Loading...
6-19-18 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: June 19, 2018 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Vice Chair Ned Barrett, William Boesch, Zane Craft, Ellen Flannery, Allison Kilcoyne, James Matz, Wayne Miller Members Absent: David Mack Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m Hutchinson welcomes new Board Member William Boesch. Wynne points out he is not eligible to participate in any of the continued items because he was not a member of the Board when the hearings began. Hutchinson asks those who are here for the Livingstone Ave Subdivision project to sign -in and specifically if they'd like to speak tonight. Recess for Public Hearings Miller: Motion to recess to Public Hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0, N. Barrett had not yet arrived). Continued Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #133 -17 — 40 & 100 Sam Fonzo Drive — Construct a commercial office and warehouse on existing vacant lot — Fonzo Realty LLC Wynne explains that the Board opened the public hearing on this project in February and the item was continued until the SANR plan had made it through Land Court. James Cummings of Hancock Associates, 185 Centre Street, Danvers representing Fonzo Realty LLC, tells the Board they had to continue the Public Hearing due to the tenant changing the design of the building. He tells the Board that the new plan is for a 49,860 s.f. office /manufacturing building located on a 3 -acre vacant lot. The building will be built in two phases, with Phase I being the building phase and Phase II, a 19,500 s.f. footprint expansion to be built on an existing vacant lot in Cherry Hill Business Park in the IR Zoning District, making the entire building 56,064 GSF. There are 141 parking spaces required and 141 are provided which results in the extension of a proposed retaining wall from the previous plan which required less parking. Cummings tells the Board that access easements have been added to each lot, mostly for truck access in the back. He explains that the drainage and utilities have some small changes, but for the most part remains the same. He hands out revised plans. Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 Hutchinson asks Cummings who is providing the access easements. Cummings tells Hutchinson that the 100 San Fonzo owner would be and they are the current owner of both of the lots. Hutchinson asks the Board if they have any questions. Ellen Flannery asks where the partial parking would be during the Phase I construction. Cummings shows where that will be on the plans for Phase I. Flannery then asks where the dumpsters will be located. Cummings shows them on the plan. James Matz asks if the plans have been before the Design Review Board. Darlene Wynne tells Matz that it has been. Matz then asks about the current plans and the area on the property that will remain unpaved to allow for infiltration. Cummings answers they still plan on using the infiltration basins previously discussed. Matz asks about the reduction in size of the parking islands. Cummings explains they made those changes in order to meet the parking requirements. Wayne Miller asks what the Conservation Commission comments were. Wynne answers that they suggested that the snow storage be moved on the plans. Miller then asks if they have filed the Form 7460 with the FAA. Cummings answers that they have and they provided the FAA determination to the Planning Department for the record. Matz asks if they are still waiting on comments from the Design Review Board regarding the new set of plans. Wynne suggests that the applicant go back to the DRB for another review of the updated plans. Hutchinson asks about the Conservation Committee's concerns on the slope of the access that is adjacent to the Wetlands. Cummings tells Hutchinson that they had looked into moving the driveway but that it is not possible. Hutchinson asks Cummings to point out on the plan where the driveway is and what the current slope is. Cummings tells her that is a 10% slope. Hutchinson then asks if there are future plans for development. Cummings answers that there are no definitive plans. Hutchinson asks what the make -up of the building is for manufacturing vs. office space. Cummings says that the office space will be in the front of the building and the rest of the footprint will be manufacturing which will be for medical supplies. Miller asks if they plan on continuing the use of solar panels. Cummings answers they don't have any plans currently to do so. Flannery asks about the lighting and HVAC. Cummings says that nothing has been determined yet. Hutchinson asks if the HVAC will be roof mounted. Cummings says it is up to the applicant to decide. Hutchinson asks Wynne if they have received any new letters regarding this project. Wynne tells her that they have. Wynne explains they got a letter from the City Engineer and the only question is what the water demand fee will be for the project and the letter completes their review. Wynne also says that they received a letter from the Fire Prevention Bureau which finds no issues and they will contact the builder to discuss additional hydrants. Wynne would prefer for the number and location of hydrants to be addressed prior to the approval of the final plan so that the applicant can reflect that on the plan instead of having them modify the plan after the fact. 2 Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 Hutchinson comments that they are waiting on the Conservation Committee and the Design Review Board. Wynne confirms that they have not received updated comment letters from either. Hutchinson asks the Board if they have any further questions, and then asks if anyone from the Public would like to speak about the project. There were none. Flannery: Motion to continue the Public Hearing to the July 17, 2018 meeting for further review by the Conservation Commission and Design Review Board. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Continued Public Hearing: Livingstone Avenue Definitive Subdivision Plan (7 Porter Terrace) — Livingstone Avenue — Create 3 New Lots — 7 Porter Terrace, LLC This application has been continued from the May meeting. The applicant is proposing a plan that extends Livingston Avenue to create 3 buildable lots on Livingstone Avenue, in addition to a lot on Porter Terrace containing the existing house, for a total of 4 lots, but not extending all the way through to Leech Street. Each of the lots will contain 10,000 sf of lot area and have a minimum 100' frontage, as required in the Zoning Ordinance. Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering, Beverly, updated the Board on changes since the last Public Hearing was held. He had the biologist go back to the Wetlands to verify what he had seen at his prior visit. The biologist confirmed the same things he stated in his previous report and had no additional changes. Griffin tells the Board that they will have a conservation hearing the following week to discuss the project. He mentions that at the last meeting someone had asked about the lots that come off of Ashton Street and if they could add a house in the back because it was mostly vacant. He tells the Board that they can't subdivide those lots because the lots are already non - conforming in that district. Griffin explains that they spoke with the Fire Department again and the turn- around area they have identified is adequate. He mentions that some questions were also raised about the direction of the drainage at the last meeting. He points out where the drainage will come down from and hits the intermittent stream and then enters into a pipe at Porter Terrace and then down into the ocean. He walks the Board through a flow diagram. He reminds the Board that they have put in their plans a large retention basin underground and it is lined so it won't recharge the ground water table. He also comments that the water will bleed out slowly and there will be less water going out than they had before. Miller asks Griffin about the direction of the drainage shown on the plan. Griffin explains where the water will flow out into the stream, where the water will be infiltrated and flow in pipes to Porter Terrace, and where the water will continue to flow down the roadway as it has been before. Matz asks about 32 Ashton Street and in the rear of their property where they usually have flooding and why is that happening from an engineering standpoint. Griffin explains that the grades in the area are mostly flat and he happened to look that day but didn't see any standing water. Griffin explains that with the slope they will end up catching a lot of the water in the catch basin and into the drainage system and they won't be putting any water into the backyard in question. Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 Ned Barrett asks Griffin if there will be any new catch basins in the newly paved part of Livingstone and where will that be. Griffin shows the locations of those catch basins on the plan and explains that at some point the water will flow down to the ocean because they can't get the water to flow up hill to the catch basins. Barrett asks him if the catch basins will be downhill from the Ashton Street properties and could the property owners tie into that system to help alleviate their issues. Griffin says that they are about 10 feet higher uphill than the proposed development and other than adding a lot of additional piping, the water currently flows towards the intermittent stream. Barrett asks if the owners wanted to tie into the catch basin with them is that a possibility. Griffin says it is a possibility and points out certain areas on the plan in which they can do that and that may help the one neighbor who has a lot of ponding happening in their backyard to be reduced more quickly. Barrett recommends that the applicant and the neighbors sit down to discuss some options that would help alleviate their current water issues. Griffin tells him that the applicant would be happy to discuss those issues as well as any other issues the neighbors may have regarding this project. Barrett asks about the current drainage pipes on the existing property. Griffin tells him that there are no drainage pipes on the existing property, but there is a drainage pipe that picks up the intermittent stream. Griffin explains that just right off the property is an 18 -inch pipe that picks it up from a yard and onto the street where a 24 -inch pipe picks it up. Griffin also tells Barrett their proposed drain pipe is 8 inches. Barrett asks if it would be possible if they were to tie in with the neighbors if they were able to do a 12 -inch pipe to give it a little more capacity and Griffin tells him it would be. Barrett then asks about the 1 st 200 feet of pavement on Livingstone and who would be maintaining that area. Griffin says that if the applicant were to damage that part of the pavement he would fix it. Barrett comments about the applicant adding 550 feet of pavement to the street and he would like to know what kind of arrangement the applicant would be willing to enter into to maintain the 550 feet of pavement. Flannery comments that she is concerned about the hammerhead and is wondering who will take care of maintenance of that, including snow removal and trash removal. Griffin tells her that they may post some signage at the hammerhead, and put a deed restriction on it so that nobody could park in that area. Flannery asks how the other lots might be included. Griffin refers to 121 as the abandoned home, and that it could be replaced with 3 houses if the frontage is improved. Flannery notes that this should be considered. Flannery asks why the drainage is being directed to Porter Terrace and not down Livingstone. Griffin explains that on Livingstone Avenue they would have to put another pipe which would be expensive to install and that it is more efficient to tie into the Porter Terrace even though they have to put a large retention basin underground. Miller asks if the detention pond needs to go down a certain amount of feet so that water will flow to the intermittent stream to the South. Griffin says they are not moving the intermittent stream and he demonstrates where it will flow and gets picked up by an existing pipe on the plan. Miller states that he is concerned that there are always vehicles parked on the paper road. Miller 4 Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 also comments that a lot of wildlife live in that area, and he objects to the removal of the trees that the applicant had stated previously as "junk" trees. Zane Craft asks about the power lines being up above the property and is there any further consideration for the lines to go underground. Griffin says they are giving it some consideration. Miller comments that it would be a good idea if they had a third party review the hydrology issues in the area. Griffin explains that they have started the process and would like the City to do one more additional review and they will try to coordinate with the Conservation Commission. Hutchinson asks Griffin to go back to the plan that shows the water flows to outline what will flow into the intermittent stream and through what pipes. Griffin points out on the plan where the flow begins and turns up into the intermittent stream and catch basins. He explains that due to the catch basins there will be a reduction in water going in the westerly direction than what they currently have. Hutchinson asks if this will overburden Porter Terrace with the varying flows. Griffin tells her that the water going into the catch basin will slow the flow going into Porter Terrace. Hutchinson asks what percentage of the flow will be going into the pipes that will be running down Porter Terrace. Griffin tells her that half of the water goes to Porter Terrace, the rest goes to the intermittent stream, and some down Livingstone Avenue. Hutchinson comments that she is concerned that Porter Terrace is getting a high percentage of the flows. Hutchinson tells him that she likes Miller's idea to have a Peer Review done. Matz asks how many houses are currently on Livingstone Avenue and he tells him that there are two. Matz asks since the houses on Ashton will be abutters to the homes on Livingstone, will they be responsible for the roadway maintenance or will the Homeowner's Association be responsible. Griffin comments that they would have the same rights of those living on Livingstone, such as the right to pass through the street as they do now. Griffin clarifies they are not looking to include the homeowners from Ashton in the HOA, but if for some reason they wanted to they could be included. Matz then asks about the current proposal and if they would clear everything [trees]. Griffin tells him they can't really keep much due to the grade that is required for utility work and he doesn't think there are any trees worth saving. Matz disagrees with his statement due to the Norway Maples which helps to absorb water. Miller asks Griffin to expand on his comment about not having the opportunity to save the trees. Griffin explains that they have grade changes that they need to make to the existing property and they need to have buffers around these properties and protect them so that trees don't fall on the properties. Miller asks about the waiver they are asking for to not have to evaluate all the trees in the area. Griffin explains that it is a lot of work to do, but since they are inquiring more about it, they are prepared to review the trees in the area if needed. Wynne tells the Board they received two letters earlier that day. The first is from Councilor Lang requesting that the Board continue the hearing to allow further Conservation review. The second Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 letter was from Ken St. Pierre at 16 Porter Terrace which lists conditions of concern including flooding, road safety, and storm drainage. Hutchinson opens up the questions to the Public. Brendan Wynne and Colleen Ahearn of 17 Porter Terrace are direct abutters to Lot 2. They have concerns about the project including vibration damage due to blasting and construction vehicles. He explains that the foundation closest to their property is only 15 feet away from their property and construction damage can happen within a hundred yards. He comments that he is concerned that they are unable to state at this time how much blasting will actually happen with this project. He explains that their house has flooding from storm water and that their house sits on the edge of the ledge that may be blasted. He presents to the Board pictures of their house demonstrating how much of the ledge connects to their property, and in addition pictures showing how much flooding they usually deal with. He then shows a picture of a door which is only a few inches above the ground and believes that if the storm water basins fail it will ensure that water will pour into his house. His house is downhill from the construction site and his house is already getting water. He comments that Griffin told them that the basin is designed to handle a 100 -year storm, however, he is more concerned about the snow packs in April and the storms that usually follow. Ahearn comments about not having sidewalks and that due to snow plowing up against their fence they are concerned about having more damage without a buffer zone. Eric Gagnon of 31 Ashton Street comments that his main concern is public safety and he alleges that even though at the last meeting the applicant stated that they got the full support from the Fire Department that it wasn't the case. Gagnon says he spoke with Captain Halloran who he said shared the same concerns about the hammerhead turn- around. Gagnon comments that because it is a private way the snow removal is supposed to be the homeowners' responsibility and it doesn't always get plowed. Gagnon brings up the comment from earlier in the meeting about them putting a deed restriction on that part of the street, but he is wondering who will enforce it. He believes people will still park there and there won't be enough space for a fire truck to park there and be able to turn around during an emergency. Deb McLaughlin of 15 Porter Terrace had someone evaluate the vegetation and believes that any removal of the trees in the back of the property will destroy the ecosystem that is currently in place, as well as microorganisms and the soil. She explains that she couldn't make the last meeting, but was the one who turned in the reports of her sump pump. She points out where her home is which is at the very bottom of Porter Terrace. She explains that during heavy winters and rains, there are some weeks her sump pump is pumping out 20,000- 30,000 gallons of water. McLaughlin comments that not everything is being addressed and that the applicant is only talking about the water being caught in the system from Ashton but she wants to know what will happen with the water behind the houses that abuts her house, which is at a lower elevation. Matz asks over what period of time the 20,000- 30,000 gallons of water is being pumped out of McLaughlin's basement. McLaughlin tells him it is in a one week period of time. 11 Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 Bradley Pomerleau and Dusty Smith of 36 Ashton Street comment that they will be direct abutters to the proposed project. Pomerleau believes there are some inaccuracies on the map that the applicant used. One of Pomerleau's concern is the water drainage. Pomerleau comments that the applicant is not agreeing to have the required grading and curves on the road, which will cause water spill out along the road into their yard and other abutters. Pomerleau points out on a map that he handed out that shows matured vegetation and tells them it is a habitat and not just filled with "junk trees." He is also concerned about the wildlife that will be affected including birds such as woodpeckers, as well as foxes and coyotes. Pomerleau comments that they have skunks living back there and if the woods get cut down their skunk problem will increase. He also comments that there are rats living back there and that will push them into the residential neighborhood. He is also concerned about the blasting and how it will affect the ledge and the houses in the area. Katie Perron of 32 Ashton comments that she presented most of her concerns at the previous meeting but wanted to follow up with some other issues. Perron comments that another concern of hers is that salting and sanding of that road would be pushed into the wetlands area. She is pleased to hear that the applicant will have a third party review. Perron comments that the trees help prevent the flooding in her back yard, otherwise there is nowhere else for the water to go. Councilor David Lang comments that there seems to be varying amounts of stormwater runoff in the report and questions what is actually happening with the different storms. He asked the Board to take a closer look. He reviews some of the major concerns made with the project, including length of street, buried utilities, sidewalks, street trees. He says he believes it results in a sub- standard project for Ryal Side. Matthew Duncan of 1 Porter Terrace comments that he has the same concerns as everyone else who spoke before him. He would prefer that the project not happen and feels as if a lot of waivers are being requested, as well as corners being cut. He is pleased that a third party will be reviewing the project to evaluate all aspects of it. Hutchinson comments that it's been proposed but the Board will need to discuss whether a third party will actually be reviewing the project or not. Nicola Ferzacca of 23 Porter Terrace asks if the abutters that are not part of the HOA will be privy to what the maintenance decisions are by the project's HOA before decisions are made. He asks if the plan is to cut down the trees in the 8 foot buffer [the area between the right -of -way and the paved roadway] or will they remain. Griffin says he does not have the answers to those questions but that he will look into them. Hutchinson asks the Board if they would be in favor of having a Peer Review done. Allison Kilcoyne asks if that would include reviewing the ledge as some of the neighbors foundations may be on that ledge. Griffin comments that he believes the third party review would be of the stormwater management only. Griffin says the applicant did have a blasting expert come out and look at the ledge. Griffin comments that they could have the blasting expert go out again and also present to the Board with information. 7 Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 Barrett comments that the Fire Department provides information about blasting on their website, which encourages that homes that may be affected be evaluated ahead of time and monitored during the blasting through the blasting contractor. He says the applicant can do it independently as well. Wynne clarifies that the information is on the State's fire marshal website, not the City's. Barrett tells Griffin that once the trees are cut, the Board will want to know what the landscaping design will be. Barrett hopes that the Board and the Conservation Commission can have one third party to do the evaluation of the stormwater management. Darlene Wynne comments that they do have a City Arborist if the Board chooses to have them take a look at the trees. Wynne suggests the Board request the Planning Department to determine the scope and contractor for the third party review. The Board will need to make a motion to allow the Planning Department to accept three bids and work with the Conservation Commission to coordinate the review. Barrett: Motion to authorize the Planning Department to request a third party peer review of the Stormwater Management Report prepared for the application, in coordination with the Conservation Commission. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Miller: Motion to request a consultation from the City Arborist on the impact of the proposed tree removal and whether any trees should be saved. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (5 -2, Matz and Barrett opposed). Barrett: Motion to continue the Public Hearing to July 17, 2018. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Hutchinson calls for a brief Recess. Continued Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #135 -18 and Special Permit Application #167 -18 (applicant reguestinz to withdraw Special Permit) —130 Sohier Road — Convert and expand existing building into office and mini - storage; construct new 12,600 s.f. self - storage building and request for deviation from required number of Darkin2 spaces Sohier Road Self Storage, LLC Darlene Wynne notes the Board continued this hearing to wait on additional comments from various Boards and staff. All expected comments have been received by the Board. Miranda Gooding, Glovsky & Glovsky, 8 Washington Street, Beverly, on behalf of the applicant Sohier Road Self Storage, LLC reminds the Board that at the last meeting they summarized the project and reviewed the updated plan changes. Gooding says they eliminated two curb cuts to one, made the second building smaller, eliminated the office use which resulted in a project that is conforming with all parking requirements and setback requirements. Gooding says that the Zoning Board has granted a special permit to authorize this use in the IR District and submitted the ZBA decision for the record. The decision also included a finding that the applicant could continue the non - conformity for lot coverage. Gooding says the applicant went before the Parking and Traffic Commission and there are conditions for the project to be approved as E3 Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 proposed with the design changes. One condition was that the applicant would install a sidewalk in front of building and the applicant has agreed to comply with those conditions. The applicant went before the Design Review Board and the main concern was landscaping in front of the building, which was addressed with additional screening in front of the building. She says they are willing to comply with that recommendation as well. Matz asks Gooding to clarify the hours of operation. Eric Loiacano, principal of Sohier Road Storage LLC, answers that the location they have in Gloucester is open 24 hours and they have staff on site from Sam to 5pm every day. Matz asks if it is Monday - Saturday or every day. Loiacano answers it is every day. Matz disagrees that it should be open 24/7 due to noise possibilities because it is in a residential neighborhood as well as people being at the facility late at night. Gooding comments that similar businesses are moving in the direction of 24/7 accessibility because people, such as contractors, may need to access items early in the morning for projects. She also comments that this industry has evolved to address safety concerns with extensive security monitoring with cameras and key pads. Loiacano comments that they can keep track of people coming and going with their monitoring systems, but most customers go in early in the morning and some after work in the evening and they have never had any problems at their other facility. Miller comments that he is also concerned about the possible noise activity. Loiacano comments that most of the noise will be inside the storage areas and very little outside. Miller then asks what kind of solar panels they will be using. Loiacano tells him they will be using the solid black panels. Hutchinson asks Gooding to explain the outline in yellow around the building. Gooding tells her the grey is the existing building and the yellow are the additions that are being proposed. Hutchinson asks if they are going to be drive -up units. Gooding points out on the plan where those are. Hutchinson asks if they anticipate the units being used by contractors and movers, or will they be a smaller size. Gooding tells her that they are designed to be a mixture of sizes to accommodate different needs. Loiacano points out on the plan that some will be 10x10, 10x30, 5x10, and 10x20. Barrett comments that the property sits lower than Sohier Road and that should help with the noise. He then asks what they will be doing for landscaping on the berm to help screen visually and help with any sound traveling out in the direction of Northridge. Loiacano comments that they decided to put yews at an angle that grow up to about 4 or 5 feet high and create a hedge, in addition to existing trees. He shows the Board a few other places in which they will place those. Miller asks if the lights of cars and trucks will be pointing out at the Northridge property upon exiting the parking lot. Gooding explains that the projects exit lines up with the Northridge exit on the other side of the street. Hutchinson asks if there are any questions from the public. E] Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 Barrett: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Craft seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Barrett: Motion to accept the withdrawal of the special permit application, without prejudice. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Barrett: Motion to approve Site Plan Review application 9135 -18 subject to the following conditions: (1) Compliance with any and all conditions set forth within the letters received from municipal departments, boards, and commissions in connection with this filing, including letter dated May 21, 2018 from William T. Burke, Director of Public Health; letter dated May 24, 2018 from Lisa Chandler, P.E., Staff Engineer; letter dated June 14, 2018 from Emily Hutchings, Design Review Board; letter dated June 14, 2018 from Richard Benevento, Parking and Traffic Commission; letter dated May 28, 2018 from Captain Chris Halloran, Beverly Fire Prevention; and letter dated May 24, 2018 from Sergeant Anthony DiRuzza, Police Department; (2) that Drainage Alteration and Erosion/Sediment Control permits are required for this project. Such applications shall be submitted to and reviewed by the Beverly Engineering Department pursuant to their Rules and Regulations; (3) 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; and (4) that all Stormwater Management maintenance and inspection records shall be submitted to the City of Beverly Planning Department (1) one time, annually due by December 31 of the calendar year in which the maintenance /inspection was performed. These records shall include, but may not be limited to works performed on bio detention basins, deep sump catch basins, and sweeping. An account of any deficiencies /repairs shall be summarized in a cover letter referring to the maintenance /inspection records. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0). Preliminary Presentation: Site Plan Review Application #136 -18 Special Permit Application #169 -18 — 42 (50) Dunham Road — Construct approximately 97, 396 sa. ft, 2 1 /2 story building for new manufacturing faculty and request for deviation from parking requirements — Harmonic Drive, LLC c/o Glovsky & Glovsky, LLC Wynne explains that this is a preliminary presentation and that there will be a Public Hearing on July 5 She tells the Board the purpose of this presentation is to ask questions and have them prepare what they will need for the Public Hearing. Miranda Gooding, Glovsky & Glovsky, 8 Washington Street, Beverly, on behalf of Harmonic Drive, LLC thanks the Board for making themselves available for this meeting. She tells the Board this project has been in the planning stage for some time now and the applicant has been working with the City to coordinate the move of their headquarters from Peabody to Beverly. Gooding tells them that the company originated in Beverly and will be returning with over 200 jobs. Gooding introduces the team: Doug Olson and Jim Falbe of Harmonic Drive, Steve Connolly, site contractor of Connelly Brothers, Harry Samolchuk, designer with Connolly 10 Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 Brothers, Peter Ogren, Project Engineer with Hayes Engineering, Michiya Yashiro from HD, the parent company of Harmonic Drive, Susumu Morita from Maida Corporation, the Owners Rep for the project. Gooding explains to the Board that Harmonic develops gear mechanisms that have a variety of applications including space technology and medical applications. They entered into a TIF Agreement with the City of Beverly in 2017 and they will be moving to the Dunham Road site which is on the Cummings campus. Gooding tells them that the campus is a commercial condominium and shows them the location on the map which is about 5 acres total. Gooding also points out some other projects that the Board is familiar with or has seen before them in the past year. She comments that even though there are several different projects, it is considered one lot for zoning purposes and is treated as a condominium. The project will consist of a footprint of a 97,000 square foot manufacturing headquarters, 75% of that being the floor area will be devoted to manufacturing use and the rest of the building will be for office space, training rooms, and meeting rooms. Gooding tells the Board that the project will have surface parking with 244 parking spaces. She tells them there will be other site improvements that Peter Ogren can address, such as stormwater drainage and landscape improvements. Gooding explains the use is a conforming use in the industrial district and the building will conform to all dimensional controls in relation with the entire lot. She tells the Board that they will need site plan review and a request for a special permit to authorize a reduction in parking to the extent that is necessary. Gooding explains that the zoning specifies different parking requirements depending on how the space is characterized. They are characterizing it as a single user, manufacturing and the parking requirements for the manufacturing use is the only requirement that apply. The requirement is 2.5 spaces for every 1,000 square foot of building. Counting the entire 97,000 square feet as manufacturing would require 244 parking spaces and they are providing 245 spaces. Hutchinson asks if because the majority of the use of the building is manufacturing then that is the determining factor of the number of required parking spaces. Gooding answers it is. She says that both the Building Inspector and Planning Director agree on this interpretation. She explains that there are a couple of other lawyers on this project and that to avoid any doubt of interpretation, they have suggested the applicant should apply for a special permit because they have a building that will be used as 75% manufacturing and 25% office space. Gooding tells them that this interpretation would require 280 spaces compared to the 245 determined to be necessary by the Building Inspector, so they would meet about 80% of the requirement. Hutchinson comments that the required 280 spaces would really only be needed if the space was occupied by more than one tenant and the other part was an office use by another tenant. Wynne explains that the issue the other lawyers are arguing is that the way the ordinance is written that it does not clearly state the way the Building Inspector interprets it. Gooding explains that the parking need will be covered with the 245 spaces and that the company hopes to grow to 202 employees over the next five years or so. Based on the amount of employees they have, and some visitors, this will more than cover what is needed. 11 Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 Miller asks how many employees they currently have in their Peabody location. Olson says there are 144 employees in the US and 130 are located in Peabody. Miller asks how many parking spots they have in the Peabody location. Olson says they don't have enough currently. Barrett asks if the formula is based on the 75% usage for manufacturing and the other 25% for office space based on the square footage or number of employees. Gooding says the office calculation is one space for every 250 square feet. Barrett asks if they grow to 230 employees is it the case that all of those employees will be working at the same time or different shifts. Olson tells Barrett it is normally one shift. Matz comments that the MEPA process has been completed and according to the Secretary's office they issued a certificate in April for the build out and doesn't require further studies for the baseline condition. Matz asks what the signal optimization was that was previously approved for Dunham Road. Gooding answers that it was approved as part of the approvals for 50 -52 Dunham Road. Matz asks what the signal optimization is and if there are traffic lights being proposed. Gooding tells him it was for Brimbal Ave and Dunham Road. Matz asks if that is going to happen. Gooding says it was all worked out as part of the negotiation with Parking and Traffic Commission for the project at 52 Dunham. Gooding tells him that Cummings Properties agreed to make a contribution of $340,000 to the signalization. The commission also asked that after the conclusion of the build -out of 48 Dunham Road, Cummings will go back in to present information to determine whether the area requires signalization or not and then the City will contact Mass Highway to start those improvements. Matz comments that the two projects that were already approved there don't seem to be moving forward. Wynne responds that one has a building permit and the other does not. Matz then asks what the other traffic mitigations are being proposed. Gooding tells him they will have their traffic engineer at the public meeting to discuss it. Gooding comments no matter what the circumstances, that the traffic signals will be working at a level of service that are acceptable at levels D or above. Miller comments that there is concern because the intersection of Laurel and Dodge is at a level F and can't get any worse. Matz mentions that the neighbors are not going to want to hear that. Gooding comments that this signalization was proposed due to the new rotary back in 2015. She tells them that the project has been looked at as a whole specifically, regarding the traffic through MEPA; there is a baseline that is established and this project is included in the baseline. Olson comments that one of the things their operations can offer to mitigate traffic is that half of their workforce works a shift from 7:30am to 3:30pm. So it is slightly off hours from what will be expected from the office building. In addition, they have employees who live locally and can either bike or walk to work to help alleviate the traffic. Flannery asks Gooding to find out the status of the Phase II [Exit 22 /Brimbal Ave] project and bring that information to the Public Hearing. Hutchinson asks Gooding what kind of traffic is being anticipated with trucks bringing in materials and taking out product. Olson comments that they are not a distribution center so there is not a lot of heavy trucks coming in and out but they will have smaller delivery trucks like UPS and FedEx in the morning and afternoons from time to time. 12 Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 Miller asks what they plan on doing for solar panels. Samolchuk tells him that the roof loading is being calculated with the anticipation of putting solar panels on the roof. Hutchinson asks Gooding about the proposed landscaping. Gooding comments that in that district they are required to maintain a suitable buffer between the industrial and residential uses and they will conform to that. Samolchuk tells the Board they have a landscaping plan designed by a landscaping architect, James Emmanuelle, and they focused on the buffer area between the industrial and residential neighborhood both on the westerly and southerly sides. The landscape is a mix of evergreens, arborvitaes, and a variety of shrubs throughout the property. Hutchinson ask about a rectangle on the left side of the building. Wynne explains it is a fire lane and provides an access point to three sides of the building. Hutchinson asks the Board if there are any other issues they would like to see the applicant's team address at the Public Hearing. Craft asks what can they can discuss at the Public Hearing and will it be the site as a whole. Gooding says that from a zoning perspective they measure the dimensional conformity from the entire lot, but they are looking only for review regarding this project. Gooding explains that part of the site plan determination includes the extent of conditions that may apply to 48, 50, or 52 Dunham Road. They would like some clarity that those conditions don't encumber their project at 42 Dunham Road. Hutchinson asks for an example. Gooding explains that the Board may have approved a stormwater management facility and since this is one lot, this project may have to have the same conditions to some extent. Craft comments that they had approved an infiltration system and they were hoping to have a plan of the entire site at some point. Wynne explains that when Cummings went through the MEPA process recently they presented to the Board the master site plan that proposed the current conditions and an alternative, a potential future condition. Wynne tells him that met the Department's expectations, but it's not something they have to review necessarily. Gooding tells the Board that the plan has gone through Parking and Traffic Commission and the Design Review Board and both recommend approval. The applicant has reached out to all of the abutters in the residential neighborhood on Dunham Road and in Dunham Castle, the adjacent condominium. She says they had a very positive meeting with the Board of Trustees and unit owners of Dunham Castle. They have also extended the invitation to owners on Presidential Circle, but no one attended the meeting. They have done a lot of outreach in the area and most people feel like it is an appropriate use for the site. Barrett asks about the site plan and are the lines the entire area in which the building will sit. Gooding shows him on the plan where that is and also points out the parking. Matz comments that it looks like the trees that are there aren't getting cleared. Gooding tells him she is pretty sure that is correct but can't guarantee that every tree along that area will remain. There are some trees that are on a lower grade and different property. 13 Beverly Planning Board DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 19, 2018 Hutchinson comments that when they look at the plan there appears to be minimal landscaping but there seem to be significant landscaping on the Dunham Castle side. Gooding tells her is correct. Ogren comments that there will be about 200 or so trees that will be planted along the site. Miller asks Gooding what the height of the building is and she tells him about 45 feet. Samolchuk comments that it varies due to some of the grading but the back is about 34 feet high and the front part is about 45. Matz asks if they are outside any resource areas or buffers. Gooding answers they are. Hutchinson asks if there are any further questions. Hearing none, the discussion ends. New /Other Business a. Hutchinson recommends that anyone on the Board that has not seen the site for the Livingstone project to take some time to go look at it. b. Wynne asks the Board how they feel about receiving packets electronically to help with efficiency and saving paper. They discuss the possibility to do so, however some are opposed to the idea because they feel as if it is easier to look at plans on paper than on an electronic device. Adjournment Miller: Motion to adjourn the meeting about 10:00 pm. Kilcoyne seconds the motion. The motion passes (8 -0). 14