Loading...
09-19-2017 BPB Minutes (2)CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: September 19, 2017 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Catherine Barrett, Ned Barrett, Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, James Matz, Wayne Miller Members Absent: David Mack Others Present: Assistant Planning Director, Darlene Wynne Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair John Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans 15 & 17 Leather Lane — Lisa Whollieb Bob Griffin, of Griffin Engineering, on behalf of Lisa Whollieb, spoke about this property. He tells the Board that the owner wants to realign some of the lot lines and will not be increasing the lots, but rather making the lot lines more organized. Mr. Griffin demonstrated to the Board the new lot lines that Ms. Whollieb would like to change. Thomson asks if the lots get more frontage with the change. Griffin tells him the lots will have more than adequate frontage. Thomson asks Board if there are any questions. He asks Wynne if they meet requirements for endorsement as subdivision approval not required and she tells him it does. Hutchinson: Motion to endorse the plan as subdivision approval not required. Miller seconds. The motion passes (6 -0, Matz and N. Barrett not yet arrived). 16 -18 Doane Ave — Joseph DeLorenzo /Thomas & Linda Marletta Kerrie Feener of 18 Doane Avenue is seeking to adjust a previously approved lot line. Hutchinson asks her to walk them through the boundaries and what will change. She tells them they are adding an addition and in order to get a proper setback they have to move the lot line. Thomson asks where the frontage is located. Wynne tells him the Board already endorsed an SANR back in June. She adds the lots exist already and have had houses since the 1970s and that the frontage is not changing as a result of this request. Thomson asks if there is some access and Wynne points out the driveway location. Thomson comments that it is a small change. C. Barrett asks if the easement is a sewer easement. Wynne tells her it is and could be an easement for an adjacent property possibly and means no permanent structure can be constructed on top of it. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Flannery: Motion to endorse the plan as subdivision approval not required. Hutchinson seconds. The motion passes (6 -0, Matz and N. Barrett not yet arrived). 199 and 211 Rantoul Street — Windover Ford LLC (applies to both 211 Rantoul and 199 Rantoul Streets) Thomas Alexander, office at 1 School Street. Alexander explains that there are two ANR's on one plan. He shows the Board that they the first ANR for 211 Rantoul Street creates a new lot from the back of the parcel which complies with the RHD requirements in that district having 50 ft. of frontage and 8,000 s.f. of land. The second ANR for 199 Rantoul Street, which is the parking lot for Thomas Ford, creates a new lot from the rear of the parcel and exceeds the required area and frontage within the RHD district. Hutchinson asks if they need separate votes for each one. Thomson and Wynne tell her they do. Alexander comments they are separate applications so it would make sense. C. Barrett asks if it is currently two separate lots, and Alexander tells her yes and that each one is going to become two separate lots, so four lots total. Hutchinson: Motion to endorse the plan for 211 Rantoul Street as subdivision approval not required. Flannery seconds. The motion passes (6 -0, Matz and N. Barrett not yet arrived). Hutchinson: Motion to endorse the plan for 199 Rantoul Street as subdivision approval not required. Flannery seconds. The motion passes (6 -0, Matz and N. Barrett not yet arrived). Approval of Minutes Board reviews minutes for approval for May 30 and June 20 Flannery states that she noticed some typographical errors on page 2 of the June 20 minutes regarding parking spaces, in the 5 th paragraph. She also noted edits on page 8 regarding the motion made by David Mack. Thomson mentions on that same set of minutes, regarding Webster Avenue and requests that the language 800 foot cul -de -sac be replaced with 800 foot roadway. Flannery: Motion to approve minutes for both May 30 and June 20 as amended above. E. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes (6 -0, Matz and N. Barrett not yet arrived). Matz arrives. Continued Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #127 -17 and Special Permit Application #153 -17 — 105 Sam Fonzo Drive — Construct two self - storage buildings, one general commercial /light industrial building, and request for three driveway accesses — Beverly Airport Self Storage, LLC, c/o Miranda Gooding, Glovsky & Glovskv, LLC Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Flannery: Motion to waive the reading of the Public Notice. E. Hutchinson seconds. The motion passes unanimously (7 -0, N. Barrett not yet arrived). Miranda Gooding, Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC speaks on behalf of the client. Gooding tells the Board that in April Mr. Matz recommended they ask for an extension to meet with the Conservation Commission and they have made modifications to the site plan, resulting in an improved project and a smaller project. Gooding shows the Board the corner lot in the IR district with about four acres, where two acres are required. She shows the original site plan with 3 buildings proposed originally including 2 mini storage buildings. Building A was a three -story building, 20,800 sq.ft. and Building B was 6,400 sf She notes on Sam Fonzo Drive side a small commercial building is proposed having no tenants just yet; however, it would be a conforming industrial /commercial building with associated parking. She adds the 3 curb cuts are proposed on Sam Fonzo Drive, where 2 are allowed as a matter of right. In addition, there were 2 curb cuts proposed originally on LP Henderson Drive. Gooding then describes the project revisions. She states that the stormwater retention basin was moved from the original part of the site to the rear of the site behind Building B. This resulted in Building B becoming a smaller building, reducing it from a 2 -story to a I -story building and decreasing by about 1,500 sf and elimination of the need for access at the rear of this building. The other 2 buildings remain the same, as well as the curb cuts. Impervious area on the site has been reduced from was 57.6% in the original project to 45.9 %, noting it is a significant improvement. She adds the plan eliminates 2,500 sf of resource area disturbance by moving that detention basin out of the resource area to the back of the site. They are providing 41 parking spaces where 38 are required. The City Engineer requested a sidewalk along LP Henderson, which the applicant has agreed to construct at 5 -feet wide. Thad Siemasko, Siemasko +Verbridge, tells the Board that they have added a 13 -foot high canopy as a weather shelter to the main entrance of Building A for unloading trucks, etc. He adds that the height of building and general usage stayed the same. Building B was reduced from 12,000 sf (6,440 sf footprint) to 4,050 sf and the entire lower level was removed. Before there was a walk -out, basement and now the Grade has been raised thus reducing the overall building height. Building C will not change. Thomson asks Siemasko if they would move back the access at LP Henderson and to clarify the access. Siemasko and Gooding explain where the access is on the plan. Thomson is concerned about the proximity to Sam Fonzo Drive. Siemasko answers that the distance is about 50 -60 feet from the intersection of Sam Fonzo Drive. C. Barrett asks what the total number of curb cuts are. Siemasko answers there were five originally, and now it's down to 4 curb cuts. C. Barrett asks how many parking spaces would there be and Siemasko answers that there will be 41 where 38 are required. Siemasko explains where Sam Fonzo sidewalk ends and how the sidewalk will be continued. Hutchinson asks about Building B, mentions it is located close to a detention area and asks if they had a discussion on any restrictions on what could be stored there. Gooding tells her that 3 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 this is new to the plan. Siemasko comments that there is usually a list of what they can't store for tenants, so it would depend on the tenant. Wynne tells the Board she received a letter from the Conservation Commission stating recommendations of what could be used in the vicinty, including herbicides, contaminants, etc. She adds there was nothing specifically about what could be stored, noting this parcel is not in the watershed. Wynne mentions there are conditions from the Board of Health, City Engineer, and the Parking and Traffic Commission. She recommended the Board consider conditions 2 -4 of the P &TC letter, noting that condition 1 doesn't apply due to the plan revision. Comments by Beverly Airport and Fire Department are also no longer applicable. She recommends the Board conditions include a review of the plan from the Fire Department to make sure they are okay with the revised plan. She notes the Conservation Commission also had a number of conditions. C. Barrett asks if those conditions need to be approved. Gooding tells Board that the conditions are acceptable. Hutchinson mentions that Beverly Airport told the applicant they need to file with the FAA, and asks what the FAA might come back with. Gooding tells her they have already filed and have been approved but they want to make sure the height and location of the building won't interfere with the aircraft. N. Barrett arrived after the hearing started and is not eligible to vote. Flannery: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Hutchinson seconds. The motion passes (7 -0- 1, N. Barrett abstains). Hutchinson: Motion to grant the special permit for the above -named project and finding that the site is an appropriate location for the proposed use and the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected, and that no factual evidence was found that the property values of the district would be adversely affected by such use, that no undue traffic or nuisance or unreasonable hazard would result, that adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of proposed use, that there are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact, and that adequate City services are and will be available for the proposed use. Subject to the conditions set forth in the Planning Department staff report and subject to compliance with any and all conditions set forth in the letters from various City departments, boards and commissions which will be attached and incorporated herein, and those will include the Board of Health, City Engineer, Parking and Traffic Commission conditions 2 -4, the Fire Department approval of plan, and the Conservation Commission. C. Barrett seconds. The motion passes (7 -0). N. Barrett abstains. Hutchinson: Motion to grant site plan approval with the same conditions set forth in the previous motion. C. Barrett seconds. The motion passes (7 -0 -1, N. Barrett abstains). Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Continued Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #156 -17 — 2 -6 Enon Street (Dodge Crossing) — Request for two restaurant uses in CN District and Water Supply Protection Overlay District — Centderry, LLC, c/o Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC Hutchinson: Motion to open Public Hearing. Miller seconds. The motion passes (8 -0). Wynne reads the Public Notice. Miranda Gooding of Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC speaks for applicant Centderry, LLC. Gooding gives Board a handout to review regarding presentation. She explains that the property of 2 -6 Enon Street is located in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District and is a well -known business plaza. Centderry, which specializes in retail development around the North Shore, purchased the property in 2016. The applicant has a long -term vision for improvement of the plaza. She tells them that the site is 1.3 acres with two existing curb cuts on Enon Street. The existing 27,500 sf building was constructed around 1973 and contains one -story and two -story structures and a mix of commercial uses. Gooding notes that at the time of construction of the property all of the existing uses were allowed in that district as a matter of right and as the CN zoning district evolved, some of the uses including the Hong Kong restaurant have been grandfathered in, because there was never a special permit granted for that use. The primary use is retail use, as well as restaurant use, office use, and warehouse use. She explains that under existing conditions the site would require 98 parking spaces and there are only 79, which leaves them with a 19- parking space deficit. Gooding describes the proposed changes, noting that the applicant plans to demolish the Hong Kong restaurant wing, which is 1- story, and reconstruct the existing 2 -story wing. In its place they are proposing 2 new restaurants in two phases: one will be about 4,000 sf with 88 seat capacity and the other will be 1,800 sf with 28 -seat capacity. Thomson asks Gooding to clarify the difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Gooding explains that the Phase 1 would be the demolition of the Hong Kong restaurant wing and improving with new parking spaces. The other part of Phase 1 would be to convert the Learning Express space into a new restaurant/cafe with a 28 -seat restaurant. Phase 2 would occur after existing tenants have moved out and involve demolishing and reconstructing that portion of the building (former "Sportsman's Barber" and other uses) as a single -story end -cap, which would include 4,000 sf of restaurant space. She comments that since they have filed the original application a lot of things have changed, such as 50% of the tenants have vacated the space. So based on the leases, it could be all done in one phase. She notes they currently do not have any tenants for those spaces. Hutchinson asks if the 2 -story comes down and is converted to a 1- story. Gooding confirms that is correct. She explains that they need a special permit to authorize use for restaurant, and that because it is in the Water Supply Projection Overlay District, they need the Planning Board's authorization rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals. She also tells them that the project does not require site plan review because they are reducing the building footprint. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Thomson asks if the restaurant use is not allowed in that district. Gooding explains that commercial and industrial uses are required to get a special permit. She tells them it is an existing use and it doesn't conform. There is some confusion between the newer part of the building to be constructed and the existing part, and Gooding tells Thomson she will amend the application if needed. Andrew Rose, applicant and owner of the property, which he bought a year ago explains to the Board the different architectural styles in the current building. He explains that the Hong Kong wing blocks a lot of the parking on the left -hand side of the building, so they want to remove that. He wants to turn it into a contemporary retail plaza. In the plan they would eliminate 1,000 sf of the Hong Kong wing and cut back the front of the two -story building by almost 500 s£ He notes this change will help by adding parking spaces, provide an area for some outdoor seating, and modernize the building with some more updated materials. Thomson asks if the construction will all be on the south end of the building. Rose explains that when they remove the Hong Kong wing and tear it down and rebuild, they will be rebuilding on existing foundation, but it won't extend south as it currently does and that will help open up the parking. Gooding comments that the construction of the new addition would be subject to the Design Review Board before the building permit can be issued. She explains the special permit findings as outlined in the application, noting they believe that they meet the special permit criteria for the approval of the restaurant uses. She believes the proposed restaurant use, not knowing what kind of restaurant tenant they will get, is still compatible with the CN district and scale of the retail plaza, and that they have many compatible uses in the area. She adds that the proximity to the train station makes it very desirable for folks who live and work in the neighborhood. She comments that there is no evidence that the property values will be adversely affected by this use, and if anything they believe it will help improve property values. They also don't believe it will cause any undue traffic, or hazardous conditions, etc. The project is located in the commercial district with adequate infrastructure and will improve the parking capacity. The applicant believes that they are not adding a significant use and the reduction of the space in the building will reduce the average daily trips by 110 trips per day compared to the existing uses. She states that she has a letter from the Project Engineer that addresses that. Thomson asks if the chart is based on particular uses and if it is a standard formula. Gooding tells him that it is based on the plaza use as a whole. Miller asks if, based on the office space usage being reduced and the restaurant space usage increases, if there are any numbers on traffic as it currently exists. Gooding tells him there was no traffic study done but the analysis was based on traffic estimates for a standard shopping plaza. Miller asks if it has not been reviewed by Parking and Traffic and Gooding tells him that would be triggered only under site plan review and the project does not require that. Miller asks if the average number of trips is just theoretical. Gooding tells him the Engineer estimated the average daily trips based on engineering software and that no matter the use, it would not have a marginal impact, and since there is a significant improvement with parking situation it does not create any undue nuisance or traffic concerns. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Hutchinson asks about the existing traffic counts, which she understands is from a formula, does it take into account uses for offices, warehouses, etc. Gooding hands over the question to David Kelly, Project Engineer, who states it is based on Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) data and they based it on shopping centers, which includes a mix of uses, including offices, warehouses, restaurants, and retail, on a national level. He tells them there is a reduction of square feet in the plan, and also a reduction during peak hour traffic. He comments that the restaurant hours wouldn't be a factor in the morning and any traffic into the plaza would probably be after the PM peak hour. Hutchinson then asks if taking away office space but adding restaurant space would reduce the afternoon peak from 103 to 84. Kelly tells her that yes, based on the theoretical numbers. Miller asks about seats in the restaurant and how that relates to the decrease in 10% of the traffic and Kelly explains that in this scenario converting office space which is normally a 9 -5 operation, peak usage is a different usage of a restaurant, and minimizes trips during that time. Miller questions what the hours of operation would be. Gooding tells him it is unknown at this time, but they are looking for flexibility as they are not sure what the restaurant would need. N. Barrett asks if the applicant needs a special permit for the restaurant use because it will be in the CN and Water Supply Protection Overlay District. Gooding tells him it would have to be mainly on- premises eating, and there is restriction on drive - thrus, etc. C. Barrett asks if the current tenants are going to remain in the plaza. Gooding answers they would stay. C. Barrett states her concern is the space is going from 1,000 sf to quadrupling restaurant space, and although she understands the traffic formula, it will depend on the tenant, such as a Panera or a Dunkin Donuts would have a higher AM peak, and restaurant if opened later would peak in the PM. She notes it is hard to predict at this point with no set tenant. She agrees traffic flow and parking space increase is a positive. She asks about the outdoor seating at the last restaurant. Gooding says yes outdoor seating will be at one, but probably not the other restaurant. Rose tells her that there may be one morning use restaurant, and then the other would be more evening, etc. He doesn't expect to have two of the same uses. Thomson asks if anyone from the public is there to ask questions. He asks the Board if they would like to continue this hearing until the October meeting. C. Barrett asks if all construction will be done in 1 phase instead of 2. Gooding answers yes. Thomson invites a member of the public to speak. Pamela Constantine of 7 Devon Avenue mentions that the Hong Kong Cafe was more of a take- out place, not a sit -down restaurant, and adding a bigger restaurant is a completely different use. She tells them it is right in the middle of a neighborhood and normally quiet at night and empty. She's concerned about the volume of noise increasing with a sit -down space outside the restaurant. She mentions that the current office space is not large and neither is the volume of people going in and out of the office. She thinks it will increase traffic and change the neighborhood. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Matz asks if there will be an asbestos survey being done since it was constructed in 1973. Rose tells them they would evaluate that and perform one if it is necessary. Matz then asks, if the building is in the Water Supply Protection Overlay District what is the magnitude of the soil disturbance plan for the expansion. Gooding reminds him that the site is completely paved. Rose tells him they will take the Hong Kong building footprint down and then repave it and the other part would be built on an existing foundation. Matz asks if there will be any excavation work and Rose tells him no. Thomson asks if there is a basement and Rose tells him that Hong Kong has a basement, but that the basement space would be filled and repaved. Miller wants provision for trash removal, recycling, and composting for the restaurants. Thomson wants the applicant to think about traffic circulation and asks if anything can optimize the flow, etc. Hutchinson: Motion to continue the hearing to October 17, 2017. Flannery seconds. The motion is approved (8 -0). Public Comment Period and Public Hearing: Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Initial Review Application #10 -17 — Initial Review and Yield Plan — create 9 dwelling units — 20, 30 and 40 Webster Avenue — Benco LLC Wynne reads the Public Notice. Thomas Alexander, office at 1 School Street, representing the applicant Benco LLC, tells the Board it is a significant and unique property, with 14 acres with some existing trails and within 1 /2 mile of train station. The parcels meet the triggers for OSRD Site Plan. He explains it could be 9 fully compliant lots on a street to accommodate those 9 lots, but it could be other options if need be to preserve Open Space. Thomson explains what a Yield Plan is to members of the Public. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering describes the existing conditions by pointing out a 5- family building, a 6- family building, and a single family built in 1850, noting the applicant wants to try to preserve those properties. He points out the property is near Glen Urquhart School, Greenwood Avenue, and the gate through which hikers and bikers use trails on the Essex County Greenbelt property that meets up to this property. He explains that AMG controls an adjacent pork -chop lot that extends down to Haskell Street and describes the small portion of the site in the SE corner within the R15 District and the rest in the R45 District. He tells the Board they have been to the Conservation Commission and met with neighbors in the area. He adds they will be sure to handle the drainage correctly. He tells them the plan shows the wetlands identified by Conservation Commission and shows where they are located on property. He shows the Board where the access is on the plan for all buildings. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Griffin explains that the priority conservation areas equal approximately 5.1 acres leaving about 8.9 buildable acres, with the ordinance requiring that 50% of that, or 4.4 acres minimum, be preserved as open space. The no disturbance area is 50% of the total tract, or 6.99 acres minimum. He tells them the Yield Plan is bringing in conventional subdivision roadways and demonstrate the number of feasibly buildable lots on the property. He notes that each lot meets zoning regulations and there are no dead -end conditions because of the loop road. The plan has sidewalks, water, sewer, and drainage and no real dead end conditions. Griffin adds they have also received some construction cost estimates, in particular for the ledge cuts which are approximately $125,000 and $100,000, which is not out of the ordinary for residential development. He also shows on the plan that there will be no work in the wetland no disturb zones. They would work on getting the site properly designed to meet City drainage requirements. They have also done test pits throughout the property and have identified some good areas with good conditions; he shows the Board on the plan. They have met with the Fire Department about the Yield Plan and Griffin indicates they expressed no issues. The team have also met with the City Engineer and the Conservation Committee. Griffin then explains the 4 different possible Concept Plans to the Board. He tells them that Concept A has a 45 -foot wide right of way with a 120 foot diameter cul -de -sac and a 500 -foot- long roadway, which conforms to the maximum dead -end regulations, with some common driveways off the cul -de -sac. He explains the differing driveways for each property. They are hoping to make the roadway private, noting each concept will have 8 additional dwelling units off it. They are hoping to keep the existing single - family structure, but he notes it could be raised if they are not approved to keep it. He notes the Open Space area for Concept A is 5.3 acres of Open Space and they do deduct in all the instances an area for stormwater detention. Griffin notes that the Fire Department didn't like Concept B because to get to the houses they would have to go down a longer roadway, dead - ending at 800 feet, with 8 lots off the end of the roadway. This concept also has a 120 -ft diameter cul -de -sac. He shows them on the plan the U- shaped Open Space area abutting the Greenbelt area to the AMG -owned area and connection down to Haskell Street, which is similar in each Concept Plan. He shows them that in this plan they are straightening out the roadway, and that the 5- family would have access off of this roadway and the 6- family would have access off of Webster Ave. Griffin explains that Concept C has a 725 -foot long driveway with a 120 -ft diameter cul -de -sac. He notes that the lots contain duplexes with a shared side -wall because zero -foot side setback on one side is allowed under the OSRD regulations. He provides examples of what the duplexes could look like. He notes this plan also has the separate gravel driveway and the single house option and U- shaped Open Space area.He notes this concept is a more compact space and has less stormwater impact and land disturbance. Griffin explains that Concept D also has 725 -foot long roadway but has a hammerhead, rather than a cul -de -sac, allowing for an area with extra parking spaces. This concept also has zero -lot line duplexes each getting 2 -car garages, and are about 2,500 -3,000 sf units and 2- stories. He provides examples of what the duplexes could look like. He notes this plan also has the separate gravel driveway and the single house option and U- shaped Open Space area. 9 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Thomson asks why the 5- family house has frontage on Webster Ave. Griffin explains that originally they were going to take something off #20 and #30 with an ANR and they would have needed frontage, so that's how the lot lines started. He explains it doesn't necessarily need frontage on Webster, but it was just how it ended up when they changed the lots, and there is flexibility for the lot lines. He believes the parcel could take its frontage from the new way under the OSRD regulations. Griffin introduces a new 5 th concept, Concept E, which was made in response to Planning Department comments. He explains that instead of 8 -units in 4 duplexes they are proposing 6- units in 3 duplexes and 3 single - family houses, not as big as the single - family house that was shown on the prior 4 concepts. Concept E has the 725 -foot hammerhead roadway and then a 425 ft common driveway coming off the new private way to serve the 3 single - family houses. This arrangement brings the developed area further from the existing Open Space and wetland areas to the west, which makes it easier to get a connected path and opens up the Open Space connection to Webster Avenue and the Greenbelt property. He tells the Board the applicant prefers Concept E, even though Concept D was their preferred concept originally. Matz asks if the Open Space Committee has reviewed this. Wynne tells him they have not seen the new concept yet. She also mentions there is a letter from the OSRC and they requested to do a site visit with the Board, if they do one. She adds that if the Board were to decide tonight, OSRD's preferences was Concept C or D. Thomson asks if there are questions about the Yield Plan. Hutchinson asks how the preservation of the single family impacts the Yield Plan. He tells her they would ask for zoning relief to save the historic building. Thomson asks about the 2 buildings being on the same lot. Griffin tells him they are on separate lots. Thomson tells him that in the Yield Plan they are on one lot, and whether one of the buildings stays or goes, it is still on one lot. Wynne explains that the OSRD contemplates a lot as equivalent to units. Thomson tells them that from his perception there is a total of 9 new lots being created by the Yield Plan. Griffin explains that all the concepts show 8- single family houses and that they are going to raze one, unless they get Zoning Board approval. Alexander explains that it creates 9 lots and taking into account the preexisting situation. Miller asks what building was built in 1850. Alexander explains that it is the single - family and notes it is a historic house that they would like to preserve it which would require zoning relief. Thomson asks if there are any more questions on Yield Plan. Hutchinson asks Wynne if the OSRD has language regarding lots or units and what OSRD considers. Hutchinson comments that there is already a significant amount of units on the property and now they are adding 9 new single - family buildings and the Yield Plan should be considered in light of existing buildings already there. 10 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Thomson asks if anyone from the Public has comments about the Yield Plan. Miller: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Hutchinson seconds. The passes (8 -0). Hutchinson: Motion to approve the Yield Plan as presented by the applicant and establishing the basic maximum number of lots as 9 lots. Flannery seconds. The motion passes (8 -0). Miller asks for a site visit for the Board. Griffin mentions a site visit could definitely happen and suggests a spot to meet. Wynne tells Board she will coordinate a date for site visit, possibly October 14 The Board takes a 10 minute recess from 9:10 pm -9:20 pm. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #128 -17 and Special Permit Application #159 -17 — 12 Enon Street — Expand 2- family building to 4- family building with attached commercial unit in CN and Water Supply Protection Overlay District — Cache Development, LLC Wynne reads the Public Notice. Miranda Gooding, of Glovsky & Glovsky LLC, on behalf of Cache Development says they are proposing a small mixed use, transit- oriented redevelopment across from the North Beverly MBTA station. The proposal is to add 2 brand new townhouse units, modest and affordable units, to the back of an existing 2- family home constructed in the 1900s. The existing structure will be preserved and the addition includes an 825 sf commercial space for which the usage is flexible. She notes this project is in the Water Supply Protection Overlay District and they thus are required to request a special permit to have a commercial use and to allow the expansion of the existing use. They are also before the Board for Site Plan Review because of the expansion of the use and they have gone before Parking and Traffic and Design Review Board previously and received favorable recommendations from both. They would also need a special permit to authorize expansion of the existing, non - conforming structure. Gooding demonstrates on the plan to the Board that the existing site is a 14,500 sf lot, noting 10,000 sf is the minimum in the CN zoning district; however, she notes it is non - conforming with regard to frontage and front and side setbacks. She tells them that the site has two curb cuts that exist, but there is a large parking area which is suitable for up to 12 spaces. She notes the current configuration wouldn't conform to zoning and the width of the driveway does not conform to the 18 feet required because it is currently about 8 -10 feet. Glovsky explains that the proposed project would be constructed in the rear of building, none of the existing non - conformities will be expanded, and the existing setbacks will either be maintained or improved. She adds that the height of the new structure will be conforming; the proposed mixed use of 4- rental units and commercial space is allowed as a right in the CN zoning district. She adds that this project satisfies the criteria for a special permit and will be a significant improvement to the building and compatible to existing uses in the district. The IM Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 project is a great opportunity to build some affordable housing stock, at lower market rents given its size and accessible to the MBTA. She tells them there is adequate parking to support the use. They have taken the steps to talk with neighbors abutting the property. Gooding submits for the record a letter from the owner of the business at 10 1 /2 Enon Street, which is Hair and There, in favor of this project. She explains to the Board that the project has to and will comply with all requirements of the Water Supply Protection Overlay District. Siemasko of Siemasko +Verbridge and Cache Development lets the Board know that the site is across from the MBTA parking lot. He demonstrates where they are on the plan and surrounding businesses and properties. He tells them he has spoken with the property owner to the rear and a neighbor, Ms. Roberts, who is concerned about her garden near the fence and he promised her they would be careful in preserving it. The neighbors they have spoken with are in support of this project. He tells them there is some undeveloped space behind the property owned by others. He describes the lot as about 14,500 sf, with two narrow passage ways, noting they could possibly eliminate the 2nd curb cut. The proposed plan is townhouse style units with 12 parking spaces out back and 1 space out front, 12 of which are required. He notes the Design Review Board recommended the try to preserve a tree and additional plantings on the site. He adds the new portions of the project conforms to zoning and that the decks are located within the side setback as permitted by zoning. He tells them that the units are about 900 -1,200 sf and on the smaller side to keep rents low. He explains the architectural details such as style and color of the building and that the commercial space will be more barn like style with such things as cedar shingles. Griffin mentions that the driveway will have a Cape Cod berm that will run to the back with a catch basin because currently there is no storm water structure. He describes how that would work with an infiltration chamber underground and this will reduce the run off volume in half to help decrease it. He tells them they will be putting sprinklers in all of the units with a new water line, and new sewer connection for rear units. Miller asks if the parking garage will be used by the commercial space. Griffin tells him it will probably be used by one of the residents. Griffin discusses parking for both the residential units and commercial unit. Thomson asks about backing out onto Route IA and if it will cause issues. Griffin explains that people living there have been doing it for years in nearby properties. Matz tells the applicant that he has concerns about a new catch basin being installed and the stormwater infiltration into the parking lot. He explains that there is nothing in the Water Supply Protection Overlay District that prohibits it; however, he has concerns about oil and vehicle fluids in the catch basin. Griffin explains how the multi - chamber system would work with different compartments. He comments that there are some landfill materials in the back of the property that they will replace with clean sand and that there will be an improvement of quality of water going into ground due to this construction. Flannery asks about the traffic flow and if there are two entrances in and will they be closing one side. Siemasko tells her that they will be closing one of them. He tells her that Traffic and Parking Commission reviewed the plan. 12 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Thomson invites members of the Public to speak. There are none. Flannery: Motion to Close the Public Hearing. Matz seconds. The motion passes (8 -0). Wynne mentions they got a letter from the Fire Department and City Engineer with standard conditions noted. She suggests they add those conditions. Matz asks Wynne to clarify them. Matz: Motion to find the application meets the general special permit criteria and the criteria for a Special Permit in the Water Supply Protection Overlay District of the Beverly Zoning Ordinance and to approve Special Permit application 4159 -17 for 12 Enon street for the expansion of an existing use which requires a special permit within the Water Supply Protection Overlay District with the conditions set forth in the Planning Department Staff Report, including That storage of hazardous and other similar materials on site is prohibited per Section 300 -50E of the Zoning Ordinance. Hutchinson seconds. The motion passes (7 -1, Thomson opposed). Matz: Motion to approve Special Permit application 9159 -17 for 12 Enon Street where the structure is currently non - conforming, regarding frontage and set -backs and this permit allows expansion of a non - conforming structure and to include all the previously read conditions. By its approval the Board finds that the expansion is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. Flannery seconds. The motion passes (7 -1, Thomson opposed). Matz: Motion to approve the Site Plan Application #128 -17 for 12 Enon Street. Craft seconds. The motion passes (7 -1, Thomson opposed). Thomson recused himself from the next item on the agenda. Hutchinson takes over as Chair. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #129 -17, Special Permit Application #160 -17, and Inclusionary Housing Application #11 -17 — 245 Cabot Street, Unit 2 — Renovate and enlarge rooming house units from 45 to 69 with deviation from parking requirements — YNS Affordable Housing, Inc. Hutchinson provides a statement that she believes there is no conflict of interest due to her relationship with St. Mary Star of the Sea, an abutter to the subject property. Wynne reads the Public Notice. Thomas Alexander, offices at 1 School Street, represents the applicants YMCA of the North Shore and Harborlight Community Development who are collaborating on this project. Alexander describes the mission and history of the YMCA in regards to housing. He notes there are currently 45 single - occupancy dwelling units on the property, which are undersized with no kitchenettes. He tells them even though this is a classic affordable housing project there is a deed restriction and the units have to be rented to individuals having low or moderate income. The proposed 24 additional units will be subject to the same restrictions. 13 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Alexander explains what current residents have to do due to not having kitchenettes, such as getting food off -site, which can be costly. He adds the proposed renovations will help make existing units nicer and make food more affordable. In addition, they want to add 24 more units to help assist those who need housing in the community, such as those who are now homeless and folks with genuine needs for affordable housing. He notes that the increase in residential parking required for this expansion will be offset by the relocation of childcare staff from this building to the main YMCA building, which will now be 7 -10 fewer staff onsite. Alexander adds that the property serves folks who use transit and there is a bus stop outside the facility and the train station nearby. He notes the proposal has been reviewed by the Parking and Traffic Commission, which has recommended the project and the Design Review Board also recommended the project to the Board. They have met with many neighbors who have expressed support for the project and provided a petition signed by many individuals and a local bank across the street from the property. Andrew DeFranza of Harborlight Community Development tells the Board they have three goals in what they are trying to achieve with the property, including (1) significantly improving the quality of life of the residents by improving the size of the units, updating the common area, and adding kitchenettes; (2) increasing the number of units, all with bathrooms and kitchenettes; and (3) helping to meet the needs for homeless individuals and families, as well as people with disabilities and served by DDS who may be interested in integrated housing in the community. He adds that they are using this opportunity to refinance the project and increase the support system services noting they hope to increase to 3 full -time staff people for those already living there and the new tenants. The staff include a full -time property manager, full -time maintenance person, and most importantly, a full -time case manager. So overall, they want to improve the units, their size, and scope of supportive services for residents. Thad Siemasko of Siemasko +Verbridge explains the design plan and site to the Board. He explains that the drop -off area will be reduced and changed and they may in the future ask the City for a drop -off space depending on their needs and usage pattern. He describes to them that the existing building has a pool, childcare, basketball court and offices, and the offices will remain the same to handle some of the support services. He reminds them that the 45 existing units they have currently will be increased to 69 units by adding a floor and filling in a space on the back of the building. Siemasko explains the height of the building with the addition and points them out in the plan and diagram. He discusses how this plan will make the units slightly bigger and with the addition of the kitchenettes will be very beneficial to the residents. He tells them that they are adding a 4th floor with 24 units. Siemasko describes the common space area as being a shared space. He notes they are trying to work with the current design profile and there are really no changes to the existing 1912 architecture. He explains the height of the structure and some of the design elements, such as preserving one of the chimneys and restoring it. Hutchinson asks the Board if they have any questions. 14 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 C. Barrett asks if the units are for single persons or families. Alexander tells her one person in each unit. C. Barrett then asks how high the building is. Alexander tells her it is 49 feet 10 inches. C. Barrett asks if that includes any equipment needed on the roof. Siemasko adds that there will probably be some small ones in the center of the unit a few feet high possibly but completely invisible and not heard. C. Barrett asks if there are any parking spaces on site and where do staff and residents park. Alexander tells her there is no parking on site and the staff usually parks in public parking. He said most of the residents do not own cars and most work so they are not there during the day usually. C. Barrett asks where the equipment during construction will be located. DeFranza tells her it will probably be in the rear and he thinks it will only be for a 12 -month period. C. Barrett asks if the 3 full -time staff are on -site. DeFranza explains it will be more of a supportive housing model, staff would work set hours and would not be on 24 -hour shifts, but on -call during off hours. Matz asks if any current residents are using the daycare facilities. DeFranza tells him they are all single occupants. Matz then asks if there is any concern about having to return to the DRB with more precise architectural details, materials, etc. Alexander tells him they gave the DRB a rough idea and the return visit would be to discuss final architectural details and materials, noting this project could take some time due to getting funding and they won't be starting construction for at least 1 year. Miller asks about the current staffing and what it will be. DeFranza explains it will be a 23:1 ratio of residents to staff which is what they have at Harborlight House and provides more information on how that model works there. Alexander interjects about the model they are using and that they need that kind of supervision for number of units and residents, but it is based on a model. Chris Lovasko, CEO of the YMCA, tells the Board that they renovated this building back in 1996 and was completed in 1999. At that time, there was a similar goal to the current project with regard to staffing such as when necessary support was provided to do compliance work, have rent management, and be a resource to the residents when possible. The needs of these residents have evolved, and the next generation of housing is needed as well as the support structure they need from a full -time case manager. Miller asks if neighbors have been approached about this project. Lovasko tells him they have spoke with the owner of the bike shop, and there are no other issues that he knows of. Miller asks about trash, composting and recycling for the property. Lovasko tells him the dumpster outside is available to the residents but no there is current recycling plan. Miller asks if it could support solar panels and if they have any plans for that. Lovasko tells him it isn't in the plan but it could be. Siemasko points out to the Board on part of the roof area where they could put a solar/hot water application, if there is sufficient room after laying out the mechanicals. N. Barrett asks how often emergency services are brought to this location. Lovasko said generally a couple of times a month and it could be a transport for mental issues. N. Barrett asks if the plan is to have one case manager, what would be their hours. Lovasko said they could be flexible if needed. N. Barrett asks if there are criteria for the ratio of staff to residents. Lovasko explains that in addition to their current staff at the YMCA that already assists with current 15 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 residents, adding on additional staff will be beneficial for them. DeFranza explains that they are obtaining different sources of financing to drive down operating costs to be able to carry more staff. Matz mentions that support is an issue for those with mental issues, and he is glad they are doing this, however his question is what people will need for daily support. He hopes the case manager will help on a daily basis. Lovasko tells him that 60 -65% of those living here don't necessarily have mental issues, but are in need of access to general resources. The other 20 -25% on disability, mentally ill, etc., are already on services. He tells them that the additional support would be helpful to that smaller percentage of people. For some this is just transitional living. Flannery asks Lovasko where his office is. He tells her it is in the building. Hutchinson asks what is included with the kitchenette with regards to appliances. DeFranza tells them it will include a sink, storage, a small fridge with freezer, cabinets, cook top burners, maybe ovens, etc. She asks if rooms will have sprinklers in them. He tells her they will. Wynne mentions they got a letter from the City Engineer and asks them if they have received the letter yet and had time to review it. Alexander mentions that the parking situation was reviewed by the Traffic and Parking Commission headed up by Rich Benevento, and they believe the parking situation would not change dramatically and they gave a strong endorsement about the proj ect. Miller asks about staff support overall at the YMCA and how much there will be after this project. Lovasko mentions that it currently fluctuates at any given time, so sometimes the YMCA staff augments the support staff. Miller asks about the issues of parking and Lovasko explains that since the childcare is moving, that that will lessen the parking needs. Hutchinson asks if there are any more questions from the Board. She then asks if anyone from the Public wants to speak. Jim Rome of 27 Old County Road in Boxford notes his wife owns a business at 17 Briscoe Street, directly across the street from the YMCA. He tells the board he likes the idea, however, he opines that the Planning Board is supposed to preserve the character of the City. He asks does the project benefit the economy, the environment, etc. He believes the height of the building will be an issue. He believes this project will bring very few benefits, and that trying to get funding will be an issue since they don't have it already. He believes they will end up having a parking issue, even though currently most residents may not have cars, but may one day be able to get one, which will end up being an issue for parking. Since this rooming house building is in the heart of the City he would prefer it to be tucked away. He believes the balance of the downtown area will be affected negatively with this project. Jeremy Schley Johnson of 6 Atlantic Avenue, which is about 500 feet from the project, says that he is a supporter of this affordable housing project. He notes that he lives adjacent to another Harborlight project and has had no problems. 16 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Neiland Douglas of 11 Pearson Street notes he is the Founding Director of Harborlight Community Partners, former President at the Beverly YMCA and on the Board of Trustees for them for about 27 years. He believes this partnership is a good idea and he mentions that Harborlight has had 10 projects with about 200 units of affordable housing and of those 200 units none have vacancy. He adds there is a waiting list of at least 2 -3 years for those in need. He tells them that affordable housing needs is extraordinary and there is a need, especially for those with disabilities. He supports the project. Kelly Asprooth Jackson of 39 Federal Street, Minister at the First Parish Church which is right by the YMCA. He mentions that when that construction starts it will be right in view of the church. He is in favor of the project, and he says he is familiar with some of the residents who benefit from the current housing because they attend weekly free meals at the Church. He believes this project will improve the moral character of the City. He mentions that the improvement of space and increasing the staffing support is important. He supports this project and believes there is a need for it. Lorinda Visnick, 39 Middlebury Lane, reads a statement to the Board, and she tells them she is the director of the Middle School basketball program which goes and feeds these residents with the team and she supports this project. She knows there is a need for this housing and asks the Board to vote in favor of this project. Susan Bonacci of 22 Hale Street mentions that another group was asked to meet about this issue and those in her neighborhood were not asked to discuss this project. She thinks that the current 4 -5 prominent people that are known in the City who require current services is enough. She is telling them that these residents need more than just a free meal. She doesn't believe it will be a good balance to the downtown area which is growing in vitality. She mentions issues with Oceanview with regard to mechanicals on rooftops being noisy and thinks that these things need to be addressed in this current plan. Rick Marciano of 141 McKay Street asks if property taxes will be paid on units. Alexander tells him yes. Marciano mentions that the police log doesn't show any increase in issues at this property. He asks how many square feet will each unit be. Siemasko tells him about 220 sf Marciano asks what the costs of each of the units will be. DeFranza explains it's on a tier that is based on the financing and their income, noting some could be paying about $550 a month; he explains it varies though. Beth Loughhead, 8 Smithson Drive, is one of the ministers of the First Baptist Church and she is in support of this project along with the Church. Mike Wheeler, of Beverly Bank, 254 Cabot Street, is in support of this project and believes it will help the homeless in area and those who are in need affordable housing. Flannery: Motion to close the Public Hearing. C. Barrett seconds. The motion passes (7 -0). Hutchinson asks the Board if they wish to move on this matter now or put it off until the next Public Hearing. 17 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 C. Barrett asks if there are any time constraints for the applicant. Alexander tells her it is a long process and they would like to get it moving for financing if possible. Matz suggests a continuance to review and consider. Hutchinson asks Wynne if there are any issues that would hold it off. Flannery, C. Barrett, and Hutchinson indicate desire to continue to the October 17 meeting. Flannery: Motion to continue discussion in October 17, 2017 meeting. C. Barrett seconds. The motion is approved (7 -0). Thomson returns to the meeting. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #130 -17 and Inclusionary Housing Application #12 -17 — 199 Rantoul Street — Construct 5- floor, 28- residential unit mixed -use building with commercial use on 1St floor, parking at trade on non - building area of site — Windover Ford, LLC (Concurrent hearings) Wynne reads the Public Notice. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #131 -17, Special Permit Application #162 -17, and Inclusionary Housing Application #13 -17 — 211 Rantoul Street — Construct 6- floor, 100 - residential unit mixed -use building with commercial, parking and common area on 1 St floor, and request for height exceeding 55 feet but not less than 75 feet — Windover Ford, LLC (Concurrent hearings) Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #163 -17 — 211 Rear Rantoul Street — Parking as a primary use on a lot— Windover Ford, LLC (Concurrent hearings) Wynne reads the Public Notice for the two above hearings. Tom Alexander, offices at 1 School Street, is speaking on behalf of Windover Ford and provides an introduction to the proposed project, understanding the hearing may be continued. The project consists of two lots, one is bounded by Wallis and Bow Streets where Thomas Ford Dealership ( #211) is as well as a parking lot where employees park and the dealership has some inventory. The other parcel ( #199) is a parking lot for the dealership. He notes they met with the Parking & Traffic Commission, who has continued the discussion to their next meeting. He tells the Board the project will improve the streetscape dramatically because there are currently no sidewalks on Bow Street. He says they met with the Design Review Board, who has requested more time and will be receiving more information before the next meeting in October. Siemasko explains their design process and how they have designed the project to complement the existing and proposed streetscape and the benefits he believes the project will have for the downtown area. He mentions that there is currently no sidewalks and that they will be cleaning up and making a proper street and sidewalk and working on the landscape for the parking lots. He walks the Board through the site plans and building designs. 18 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Siemasko notes the project includes about 128 residential units in two buildings, as well as retail on the ground floor and parking spaces both structured and surface. Thirteen of the units will be affordable at either 60% or 80% of area median income. There are two proposed buildings on two lots. 211 Rantoul is a U- shaped building, 69' in height, with a 1 -story parking garage below residential, retail /commercial on Rantoul Street and a grand courtyard which will be the main entrance for residents. He notes they've provided a safer pedestrian crossing as residents will be parking across the street in the parking lot. Siemasko says on the 199 Rantoul lot, there will be a smaller building, 55' in height, also with retail /commercial on the ground floor. He notes they have improved the parking lot circulation and landscaping for parking lot at the request of the staff, Boards, and Commissions. The buildings would have major entrances on Rantoul Street, but 211 would have a primary residential entrance on Bow Street. He adds that 80% of the frontage will be retail /commercial per the zoning ordinance. 98 units in one building about 98 parking spaces. Siemasko shows the Board where the affordable housing will be located, in each building. He then describes the architectural elements of the building. Thomson recommends that the Board hold their questions for the next meeting. Hutchinson: Motion to continue Public Hearings for both projects to October 17, 2017. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (8 -0). Bass River Estates Definitive Subdivision (a.k.a Fol2er Avenue Extension) — Request for Approval of As -Built & Street Acceptance Plans — Joseph L. Phelan, III, Bass River Beverly LLC Wynne describes the status of the project and the applicant's request. Matz: Motion to approve As -Built plans as indication of completion of the subdivision as shown on approved plan set and to release the performance bond. Hutchinson seconds. The motion is approved (8 -0). Hutchinson: Motion to recommend to City Council the acceptance of the subdivision roadway as a public street, subject to resolution of legal matters. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (8 -0). Nelson Avenue Extension Subdivision Plan — Request for 81X Certificate that plan has not chanted for recording, Request for One Year Extension of Construction Completion Date (September 22, 2017), Request for acceptance of renewed Letter of Credit — Legacy Development LLC Wynne describes the status of the project and the applicant's request. 19 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 19, 2017 Hutchinson: Motion to grant an 81X Certificate indicating that the plan has not been modified, amended, or rescinded, nor the plan changed since its approval. Miller seconds. The motion is approved (8 -0). Hutchinson: Motion to approve a One -Year Extension on the Construction Completion Date until September 21, 2018. Miller seconds. The motion is approved (8 -0). Hutchinson: Motion to accept renewed letter of credit from North Shore Bank in the amount of $32,224.50 which expires on April 26, 2018. Miller seconds. The motion is approved (8 -0). 232 Essex Street (Pond View Lane) OSRD — Request for Construction Completion and Release of Surety, Request for Approval of As -Built & Street Acceptance Plans — DUC Residential LLC Wynne describes the status of the project and the applicant's request. Hutchinson: Motion to accept the As -Built plans as indication of completion of the subdivision as shown on approved plan and to release the performance bond. C. Barrett seconds. The motion is approved (8 -0). Miller: Motion to recommend to City Council the acceptance of the subdivision roadway as a public street subject to resolution of utility easements. Hutchinson seconds. The motion is approved (8 -0). New or Other Business a. Update of Table 1— Fee in Lieu of Affordable Housing Units Fiscal Year 2018 per Chapter 315 Inclusionary Housing Regulations Wynne explains that the Board sets the new fee each year around this time, as it is based on real estate sales for the last 3 years. She notes that the Board recently approved a change in the method for calculating the fee, which is reflected in this year's update. She provided comparisons. C. Barrett notes that this is a set formula. Hutchinson: Motion to approve Update of Table 1 Fee in Lieu of Affordable Housing Units for the Fiscal Year 2018. Miller seconds. The motion is approved (8 -0). Adjournment Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:52 p.m. Hutchinson seconds. The motion passes (8 -0). 20