Loading...
2000-06-08 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: SUBCOMlVlITrEE: DATE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Master Plan Steering Committ~ June g, 2000 Richard Dink'm, John Thomson, Don Preston, Bill Rodenbaugh, Maureen Troubetaris, Virginia McOlynn, John Murray, Bruce Oveson, Larry Ralph, Scott Houseman, Wendy Pearl, Linda Goodenough $oar~e Availon, William Delaney, Wendy Frontlero Tina Cassidy, Planning Director and Steve Cecil and Ken Buckland, The Cecil Group Jennnine Dion Weleome/lntrodu etions Cassidy calls the meeting to order and members introduce themselves. C-~sa~dy hands out copies of a water supply article from the Boston Globe. There is discussion regarding preserving and protecting resources withh~ the watershed protection overlay district. Aooroval of Meetin~ Min utes Thomson: Motion to approve the meeting minutes of the Master Plan Steering Committee dated April 13, 2000, second by Murray. AH members in favor. Motion carries. Dinkin: Motion to approve the meeting minutes of the Master Plan Steering Committee dated May 11, 2000 as amended, second by Oveson. AH members in favor. Motion carries. Power Point oresentation by the Cecil Grouo Ken Bucklond and Steve Cecil present initlnl findings of the City of Beverly Master Plan. Buckland states he is presenting ~nitial finding~ The sources used for the initial findings range from interviews with city staff; data banks, previous studies, visioning results and comments received bom the Steering Committee to date. June 8, ZOO0 Page 2 Infrastructure Issues Buckland provides a map which outlines and locates the major infrastructure issues: · Drainage problems under study New water tower · Retention pond (2001) · Low water pressure areas · Sewer low-point · New drain and pump Transportation Issues Bueldznd provides a map which outlines and locates the transportation issues: · Traffic congestion at ~vo of the major gateways into the conmmn/ty (Route 62 and Route lA). · New traffic signals would help alleviate some of the toiffic congestion. · Truck trafl~/n the lower portion of the city. · Road reco~on. Too much reconstruction at once can create a traffic he~da,~he. · Inadequate downtown parking downtown. There is an opportun~ for a new parking garage associated with the MBTA that could help alleviate the downtown parking situation. · Development ofcouancrcial land in North Beverly. Natural Resources Buckland states the City of Beverly is a coastal community but he does not see a lot in t~..~ of coastal wetlands. Demographics/Employment Trends Buckland provides information regarding demographics. There has been job growth due in part to the economy and new businesses moving into the City, inehding Cummings Center. The City of Beverly has had very impressive growth in ~-~essments since 1980. The growth since 1990 has not b,%-n as great but over the past 20.years, it has been very substantial, even when one accounts for i~fhtion. Distribution of Tax Parcels by Use Bucldand states 13% of land in Beverly is vacant (which is approximately 1,000 acres) with taxes MmJter Plan Steerln.o C~ June 8, 2~0 Page 3 · r_: Meeting MJnum ofahout $600,000 or 1.4% of the total taxes accrued by thc community. 83% of the total land area in Beverly is zoned residential Approximately 2,100 to 2,200 acres of tax exempt land includes about 1.400 acres of municipally owned land and about 500 acres owned by institutional organizations. Undeveloped Open Land Buckland provides a map which outlines land which is protected by either ownership, easements or some definitive method which says that they will not be used by any other purpose other than the open space. Zoninglssues · River Street ~owth constraints depend on current and proposed zoning regulations and Chapter 91 regulations. Incompatible industrial/residential zoning districts in the eastern portion of the city. Waterfront district zoning. Rezoning oflG zoning district. Cassidy provides clarification regarding the Cummings zoning proposal now before the City Council. The proposal is to allow for a maximum building height of 70 feet, if the building can he set hack at least 400 feet from the nearest public way. It would be a change to the I(3 zoning district lang-~e. Cassidy states there is misinformation cirodsting that needs to be corrected. The zoning would be applicable to all IG zoning districts, however, the only parcel that could qualify for a 400 foot minimum setback would be the Cunanings property. The existing buildings on that site are about 60 feet in height. The new buildings would not be much taller than the buildings that are there. Also, the IG zoning district has no minimum setbacks, h has a minimum height limit of 35 feet but there are no restriotions as to how much of a lot you could cover or how many buildings you can have on a property. One of the issues that prohably will come up during the public hearing is if the building height limit were changed to allow a tall building, would Cummings commit to a full build out plan as part of the rezoning process? Discussion on existinf and future land use options Cnssidy states over the years she has heard concerns with respect to single family residential zoning districts (RI0, R15, R22, R45 and R90). People have mentioned that some areas of the comnmnity that are zoned, for example RI5, should be zoned for a larger lot size. The concem is that the size of the houses that have been consmxcted in the last 20 years are around 2,000 to 3,000 sq-~re feet on lots that used to sustain an 800 to 1,200 square foot ranch. The land that is being developed is a little more wet or steep than land that was.historically developed. Cnssidy states some residents have recommended thinking about upzoning some of the single family Mm~r lqaa ~teeri~ J,me 8, 2000 Pa~e 4 residential zoning districts to something that requires more space. Dinkin responds that he believes the large houses on the small lots look ridiculous, however, they would not build them if they could not sell th~,iL Dinldn states there are people who want a fairly large living sp~_ce but don't want to be bothered with a large outside space to maintain because of lack of time. He adds that the ultimate affect ofupzoning in a community is to incrementally exclude folks of modest means, which is always a bad idea. Thomson state~ he believes that upzoning could be a useful tool when there is no other alternative. He re~onm~nds considering restricting setbacks on lots instead of or in tandem with upzoning and density regulations. He adds that he has concerrm about the build-out of the development potential in the city and cannot ignore the possibility ofupzoning on an economic Preston states he believes upzoning is restrictive and views it as preserving what we have and not allowing others in. He is in favor of keeping the lot size the same and perhaps controlling the size of the house on the lot. Mc(}lynn states the aesthetics of a large house on a .~mal! lot is objectionable. She adds that preservation of diversity of the City's housing stock is important. Ralph states he would support upzoning beemuse the builders are the ones who are taking advantage. He adds that it looks ridiculous to have a huge house on a small piece of property. He is in favor of more open space. Houseman advocates cluster zopin~ by special l~adt. He adds the MAPC is working on developing a model open space subdivi_~ion regulation which seeks to address many issues Beverly is facing. The intention is to allow a density neutral subdivision which seeks to protect open space 5y making lots s~ller (building various size homes) but requiring a lot of open space around it which is protected. Oveson states a lot of communities use planned unit development or planned commercial development formats. There is an exchange process whereas, ifa development gets to a certain size, then a certain percentage of the developed area can be acquired for public school property, churches, open parks, bicycle paths, etc. You can set up fo,u,~d~ for the exchanges. Oveson states they are used all over the country and are quite successful. They are good for preservin~o areas that are deemed high in natural resource value, but areas that are wastelands can be turned into extremely habitable places. Oveson states Floor Area Ratio requirements (FAR's) is another way to control density in a specific areas. He adds thst he thln~ that hLrg¢ houses on small lo~ have character. Murray states much of the urban open land has been built up. There is diversity of zoning now and it is important to protect the character of Ward 6 (single family house on large lots). He adds the city should be in a position to provide/ncentives to the property owners who have large lots M~er Plan S~eerlng Ce, nmr,~ee M~di~ Mlau~es J,,,,e & 2000 l~e S of land to maintain the open space. He encourages upzoning and cluster zoning. Troubetaris states she is interested in cluster zoning. Pearl states she is in favor of preserving character and open spaces. It is important to identify what defines the character in the various areas of the city in order to come up with a strategy to preserve and protect. Rodenbaugh states much of the zoning validates history. Beverly is really like five different town, each with its own character. The idea of building a large house on a small lot is a return to history. He adds that it is important to define open space more clearly and stresses the importance of contiguous open space. Houseman adds that there is an important disfi'"~n between cluster subdivisions and open space or conservation subdivision. Cluster subdivisions set aside a certain amount of open space but it ends up being unbuildable slopes or wetlands that couldn't he built on anyway. An open space or conservation subdivision sets aside open space that preserves primary natural resources and then you locate the house lots around what you want to preserve. Yo.u don't end up with ~unk" open space. You end up with valuable open space. Ca-~sidy states this is an educational process and the reason why people sometimes oppose cluster development proposals is because they haven't been educated with the sensitivity of vernal pools, open space, important natural features, etc. Houseman adds that you have a dichotomy between development of right subdivisions and special permit subdivisions and the developers are economically scared to death of the special permit procedure because they can invest an awful lot of time and at the end of the process end up with nothing. Dinkin states there r,c~ts to be an extensive educational C'sales and marketing") effort in the community about the value of creating cluster subdivisions. Buckland asks the members to give a list of land use issues: · Appropriate zoning long-t~.a for the IG-zoned land along the Bass River. Maximum front sethacks/minimum setbacks. · Right level ofzoning flexibility. · Add~ional commercial space on side street. Um'ealized opportunity. · Improve"walkab'~3~' ofdowntovm. · Water to Bass River (Gloucester Crossing to bridge). · Pedestrian friendly zoning and high density residential zoning in downtown and on waterfront. · Expand historic district. June 8, 2~00 l~ge 6 Thomson recommends encouraging hotel/overnight stay on the appropriate scale. Dinkin states the downtown revitali~tion of Salem was an unmitigated disaste~ and Newburyport's was extraordinarily successful. The uses of the downtown in Newburyport are integrated. The uses in Salem are f~aga~nted and there is no way to drive through the downtown. Goodenough states the commercial parcel-~ are not contiguous in the downtown, and that creates at least one problem that should be solved. Houseman asks if structured parking would be aa asset (Le. a small parking garage)? Cecil responds that the downtown is underutilized. In many historic downtown areas you can tear the heart out ofyour own downtown it'some of the marginal downtown properties start getting tom down to be serviee parking lots and it gets ugly again. Ceeil states it is importsnt to "plan for SUC~.' Murrary recommends rememberinoo the commuter rail and the harbor as assets. Troubetaris states she would like to see architectural compatibility. There is discussion regarding facade design guidelines and renovation funding for historic districts. A member of the committee asks if the airport provides a benefit to the city. Czss~dy responds that the Beverly Airport COmuiission ban information regarding the economic benefit and offers to provide a copy to the members for the next meeting.' Pearl states the committee should not overlook the industrial buildings that may not fall within the view of'what is hi~oric." They may be real opportunities (~s Center is a good example of that). Cecil states the Cecil Group has a solid handle on the trends and the issues have been discussed. What the committee is going to start doing now is talk about potential answers. It is fundamental to understand where the problems are, but now the focus has to be on the opportunities. He commends the members on their thoughts and looks forward to the kinds ofauswers Cecil Group can come up with. Schedule next meeting The Open Space and Recreation Committee will be sponsoiCmg a meeting and will be inviting all the different land use beards to discuss open space, where they are headed, where their issues are, etc. Ca-~qidy states the members of the Master Plan Steering Committee will be receiving an invitation to attend thi.n meeting on July 12, 2000. The next meeting is scheduled to take place on July 20~ at 6:30 p.m. at the Senior Center. The meeting is adjourned at 9:15 p.m.