for the Planning Board to consider for the approval of the
special permits and gave examples of their compliance with them as follows:
a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for he proposed use, and that the character
of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected.
Drohosky explains that they intend to build a first class project that will be an
improvement to the area. He stated that they believe that there is a market in Beverly for
higher end property.
b. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will adversely
affected by such use.
Drohosky explains that there will be no adverse effect on the property values in the area
and notes that these units will be priced toward the higher end of the market available at
this time.
C. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result
Drohosky explains that there will be no undue traffic and notes that they have completed
a full impact traffic study in the area that shows that the traffic that will be generated
from this project will be negligible.
d. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and
maintenance of the proposed use.
Drohosky explains that they intend to manage this project the same way that they manage
the Cummings Center. He notes that they have a staff of 100 people who care for the
grounds and the maintenance of the buildings.
f That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable
fact
Drohosky states that the abutting property owners have no objections and notes that
neighbors have not asked about the project, when given the opportunity. He also notes
that neighbors with questions can always contact them.
g. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use.
Drohosky explains that adequate and appropriate city services are available to support the
building and this project will not increase what is going on at the Cummings Center in a
meaningful way.
Drohosky explains that they are also requesting a special permit for a Payment in Lieu of
Inclusionary Housing. He explains that zoning provides for this option and they are proposing a
Page 5 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
payment of $556,000. He explains that the amount is determined by the assessor's office
following a formula. He also notes that Beverly is compliance with the Inclusionary Housing
regulations noting that Beverly has 12% affordable housing. He also explains that there are
several units in close proximity to the Cummings Center.
Drohosky also referred to a Payment in Lieu of Inclusionary Housing that was approved two
years ago for 232 Essex Street and reviewed the decision. He states that they feel that this
project meets the same criteria that the Board approved for the Essex Street project. He reviews
the criteria that was considered by the Board for the Essex Street project.
Matz states that he reviewed his notes about this project from the hotel presentation and notes
that there was a letter from Councilor Houseman, former Chair of the Zoning Board at the time
and explains that he requested a sculpture be erected at the corner of McKay and Route 62 and
asks if that is still part of the plan.
Drohosky explains that the during the special permit process with the ZBA Houseman requested
as Chair of ZBA that they consider a condition that they provide a sculpture at the corner of
McKay and Route 62. He states that they intend to do something but have not drafted any plans
at this time.
N. Barrett asks when the traffic impact study was done. Drohosky explains that there was a
traffic study done at the time that the hotel was proposed and at the request of the Parking and
Traffic Commission another was done updating the information from the Starbucks light down to
Rantoul Street. Barrett asks if McKay Street was included in the traffic study. Drohosky states
that it was not included and explains that they were not asked to study it. He notes that during
discussions at the PTC it was mentioned that both projects may be going on at the same time,
although they feel that the McKay Street project will get started before they do.
Barrett asks if the impact 73 units on Elliott Street will have on McKay Street has been studied.
Drohosky explains that there were studies in the past.
N. Barrett notes that they stated that they are anticipating the number of school children at 5.
Drohosky explains that based on the size of the units and statistics they reviewed for this type of
development it is indicated that 3 -5 children additional could be expected from a mixed use
development. He explains that they take into consideration that this proposed site is not a
residential setting, multiple stories also brings the number down. He explains the example of a
residential project in Woburn built in the 80's that has one third grader living there now.
Matz asks if there will be a connection between the building and the west garage. Drohosky
explains that they will be providing parking in the south end of the garage to support this new
building.
Mack notes that the Staff Report indicates that this project was to be reviewed by City Staff.
Clausen explains that the City Engineer has reviewed the project and submitted an email with his
comments. He also notes that there is a letter from Conservation Commission dated May 20'
indicating that the Board issued an Order of Conditions for the project at their meeting last night.
Page 6 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Thomson asked what the lighting plan is for the site. Drohosky explains that they submitted
plans indicate that the lighting for the site will be adjacent to the loading dock and will be
shielded from adjacent property on McKay Street by the garage. He notes that the parking lot
lighting will all be down lighting and along the building there will be some building lighting to
light the patios and explains the locations on the plan. Thomson wants to be sure there is nothing
shining on 62 and McKay Street. Drohosky explains the lighting plan.
Thomson notes that the stormwater management on the site and asks if there will be anything
added to it. Mark Slager explains the existing storm drainage system on the site and explains the
location on the plan. They are proposing to equip the catch basins with oil hoods and they are
proposing installing another catch basin. Thomson notes that there is no storm scepter on the site.
Slager explains that they are not expecting additional runoff from the site and explains the
existing site and path of the runoff to the culvert.
Drohosky explains the landscaping plan and notes that additional landscaping will be installed on
the left side of center drive. Slager notes the locations on the plan.
Hutchinson questioned the height of the building compared to the rest of Cummings. Drohosky
explains that the proposed building is about 8 feet taller than the roof of the West Garage. He
explains that the 100 and 900 buildings in Cummings Center are taller than the proposed
building.
Hutchinson asks if these units are intended to be apartments or condominiums. Drohosky states
that they intend to sell them as condos and explains that Cummings Properties will still be a
major part of the condo association and notes that they want to remain in a position where they
would have control over and provide management and maintenance of the building.
Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time.
Rick Marciano of 141 McKay Street addresses the Board and states that he likes this project and
thinks that the condos will be good for the neighborhood. He states that he likes this much better
than the hotel proposal. He also stated that he is concerned that there was no traffic study done
including McKay Street.
Rose Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street and stated that an IR zone requires no more than 60% lot
coverage including parking. She stated that she does not see 40% of green space. She asks how
much of the site is proposed to be green space.
Slager explains that this is a very small portion of a very big lot. He explains that it is a 71 acre
site that has a significant amount of open space.
Maglio states that this is the only parcel that is IR and reviews the regulations for 40% open
space. Drohosky states that it is not a separate lot and is part of the Cummings Center.
Clausen states that the Building Commission can determine that. Drohosky states that
Page 7 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Mack notes that the proposed building is to be built on the footprint for the formerly approved
hotel. Drohosky explains that this is a little larger on the east side but not very much.
Maglio states that there was more green space proposed for the hotel. She also states that the
affordable units should be onsite and notes that most of the affordable units shown on their map
are in Ward 2. She states that affordable condos in this area would be helpful. She urged the
Board to look at the proposed open space and notes that the zoning was changed to allow for this
project.
Mack moved to close the public hearing at this time. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The
motion carries (7 -0).
Thomson recessed the public hearings to deliberate on the applications.
Matz states that he does not want to short shift the discussion that this one parcel is in the IR
overlay district and it is all one complete 71 acre parcel and questions why.
IR zone was created to allow a hotel and in 2004 the section was rezoned from IG to IR. He
notes that the IR gives permission with the planning board for six additional uses.
Matz has a problem with how much open space is required in the IR overlay district. He states
that this is a great project but he does not understand the reason for not requiring up to 40% of
the open space. Thomson agrees and notes that the Board could defer a decision at this time and
wait for an opinion of the building commissioner.
Matz is concerned that it sets a precedent later on. Thomson states that it would be separate from
the special permit.
Matz: Motion to table further discussion and final decision on the requested permits
until the Board receives an opinion from the Building Commissioner. Flannery
seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Clausen states that it would make sense to continue the matter to get an opinion. He
recommends tabling all three matters.
Hutchinson notes that condo units will be conveyed to the owner and the condo association.
How would that impact the parking for the 69 acre Cummings site. Drohosky states that there is
adequate parking on site to support this building and the other buildings. He does not see who
the owners are would have an impact on parking.
Thomson asks if Hutchinson's concern is that the number of spaces subtracted for this project
will take from the site. He explains that if there are 1000 excess spaces and the hotel is using
146 spaces the rest of the spaces would be available for other uses.
Page 8 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Matz states that his opinion during the discussion on the Essex Street Special Permit discussion
regarding the affordable housing was not needed because of the location of Kelleher Circle. He
states that the location of this project is in a different in this area and questions if there is
sufficient affordable housing in the area. Thomson notes that the Fairweather Apartments are
across the street from this site. Matz states that he feels that there are a number of developers
that should consider building affordable housing and Cummings is one of them. He states that he
understands that 9 units out of 73 units would be a significant financial issue. He also notes that
he will consider the matter further over the next month.
N. Barrett asks what the average price of the condos would be and what would the affordable
price be. Drohosky explains average median income and use prevailing mortgage rates and other
calculations that are used to determine the price of a unit. He states that their goal is to try and
provide a product that does not exist in Beverly now based on the market.
N. Barrett states that he does not want to hold them to a figure but asked what the affordable unit
would cost. Clausen explains that 35% of income goes to housing and it is based on the income
and the number of persons in the household. He stated that they would get some more
information on this for the next meeting.
Thomson states that Drohosky indicated that providing the affordable units on site would be a
hardship and asks if the affordable units are required on site if that would stop the project.
Drohosky states that it would not stop the project and explains that there are other options such
as land donation, or putting the units on another site that they own are options that they could
look at.
Concurrent Public Hearing — Special Permit #143 -15 — Site Plan Review #116 -15 and
Inclusionary Housing #8 -15 — 131 Rantoul Street — Depot Square Phase III LLC
Clausen reads legal notice.
Attorney Miranda Gooding addresses the Board and explains that she is joined the evening by
Chris Koeplin, Steve Dodge, and Peter Gourdeau of Windover and Thad Siemasko and John
Harden, the Architects for the project of Siemasko and Verbridge. She also notes that Charlie
Weir is also present this evening.
Atty. Gooding also notes that Harbor Light Community Partners will be managing the affordable
housing portion of the project and notes that there is not a representative present this evening
Thomson explains that he is a member of the Board of Trustees for HarborLight and recuses
himself from discussion of this matter.
Hutchinson assumes the Chair at this time.
Gooding explains the current status of the site and notes that her client has a purchase and sales
agreement with the owners and are working to close on the site in October with all permits and
appeal periods completed.
Page 9 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Gooding explains that permits required for the project. She explains that they are here this
evening for Site Plan Review and a Special Permit for a mixed use development as well as an
inclusionary housing special permit.
Atty. Gooding reports that they met with the Beverly Planning Committee early on in the process
and explains that they reviewed their plans with them and their comments were incorporated into
the plans.
Atty. Gooding also explains that they have met with DRB and have reviewed their suggestions
and comments and will be going back to them in June to make a presentation to them on the
updated plans
Atty. Gooding reported that they went before the Historic District Commission for a
Determination of Historic Significance and a determination of whether the property should be
preferably preserved. She explains that the Commission found that the building is historically
significant but that it should not be preferably preserved issued that finding.
Atty. Gooding reported that they have met with City Councilor Estelle Rand and notes that she
made some very helpful comments regarding the project. She also notes that they met with the
Ward Two Civic Association and held discussions with them in the early stages of the project and
will be and meeting with them again this month.
Atty. Gooding explains that they invited all of the abutters to a meeting that was held at the
Beverly Depot and 35 abutters attended the meeting. She reported that a robust and helpful
discussion was held and they have taken the concerns of the abutters into consideration. She also
notes that a representative of Mayor's office attended the meeting as well.
Atty. Gooding reports that they attended an initial meeting of the Parking and Traffic
Commission and received some helpful comments and guidance on the project and explains that
they have commissioned a detailed traffic study at the request of the PTC. She reports that the
findings of the study support and state affirmatively that the location proposed for the project can
support increased parking and traffic with the implementation of some minor adjustments that
they will be incorporating into their site plan. She notes that the study report has been submitted
to the Board and they will be back before the Parking and Traffic Commission at their June 2,
2015 meeting to report on it. Atty. Gooding states that they do not have the traffic engineer
present this evening and stated that they would be presenting the traffic information for the
project and the detailed traffic study at the next public meeting of the Board in June, at which
time they hope to have a recommendation from the Parking and Traffic Commission.
Thad Siemasko addresses the Board and explains the plans noting that they are slightly different
from the plans submitted prior to the meeting noting that they have made some changes as a
result of suggestions from the Design Review Board and they will be submitting revised plans to
the Planning Department with the changes. He notes that the details of the project regarding the
number of units and the parking requirements are the same and the changes are related to design
and materials.
Page 10 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Siemasko explains the site notes the location on Rantoul Street with Railroad Avenue and
Pleasant Street on either side of the site. He notes that there are retaining walls along the
property that they are planning on maintaining them, noting that there are a few areas that they
will have to shore up.
Siemasko explains that the site was an Oldsmobile dealership in the 1950's and notes that the
original facade is gone and recalls some of the past uses for the site. He notes that the Lahey
Behavioral Services is the current business on a portion of the site and notes the locations of the
other businesses on the site. He explains that the locations that they will be using.
Siemasko explains that there are two curb cuts on Rantoul at this time. He explains that there is
a one story grade difference on Railroad Avenue and notes the location. He notes that they are
proposing a 72 car parking garage that will be underground and largely hidden from view. He
notes that the first floor they are hoping for a restaurant in the space with outdoor dining
opportunities.
Siemasko notes that they are pulling the building back on Pleasant Street and notes the location
of the parking garage entrance and exit on Pleasant Street.
Siemasko explains that they are proposing a residential courtyard area for the use of the tenants
as well as a public space in the front of the building.
Siemasko reports that they are proposing 72 units and there will be 9 affordable units on the site.
He explains that they are 92% residential use in the project.
Siemasko reviews the typical floor plans noting one and two bedroom units are proposed. He
notes that there are three reasonably identical floors with one and two bedroom units with a
fourth floor with slightly larger units.
Siemasko explains that that the units have balcony's to take advantage of the park view and notes
that there are no balconies on the backside of the building.
Siemasko explains that on the fifth floor they will take the height down on the Pleasant Street
side and notes that the units are slightly larger which is the fourth floor of housing. He notes that
there will be 12 units on that floor.
Siemasko explains the process that they used to considered the facade of the building and the
properties in the areas that they considered in designing this building. He stated that they are
looking to provide an urban environment and sited the building near the street. He explains
some of the materials that they are considering using and notes that they have been discussing
that with the Design Review Board. He explains that the DRB had some concerns about the
upper attic story and the back view of the building and they have been working on that.
Page 11 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Siemasko reviews the upper elevation from Rantoul Street and reviews the design. He notes that
brick has been incorporated into the design noting that there is a lot of brick in the district and
they feel that is a nice addition to this site.
Siemasko explains that as part of the Rantoul Street redesign project the state is proposing two
trees in the front of the building and they will be asking then to include a couple more trees and
they will work with them on that.
Siemasko explains that the parking garage will be fully enclosed with louvers for ventilation but
the vehicles will not be visible.
Siemasko explains the landscaping plan and notes that there will be fence along the perimeter
and a courtyard and notes the location on the plan. He also notes that they are using a lot of
native evergreen plants on the site and notes that there is a list of proposed plantings in the
packet.
Charlie Weir explains the drainage for the site and notes that they approached the City Engineer
Greg St. Louis and asked what his preferences were for improvements to the area. He explains
that St. Louis pointed out that the catch basins at the intersections at Pleasant and Railroad have
no drainage sumps and hits the catch basins and what does not get captured runs down to private
property. He notes that there is a reduction in the impervious surface on the site and the runoff
will be reduced on the site. He also explains that they have introduced catch basins that will tie
into the drainage system and capture double the amount of runoff than is presently captured.
Weir explains the utilities for the sites and notes that other than that water, sewer, gas and electric
is present on all of the streets. He notes that they are proposing a grease chamber for a proposed
restaurant and a sewer tie in to Rantoul Street. He further notes that they will be required to have
floor drains and they are proposing that they connect into the sewer on Railroad Avenue. He
notes the locations on the plans for the Board.
Weir explains that the City Engineer provided a comment letter with several comments which are
commonly asked during the permitting process and they have responded to them in a letter
submitted to the Engineering Department. He notes that an operation and maintenance plan for
the stormwater management of the site was requested and has been submitted as well.
Hutchinson asks the applicant to talk about the parking requirements for the proposal and how
they intend to meet them. Atty. Gooding explains that there are two parking requirements one
being for off street parking for the residential component which is one space per unit and they are
providing 62 parking spaces in the garage and 10 spaces on the deck up above for a total of 72
spaces on site. She notes that for the commercial parking requirements they are allowed to
utilize public parking that is within 500 feet of the project to satisfy their requirement. She
explains that they are proposing the use of the MBTA parking garage for the commercial parking
requirement.
Atty. Gooding notes that they have conferred with the City Planner and the Building Inspector on
this. She notes that all parking for the commercial use can be satisfied off site. She also notes
Page 12 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
that they are allowed to include parking spaces along the perimeter of the building. Siemasko
explains that they can count the spaces on Rantoul Street and notes the location on the plan.
Hutchinson opens the Public Hearing up for questions from the Planning Board members.
Matz addresses the applicant and asks if environmental site assessments were performed on the
site. Chris Koeplin explained that phase one and phase two reports were done and the material
was classified as urban fill.
Matz notes the automotive use of the property and questions if they have studies regarding the
condition of the site over the years given the use of the property. Koeplin states that there were
historical releases and it has all been reviewed and he has the reports. Matz asks if he could
review the reports. Hutchinson states that she feels that Matz could review the reports. Koeplin
will provide the reports for Mr. Matz.
Matz questions if the drain line on Rantoul is adequately sized for additional flows that will
result from the project. Koeplin explains that they are capturing more of the flows that are
causing flooding further down Rantoul Street. He further notes that their project is reducing
flows on the site and they talked about this with City Engineer St. Louis. He explains that St.
Louis requested the additional catch basins to alleviate some of the flash flooding that occurs on
Rantoul Street.
Matz asks to clarify 92% of gross floor area is residential and the other 8% is retail. The
threshold is 75 %. Gooding states that it is a good opportunity to point out that the amount of
commercial space is increasing entire face of building on Rantoul Street that is building will be
retail commercial or related to the lobby. All of that space will be active ground floor space with
windows and asks Siemasko to show the elevations. Siemasko explains the elevation and the
facade of the building and notes that the streetscape experience will be a very active ground
level.
Atty. Gooding notes that this is a very deep lot and in looking at it is there are a couple of factors
to consider. She notes that despite everyone's best efforts to promote a vibrant downtown for
Beverly there is still not a robust enough demand to fill commercial space and aside from the
issue of demand to have the retail on Pleasant or Railroad have it would not make sense. She
notes that she feels that they have significantly met the goals of the bylaw requirement.
Matz asks what the perception of the neighborhood is for this project. Gooding states that the
neighborhood has a lot of opinions and they feel that they have had very good conversations with
them. She notes that there is a tension that runs through the neighborhood about whether
Rantoul Street is residential or commercial. She stresses that this is the type of development that
is needed in this area. She also notes that the city has determined that this is an area of the city
where taller buildings are allowed and the City Council has approved increased depth for the
neighborhood as well. She also notes that the height of the building is significantly less than
what is allowed in that district.
C. Barrett asked for clarification one bedroom and two bedroom units. Gooding states that there
are 34 one bedroom 1 bedroom with den 20 and 17 two bedroom units.
Page 13 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
C. Barrett notes that they are proposing parking on the roof of the existing building and questions
what kind of buffer or greenery is proposed for Hardy Street so that the neighbors are not
looking down at the cars. Siemasko explains that because of the structure they cannot plant on it.
He explains that they are proposing a six foot fence along the perimeter and explains the
proposed landscaping and how it will impact the area.
Hutchinson asks if the back of the building extend to Hardy Street. Siemasko notes the location
of the retaining wall and explains that elevations along that side. He notes that the space behind
the building is not included in the site. Atty. Gooding states that they are not acquiring that lot
and it is not contained in the project. She notes that the Board approved an ANR for that lot
earlier this year.
Hutchinson questions the condition of the retaining walls. Siemasko explains that they are in
good shape and mostly usable but they will be doing some work on some areas of it.
Hutchinson opens the Public Hearing up for Public Comment at this time. She requests that
members of the public who wish to speak ask questions regarding the project only at this time.
She also stated that she would ask that the questions be limited to what was presented this
evening and that questions regarding parking and traffic be held for the next meeting when the
applicant will be presenting a traffic study. She notes that the Planning Board has a heavy
agenda this evening.
Kevin Andrews 8 Home Street asked for clarification on the top floor materials to be used.
Siemasko explains that they wanted the attic story to be light and they are still working on that.
He explains they are considering stucco and hardy panel with integrated aluminum channel
system and a fair amount of it is glass. Gooding states that the matter it is still under discussion
with DRB.
Andrews recalls that Councilor Rand requested that an area for public art be designated on the
Railroad Avenue side of the site. Siemasko explains that they have added glass on the Railroad
Avenue side as requests by DRB and explains that there are some panels that could be offered for
public art.
Andrews notes that there have been discussions about heat absorption and the use of a white roof
and asks if that is in the plans. Siemasko explains that they are doing a pricing exercise to
determine cost or things such as a white roof or a roof garden. He notes that they will likely
have solar panels and white roof would not be necessary. He notes that it is a matter of getting
the final pricing information to see if a green roof can be incorporated into the project. He notes
that it is a reasonably expensive building as it is but notes that they are willing to consider all of
the suggestions.
Koeplin states that they used a white roof on the Enterprise building.
Page 14 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Rick Marciano of 141 McKay Street addresses the Board and asks how many affordable housing
units will be part of this project. Atty. Gooding states that there will be 9 affordable housing
units.
Marciano asks how many children are estimated to be attending Beverly Public Schools from
this development. Gooding states that they have not done estimates for school children, but
notes that other Windover projects in the area and such as the Enterprise project has a population
that is largely made up of middle age professionals with a few families with children for short
periods and undergraduate residents cosigned by parents. She stated that anecdotally based on
past experience they would expect very few school children in these units.
Marciano is this area in the Tax Increment Finance district. Atty. Gooding stated that the project
is in the TIF area but this is not a TIF project. She also notes that they are fully complying with
the affordable housing requirements.
Clair Lundberg of 1 Moulton Court abuts the Hardy Street side of the property. She stated that
she is very opposed to this project. She states that she is concerned about parking and traffic
issues as well as the effect that the commercial space and type of restaurant will be in the retail
space. She notes that she is concerned about whether this will be a full restaurant with a liquor
license, or sub shop and what the impact will be. She stated that she is concerned about her
home and quality of life.
Atty. Gooding explains that Windover does not have a restaurant in mind. She explains that
zoning allows for a whole spectrum of uses by right including a restaurant and notes that there
has been a request for a restaurant in the area although they cannot guarantee that there will be a
restaurant in that space at this time.
Rose Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street addresses the Board and states that she does not see a vent for
parking garage on the plan. Siemasko explains that they are required to ventilate the garage and
notes that it is a safety feature. He explains that on the Pleasant Street side they are proposing
louvers to vent the garage and notes that they are working on the size of them with the engineer.
Maglio asks if they have considered another location for the parking garage entrance besides
Pleasant Street. Gooding states that they talked a little bit about that. Siemasko explains that
there is a grade difference and explains the locations and the reasons for this parking lot access
and the challenges with other options.
Maglio expressed concern about the location of transformer from National Grid. Siemasko
explains that they are working with National Grid on the details of that and they will provide
some sort of screening for it.
Maglio states that she feels that the landscaping plan is deficient.
Page 15 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Hutchinson states that she would entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to June 16,
2015, noting that the Board has a heavy agenda this evening.
Mack moved to continue the Public Hearing to the next meeting of the Planning Board on June
16, 2015. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Hutchinson calls a two minute recess at this time.
Public Comment Period and Public Hearing Date — Open Space Residential Design (OSRD
#7 -15 — Initial Review and Yield Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Plan — 50 and 54 Bow
Street — Symes Development and Permitting LLC
Matz discloses the he is recusing himself from discussion of this matter as his wife is an
employee of Symes Development.
Clausen reads legal notice.
Thomson reminds the Board and members of the public that the charge this evening is to review
the preliminary subdivision plan and yield plan for the application.
Rich Williams of Williams Sparages addresses the Board on behalf of Symes Development and
Permitting LLC. He notes that Jeff Rhuda is also present this evening.
Williams explains that they have submitted an OSRD and Preliminary Subdivision Plan to divide
the property at 50 -54 Boyles Street into six building lots. He explains that there are existing
houses located at 50 and 54 Boyles Street that will remain for a total of eight single family
residential lots. He explains that the proposed project is located on a combined 5.41 acres and
they are proposing a new street from Boyles Street and access to this six new lots. He notes that
the two existing lots will retain access directly from Boyles Street.
Williams states that all of the new lots meet the 150 foot frontage requirements for the R22
zoning district. He also notes that the new road will be 50 feet wide with 32 feet of paving and
will meet all of the regulations for dimensions as required by the zoning ordinance.
Thomson asks if the members of the Board have any questions at this time.
Mack asks what the length is from the road to Boyles Street. Williams states that it is 450 feet.
Thomson asks how close the proposed road will come to the existing houses. Williams states
that he does not have the exact measurements but explains that there is intended to be a side yard
and they held to the minimum front and side yard setback requirements from the house in
consideration of that.
Williams explains that the proposal is to keep the two houses and put the road between them and
put the six homes in the back.
Page 16 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Thomson asks if this is the preliminary plan. Williams explains that they submitted a
preliminary plan and an OSRD plan and they look the same. He notes that the yield plan shows
the
Thomson notes that the Board is required to hold a comment period for the yield plan so the
Board will not be able to act on this tonight.
Thomson asks if there is anyone present who wishes to comment.
Ann Breton of 55 Boyles Street addresses the Board and states that she is concerned that Boyles
Street has become a pass through street for Route 127 and asks if the city would consider making
it a one way street. She states that there are buses and trolleys going up and down the street and
she is concerned about safety. Thomson explains that this is not something that the Planning
Board has any control over and suggests that she contact her City Councilor.
Michael Sheehan of 51 and 49 Boyles Street (parent's home) addresses the Board and states that
he also has concern about traffic as well and notes that there is a lot of traffic from Endicott
College and there are no sidewalks on Boyles Street noting that it is impossible to walk along the
street. He states that if the traffic issues could be resolved it would make the area safer as it is a
big issue for the neighbors.
Scott Santoro 107 Cross Lane addresses the Board and questions if there is an environmental
process associated with this process. Thomson explains that if there is a wetland in the area they
would be required to go to the Conservation Commission for an Order of Conditions.
Williams addresses the Board and notes the location of the wetlands in the area and reports that
they will be filing with the Conservation Commission. Santoro states that he wonders how the
Board can approve the preliminary plan without the approval of the Conservation Commission.
Thomson asks Clausen if there is any part of this project that that requires Conservation
Commission input before the Board can approve the yield plan.
Clausen explains that all of the activities shown on the preliminary plan are outside of the 100
foot buffer zone so the plan requires no action by the Conservation Commission at this time.
Santoro states that he is concerned about the environmental impact of the project and notes that
there is a lot of wildlife back there that will be impacted by putting the houses in this location.
He asks if there is an understanding of what the property was prior to the recent development in
the area. It was noted that the property is a former golf course. Santoro states that it is his
understanding that there drainage buried underneath there. Thomson explains that the board will
be looking at how the drainage will be handled and drainage issues on the site and any issues will
have to be taken care of
A resident of 63 Boyles Street addressed the Board and states that he is concerned about traffic as
well. He asks if plans for landscaping for the property will include removing trees and notes that
the trees on the right side of the property contribute to the visual appearance of the area.
Page 17 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Williams states that there are no plans to remove trees between the existing properties. He
explains that there are a couple of good sized trees that obstruct the site distance at the
intersection that may need to come down to make the intersection safer.
Jim Bretton across 55 Boyles Street addresses the Board and states that he has a difficult time
getting out on the street as it is and questions if they are they going to move the road? Williams
explains that they will be putting in a road and explains the location. Mr. Bretton asks if all the
proposed lots have 150 feet frontage. Williams states that they will all have the required 150 feet
of frontage.
A resident addresses the Board and states that the trees are a tremendous buffer zone and would
like to see them stay. Williams states that they are trying to keep the open space between the
road and the back properties.
Thomson asks Rhuda if they are planning on having a neighborhood meeting as there seems to
be a lot of interest in the site. Mr. Rhuda stated that they will be having a neighborhood meeting.
Thomson notes that the public comment period on the Yield Plan is open until the next meeting
of the Planning Board and the Board will not be acting on the yield plan this evening.
Thomson explains that the Board needs to act on the preliminary plan this evening.
Mack moves that the Board take no action. Clausen states that the Board has to take some action
either approve with conditions or deny it. He explains the kinds of things that may be
conditioned and suggests that the Board would be agreeing that the preliminary plan meets the
subdivision regulations and would not have any impact on the OSRD site plan.
Hutchinson: motion to approve the preliminary plan for Preliminary Subdivision Plan —
50 and 54 Boyles Street — Symes Development and Permitting LLC with
the condition that as much of the natural state of the property as possible
will be preserved. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor.
The motion carries (6 -0).
Clausen reviews a memo from the Conservation Commission with the Board for clarification on
the wetlands on the site and the permits that they may need. He notes that the Commission has
reviewed and discussed the application and conceptual plans and offered comments.
Clausen explains that the Commission explains that project activities on all of the plans are
depicted outside of the 100 foot buffer zone and they recommend that to fully ensure that the full
extent of the wetland resource areas and associated buffer zones are accurately depicted the
Commission recommends that pursuant to the OSRD Site Plan Ordinance that the wetland
delineation should be verified as it is noted as approximate on the plans. The Commission also
recommends that the watershed feeding the wetland be examined to ensure that any development
scheme does not overtax or starve the wetland of its water budget.
Page 18 of 19
Beverly Planning Board
May 20, 2015
Six Month Review of "Vault Planting Area" Plan — Special Permit #130 -02, Site Plan #106-
12 and Inclusionary Housing #8 -15 — Enterprise Apartments — 79 Rantoul Street —
Windover Enterprise LLC
Clausen explains that the applicant has presented the Vault Planting Area plan to the Design
Review Board and they have reviewed and approved it. She notes that a letter from Allison
Crosbie has been submitted recommending that the Board approve the site plan modification
requested for this site. Clausen notes that Crosbie has visited the site and has taken photos of
the work as well.
Hutchinson: moved to approve the six month vault planting area plan for 79 Rantoul
Street. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0).
Set Public Hearing Date for - Open Space and Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan
Application #6 — 15 — 30 Foster Street — Lindallwood Realty Trust
Hutchinson: Motion to set a public hearing date for Open Space and Residential Design
(OSRD) #6 — 15 — 30 Foster Street — Lindallwood Realty Trust for June 16, 2015.
C. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7-
0).
New or Other Business
Community Preservation Committee Priorities for 2015
Thomson suggested that the Board discuss this matter at the next meeting if time allows.
ADUroval of Minutes
The minutes of the February 10, 2015 and March 17, 2015 Planning Board meetings were
presented for approval.
Flannery moved to table the minutes to the next meeting. Mack seconds the motion. The motion
carries (7 -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 (7 -0)
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Page 19 of 19