Loading...
BPB Minutes February 9 2016 cityBeverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: February 9, 2016 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair John Thomson, Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, Catherine Barrett, David Mack, Ned Barrett, Wayne Miller Members Absent: James Matz, Michael Rotondo Others Present: Assistant City Planner Darlene Wynne Recorder: This meeting was recorded and transcribed by Eileen Sacco Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans Thomson asks when if there are any subdivision approvals not required plans for the Board to approve this evening. Wynne informs Thomson that there are no SANR's this evening. Discussion/Decision: Modification to Site Plan Review #113 — 14 — changes to proposed curb cut off Connector Road, internal driveway access at Sohier Road and footprint of building B — North Shore Crossing — 140 Brimbal Ave. —CEA Beverly Thomson informs the Board that it did not act on the site plan approval when it voted at the January 20, 2016 meeting, and a vote on the site plan modification is required. He explains that the audio recording confirms that the vote was made only on the special permit for the project, though the intent may have been to act on both. The public hearing was closed on January 20, 2016; therefore, no additional public comment will be heard this evening he also notes that there is no new information on the application to be presented and he informs the Board that they may discuss the matter if appropriate, or simply take the vote. Hutchinson: Motion to approve the site plan review modification for Site Plan Application #113 —14 -North Shore Crossing, CEA Group, 140 Brimbal Avenue, subject to the conditions of the special permit. Mack seconds the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carries (5 -2) (C. Barrett and N. Barrett in opposition). Special Permit #122 -10 — 865 Hale St. -Approved May 2010 — request for additional two - year extension — Kevin and Susan Barry Page 1 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Attorney Doucette of Glovsky and Glovsky addresses the Board and explains that he is here this evening on behalf of his client Kevin Barry. He notes that Mr. Barry sends his apologies explaining that there was some confusion over the date of the meeting. Attorney Doucette explains that they are here this evening for a request for an additional two - year extension on a special permit that was granted for a pork chop lot special permit at 265 Hale St. He explains that the reason they have not yet developed the site is because of the appeal of the Planning Board decision of the adjacent subdivision, on which the implementation of this special permit is dependent. Thomson asks if this lot could be built in a subdivision as opposed to the OSRD. Wynne confirms that it could be and notes that there were photographs of the lots in the packet that the Planning Board received prior to the meeting. Thomson explains that this was a long and extended process and the court so far has acted on it and has allowed the applicant to build a subdivision but is not requiring them to comply with the OSRD. Mack_ Motion to grant the request for an additional two -year extension. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. Motion carries (7 -0). Set Public Hearing Date — Site Plan Review Application #120 -16 — Redevelop existing gasoline stationsite with improvements including construction of a new 3,520 +/- s.f. Building, fuel pumps /islands and fuel island canopy — 131 Brimbal Ave. — Sunoco, Inc. R &M Mack: Motion to set the public hearing date for the site plan review application for 131 Brimbal Ave. to be held on March 15, 2016. Flannery seconds. The motion carries? to 0. Set Public Comment Period and Public Hearing Date — Open Space and Residential Design #9 -16 — Initial Review and Yield Plan to Create 3 New Lots — 122 Cross Lane, Benco LLC Mack: Motion to set the public comment period and public hearing date for 122 Cross Lane for the March 15, 2016 meeting of the Planning Board. Flannery seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0) Thomson calls for recess for public hearings at this time. Hutchinson: Motion to recess for public hearings at this time. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). Continued Public Hearing — 25 Jewett Rd. Definitive Subdivision Plan — Extend road approximately 75 feet within existing right -of -way to create accessible frontage for existing — Francis and Marcia Byrne. Page 2 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Board. He explains that they have had the opportunity to meet with one of the abutters of the property. He would like to report that they have come to full agreement, however, Mr. Bostridge still has some concerns which he is confident they will be able to take care of Alexander revealed the summary of the changes and say that they have agreed to install a drain in Bostridge's driveway to help remove water from his site and add to this drainage system. They have agreed to put all utilities underground. They have agreed to widen the shoulder of the road approximately 2 feet on each side for safe passage and snow storage areas. He also noted that they have agreed to enter into a maintenance agreement where they will share the cost of maintaining the road and utilities in that area that is shown on the plan which is basically either side of the roadway. Attorney Alexander also noted that Mr. Bostridge has requested, and they have agreed, that the maintenance agreement would take effect upon completion of the construction of the house. Alexander also reported that in order to widen the road they have agreed to relocate the existing decorative stones onto the Bostridge property, to accommodate the widening of the road. Attorney Alexander also reported that Mr. Bostridge has a concern that if the Byrnes sell this property that if these items are conditions on the agreement, that surety would be put up for the completion of the work, as a cushion, upon the sale of the property. He explains that the new buyer would put up surety to be determined on the value of the work to be completed on the site, per the Planning Board Rules & Regulations. He explains that the Engineering Department typically has a schedule of values that indicates the cost of such items and they would be willing to go along with that estimate. It is understood that this is a private way. Attorney Alexander reported that they have also agreed that they would put no parking signs in the turnaround area at the end of the road. He also noted that because the Open Space Committee requested a parking area they've added that to the plan. Bob Griffin addresses the Board and explains the plan, noting the areas on the plan where they will be widening the road to 16 feet, where there will be a small detention basin that would flow in a northerly direction, and the expansion of water and sewer lines. He noted that based on the discussions, they've added a catch basin adjacent to Mr. Bostridge's driveway and will re- grade. He explains the location will capture the water before it ponds in front of his garage area. As a result of this extra water, he explained they've had to make the stormwater detention feature larger and they have decided to put that detention basin underground. He also notes that they have relocated the discharge, based on Conservation Commission comments. Griffin also explained that they have added some no parking signs and will widen the shoulders of both sides of the road. Some trees will be removed. He notes that all utilities will be underground electric, cable, and gas and denotes the areas that would contain the private maintenance agreement on the plan. Griffin also notes that they have defined a drain easement around the catch basin. Thomson clarifies that this is a regular subdivision with a number of requested waivers and not a minor subdivision. Griffin agrees. Thomson asks if members of the Planning Board have any questions at this time. Page 3 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 C. Barrett noted that at the last meeting there was some concern about whether or not the road is a private road or an accepted city street and asked if there's been any more information received on that matter. Alexander explains that this road is part of a subdivision that was created 1926 prior to the subdivision control law of 1954. He explains that it was built out basically for the beginning of Jewett Road and the beginning of Bonad Road; the city accepted those pieces. He explains that the way to create a public way is for the city to accept the road after the Planning Board has allowed the road to be built and builds to the conditions of the city. He also notes the city can create a public way by eminent domain. He explains that this part of the road is a paper street that was laid out in 1926 and was never accepted by the city, so it is considered a private way. He explains that people in private way have the right to invite people to pass and re -pass. Alexander explains that because the city owns all of the open space land, citizens have the right to pass across the private way to access the public space. He also explains that when the improvements of the road were done, during the construction of the subdivision, they did not seek approval subject to the Subdivision Control Law. C. Barrett asks if it is their intention that the paper road will eventually become an approved road by the city at some point. Alexander explains that that is not necessarily the case and notes there is some disagreement about what needs to be done to grant rites of passage on a paper street. He explains that in most cases you have to go back to the Planning Board and explain how you will improve the way in order to have it approved by the City. He clarifies they are not seeking to have the road built to city standards and accepted. He notes that there are many streets in the City of Beverly that are not accepted streets. Miller notes that there is 20'x 24' gravel parking area proposed near the open space and notes that it is not on the plan. Griffin explains that it doesn't exist presently and they are proposing to put it in at the request of the Open Space and Recreation Committee. He explains that it is within private way which the city has rights to. Attorney Alexander explains the ownership of the properties on either side go to the middle of the private way; if you own on both sides, you own the entire way. Thomson clarifies that it is understood that the area will be used for parking even though it's in the private way. Attorney Alexander states that the OSRC requested that and they are willing to comply with that request. He notes that if it is approved by the Board they will add it to the final plans. Mr. Bostridge of 22 Jewett Rd. addresses the Planning Board and states that they have a number of issues which they have been working on with the developer. He stated his biggest concern was water coming down on his property and he still has some concerns about that noting that they have proposed to install a drain at the corner of his driveway. His other concern is with the gravel parking area. He states if this is a private way with public access, he is concerned about liability in the winter especially when it is icy and they have to maintain the road. He states that unless the city is actually going to take ownership of the street and the liability, he is not comfortable with the proposed parking area for the open space in the proposed location, noting Page 4 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 that there are other areas to park on the other sides of Sally Milligan Park. He also states that he is concerned that everything is going to be put back correctly noting that his biggest concern is that the current owner is not going to build on the site himself, noting that he is seeking Planning Board approval to sell the site as a permitted buildable site. Thomson asked Mr. Bostridge if he is satisfied with the agreement that he has come to with the developer aside from the proposed parking area. Mr. Bostridge stated that he would not be willing to sign a maintenance agreement until after the property is developed. Attorney Alexander stated that is not their intention to have Mr. Bostridge sign a maintenance agreement until such time as all the work is completed. Wynne explains that the City Engineer Greg St. Louis has requested that the maintenance agreement be signed by the parties prior to construction. She asks if at least the Memorandum of Understanding will be signed; Atty. Alexander and Mr. Bostridge both indicate there is no intent for Bostridge to sign any agreement prior to development of the lot. Alexander explains that they are trying to address as many concerns as they can and notes that the Open Space Committee requested the parking area, noting that it would be a gravel surface and there would be no paving of the site; however, if there are concerns about it, they are not obligated to build it, it was something that they agreed to. Thomson notes that the city owns the land and could provide parking in that area if they choose noting that the developer is offering to build it at this time. Mr. Bostridge explained that his concerns would be the liability of the additional cars on the street noting the street is a large hill and the residents have enough trouble getting up there in the winter as it is. He acknowledges that he better understands and is now believes it is a private way. Hutchinson asked what Mr. Bostridge would suggest as an alternative to the parking lot. Mr. Bostridge stated that vehicular access should only be for these two developed lots; he would like to see no parking lot at all. Thomson clarifies that Mr. Bostridge is not in favor of the proposed parking area for the open space and would rather not see it constructed. Thomson calls for motion to close the public hearing at this time. Flannery: Motion to close the public hearing. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). N. Barrett notes that the Board received these plans from the applicant today and he wonders if the City Engineer has had a chance to take a look at them. Wynne explains that she received an email from the City Engineer on February 5 t ' indicating that he has reviewed the revised plans and made comments. She reviews the comments the City Engineer made regarding the plans. She noted that the applicant would need a drainage alteration permit in addition to other permits necessary from the Engineering Department. She explained that the Board could wait for an Page 5 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 official letter from the City Engineer or they could approve the plan subject to official confirmation from the City Engineer that he is in agreement with the plan. Thomson asked Wynne to review the draft conditions for the project. Wynne reviews the conditions for the project as follows: The Fire Department has requested a sprinkler system in the building because of the width of the roadway. The City Engineer requests that final plans and drainage calculations be submitted to the Planning Department and the City Engineer which reflect the changes as recommended in the comment letters. N. Barrett states that the abutter has indicated that he does not want the proposed parking area for the open space area and suggests that the parking not be part of this project. He notes that if the City wants to provide parking for the area they can do so, but given the concerns of the neighbors he feels that the area remain as it is. He also notes that the applicant has a concern about signing the maintenance agreement prior to construction and whether that is a condition should be considered as well. Alexander explains the maintenance agreement. Alexander stated that he thinks that the issue Mr. Bostridge has with the maintenance agreement is that he wants to make sure that it is not effective until after all the work is done. Mr. Bostridge agreed and stated that there will be heavy equipment coming up and down the road during construction and until such time as it is all done and he and the city are completely satisfied that it is been done properly he would not be signing the agreement. He stated that he wants to be sure the due diligence is done noting his prior experience with the ownership issues of the street. Thomson asked for motion at this time Miller suggested that the Board request a legal opinion about liability of the parking area and noted that the Board should acknowledge Mr. Bostridge is concerned about it. Thomson suggested he would need to consult his attorney. Wynne states that from a staff perspective she does not feel strongly about the proposed parking area noting that they had envisioned that as open space and there is existing access without the parking area. She also states that she cannot speak to the liability issues. She also notes that she knows that the Open Space Committee had requested parking in that area. Mack states that he appreciates the frustration Mr. Bostridge has experienced with trying to determine if the road is a private or public way and states that he does not think it is incumbent upon the Planning Board to provide parking for the open space area. Mack: Motion to approve the proposed subdivision with all the waivers granted as shown on the plan and conditions identified in the various departments letters, with the Page 6 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 exceptions that (1)the applicant is not required to provide a parking area at the end of the cul -de -sac as recommended by the Open Space Committee; (2) that the applicant will not be required to post signage indicating access to Sally Milligan Park; and (3) that there be no requirement for a maintenance agreement between the two parties. Further that the approval be conditioned upon a surety to be posted, in a suitable amount as determined by the Engineering Department, to be sure that the road has been constructed for suitable passage, as shown on the plan, and to repair any damage that has been caused by construction so that it is in the same condition it is today. C. Barrett seconds the motion. Miller clarifies that the motion leaves the area as it is today with no additional parking to be construction Thomson clarified that the area would be left as it is today and that the public would still have access to that area but no specific parking area be created. Chair votes in favor. Motion carries (6 -1, Miller opposed). Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #119 -16 and Special Permit Application #148 -16 — renovate existing building, construct addition of 42,000 + /- GSF for light industrial and associated office space and deviation from off - street parking requirements — 55 Cherry Hill Drive — Krohne, Inc. Hutchinson: Motion to recess for public hearings at this time. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). Mack: Motion to suspend the public hearing. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (6 -0, C. Barrett in abstention). [Discussion held on 25 Jewett Road Definitive Plan] Mack: Motion to re -open the public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). Wynne reads legal notice. Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Planning Board and explains that he is here on behalf of his client, Krohne, Inc. He explains that they are in the process of purchasing the property and they are hoping to complete the sale sometime in March. He explains that Krohne is a German firm that designs precision measurement instruments. He reviews the history of the company and explains that that they have been located locally in Peabody since 1984 and they have sought to expand and cover all of North America. He reports they conducted a very extensive search throughout the country and ended up choosing a location in the Cherry Hill Industrial Park. He notes that this will be a significant addition for the city and explains that the City Council and the Mayor have awarded this project a Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF). He explains that the project has been reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and the Conservation Commission noting that the Conservation Commission did have a concern about wetlands that Page 7 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 exist in Danvers. He explains that they do not feel that there are any wetlands on their site and they will be going before the Danvers Conservation Commission to review this. He suggests that they would be willing to accept a condition of approval from the Planning Board pending review by the Danvers Conservation Commission of the plan. Alexander explains that the applicant is seeking significantly less parking for the site than is required. He explains that based on Krohne's use of their Peabody property since 1984, the number of parking spaces that would be required under the city zoning would be dramatically in excess of what they would need. He explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission have reviewed the project and they agree that the excess parking is not needed. He explains that it really doesn't make sense to have all that blacktop on the site when you could have significantly more green area on the site. He also notes that if for some reason they should require the need for more parking, they will be happy to do that when needed and notes the areas on the plan where that could be accommodated. Alexander explains that he has John Massauro, HighPoint Engineering, Keith DeRosa, Packard Design, Michael Radner, Radner Design Associates, and Bob Sank who runs the present operation of Krohne in Peabody. Massauro addresses the Planning Board and reviews the plan noting the location of the site on the plans. He explains the existing site noting it was built in 1992 explains that there is an athletic field adjacent to the property. Massauro explains the access to the building, noting the location of the existing building and the proposed addition. He explains that the proposed project is 42,000 s.f and states that really nothing much is going to change with the existing facility noting that they will be adding landscaping to the site. He explains locations of trash compactors and recycling areas and the location of the loading docks. Massauro explains the fire access for the building noting the roadway location and explains that it will be designated as a service only area road. He also explains that the plan also shows a stormwater management for the site and explains that they have mitigated any increase in discharge and water quality. Massauro explains the existing conditions on the site. DeRosa addresses the Planning Board and explains design of the site. He explains that they are going to try to do the best they can to keep the same height as the existing building, and the existing brickwork and will be using some clear glass panels using basic construction materials. He explains elevations of the building. Thomson asked if there is any exterior lighting attached to the building. DeRosa explains they haven't reviewed that as of yet and explains what they have in mind noting that they are thinking of lighting that will not be too bright. Thomson states that he would be concerned if the lights reflect out but notes that they have indicated that would not be the case. Page 8 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Miller asked if they have considered using solar panels on the roof. DeRosa explains that they have not considered solar panels at this point but they could in the future. C. Barrett asked if the mechanical units on the roof of the building will be screened. DeRosa explains they will be set back on the building noting that they weren't planning on any type of screening as they don't expect it will be visible from the street. Radner addresses the Board and explains the landscaping for the project. He explained that they are proposing to provide treatments in a couple different areas of the site noting the existence of shade trees on the site. He explains that they're proposing some shrubs and notes the area on the plan. He also notes along the front of the building they are proposing to install trees that will coordinate with the architecture. He explains that they will install some evergreens and some lower plantings around the corner and notes that the loading dock area will be screened and notes the location. He also notes that they will be replacing the existing stairs in the front of the building which need to be replaced. He explains that they will be taking a new landscaping approach to the front of the building due to the disruption that will be caused by the construction. Radner explains that they will be reseeding the green areas and notes it will only need to be mowed once or twice a year. Hutchinson asks what gets lost due to the installation of the service road noting that he mentioned the line of trees on the site plan. Radner explains the topography and the location of the treeline in question and states that he does not anticipate going into that area for the service road. Radner explains that they took a look at the state wetlands map and they do not feel they will be affecting the Danvers wetland. Attorney Alexander stated that there are no wetlands on their site so there is no chance that the work would be within the 25 -foot buffer zone. He explained the Danvers Conservation Commission is looking for confirmation of the location of the building in relation to the wetlands. Thomson explains that if they should find that there is an issue they would have to come back with any revisions that might result in the plan. Mack asked Alexander for further information regarding the request to reduce the parking on the site. Thomson notes that the staff report for this project indicates that 309 parking spaces would normally be required by zoning for this project. Alexander explained that they did an analysis of the Peabody facility and explains that it is light manufacturing space of 25,000 s.f. and 11,000 s.f of office space. He explains that the Peabody site has 48 employees and typically they use 52 parking spaces per day. He explains that they have 108 parking spaces for employees and visitors on the site. Alexander explains that they are providing 164 parking spaces in Beverly and explains the plan for parking noting locations on the site. He notes that they tried to keep as much green space as possible on the site. Page 9 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Thomson asked Wynne to read letters from other City Boards and Commissions regarding this project. She states that the Board of Health recommends approval of the project as long as the conditions recommended in the letter are included. She notes that the Engineering Department has provided a letter that summarizes some clarification and revisions to the plans as they relate to erosion control utilities and hydraulic analysis. Thomson asked the applicant if they are willing to meet these recommendations and requirements. Attorney Alexander stated they would adhere to all comments of the City Boards. Wynne recommended that the Planning Board could condition approval with the inclusion of a condition of the City Engineer's comments be addressed. Wynne reported that the Conservation Commission has reviewed this project and explains the comments. Wynne reported that the Parking and Traffic Commission has recommend approval with four conditions as follows: 1. That the applicant will revise the plans to show the location of future additional parking on the site if needed. 2. The applicant will conduct a parking monitoring program annually of three years following the building occupancy and shall be presented to the Parking and Traffic Commission for review and approval. 3. The applicant agrees to extend the sidewalk to the other side of the driveway entrance to the end of the property. 4. The applicant agrees to provide bicycle parking facilities in a convenient location on the site consistent with the Beverly Complete Streets policy. Wynne reports that the Design Review Board has reviewed and recommended approval of the project with no conditions. Thomson asked if there are any further questions or comments from members of the Board. There being none Thomson asks if there any questions or comments from members of the public. Mack notes that the special permit regarding parking is subject to this use and if there are any changes in the use they would have to come back to the Planning Board for review. Mack: Motion to close the public hearing at this time. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). Mack: Motion to approve the Site Plan Review with all conditions as requested by the City Engineer, Parking and Traffic Commission, and any other City Boards and Commissions. Flannery seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor, motion carries (7 -0). Page 10 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Mack: Motion to grant the Special Permit for any or all requested deviation from the off - street parking requirements and reviews the special permit requirements as follows: 1. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected. 2. Thatnofactualevidenceisfoundthatpropertyvaluesinthedistrictwil lbeadverselyaffectedby such use. 3. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. 4. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use. 5. That there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact. 6. That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Also, that the approval is subject to all the same conditions as the site plan approval and that the granted parking relief is specific to the user. Flannery seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #118 — 16 - construct one story masonry block building for skilled nursing facility —130 Sohier Rd., Lockwood Investment, LLC Flannery: Motion to recess for the public hearing at this time. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. Motion carries (7 -0). Wynne reads legal notice. Attorney Thomas Alexander addresses the Planning Board and explains that he is here this evening on behalf of Lockwood Investments. He explained that they are proposing to construct a one -story building to be used for a skilled nursing facility. He explained that this facility will be for short-term stays only noting hip replacements, knee replacements, shoulder replacements, etc. He explains location is the present location of Soccer Etc. and explains that the existing facility will be torn down and a new building around 56,000 s.f will be constructed. He further explains that they will have plenty of parking on the site. The Zoning Board of Appeals will be hearing the Special Permit for the proposed use. Page 11 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Alexander states that he is joined this evening by Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering, Chris Poravis, DiGeorgio Associates, Inc., Giles Ham, Vanasse & Associates, and Chris Chancellor, Lockwood Investments. Griffin addresses the Board and explains location. He shows an aerial photo of the area noting various locations in the area with regards to the site. Griffin reviews the site plan and explains that the building footprint is 56,000 s.f. He explains that there are currently two entrances to the property and they will be closing one off. He stated they're proposing to continue the sidewalk in front of the property noting the location on the plan and explains the circulation of the site. He explains that there will be a loop access road which will be a service road only and will meet the requirements of the Beverly Fire Department for access. Griffin explains the drainage for the site and notes direction of the now to Sohier Road onto the property and explains the locations. He notes the current conditions, and notes that there is some ponding on the site and they will be installing some underground storm water detention systems and notes the location on the plan. Under the proposed plan there will be no additional stormwater run -off. He also noted that there will be much more green space on the property than exists today. He explains that there will be 85 parking spaces on the site, which is more than required by zoning (45). The higher number is identified by Lockwood as the amount needed to effectively run the facility. Griffin explains there will be an oxygen tank on -site and explains the location on the plan on the service road. He also explains the circulation on the site with regards to deliveries of food and supplies for the facility. Poravis addresses the Board and explains that the building is set up for a 90 -bed facility and explains that they will initially open with 82 beds with the capability to expand to 90 in the future. He notes that the expansion would take place within the existing footprint and there would be no additional construction needed to add the extra beds. He explains the layout of the facility and the distinct public and private areas, noting that most of the rooms are one - bedroom, and notes the community areas and the location of the nursing stations on each floor. He explains that the ambulance entrance for the facility will be located in a drop -off area at the backside of the building, specifically for ambulances. He explains that this is a transitional care facility and people will becoming from hospital facilities for short-term stays before they return home. Poravis reviewed the materials proposed for the style of the construction and the materials they are proposing to use. Thomson asked for clarification of the location of the ambulance drop off site. Ham explains the location of the service road in the area designated for the ambulance drop off in the back of the building. He explains the circulation of the site and notes that the service road will be two -way. Thomson notes that the deliveries are made on the other side of the building. Chancellor explains the location on the plan and agrees that it is on the other side of the building. Page 12 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Griffin explains that Laura Rutledge prepared the landscaping plan for the project. He explains that they made a presentation to the Design Review Board on the landscaping and they seemed pleased with what they presented. He explains the landscaping plan and notes the areas that will be green spaces noting the areas in the courtyard that will be landscaped. He notes that along Sohier Road a number of trees will be planted and explains the landscaping plan for the front of the building. He explains that an earlier version of the plan included a sign for the front of the building however signs are not allowed along the streetscape and explains that they have temporarily removed the sign from the plan. He explains that for the moment the sign will not be located in the front of the building noting that they maybe back at a later time to see if they can install a sign in the front of the building. Griffin asked Giles Ham to make a presentation on the traffic study they've submitted at this time. Ham explains that they did a detailed traffic study with traffic counts during the week. He explains the data that they compiled on trip generations and notes there are between 20 and 25 trips from the site during the peak hours reviewed. He explains that there may be a little more traffic during the shift changes for the staff noting that would be around 7:00 a.m. and again at 3:00 p.m., noting that the facility will be staffed 24 hours per day. He explains that they met with the Parking and Traffic Commission and they suggested bicycle parking on the site to encourage alternative transportation. Hutchinson asked where the property is in location to the driveway at North Shore Crossing. Griffin explains the location of the North Shore Crossing driveway. Griffin explained the lighting scheme for the site and notes that they are trying to minimize impact on Sohier Road. He explained they use are using lighting devices that will cast the light down. Thomson asked if the drainage for the site runs down to the back of the site. Griffin explains the drainage flow and explains that it discharges in the direction of Cell Signaling and notes the area on the plan. Griffin also explains that some of the roof runoff will drain out to the parking lot and notes underground structures on the site that will collect runoff. Griffin notes that there will be less runoff on the site because there will be more green space than is presently on the site. Miller asks how the roof drains will collect roof runoff. Griffin explains that they will have gutters in some areas of the building to collect roof runoff. Miller asked about the roof structure and if they have looked at any alternatives for energy including living roofs or solar panels on the roof. Poravis describes that the front appears to be a mansard, with the backs being flat roofs. Poravis states that they have not looked at living roofs. Thomson asked if anyone from the public wishes to comment on this matter at this time. Hearing none, he asked for a motion. Page 13 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Mack: Motion to close the public hearing at this time. Hutchinson seconds. The motion carries (7 -0). Wynne explains that the City Engineer has looked at the plan and has not submitted a comment letter at this time and has indicated that he would be comfortable with the Board approving the project this evening conditional upon his review of the project. Wynne explains that the Parking and Traffic Commission has reviewed the project and made some recommendations Griffin explains that the commission requested that the sidewalk be extended and reviews the conditions and recommendations that the Parking and Traffic Commission submitted as follows: 1. Sidewalks shall be continued five feet wide to the main entrance. 2. Truck traffic shall be restricted to left turn only out of the site. 3. Bicycle storage shall be provided on the interior of the site 4. Revised plans shall be submitted to the Commission showing the addition of the sidewalk extension. Wynne questions the location of the sidewalk as shown on the plan and Griffin explains what they have agreed to. Wynne states that it is her understanding that the Parking and Traffic Commission wanted handicap access on the other side of the driveway. Griffin states that that was not discussed and explains that they do have handicap parking and notes the areas on the plan. Wynne explains that the Conservation Commission has submitted a letter indicating that they have no jurisdiction on the site but noted that the proposed project results in less runoff on the site. Design Review Board recommended approval with no conditions. The Fire and Police Department had no issues with the proposed plan. Hutchinson: Motion to approve the Site Plan Review conditioned upon approval by the City Engineer and subject to the conditions recommended by the Parking and Traffic Commission: 1. Sidewalks shall be continued five feet wide to the main entrance. 2. Truck traffic shall be restricted to left turn only out of the site. 3. Bicycle storage shall be provided on the interior of the site. 4. Revised plans shall be submitted to the Parking and Traffic Commission showing the addition of the sidewalk extension. and subject to the issuance of a Special Permit by the Zoning Board of Appeal. Mack seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). Page 14 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Public Hearing — Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan #8 —15 and Definitive Subdivision Plan — 11 -15 Sunnycrest Ave. Flannery: Motion to recess for the public hearing at this time. Hutchinson seconds. The motion carries (7 -0). Wynne reads legal notice. Bob Griffin is present for the applicant and he begins by describing the site. He explains that they have been to the Conservation Commission and received an order of resource area delineation. He explains the site is primarily wooded and notes location of the existing houses on the street. He explains that they met with the Planning Board in December for approval of the concept and yield plans for the site. He explains that the preferred plan calls for a road with a cul- de- sac,six new (7 total) dwellings and putting half the property in open space He notes that the current plan has relocated the roadway to try to save the large tree, as requested by the Board. He notes that there is an existing house on the site that they are proposing to demolish. Griffin explains the plans and explains that they've moved the property line a little further 15 feet downhill, away from the large tree. He explains the plan is still the same basic layout that the Board approved in December. Griffin explains the stormwater management for the site noting the location of the detention areas and easements and that they have met with the City Engineer. He explains that the City Engineer seems to be satisfied but noted that the city doesn't want any responsibility for the detention basins or pipes entering it; a homeowner's association will have responsibility. He expects that the road will be accepted as a public way. They intend to convey the open space to the City of Beverly. Griffin explains that they met with Parking and Traffic Commission last Tuesday and explains the recommendations of the Commission. He notes that they requested sidewalks on one side of the cul -de -sac and explains that given the small number of houses on the street they had not proposed any sidewalks and they do not feel they are necessary. He explains that they are proposing a sidewalk for the south side of the site at the request of the City Engineer and they feel that there is enough sidewalks for this site and there is no need for additional sidewalks. Thomson asked if there is lighting plan. Griffin states that the houses are reasonably close to the street and they feel that the light coming from the houses would provide adequate lighting. He states that they do not feel that an additional light is needed in the cul -de -sac. Griffin explains that they did not feel that sidewalks are necessary on the site but agreed to the sidewalk requested by the City Engineer so that the city would accept the street. Thomson asked if members of the Board have any questions on the proposal at this time. Page 15 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 C. Barrett asks about the cul -de -sac design. Griffin explains that the prior plan showed a landscaped island in the cul -de -sac, but it was removed upon consultation with the City Engineer for ease of snow plowing, etc. N. Barrett asked if Griffin feels that there is appropriate screening for the neighbors so that they are not affected by lighting due to the addition of the houses in the neighborhood. Griffin explains that the area is primarily wooded now and notes the do not disturb zone. He explains that they are unable to provide additional buffer in that area. He also states that he thinks that the homeowners would identify the precise location and size of each house and they also should be able to landscape their properties as they see fit. N. Barrett states that it's a pretty tight neighborhood and he would be concerned about the effects on the neighbors. Griffin says they are not providing any visual screening other than the 25 foot no disturb zone; he believes it is sufficient screening. Miller stated that screening in that area is inconsistent and suggested that some areas may need more screening. He notes that there are areas where people are going to be affected. N. Barrett asks about the 25 foot buffer zone adjacent to 1 Netherton Ave. Griffin explains that they are seeking a waiver for disturbance in that area since that area will serve as a drainage easement. Griffin states this easement will prevent anything from occurring in that area. N. Barrett asks if they would consider adding additional screening. Griffin says they are not opposed but it is not typically included and that the homeowners should be able to landscape as they see fit. Griffin explains that the lots are of normal size for the R -10 District and significantly larger than the minimum requirements. Mack asks if they have requested any waivers for this project. Wynne reviews the waivers that the applicant requests. Wynne notes that there is a request for a waiver of the open space management plan and explains that they will be turning the land over to the city. Mack asks what the open space management plan would require. Wynne explains that it depends on what the open space will be used for noting that if it is going to be left in its natural state there would be minimal maintenance and if it was going to be used for trails there would be trail maintenance required. Wynne also stated that they are requesting relief from the installation of a fire alarm system. Griffin states that they have spoken to the Fire Department and they are satisfied. Thomson inquires about the Open Space Committee's request for trail access. Wynne confirms that they are interested in trail access from Sunnycrest to the open space. Griffin states that it is their intention to convey the open space land to the City of Beverly to do with as they wish. A trail in the 25 foot buffer was not desirable to the applicant or existing neighbors during the initial review. Thomson opens the hearing to public comment at this time. Page 16 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Councilor David Lang of 2 Fosters Point address the Planning Board and stated that there are two issues that have been raised that he is concerned about. He noted that runoff on Hayes Avenue is still little bit of an issue and suggested that the open space access would probably be best off Hayes Avenue. He also stated that the 25 foot no disturb zones are pretty weak in certain areas and notes that there are several houses on the Bridge Street side of the site and notes that there are trees that have been there for a long time that he would like to remain. He stated that he thinks once construction starts there will be an awareness of how sparse the area is. Lang notes areas on the plan locations that he feels would be affected the most noting two houses on Bridge Street and abutters on Kennedy Drive. Griffin reviews the plans and the locations noted. Mr. Kalman Krasnay, 4 Kennedy Drive, addresses the Board and notes location of this property and states that he is concerned about stormwater drainage and blasting on -site and the impacts to his property of both. Griffin states that it is possible some blasting will be required and notes that they will be required to follow Fire Department regulations and the State blasting requirements throughout the project. These typically involve pre -blast surveys. Griffin explains that a 5' test pit showed they would be able to locate a drywell on the site and they plan to use crushed stone for infiltration to reduce runoff from the site. He notes the location of 176 Bridge St and the distance from the proposed homes. He also stated that he would note that without the OSRD restriction an owner would be able to build by right to the property line. Mr. Krasnay requests that some shrubbery or something be planted along the property line. Griffin states that there was at one time a swale proposed; but it was deemed not necessary per the drainage. Thomas Bravo, 12 Kennedy Drive, addresses the Planning Board and stated that he is concerned that all the new houses will have views of yards, and into, the existing homes in the neighborhood. He stated that there was a discussion at some point about planting something that would grow quicker than perhaps shrubs. He also states that he's worried about runoff as well. Griffin explains the drainage plan for the site. Mr. Bravo, on behalf of a neighbor, explains that all the houses that were built on Kennedy Drive were built on ledge. He stated that blasting is a concern and noted that the houses on Hayes Avenue are sitting on ledge as well and may have concerns as well. He asked if there was a protocol that determines if blasting is needed. Griffin explains the protocol for blasting. Mr. Bravo, on behalf of a neighbor, inquires whether future development of the adjacent site owned by Cormier will be made easier as a result of this project. Griffin explains location of the property line and states that it does not make sense to enter the site from that location and notes that he thinks future development is not feasible. Page 17 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 Griffin explains that all of the trees within the footprint of the house will be removed, except for some mature trees with a particular value, within 30 feet of the house that have been identified. Trees beyond 30 feet are usually not removed by a builder. He also stated that there will be no trees removed within 25 feet of the property line in the no disturb zone. But there is nothing preventing a homeowner from creating a lawn. He suggested that Mr. Krasnay could put some shrubs on his property, but it would not be the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Bravo stated that his concern is primarily that the value of his property will go down if someone is able to look in to his windows. Thomson stated that he was sorry to say that the Board is not required to protect someone's property. He notes that lot owners are always free to add additional screening on their own property and developers are not required to address views. Mack asked about the timeline for the City Engineer's review. Wynne indicated he would get to it the following week. Thomson stated that the Board will be continuing this matter to the next meeting for further information noting that the City Engineer is reviewing the plans. Mr. Ronald LaBonte, 25 Hayes Avenue, asked if there would be any additional screening on Hayes Avenue. Griffin explains that there will be no trees removed from the 3 -acre area of the plan with the exception of the trees to be removed for the construction of the detention basin. Mr. LaBontestated that he has some concerns about the health of some of the trees near his property noting some large branches fell last weekend and he has further concerns about a tree near his house that he fears will come down and cause severe damage to his property. Griffin stated that he would go out to take a look at those trees. The owner of 27 Hayes Ave also expressed concern about trees on her property. Griffin explains the stormwater management plan and provides with certainty that there will be less water coming towards the wetlands than exists today. Thomson asks if there are any further questions or comments regarding this matter. There being none he states that he would recommend that the Board continue the matter to the next meeting of the Planning Board in March. Mack: Motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting of the Planning Board. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Hutchinson stated that she wanted to follow up on Ms. Barrett's question regarding sidewalks and noted that her concern is always safety. If we're removing a sidewalk she does not have a sense of when a street light is needed and asked if there any guidelines for the Board to review when trying to determine if streetlights are needed. C. Barrett agreed and stated that she feels that it's a safety issue and that you cannot rely on ambient light from homes. Mack felt that people don't often use sidewalks, but that it also depends on the width of the street. Wynne explains that she has been working with the City Electrician noting that the city owns the streetlights now and not National Grid. She stated that she will talk with him and see if he has any opinions on the amount of street light there should be on the street. Mack stated that it depends on the grade of the area as well. Thomson believes it's a good idea to find out the City's standards and notes that every subdivision has a requirement for lights every so many feet and Page 18 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 developers are now asking for waivers of that. Wynne stated that, if it were a minor subdivision, the sidewalk, trees, and lights are all under the discretion of the Planning Board and they can require them if they feel they are needed. Thomson stated he would like to see what the City Electrician has to say regarding safety requirements for lighting. N. Barrett indicated he is not in favor of street lights. Miller noted that there are freestanding solar - powered lights available now could be easily installed that do not require wiring etc. Thomson suggested that the City Engineer may have an opinion on this as well. Hutchinson stated that she also has concerns about this notion if there is open space that gets donated to the City and the City has the responsibility of maintaining it which becomes a burden on the tax payers. Wynne states that she is glad that the Board continued this matter this evening because we have not had any discussions with regards to this proposed donation with the developer. She explained that they need to have discussion about who the land would be donated to, options include the Essex County Greenbelt, Beverly Conservation Land Trust, or the Conservation Commission. She also explained that the developer of Kelleher Pond site donated the pond to the city and provided an endowment. She explains that an endowment is encouraged for the maintenance and upkeep of the property and there could be a discussion with the developer as well. Miller stated that when he walked through the property he noticed several trees with large branches hanging and questions whether the city would even want the land. Thomson explains that it is up to the city whether or not they want to accept the donation of land; they don't have to accept it. Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Board and Beverly City Council Wynne reminded the Board members that the Planning Board and the Beverly City Council will have a Joint Public Hearing next Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. She asked that members indicate if they are able to attend noting that they need to have a quorum for the meeting. She explains that in the event that the Planning Board does not have a quorum the City Council could have the public hearing and the Planning Board can review the presentation at the next meeting. Wynne explains that there are some other zoning changes that will coming up that will require public hearings throughout the year with the City Council. She explained that an IR Overlay Zoning District amendment was introduced by the City Council at the last meeting without the review of the Planning Board at the last City Council meeting. Other Business C. Barrett stated that she has been attending Parking and Traffic Commission meetings and noticed in their recommendations it was indicated that the recommendations were passed unanimously and noted that on the occasions that she attended the meetings either not all of the members were present or members left the meeting early. She explained that she talked with Aaron Clausen about it and noticed that he has started providing accurate votes in their Page 19 of 20 Beverly Planning Board Minutes February 9, 2016 recommendations since the discussion. Wynne states that she thinks that Clausen's use of the word unanimous was referring to all voting members who were present at the time of the vote. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening a motion was made by Mack to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Hutchinson. The motion carried (7 -0). The meeting was adjourned at 10:15p.m. Page 20 of 20