Loading...
11-21-17 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: November 21, 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, David Mack James Matz, Wayne Miller Members Absent: None Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair John Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans None. Presentation: Waste Reduction Efforts and Policies in City of Beverly — Jim Bauer, Co- Chair, Beverly Waste Reduction Committee Jim Bauer presented to the Board a presentation entitled Recycling Collection in Multi - Family Units. Bauer summarizes that since 1990 it has been illegal in Massachusetts to dispose of "easy -to- recycle" materials in landfills or incinerators. Beverly currently has an ordinance that requires any waste "generator" that has waste collected either by the city itself or by a hauler hired by the city, to separate recyclable materials and for these separated items to be recycled for reclamation. There is currently no enforcement of the ordinance or penalties for violation of it. Beverly could go further, as many other cities and towns have, to extend the mandatory recycling requirement to "all generators" in the city, including those who contract privately with waste haulers, by enforcing the regulations, and by instituting penalties for violations. Thomson asks if multi - families do not currently recycle_ Bauer tells him it is costly and a lot of them don't. Craft asks if the multi - families do not recycle are they violating the ordinance. Bauer explains that the City was fined by the State for being in violation of the 1990 law. Thomson asks at the conclusion of the presentation if Bauer is looking for some sort of action on part of the Planning Board. Bauer tells him that he was invited to present and it is for the Planning Board to further contemplate. Matz asks him what the current status is for recycling Styrofoam, etc. Bauer tells him right now we just throw it in the trash. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 21, 2017 C. Barrett asks about plastic bag bans. Bauer tells her yes, they discussed that as well. She comments that some towns have pay -as -you- throw, but Beverly does not have that plan. He explains the current requirements for trash and what is accepted. It's pretty much unlimited. N. Barrett comments that maybe they could use part of the information Bauer sent them as sample language to condition some of the projects that they are seeing. Bauer tells them he's gotten some feedback from residents in multi - family units that want to recycle but have no means to do so. He tells them it is for all generators to get in compliance with the law. Approval of Minutes Board reviews September 19, 2017 minutes for approval. Wynne corrected a name on page 7, should read Pamela Constantine and noted only minor corrections to the minutes. Flannery: Motion to approve minutes for September 19, 2017. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes 8 -0 -1, Mack abstains due to absence at the meeting. 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 & Glovskv, LLC Applicant has requested to withdraw the Special Permit Application, without prejudice. Hutchinson: Motion to grant withdrawal of application without prejudice. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved 8 -0 -1, Mack abstains due to absence at the prior meeting. Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #132 -17 — 40 Dunham Ridge (50 Dunham Road) — Construct subsurface stormwater management system and associated adiacent construction of subsurface retaining walls — Dunham Ridge, LLC Flannery: Motion to recess for public hearing. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0) Wynne reads public notice. Michael Aveni, Architect of Cummings Property joined by Steve Drohosky, Vice President and General Manager of Cummings Center, and Dennis Clarke, President and CEO of Cummings Properties. 2 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 21, 2017 Aveni says they are seeking Planning Board approval to construct a subsurface stormwater management system on their property that they call Dunham Ridge. He adds that the project they are discussing was completed under a building permit issued by the Building Permit. When complete the subsurface stormwater management system and associated adjacent construction of subsurface retaining walls will be entirely underground. The project is purely speculative and they have no building, user, or site development in this location in mind. He notes that Cummings likes to tackle projects in advance of knowing the big picture to stay ahead of the market. He notes they had crushed stone at the site that needed to be relocated to facility a project elsewhere on the site. He shows the location of the work on the plan, at the request of Thomson. Aveni explains the timeline, that on July 3, 2017 the Building Department issued a permit for the concrete footings and retaining walls associated with the stormwater management system and that on July 14 the City Engineer informed them that the Engineering permits had been denied and a letter would be forthcoming. He noted the project was already well - underway at that time. On August 18 they received a notice of violation and stop work order from the Building Inspector, which suggested that they would need to come before the Planning Board for site plan review and that they confirmed that decision with the Planning Department. He notes that to date, work on the site has stopped and the system is not operable. He adds they are happy to review comment letters with the Board. Aveni notes that they applied for the permit electronically. He tells them that the Engineering Department got a paper and electronic copy of it for review and explains that after the building permit was issued, he received notice that the Engineering Department had denied the permit. The Engineering Department suggested the system was installed with unsuitable materials. He explains the system was designed by a civil engineer, and was installed in exact accordance of specifications as they were engineered. Their engineer witnessed the installation of all those components and the structural engineer was there for when the walls were put up. In conclusion he says he believe there will be ample time to review any future projects with the Planning Board and asks that the Planning Board approve the subsurface stormwater management system in the submitted package. Thomson asks if the building permit issued was revoked. Aveni tells him they were ordered to stop work until they came before the Planning Board. Thomson asks if the building permit is required. Aveni explains that the walls are holding the stone in and everything will be buried at the completion of the project. Thomson asks if the design is unreviewable because it's not built for a particular use. Aveni tells him that the Building Inspector reviewed it. Thomson asks him when it is done will it be operable. Aveni tells him not until there is other development on the site that can tie into it. He says theoretically today it is currently collecting some water and recharging it, but not for the entire site, just a small area on the site. He suggests it could be a parking lot and said the quantity of water ending up in the system will be much larger. Dennis Clarke says he gets the sense that from the letters that came in from the City, there was a sense of mystery of what they were trying to accomplish; he says they [the applicant] are unsure of what they may actually do on site. Thomson asks them if they were to put a hotel or housing is Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 21, 2017 there a potential that they may have to move it because it's in the wrong place. Clark explains they hope to develop the larger part of the property but they currently have no plans or timetable, and they have two buildings partially constructed on -site and tells them they currently don't have any leasing commitments for either building. He describes their real estate philosophy. Thomson asks for clarification on the plan for what buildings have been constructed and Clarke points them out, noting #50 is the only one constructed and occupied. He says the parking garage is open but not filled and #48 has steel and the exterior is being finished. He says that #52 is a foundation and includes the parking facility. #54 is the location of Vitality Senior Living project noting they expect to filing building permit applications in the near future. Thomson asks him what parcels are under separate ownership. Clarke tells him there are three separate units and that two are owned by Cummings affiliates. Wynne clarifies they are not separate legal lots, this is a condominium. Thomson clarifies that any project here would be in a future phase. N. Barrett asks about having to move that structure, saying if down the road they came before the Planning Board for a site plan or special permit requiring a stormwater management analysis for this area, there were a number of issues raised by the City Engineer. He asks if they could address those issues now, so the City wouldn't have issues later. Clarke asks who would they present that to and what would be the right avenue. Thomson responds that they are before the Board now. C. Barrett asks about July 3r when a building permit was issued by the Building Department and what was it submitted for. Aveni tells her it was specifically for the concrete elements, however the application package included the stormwater management system plans and documents supporting all the engineering permits required. She asks for clarification on the issue. Aaron Clausen, Planning Director, tells them that the Engineering permit was denied for the stormwater system and the Building Commissioner felt it was a change to the site and the Planning Department told them that any amendments or change in the site plan would need to be submitted to the Planning Board for consideration. He says the building permit was issued erroneously and the drainage permit was never issued. He explains that the City Engineer never agreed to the permit that was submitted and there is a lengthy letter of changes included in the staff report. He recommends these comments be addressed before any approvals are given. C. Barrett asks if the drainage permit has been applied for. Clausen tells her it was applied for earlier, but was never issued by the City Engineer. Aveni tells them they submitted the building permit application online, and it included the drainage alteration permit, etc. He explains that the online submittal system's purpose was that if you submitted a package that the Building Department would have that circulated to all the departments and were able to review at the same time. Thomson suggests the history is past and that since the application is before them already, they move forward with this matter as a modification and decide if it is minor or not and then decide what steps to take next. 4 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 21, 2017 Clarke agrees with that process and explains they aren't trying to find fault in anyone and that they know that nobody is trying to find fault in them and that this has all been a misunderstanding. N. Barrett explains that what has happened in the past is not relevant to this review, but he is concerned about significant risk of issues raised by the Engineering Department. He asks them what their willingness is to comply with these issues. He notes it is backwards for the Planning Board to do a site plan review on a project that has already started and wonders how to get this to a situation that is amenable to both sides. Aveni goes through each point of concern from the letter from the City Engineer: 1. Portions of construction prior to review and authorization from the Engineering Department to be completely removed 2 feet below native soil. 2. Utilization of unsuitable materials outside of Cultec manufacturer specifications, submitted plans, and standard engineering practices. Specifically, the stone material surrounding the chambers should be F -2" aggregate, cleaned and double washed. Not 6" minus as depicted on the plans. Aveni discusses the technical issues of the system as it relates to stone size. 3. Construction to be inspected by the Engineering Department. 4. Sizing calculations need to be submitted. 5. Witnessed soil testing to be conducted prior to approval to ensure infiltration calculations. 6. Structural footing design should be submitted to prevent conflicts between structural design and stormwater system layout. Mack tells him that if they got an order to stop work that he doesn't think it is in the Board's jurisdiction. Wynne explains that it is one site which has been subject to site plan review and the City believes this is a modification to it. Drohosky tells him that they don't have a fully approved site plan for all of the Cummings Center but only various projects and that this project doesn't rise to the level of site plan review, but something that is buried underground to be proposed later down the road. Matz believes the discussion about whether or not the stormwater system is being built properly should be between the applicant and the City Engineer. Wynne explains that the Board can't override the City Engineer's decision. Matz thinks they need to appeal any issues and believes it has nothing to do with the Planning Board. Thomson tells Matz that if the site plan modification came in at the start as opposed to the building permit it would've been part of that site plan review and the building permit would've only been approved after the site plan review. He explains that this is all one property, even though it is constructed in pieces and any change that requires site plan approval, should've come to the Planning Board before changes were made. Clausen tells him that it requires the site plan approval through minor /substantial modification. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 21, 2017 Thomson tells the Board they can decide if what was proposed is minor or not and recommends the applicant then meet with City Engineer to work something out. Matz asks if they want the modification approved because they want to start work. Drohosky explains that they don't have an approved site plan for Lot 40. Thomson explains that it is not a separate parcel and that they look at the whole thing. He tells them this would be a modification for the existing site plan. He tells the applicant that he would like to give them some time until the next hearing to sit down with the City Engineer and try to work something out. Wynne agrees and tells them there are too many issues and doesn't think the Board is ready to make a vote on this matter that night. Thomson asks if they could work something out and then come before the Board at a later date. Clarke tells them they are willing to take that suggestion and wants clarification of what the guidelines are. Thomson tells him the lot is part of existing construction. Clausen tells him that the determination is made by the Building Commissioner, he tells them that they have to have an amendment when submitting any minor modifications. Thomson tells him the City regards it as one site, while they regard it as multiple sites. Clarke asks what constitutes a change and Thomson tells him any construction not on existing plan needs approval. Wynne suggests that if they ever have questions to always ask the Planning Department. Mack tells them that they have acknowledged that there needs to be a change by coming before the Board. His suggestion also would be to continue to make some headway with the Engineering Department and then come back to them at a later date. N. Barrett also suggests a continuance for the public hearing. Wynne suggest that if they change anything in plans they just have to submit updated plans and do not need to refile anything. Drohosky asks how they determine if it is a minor or major modification. Thomson tells him he would like to hear what the City Engineer said to make a final decision on that next time. Clarke tells them they will clean up their approach and have that discussion. Miller raises questions from the Planning Department staff report: (1) a full master plan next time, (2) the City Engineer indicated that the drainage plan on the application is the same, and the minor change as previously rejected by Engineering Department, (3) Conservation Commission had previously denied Notice of Intent for a similar future unknown project for lack of information, (4) they did not obtain the required Planning Board approval for construction of the retaining wall or the work done in conjunction with the stormwater management system from the Department of Engineering, "As constructed, the stormwater management system is not authorized for use in any manner. All work is subject to removal." 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 21, 2017 N. Barrett: Motion to continue public hearing to December 19, 2017 meeting. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). 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 Wynne reads public notice. Andrew Zimmerman, development manager at RCG, LLC shares the background of the site. He explains this is their only Beverly property. The applicant is looking to convert 4,500 s.f. of commercial /office space on the Y and 4 th floors of the subject property (known as the Oddfellows Building) into 5 one - bedroom apartments. The building is currently a mix of 5 apartments, retail on the ground floor, and commercial /office space on upper floors. Retail and offices on the ground floor and 2nd floor will remain. Other improvements will be made to the building interior and the lot, including repaving and restriping the parking lot; but no external changes to the building are proposed. The applicant is requesting a waiver pursuant to Section 300 -85 "Nonconforming off - street parking and loading." The property is currently non - conforming as to parking and the ordinance permits the Board to authorize a waiver for pre- existing non - conforming lot/building where there is no change in net building area. The applicant seeks a Special Permit pursuant to Section 300 -59D which is for relief generally from the Parking & Loading requirements. The parking requirements cannot be met on the site due to the small existing lot area. Five parking spaces are required per the ordinance for the new units, which requires 1 space for a 1- bedroom use in the CC District; only 3 spaces can be accommodated on the site. Flannery asks Zimmerman how many total parking spots they will need. Zimmerman tells her that they are looking for a relief of a parking waiver. He tells her they would need 5 spaces. Hutchinson asks him to clarify under his proposed use how many parking spots would they require. Zimmerman explains that they were told they did not need to provide parking for grandfathered residential units. But he explains they are short regardless. Miller asks Clausen about the project and to clarify and he explains that it is an existing, non- conforming structure because there is 5 dwelling units and it is grandfathered. If they add 5 additional units, it will require adding 5 parking spaces on the site by zoning. In total it would require 10 parking spaces, but it's within 500 feet of municipal parking lots. He explains that zoning would normally require 10 spaces, but they could approach relief two different ways: seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals or they can seek a waiver for the parking requirements from the Planning Board. 7 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 21, 2017 Mack asks that in considering special permit criteria, is it fair game to consider that the existing uses on site do not currently meet the requirements. Clausen says yes, that's fair, and explains that it's a discretionary review for the Planning Board. Miller asks for further clarification of what is grandfathered and what they would need. Wynne explains that 5 units are existing, non - conforming, grandfathered. Zimmerman explains that the current parking is unclear. He explains there is a proposal to clean up of the site and adhere to requirements for parking on -site and trash, etc., but they don't have enough space for all of the parking they will need. He tells them he had correspondence with the Board of Health. He indicates the lot area is closer to 9,000 sf, due to a taking by the City to create Wallis Street, rather than almost 11,000 sf and the building footprint is 7,000 sf. He notes that the building fronts on three sides, having three public faces, which leaves very limited space for trash, utilities, and parking. Miller asks if he has a diagram of how the trash is currently laid out. Zimmerman points out on the plan where the access ramp currently exists and they can fix that so it slopes out to get in some more spaces. Miller asks if they could eliminate the ramp with an elevator system or a lift. Zimmerman says possibly, but the ramp encroaches on the 18 feet required on the property line. Thomson asks if they are going to move the ramp. Zimmerman explains that on the plan is a proposed new ramp location and they provided a walkway but they would have to put trash around an existing mechanical pad next to the access of the rear door and there is a 10 -foot setback. Miller asks if about the size of the dumpster and Zimmerman tells him that there are six 2 -yard dumpsters. Flannery asks if the dumpsters are enclosed. Zimmerman tells her they have covers but are not in an enclosed space. Matz asks if for the 5 residents, if there is any type of housing plan, median income, etc. Zimmerman tells him that they are a combination of flats and lofts and that they are 5 market rate units. Matz asks if there is any requirement to meet affordable housing. Wynne tells him there is not. Mack asks what the target market is for these units. Zimmerman tells him that they are targeting people on the North Shore who want to be close to the train station. Zimmerman explains all of the floor plans for all of the units to the Board. Thomson asks what this space was used for previously_ Zimmerman tells him that it was office space for the previous owner. Thomson asks if they were offices, what would be the parking requirement for that. Clausen tells him that there would be no requirement because it is within 500 feet of the public parking. Mack asks where the residents would park. Zimmerman tells him that there are public lots and that some of the streets are not metered. Thomson asks Clausen what the City's position is on allocating spaces for residential use. Clausen explains to him that based on the Zoning Ordinance it allows up to 25% of residential units for spaces to be provided on a municipal lot and there is a E3 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 21, 2017 general waiver for parking requirements that there may be other circumstances that could be considered. Clausen also addresses some upcoming changes in the metered parking in the City that is going before the City Council in December and how the City expects to be implementing residential passes at some point. Thomson comments that if it was a new building coming in he wouldn't consider a waiver but since it's an existing building, he knows the City is doing its best to address the parking. Hutchinson asks for clarification of what the applicant is asking. Clausen explains it is one in the same and it is a special permit for a waiver from the parking requirements. Hutchinson asks Clausen if the building was not going to change by adding the 5 residential units would there be no parking requirements because those parking requirements would already be met. He tells her yes. Hutchinson explains that her concern is with all of these projects and repeated requests for on- street parking, are they overtaxing on street parking and the lots. She thinks sometimes they have to say no to a project, she believes they just keep waiving the parking for every project. Thomson asks Clausen if they are overtaxing. Clausen explains they did an extensive survey of public parking and there are 5,000 parking spaces and in that analysis, there was never more than 50% parking spaces used at once. He explains that on Cabot Street, Thursday through Saturday between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m., they saw over 90% utilization of on- street parking in that area. But further down Cabot Street it opens up and has only 60% utilization. He tells them that during the daytime /lunch -time, parking is not heavily utilized. Clausen explains that down by Rantoul by the Depot, the parking gets heavy around 8 a.m. and in the surrounding area, so about 85 -90% utilization. Hutchinson tells him that neighbors in that area have come before the Board to complain about the parking in their neighborhood. Clausen explains that the commuters are causing a lot of the issue. They have to update the parking regulations. Mack comments that the City has to deal with managing the parking system and the project seems like a good use of rental units but residents will have to try to find parking on their own possibly. Miller comments that it's only 5 units, but when do they stop giving out parking waivers. Thomson explains that it is the Board's decision to make. Clausen recommends that RCG and /or the City negotiate with other property owners to utilize spaces that might complement each other. Flannery asks if the applicant would entertain speaking with building owners for parking availability. Gordon Trainor of RCG explains that they have reached out to local lot owners for some relief, but it has not been met with positive feedback. Zimmerman states they can't meet the demand of the 25% for the lots. N. Barrett: Motion to close the public hearing. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). E] Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 21, 2017 N. Barrett: Motion to approve Special Permit #164 -17, waiving parking requirements conditioned upon compliance with any and all comments letter received from City departments, boards, and commissions as stated, and incorporating the finding that the application meets the special permit criteria as stated. C. Barrett seconds the motion. Wynne reads the letter from the Board of Health for the record and notes that it was a follow up letter to the revised plan; it says that the revision addresses their concerns and because the lot is restrictive the true test will be how it works in reality and the applicant may need to make future adjustments. Miller asks whether they can refer the application to Parking & Traffic Commission. Wynne indicates they need to vote on the current motion. The motion is approved 6 -3, Thomson, C. Barrett, N. Barrett, Craft, Mack, and Matz in favor; Flannery, Hutchinson, and Miller opposed. City Council Order #507 - Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Create Beverly Smart Growth Overlay Zoning District (SGOD) located at 108 Sohier Road and amend the City of Beverly Zoning District Map to include the SGOD Overlay Clausen notes that he spoke with the Massachusetts Dept. of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to clarify some wording in the overlay district zoning district. He points out that the changes that were made were: • Pg. 5, section F 1 - Clausen did some wordsmithing and it mentioned the waiver, without stating the requirement first, so all he did was switch that sentence around. • With the wording shall not be less than 20% of affordable housing. • For the projects that include rental dwellings 25% of the units must be affordable rental units; however, the PAA may grant a waiver to not less than 20% if it determines that the project would not be feasible to meet the 25% standard. Additional edits were recommended. • Pg. 13 -14 — the plan approval and disapproval language were different standards. DHCD is looking to amend their regulation to address this issue. They gave approval to change wording to "significant adverse" rather than extraordinary and gave his reason for making this recommendation. • Pg. 13, 94 - Projects will automatically be routed to the Design Review Board and the Parking and Traffic Commission, per the Board's request. • Pg. 3 - Mixed Use Development, it should be Section 300 -140. Mack: Motion to recommend adoption by City Council as amended on November 21, 2017. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). 10 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 21, 2017 City Council Order #508 - Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Establish Land Use Categories & Regulations for Solar Energy Systems Clausen notes that due to the extent of the comments at the Public Hearing, they have decided to rework this amendment and resubmit it in the next year. Miller asks to make a recommendation that the Beverly Clean Energy Committee be consulted in the drafting of the ordinance. The Chair makes that recommendation. Hutchinson asks the size of the structure built on Putnam Street. Clausen indicates he will confirm the size, but notes that what was proposed is a smaller than other ordinances have allowed. Set Public Hearing — 20, 30 and 40 Webster Avenue Definitive Plan — creation of 1 lot — Benco LLC Mack: Motion to set Public Hearing for the Board's January 2018 meeting. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Set Public Hearing — Special Permit Application #165 -17 and Inclusionary Housing Application #14 -17, 2 Hardy Street — New inclusionary housing permit for 6 units at 60% AMI; request for all 6 units to be counted as "credit units "; request to extend expiration date of Special Permit #150 -16 to May 25, 2019 — Hardy Street Realty LLC Hutchinson: Motion to set Public Hearing for December 19, 2017. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (9 -0). Planning Board Administrative Matters C. Barrett is resigning her position on the Planning Board because she has accepted a position with the City of Beverly as Director of Grants. J. Thomson is resigning his position on the Planning Board because he feels he has served a long time and others need the opportunity to serve. Wynne discusses adding a couple more meetings a year, noting that this past fall a lot of things got backed up because there was no August meeting. She has proposed adding an August meeting and to possibly add a 2n meeting in the spring and fall months; in total it is 5 additional meetings. She tells them it may be subject to change if there is a special hearing with City Council. The Board discusses the idea. Mack: Motion to adopt new meeting schedule. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion passes, 7 -0 -2, Thomson and C. Barrett abstain. Adjournment C. Barrett: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:41 pm. Mack seconds the motion. The motion passes unanimously (9 -0). 11