Loading...
12-20-16 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Date: Location: Members Present Members Absent: Others Present: Recorder: Planning Board Meeting December 20, 2016 Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Catherine Barrett, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, James Matz, Wayne Miller (participating remotely) Ned Barrett, Michael Rotondo Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Mary Alice Cookson John Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. He thanks everyone for coming out during the holiday season. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans Wynne says there are no SANRs to review. Approval of Minutes The Board discusses the Regular Meeting minutes of May 17, 2016. Matz notes some minor editorial changes needed (for missing words, spacing issues). Flannery: Motion to approve the May 17, 2016 minutes with minor edits. C. Barrett seconds. The motion passes (7 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Mack, Matz, Miller in favor). Cluster Subdivision Plan Chapman's Corner Estates (Settlement Plan) — Expiration of Letter of Credit (1/15/17) and Request for Bond Reduction — David Carnevale, Manager, Manor Homes Development LLC Wynne says the developer is working on the subdivision and the City Engineer has supported the bond reduction of $36,438 for roadway work that's been completed. Thomson clarifies the balance in the letter of credit is $94,200. Thomson notes that the extension to the Letter of Credit is not yet available and that the Board should require it be submitted before it expires, failing which the Board will seize the Letter of Credit. Matz: Motion to approve the bond reduction and extending the Letter of Credit for 12 months, subject to the condition that the applicant provide the Extended Letter of Credit by January 15, 2017, failing which the Board will seize the Letter of Credit. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Mack, Matz, Miller in favor). Beverly Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2016 Continued Public Hearing — Site Plan Review Application #126 -16 and Special Permit Application #152 -16 - Construct four -story building to house an assisted living facility with ground floor commercial space and 52 -car 2ara2e; deviation from parking requirements for elderly housing - 50 Dunham Road — Vitality Senior Living, LLC Mack: Motion to recess for public hearing. Hutchinson seconds. The motion passes (7 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Mack, Matz, Miller in favor). Flannery: Motion to waive reading of the public notice. Hutchinson seconds. The motion passes (7 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Mack, Matz, Miller in favor). Wynne brings the Board up to speed on the project. The Conservation Commission voted to approve the project with special & standard conditions detailed in their decision. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance to authorize the use "Subsidized Elderly Housing" in the IR district and a variance so that the applicant can provide a payment in lieu of providing affordable housing on site. The applicant submitted a supplement to the application containing elevations for the proposed commercial part of the building and prepared plan revisions for the Conservation Commission providing additional detail about grading. She suggested the commercial piece could be addressed at a later date, if modified. Questions regarding drainage and utility connections were addressed. The Board had traffic- related questions that were responded to by the Planning Director in writing and included in the staff report. Miranda Gooding of Glovsky & Glovsky, introduces the project team: Jerry Pucillo, Project Manager Vitality, Jonathan Giori, Levi + Wong Associates, Andy Truman, Samiotes Consultants, Inc, Rod Emery, Jacobs, and Mike Dissette, Glovsky & Glovkky. She says Wynne did a nice job summarizing what has happened and that they have one major update. She confirms there were no members of the public at any prior hearing. Aside from traffic concerns, she notes the Board's concern with the proposed request for a special permit for parking. The Building Inspector did provide a letter of support, and suggested the applicant identify reserve parking. The zoning ordinance requires 0.75 parking spaces per unit for this type of use. She notes they are proposing 0.46 spaces per unit, which Gooding says is consistent with communities like Lexington and Arlington who have defined such a use. Gooding notes that since the last Board meeting, the applicant worked out an agreement with Cummings Properties, the owner of the overall site, to acquire up to 34 additional parking spaces as reserve parking, which brings the amount of parking up to what is required by the zoning should it be needed. The agreement also provides, on an interim basis, excess parking that is already available on the site. She notes that Cummings has also allowed for the use of 34 spaces on Pond Side Drive until the reserve spaces are built out, should there be a need. She pointed the parking out on a plan handed out. Gooding reminds this a 118 -suite assisted living facility with 6,000 square feet of proposed retail use. At the 0.75 ratio, it would yield a parking requirement of 89 spaces plus the parking for retail, bringing it to a total of 111 parking spaces. Gooding details how by relying on the 54 spaces shown on the existing site plan, agreement with Cummings for 26 surface parking spaces, Page 2 of 8 Beverly Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2016 and the reserve parking spaces, they can account for 114 spaces, which means the special permit wouldn't be necessary. Thomson confirms these spaces are not dedicated to another building's parking requirement. However, Gooding says it is their hope not to build the parking spaces if they are not needed. Therefore, the applicant is standing by its request for the special permit. She explains that 28 of the assisted living units are memory care units, where residents won't require parking. She note the staff of 26 will have parking provided at 100 percent. The balance of the parking would be for visitors, most of whom come on weekends and off -hours when the office buildings aren't in use and parking is more available. Mack asks who will provide the oversight to determine whether the need for reserve parking is triggered. He asks whether the applicant is open to providing that data and what the standard would be to determine if the parking is sufficient. Gooding notes that the responsibility for the intersection improvements falls to the property owner and comments that the she expects Cumming Properties will be back before the Board in the near future. She indicates she'd be happy to work with the Board and City staff to craft adequate language. Mack suggests the agreement is thin and questions what the commitment of future owners might be if at some point in the future Cummings Properties no longer owns the property. Gooding introduces Steve Drohosky from Cummings Properties; she says condominium documents haven't been established yet and they are happy to submit the condominium documents to the Building Inspector. Hutchinson asks for clarification that if the interim parking spaces start getting used then the applicant will create permanent spaces somewhere else. Gooding says that is correct. Gooding states that during the Parking & Traffic Commission meeting, much of the discussion was about the timing of signalization improvements for 52 Dunham Road. She said she wanted to restate what bears emphasis: that the traffic generated by this use is small (a less than one percent increase over present conditions). She noted built -in conditions that trigger an analysis and buildout of traffic improvements when conditions warrant it and says it would be premature to require them now for this project. Rod Emery of Jacobs Engineering Group introduces himself and says he's been working on this interchange since 2004. He provides some history on his analysis in this area. He says that peak - hour traffic will increase by less than 5% on Dunham Road in the worst -case scenario and on Brimbal Avenue it will increase by less than 1 %. Thomson clarifies that all of the traffic from Dunham Road has to go onto Brimbal Ave. Emery explains that traffic is dispersed or diluted on Dunham. In their studies, Emery says they did account for uniform background growth, both Cummings' projects, 100 anticipated employees at Cell Signaling, the project before North Shore Crossing. He says that back when he did studies in 2004, they did traffic counts of the North Shore Music Theater. He notes there is a detail officer there when performances are letting out who functions Page 3 of 8 Beverly Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2016 like a traffic signal. He noted it is a special case and that personal habits could be adjusted to work around known theater schedules. Emery noted they did not do Saturday counts. He said Saturdays have about half of the traffic /delays on Dunham Road than occurs during week, so that's why they didn't analyze Saturdays. He comments that the nurse and staff shifts won't coincide with the times the theater lets out. He reiterates that the impact on traffic caused by the Vitality project is minimal. C. Barrett voices concerns about the cumulative effect of all the construction in the area. She notes that the traffic circles have improved things and people are getting used to them. She is concerned about the times when the NSMT is getting out. Emery responded that it's a 20- second delay vs. a 4- second delay. He says that the NSMT generates less traffic on weekends than during the weekday and that when it happens, a police officer is there. Barrett notes there is no current signalization there. Emery says the plans for signaling do exist, but they need to be prepared for the review process. Thomson confirms that the traffic signal is tied to a condition for site plan approval of 52 Dunham Road. Gooding explains it is correctly stated in the Staff Report, and requires a warrant analysis first, 6 month and 1 -year after occupancy. Emery says he thinks it will meet the warrants for a signal. C. Barrett wanted it noted in the minutes that in the area near the Roller Palace, there is currently a proposal for a skilled nursing facility. She says this one small project isn't significant, but all of these could create what she calls a perfect storm in which nobody would want to be anywhere near this exit. Emery said a solution to that in the future would be to build a bridge across 128 and perhaps another roundabout. C. Barrett asks if there is a certain time period where we would want a new study. Emery says the report he did for Phase 1 was in 2014 and another study should be done now. Matz asks what the Design Review Board (DRB) might push back on related to the commercial uses. Gooding says they went to the DRB a couple of times and modified the plan to make the building less institutional at their request. The DRB has recommended approval of the building. C. Barrett asks if there is any public transportation to this site. Gooding responds there is not. Thomson asks if there will be signage telling people where to park when those extra parking spots are needed. Drohosky says that until a need is demonstrated, there won't be signage. Discussion ensued about how visitors would know to park in the garage. Pucillo says that one thing they have done regarding the design is to emphasize the garage entry as the main entry. Hearing no comments from the public, Thomson asks for a motion to close the public hearing. Page 4 of 8 Beverly Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2016 Mack: Motion to close the public hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes (7 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Mack, Matz, Miller in favor). Thomson discusses the conditions. He notes one is to have the City Solicitor review the condominium documents to verify that the parking options exist. He proposes a condition to have the applicant come back one year after 90% occupancy and report on the adequacy of parking. Gooding says that would be fine. Mack notes the conditions in the staff report and letters. Wynne asks for them to set a trigger as to when the condo documents should be reviewed. Gooding indicates the certificate of occupancy would make sense. He supports granting the plan approval with the condition that the DRB has the opportunity to review elevations. Mack: Motion to grant the Special Permit with the following conditions (as also described above): that the applicant comply with the comments and conditions submitted by City departments and boards; that the Design Review Board has the opportunity to review the elevations for the commercial space; that evidence of a parking arrangement showing adequate parking, which agreement shall be reviewed by the City Solicitor; and that the applicant shall conduct a parking usage analysis at one year after 90% occupancy. By this motion, the Board finds that the project meets the criteria set forth in Section 300- 91B.a. — £ of the Zoning Ordinance. Matz seconds. The motion carries (7 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Mack, Matz, Miller in favor). Mack: Motion to grant the Site Plan Review application with the condition that the Design Review Board have the opportunity to review the elevations and the applicant be required to come back to the Board if any modifications deem it necessary; and subject specifically to the Conservation Commission Order of Conditions. Flannery seconds. The motion passes (7 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Mack, Matz, Miller in favor). David Mack leaves the meeting at 8:10. Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review #124 -16 — 62 Dunham Road — Iron Tree Service, LLC John Maestranzi, who appeared before the Board in June, is addressing the Board again to ask permission to move the proposed building (a 4,800- square -foot storage building) approximately 80 feet toward Route 128 due to better site and soil conditions there. Griffin Engineering was hired for the project and has shown the site utilities upon the request of the Planning Board. Matz indicates that was one of his concerns and he is satisfied. Matz notes that he was also concerned with protection of the resources areas and an extensive stormwater management plan. Page 5 of 8 Beverly Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2016 He notes he is encouraged by this modification, in regards to his concerns. Maestranzi indicates that he has put in place a SWPP that has been approved by the State and that he has been working with the Conservation Agent and City Engineer. Hutchinson: Motion to deem the modifications as minor. Flannery seconds. The motion carries (6 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Matz, Miller in favor). Hutchinson: Motion to approve the modifications as shown on the site plan. Matz seconds. Motion carries (6 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Matz, Miller in favor). Open Space Residential Design Site Plan (OSRD) & Definitive Plan — Greening Way (Formerly 122 Cross Lane) — Land Court Plan Endorsement — Benco, LLC Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering Group, LLC reminds the Board that they approved this plan in plan in September and says this is a request for a modification. He is speaking on behalf of the applicant, Ben Carlson of Benco, LLC, who is creating three residential lots at 122 Cross Lane. Griffin explains that there are two modifications at hand. Griffin explains that the first modification request relates to the land court process, being that parts of the site were registered land and parts were recorded land. He notes the minimal changes that were made and requests the Board's approval. Hutchinson: Motion to deem the site plan changes resulting from the land court plan as a minor modification. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion passes (6 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Matz, Miller in favor). Hutchinson: Motion to approve the land court plan changes made to the approved OSRD Site Plan & Definitive Plan. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion passes (6 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Matz, Miller in favor). Since September, Carlson has sold a lot (2 Greening Way) to a purchaser who proposed a new design for the building, which is larger than shown on the approved plan. He notes the driveway was flipped so that it is on the other side of the house and made larger. This change adds 800 square feet of impervious surface to the site and therefore they've added a second dry well. He notes the Limit of Clearance proposed at the time and shows how the new owners would like to reduce the Limit of Clearance to allow room for a grass lawn area. Wynne confirms that none of this is taking place in the No- Disturb Zone. Wynne explained that limit of clearance is one of the factors that the Board can review and because it was more significant and part of an open space subdivision, the Department felt that the Board may want to review the modification. She confirms the staff requested they submit it. Matz clarifies the Board needs to determine if the changes are minor. Thomson says he assumes none of the changes have happened yet. Griffin indicates that approximately half of these changes have already occurred. Page 6 of 8 Beverly Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2016 C. Barrett asks about the square footage of the house. Carlson respond that it is a 3,600 sq. ft. house. The house on 3 Greening Way will be 2,700 sq. ft. and the proposed house on 1 Greening Way will be 1,900 sq. ft. Carlson explains that his primary goal was serving the need of his client and didn't feel he was circumventing the Board. Thomson indicates that he agrees, but is glad that the staff invited him to attend. Matz talks about the view driving up to the area and notes that you will still see what you see now. The pockets of additional clearing won't be visible from the road. Griffin confirms. Hutchinson wonders if the Board should require a replacement for the area where a wall was proposed at the edge of the No- Disturb Zone. Griffin explains the proposed landscaped plan. Griffin suggests you could fill in some trees in the no -cut zone, but believes it is good the way it is. C. Barrett says she thinks it's fine. In the areas where they are looking down to the soccer field, they might choose to fill in. Hutchinson: Motion to deem the site plan limit of clearance changes to Lot 1 as a minor modification. Flannery seconds. The motion passes (6 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Matz, Miller in favor). Hutchinson: Motion to approve the limit of clearance modification to Lot 1 on the OSRD Site Plan and Definitive Plan. C. Barrett seconds. The motion passes (6 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Matz, Miller in favor). Request for Minor Modifications to Site Plan Review #112 -14 — 50 (52) Dunham Road — Anderson Clarke, LLP Steve Drohosky and Mike Aveni, Cummings Properties, make their presentation concerning modifications to the 52 Dunham Road building located behind the former Parker Brothers facility. Drohosky notes that in the process of finishing construction they came upon some site conditions that warranted changing a few things. While constructing the parking garage, they didn't find ledge that they anticipated and so they were able to create a larger parking garage under the building, which added 72 extra parking spaces. Drohosky indicates that they straightened out a curve in the roadway. They also changed the grade so there is no retaining wall where they had it previously. They revised the building entry slightly. Aveni notes it is roughly on the same spot, but was simplified with the expectation that most people will enter through the garage. Drohosky notes they also added an additional drive into the building so there are two ways in and two ways out. They added a rip rap wall to deal with the elevation change between the building and the pond and removed a small retaining wall in the middle which became unnecessary. He added that they replaced what was anticipated to be a concrete retaining wall with large concrete stones that came from blasting. Some of that wall ended up too far on the City property. They have Conservation Commission approval to pull the wall back. Page 7 of 8 Beverly Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2016 The biggest change is they were able to do more excavation resulting in 215 parking spaces, up from 143 spaces, so now they have more parking than is required by permits and are thus able to give some of those to the Vitality project. The utility plan has also changed in that they are running the sewer system differently than was previously proposed. There is no change in run- off and they did a stormwater management report that's been approved. The erosion and sediment control plan hasn't changed much. Wynne notes that Thomson filed a disclosure of a potential conflict of interest with the State Ethics Commission because he represents Essex County Greenbelt Association and was cleared. This was relevant to the Conservation Restriction on the adjacent land being held by ECGA. Matz applauded the applicant for the changes and for their transparency in coming back to report on them. He asked about the response from the Conservation Commission, which asked that a wall be pulled back. The applicant showed on the plan and explained that the proposed modifications have resolved the concerns of the Conservation Commission, bringing the wall on to the site and further from resource areas. Wynne noted that a floodplain permit will still be required. Wynne responded that the only other issues raised by the City Engineer was related to drainage up on the hill and grading regarding parking spaces that are 6% sloped instead of 5 %. The applicants say they are working to address that, though they disagree with the Engineer's finding on the parking grade. Matz: Motion to deem the site plan changes as minor. Miller seconds. The motion passes (6 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Matz, Miller in favor). Matz: Motion to approve the modifications to the Site Plan and described in the letter to the Planning Board. C. Barrett seconds. The motion passes (6 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Matz, Miller in favor). New or Other Business Wynne makes note that there is a new schedule for the next year. She announces that Aaron Clausen, Planning Director, wants to address the Board at its January meeting regarding the Bass River Overlay zoning and there is going to be a public meeting about that the following day, on January 19. She said that Clausen wanted to make sure that Board members knew they won't be expected to attend that public meeting. C. Barrett thanked the recorder for the minutes. Wynne said that they are getting caught up but there are still some from the summer remaining. Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The Board votes to adjourn the meeting (6 -0, Thomson, Hutchinson, C. Barrett, Flannery, Matz, Miller in favor). Page 8 of 8