Loading...
02-6-2017 CC and BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly City Council Date: February 6, 2017 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, James Matz, Wayne Miller, Ned Barrett, Catherine Barrett Members Absent: Michael Rotondo Councilors Present: Council President Paul Guanci, Vice President Scott Houseman, John Frates, Don Martin, Jason Silva, James Latter, Matthew St. Hilaire, Estelle Rand, David Lang Councilors Absent: None Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen Recorder: Mary Alice Cookson *BevCam videotaped the meeting. Council President Paul Guanci opens the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. Mack: Motion to open the Joint Public Hearing. Ellen Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0). *Ned Barrett had not yet arrived. Continued Joint Public Hearing: City Council Order #211 of 2016, as amended by Order #211A — Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance #300 -38, RSD Special Residential District, by amending Chapter 300 — Zoning, Article VII: District Regulations as follows: 1. Amend Section 300 -38.11, Uses by right, by removing the following: (3) Multifamily dwelling or apartment house, subject to the requirements of Subsection H below: and 2. Amend Section 300 -38.C, Uses by Special Permit, by inserting the following: (11) Multifamily dwelling or apartment house, subject to the requirements of Subsection H below: and 3. Amend Section 300 -38.1) (1) by increasing the minimum lot area per dwelling unit from 3,600 square feet to 15,000 square feet Et. Seq. Beverly Planning Director Aaron Clausen is invited to the podium. He explains that the City Administration is still in conversation with the Folly Hill /Trask Lane property owner. Currently the owner is looking to do some impact analysis for a full build -out under the current zoning regulations of RSD, examining issues such as the traffic impact on Routes IA and 62 and the number of school -age children that would potentially be entering the schools. Clausen reviews comments made during the first public hearing and during an informational neighborhood meeting. Along with new traffic generation and impacts on City resources, he notes that both Councilors and residents of adjacent neighborhoods have expressed their concern with cut - through traffic and how traffic will enter the site from the surrounding neighborhoods. Beverly Planning Board & City Council Joint Public Hearing Minutes February 6, 2017 N. Barrett arrives and joins the Board at 7:32 p.m. Clausen distributes copies of a zoning map showing the RSD area in green and R -22 in purple. Three columns on the backside of the map show Zoning Amendment Scenarios for Folly Hill under the existing zoning, R -22 zoning and the RSD amended zoning. The new amendment, he explains, essentially swaps out what the Planning Department had previously proposed. Based on comments made during the public hearing and from the neighborhood, the Planning Department is now proposing to retain the RSD zoning and adjust the lot area requirement and make multi - dwelling units subject to a special permit rather than by right. He highlights the number of school kids under each scenario and the number of ADTs (average daily trips) generated by each. The new plan achieves the objective of reducing the scale of the project and mitigating impact on City resources while addressing the concern of providing access through the site to adjacent neighborhoods, he says. Questions from the City Council: Guanci asks how solid we are with the fact that there can't be any cut - through on the right hand side of Elliott Street. Clausen responds that the RSD zoning states there is a buffer zone around the property. Within that 200 -foot buffer zone, there is a restriction of access. Guanci says they worked hard to make sure that those gates on the fire road remain and there can't be any cut - through and that this is maintained. Councilor Jason Silva asks for an update on the current situation with the property owner. Clausen talks about the applicant's filing of a preliminary subdivision plan that freezes the zoning. But he notes that just because the application is initiated and maintains the zoning rights, things do still happen. Silva asks if the property owner has frozen the zoning for 8 years by taking the action that he has. Clausen says, no, that the zoning is frozen for 6 [sic *] months or until the definitive plan is presented [ *Correct number is 7. See note clarifying process at end of the JPH minutes]. Councilor Estelle Rand asks how this project fits in with current application plans for the City. Clausen answers that a large -scale residential development in the RSD area does not align with the housing plan, which focuses on TOD (transit- oriented development). It also doesn't fit with the plan because this property is very poorly served by transportation. Councilor Matthew St. Hilaire says that in his view the property owners had a negative reaction to the proposed change. Clausen says that most of the negatives are around the changing of the zoning and that they haven't reached an agreement on what is appropriate for the City and the property owner. One idea is to look for ways to increase open space. Page 2 of 7 Beverly Planning Board & City Council Joint Public Hearing Minutes February 6, 2017 Councilor James Latter asks whether there could be any commercial uses for that site. Clausen responds that they've looked at commercial uses, such as industrial uses. They have reached out to brokers and found there's really not a lot of interest for that at the site. Councilor John Frates says he is glad to hear about not impacting the neighborhood but the thousand trips is still a lot. He asks Clausen if he's talked to Danvers about roadway issues. Clausen says yes and that everyone understands that the Route 128 exits at Routes IA and 62 are challenged. He mentions that some improvements could be made to expand the deceleration lane. Council Vice President Scott Houseman wants to clarify what happens if the subdivision plan is filed within the 6 [sic *] months and asks how definitive would the subdivision plan have to look, for example, would it have to be close to actual realization if it were filed? He also asks: What happens to the freeze if the definitive subdivision plan is not filed? Clausen responds that if the definitive plan isn't submitted within the six months, the freeze is not available. If the definitive subdivision plan is not approved, the freeze is also not available. However he notes it is difficult for the Planning Board to deny a project. When an applicant submits a definitive subdivision plan, they are showing the lot lines and need to demonstrate there is adequate access to the site. There is also detail to the infrastructure that they have to look at, such as whether that exit at Trask Lane can accommodate 1,000 daily trips. The plan doesn't have to show all the buildings, he points out. Houseman asks, given that March is just around the corner, is it fair to assume that the applicant is proceeding at a pace to develop a definitive subdivision plan to submit? If the 6 [sic *] months pass without filing the definitive plan, what would be the effect if the City passes the amendment it proposes today? Clausen says that yes, the amendment would be in effect, but he expects the property owner to proceed on its definitive subdivision plan and if that happens, the Board is looking at the numbers under the first column on his report. Councilor David Lang inquires about the wetlands there. Clausen says there would be a Conservation role in that, as well, to determine what constitutes wetlands and what is developable. Lang asks if there's been any discussion regarding senior housing. Clausen responds no. Guanci asks if Clausen would include Lang in his discussions since if affects his ward and Clausen agrees. Questions from the Planning Board: James Matz poses two questions: What is the total acreage of the property? What is the acreage deemed buildable? Page 3 of 7 Beverly Planning Board & City Council Joint Public Hearing Minutes February 6, 2017 Clausen responds there are 76.2 acres total and approximately 20 acres of wetlands under the original wetlands delineation. He says there is also the 200 -foot buffer zone that would be backed out of the equation. Planning Board Chair Thomson seeks clarification regarding the zoning map. Clausen says the area in purple is the Beverly Golf and Tennis Club. Clausen says only the green part would be changed. Thomson asks if the buildings shown in the green area all exist. Clausen says that the 76 acres are the areas in green taking out the areas that have buildings on them. The existing structures would remain as nonconforming. Thomson notes even if the applicant presented a complicated plan of house lots, it is not necessarily what he would have to be building. Clausen says that the applicant could come back with an amendment that could be a minor or major, but it would still be subject to the current zoning. Wayne Miller asks if there is a number for the ADTs occurring currently. Clausen says no, he doesn't know that answer. The ADTs he is showing are projected over and above the existing traffic that goes in and out daily. Miller says he was wondering what the increase would be. Clausen responds it would be 500 x 6 or about 3,000 trips per day Questions from Members of the Public: Maureen Troubetaris, 28 Davis Road, a former Ward 1 City Councilor and resident of the surrounding neighborhood, asks if the Board is going to be voting on the proposed zoning amendment before March. Thomson says yes, that the board is going to act on it tonight. She then asks what happens if the property owner submits his definitive subdivision plan prior to March 1. Clausen says that the Board would then have to review the definitive subdivision plan under current zoning. She says she represented that area for 22 years and there were complaints and fights about it. She asks if there is anything preventing the developer from developing the fire road. Clausen says there are actually three ways in to that property, but the subdivision plan that was approved restricts access on the fire road and the property owner has acknowledged that the fire road can't be opened up. Troubetaris talks about the buffer zone and notes that saying you can't build in wetlands is wrong because that's been "replicated all over the city." She also points out that there have been many fires there and the Danvers Fire Department gets to that area first. Steven McCarthy, 9 Cleveland Rd., off of County Way, says that although he is hearing that there is a low -level risk that the fire road would ever be converted to a public way, he wants to know if it is possible to get that in writing. Clausen says that it already is in writing. Page 4 of 7 Beverly Planning Board & City Council Joint Public Hearing Minutes February 6, 2017 Rick Marciano, 141 McKay St., says he has requested that the City work with the developer and notes there is approximately $15 million in the rainy day fund. He asks if Clausen has spoken with the owners of the property about purchasing the property for open space. Clausen says they haven't discussed acreage or details but open space is part of the discussion. Marciano says that the property owner did show the big picture and was trying to work with the Board to get some of the roads erased to put more buildings in there. The original plan comes out to approximately 920 units. Neil Spencer, 54 Sunset Drive, asks if the buffer zone can ever go away. His concern is that things happen suddenly and then are a done deal. He wants to know if maintaining the buffer zone is cast in stone. Clausen says the Board is sticking with the RSD zoning because it preserves that 200 -foot buffer. Guanci asks if there is any further discussion. There is not. Mack: Makes a motion to close the Public Hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes unanimously (8 -0). * Editorial Note: Subsequent to the meeting and during the transcribing process, Aaron Clausen noted that during the meeting he was mistaken regarding the zoning freeze associated with approval of the Preliminary Plan. He misstated throughout the evening that it is a 6 -month period from the time of application of a Preliminary Plan until the deadline for filing a Definitive Plan. The State Law actually requires the filing of a Definitive Plan within 7- months from the filing of a Preliminary Plan, in order to achieve the freeze. If this is met, and only if a Definitive Plan is approved, then the zoning is frozen for 8 years. Page 5 of 7 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Special Meeting of the Planning Board Date: February 6, 2017 Location: Beverly City Hall, Conference Room B Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, James Matz, Wayne Miller, Ned Barrett, Catherine Barrett Members Absent: Michael Rotondo Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Reporter for The Salem News Arianna MacNeill Recorder: Mary Alice Cookson Further Discussion / Decision: City Council Order #211 of 2016, as amended by Order #211A — Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance #300 -38, RSD Special Residential District, by amending Chapter 300 — Zoning, Article VII: District Regulations as follows: 1. Amend Section 300 -38.B, Uses by right, by removing the following: (3) Multifamily dwelling or apartment house, subject to the requirements of Subsection H below: and 2. Amend Section 300 -38.C, Uses by Special Permit, by inserting the following: (11) Multifamily dwelling or apartment house, subject to the requirements of Subsection H below: and 3. Amend Section 300 -38.1) (1) by increasing the minimum lot area per dwelling unit from 3,600 square feet to 15,000 square feet Et. Seq. John Thomson opened the meeting and James Matz clarifies that the Planning Board is reviewing the proposed zoning amendment for recommendation to the City Council and is not considering elements of the project that relate to subdivision regulations. Clausen confirms this is the case. N. Barrett asks if there is a manner by which they can extend this project beyond the 6 [sic *] months. Would they have more time if there is an extension? Clausen says that the applicant merely needs to submit the Definitive Subdivision application to take advantage of the 8 -year vesting period if the subdivision was eventually approved. He notes that there is some question about whether the plan even has to be a complete application for the applicant to benefit from the zoning freeze. Thomson notes that there is significant work that will need to go into completing subdivision plans, stating that the owner has to engineer the road. C. Barrett says they could have been working on this since September to prepare the definitive subdivision application in the time frame needed to benefit from the freeze. Beverly Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes February 6, 2017 Matz says that if a definitive plan is submitted, it would be up to the Board to approve that and there isn't anything to be done to improve the condition. Clausen discusses things that could potentially be done for improvement at the exit. Building an overpass is not likely because it would be cost prohibitive. Improvements could include increasing the deceleration lane, for example, but he says that the Board is limited in its ability to disapprove a subdivision plan if it demonstrates that it meets subdivision regulations. That said, the Board can impose conditions on an approval to make sure the project has adequate access consistent with subdivision regulations. He notes that the applicant is currently doing a traffic study. He expects it would be finished later this month and that would be part of the discussion. Mack comments that it seems to him that the Board can't do anything until they see what the plan looks like. He asks about the timing for the enactment for this ordinance. Clausen responds that presumably the City Council would act fairly quickly. However, rushing to adopt the proposed amendment will not affect the zoning freeze. He notes that things can happen, though. For example, in the case of Brimbal Avenue, the 6 [sic *] months window was missed. Thomson says that the applicant could put in a bare bones application. Matz asks, are we in a race here? Clausen responds no. The 6 [sic *] month window was started. C. Barrett says that the applicant could come in tomorrow with the definitive subdivision plan. Ned Barrett: Motion that we recommend the zoning amendment with the language as stated. Mack seconds the motion. The motion passes unanimously (8 -0) [Hutchinson, Mack, C. Barrett, Matz, Miller, Flannery, N. Barrett and Thomson] New Business Clausen says that the Board received an application for a subdivision on Hillside Avenue, which is a minor subdivision plan and they will need to schedule a public hearing. C. Barrett notes that the Board's next regular meeting is next Wednesday, which is a week early this month. Thomson says he is going to be away next week and will be unable to attend. Adjournment N. Barrett: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Mack seconds the motion. The Board votes unanimously to adjourn the meeting (8 -0). Page 7 of 7