Loading...
2002-03-07 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: Master Plan Steering Committee Public Hearing SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: March 7, 2002 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Dinkin, Wendy Frontiero, Scott Houseman, Wendy Pearl, Larry Ralph, John Young, Maureen Troubetaris, Virginia McGlynn, Joanne Avallon, John Thomson, Linda Goodenough, Donald Preston, John Murray BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Hurlburt, Planning Director and Ken Buckland, the Cecil Group RECORDER: Jeannine Dion Ken Buckland states the purpose of the public hearing is to discuss the City of Beverly’s draft Master Plan. He introduces John Young, a member of the Master Plan Steering Committee. Young outlines the Master Plan process. The process started in 1998 with three public hearings, which were held at various locations around the city. Citizens were invited to the meetings and asked to provide input. A survey was sent out to 600 residents, which further honed the vision of “What might be” or “What ought to be.” Then 27 months ago, the Master Plan Committee was formed. There are currently 15 members on the committee. There were four public meetings in which the committee shared ideas with the community and the community had a chance to interact with and voice concerns to the committee. The Committee has sifted through all of the comments and brought them together into a document. Ken Buckland from the Cecil Group has guided the committee through the process. The Cecil Group has also worked on the Waterfront Master Plan and the Open Space and Recreation Plan, which are incorporated into the city’s Master Plan. Young introduces Wendy Pearl who provides an overview of the topic Land Use. Land Use Pearl states Land Use is the heart of the Master Plan. How we use the land has influence on the character of the community and it also plays a role on how the city functions and how livable it is. How we control land use is through Zoning. The Zoning Ordinance has been in place since 1939 to control, separate or buffer different uses or protect important resources. It also creates standards for the design or environmental protection in certain areas. Zoning controls the building area requirements and parking and sign requirements. Master Plan Steering Committee – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 2 The broad recommendation of the plan is to redraft the City Zoning Ordinance to include new standards and protections for certain resources. There are currently areas in the city that are zoned for industrial uses that are no longer industrial uses. The recommended actions will change the zoning designations to better reflect the existing land uses. It will create new standards and protections for significant resources, such as open space, historic properties, village centers and certain types of housing (senior housing). Some of the specific proposed actions are to rezone the harbor and the Bass River as a waterfront zoning district, which would enhance public access to the natural resource of the river, potentially create the opportunity for new marine facilities and support development associated with those kinds of uses. Mixed use in those areas would be encouraged and also recognize the inherent value of that land. Some other suggestions are buffer zones between residential and commercial areas so that you don’t have conflict with land uses; preserving and enhancing the village centers and developing zoning guidelines and design standards. Transportation and Infrastructure Joanne Avallon provides an overview of the topic of Transportation and Infrastructure. She states there were three areas discussed within this section: city roads, buildings and facilities and utilities, which are each vital and integral to other improvements we want to make in the city. City Roads There is congestion on the roads. The suggested solutions can be divided into two categories: 1) roadway improvements - making our roads better serve our needs and 2) reducing congestion – encouraging and enhancing other modes of transportation. The city is already engaged in improvement projects for 7 out of the 10 top accident sites. We will need to continue with those improvements. Gaining more control of our streets to make sure they are doing what we want them to do. The city should set up design standards and designations for all of the streets, thereby defining what that street should be doing, rather than have the state tell us what we should do. The Open Space and Recreation Committee are looking into scenic and historic road designations. Everybody said more parking in the Rantoul Street area to support the commercial entities and support the commuter rail. One major topic discussed in the forum was bike paths. The committee thinks the city should be going towards a Bikeway Master Plan, to connect all parts of the city. Anytime a roadway or pedestrian improvement is being considered, bike paths should also be discussed. Another major topic discussed in the forum was pedestrian access. People thought that we could not get to the waterfront very well. Master Plan Steering Committee – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 3 There is a bus system in Beverly but nobody knows it. We should make the bus stops more visible and publish the schedule. Buildings and Facilities The participants in the forum and the survey respondents clearly expressed concern for continuation of support for the improvement of the schools. The Master Plan wants to be sure to continue to support the improvements in the schools. We want to continue with the library annex project and make Fire and Police Department improvements a priority. The committee recommends maintaining existing facilities and does not support selling any municipal buildings, if at all possible. Utilities Water and sewer in Beverly is very old and very expensive. The City needs a hydrologic modeling system of the water system. We don’t know what is going where as well as we should. There are infiltration problems with the sewer system. The City needs to stay on top of it. The City just spent $9 million fixing drainage problem areas but additional problems are likely to occur. We need a cohesive water, sewer and drainage plan and program. All improvements in utilities are very expensive and need to be carefully planned. New Water Sources With a strain on the water supply, the committee encourages looking for new water sources for the City. Conservation measures should be in place on a public and private level. Housing Don Preston provides an overview of the topic of Housing. Don Preston states he is active on the Beverly Coalition for Affordable Housing. Beverly has a very active real estate market. There are approximately 525 sales per year and about 50 new homes are built in the city each year over the last ten years. There are approximately 1,586 affordable housing units out of 16,000 housing units in the city. 62% of affordable housing is dedicated to seniors. 38% of the affordable housing is dedicated to families. The City needs to address the needs of housing and broaden the affordable housing base. The Master Plan addressed the need of the city to have a 40B Plan. A 40B Plan is when a developer could come in and supercede the local zoning and develop housing projects on a very large scale. Master Plan Steering Committee – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 4 The proposed ideas are a combination of zoning amendments, new proposals, common sense and a political will on the part of the community to address these problems. The Committee recommends the following: · Rezoning and reuse of old commercial/industrial properties for housing. · Rezoning of industrial areas along the Bass River to multi-use zoning (commercial/residential). · Build partnerships with agencies and other non-profits and addressing the housing needs. · Rezoning in parts of the city to address density issues. · Revisit accessory apartment issue. · Promote new housing opportunities (more multi-family units in neighborhoods). Residential Development and Open Space Scott Houseman provides an overview of the topic Residential Development and Open Space. He states the shape of our community is going to be, in large measure, determined by the policy goals that are set out of the Master Plan. The Master Plan Steering Committee has placed a great deal of emphasis on implementation so that this plan does not end of being simply a plan that sits on a shelf and gathers dust, but actually relates to what happens in our community. There is no single greater aspect of the impact on open space than residential development, the largest consumer of land in Beverly. Our regional planning authority has done a build-out analysis, which projects that at the rate of development has experienced in the last 20 years, the next 20 years Beverly’s zoned residential land will be entirely consumed. A lot of the open space that we take for granted visually and for recreation purposes in Beverly, will be lost forever unless there is some kind of regulations that enable us to change that course. There are two ways to effectuate a change in that trend: 1. Money - Buy land or easements to protect open space. 2. Change the regulations that shape the residential development. The way that can be changed to effectuate greater savings of open space for land that cannot be purchased is through a change in the Zoning Ordinance called Conservation Subdivision Development. Houseman describes the concept of the Conservation Subdivision. He emphasizes that this if different from a “cluster” subdivision. There are two differences: 1) It provides that developers have to take into account the natural features of the land in laying out the lots, and 2) the land that has to be set aside is prime land for either scenic or habitat purposes. Master Plan Steering Committee – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 5 The preservation of open space will have impacts on city services, wetland and habitat preservation. What makes the Conservation Subdivision work is the political will to make this happen. To implement the policy changes that are set out in the plan. Economic Development Linda Goodenough provides an overview of the topic Economic Development. The Master Plan Committee has balanced the need to increase economic development opportunities around the city, while addressing quality of life concerns (i.e. open space, schools, affordable housing). The city’s land use is balanced towards residential. The industrial development as compared to the residential and commercial does not contribute an equal or better percentage compared to shared acreage. 90% of tax parcels in Beverly are residential, compared to only 4% of industrial/commercial land. Industrial buildings are currently low values and the commercial values downtown need to be enhanced. One of the real problems is that there is only a little bit of land left undeveloped that we can develop (3% or 264 acres). Goals: · Use the waterfront to generate activity and revenues. · Develop new opportunities using the city’s historic assets and waterfront destinations. · Reuse older industrial and commercial areas before designating new areas. · New development must come under well-defined design guidelines to preserve the character and protect the adjacent residential neighborhoods. · More city control of buildings and site designs, as well as sign regulations. Potential Sites for New Development: · Airport Industrial Park – 270 acres. The goal would be to refine industrial uses and consider eliminating some uses. 1. Improve the investment in those properties by restricting them to high land uses. 2. Office research and development park use. 3. Establish minimum building standards. 4. Flexibility in site plan standards. 5. Eliminate some of the conflicting uses particularly in the residential areas. · Route 128 Industrial Area - 120 acres surrounding by 460 acres of undeveloped or underdeveloped residential and tax exempt land. The issue is access, but one day access will happen. The subcommittee recommends the following: Master Plan Steering Committee – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 6 1. Refining this area to “preferred uses” such as retail and hospitality. 2. Plan for mixed uses. 3. Change the general industrial zoning to more of a restricted industrial zoning (i.e. office parks, research and development). 4. Create buffer zones between the residential areas for zones for multi-family units and apartments. 5. Use capped landfill for recreational fields. · 26 Acres on the Wenham border. It is only accessible through the Town of Wenham. State law prevents us from accessing it now as industrial land. That leaves the city with a couple of options. 1. Maintain its industrial use and begin discussions with the Town of Wenham to see if they would agree to an Office Park. (Preserve some open space and have a nice commercial development.) 2. Rezone the whole area to either multi-family, senior living or continuing care facilities. 3. Rezone it for age restricted housing and include open space. 4. Consider it for other municipal purposes (open space, etc.). Development of the Waterfront and the Bass River Area The waterfront is going to drive the revitalization of Cabot and Rantoul Streets. Beverly Harbor Waterfront: · Rezone for new uses (multi-family residential and hospitality). · Require highly usable public access. · Require view sheds so that the buildings cannot be too tall. · Require Zoning District to protect the existing boat yards and commercial fishing operations. · Ventron site and the former McDonald’s site are main gateways into the City. The Ventron site could be the center of economic activity. · City sponsored development will set the tone for subsequent development projects and must be planned very carefully to ensure quality and usefulness. Bass River · Rezone the Bass River - mixed commercial/residential. · Eliminate the industrial use. · Build and approve parking lots and garages. · Create strong facade and sign standards. · Relocate some of the businesses to other sites in the city. Master Plan Steering Committee – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 7 · High quality design standards should be created to maintain a historic context and encourage a pedestrian and public access to the waterfront and protection of the existing neighborhoods. Downtown · Relate and connect Cabot and Rantoul properties directed to the harbor with physical connections and mixed land use options. · Focus on pedestrian and streetscapes. · Vital to the downtown to have functioning neighborhoods. Master Plan Implementation Ken Buckland states the Master Plan Steering Committee has spent a lot of time working on the Master Plan and his job was to figure out how to implement the ideas. What are the steps? Who has to be involved? What are the actions? The key pieces for the implementation are the next most immediate steps. Deb Hurlburt, the Planning Director states that after this evening’s presentation there is a two- week comment period. Public comments and recommendations are due to the Planning Department on March 21, 2002. After the comments are submitted to the Planning Department, the Steering Committee will hold another hearing where the comments will be considered and discussed. The Master Plan Committee will then submit the document to the Planning Board for consideration. The Planning Board will at some point in the near future hold a public meeting, where there will be a majority vote that needs to accept the document. At that meeting there will be the Mayor, City Council, Conservation Commission and other boards present. Finally, once adopted, the board will then submit it to counsel, the Mayor, the boards, the City Clerk, the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Library. Hurlburt states she has been advised by Ken Buckland that the City can apply for, Executive Order 418, a reimbursement from the Department of Housing and Community Development for $30,000 to put toward something within the Master Plan. Buckland opens the hearing for questions or comments from members of the public. Scott Houseman states the steering committee has talked about whether or not to have a continuing subgroup of this committee who would monitor the implementation process of the Master Plan and make reports on some periodic basis to the City Council. He asks for an update on this topic. Buckland responds that there are boards and commissions that have preset requirements in trying to accomplish what they have accomplished in review of development projects or the actions we have to take, can be assisted in the process of implementing the Master Plan by having a citizen’s group that continues the process. A lot of it requires general consensus of the community. The idea of having a citizen’s group, similar to the steering committee that has Master Plan Steering Committee – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 8 been shepherding this process so far, is an important piece of the success of any Master Plan. Rosemary Maglio 30 Pleasant Street has a question regarding the “connector road” and asks what specific benefits, if any, would the City get from that. Buckland responds the only way that you can realize any kind of commercial development of property is if you have access. If you want some active use, you have to have access. Troubetaris states there was discussion at the City Council meeting that it would be a one-way street. Hope Benne of 44 Hillcrest Avenue states there has been a lot of discussion regarding the need for more large parking garages downtown but there still is not even a bike rack at the train station downtown. She recommends linking other modes of transportation (bicycle) before increasing the number of parking garages in the downtown area. Robert Buchsbaum of 12 Bertram Street asks about the task of implementation of the Master Plan. Buckland states an implementation committee will need action by vote of the City Council and the Mayor to continue an implementation committee. Pat Grimes of 26 Old Town Road asks if the steering committee has prioritized the implementation process of the Master Plan. Buckland responds that one of the pieces of the implementation is a schedule. The implementation talks about what actions have to be taken within a specific timeframe to accomplish the goal. A member of the public states there might be federal monies available that might help with the purchase of the Ventron site. Buckland asks to forward any information to the steering committee. John Colucci of 22 Pearl Street Extension asks if the committee could provide a timeline for the zoning process. Houseman responds describes the process for a zoning change, which could take several months. Volunteers run much of the city, which means a lot of the progress depends on part-time and volunteer contributions of community activists. That, in and of itself, inherently means that things take a long time. Dave Gilmore of 12 High Street congratulates the steering committee’s accomplishments and encourages members of the public to discuss more resources in terms of planning staff to help make the plan a reality. He states he is inspired by great buildings, pedestrian networks and transit. The city needs to enhance its transit. Mary Rodrick of 14 Peabody Avenue compliments the steering committee’s work. However, there are elements in the document that are not necessarily the consensus. Some of the suggestions create a massive number of prior non-conforming uses. She asks when the document goes to the Planning Board and City Council, if it is subject to amendment by each of the bodies. Buckland responds that the Planning Board is the only city entity that has an adoption procedure Master Plan Steering Committee – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 9 of the master plan, but the City Council and the Mayor can take their own turn at what they believe the proper Master Plan should be for the community. Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street asks a clarifying question regarding required acreage for Conservation Subdivisions. Houseman responds that the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance proposal does not set a specific number of units per lot. A member of the public states there is an increasing population in Beverly and the water treatment plant can’t process any more than 13,000 gallons per day and we already use 11,000 gallons per day. Jack Monihan of 7 Wellesley Road expresses concern that if you open up the rules and regulations to some of the new ideas, we will end up with “shoe horned” housing, which does not improve the quality of life. Houseman responds that in terms of houses being close together and quality of life, we have to make choices and priorities. If it is not a priority to preserve open space, then we can leave our subdivision regulations exactly as they are and continue to have sprawled subdivision developments throughout the city. Our regulations right now call for that kind of development. The city does not have the money, and will never have the money, to purchase all of the land that is presently zoned and available for development. We have a choice, either allow the status quo to remain, which means that over the course of the next 15 to 20 years, all of the residential land in Beverly will be developed. All of it will look like the standard sprawl subdivision. That is one choice. You have to decide what your priority is. Houseman states he likes to take the example of the area where he lives in Beverly, Prospect Hill. If Prospect Hill were developed under the kind of subdivision ordinance that we currently have, the houses really would not be any closer than they presently are. But we have 50% open space. He states he lives in a neighborhood where the houses across the street are 20 to 30 feet away from each other. The land values and the houses on Prospect Hill continue to go up. There is never a problem selling a house on Prospect Hill and there are people who do not mind living that close to each other. There is plenty of other housing stock in Beverly, where you don’t have to buy a house that is that close. Part of the idea of an Open Space Subdivision development is to recognize that land is being consumed and open space is disappearing and the city will never have the money to buy all of that land. If you want to preserve open space, you can change that regulation and that open space will not cost the city a dime to preserve. All it will cost is the effort to change the regulation. Once the regulation is changed, the developer’s will have to follow it. Avallon adds that is not the only recommendation within this plan. The plan calls for preserving open space however we can. But, you have to look reality in the eye and this is a way, in addition to all the other ways, to try and preserve some open space. There are plenty of other regulations in the Master Plan. Master Plan Steering Committee – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 10 Houseman states there is a lot of talk in the community about addressing the issue of residential development by simply putting a moratorium on development. Don’t issue any more building permits. There are a number of ramifications. You could say goodbye to affordable housing because once the supply is capped, the demand will stay the same and the cost for housing will go up. From a legal perspective, you are not allowed under state law to indefinitely stop development. People have private land rights to do with their land as they wish. If the city prohibits the land from being developed, it is a taking. There are communities in the state where caps on building permits have been used, but it requires a finding of an emergency situation in the town. The rate of development in Beverly is not extraordinary so that it qualifies under state law for a finding of that kind of emergency. It is a simplistic answer to a complicated problem. Bill Squibb asks if the steering committee discussed creating new reservoirs. Buckland responds that the committee did not discuss that. Troubetaris states that the Beverly/Salem Water Board is in the planning stages of acquiring land to create a third reservoir. A member of the public asks a clarifying question regarding the zoning ordinance. Houseman responds that in the last 15 years the section of the zoning ordinance that provides for “cluster development” has only been used once. He does not believe that development occurred. The reason that the provision needs revision is for the same reason that has only been used once in 15 years. It is a horrible provision in the way it is written. It requires multiple hearings, back and forth, between the Zoning Board and the Planning Board and requires approval from both boards. It makes the process economically risky for a developer and no developer is going to risk the money for such a huge level of uncertainty. The provision needs to be rewritten. A member of the public asks a clarifying question regarding a request to rezone the airport area from industrial to residential. Buckland responds that the committee found that you should not be reducing the amount of industrial land, you should be expanding it and using it better. A member of the public expresses concern regarding the Conservation Subdivision concept. Avallon responds that there are a few estate properties that she would rather see developed in a cluster zone, with a wide belt of green space than single-family lots. She does not think that would affect the value of her property because it does not have a greater density. You simply have the houses closer together. You would have the same number of houses. There is discussion regarding the implementation phase. Buckland responds that this is not cast in stone and every couple of years the city should go back to a very similar process. Discuss what has been done, talk about where to go next and modify the plan. A member of the public expresses concern that environmental impacts were not addressed in the Master Plan. Buckland thanks the member of the public for attending the public hearing and he asks that comments be submitted to the Planning Department within the next two weeks. The meeting is adjourned. Master Plan Steering Committee – Public Hearing Meeting Minutes March 7, 2002 Page 11