10-17-17 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board:
Date:
Location:
Members Present
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Recorder:
Planning Board Meeting
October 17, 2017
Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson (arr. 7:30),
Catherine Barrett, Ned Barrett (arr. 8:22), Zane Craft, Ellen
Flannery, James Matz (arr. 7:44; left 11:30), Wayne Miller
David Mack
Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne
Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary
Note. The agenda was taken out of order. Also, due to some late arrivals, the number of
people voting throughout the night varied.
Chair John Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. with 5 members in attendance
(Thomson, C. Barrett, Craft, Flannery, and Miller).
Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans
None.
Approval of Minutes
Board reviews minutes for approval for July 18, 2017. Flannery submitted some minor changes.
Flannery: Motion to approve minutes for July 18, 2017. C. Barrett seconds the motion.
The motion passes (5 -0).
Continued_ Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #156-17 — 2 -6 Enon Street (Dodse
Crossing) — Request for two restaurant uses in CN District and Water Supply Protection
Overlay District — Centderr_y, LLC, c/o Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC
Applicant has requested a continuance of this special permit application to the November 21,
2017 meeting.
Flannery: Motion to open public hearing. Miller seconds. The motion passes (5 -0).
Flannery: Motion to waive public notice reading. Craft seconds. The motion passes (5 -0).
Thomson asks if members of the public would like to speak on the matter.
Fred Barber, 11 Devon Avenue (abutter to the subject property) believes this project is out of
scale for the CN district and current historical usage. Barber tells the Board he believes the
applicant has not considered those living in adjacent neighborhood or the effects this project
would have on them. He mentions a traffic study in the application, and doesn't believe it is
correct and it doesn't take into account the CN district. The report says it will reduce traffic,
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
which he thinks is incorrect. Barber believes there will be an increase with both parking, as well
as traffic in the area. With regards to the outside dining, not screened to the adjacent properties,
he believes this will impact neighbors. He indicates there has been no outreach to the adjacent
neighborhood/abutters. He created a list of suggested conditions, which he distributed to the
Board and were added to the record, noting he disagrees with the scale and list of specifics. The
conditions he suggested included the following. no outdoor dining, no liquor license or bring
your own bottle, specific hours, no new entry /or egresses to the building, screening to protect
neighborhood from the noise, reduce restaurant seating and services, no take -out or one take -out
with waiting area seating and one sit down restaurant with no take -out, no greater than 60 seating
capacity, no drive thru or curb service, no deliveries before business hours, enclosed dumpsters
and limited service on dumpsters to specific times, on -site employee parking, no parking in
adjacent lots, no lights pointing into residential neighborhood, reduced parking lot lighting
during non - operating hours, and sound barriers helping with noise to neighborhood. He says he
hopes the Board will take these into consideration, especially for future uses of the property.
Thomson asks him about the liquor license condition, and if they had no outdoor seating, what
would liquor license matter. Barber tells him that this would help eliminate some of the noise.
Maura Cronin, tenant, Inner Source Wellness, 2 Enon Street, indicates she has not been notified
about any plans of this,development.
Flannery: Motion to continue hearing to November 21, 2017. C. Barrett seconds. The
motion passes (5 -0).
25 Jewett Road Definitive Subdivision Plan — Reguest for 81X Certificate that plan has not
changed for recording and Acceptance of Performance Bond (Form G Covenant) — Francis
and Marcia Byrne
Thomas Alexander, offices at One School Street, tells the Board the property has been for sale,
and it is under agreement. He notes they are seeking an 81 X certificate, which indicates to the
Registry of Deeds that the plan has not changed since it was adopted. He adds the applicant also
needs a Form G Covenant per the Subdivision Regulations. Wynne also mentions that they
revised the Form G to allow the sale of the property, but no other revisions.
Flannery: Motion to grant an 81X Certificate indicating that the plan has not been modified,
amended, or rescinded, nor the plan changed; to accept Performance Bond (Form
G Covenant) with a condition that a building permit will not be issued until
performance bond is posted; and to endorse the plan. Craft seconds. The motion
passes (5 -0).
Ellen Hutchinson arrives.
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Request for Minor Modification to "Wedaemere at Beverly" Definitive Subdivision Plan —
30 Wedaemere Road — Thomas & Jennifer Curran
Thomas Alexander, offices at One School Street, introduces a request for a modification to a
subdivision that was approved in 1958. He discusses how the plan showed a specific property
line called the leaching and building restriction line and that there was never a covenant or
restriction recorded to clarify its purpose. He discusses the history of this area and how the
Wetland Protection Act didn't exist yet. He notes that the Curran's mother lives at the house
currently and they are looking to build an addition that would go over this line. They are also
hoping to alleviate any issues in the future, by making sure this lot line is not an issue. They have
received approval by the Board of Appeals, and they are requesting the Board modify the 1958
subdivision so that the line will not impact this particular lot.
Miller: Motion that the requested modification is minor in nature. Hutchinson seconds.
The motion passes (6 -0).
Miller: Motion to approve request for minor modification. Flannery seconds. The motion
passes (6 -0).
44 and 52 Standlev Street "Standlev Street Gardens" OSRD — Request for Extension of
Construction Completion Date (November 17, 2017) to November 17, 2018 , — RC Realty
Trust
Craft recuses himself from the discussion and voting on this matter.
Thomas Alexander, offices at One School Street, tells the Board they are seeking an extension
for the Standley Street Gardens. There have been some houses that have been sold, two under
agreement but should be selling in the next month or so. And there has been substantial
completion of the roadways. They are seeking a one year extension for the construction
completion date to November 17, 2018.
Miller asks if there is access to the public garden area. Alexander says that a connection exists
noting that it isn't supposed to be paved and it's not in its final form yet.
Hutchinson: Motion to grant a one year extension on construction completion date until
November 17, 2018. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -0).
Craft returns to the meeting.
Set Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #132 -17 — 40 Dunham Ridse (50 Dunham
Road ) — Construct subsurface stormwater mane ement system and associated ad'acent
construction of subsurface retaining walls — Dunham Ridae. LLC
Flannery: Motion to set public hearing date for November 21, 2017. Hutchinson seconds the
motion. The motion is approved (6 -0).
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Set Public Hearing: Special Permit Application #164 -17 —188 -194 Cabot Street,
3 Broadway — Conversion of commercial/office space into 5 residential apartments
requiring deviation from off street parking requirements — RCG Cabot LLC
Hutchinson: Motion to set public hearing date for November 21, 2017. C. Barrett seconds the
motion. The motion is approved (6 -0).
James Matz arrives.
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 l floor, parking at grade on non - building area of site —
Windover Ford, LLC
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 V
floor, and request for height exceeding 55 feet but not less than 75 feet — Windover Ford,
LLC (Concurrent with below)
Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #163 -17 — 211 Rear Rantoul Street — Parma
as a primary use on a lot — Windover Ford, LLC
Three hearings above are held concurrently.
Flannery: Motion to open public hearing. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion is
approved (7 -0).
Thomas Alexander, offices at One School Street, tells the Board that they have made changes
since the last time they were before the Board. He notes that the Board has in the past voted to
support rezoning in this area to support this type of development. Residents were dissatisfied
with the condition of the downtown area and the lack of activity in the downtown. He noted there
was consensus that the downtown needed more transit oriented development that helped to
promote public transit rather than automobile use. He said there was also a need for more
affordable housing downtown and this development accomplishes that as well as some mixed
usage. He notes that since the last meeting the Design Review Board and Parking & Traffic
Commission reviewed this project. They have taken into consideration some changes suggested
by DRB.
Chris Koeplin, of Beverly Crossing, presents to the Board a presentation regarding this
development and five key development factors for this project. He notes they've strived to make
the project zoning compliant, including meeting the Tall Building Design Guidelines. Second he
adds it is compliant with the City's vision documents such as the Bass River Study, including
being a transit oriented development. Third it is needs- compliant, particularly as it relates to the
City's housing plan and as a result they have included more studios for seniors and single living
to address the need. Fourth, it is an economic driver for active retail as evidence at 131 Rantoul
Street and is a driver of city revenues, roughly $3.2 million through 2025, compared with
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
$475,000 if nothing happens. But from a sustainable planning perspective the project doesn't
burden the schools, noting 9 out of 220 residents in their existing projects are school -aged. He
adds it is underutilized land that affords transportation options and promotes a walkable city.
There will be bikes on the property and they will provide residents train passes [for the first
month, explained later].
Rebecca Brown, Greenman Pederson (GPI), presented to the Board the study area map, which
included surrounding streets and intersections. The traffic study included a safety review
regarding speeds, sight distances, and collision history. She discussed the differing collision
history on Rantoul and Bow streets. She also told them about the traffic projections and how
much it will generate and impact the surrounding area. They also reviewed construction traffic
and did a projection of other similar projects. Regarding projected traffic from their site, Traffic
and Parking asked to provide a realistic estimate of how much traffic would be from transit travel
in the area, as well as walking and biking trips. The last study did not take into account the
walking(biking trips; realistically, she points out 38 vehicle trips in the morning, 26 additional
trips in the weekday /evening and a reduction of trips on the weekends.
Brown says there are a number of Transportation Demand Management measures proposed to
help reduce the traffic and the single occupant trips to the site. She notes this site is in the
downtown area close to public transit. The Route 1A project is finishing pedestrian and bicycle
enhancements. This project is proposing to add 150 linear feet of new sidewalks along Wallis
and Bow streets, enhanced crosswalks, bump outs. They will also provide bicycle storage rooms
with a repair station, outdoor covered bicycle racks, bike share program, electrical vehicle
charging stations in lots, public transit incentives, and becoming partners in NuRide and North
Shore TMA. She discusses traffic operations on adjacent roadways. She discusses the Temporary
Traffic Control Plan reviewed by Parking & Traffic, that there will be a phased plan for
construction, but the worst -case would be temporary closure of Wallis Street. They will continue
to speak with Traffic and Parking and outreach to public in the area.
Wynne points out that the Board has letters from Parking & Traffic, the City Engineer, and
comments from the general public on their desks. At the Chair's request, Aaron Clausen
summarizes the Parking & Traffic recommendation to approve the site plan and special permit
and tells them that there are several findings in the letter, there are minimal traffic issues and
impact, and some minimal issues with capacity and operations from a traffic standpoint with
queing and wait time. He mentions that the analysis by GPI is conservative and provides the very
worst case scenario, but remains at an acceptable level.
Clausen adds that Parking & Traffic also found that parking onsite and on street is met regarding
zoning, with 160 parking spaces total, where 158 is required. He adds they suggested proposed
conditions and the applicant will need a complete traffic plan before construction to detail
construction phase access to site and neighborhood and the transportation demand management
plan. He notes any changes in traffic patterns will have public outreach. He recommends that the
road be reconstructed, sidewalks, and the Board could consider an additional condition for
roadway reconstruction. Clausen adds that it is not part of the letter but he recommends a traffic
impact study following occupancy, so the city can use that data for future traffic studies.
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Charlie Wear of Meridian and Associates, shows the Board all the utilities on the plan including
water, sewerage, etc. into Wallis Street, etc. so they don't have to get into Rantoul Street. All
utilities within Rantoul Street are of sufficient capacity. They will be introducing some green
space into the islands. They will be working with the City Engineer and are proposing an
infiltration system at the location. He tells them there will be a reduction in stormwater flow and
improvement in water quality.
Thad Siemasko of Siemasko and Verb-ridge shows the Board the site location and describes
rendered views of the project. He shows them what was changed throughout the Design Review
Board process. He describes the landscaped areas and how they are trying to help maintain
vitality and protect the abutters by using fences and some additional trees. Trash and dumpster
issues are being addressed, he notes there is enough scale to put in trash compacter inside the
building. He adds the courtyard will stay close to the same as before. They have created a dog
walking area, etc. He also points out some traffic recommendations.
Thomson asks Siemasko about parking on both sides of Wallis, Siemasko explains to him it
would be just one side.
Siemasko showed some of the fencing choices, he showed some differences in the rendering,
making the building less busy for the facade, etc. and what it would look like from a couple of
different points of view.
Miller asks about the dog area and what kind of material it will be made o£ Siemasko tells him it
is stone dust, for easy pick -up and clean -up.
Siemasko clarifies that there are 98 units in the 211 Building, 5,683 square feet of retail, parking
requirement is for 98 spaces /cars and retail would be 21 car spaces, with 3 extra car spaces on
this site. The Board asks him to clarify if there was a decrease in units. He explains there are now
two less units from the prior plan presented and a slight increase in retail space. Siemasko tells
them that 84% of the building is residential and the remainder is 16% which is some common
space in the residential area. He explains that on the south side they have 28 units still, which
requires 28 spaces for parking and they have additional parking for retail. The total requirement
for parking is 158 spaces, and they have 163. He tells them there are 13 affordable units, of
which 8 are at 60% AMI, and 5 are at 80% AMI. So the grand total is 8,655 square feet of retail
for the two projects, 126 units, and 163 spaces for parking. After working with the Traffic and
Parking Commission, etc., some of these numbers have changed from previous presented
calculations.
Thomson recommends the applicant turn in all letters for the record.
Wynne summarizes all of the comment letters handed regarding this application.
Wynne tells the Board that the letter from the Board of Health (9/2 1) has recommendations
related to things such as construction noise, dust control, pest control, etc.
Wynne tells the Board that the letter from the City Engineer (917), and response from the
applicant and some things were addressed, etc. City Engineer also submitted letter on 10117 with
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
some conditions that she recommends the Board incorporate regarding stormwater infiltration
on the southern property as depicted and ADA ramp not depicted on the northern side of the
crosswalk.
Wynne tells the Board that the letter (dated 9111) from the Police Department states they have no
issues with the plan; however, they suggested having access to the multi - family development so
that they have key pad entry access for the Police Department, etc. Applicant says they can
provide a key pad entry access code to the police for emergency situations. And the Police
Department is asking the Board to consider making this a regulation for future projects.
Wynne tells the Board that the letter from Fire Department (dated 9113), requests a meeting with
the applicant to discuss fire protection measurements, etc. and the applicant says they can take
care of all that.
Wynne tells the Board that the letter from Traffic and Parking was already summarized by
Clausen.
Wynne tells the Board that the letter from the Design Review Board (dated 10110) noted that the
Board had reviewed the proposal and made some suggestions regarding conditions for building
materials subject to Design Review Board for review and approval, dumpsters shall remain
enclosed, and the two dumpsters that remain outside at the north elevations of the 211 building
will be enclosed in the compactor room which has been addressed on the plan. All fencing on the
southern border of the site of the 199 Building will be 6 foot cedar fencing and match the
proposed fencing on the eastern border of the site and four additional trees will be installed on
the current plan reflected that evening.
Wynne mentions that they have received a number of letters from residents, businesses, etc. and
she reads them for the record.
Wynne summarizes a letter from Jackie Moldau from Jackie's Tees and Custom Apparel and she
is in favor of this project.
Wynne summarizes a letter from Andrew Goldberg of Goldberg Properties which after
reviewing the project they are in support of it.
Wynne summarizes a letter from Sue Gabriel of Beverly Bootstraps who is in support of the
project; however, she has some concerns regarding parking during the period of construction.
Wynne summarizes a letter from Rick Alpern, Beverly resident and business owner, who is in
support of the project and believes it will be a positive addition to the City.
Wynne summarizes a letter from Sarah Barnat of Barnat Development, she is in favor of this
project and thinks it will help revitalize this part of the city as well.
Thomson asks Koeplin if the City Engineer comments are agreeable. He tells him one of the
issues was addressed on the updated plan, but they will work with the city on the other issue.
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Thomson asks about comment #3 of the City Engineer's original letter and Wynne tells him that
was with regard to the 6 parking spaces outside the garage. Koeplin tells them that the Engineer
was concerned about them being able to turn around from those spaces, but they did a
presentation to the Traffic Commission to show there would be no issue.
Miller asks if there is a letter from OSRC discussing negligible green space, and if there was a
way to expand on the patio area, living roof, etc. to help support green space in surrounding
areas. Wynne believes that the OSRC has already reviewed that request but no letter was
prepared. Koeplin tells them about the trees being in compliance with MassDOT, and they will
incorporate more planters (not all show on the plan), more greenery in front of building, resident
entry, greenery on roof deck, and they are taking suggestions from the DRB about parking lot
areas with greenery.
Matz asks about general environmental issues, if there is a soil management plan due to
contamination after getting rid of the auto dealership. Koeplin tells them that they have already
performed Phase I and Phase II, tested water on both sites, soil conditions, infiltration systems.
He adds that their consultant Axiom said there may be some isolated incidences inside of the
building and that Clean Harbor will clean it up, etc.
Hutchinson asks GPI about the parking and traffic, noting the traffic operations on intersections
that are going to operate on Level E on the westbound approach on Broadway which is currently
operating at Service D Level. Ms. Brown tells them it will operate on a D Level, which is the
current level it is on.
Hutchinson then asks Siemasko about the roof deck and sky lounge for 211 Rantoul. He tells her
that it is for residents' use, for birthday parties, etc., and as an outdoor deck, etc.
Hutchinson then asks about the loss of 2 units. Siemasko explains that the footprint didn't
change, but from upper 5'' and 6"' floor, they were originally set back on the back and front side,
etc. She asks about the max height being at 69.5 feet, and he explains that is at the tallest point.
He explains that the 2 nd building is 55 feet in height. She asks about units set aside for 60% and
80% AMI and the makeup of the units. He shows her the units on the plans and explains the
different AMI for those units. Koeplin explains the development has 4 studios at market rate,
65 1- bedrooms at market rate, 44 2 bedrooms at market rate. For the affordable units in the larger
building there is 1 studio at 60 %, 6 1- bedrooms at 60% AMI, and 1 2- bedroom at 60% AMI and
in the smaller building there is 1 studio at 80% AMI, 3 1- bedrooms at 80 %, and 1 2- bedroom
unit at 80% AMI. He says there are 126 total units with 13 of those being affordable/inclusionary
units. Hutchinson comments a lot of the 60% doesn't serve those with children.
Miller asks about the ratio of students per the 220 residents between current functioning
buildings. Koeplin explains it could be about 8 students. He also asks about the ratio of pets in
other buildings he currently owns. Koeplin is unable to give a definitive answer, but their
guesstimate is about 35 pets. Miller asks about the storage units at his other building, and
Koeplin tells him they are all utilized, and the bikes usage they have is about 30 bikes.
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Flannery asks for clarification and break out of the studios. Siemasko tells her that of the
126 units, 6 are studios, 74 are 1- bedroom, 15 are 2- bedrooms with 1 bath, and 31 are 2-
bedrooms with 2 baths.
- atz asks for clarification that 199 Rantoul will be 55 feet and 211 Rantoul will be 69.5 feet.
C. Barrett asks what the tax revenue is for the property currently and what it will be. Koeplin
tells her about $55,000 a year currently and estimates $360,000 a year. She then asks how many
parking spaces per building. John Harden at Siemasko tells her there will be 163 parking spaces
onsite and on street, and 26 spaces for on street retail. She asks if there will be signage for
parking that they are reserved for commercial spaces.
C. Barrett asks about the traffic study, regarding crash study on Broadway, with an average of
3.4 per year. GPI explains that was the average they came up with per year. C. Barrett asks about
Wallis Street being closed, and how long traffic will be diverted. Koeplin tells her they are
working on that with phasing, so it will be minim time to have to close it down. C. Barrett asks
how long construction might be. Koeplin tells her probably about 16 months for completion of
entire project.
C. Barrett asks about the bike share program and since there is such high demand at other
properties, if any more thought has been given to expanding that to match the ratio of residents.
Koeplin explains it is a pilot program and they need to see how it will work out. He tells her
there is a program in Salem that they may explore, and possibly work on something with the
City. C. Barrett then asks about equipment on top of building, Koeplin tells her there are A/C
condensers in the center, rooftop equipment, and exhaust systems. C. Barrett asks how far back
they are set from the street. Harden demonstrates on the plan where some spaces are in front of
buildings, etc. by the sidewalk, covered areas, canopies, etc. C. Barrett also asks about the
ground floor and who the tenants are going to be. Koeplin tells her that they do not have
anything currently, but there may be a restaurant or two.
Thomson asks if the project is in compliance with ordinance requirements, and specifically if the
dimensions are in compliance for retail spaces pursuant to the new zoning. Siemasko discusses
sizes of spaces, building coverage, and indicates that all the guidelines have been met.
Miller states that they must have adequate trash and disposal for approval, however will they be
considering composting and recycling? Koeplin tells him they have recycling, and are
considering possibly composting. Miller asks about electrical power and a solar system on
building. Koeplin mentions that they are still looking into the details.
N. Barrett asks how close the buildings are to the train station. Siemasko answers about 550 feet.
N. Barrett asks if Beverly Crossing will continue to operate this site once it is built, Koeplin
answers that they will own the site but have a third party manager. N. Barrett asks to discuss the
promotion of using the train. Koeplin explains about the discounting of T passes. He goes into
further discussion about what they will provide since N. Barrett missed that slide earlier in
discussion.
Thomson directs the public to begin their comments at the podium.
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Mike Wheeler, of 2 Michael Road, Beverly and business operator in downtown, discusses how
the project will help revitalize the downtown area, helps drive local businesses, and is in favor of
the project.
Rick Marciano, 141 McKay Street, asks about the 28 units and if they abut a high density
property. Koeplin explains neither building abut residential and that there are two ANR lots to
the east and they are in the CC zone. Marciano asks about the parking spaces per unit and the
zoning. Clausen explains that in the CC district, mixed -use buildings with residential have no
minimum lot requirement. Clausen explains there was no zoning change and there are maybe 4-
5 different requirements in the district based on building type and the parcel location proximity
to a residential zoning district. Marciano asks about the subdivision of the land, Thomson tells
him it was for parking usage, but no buildings on them. Marciano also comments on the number
of children in the building and tax cost to the city.
Barry Checchi, 116 Rantoul, owns some property on Wallis Street. He asks how the trash will be
removed and he is concerned with traffic when being unloaded on Wallis and Bow Street.
Koeplin describes the compactor pick up and discusses another property which they do 3 pick-
ups a week but that this development would probably be reduced to 2. Checchi asks if the truck
will block the road, Koeplin tells him they will be as close to the dumpster as possible.
Don Crowell, 13 Wallis Street, owns some properties in Beverly and also owns the Larcom
Theatre. He points out that he is a real estate broker and believes this project is not a community
project, and that it is more for profit. He feels that they are asking for a special permit because
they are asking for what is more than the norm. He thinks parking is going to be an issue and
notes a lot of residents park on Wallis Street, so they will lose parking due to this development.
He is not happy that it will take up street parking, as part of their parking lot, and that there are
too many units, etc. He believes this will cause a decrease in his business at the theatre and he
could be at risk of losing the theater. He reminds the Board of the possible negative impact it
could have in the neighborhood.
Leo Maestranzi of Maestranzi Brothers, near the Music Theatre, gave a history of growing up in
and his connection with the City of Beverly. He explains that this project would help bring more
people to enjoy the city. He is in favor of this project.
Casey Soward, 25 Wallis Street, General Manager of the Cabot Theatre, enjoys the city and the
diversity, etc. He believes this project will help the city in many ways and is in favor of this
project.
John Maestranzi of Iron Tree Service is happy with the recent developments in the city and is in
favor of this project.
Estelle Rand of 3 Agate Street and Ward 2 Councilor on the Beverly City Council, tells the
Board she has received feedback from constituents regarding issues with density, parking, traffic,
and what zoning allows. She asks the Planning Department to possibly hold a public hearing in
the next year to educate residents in Ward 2 about what is allowed and happening on Rantoul
10
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Street and would like more interaction from the Planning Department. She believes the City's
new parking plan will help resolve some of the parking issues brought up regarding that area.
Russ Queen, runs a non -profit at 330 Rantoul Street, and is in support of this project.
Jim Dawson, a Beverly resident, is in support of project and believes that it will benefit the city
and he is in support of more affordable housing for Beverly.
Kevin Andrews, 8 Home Street and on Beverly Zoning Board of Appeals is concerned about the
parking and glad it is being worked out with the city. He likes the variety on Rantoul Street and
gives it character.
Orin Wallace, 34 South Terrace, representing Beverly Main Streets, tells the Board this is what
they have been planning for. They have met with some business owners and they are happy there
will be more people living on Rantoul. She is glad there will be more affordable housing on
Rantoul and they support this project.
Andy Meyer, 131 Rantoul Street, Beverly resident and new resident to Rantoul Street, is in favor
of this project.
Mayor Cahill, 28 roster Dnve, tells the.Board he is there to discuss this current project. He
mentions that the bike share program in Salem has been something they have been considering
for Beverly. They are also looking to run some shuttles from the Beverly Depot to some of the
office parks in the city, such as Cherry Hill. The goal is to get more vehicles off the road, have
people take more public transportation. He notes the City is also looking to improve some
problematic intersections throughout the city as well as the roundabout projects.
The Mayor adds he is focusing on the downtown area revitalization and the past few years they
have been working on an housing plan as well as addressing the homeless population. He hopes
the parking plan will help with new developments. He notes he is concerned about baby boomers
who want to sell their houses and move into smaller housing. He tells the Board there are many
housing and affordable housing needs for a wide variety of people in the city. He tells them that
Beverly has created 3% new housing units, when the state average has been 7.5% the past few
years. He believes that the transit- oriented developments help bring less vehicles, and less
vehicle trips. He tells them the vehicle per unit requirements are working well. He said with the
multi- family developments, that the average has been one Beverly public school student per
every 30 units. He believes transit- oriented development is working for the city. He discusses the
workforce in Beverly, residents living in the city and that they are developing more housing and
it is helping to accommodate many different people. He asks the Board to support this project
and thinks it is in the best interest of the city to do so.
Donald Preston, 3 Pickett Street, also works in affordable housing and is happy with the
inclusionary housing that is a part of this project.
Matz: Motion to close public hearing. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is
approved unanimously (7 -0).
11
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Thomson asks Wynne it there is anything else they need to review. Wynne tells them there is a
list of conditions that the Board may want to consider, based on staff reports, letters, etc. if they
were to approve the project. There should be a cleaned up plan set as a condition of approval.
There are some things with regard to the inclusionary permit they still want to see, as well as
some maximum income and rents. They also should have a draft regulatory agreement as a
condition as well. She reminds them that some of the parcels need to be voted on separately.
Miller asks if there are any shadow studies of the development. Harden discusses how the sun
will affect the buildings and homes in area (depending on seasons, times of day, etc.) and the
impact on Rantoul Street and the height of buildings. Hutchinson asks if on Rantoul there would
be a shadow until about noon and Harden explains what would be affected.
Miller has an issue with the Open Space and Recreation response to this project and believes
what has been provided has been met with low expectations.
Given that there is not full voting attendance, Alexander asks if the Chair would consider a straw
poll. The Board shares their perspectives. N. Barrett is ineligible to vote because he arrived after
the hearing started.
Matz is in support of the project but his one concern would be the height of the building. He is in
support of site plan and special permits they are applying for.
Flannery is in support of all 3 aspects of this project.
Hutchinson is in support of the development of Rantoul, however residents have complained to
her about density, height of buildings, and believes it is becoming too urban looking, the city is
losing character, etc. She can't currently support the special permit because she does not like the
height.
Miller tells them it is a complicated project, but believes the city needs this kind of development,
and would be in favor of it with some trepidation.
C. Barrett also heard concerns from residents, they had similar concerns as Hutchinson has
heard. She is in favor of it.
Craft tells the Board that the conditions should be taken into consideration.
Thomson states this is what he believes the City has asked to become and he is in strong favor of
the project subject to the conditions.
Matz: Motion to approve Site Plan Review Application #130 -17, for 199 and 199R
Rantoul Street subject to the following three conditions: (1) compliance with any
and all conditions set forth in the letters from City departments, boards, and
commissions, which are attached and incorporated by reference as listed in the
staff reports; (2) that the engineering and architectural plan sets shall be revised to
be consistent with each other and consistent with recommendations of City
departments, boards, and commissions adopted therein by this Board and that the
12
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
revised plan set(s) shall be sent to the City of Beverly for review, electronically
and that once the Planning Department is satisfied, final plan set(s) shall be
submitted to the Planning Department as determined by planning staff, and (3)
that a traffic count will be conducted after full occupancy. C. Barrett seconds. The
motion passes unanimously (7 -0).
Matz: Motion to approve Site Plan Review Application #131 -17 for 211 and 211R
Rantoul Street with the same conditions as stated with the prior approval. Craft
seconds. The motion is approved (6 -1, Hutchinson opposed).
Matz: Motion to approve Special Permit Application #162 -17 for 211 Rantoul Street for
a building exceeding 55' in height and subject to the Tall Building Design
Guidelines, making the findings: that the specific site is an appropriate location
for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining uses will not be adversely
affected; that no factual evidence is found that property values in the district will
be adversely affected by such use; that no undue traffic and no nuisance or
unreasonable hazard will result; that adequate and appropriate facilities will be
provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use; that there
are no valid objections from abutting property owners based on demonstrable
fact; and that adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for
the proposed use; and subject to the conditions: (1) compliance with any and all
conditions set forth in the letters from City departments, boards, and
commissions, which are attached and incorporated by reference as listed in the
staff reports; (2) that the engineering and architectural plan sets shall be revised to
be consistent with each other and consistent with recommendations of City
departments, boards, and commissions adopted therein by this Board and that the
revised plan set(s) shall be sent to the City of Beverly for review, electronically
and that once the Planning Department is satisfied, final plan set(s) shall be
submitted to the Planning Department as determined by planning staff, and (3)
that a traffic count will be conducted after full occupancy.. Flannery seconds. The
motion passes (6 -1, Hutchinson opposed).
Matz: Motion to approve Special Permit Application #163 -17 for 211R Rantoul Street
regarding parking as a primary use of a lot, making the findings: that the specific
site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of
adjoining uses will not be adversely affected; that no factual evidence is found
that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use; that no
undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result; that adequate
and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and
maintenance of the proposed use; that there are no valid objections from abutting
property owners based on demonstrable fact; and that adequate and appropriate
City services are or will be available for the proposed use; and subject to the same
conditions made in previous motions.
Flannery seconds. The motion passes (6 -1, Hutchinson opposed).
13
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Matz: Motion to approve Inclusionary Housing Application #12 -17 for 199 Rantoul
Street subject to the following conditions: (1) that the inclusionary housing
application shall be amended to include specific information required by the
application, including number and type of affordable units and expected rents; (2)
that a draft Regulatory Agreement for these properties shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit; (3) that no Certificate
of Occupancy shall be issued until and unless the Regulatory Agreement has been
approved and executed by the applicant, the Massachusetts Department of
Housing & Community Development (DHCD) or its successor, and the City, and
recorded with the Registry of Deeds. Proof of such recording shall be provided to
the Planning Department; and (4) that the proposed affordable units meet the
regulatory requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in terms of unit
mix, location, and proportionality.
Flannery seconds. The motion passes unanimously (7 -0).
Matz: Motion to approve Inclusionary Housing Application #13 -17 for 211 Rantoul
Street subject to the same conditions as stated for the prior approval. Craft
seconds. The motion passes (6 -1, Hutchinson opposed).
Board breaks for recess at 10:20pm. John Thomson recuses himself from the next hearing and
leaves the room.
Meeting resumes at 10:30pm and Hutchinson assumes role of Chair.
Continued Discussion/Decision: Site Plan Review Application #129 -17 S -ecial Permit
Application #150 -17, and inclusionary Housing Application #11 -17 — 245 Cabot Street, Unit
2— YNS Affordable Housing, Inc.
Hutchinson mentions they closed the public hearing at the last meeting. The Board members
wanted some time to think about this application. Alexander states they are available to answer
questions the Board may have and indicated he would like to get a sense of the Board's
inclination.
Flannery asks about the staffing of the building as a whole for the YMCA currently, and what it
would be for the new building. Chris Lovasco, YMCA of the North Shore, tells them that
currently they have 27 administrative staff of the YMCA for the North Shore, not including the
childcare, and it would be increased by about 10, so about 38. He says there will be 3 -4 full -time
positions for the new building including building maintenance, case manager, etc. Flannery asks
if one case manager is adequate staffing. Lovasco says he believes so, noting about 20 -25% of
the residents have special needs and this population already has some support structure in place
already. He adds that about 10% of the population may at times needs additional supportive
services, which would be served by this new staff person.
Hutchinson asks if the case manager would be scheduled more than 40 hours a week. Lovasco
does not believe there is a need. He said it would be an hourly position and if the need is there
14
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
the staff would go in during off hours. He adds that in the evenings there are resident managers
and they have hotlines available if residents needed someone when the staff is not on -site.
C. Barrett asks them where current residents park. Lovasco told her they park off -site. C. Barrett
then asked where the current 27 staff members park. Lovasco said they park in a variety of
places off -site and they do pay for parking when necessary.
Craft asks about the hours of the staff and staff size for the childcare, which is vacating the site.
He asks if the net staff will actually be less than current staff. Lovasco confirms.
Miller mentions that the staffing concerns have taken up most of the discussion and asks how
they know that can be funded. Andrew DeFranza from Harborlight Community Partners tells
them that how the project is financed and is this case manager position is built into the deal,
using Harborlight House as an example. He discusses debt service, resident service capacity,
case manager fitting into the budget, expenses, grants, capital, etc. He notes that the project will
be self - contained as a subsidiary in the YMCA system. He describes the subsidies that are
expected to be used.
Miller asks about the management of the organization. DeFranza notes that YMCA will sell the
housing component to another entity. Alexander explains that the building is made up of two
condominiums. One is the traditional YMCA with gym and offices and the other is a residential
part; each are and will remain a separate entity. They also discuss with the Board the tax credits
to be employed.
Hutchinson asks about the ratios of the current residents that work, have special needs,,and those
who "fall through the cracks" and if he expects that same ratio. Lovasco tells her that they hope
to get 5 -10 units to work with DDS for individuals with cognitive disabilities and 3 of the units
would meet the goals of the Mayor's homeless initiative; other than that, yes he expects the same
ratios. Hutchinson asks if the City has any recourse to say if they don't feel the one case manager
is adequate enough for the amount of residents. Lovasco tells her the project would be under
oversight by DHCD, funding partners, banks, and the YMCA, etc. and so they would have to
keep the highest standards to meet the expectations of these groups. He notes it is in the Y's best
interest to manage their residents; yet they cannot be discriminatory in who the select. They
monitor residents and would address any residents that had major issues and would evict if need
be. He adds that having a case manager would help with this.
Hearing no other questions, Hutchinson asks the Board to give a sense of how they would vote.
Craft says he would support the project with conditions.
N. Barrett is in support of the project.
C. Barrett is in favor of the project noting that affordable housing is in great need.
Miller notes he has some concerns about the staffing, but is happy with the explanation and is in
support of the project.
15
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Flannery is in support of the project.
Matz is in support of the project and notes that he feels strongly that the City needs to provide
housing for those in need, and especially for those with mental or physical health problems and
special needs and that this should be the start of the conversation.
Hutchinson is in support of the project.
Flannery: Motion to approve the Site Plan Application #129 -17 subject to the following
conditions: (1) compliance with any and all conditions set forth in the letters from
City departments, boards and commissions, which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference; (2) that if approved, the applicant would need to
update the Rooming House permit with the City Council; (3) that existing
Regulatory Agreement, Affordable Housing Deed Rider and Affirmative
Marketing Plan, as applicable, shall be updated and drafts shall be reviewed by
Planning Department staff; and (4) that the Engineering Department requires the
delivery of AutoCAD "as- built" drawings upon completion of the building and
utility work. These drawings shall also be delivered in .pdf format generated
directly from the electronic AutoCAD files. These drawings shall be delivered
prior to the sale /installation of the required water meters.
Miller seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
Flannery: Motion to approve the Special Permit #160 -17 making the findings: that the
specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character
of adjoining uses will not be adversely affected; that no factual evidence is found
that property values in the district will be adversely affected by such use; that no
undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result; that adequate
and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and
maintenance of the proposed use; that there are no valid objections from abutting
property owners based on demonstrable fact; and that adequate and appropriate
City services are or will be available for the proposed use; and subject to the same
conditions as stated above.
Craft seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
Flannery: Motion to approve lnclusionary Housing Application #11 -17 subject to the same
conditions as stated above. Matz seconds. The motion passes (7 -0).
John Thomson returns to the meeting.
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 explains that the Board approved the Yield Plan setting the number of units at the last
meeting and they now need to select a preferred plan.
16
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
Bob Griffin, Griffin Engineering, thanked the Board for coming out to tour the site. He explains
the different areas they reviewed and toured. He notes there were no specific plan changes made.
He discusses that someone was interested in where the impressive trees are and notes they will
be able to save many trees. However, he notes that they may have to remove some of the trees
and some might be subject to windblown damage in the future and they will think of that as they
lay out the site. They will try to save specimen trees, particularly around the perimeter. They will
be working with an architect to lay -out the units in a more detailed matter, and also with regard
to the trees.
Thomson asks Wynne if any other public comments have been made. Wynne answers that the
Open Space Committee letter was the only comment she received and she reiterates that it is a
public comment period, not a public hearing.
Matz comments that the preservation of.the open space and the trails being relocated/maintained
are of concern with some residents in the area.
Thomson tells the applicant they will proceed and approve a preferred site plan. Thomson asks if
there is anyone there to speak on this matter.
John Petrosino, 24 Goodwin Road, is not against the project, but he is concerned about the
utilities including sewer and where they will be placed on the site. He says there is no current
sewer on Webster Avenue and just wants to make sure his property doesn't get inundated with
sewerage. Thomson indicates this will be addressed during review of the engineered plan.
Hillary Lacirignola of 47 Webster Avenue tells them that during site walk it was indicated that
they may grant some of the open space to the city, and possibly provide public access via the
existing driveway, and she wanted clarification.
Griffin addresses the concerns of both Mr. Petrosino and Ms. Lacirignola. He explains that the
12 current units on the property currently have sewer lines and explains in what direction they
are flowing, and they will tie into the manhole in front of 30 Webster Avenue. He says there is
currently gravity fed sewer in Webster Avenue. They spoke to the City Engineer and he didn't
have any concerns about that. Another resident (Mr. Rush, Goodwin Ave) mentioned to him that
during certain storms, the sewerage has come into his basement in the past. They will look into
that and make sure that adding into the sewer line will not make this issue worse.
With regards to the open space Griffin tells them that they have offered a variety of options and
explains each one to the Board. He notes that the existing driveway is reasonable for one house,
but maybe not for 3 to 4 houses because it is so steep. He adds that the applicant is meeting with
Essex County Greenbelt Association to walk the site. They will work with the city for the best
option.
Lacirignola mentions that the driveway is not commonly used so any more usage of it would
impact the residents on Webster Avenue. There is a neighbor that has access to that driveway
which she doesn't believe is used much. Thomson asks for clarification. She tells him that 52
Webster Avenue has a proper driveway on the other side of the property and doesn't use it very
17
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
often. Mr. Petrosino states that his relative lives there and confirms he very rarely uses it.
Lacirignola mentions that the resident will bring in firewood occasionally and mows the access
way. She adds that it is private property, but some neighbors have prior permission to use it to
access the woods in the back of the property. Thomson comments that if someone has legal
rights to that property then it can be declared open space but doesn't deny them the right to
continue to use it. He confirms that those using it have no deeded rights.
Thomson comments that Concept E is the best concept because it provides better connections to
Greenbelt land and that those three pieces would all be under single management.
Miller is happy to accept whatever concept Greenbelt would be happy with.
Hutchinson asks Thomson if the Open Space Committee had something they wanted to add to
the concept. Wynne tells her they were looking for a more natural trail over the high point,
encouraging the path to be closer to the common driveway near the Greenbelt property. This
change can be met either by changing the lot line or providing an easement. Griffin describes
they want a pathway that isn't as steep as what they have on the plan currently. Griffin confirms
that this is something they can talk about.
Hutchinson asks for them to walk through all the other concepts so the Board fully understands.
Grimm explains each concept to the Board.
Matz raises some questions in the staff report. He notes that the current driveway has unique
stone features and the Board may want to include conditions to preserve these features. Griffin
indicates if they are in the open space, they would leave them alone. Matz notes that there were
some issues regarding the no disturb zones that were unclear. Griffin acknowledges that the no
disturb zones are somewhat choppy and describes why they were laid out as so, with the reason
being to have better placement of the parcels. Wynne mentions it may require more signage
because it is not the perfect shape with regard to topography.
Matz reminds the Board they should consider all waivers on all of the concepts when making a
decision. Wynne explains that the comment was meant for thought during the initial review, but
that the actual waivers would come into consideration during the site plan review process.
Hutchinson: Motion to recommend and approve Concept E as the preferred plan with the
modifications recommended by the Open Space Committee.
Thomson suggests that they include a condition that the applicant work with Greenbelt.
Alexander explains they have some negotiating to do with Greenbelt and for the Board to include
such a requirement may compromise their negotiating ability. He requests they not include that
condition. Griffin confirms the message has been heard.
N. Barrett asks if there is any benefit to holding off on voting on this matter until those
negotiations are complete. Alexander tells him they still have to meet with Greenbelt but don't
want that to hold things up. Miller asks what if Greenbelt doesn't accept it. Wynne responds they
would evaluate options with the City entities and adds that the open space acquisition can change
at any time because it is subject to approval by others.
18
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
N. Barrett seconds. The motion is approved (8 -0).
Thomson notes that he appreciates that they provided the Board real alternatives. Hutchinson
thanks Griffin for a well - executed site visit.
Re guest for Minor Modification to 875 Hale Street Definitive Subdivision Plan — Montrose
School Park LLC
Matz recuses himself from this matter and leaves the meeting, at the Chair's invitation.
Jeff Rhuda of Montrose School Park LLC explains this project was approved in 2012 and they
have been in court for the past 5 years. They received an appeals court decision and would like to
move ahead on this project. He demonstrates the originally approved plan which is a 6 -lot
subdivision with access to the rear of 865 Hale Street, which is a pork -chop lot. He explains the
street was approved as 24 feet with 13.5 foot should with no sidewalks inside a 50 -foot right -of-
way. They want to want to reduce the street right -of -way to 35 feet without reducing any
pavement, changing the utilities, or impacting any of the infrastructure. He notes this is an
aesthetic request, and explains it would bring the houses across from each other 15 feet closer
together. He tells the Board he believes they received a letter from another resident, Mr. Barry
who lives at 865 Hale Street, and he is in attendance if they have any questions for him.
Wynne explains the letters they have on file are from Kevin Barry as well as the City Engineer.
She reads Mr. Barry's letter to the Board which states he is familiar with the conventional and
OSRD plans and this change will accommodate their property on which they wish to build a
smaller house without having to affect the current entrance at 865 Hale Street. He states he still
prefers the OSRD plan and hopes that will be built. He is in strong support of reducing the right -
of -way so that the new development feels more like a neighborhood.
Rhuda gave the Board a revised plan that better explains the right -of -way. He notes that he
believes this is a minor modification.
Wynne mentions that the City Engineer's letter states some things that the applicant should clean
up on the plan. Rhuda notes that these items have already been approved.
Thomson asks if they have an approved and endorsed subdivision plan. Rhuda explains they
have a recorded subdivision plan and a recorded second amendment because the plan was
remanded back from land court. He confirms the plan he is seeking to change is the one
referenced in the decision. Wynne says there are no trees on that plan. Rhuda explains they
added trees so they could see how they would fit into the plan. Wynne clarifies the typically, the
mylars are signed and get recorded; but the paper copies do not get signed by the Board. She
confirms she has reviewed the plan provided against the approved plan.
Rhuda explains they are just touching the layout with regards to the right -of -way. He explains to
Thomson that it has 13.5 foot grass strips and they are looking to take that down to 5.5 feet. He
explains to Miller that the pavement remains 24 feet. He explains they are just reducing the
shoulders. Hutchinson asks him if the reason to do this is to gain larger lot sizes. Rhuda tells her
19
Beverly Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
October 17, 2017
the real reason isn't gaining lot size, but the greatest impact is reducing the visual swath. They go
into further explanation of what would happen with this change.
Miller: Motion to determine that the requested modification is minor in nature.
Hutchinson seconds. The motion is approved (7 -0).
Miller: Motion to approve the request for minor modification to reduce the right -of -way
to 35 feet.
Wynne asks if the Board has any conditions, such as the Engineer's letter. Thomson indicates
that the plans have been approved and he doesn't believe they can make those conditions.
N. Barrett seconds. The motion is approved (7 -0).
50 -54 Boyles Street "Cove Village" OSRD = Request for Extension of Construction
Completion Date (October 30, 2017) to December 1. 2018 and Request for Acceptance of
Renewed Letter of Credit — Cove Villa a LLC
Rhuda explains that they are looking to extend the time of construction for 13 months and
believes they will be done in the spring.
N. Barrett: Motion to approve Extension on Construction Completion Date until December 1,
2018. C. Barrett seconds. The motion is approved (7 -0).
Thomson suggests the Letter of Credit should be set to extend one month behind the construction
completion date.
N. Barrett: Motion to accept renewed letter of credit from Salem Five in the amount of
$106,598.00 which expires on January 1, 2019. C. Barrett seconds. The motion is
approved (7 -0).
Adjournment
Hutchinson: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 p.m. Flannery seconds. The motion passes
(7 -0).
20