Loading...
12-19-17 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: December 19, 2017 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ned Barrett, Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, David Mack, James Matz, Wayne Miller Members Absent: None Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne, Planning Director Aaron Clausen Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair John Thomson calls the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Recognition of Service of Chairperson John C. Thomson The Planning Board gives Chair John Thomson thanks and comments for his years of service. After, Thomson opened gifts and cards from the Board. Recess: 7:17 p.m. -7:30 p.m. Board took a short recess to celebrate his retirement. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans Wynne indicates there are no SANRs for review. Approval of Minutes Wynne indicates minutes are not currently available. 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 Requested a continuance to January 17, 2018 meeting. Mack: Motion to continue public hearing to January 17, 2018. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (8 -0). Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 19, 2017 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 Thomson recused himself from hearing. Wynne reads the public notice. Matz: Motion to open the Public Hearing. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Miranda Gooding for applicant Hardy Street Realty LLC explains that this is an application to be considered for use of "credit units," which allows an owner or a developer to create more affordable units permanently restricted in accordance with the City's guidelines. The ordinance allows the Planning Board by special permit to issue a decision granting "credit units" to be used at another project elsewhere in the City for a future project or for another developer somewhere else in the City. She tells them that the "credit units" have to be used within 10 years. Gooding explains that this project is on the parking lot that exists on the corner of Hardy and Pleasant Streets. The project previously approved is a 6 -unit building with 6 onsite parking spaces for the 6 units, which meets the parking requirements. She says the units will be at least 900 sq.ft. with full kitchen and laundry in the unit. She tells them that at the time it was approved there were no affordable housing units and none were required. She adds the applicant, Beverly Crossing, has partnered with Harborlight Community Partners (HCP) to create these units as all affordable housing. She notes that HCP is hoping by 2019 to have all the funding they need to build the project and to operate it and to secure funding they need to have the credit application approved and have the donation of the land settled. The application meets the requirements of inclusionary housing. Gooding tells them that once the application is approved, HCP will file a local action unit application, which is done with any inclusionary project. She notes that as long as HCP gets its funding, the application would be processed with the Planning Board and the Department of Housing and Community Development which would result in a regulatory agreement which contains restrictive Covenants and would permanently restrict the property to be used as 6 affordable units at 60% of area median income (AMI). Gooding tells the Board that Andrew DeFranza, Executive Director, Harborlight Community Partners, is present for questions. Craft asks if the credit units will be retained and valued for the property on Hardy Street. He also wants to know what the value is of these units. Hutchinson asks Wynne if she could explain what credit units are. Wynne explains what credit units are, and that they don't necessarily have a value. Gooding explains the ordinance does not attribute a value to the units. Craft asks if in the future will there be some sort of bidding process where each unit is $1 million each, for example, and what will the credit units be valued at if developed in this project. 2 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 19, 2017 Aaron Clausen, Planning Director, explains that credit units aren't intended to be a commodity. They are meant to create flexibility for a property owner /developer in a different way to create affordable housing. If approved, the credits being created will be held by Beverly Crossing as the applicant. He notes there is a 10 -year time frame that they can utilize those credits. The credit unit is applied to a potential project that Beverly Crossing does in the future. Barrett asks if the credits are transferable from one developer to another. Clausen tells him they can be transferable, but the Board would have to approve that. Barrett asks if they could condition the credits to be used only by Beverly Crossing. Clausen said they probably could but the applicant could come back to the Board to request a transfer. Miller asks what the mechanism is to transfer them and Hutchinson asks what the mechanism is for it to come back to the Board. Clausen said the Board would have to approve that transfer. Mack comments that the 2017 Inclusionary Housing zoning ordinance doesn't apply to this, but that in the applicant's statement it says that it does. Wynne explains that the original application had an error and that there is a clause in the ordinance that allows special permits to last two years. Gooding tells them that any application/project that requires affordable housing has to come to the Board regardless and that the Board would have the discretion to evaluate. She gives some examples of what could happen. Clausen explains that the Board would review any transfer of credits and the credits wouldn't be applicable until the affordable units are created. Barrett asks for clarification that one credit doesn't necessarily equal one unit and that a payment -in -lieu is not necessarily equal to one unit. He asks if that seems to create an inequity to the City. Matz mentions wording in the staff report about the assessed value of the property. Barrett tries to clarify what the credits will mean in the future and indicates he would be comfortable if the Board has some sort role in any transfer of future credits. Gooding says that she doesn't understand why the Board is talking about value and fee -in -lieu and explains that the reason for the ordinance was to impose upon developers the obligation to create affordable housing units comparable in quality, standards, and finishes to the projects they are building. Barrett interjects to her that the ordinance wasn't created to make a commodity for the owner to sell to a developer. He wants to make sure the developer doesn't get a windfall. Gooding assures him that this is not what they are trying to accomplish. She reminds them that the ordinance says the Planning Board may grant a special permit for credit units to reduce the number of affordable units that must be provided under the this article in another development, a different location, whether in the same zoning district or a different zoning district. A developer may apply the credit units to a future project or transfer the credits in writing to another developer provided the credit units are used within 10 years from the effective date of the special permit. Craft explains that he doesn't see any detail of what the Board's role is in deciding if they can transfer the credits or not. Gooding tells them that the Board has the discretion to make the final decision. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 19, 2017 Hutchinson asks Clausen if what Gooding has said about the Board reviewing the credit units in the future is correct. Clausen agrees it does, but suggests as Barrett did that there be conditions on the special permit. Hutchinson asks if they should put a special condition before the transfer and the Board would retain the right to review the application of credit units for the project in the future. Matz asks if during the transfer of credits, 4 credits can be transferred to one developer and 2 credits can be transferred to another developer. Clausen tells him that it is possible but the Board could put a condition on it. Wynne mentions that it doesn't say anywhere in the ordinance that they can't split them. Miller asks if there is a possibility of a secondary transfer. Clausen tells him yes, and that the Board has the discretion to put a condition on that. Euplio "Rick" Marciano, 141 McKay Street, says he is not currently in favor of the 6 credit units and relates them to 131 Rantoul Street project. He is concerned with people having the opportunity to live in that area and the City getting the money they deserve. Councilor Scott Houseman, 27 Appleton Avenue, Ward 4 says that he intended to speak in favor of this application, and still is. He notes that the Board is asking good questions. He tells them that as long as the Board can review both ends of this and protect a windfall situation if need be. He wants to make sure that the concerns are addressed by the Board, and the intent of affordable housing is maintained. He supports the notion of making a condition of this special permit to be able to control those credits in the future. Gooding offers to assist with any condition that the Board requires to gain comfort on this. She notes there is no intention to reap a windfall in this request and would be happy to entertain a condition that requires them to come back to the Board and a time limit to the credits. Wynne mentions that on condition number 3, it should strike "existing," and strike "shall be updated and." The wording was from another application. Barrett asks if HCP could share their vision for the project. Miller adds that the Board has previously discussed whether it is better to have inclusionary housing clustered or dispersed and if HCP can address in their comments. Andrew DeFranza, 11 Webber Avenue and HCP, tells the Board that HCP as advocates of affordable housing the typically like dispersed housing. However, the good reasons for considering something clustered like this proposal is two -fold: (1) to get more volume of units than you normally would and (2) deeper income affordability. He explains the plans work nicely and that there are a lot of costs and risks for HCP, and the donation of the land improves the economics for them. They want more development downtown and have some multi - family houses, but they are difficult to achieve. He tells them it is harder to finance a 6 -unit affordable housing development. Their intent is to use the same design, but they may try to get some solar 4 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 19, 2017 on the roof and some energy efficiency. Depending on what DHCD does with the financing they expect to keep it under 60% AMI, and part of that under 50% AMI. Clausen explains what the City staff likes about the use of credit units and the project is that although all 6 units are affordable, these types of projects are dispersed because they are smaller scale infill. He notes the Planning Department has been trying to find ways to build additional smaller scales of affordable housing. He notes that they have been working with the Affordable Housing Trust for the last six months to figure out how to make these types of units work. Miller asks what the size of the units are. Gooding tells them at least 900 sq.ft. Mack comments that based on the language on the ordinance he doesn't believe they actually have the discretion on the transfer of credits when it comes to another project, but he thinks the Board should be incentivizing the construction of affordable housing and is less concerned with any side benefit. He acknowledges the developer is taking a risk by putting the affordable housing units here, whereas what they might get in the future is speculative. He is wary of putting any conditions on this application because he's not sure the standard special permit criteria makes sense for this type of request, noting the City made need to revise them for this type of application. He thinks they should be doing more to incentivizing this type of project, because the type of developers that are going to produce this type of housing are not those looking to make a profit. Barrett feels more comfortable to put a condition on it for the Board to be able to review any credit transfers in the future. Gooding tells the Board they are fine with the Board putting a condition on it. Flannery: Motion to close the public hearing. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Mack: Motion to grant Inclusionary Housing Permit #14 -17 for all 6 units to be affordable for households earning at or below 60% of area median income. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Mack: Motion to grant an extension to the existing Special Permit #150 -16 for one year expiring on May 25, 2019. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Barrett: Motion to grant a Special Permit #165 -17 for 6 units to be approved as "credit units" on the behalf of Hardy Street Realty LLC, with conditions include that approval is subject to: 1. Compliance with any and all conditions set forth in the following letters from City departments, boards and commissions, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: a. Letter dated December 6, 2017 from William Burke, Director of Public Health. Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 19, 2017 2. That any and all conditions related to Special Permit 9150 -16 and Site Plan Application 4123 -16 remain valid. 3. That a draft Regulatory Agreement, Affordable Housing Deed Rider and Affirmative Marketing Plan, as applicable, shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Department staff. Final documents shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. That AutoCAD "as- built" drawings shall be sent to the Engineering Department upon completion of the building and utility work and prior to the sale /installation of the required water meters. These drawings shall also be delivered in .pdf format generated directly from the electronic AutoCAD files. 5. That in the event that any of the 6 credit units are to be transferred, assigned or sold to an entity other than the applicant, or any other subsidiary or affiliate of Windover Development, LLC, any such transfer will be subject to review and approval by the Beverly Planning Board. 6. That the credit units are not effective or subject to transfer, assignment or sale to another entity until the building permit for the 6 affordable units is issued by the Department of Municipal Inspections. This motion is based on the finding that the applicant has met the special permit criteria as follows: a. That the specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use, and that the character of adjoining used will not be adversely affected. b. That no factual evidence is found that properly values in the district will be adversely affected by such use. c. That no undue traffic and no nuisance or unreasonable hazard will result. d. That adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation and maintenance of the proposed use. e. That there are no valid objects from abutting property owners based on demonstrable fact. f That adequate and appropriate City services are or will be available for the proposed use. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0). Thomson returned to meeting at 8:38pm. Request for Minor Modification to Site Plan Review #78 -04 — 55 Dodge Street (North Beverly Plaza) — Black & Veatch on behalf of Tesla Motors Trevor Smith from Tesla Motors is proposing to install 10 charging stations at North Beverly Plaza to charge Tesla vehicles. They will require a high voltage, 3 -phase power, high powered AV transformer, they set up their own meter, and they are asking for approval for site plan to incorporate the charging stations into the existing parking lot. He notes they will be taking two parking spaces for the equipment adjacent to charging station spaces and that they will replace these two parking spaces in the rear of the site. 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 19, 2017 Flannery asks where in the plaza the charging stations will be. Smith explains it will be on the drive aisle edge of the parking area between Shaw's /CVS. Miller asks if it is just for Tesla vehicles. Smith says yes, and explains it's a propriety network. Matz asks if they are the same charging stations as the ones at the North Shore Mall. Smith tells him they are not and that those are a mix of level 2 and 3 charging stations that are much slower to charge a Tesla vehicle. Craft asks if the space is sufficient and if there are any additional safety measures they take in order to make sure there are no accidents. Smith tells him there are bollards around the station. Miller asks him if he anticipates other shopper and delivery trucks utilizing the charging stations. Smith tells him that they aren't planning on restricting the spaces to Tesla vehicles now but may in the future if they find it becomes an issue with other users parking there. He notes the spaces are designed for their current sedans and SUV's, etc. Thomson asks if the spaces were chosen because of the low usage of the parking spots. Smith explains that they try to put them in the less than desirable parts of a development. They can add additional value to the property. Hutchinson asks about the function, that on each side there are 10 spots and you just drive in and plug in. Smith explains how simple it is to charge your car and it charges within 36 minutes. He describes the design of the spots. Hutchinson asks if the spaces are going to be sold for use of Tesla customers. Smith says the proposed signage will say Tesla Vehicle Charging Station. If it becomes a problem with others utilizing these spaces they will address it. They will be available 24 hours a day. Hutchinson asks if there is any noise concern. Smith reassures her there is not. Miller asks what the power source is. Smith tells him that they will connect to an overhead, 3- phase power that will drop down at the edge of the site. They will bore underneath the parking lot and connect to the new transformer and the meter is on the transformer. Miller asks him if he has any leverage in sourcing sustainable power source. Smith says no, noting it's what is available to them. He hopes down the road they can use solar power, but they are not there yet. Barrett asks about the power they are bringing in. Smith clarifies that it will be underground, and will come from overhead and drop to the ground. Matz: Motion to determine this modification is minor in nature. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (8 -0). Matz: Motion to approve the minor modification. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (8 -0). 7 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 19, 2017 11 -15 Sunnvcrest Avenue "Sunnvcrest Circle" OSRD — Request for Extension of Construction Complete Date (March 22, 2018) to March 22, 2020 — PD Building LLC Wynne explains that the applicant is finishing up on other projects so hoping to get back to this project in the spring of 2018. Barrett: Motion to approve the extension of Construction Completion date for two years, until March 22, 2020. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0 -1). Matz abstains. Special Permit #114 -07 — 10, 12, 16 Congress Street — Request for Two -Year Extension of Special Permit approval (January 28, 2018) to January 28, 2020 — Beverly Office Development LLC Beverly Office Development LLC is requesting a 2 -year extension on this application because the property encountered some environmental issues during due diligence on the site, noting they struck a pipe that started a fire on the site. He adds that DEP got involved and additional environmental investigation took place on the site. He noted there were some small levels of asbestos found that is being addressed with a remediation plan. He adds because of this, they are seeking a two -year extension. Mack: Motion to grant an extension for two- years. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (8 -0). Set Public Hearing — 20, 30 and 40 Webster Avenue Definitive Plan — creation of 1 lot — Benco LLC Wynne explains that the applicant has filed this to secure a zoning freeze and that they have not quite finished the plans for the OSRD Site Plan review application. She suggested that the Board need not review this plan until they have an OSRD Site Plan and suggested rescheduling the public hearing for the meeting in February 2018. Thomson asks if they are doing an OSRD Plan based on the Yield Plan. Wynne tells him that the Yield Plan has been approved already and they filed a preliminary plan as well. Matz asks if the concept plan still exists. Wynne indicates she expects the applicant's site plan to reflect the concept plan and explains that there are two definite tracks to take advantage of the zoning freeze. She is expecting a new definitive plan. Mack: Motion to set the public hearing for February 13, 2018. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (8 -0). E3 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes December 19, 2017 Adoption of Design Guidelines for the Beverlv Smart Growth Overlay Zoning District (SGOD) Clausen explains that the City Council has adopted the SGOD. He is now asking the Planning Board to adopt the Design Review Regulations which accompany the 40R Regulations. He notes these were included in the Board's packet during the public hearing process for the SGOD adoption. Mack asks where the regulations derived from. Clausen answers through the consultant. Clausen tells them the design review regulations have been approved by the State. He notes that DHCD's major concern is that the design guidelines do not prohibit development or make it unrealistically difficult to construct a project. Thomson asks if preliminary designs were submitted for the HCP project would they match. Clausen says that HCP has reviewed the draft language. Miller asks if there is any jurisdiction for energy efficiency and requirements for complying with existing regulations for trash and recycling management. Clausen tells him that if there is an ordinance outside of the zoning that requires multi - family projects to include recycling, they would need to comply with that. However, the City doesn't have such an ordinance. They would be required to provide solid waste management on their own, with a private contractor, and are not required to provide recycling. Barrett asks if they could condition the project on waste management. Clausen tells him they could for a special permit, but for a by -right or site plan review only project, the condition would have to make sure it doesn't overburden what they are seeking to build. Clausen notes they would have to meet the Stretch Code, which is in the Building Code, and is better than the regular Building Code. Mack: Motion to adopt the regulations. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (8 -0). Adjournment Mack: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 pm. Hutchinson seconds the motion. The motion passes unanimously (8 -0). E]