05 30 2017 BPB MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board:
Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and Special Meeting
Date:
May 30, 2017
Location:
Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers
Members Present
Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson (arrives at 7:30),
Catherine Barrett, Alexander Craft, Ellen Flannery, David Mack,
Wayne Miller
Members Absent:
Ned Barrett, James Matz
Councilors Present:
Council President Paul Guanci, Vice President Scott Houseman, John
Frates, David Lang, James Latter, Don Martin, Estelle Rand, Jason
Silva, Matthew St. Hilaire,
Councilors Absent:
None
Others Present:
Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Assistant Planning Director
Darlene Wynne, Stephanie Williams
Recorder:
Samantha Johanson from audio
*BevCam videotaped the City Council meeting.
Joint Public Hearing in City Council Chambers — Public Hearin 2: City Council Order #386 —
Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Article XVII — Temporar
Moratorium on the Sale and Distribution of Recreational Marijuana until 31 December 2018
Council reconvened for Joint Public Hearing with the Planning Board at 7:45pm and Guanci asked
Slate to read the order.
Guanci asks John Thomson, Chair of the Planning; Board to join the Council and call his portion of
the meeting to order.
Mack: Motion to open the Planning Board public hearing. Seconded by Flannery. Motion is
approved 6 -0.
Guanci introduces and welcomes City Solicitor Stephanie Williams to speak at the podium.
Williams introduces the order before the Council regarding the passing of Question 4 from
November 2016, pertaining to legalizing the sale, cultivation, and personal possession of marijuana.
She explains the order before the council is for zoning and the use of land and structures in Beverly
and will have no impact on the personal possession component of the law which went into effect in
December 2016. The order is seeking a temporary moratorium in Beverly through December 31,
2018 on the use of any land, or structures in the city for any type of commercial marijuana
establishment, whether it be a testing, cultivation, manufacturing, retail facility, or marijuana
establishment business.
Williams explains the point of the temporary moratorium is to allow time for the Planning Board to
undertake a study to see if there are any particular locations where these marijuana establishments
could be allowed. She also mentions that there is currently no Cannabis Control Commission in place
by the state yet. Once the commission has been appointed by the state they have until March 2018 to
Beverly Planning Board & City Council
Joint Public Hearing Minutes
May 30, 2017
promulgate regulations. Williams believes that it is important for the Planning Board to have those
regulations in place before they can do their own zoning and regulate use. However, she states that
those regulations could come out sooner than March 2018. She doesn't want there to be a period of
time where the regulations come out in April 2018 when the Cannabis Control Commission can start
accepting applications for marijuana establishments and the City hasn't finalized the zoning.
Williams concludes with inviting Aaron Clausen to speak regarding the issue.
Clausen explains that this is similar to the planning process when the city created the new zoning for
the Harbor District. He stresses that the moratorium will give the Planning Board the opportunity to
work through variables because it is a very unique issue. He intends to create a group including city
departments such as Health Department, Police, and Solicitor's Office to map out a process for the
next year up to December 2018. This group will convene with stakeholders and what they will be
considering in putting forth a zoning amendment for the Council's and Planning Board's
consideration. He is hoping in the next year or so they will have some draft level amendments. He
then turns it over to the Council to see if they have any questions.
Guanci asks Clausen if this is in line with what other cities and towns are doing. Clausen turns that
question over to Williams who says that it is happening in many communities throughout the
Commonwealth. She mentions that she knows of at least two towns that have passed the temporary
Moratorium through December 2018 and which have been approved by the Attorney General, noting
they are Danvers and North Andover. She mentions that there are other communities doing this but is
unsure of how far they have extended the Moratoriums.
Guanci asks the Council if they have any questions for Williams and Clausen.
Councilor Estelle Rand asks Clausen if he is going to use a similar public process to what they did
with the Harbor which involved a lot of public commentary. Clausen explains that it may not be as
robust as the Harbor District was, but there will be an opportunity for the public and stakeholders to
hear about what the City is proposing and elicit feedback.
Councilor John Frates then asks about the liquor side of things, the purveyor, the restaurant, are there
restrictions that the city has done as opposed to a more enhanced state law, or is this uncharted waters
for the city to try this. Clausen said in comparison to a liquor license and a restaurant, liquor store,
etc. that it is different. He mentions how the licenses are less related to the product than character of
the business. However, he explains that a business like a tattoo parlor is regulated to create
geographical buffers so that all the same types of businesses are not congregated in one part of the
city. He mentions that they may have to consider things like geographical buffers between purveyors.
Frates then continues with a concern that he has heard of the proximity to some of the schools.
Clausen then answers that could be part of the geographic buffers built into it. However, the city
can't by outcome, prohibit that use by using buffers because that could create a buffer so large there
would be no place for that use to exist.
Councilor David Lang asks about the zoning ordinance change and will it get ahead of the Police
Department and the Health Department or are they working hand in hand with different agencies to
ensure they come up with a cohesive attack. Williams explains that the Health Department is in the
process of passing updated environmental tobacco smoke regulations. She mentions that there will be
a meeting at City Hall the following day to finalize a draft and then a public hearing in June which
Beverly Planning Board & City Council
Joint Public Hearing Minutes
May 30, 2017
will also include marijuana and those regulations will pertain to prohibition of smoking or using
marijuana in public places. Although it is already a state law, she is hoping the local regulations will
emphasize that. She mentions that more than likely the Health Department will be involved with the
zoning. She then explains that the community will not be able to prohibit marijuana establishments
through zoning and that would have to happen through a completely different process through the
will of the voters.
Lang then asks if you have a neighbor who smokes heavily is there anything the Health Department
or Police Department can do. Williams explains that if the usage becomes a public nuisance that they
would have to take action with respect to the law on public nuisance and that would apply generally.
Councilor James Latter asks if zoning is the only opportunity they have to control this or will there
be a licensing aspect to it as well. Williams explains that there is not a local licensing to this
component and that they are distributed by the Cannabis Control Commission and it is not like liquor
licenses. She does mention that the City Council can impose certain restrictions on the number of
retail establishments and that the State law says that you can create a limit greater than 20 % of the
package store licenses. She said in the city's case they have 16 package store licenses and 19 if you
include home rule petition licenses, so the Council could limit the number of retail establishments to
four.
Latter then mentions that he was recently in Colorado and that they segregate the establishments
away from their main commercial and tourist district; however, in other communities the
establishments were right next to restaurants, etc. and not segregated.
Councilor Matthew St. Hilaire asks if the deadline of December 2018 gives them enough time and
asks where that date comes from. Clausen answers by explaining that it gives them over a year and a
half. St. Hilaire asks if they will start the process now. Clausen thinks it's a good idea to start now to
at least get the conversation going and begin developing a working group from City departments to
get some insight to create a process and start outlining the variables of things they need to consider.
He wants to keep an open mind and wants to support the use and fit in a certain neighborhood.
Councilor Donald Martin asks Williams if they are able to prohibit facilities in Beverly at some
point. Williams explains the options for local regulations is somewhat limited and that the Council on
its own could limit the number of retail marijuana establishments to 4. But the Council does not have
the power to create any other prohibitions, except if they decided to pass a measure and put it on as
ballot question for a regular election.
Councilor Scott Houseman asks them to elaborate regarding the Council being able to limit the
amount of establishments to 4 and if that is under regulations that have already been promulgated.
Williams says the law that was passed in November explicitly gives the Council the authority to limit
the number of retail marijuana establishments, but that it can't exceed 20% of the number of package
store licenses the city has.
Guanci asks Williams to clarify the number of establishments. Williams explains there is no limit
right now and that the Council could pass an order limiting the number of retail marijuana
establishments to 4 and that if they wanted that number to drop below 4 that would have to be
through a ballot question.
Beverly Planning Board & City Council
Joint Public Hearing Minutes
May 30, 2017
Guanci asks if anyone else has any questions from the Council and then hands the questions over to
Chairperson John Thomson and the Planning Board.
David Mack from the Planning Board asks that if this was passed automatically in December 2018
and if they needed to extend it would it be permissible. Williams believes that it would have to be
officially extended and evaluate what the reason would be for the extension, whether it be they have
gathered new data, a state law has changed, or if the Planning Board needed more time to do some
more things, then they could justify it. But regardless they would need to be able to justify the reason
for the extension.
Catherine Barrett from the Planning Board asks without the Moratorium what is the soonest that
someone could open a marijuana business through the state and city. William explains that the
Cannabis Control Commission can start accepting applications in April of 2018. She believes the first
wave will be from the businesses that have demonstrated experience in medical marijuana treatment
centers; but by July or August of 2018 it will be much more of an open field of applicants applying.
Thomson asks if anyone else from the Planning Board has any questions. Then Guanci asks if there
is anyone from the public who has questions.
Rick Marciano, 141 McKay Street, asks as the law is currently established what the current uses of
marijuana are right now. Williams explains to Marciano and the Council that the personal possession
component of the law allows an individual to possess up to 10 ounces of marijuana in your home and
you can grow up to 6 plants in your house and that you can possess up to one ounce outside your
home.
Martian asks if there are mobile dispensaries. Guanci elaborates with that they may look like food
trucks and Williams is unsure how to answer the question. Clausen believes that this is not the case
or an option in the law. Guanci states that there is a package store on Rantoul Street that offers
package home delivery. Clausen believes that they could regulate whether or not a purveyor could
deliver or not. Williams states that this is unrelated to the Moratorium.
Guanci closes the City Council portion of the public hearing.
Mack: Motion to close the Planning Board public hearing. Seconded by Flannery. Motion is
approved 7 -0.
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Board: Special Meeting of the Planning Board
Date: May 30, 2017
Location: Beverly City Hall, Conference Room B
Members Present Chair John Thomson, Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson (arrives at 7:15),
Catherine Barrett, Alexander Craft, Ellen Flannery, David Mack,
Wayne Miller
Members Absent: Ned Barrett, James Matz
Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Assistant Planning Director
Darlene Wynne, Stephanie Williams
Recorder: Samantha Johanson from audio
Thomson calls the planning board meeting to order at 7:15pm.
Flannery: Motion to recess until after the joint public hearing with City Council. Seconded by
Miller. Motion passes 6 -0 (Hutchinson not yet in attendance)
[See Joint Public Hearing with City Council Minutes for May 30, 2017]
Chairperson John Thomson calls the Planning Board special meeting to order at 8 :13prn and
reconvenes from earlier recess, noting the public hearing is complete.
Subdivision Approval Not Re aired Plan — 63 Neptune Street — 63 Neptune Street Nominee
Trust
Thomson invites the public into the room to listen to meeting because it is open to the public but he
notes that it is not a public hearing. He emphasizes that they may listen, but will not be called to
speak.
Thomson welcomes Mr. Tom Alexander, on behalf of the applicant to speak.
Alexander introduces a pre - existing 4 -lot Subdivision Approval Not Required plan that has been
recorded at the Registry of Deeds and was approved by the Planning Board in 1970. He explains that
the main house will be preserved under the proposal and it is a reconfiguring of what was the 4 -lot
sub - division in 1970. They are hoping to preserve the main house with the front lawn going down
East Corning Street and the addition of one additional lot, for a total of 5 lots.
Thomson asks Alexander if each one of the lots has frontage on a public way. Alexander answers yes
to Thomson's question. Then Thomson asks Alexander if each lot meets the 100 foot frontage
requirement and he tells him it does. Alexander explains there is access off the existing streets.
Thomson asks if Darlene Wynne, Planning Department, has anything to add. Wynne mentions that
they have proposed removing a small portion of the house, a screened porch, so that the existing
house will conform to set - backs. Thomson mentions that setbacks are a zoning concern.
Beverly Planning Board
Special Meeting Minutes
May 30, 2017
Thomson explains to the Planning Board that they are there to decide if the lots can be divided and
that it is up to the applicant to get all necessary permits to build. The Planning Board's requirements
are that the lot(s) meet frontage, area, and have real access. Thomson asks the Board if they have any
questions.
David Mack asks Wynne if they are both public ways and she confirms they are actively used ways.
Mack also asks where the S` lot will come from. Alexander explains where that is as they review
staff reports and plans. The Board members compare the previous plan from 1970 to the current one.
Hutchinson: Motion to endorse the plan of 63 Neptune Street. Mack seconds. The motion is
approved unanimously (7 -0).
City Council Order #386 - Pronosed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Article
XVII — Temporary Moratorium on the Sale and Distribution of Recreational Marijuana until
31 December 2018
The Board discusses that the requested moratorium is regarding commercial sales and not the
personal usage part of the law. Catherine Barrett mentions the excessive signage she saw while
vacationing in California and Clausen tells her they could regulate things like signage, such as
limiting signs with the marijuana leaf, etc.
Thomson asks Williams, once someone is licensed could they cultivate and sell marijuana at the
same time. She tells him unless the state prohibits it, they can do it. Williams brings up an earlier
discussion about a mobile marijuana seller, and that the state law will probably be a fixed
commercial location.
Mack: Motion to recommend to the City Council that they approve City Council Order #386
- Proposed Amendment to the Beverly Zoning Ordinance - Temporary Moratorium on
the Sale and Distribution of Recreational Marijuana until 31 December 2018.
Hutchinson seconds. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0).
Set Public Hearin Date: Special Permit Application #157 -17 - 59 Park Street — Artist
Live[Work Unit — Robert Shannon
The Board asks Wynne what their June meeting looks like and whether or not to schedule this public
hearing to that meeting. Thomson asks Wynne if this application is more time sensitive than others.
She mentions that most applications are time sensitive to the applicant. They discussed whether any
of the various applications before the Board would be looking for continuances, noting that she has
been in contact with applicants of Sam Fonzo, Folly Hill, etc. to let them know what their next steps
should be.
Wynne says with regard to their first Artist Live/Work it doesn't involve any substantial site work
and all the work will be internal, noting that it should be a relatively quick item.
Hutchinson: Motion to set the public hearing for this application for the Board's June 20, 2017
meeting. Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (7 -0).
Hutchinson mentions that she will be at a conference and can call in for the June meeting.
Beverly Planning Board
Special Meeting Minutes
May 30, 2017
Thomson asks Wynne to bring everyone up to speed regarding two continued zoning amendments up
for discussion. The Board discusses who was not in attendance at a previous meeting and did not
hear the cases so some Board members can't vote on the issues.
City Council Order #144A • Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zonin2 Ordinance #300 -- Article
XV - Affordable Housing Inclusionar Housing Ordinance
Wynne tells the Board that they didn't get any additional questions regarding the inclusionary
housing. Clausen summarizes for the Board and reminds them that they have been in the process of
amending the inclusionary housing and they started the housing planning process about a year and a
half ago and Councilor Rand submitted a proposed amendment about 6 -8 months ago. And after
recalibrating the inclusionary requirements the biggest concern is the 80% area median income
(AMI) max rental limit that is currently required is at or above market. With the housing plan they
have found that over a third of all households in Beverly earn less than 80% AML And of that 80 %,
over half are housing cost burdened, meaning they are spending over 50% of their income on
housing.
Clausen notes what they have discovered is there is a deep need to retain that range of options for
inclusionary housing, so what they are proposing is to make a couple of minor changes. Right now
the applicability is any housing project that creates 10 or more units must meet the inclusionary
housing requirements. The primary way is on -site, so 12% of those units need to be affordable at
80% AMI. What they are proposing to do is reduce that trigger to 6 units or more. He adds they are
seeing a lot of smaller subdivisions which are not contributing to affordability when they are selling
for $600- $800K. So the proposed change lowers the trigger and it provides a couple of options for
providing on -site units. The three options are: retain the 12% at 80% AMI, new 8% at 60% AMI; and
revised 10% of units with half at 80% AMI and half at 60% AMI.
The way the rounding works in inclusionary, anything fractional above one is rounded up. So if you
are a 9 unit project, you would have to provide two units. Clausen mentions that there is a 4 th option
that is derivative of existing but has never been proposed. Projects could meet the affordability
requirements for the 12% units, and they could currently provide half of them at 50% AMI and the
other half at 100% AMI and the intent was originally to have more flexibility in the range of housing
options. They haven't seen one because the market, particularly rentals in Beverly, isn't reaching that
100% AMI and there is not really a market for that. But they will find out as a part of the MBTA
project, where Sarah Barnat is including as part of the financing that two of the units will be
affordable at 110% AMI. He said that will be a nice test case to see how that works in Beverly. He
adds that from a mission perspective to create affordable housing, all the units under 80% can be
counted towards the subsidized housing inventory, but they also meet the need better.
Miller asks Clausen how the different options might affect the cost to the developer. Clausen
responds by telling him it depends on the number of units proposed and that there are a certain
number of project types that the 12% at 80% AMI might make more sense and there may be others
where the 8% at 60% AMI might make more sense from a revenue perspective and that has a lot to
do with the rounding. They have spent some time talking to housing developers and asking them
what makes sense to them and one thing they heard about the on -site units is that they are having
trouble finding demand for the 80% AMI units. And they think from a leasing perspective that there
is a benefit or value to having the 60% AMI option. He said you can set the max limit at 80% AMI
Beverly Planning Board
Special Meeting Minutes
May 30, 2017
but you may not find a household that is also eligible. He noted that 2 bedrooms are about $1,600 a
month and there are options downtown.
Flannery asks Clausen if the change compromises the current 12% threshold. Clausen explains that
they are covered and that the rounding up issue is important and what they've seen is that in the last
couple of years, they are getting more than 12% units because of that rounding up and that it's closer
to 14-15% of units.
Thomson then mentions to Clausen that he said there were four options and they are only reviewing
three of them. Clausen clarifies there are really only three options. The first one is 12% of the units at
80% AMI which is consistent with current zoning. Then the next option would be to do 10% of the
units, half at 60% AMI and half at 80% AMI. And then they introduced the new option where 8% of
the units are affordable at 60% AMI. The so called fourth option would be for between 6 -10 units,
they would need to provide one unit at 80% AMI. He said there was a strong interest for market rate
developers to have a few options for unit rentals. In regards to the fee in lieu option, the perspective
was that rental works better on -site than ownership. And that loss revenue is much greater for
ownership.
Hutchinson asks Clausen what the criteria is for the Board to accept a donation of land. Clausen
explains that the donation of land is accepted by a non - profit developer or affordable housing
developer that is going to develop the same number of units that are comparable and required for on-
site on a donation parcel.
Hutchinson asks if it requires a sufficient amount of land that allows the same amount of units to be
built. Clausen says that if it requires a special permit, that the Planning Board can require that
whoever is asking for that relief demonstrate that the special permit has been approved and that there
is a developer willing to sell those units. If someone decided to donate land to the Housing Trust,
they can accept it. However, the trust language requires any kind of acceptance of land to require a
City Council vote, so that becomes a much more challenging process. He adds that it has to be the
same number of units that would be required on -site and they would have to be comparable so both
in terms of affordability and type, same number of bedrooms at least, if not more. And you would
have to demonstrate that someone is willing to accept it and build it.
Hutchinson asks if there has to be a commitment to build it. Clausen agrees to that. Hutchinson
explains that sometimes the value of the land could be a lot less than what the value, or payment in
lieu or the actual building those. Miller interjects that if the developer owes $200,000 and they want
to give over $200,000 worth of hand and asks is that the same no matter what you do? Clausen
explains that with a land donation it could rise to the value of a payment in lieu and remotely close to
the on -site. They could see a case where a parcel could allow 2 lots on it, or be approved for 2 lots
and say it sells for $300,000 that's the equivalent of making a payment of $150,000. He could see
somebody in Habitat saying that's a good situation for us, but they don't have to agree to it. He
doesn't think it's unreasonable that the Habitat might want a contribution because they also have to
find ways to fund the construction of the project.
Miller asks if he would add language to that effect. Clausen tells him he doesn't think that it is
necessary because the criteria is that they need to be comparable units and the Planning Board has the
authority to have the discretion to say if you donate this, who is taking this, and that they need to
demonstrate wherewithal, that it is permitable and requires any special permit, and are they able to
Beverly Planning Board
Special Meeting Minutes
May 30, 2017
manage affordable housing projects. Hutchinson mentions the ordinance doesn't seen to suggest the
depth of what Clausen has said. Craft clarifies that the developer has the option to choose which
method. Clausen states they have the option to request a special permit from the Planning Board to
meet one of the on -site payment in lieu or credit units, they have that option to request that and the
Planning Board has that discretion.
Thomson remarks that anytime you have a chance to grant a permit or allow someone to donate land,
it's always better to have an idea of criteria in mind. Clausen suggests that it be part of the Planning
Board rules and regulations because it does not require City Council review. And if you see
something that needs to be amended because you wanted more detail around a certain subject then
the Planning Board can simply change those rules. Thomson suggests that they should put it on the
list of things to review.
Clausen says they can help with writing those regulations and that it is a segue for this proposal that
it is also suggesting that they revisit the payment in lieu fee calculation which is in the Board
regulations and not the ordinance because it's not for the City Council purview, but the Planning
Board's purview. What they are recommending is the payment is calculated as 35% of the median of
sales from the last three years, by Assessor's Neighborhood Code. So they are proposing to make it
more straightforward.
Wynne states that the way the fee is calculated across the state is so different. They had their pick of
what else they could look at but this is still more straightforward than some of the other calculations
based on a number you can assign when you approve the permit rather than a speculative number
based on a sale versus market conditions when they sell the property. Clausen then adds that they
looked at a lot of different payment structures and that this was one of the more straightforward ones,
and everyone going into it knows what they are getting paid rather than on the back end. It seems to
be on track with most suburban communities, but Boston, Somerville, and Cambridge are different.
Clausen adds that it also kicks up the fee which they are looking to do without gouging anyone. He
notes that with what the condos like the Cummings Center are currently selling for that will change
the fee on its own. But they know the payment for the condos was too low. Miller asks how many
dollars per square foot they are getting. Clausen tells him it is over $400 /sf.
Hutchinson asks if the change in the fee structure is part of what they are being asked. Clausen tells
her not tonight, because it does not require Council approval, but that it was part of the conversation
at the public hearing. Chairman Thomson pointed out that the Board should also consider rules
around land donation. Wynne adds that they normally do the fee update in September, but that they
could do it as early as August and try to put together more detailed regulations.
Hutchinson: Motion to make a recommendation that the City Council approve City Council Order
#144A - Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Article XV -
Affordable Housing (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance). Craft seconds. The motion
passes 5 -0 -2 (Thomson, Mack abstaining due to absence)
City Council Order #374 - Pro osed Amendment to Beverly Zoninz Ordinance #300 — Article
XVII — District Re ulations — Establish .Re ulations for Ground Floor Activated Uses in Mixed -
Use Buildings in the "CC" Zoning District
Beverly Planning Board
Special Meeting Minutes
May 30, 2017
Wynne distributes an amended version with ministerial changes based on comments received from
the Public Hearing or the members of the public who provided comments or requests for
clarification. She suggests the Board would make a recommendation with those amendments. She
notes the public commented about the window transparency and the way it was written before made
it seem like you could have no window coverings or no tinting, but the real intent was to avoid
something similar to Soma. She explains that it is hard to regulate transparency and it is more of a
design standard and something they need to consider and that anyone could add that in after the fact
as an internal element, so really it is just a guideline and not meant to be something the Board would
necessarily deny a permit on.
Wynne further explains on Number 6, there was some confusion because the standard reference was
the ability to have residential doors open straight onto the streets and it was clarified that only applies
outside the core pedestrian area where they are currently allowing for ground floor residential in the
less high demand areas where we use for commercial uses. She tells them that Number 7 was another
request from a local architect that they consider a standard for people that the doorway be recessed
where possible, especially when they had zero set -back buildings and that it is also a safety concern.
And she tells them that the last one on the end, that Hutchinson brought up at the last meeting
regarding taxi rails, subway terminal, that they didn't exclude that, so to put that up for consideration.
Hutchinson adds that came under Definitions, Section (1), "non - residential uses permitted by right in
Section 300 -40B, except not funeral home, data processing, printer, publishers establishments," but it
still allows taxi rail, subway terminals and she wanted to know if they wanted to add that language to
the uses that are not permitted. Clausen agrees it make sense to add it to the language as does others.
Thomson asks why lobby and circulation would space count as activated permitted use. Wynne
explains the conversation came up with the META project and they discussed wanting to have a
dynamic, activated lobby use. She mentions 130 Cabot that has only a small entrance for residents
and for larger multi - family developments it can be attractive to have an active ground floor lobby
area for renting tenants and can create streetscape as long as it meets the other standards.
Thomson asked how you can get from a public lobby to renting it to tenants. To him he sees a lobby
as an elevator lobby where you come out of the elevator to the front door and have a small space with
chairs, plants, mailboxes and that it doesn't count as public space. Clausen explains that what they
are proposing is that they are calling it Activated Ground Space because it is not all about public
space or semi- public space. He adds the intent is to create an active streetscape with good urban
design and mix of uses on the ground so that they are interactive both visually and physically. So
commercial and retail spaces, restaurants, those aren't necessarily public spaces, you are subject to
their rules. He adds they can add to the streetscape visually and physically that a customer can
interact in or see the space and how it blends with what is going on in the street. They are suggesting
that the residential lobby space can add to that interaction. Clausen also explains that it was intended
to be a way to have a standard that limited the special permit requests that the Planning Board was
receiving and provides some expectations to what is a good streetscape and offers the Board
something to work from.
C. Barrett asks if they are properties that have been approved by the Planning Board, the first being
the MBTA. Wynne adds that 8% of the gross floor area is commercial where 25% is required under
the existing ordinance. C. Barrett asks the project would comply under the proposed standard and
Wynne tells her it is close. She also asks about other recent and older projects, which are discussed.
Beverly Planning Board
Special Meeting Minutes
May 30, 2017
Clausen brings up the point that no matter how many stories in the building there is no sliding scale
for the number of stories, it's still 25% of the entire building.
Thomson asks if there are any other questions. He then suggests it is time to make a motion.
Hutchinson: Motion to recommend that the City Council approve City Council Carder #374, with
the amendments provided by the Planning Department and adding the language to
Item 1 to include the exclusion to taxi rails, subway terminal, etc to be not permitted.
Seconded by Miller. The motion passes (4 -0 -3, C. Barrett, Mack, and Thomson
abstaining).
Wynne mentions that at the last meeting Clausen recommended that zoning should be a floating
document revisited frequently. Clausen adds that the Board sees how things work or don't work.
Mack: Motion to adjourn. Seconded by Hutchinson. The motion passes (7 -0).