Loading...
06-21-16 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: June 21, 2016 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair John Thomson, Ellen Flannery, Catherine Barrett, James Matz, Ned Barrett, Michael Rotondo, Wayne Miller, Ellen Hutchinson participated remotely Members Absent: David Mack Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Eileen Sacco Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans 167 Hale Street / 14 East Corning Street — First Federated Church of Beverly Wynne explains that the First Federated Church of Beverly also known as the Cove Church [Church in the Cove] has submitted an application for endorsement of an SANR Plan showing the division of the existing lot into two lots — Lot 1 and Lot 2. She explains that both lots have sufficient area and frontage and meet all other zoning requirements of the R -10 Zoning District. She also notes that both lots have access to an existing way. Wynne further notes that this division of land was recorded at the Registry of Deeds, in error without the Board's endorsement and explains that Lot 2 which contained a pre- existing house, was sold to a new owner in June of 2015. Wynne reports that the Planning Department recommends that the Board endorse this SANR. There being no questions or comments regarding this matter; Flannery: Motion to endorse the SANR for 167 Hale Street /14 East Corning Street as submitted. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). Hutchinson did not vote. 141 Hale Street and 151R Hale Street — Christ / Silva & Trout Attorney Thomas Alexander with offices at 1 School Street addresses the Board and explains that the applicant is requesting endorsement of an SANR plan showing the creation of Parcel A — 7,490 s.f. from 141 Hale Street, which will be combined with 151R Hale Street. He further explains that after the conveyance, 141 Hale Street will remain in conformance to zoning Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 requirements, with sufficient frontage and lot area. He also notes that 151R Hale Street, a pre- existing pork chop lot which is currently non - conforming as to rear and side yard setbacks in the southwest portion of the lot, will become more conforming as to side yard setbacks after the conveyance. Thomson states that there is a note on the plan indicating that Parcel A is not a buildable lot. Atty. Alexander agrees and reviews the note on the plan. Wynne explains that a lot can be made less non - conforming but cannot be made more non- conforming. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter; Flannery: Motion to approve the SANR for 141 Hale Street and 151R Hale Street as submitted. Miller seconds the motion. The motion carries (7 -0). Hutchinson did not vote. 90 -92 Boyles Street — Paradise Beverly R.T. Atty. Thomas Alexander addresses the Board and explains that the applicant has filed an SANR plan seeking to cut off a back portion of 92 Boyles Street and adding it to 90 Boyles Street. He explains that both lots have more than sufficient area. He notes that there was a question raised as to whether access to the lot will be required and explains that they are not creating a new lot. Alexander recalls that the City has approved a similar reconfiguration of these lots in the past when the land in the back was gifted to the City. He explains the location of the lots and the lot area on the plan. Wynne reports that she has looked at this and noted that the frontage was approved when the Board approved this in 2008. Atty. Alexander states that both lots have an Order of Conditions from the Beverly Conservation Commission and the Commission has approved both lots. C. Barrett asks if there are any criteria regarding properties that abut the railroad tracks. Thomson states that there are no criteria and it does not factor in at all. Miller asks if the Planning Department had any comments regarding this matter. Wynne recalled that initially they thought that there was no access to the lot but further research showed that it does have access and it meets all of the other requirements. She states that the Planning Department recommends approval of this ANR. Miller expresses concern that the Board did not receive this application until this evening. Wynne explains that they can accept SANR plans after the deadline for the posted agenda and notes that the agenda includes an option for SANR plans submitted after its posting. Page 2 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 N. Barrett clarifies that the frontage for the lot is on Boyles Street. Alexander agrees. N. Barrett notes that the lot appears to be a zig zag lot. Alexander explains the location and notes that the small lot has 29,000 s.f. of upland and zoning requires 22,000 s.f. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter; N. Barrett: Motion to approve the SANR Plan for 90 -92 Boyles Street as presented. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (7 -0). Hutchinson did not vote. 12 and 45 Whitehall Circle — Manor Homes Development, LLC — Approval of SANR and Request for Minor Modification to the Approved Site Plan Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, addresses the Board and explains that they have submitted an SANR Plan requesting the modification of a lot line for 12 and 45 Whitehall Circle. He explains the site plan and notes that the area shown in red is the current development that was approved for 27 new homes. He recalls that the Board approved an SANR to merge two lots on the site previously and that has reduced the total number of homes to be built to 26. Griffin reviews the plan and notes that there is an existing house shown on Lot 31. Griffin explains that the 2008 approval of the settlement plan for the cluster subdivision specifies the area, frontage, and setback dimensions for each lot in a table "Reductions in R -22 Building and Area Requirements and reported that because of the request for the ANR for lots 13 and 31 they need to modify the approval issued and they have applied for a minor modification request. He explains that smaller lot sizes and reduced frontages were permitted because this is a cluster subdivision. Griffin explains that the new lot line requires the exchange of portions of each lot and as a result of the lot line change Lot 13 — 45 Whitehall Circle, will decrease in size from 17,651 s.f. to 14,413 s.f., and the frontage will remain at 125.75 feet. He further explains that lot 31 — 12 Whitehall Circle, will increase in size from 17,692 s.f. to 20,930 s.f. and the frontage will remain the same. He notes that they are modifying the lot line for the back of the lot to run with the topography. He also notes that there is sufficient frontage. C. Barrett asks how many homes remain to be built on the site. Griffin states that there are 9 more homes to be built in the subdivision. Thomson states that this action will be creating a lot that is less conforming and suggests that they simultaneously do this with the requested minor modification to the plan which is also on the agenda this evening. N. Barrett suggests that the minor modification should be determined first and then the Board should act on the SANR noting that that the process would be consistent with the 2008 approval. Page 3 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 Thomson agrees and notes that the number of lots are not being increased, just the configuration of the lots. Wynne clarifies that the only change is in the side yard setbacks and the lot area of Lots 31 and 13 and there are no changes in frontage proposed. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Thomson calls for a motion from the Board. N. Barrett: Motion to find that the requested modification to the approved site plan for 12 and 45 Whitehall Circle is a minor modification. Matz seconds the motion. The chair votes in favor. The motion carried (8 -0). N. Barrett: Motion to approve the minor modification for 12 and 45 Whitehall Circle as presented. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). N. Barrett: Motion to approve the SANR for 12 and 45 Whitehall Circle as presented. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review #121 -16 — 102 Cherry Hill Development, LLC, c/o Connelly Brothers Inc. Attorney Miranda Gooding addresses the Board and explains that at the May Planning Board meeting the Board approved the Site Plan Review application for the construction of an 80,000 s.f. office and manufacturing facility for HighRes Biosolutions at 102 Cherry Hill Drive. She explains that they are here this evening to request a minor modification to the plan to reconfigure a portion of the parking lot and a change in the arrangement of the exterior panel treatments for the building. She explains that they have submitted revised plans with the changes highlighted. She further notes that the proposed changes do not expand the scope and nature of the original site plan that was approved. Steve Connelly addresses the Board and explains that they are requesting the minor changes proposed to accommodate the concerns of their neighbor, New England Academy, who requested that they move the first row of parking adjacent to their site further from their property line. He explains that to accommodate their request they are proposing to flip the parking lot which originally had a line of parking adjacent to the school and a driveway next to the Sam Fonzo side of the lot. He explains that the number of parking spaces will remain the same. He notes a retaining wall will be moved as a result. Connelly explains that the changes to the elevations are all related to a rearrangement of the steel panel wall system. He notes that the panel system remains the same manufacturer with both ribbed and flat panels but the arrangement of the ribbed and flat is changed slightly in order to use stock width panels. Connelly explains that he has submitted the approved original plans and the revised plan with highlights and notes for both the panels and the parking changes. Page 4 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 Miller asks if the abutter has seen the new plans for the site. Connelly explains that the abutter is the New England Academy and he has reviewed the plans with them and notes that they have addressed their concerns. Connelly notes that he is the owner of the property and the school leases the site from him. He explains that when he reviewed the plans with them they expressed their concerns about the location of the parking being close to their athletic fields and they worked with them to address their concerns. He notes that they are happy with the revised plans. Wynne states that the City Engineer has reviewed the proposed modification to the plan and has no comments. She also reports that the Design Review Board has reviewed the plan and has no concerns or comments. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: Miller: Motion to find that the proposed modification to the approved site plan for 102 Cherry Hill Drive is a minor modification. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Miller: Motion to approve the minor modifications to the approved site plan 9121 -16 for 102 Cherry Hill Drive, subject to all the conditions or comments stated in letters submitted by City agencies or boards and subject to Conservation Commission approval. N. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Flannery: Motion to recess for public hearings at this time. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #124 -16 — Construct 4,800 U Storage Building — 62 Dunham Road — Iron Tree Services, LLC Wynne reads legal notice. Wynne explains that this application triggers a site plan review for the addition of a second building on a site where the increase in building area exceeds 30 %. She also notes that the proposed building meets all dimensional requirements of the IR Zoning District and requires no zoning relief. John Maestranzi, Manager of Iron Tree Services addresses the Board and explains that they are proposing to construct a 4,800 s.f. storage building on the site where there is an existing building. He explains that the site is 10 +/- acres and there is ample room on the property to accommodate the building and explains that the purpose of the building is to house equipment, primarily two cranes and several wood chippers in addition to miscellaneous vehicles. Maestranzi explains that the building will be constructed of metal and ordered from General Steel of Littleton, Colorado. He notes that the planned size is 60' wide and 80' long totaling Page 5 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 4,800 s.f. He explains that the color of the building it to be determined but notes that it will blend in well with the landscape. C. Barrett notes that there is a letter in the packet from the Beverly Conservation Commission expressing some concerns about the site. Wynne explains that the Commission has requested that an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation ( ANRAD) be completed before they can be assured that the work is outside of their jurisdiction. She explains that the Board can approve the plan prior to the new wetlands delineation and if there are any changes as a result of the delineation being drastically different the applicant would submit a minor modification if necessary. Maestranzi states that he has retained a wetland specialist and they are working on the ANRAD and the concerns of the Commission. Matz states that he is more concerned with the comment from the City Engineer that there has been no Solid Waste Management Plan submitted. Maestranzi states that it has been submitted. Wynne explains that the City Engineer has made that a standard comment on their review letters. Matz states that it seems to be an extensive design and he wants to be sure that the Solid Waste Plan has been reviewed before he could support this. Wynne reviews the City Engineer's comments. Maestranzi requests that the Planning Board approve the site plan application pending approval by the City Engineer and the Beverly Conservation Commission. Miller notes that the applicant has not submitted an actual rendering of the proposed building and questions if the building will have a flat roof. Maestranzi explains that the roof will have a slight pitch. Miller questions if they could install solar panels on the roof. Maestranzi explains that they could put solar panels on the roof but the weight limit would be higher and notes that it is engineered for the Massachusetts Building Code. N. Barrett states that the Building Inspector needs to approve or review the Solid Waste Management Plan and suggests that the Board could conditionally approve the plan. Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. There are no comments or questions from the public. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter: N. Barrett: Motion to approve the Site Plan Review Application #124 -16 for 62 Dunham Road conditioned on the approval of the Beverly Conservation Commission and the City Engineer review and approval of the Solid Waste Management Plan. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Page 6 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 Thomson explains that Board member Mack had another commitment this evening and is expected to arrive shortly and suggests that the Board take the agenda out of order at this time and take care of other business on the agenda before continuing the public hearing on 480 -482 Rantoul Street. Matz: Motion to close the public hearing. C. Barrett seconds. The motion carries (8 -0). Flannery: Motion to reconvene the meeting and to take the agenda out of order. Miller seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). Bass River Estates Definitive Subdivision (a.k.a. Folger Avenue Extension) — Request for Extension of Construction Completion Date — Joseph J. Phelan III Wynne explains that Bass River Estates is requesting to extend the construction deadline from June 30, 2016 to September 30, 2016. She explains that this will allow them to complete the necessary legal work and finalize the Form I and tree easements with the City Solicitor, tree plantings, and the grinding and paving of the roadway from Lee Street to the entrance of the subdivision which is scheduled for July 2016. C. Barrett asks how long the extension stays in place. Thomson explains that they are asking for September 30, 2016 as the completion date and explains that if they need to extend that further it is at the discretion of the Planning Board to grant the extension or not. C. Barrett: Motion to grant the extension of the deadline to accept Folger Avenue (Bass River Estates) as a public way. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Set Public Hearing — Open Space and Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan #09 -16 and Definitive Subdivision Plan — 122 Cross Lane — Create 3 New Residential Lots — Benco, LLC N. Barrett: Motion to set the public hearing for OSRD Site Plan 909 -16 and Definitive Subdivision for July 19, 2016. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Approval of Minutes The minutes of the Planning Board meetings held on February 9, 2016 and February 16, 2016 were presented for approval. C. Barrett: Motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Board meetings held on February 9, 2016 as amended. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). It is noted that only 5 members were in attendance at the February 16, 2016 Joint City Council Public Hearing, and one of those is absent. Page 7 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 Flannery: Motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Board meetings held on February 16, 2016 as amended. Rotondo seconds the motion. The vote is 4 in favor with 4 abstentions; therefore approval will be deferred to a future meeting. The Board takes a 5 minute recess. Matz: Motion to recess for public hearings. Flannery seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Continued Public Hearing — Special Permit Application #149 -16. Site Plan Review Application #122 -16 and Inclusionary Housing Application #09 -16 — Construct 5 -Story Mixed Use Building with Retail and Commercial Space on Ground Floor and Related Parking. Utilitv and Landscanin2 Improvements — 480 -482 Rantoul Street — Beverly Crossing 480, LLC Matz: Motion to waive the reading of the public notice. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion carries (8 -0). Thomson recalls that at the last meeting the applicant made an extensive presentation on the project and the Board continued the public hearing to this evening because the Board was waiting to receive a letter from the City Engineer regarding his comments to the applicant and their response. Wynne reported that the Board received a letter from the City Engineer on May 23, 2016 indicating that he has accepted the revised plans that were submitted on May 19, 2016. She also reported that the Beverly Conservation Commission has reviewed a Notice of Intent filed by the applicant and has issued both standard and special conditions for the project. Thomson states that this is a project by right and the special permits requested are for providing less than required commercial space for the project and reduced parking requirements to accommodate an abutting neighbor for access to their property. He also notes that there is no relief requested for the inclusionary housing noting that the required units will be provided onsite. Attorney Gooding states that she has nothing else to add and notes that she has prepared some slides for the Board with bullet points on the requested relief with the special permits. Thomson asks how the Board would like to proceed. Miller states that he would like to hear Attorney Gooding's presentation at this time. Attorney Gooding states that she also included part of a presentation made recently in Beverly relative to the parking study done by the Planning Department in 2012 which was updated by the Planning Department in 2016. Page 8 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 Attorney Gooding explained that the proposed project is on Rantoul Street in the CC zoning district. She notes that a 5 -story building with 90 units of housing is proposed of which 11 units will be affordable housing units. She explains that there will be a mix of 62 1- bedroom units and 28 2- bedroom units. She also states that there will be 5 handicap accessible units in the building and notes that 4 of them will be affordable units. Attorney Gooding explains that there will be 1,900 s.f. of commercial space on the first floor and notes that it is approximately the size of the Atomic Cafe. Attorney Gooding explained that they are proposing 108 parking spaces for the project and explains the circulation of the traffic on the site noting one way access through the parking area. Attorney Gooding explained the relief that they are requesting for the project. She notes that they are going through the Site Plan Review process and have requested two Special Permits. Attorney Gooding explained that they are seeking a special permit from the parking requirements and referred to the parking analysis done by the Planning Department and notes that it was based on excise tax bills. She explains that the study found that parking utilized by the downtown buildings is approximately .92 spaces per unit. She explains the parking data for the Burnham Building and the Enterprise site and notes that they are comfortable with their proposal to provide 108 parking spaces on -site with 7 on- street parking spaces for the commercial space. Thomson asks what the zoning requirement for parking is for the project. Attorney Gooding stated that it would be 118 spaces which would be one space per bedroom. Attorney Gooding also explained that part of the reason they are seeking relief from parking is to accommodate the request of the Parking and Traffic Commission for traffic circulation improvements on the site and the other is to help an abutter retain access to an industrial condominium. Miller clarified that the parking requirement for the site is 1.3 spaces and they are looking to reduce it to 1.2. Attorney Gooding agreed. Attorney Gooding explains that the second special permit they are seeking is for the mixed use retail requirement for a reduction in the requirement of 25% of the total space be dedicated to commercial use. She notes that the retail space on Rantoul Street is substantially underused and there are several vacant commercial spaces in the area. She also notes that they have designed the building to interact with the street. Wynne states that the proposed project meets the vision of the Beverly Master Plan regarding housing in the downtown and notes that the City has found that there is a demand for 1,000 units of housing downtown. Thomson states that Attorney Gooding did a good job addressing the key issues of the project and asked City Planner Aaron Clausen to address the Board and comment on the project in relation to the City Master Plan. Page 9 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 City Planner Aaron Clausen addresses the Board and explains that the City of Beverly adopted its Master Plan in 2003 with a 25 -year vision for the City for land use and economic development. He explains that the Master Plan calls for additional housing in the downtown of up to 1,000 units by 2030. He explains that while the Master Plan does not use the term transit - oriented housing, the addition of the Beverly MBTA garage and the location of the train station makes these units attractive to young families and professionals to live here. He notes that they are finding that people are more likely to take the train or other forms of transportation if they are available. He notes that Beverly is very walkable with a variety of mixed uses that make it attractive. Clausen reported that there were a number of meetings held on this project with Planning Department staff and the Design Review Board to review the design of this project and notes that the ground floor is well articulated and a successful design on many levels. Clausen reported that Rantoul Street and Cabot Street are two miles long and the City has designated Cabot Street as a cultural district and have been focusing on building cultural amenities in that area. He also notes that Rantoul Street has the benefit of the Depot Station and the focus is commercial uses consistent with that area as well as housing. Clausen states that this proposed project is consistent with what the City is trying to do and it fits well with the Master Plan objectives. Matz questions if the 5 story, 55 -foot height of the building regulations is applicable to all of Rantoul Street. Clausen explains that 5 stories, 55 feet in height can be built by- right. Thomson notes that he was surprised to learn that the new MBTA Parking Garage is so little used. Clausen explains that there are a number of parking spaces available in areas of the downtown and notes that the addition of the garage spaces provides 5 times the amount of parking spaces. He notes that the construction of the site caused the community to adapt and find alternate parking in the area and they are not yet drawn to the garage. He notes that the Beverly train station is the Y highest used station on the commuter line and he feels that over time we will see more use by the community. N. Barrett questions if all of the retail parking requirements will be met with the proposed 7 on- street parking spaces proposed. He questions if from a planning perspective if the parking takes into consideration the accommodation of the demand for parking in the neighborhood noting that the Board has heard some concerns about this from the neighbors. Clausen states that the City held a Downtown Parking Open House to look at how parking is utilized in the downtown and explains that they are looking at options for parking including creating new municipal parking lots and use the existing parking more efficiently. Attorney Gooding also notes that there should be parking available on the site during the day as residents leave for short term parking for the commercial use. She notes that the capacity during the day should leave the on- street spaces available for the customers of the commercial use. Page 10 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 Thomson thanks Clausen for his presentation. Thomson opens the hearing up for comments and questions from the members of the Planning Board. C. Barrett addresses the Board and notes that there are two private residences to the north and south of the site. She questions if any thought has been given to purchasing these properties and the effect that this project will have on them. Chris Koeplin of Beverly Crossing explains that they were approached by one of the owners to purchase their property but it did not work out and they did not hear from the other owner. He notes that they held a neighborhood meeting and have worked with the neighbors on their concerns about construction. C. Barrett asks what the increase in the impervious surface will be on the site and the amount of green space that will be provided. Attorney Gooding called on John Eng to address this matter. Eng addresses the Board and explains that there will be a fair amount of impervious surface on the site due to the parking. He explains the subsurface infiltration system that will take runoff to the river. He also notes that a portion of the runoff from the front of the building will feed into the wetland area at the request of the City Engineer to ensure that the existing wetland remains a wetland. C. Barrett asks if there is any roof greenery or solar power planned for the building. Siemasko explains that they will have solar panels on the roof. C. Barrett states that the building is designed to be closer to the street and questions how many feet there will be between the sidewalk and the first floor of the building. Siemasko explains that there is 8 feet between the curb and the front of the building and 8 more feet to the first face for a total of 16 feet from the curb to the face of the building. He explains that an effort was made to move the building back at the request of the Design Review Board and they feel that this is a well - articulated layout. C. Barrett states that she feels that 25% of commercial space is high but she also feels that the proposed 2% of retail space is low. She reviews MAPC suggestions. Attorney Gooding explains that the commercial space size is a little deceptive noting that the 131 Rantoul Street commercial space is 8% and explains that 1/3 of the first floor of this building will be commercial space. She explains that it makes sense for more retail space in the front of the building but a larger amount would require the use of more of the back of the building which would not be attractive for customers. C. Barrett agreed that the back 50% of the building use for commercial space does not make sense and it should be in the front of the building. C. Barrett asks if there are any spaces set aside for visitors on the site. Attorney Gooding explains that there are no assigned parking spaces planned for the site and visitors will be allowed access to the parking onsite. Page 11 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 C. Barrett asks if there is a location on the site for deliveries or would they be using the parking spaces on the street. Siemasko explains the locations on the plans where deliveries can be made. C. Barrett questions the traffic projections presented for the project. Eng addresses the Board and explains the calculations that they used for the projections. He notes that they are projecting that 30 -40% of people will use public transportation and notes that people will leave the site at various times throughout the day with the busiest times projected at peak hours. C. Barrett notes that Gloucester Crossing intersection has a Level of Service (LOS) D and asks if that will be improved by the Rantoul Street improvement project. Eng explains that there will be a slight increase in the LOS at Gloucester Crossing. C. Barrett asks how the trash will be removed from the site. Attorney Gooding explains that there is access to the rear of the site for trash removal and also notes that Beverly Crossing is committed to recycling and that there will be recycling areas and the removal will be by a private company. C. Barrett asks if the Fire Department has any issues with the height of the building and the use of the ladder truck. Wynne states that the Fire Department has signed off on the project and has expressed no issues with the height of the building. C. Barrett asks what the vacancy rates are in the City for housing and questions if there is a demand for this type of housing. Attorney Gooding explains that the vacancy rates for Beverly Crossing and Windover Developments are about 2 %. She explains that the Burnham and Enterprise buildings are full and she expects that there is a waiting list for McKay Street that is scheduled to open this summer. Wynne states that the economic snapshot shows that the vacancy rate in Beverly is 2 %. Chris Koeplin addresses the Board and states that new product in Beverly is highly preferred. C. Barrett states that she has no more questions and thanks the applicant. Miller questions why the applicant did not purchase the home to the north of the property when it was mentioned. Steve Dodge of Beverly Crossing addresses the Board and explains that they had discussions with the owner and they looked at options for including that parcel in the site but it did not work out. Miller notes the location of another complex in the area and asks if they took that into consideration when designing this building. Koeplin states that they did not look at it. Miller notes that the property seems to be lower than the proposed building and asks if they took the wetland into consideration when looking at the area. Koeplin explains that the wetland there is now an urban puddle and they are proposing to feed the wetland and provide some additional Page 12 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 plantings to improve the wetland. Matz agrees and notes that the wetland is a choked -out reed marsh with cattails. N. Barrett notes the request for the reduction in parking and asks what the developer is doing to encourage alternative transportation such as providing bike lockers etc. Attorney Gooding explains that the number of parking spaces proposed is ample to provide parking for the site. She also notes that the developer is providing bike storage in the back of the property. She also notes that the Parking and Traffic Commission has requested on other projects that the owners promote the use of alternative transportation and they would be providing information on train schedules etc. and are looking into car sharing and bike sharing options as well. N. Barrett states that he would like to see indoor bike storage on the site noting that bikes are expensive and people will not want to leave them outside. Koeplin explains the location of the bike storage. N. Barrett asks if there are going to be any green public space on the site. Siemasko explains the location of the green areas on the site and notes an area in the back of the site where people could gather. He also notes the units have balconies and the first -floor units have a small green space outside their units. Thomson opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Cynthia Modugno addresses the Board and expresses her support for the project and notes that they look forward to seeing this development. She explains that they needed access for their business and Windover has been very helpful in working this out. Casey Soward, Executive Director of the Cabot Cinema, expressed his support for the project. He notes that this kind of development is good for the local businesses noting that the Larcom Theater was recently purchased and they are looking forward to increased business from this. Gin Wallace of Beverly Main Streets addressed the Board and stated that Main Streets is about more retail and the space proposed is small but the positioning of it in the corner makes it look much bigger. She also notes that she attended the housing study meeting held last week and notes that there is a demand and a need for housing in Beverly. She explains that the meeting attendees were asked for the top three priorities for Beverly and each of the groups stated that there should be more mixed use housing around the train stations. She notes that it was a diverse group of people and they all felt the same way. Attorney Gooding states that she has some remarks to make on the special permit criteria to be met by this application. She reviews the special permit criteria with the Board. She explains that this segment of Rantoul Street is home to a diverse set of uses that do not fall into a particular category. She notes that this use is consistent with the master plan and the goal of revitalizing Rantoul Street. She also notes that there is an existing permit for this site that is strictly retail that has been marketed and has not been built. Page 13 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 Attorney Gooding reviews the following criteria for special permits as follows and notes how they meet the requirements. 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. That no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will be adversely affected by 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. There being no further questions or comments regarding this proposal, Thomson asks for a motion to close the public hearing. Matz: Motion to close the public hearing. N. Barrett seconds. The Chair votes in favor. The motion carries (8 -0). Thomson states that it is up to the applicant to decide if they want the Board to proceed this evening noting that there is one Board member absent. Attorney Gooding requested that given that there is not a full Board this evening that the Board consider taking a straw vote to see if they have the votes this evening or if it would make sense to wait until the next meeting. C. Barrett asks if that is something that is allowable. Thomson states that the Board can do so if they choose. Matz states that with regards to the special permit for parking, the parking is more than adequate and the retail space is also more than adequate. He notes that 18% vacancy in retail downtown needs to be considered and notes the size of the space at Flourish is adequate for a project such as this. Matz states that the size of the building is a concern for him and he is concerned about the needs and desires of the people in the neighborhood and he would like to see something that is a little lower profile. He states that the presentation was a good one but notes that he feels that the building will dwarf the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. Page 14 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 Flannery states that she is in support of the design of the project noting that a lot of time was spent on this at the Design Review Board, of which she is the Planning Board's representative. She states that she is in support of the Special Permits and the Site Plan. Thomson states that he is in full support of the project and notes that the City is in need of this type of project. He notes over the years there have been opposition to large projects in the City that have been beneficial noting that the Cumming Center has been a big boon for the City. He notes that in terms of fit, it is a good project and meets all of the criteria for the Board to approve. Hutchinson states that she is not necessarily in line with a straw vote and if the applicant doesn't like it they can come back but since others have committed to give their opinion she will do the same. She states that the character of the building overshadows the neighborhood and creates undue traffic and nuisance. She recalled extensive commentary from owners in the area regarding parking difficulties in the area and she has concerns about reducing the parking requirements. She also states that there were valid objections made about the project with relation to the criteria for granting a special permit. Miller states that parking proposed is adequate and the design of the building conforms to the dimensional restrictions for the project and he could support the project. C. Barrett states that this is a good project and she has voiced her concerns about the amount of retail space and she would be more comfortable with more retail. She states that she believes that if you build it they will come and she feels that the space would be filled. She also states that there are parking deficiencies in the area and notes that at the last public hearing neighbors expressed concern about parking in the neighborhood. N. Barrett states that with respect to the Special Permit for parking it has been demonstrated that there will be ample parking. He also states that the Special Permit for the retail space with 1,900 s.f. of retail that does well is better than a larger space that is empty or underutilized. He also states that he likes the idea of the green space in the front and it is a positive thing. He also states that regarding the site plan he would prefer to have more green space and he feels that when looking at it this will impact the character of the neighborhood; he notes that it is a blue - collar neighborhood and he thinks that this project will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Rotondo states that the project was well presented and he is in support of the project. Attorney Gooding states that based on the comments of the Board they would like to continue this to the next meeting of the Board when there would be a full Board and the missing member could listen to the transcript of the meeting and be able to vote on the project. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Thomson calls for a motion from the Board. Page 15 of 16 Beverly Planning Board Minutes June 21, 2016 Matz: Motion to continue this matter to the next meeting of the Planning Board on July 19, 2016. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The Chair votes in favor the motion carries (6 -2). Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Planning Board this evening. Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Matz seconds the motion. The motion carries (8- 0). The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Page 16 of 16