Loading...
10-16-18 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Planning Board Meeting Date: October 16, 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, David Mack, James Matz, Wayne Miller Members Absent: Others Present: Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Samantha Johanson, Recording Secretary Chair Ellen Hutchinson calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plans a. 722 & 726 Hale Street — Orestes G. Brown Materials provided into the record: • Form A ANR Application • ANR Plan Orestes Brown, applicant and owner, is looking to transfer 1,000 s.f. from 722 -724 Hale Street to 726 Hale Street to make the lot more conforming, at the request of the Director of Municipal Inspections. Ellen Hutchinson asks Brown to review the plans with the Board. Brown tells them that Parcel D is 1,009 s.f. and is part of the ZMB property at 722 -724 Hale Street, which is currently a 13,006 s.f. lot. He is adding Parcel D to 726 Hale Street to make it more conforming. He tells the Board that the setbacks remain 10 -feet and he's not creating any new nonconformities for 722 -724 Hale Street. Hutchinson asks if Lot B is a conforming lot and Brown tells her that it is. Brown explains that the lot requirement is 10,000 s.f so he has sufficient area, width, and frontage on that lot. Hutchinson asks if the other lot becomes less nonconforming and Brown tells her that is correct. David Mack asks if the setbacks for the ANR are irrelevant. Darlene Wynne tells Mack that the setback requirements for the CN District is that they are the same as the least restrictive residential district that it is adjacent to, which is R6, so 10,000 s.f is more than enough. Wynne further explains that the lots are partially in R6. Hutchinson asks if they meet the frontage requirements. Wynne tells Hutchinson that they don't, but the frontage is not changing. Ned Barrett arrives. Mack: Motion to endorse as an ANR plan. Wayne Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (7 -0 -1, Ned Barrett abstains due to late arrival). Alexander Craft arrives. b. Continued: 66 Sturtevant Street — Edwin & Heidi Sopp Materials provided into the record: • Correspondence to the Beverly Planning Board from City Solicitor Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 Hutchinson reminds the Board that they had asked the City Solicitor to give a legal opinion regarding some of their questions. Wynne summarizes the letter, where the City Solicitor agrees with the interpretations provided by the Director of Municipal Inspections in his letter dated July 20, 2018. In addition, the City Solicitor notes they Board can endorse the ANR without making a finding that the road meets the criteria. Wynne comments that the plan is similar to the previous project in that they are not creating another buildable lot. Mack asks if the plans state that they are not buildable lots. Wynne answers yes. Hutchinson asks attorney Michael Landers to review what he is proposing to the Board. Landers reminds the Board that they have carved out three non - buildable lots and they have retained a lot in the middle which already has a house on it (Lot 213). The lots may be combined with the existing or retained by the current owner as unbuildable lots. Hutchinson asks if the Building Inspector told him that this was allowable. Landers answers affirmatively. Hutchinson comments that the Board asked the City Solicitor to review and she agrees with the opinion of the building inspector. She also tells Landers that they can approve the ANR without making findings that the road meets the criteria of Chapter 41, Section 81L. Wynne adds that they could also include grounds for endorsing the ANR. Landers comments that if the Board wanted to they could put in the ANR that they did not make any findings for the right of way. Barrett: Motion to approve the ANR without making any findings regarding the adequacy of frontage. Wayne Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Recess for Public Hearings Ellen Flannery: Motion to recess for Public Hearing. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Public Hearing: Smart Growth Overlay District Development Application #01 -18 — 108 Sohier Road (Anchor Point) — Construct 75 units of affordable family housing and 5,000 sf of office space — Anchor Point, LLC and Harborlight Community Partners, Inc. Materials provided into the record: • SGOD Development Application Form & Narrative, dated 9/17/18 • Plan Set, as referenced below • "Stormwater Management Report" & "Stormwater Analysis and Calculations" for 108 Sohier Road, Beverly, MA, prepared by Meridian Associates, Inc., dated 9/17/18 • "Traffic Impact and Access Study" for Anchor Point Residential Development — Sohier Road/Tozer Road, prepared by GPI, dated 9/17/2018 • Letter from Andrew DeFranza, HCP, dated 10/11/18 describing rent and eligibility requirements. • Sample Affordable Housing Restriction provided by HCP • Planning Department Staff Report for Anchor Point 108 Sohier Road • Comment letters from: Police Department (10/10/18), Design Review Board (9/7/18), Engineering Department (10/15/18), Parking & Traffic Commission (10/12/18), and Board of Health (10/11/18) 0A Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 Wynne reads the Public Notice. The team introduces themselves: Andrew DeFranza of Harborlight Community Partner, Thaddeus Siemasko of Siemasko & Verbridge, Matt Ulrich from UBLA, Rebecca Brown from GPI, April Ferraro, Meridian Associates. DeFranza tells the Board that this project is in the Smart Growth Overlay District (SGOD), which is a newly adopted district as of 2017, pursuant to MGL Chapter 40R. He points out where the project will be on the plan. In addition, this project was contemplated during the development of that overlay district. The project also supports the Mayor's MOU on Homelessness, by introducing 15 units that will serve those at risk of homelessness. DeFranza gives a brief introduction to what Harborlight Community Partners' mission is in Beverly and surrounding areas to help build more affordable housing. They are proposing 75 units of affordable family housing with a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. There are some units set aside for formerly homeless families, and there will be support on site for those families. A donor has pledged to support scholarship funds for the kids that will live there to go to college. Thaddeus Siemasko of Siemasko and Verbridge Architects, Beverly, describes the 5.12 acre site at the intersection of Tozer and Sohier Road. He points out on the plan the diagram where there are two buildings, one with 38 units, and one with 37, designed to avoid a water line running through the site. They will put the parking over the water easement and then they will have a horseshoe shaped building that goes back to Tozer Road. There is also a third building, a community building which will serve the residents, and on the second floor of that building they will have the Harborlight Community Partners offices for onsite presence. In addition, there will be a variety of play areas for the children and also some community gardens. There will also be trash compactor rooms, dumpsters on each side of the buildings, and recycling chutes. Two parking spaces will be available per unit, with over 150 parking spaces. They believe they have sufficient parking for both the residents and the employees coming to work at the site from Harborlight Community Partners. Siemasko notes they are dealing with a significant slope in parts of the site and a slightly steep road back down to Sohier Road. He shows them that one building has 4 -story in order to take advantage of the grade, but it won't be a true 4- story. The top floor will have lounge space, which will be a public space for residents to utilize. He says they collaborated with the Planning Department to help the City apply for a MassWorks Grant to make safety upgrades to the intersection. The plan is to add a landscaped island with a crosswalk through it at the intersection. They will also be adding additional sidewalks around the property. They are also hoping to add a wooded trail on the property for residents. Siemasko tells the Board that the buildings will include 2 and 3 bedroom units, three stories, trash rooms on one end, and some common areas /lounges, meeting room, fitness rooms, and laundry room facilities. The buildings will be fully accessible. They are hoping to make this a modular construction. The materials for the building will be classic New England which will entail brick, shingle, metal railings, and some metal roofing. He shows the Board various points of view of the buildings. There will be a bridge that connects with the North and South buildings where the community spaces are. Siemasko tells them that there will be 13 accessible units in the buildings. He explains that there will be a maintenance building to help with the operations with a garage and office space. James Matz asks if the meeting room will be available to the general public or is it just for residents of that complex. DeFranza tells him that it could possibly be, but there are currently focusing on the programming for the site. DeFranza is looking into seeing if they could operate afterschool programming on the site. 9 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 Matt Ulrich, landscape architect from UBLA, Beverly, tells the Board that they are proposing new street trees and sidewalks along Sohier Road. The units and the stoops that face Sohier Road will connect directly to the sidewalk. The main entrance will be heavily landscaped and there will be two terraces off of the main driveway. There will be an area for grills, tables, and chairs for picnicking. Building B will have a community garden space with raised planters for vegetable gardening. In addition, there will be a play area with a play structure. They will try to preserve some retaining walls in the area by Tozer Road to give the building some privacy. Building A will have a smaller play area with various play structures and benches. The community building will also have another gardening area with raised beds with a big, outdoor terrace off the back of the building. They will be adding trees to both sides to show off the entry but at the same time have some vegetation between the terraces and the street. He describes a variety of other different plantings and landscaping elements such as paths, benches, bike racks, and play areas that will be placed around the property. Hutchinson asks Ulrich what the size of the green space area is. Ulrich says it is about 100 feet long and 35 feet wide. Boesch asks what the surface of the terrace is. Ulrich tells Boesch that they would probably do concrete with some type of pattern for the terrace area. Matz asks about the landscape maintenance on the property. DeFranza tells Matz that Harborlight manages all of their own buildings and they would be responsible for taking care of that, and they may hire a contractor for that. Ulrich comments that usually with developments like this, they add plantings that are drought proof and aren't hard to maintain. Matz then asks about the security of the play areas for the children. DeFranza tells Matz they will have a lot of staffing at the site, however, they aren't always on site. The play areas will be fenced in to help with the safety aspect of children wandering off from the area. Ulrich shows the Board more of the presentation showing the materials and images they will be using for the landscaping, site features, and lighting. He notes, some of the plantings they are hoping to use would be arborvitaes, hedges, juniper, ornamental grasses, which are all very self -established plantings after being irrigated for about a year. Some of the trees they are looking to plant on the property will be oak, sugar, and red maple, in addition to some smaller trees. April Ferraro from Meridian Associates, the civil engineer for the project, describes the 5.1 acre site's existing and proposed conditions, noting it was previously used as a parking lot. She points out on the plan where the current access to the site is and that there is about 2.3 acres of woods still left on the site. The topography runs from North to South with the high point being at the North by the Education Consortium and runs down Sohier Road. The topography within the pavement area is between 3% and 6 %; outside of that area in the woods to the East it is between 10% and 15% slope and along Tozer Road is much steeper at 3 to 1 slope, depending on the location. Ferraro describes that the stormwater runs overland top to bottom and will run into one of two places, into Sohier Road or into a drop inlet at the corner of property at Tozer Road. She points out on the plan that most of the property run -off will go into the catch basin and will go over the woods into it or run directly onto Sohier Road. On the West side of the property it runs into an existing detention swale which is on the edge of Tozer Road, which is partially paved and runs overland into the drop inlet. Ferraro talks about the existing utilities on the site and the easement for the water line that brings water to the City of Salem. rd Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 Ferraro shows the Board the proposed layout noting the impervious surface is about 2.9 acres, so it is only a .3 acre increase in impervious surface, which is a little bit over 10% of the existing proposed conditions. She notes two access points into the site, one of which is on the North side of the property and the other on the South side. The driveways are both two ways throughout with 20 foot aisles. They have softened the driveway grading to about 2% and 4% at the second entrance by Hilltop Road. They have incorporated some stormwater management into the design along with some catch basins, sub - surface infiltrations for treatment and recharge of the storm water. They have submitted a full storm water management report which demonstrates the project's compliance with the storm water standards. Hutchinson asks Ferraro if they are maintaining the swale along Tozer Road. Ferraro tells her yes. Hutchinson then asks if that presents any danger for the kids residing there. Ferraro tells Hutchinson that it shouldn't and it is not very deep. Miller asks if there is an existing catch basin at the southern end of the property. Ferraro says that it is at the intersection of Sohier and Tozer. Miller than asks what the size and condition of it is. Ferraro says she is not sure of the size of the manhole, but there is a 12 -inch pipe coming out of it. Miller then asks if the egress at Hilltop is a 4% grade of the driveway and then a left turn to a 10% grade. Ferraro shows Miller where it gets to a 10% grade on the plan and that it is a 4% turning into a 6 %. Miller comments that is steep for a going uphill and not the best sight line. Ferraro shows him that the grading flattens out when you go north. Matz asks what the grade or elevation change is from the entrance to a certain point on the plan. Ferraro tells him it is about 120. Matz then asks if there will be an increase of 10% impervious surface. Ferraro says yes. Ferraro also shows that they will have catch basins on the plan and those will take stormwater from the parking lots and rooftops. She says it will provide recharge and also will help slow down stormwater leaving the site. Ferraro explains that there are arch chambers over stone and over time it will infiltrate into the ground. Rebecca Brown of Greenman - Pederson prepared the traffic impact access study and the parking analysis for the site. They developed the scope of the study in coordination with Aaron Clausen, Planning Director. Brown shows the Board the intersections that they reviewed. The intersections included the two roundabouts of Sohier Road, coming off of Exit 19 from Route 128, as well as the two site driveways (northerly and southerly driveways), the intersections of Sohier and Tozer Roads, and the intersection of Sohier and Herrick Street. They collected traffic volumes for all of the study area intersections during the weekday morning peak hours, the weekday evening peak hours, and the Saturday midday conditions. They also did some Thursday afternoon counts while school was in session, as well as a Thursday night when the North Shore Music Theatre had a show. The traffic study included the safety and the traffic operations of the study area. They did a review of the collision history of all the study area intersections from 2012 -2016. The area in which the two roundabouts are currently, at that time were considered higher crash locations, which was prior to the roundabouts being installed. Since then, there hasn't been enough data to fully assess what the collision patterns have been. But they have heard that crashes have gone down in those intersections. Brown explained that the other intersection that experienced abnormal collisions was the intersection of Sohier and Tozer Roads. With the MassWorks grant proposal, they are proposing some changes, which include regrading of the intersection. The other study intersections had less than three collisions each year which is below the state average. They also looked at the speeds along Sohier Road at the two driveway locations and those were collected to see what the sight distances should be coming out of the driveway. It is currently posted for 35 mph, and the 85 I percentile speed is traveling at or below 36 -37 mph depending on the direction they are headed. Based on those speeds and AASHTO requirements, the sight 9 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 distances did meet the minimum requirements and would allow for safe operation of vehicles at the site driveways. She noted they collected traffic counts in August, and the projected volumes out to 2025 future year condition is in accordance with the MassDOT standards. She noted that Aaron Clausen, Planning Director, commented at the Parking and Traffic meeting that the numbers were very conservative for their traffic estimates. Traffic volumes in August are about 12% higher than the average month condition, so they did not adjust those volumes down to the average condition. The 2025 future conditions were predicted with a I% per year growth rate. The average growth rate of the current conditions of the area over the past 10 years has been about .8% a year. Some of the growth has been a result of the other projects that have been developed in the area. Brown explained they projected traffic for the site based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They used a multi - family housing development for the residential component. They estimate that the site would generate about 42 trips during the weekday am peak hour and 53 trips during the pm peak hour. She described where there might be delays and said that, overall, it's a very limited impact at the intersections, noting there are some existing deficiencies at the intersection of Sohier and Tozer Roads. Brown described the proposed changes to the intersection of Sohier and Tozer Roads, including proposing a landscaped island and a channelized right turn lane for vehicles coming around the corner — resulting in safer turning movements and shorter pedestrian crossings. They have proposed a short left hand turn lane, for coming up Sohier Road, as it is hard for a vehicle to get going again once they have stopped behind the person turning up hill. The MassWorks grant application also included reconstruction of the sidewalk down Tozer Road to the Cell Signaling driveway, as well as constructing a new sidewalk along the westerly side of Sohier Road up to the Soccer, Etc. building, which would cross over to the existing sidewalk on the easterly side to provide access up to the roundabouts. The developer has proposed that if the MassWorks grant is not awarded, they will still construct the sidewalk portion all the way from the site along Sohier and Tozer Roads, as well as construct a crosswalk to get across the road to Tozer down to the high school. The applicant has funded the design for the improvements to contribute to the improvement of the area. Hutchinson asks Brown if the MassWorks Grant is not awarded then would there be no island or other improvements other than the sidewalks. Brown tells her that is correct. Brown shows Hutchinson where the sidewalks would be constructed on the plan without the MassWorks Grant. Hutchinson asks what the chances are of the grant being awarded. DeFranza tells her they are not sure. DeFranza says that since this is a 40R project and Beverly is a Housing Choice community, it will help improve their score and likelihood of getting the grant. Wynne comments that MassWorks received a lot of applications and they are currently processing them. Brown continues to explain that the last thing they looked at was the parking for the site. They are proposing 150 parking spaces on the site to accommodate the 75 residential units, as well as the 5,000 sq. ft. of office space. In this particular zone, it is required that they have two parking spaces per residential unit, as well as one parking space per 250 sq. ft. of office development. Based on the zoning they would require 170 parking spaces for the site. However, with the site affordability component it is likely to have a lower parking ratio. The parking spaces being used at night for the residences, could also be used during the day by the office staff. She described an analysis of the parking demand during each hour of the day based on ITE parking generation rates. The peak parking demand was about 146 parking spaces at 4am. They believe the 150 parking spaces should be more than adequate to accommodate the parking demand on the site. Mack asks if they will need a waiver to reduce the parking from 170 to 150. Wynne comments that they will have to make a finding so that there is an allowance for shared spaces. Mack then asks how they Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 know that they will only need the 146 spaces during the peak time. Brown explains that ITE collects parking generation data from sites throughout the country that are a similar type of site for residential uses and it develops an average parking ratio in terms of parking spaces per residential unit. And that is what they used to project how many spaces they would need for this development. They are also basing it on the likelihood that some of the units will not have 2 cars, or may work a different shift than a daytime shift. Miller comments that they are assuming there will be less cars per unit based on the economic mix of the development and asks if there is any data to support that. Brown tells Miller that ITE does not collect data based on affordability. Miller then asks about the crosswalks connecting to the site. Brown tells him that the crosswalk on Sohier Road is closest to Soccer, Etc. and describes the crosswalk again at Tozer and Sohier Roads. Miller asks Brown if they would be signalized crossings. Brown says no. Matz comments that he is concerned about the turn from Sohier onto Tozer Road and will drivers be able to see children crossing. Brown explains that the reason it is so close to Tozer Road is for vehicles coming down the hill on Sohier Road and they won't have the sight line to see the pedestrians crossing if it was further away. She says since they will be looking at oncoming traffic they will be able to see those pedestrians in the roadway. Miller asks if they would consider putting a flashing sign for the crosswalk. Brown tells him that is something they were considering at the other crosswalk and is usually used at a midpoint block where there is a crosswalk. Barrett comments that he agrees with Miller and that there is a lot going on at that intersection and thinks it would be a good idea to put an activated flashing sign to alert drivers that a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, especially with the possibility of having high school students residing at this site. Brown comments that they will put it into consideration and then notes the flashing light closer to the high school. Boesch comments that he uses that roadway frequently and has never seen a pedestrian crossing from that particular side of the street. He comments that since it is on a hill, it is not an ideal pedestrian intersection, and just because they are putting in a new development it may only add a few more pedestrians crossing than normal. Flannery asks if Parking and Traffic Commission (P &TC) mentioned adding any flashing signs to this area. Brown says they did not. Allison Kilcoyne asks if during their traffic study was there any observations of when the high school is dismissed when there are a lot of buses and junior drivers using those intersections. Brown comments that they didn't do a capacity analysis of that time period because they collected ATR counts (tubes that go across the road) during a 48 -hour period. This showed that later in the evening was the peak of the afternoon for traffic. Craft asks Brown if this collection of data during the 48 -hour period collected the afterschool data. Brown answered that it did. Mack asks if they are considering reducing the speed limit at the intersection. Brown explains that the traffic counts showed that the 85 percentile drove 36 -37 mph, and the posted speed limit is 35 mph. MassDot bases the speed limits based on the 85 percentile, so even if the City petitioned to change it, they would likely keep it the same. If the MassWorks grant gets awarded, there will be improvements in Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 the sidewalks, crosswalks, trees added, which will help drivers realize there are pedestrians in that area and slow them down. Hutchinson asks if the need for a light there becomes more significant if the MassWorks grant is not granted. Brown tells Hutchinson that the need for the light becomes less if the MassWorks grant is not granted because there wouldn't be pedestrians crossing the channelized movement. Brown continues to say that they wouldn't have that location to install a light where the crossing is. Hutchinson then asks if the MassWorks grant is not granted what will be the safety measures put in place for children to cross. Brown says they will put a sidewalk along Sohier and Tozer Roads, as well as an ADA compliant ramp installed in a striped crosswalk in that area, which is standard for any unsignalized intersection. Mack comments that he drives that road daily and there are very few pedestrians walking down Sohier and he doesn't believe that there will be major increase with this development of pedestrians. Siemasko shows a video of the site to the Board. Matz asks about the maintenance of the site and will the aesthetics be maintained. DeFranza tells him yes. Miller asks if they have a simulation of the AM and PM peak traffic movements. DeFranza tells him they do not. Miller then asks if any of the exits are one -way. Siemasko tells Miller that they had that discussion with P &TC and they said they will see what happens. Hutchinson comments that the P &TC identified a condition that the project proponent will analyze the Sohier Road and Herrick Street intersection to identify enhancements to optimize traffic signal timing, signage, pavement marking, and other intersection improvements, to enhance pedestrian access at the intersection. They recommended that enhancements should be presented to the P &TC for review and approval and shall be implemented by the project applicant. She then asks if that is something they have asked them to do or is it something that is going to be done in the future. DeFranza comments that it is something they have asked them to do with some suggestions. Brown tells Hutchinson that right now it is not working the way it is supposed to because of the grooves in the pavement, which are sensors that tell the signal whether or not there is a car there. The sensors were cut up during some recent utility work, so therefore the intersection is not functioning optimally. Brown tells the Board that they have made some suggestions for those to be repaired so it can work again properly. The P &TC has asked the applicant if there are other improvements that can be done at that intersection to improve the pedestrian accessibility. She notes there should be another crosswalk by the Police Station but because of the way the driveways are aligned and the small island it would be almost impossible to place one there. DeFranza comments that they will probably have to meet with P &TC again with recommendations. Wynne comments that they need to be careful on timing and that they are recommending the approval of the plan, but it would be something they would do before issuing the building permit. Hutchinson asks if anyone from the public would like to speak or ask a question. Hearing none. Flannery: Motion to close Public Hearing. Matz seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). In discussion of the site, Wynne tells the Board that this is a new zoning ordinance that they have not ruled under yet. She tells the Board that there are two sets of findings that can be combined and described those findings as stated in the Planning Department Staff Report. Hutchinson comments that one of the main concerns was about adding a crosswalk to the intersection. Matz then asks what if the MassWorks grant is not awarded. Wynne comments that P &TC asked for a Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 condition that if the grant is not approved that the project would need to go back to the Planning Board if determined to or go to P &TC. Hutchinson adds that if the off -site structural improvements aren't funded, that it should return to the Planning Board. The suggestion would be to put up rapid flashing beacons for the crosswalk. Miller asks instead of making it a conditions, should the applicant research it further and have a consultation for whether or not it would work. Flannery: Motion to approve Smart Growth Overlay District Development Application 4137 -18 as shown on the plan set, granting the following waivers from Article XIX, §300 -139: • Waiver from Submission Requirement F(3)(a)[2], which requires compliance with Subsection F(5) Design and Construction, as this requirement does not apply to a 100% affordable project. • Waiver from the applicant providing a final affordable housing restriction to meet Submission Requirement F(3)(a)[3], pursuant to the requirements of Subsection F(6), given that these documents are usually not prepared or finalized until later in the development process. And making the following findings: 1. The Applicant has submitted the required fees and information as set forth in the PAA Regulations or Article XIX, §300 -139. 2. The Project as described in the application meets all of the requirements and standards set forth in Article XIX, §300 -139, or a waiver has been granted therefrom. 3. Any significant adverse potential impacts of the Project on nearby properties have been adequately mitigated. 4. The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated to the Monitoring Agent that the method by which affordable rents are computed is consistent with state or federal guidelines for affordability applicable to the City of Beverly. 5. The applicant has submitted satisfactory evidence that the Project complies with the cost and eligibility requirements of Subsection F(4). 6. The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that shared parking spaces as proposed will meet parking demands using accepted methodologies pursuant to Subsection H(2). And subject to only the following conditions: 1. That the Project may be phased as requested in the application, pursuant to Subsection K(4). 2. That the applicant shall submit a final affordable housing restriction, as described in Subsection F(6), to the Monitoring Agent, and upon review and approval the Monitoring Agent shall submit written confirmation to the Planning Board that all requirements of that Subsection K(1)(a)[2] have been satisfied. This condition shall be satisfied prior to the applicant obtaining a building permit and the affordable housing restriction shall be recorded with the Registry of Deeds upon financial closing. 3. That the applicant comply with the standard conditions issued in the Board of Health comment letter from William Burke, dated October 11, 2018 and detailed therein. 4. That the applicant will analyze, or cause to be analyzed, the Sohier Road / Herrick Street intersection to identify enhancements for pedestrian safety and access at that intersection. Recommended enhancements are to be presented to the Commission VJ Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 for review and approval and shall be implemented by the project applicant. (P &TC Condition #1) 5. That if the off -site infrastructure improvements proposed as part of a MassWorks Infrastructure grant program and as presented in the site plan are not funded through the grant program, the applicant will return to the Parking and Traffic Commission to propose an off -site infrastructure improvement plan to be implemented by the project applicant to ensure pedestrian safety and additional traffic enhancements to support the project as proposed. (P &TC Condition 42) 6. That the applicant meet with the Beverly Fire Department to discuss facility access, water access, and the NFPA 241 report before a Building Permit is issued, as requested in the letter from Chris Halloran dated October 15, 2018. Boesch seconds the motion. Barrett motions to amend the proposed motion to add the following condition. Miller seconds the amendment to the motion. 7. That the applicant will analyze, or cause to be analyzed, the Sohier Road / Tozer Road intersection to identify enhancements for pedestrian safety and access at that intersection, to include the feasibility and appropriateness of a manually activated rapid flashing pedestrian beacon and that this analysis shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parking and Traffic Commission prior to applying for a building permit. After discussion regarding the remoteness of the Herrick Street intersection from the project site, Mack motions to amend the motion by removing Condition 44, above, relating to analysis of the Sohier Road and Herrick Street intersection, which is Condition # 1 recommended by the Parking & Traffic Commission in the letter from Richard Benevento dated October 12, 2018. Planning Board Condition 47 above becomes Condition 45. Craft seconds the amendment to the motion. The motion as amended is approved (9 -0). Public Hearing: Site Plan Review Application #137 -18 — 582 Hale Street — Construct new 2 -unit and 586 Hale Street LLC residential building with parking beneath — Skomurski Development LLC Materials provided into the record: • Site Plan Review Application • ZBA Decision dated March 23, 2017 • Civil Engineering Site Plans prepared by Griffin Engineering Group, dated September 2018 • Architectural Plan Set prepared by Michaud & Associates, dated June 10, 2015 • Planning Department Staff Report • Comment letters from the following boards and commissions: Conservation Commission (10/10/18), Police Dept. (10/10/18), Board of Health (10/9/18), Design Review Board (10/5/18), and Engineering Dept (10/15/18) Wynne reads the Public Notice. 10 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 Thomas Alexander, offices on 1 School Street, Beverly, on behalf of the applicant and owner, Skomurski Development LLC and 586 Hale Street LLC, tells the Board that the property is located at the corner of Thistle and Hale Street, which is near the Prides Crossing train depot. They were granted a variance to allow 4 new residential units in in two buildings in this location. Two of the units are attached to the existing Prides Crossing post office, but the post office will stay. Two units will be in a new building. Alexander explains that the whole project is not subject to site plan review as determined by the Building Inspector. The new building on Hale Street was determined to be subject to site plan review. But the building attached to the post office is not subject to site plan review, because it is considered an expansion rather than new construction. Jeff Lawlor, the site owner, has designed and refurbished the whole area, including the J. Barrett building that he owns and rents out. The back building is where his office is for County Homes. The project was designed to keep in the same architecture as the other buildings. Alexander explains they have been before the Design Review Board who has reviewed and recommended the project. He says the DRB suggested one condition, that the transformer closest to the corner of Hale and Thissell Street have additional landscaping screening. This project will be an improvement to this visible corner. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering is the engineer for the project and John Michaud did the design. Bob Griffin tells the Board that the site is 11,000 sq. ft. He explains the site, saying they will create a court off Thissell Street that will provide access to the four residential units. Each unit will have two garage spaces below and plenty of space to back out. There is a slight grade from the driveway of about 3 -4 feet to Thissell Street. The Design Review Board recommended a hard surface for the bus stop by the sidewalk. There will be landscaping around the building, as well as screening for the transformer with a mixture of shrubs and perennials. During the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, there was a suggestion to provide screening for the neighbor at 584 Hale Street, so they will be adding some arborvitaes. In addition, there will be some screening for an air conditioning unit, as well as the steps going into the basement of the post office. There will be a pump station for these buildings and there will be water lines coming off of Thistle Street. Gas lines and electricity will come underground to the transformer and then disbursed to the site. Matz asks about the stormwater and sewer. Griffin tells Matz for stormwater they are trying to get the roof run -off into the municipal drainage system on Thissell and Hale Street. The driveway court will have an underground infiltration system underneath. He explains there will be a pump station, in the event that the infiltration system is exceeded, it will be discharged uphill to the municipal drainage system. Matz then asks about the sewerage system. Griffin says they have to pump the sewerage into the system on Hale Street. Miller asks if there will be any changes for the parking of the post office. Griffin says they will still have the parking on the street, and they will probably add a sign for patrons not to park in the residential driveway. Miller then asks if there will be an HOA. Griffin tells him that there will be a condominium association. Hutchinson asks Griffin the square footage for the two units. Griffin says they are about 2,000 sq. ft with 3 bedrooms. John Michaud, the architect, tells the Board that the building materials for the building will be cedar shingles and asphalt shingles for the roof and describes the colors and how the building will be lit. Hutchinson asks if the public has any comments or questions. Hearing none. 11 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 Mack: Motion to close Public Hearing. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Flannery: Motion to reconvene meeting. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Mack: Motion to grant Site Plan Review Application #137 -18 subject to the following conditions: parking (1) That the transformer closest to the corner of Hale and Thissell Streets have additional landscaped screening from the street, as requested by the Design Review Board comment letter from Emily Hutchings, dated October 5, 2018; (2) That the applicant comply with the standard conditions issued in the Board of Health comment letter from William Burke, dated October 9, 2018; and (3) That the applicant meet with the Beverly Fire Department before a Building Permit is issued, as requested in the letter from Chris Halloran dated October 15, 2018. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Minor Modification: Approved Site Plan #111 -13 — 50 (48) Dunham Ridge — 7,200 sf addition and relocate parking — Anderson Clarke LLC (c /o Cummings Properties) Materials provided into the record: • Cover letter dated 10/9/18 from Stephen Drohosky, Cummings Properties • Revised Plan Set containing 5 sheets by ALAN Engineering, LLC • Color -Coded Revised Plan Set, 1 sheet, by ALAN Engineering, LLC provided at meeting • Planning Department Staff Report • Comment letters from boards and commissions, including: Environmental Planner (10/10/18) and the Engineering Department (10/16/18) Mike Aveni and Steve Drohosky representing Cummings Properties are requesting a modification to Site Plan Review Approval #111 -13 for 50 Dunham Road, which was granted in 2013 and modified. Aveni describes the building's history saying the Site Plan approval allows construction of a 5 -story mixed use building at 48 Dunham Ridge. In 2014, they asked for a modification to add an addition to that building. When they built the addition, they had left the second floor out because they wanted to create a different type of space, with higher ceilings, that they did not have elsewhere on the property. The building is under construction and it is currently leased. They are looking to build a high bay in addition to the current building. It would be a 5,400 sq. ft. and about 20 feet high with a small mezzanine. A client of theirs is looking for some high tech/high bay space. In addition to the requested modification, Aveni shows the Board the variety of changes they have made to the building since 2013 in a color coded format. Matz asks if the riprap is done. Aveni tell him it is partially done. Matz then asks if the parking has been completed. Aveni points out the areas where parking has been completed. Hutchinson asks how many parking spots were added or dropped in the peach colored area. Aveni tells her 13 were added. Hutchinson then asks how many spaces were lost due to the riprap. Aveni answers that 34 spaces were lost but relocated on the site. The entire site will have 1,480 parking spaces. Matz asks about the special permit granted in 2013 to reduce the number of spaces, do they have more or less spaces now. Aveni says they have reduced it from original number to 1,086 spaces. But then they 12 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 added in 79 spaces that were required for the Vitality project, and then the 245 spaces with Harmonic Drive, ends up being 1,410 spaces. But they are proposing 1,482 spaces for the site. Mack asks if they have been in touch with the Planning Department for whether they should've come back sooner due to all the changes. Steve Drohoksy says that they had been in touch with the Planning Department as well as the Conservation Commission during construction of these projects. There is a discussion to whether or not the applicant should have come forward sooner to discuss these modifications for the site. Hutchinson asks if the unit lines have changed from the blue colored area. Aveni shows Hutchinson where the unit line is now but didn't exist in 2013. Barrett asks what changes that are currently happening have been reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Aveni says that they have removed a chunk of the pavement. Conservation Commission wanted to watch them take out the pavement. Barrett then asks about the area in which they added parking. Aveni told him it was going to be a landscaped area, but they have added a catch basin to handle stormwater. Barrett asks about the surplus snow storage that was previously approved. Aveni tells him that it is not on the new plan, but they have plenty of areas to store the snow. Barrett asks about the yellow colored area on the plan, what are the plans for managing water coming off of that surface. Aveni tells Barrett that the roof water will go back into the system which goes to an outlet, and then a water retention area, which was approved by Conservation Commission and the Planning Board. Wynne comments they received a letter from the Engineering Department and they have no comments to add. Wynne tells the Board, for comparison purposes, that in 2014 the Board reviewed an addition for a 24,000 sq. ft. structure on the same site and the Planning Board determined it was a minor change. Mack: Motion to deem the modifications as minor in nature, alone and in aggregate as shown on the color -coded plan set provided by the applicant at the meeting. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Mack: Motion to approve the modifications subject to the condition that all future changes be communicated to the Planning Board's staff person on or before those changes are implemented. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Continued Discussion /Decision on Preferred Plan: Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Initial Review Application #11 -18 — Create a new private way for *3* new residential lots /units — Off Thaxton Road and Grover Street — Hickory Street Realty Trust and Sprint Hill Ventures, LLC Wynne tells the Board that they have asked for a continuance since they submitted their revised plans the day before and were not ready to present. Flannery: Motion to continue discussion/decision to October 30, 2018 meeting. Miller seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Set a Public Hearing: Waiver of Frontage Requirement — 26 Porter Terrace — Derek A. Hurley Wynne tells the Board that they have to set the Public Hearing for the November 20, 2018 meeting. 13 Beverly Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 16, 2018 Mack: Motion to set a Public Hearing for November 20, 2018. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Approval of Minutes (as available): July 17, 2018; August 21, 2018 Wynne reminds the Board that Boesch needed to clarify some of his comments in the July 17, 2018 minutes and why they weren't approved prior. Matz: Motion to approve the July 17, 2018 minutes as amended. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Matz: Motion to approve the August 21, 2018 minutes as amended. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). New /Other Business a. Extension of Construction Completion Date (September 21, 2018) — Open Space Residential Design (OSRD) Site Plan #9 -16 and Definitive Subdivision Plan —122 Cross Lane (n/k/a Greening Way) — Benco, LLC The construction completion deadline has already passed, but the applicant needs an extension. Wynne tells the Board that the applicant has not resubmitted their request to City Council to convey the open space to the City and per the Board's decision the performance bond cannot be released until the open space has been conveyed. Otherwise, the project is completed. Matz: Motion to grant the request to retroactively extend the construction completion date to 12/31/18. Kilcoyne seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). Adjournment Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:17 pm. Mack seconds the motion. The motion is approved (9 -0). 14