Loading...
2000-07-20 CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Master Plan Steering Committee July 20, 2000 Joanne Avallon, Richard Dinldn, Wendy Frontiero, Scott Houseman, Wendy Pearl, Donald Preston, Larry Ralph, William Rodenbauglg John Young, Maureen Troubetaris, John Murray, John Thomson William Delaney, Linda Goodenough, Bruce Oveson, Virginia McGlynn; Charles Zarba Steve Cecil and Ken Bue, kland, The Cecil Group Jeannine Dion Introduction/Schedule Steve Cecil from the Cecil Group states the propose of tonight's meeting is to have a discuss/on on a series of topics (downtown, harbor and residential). He states Cecil Group will be ready to issue th~ "F'mdings Report" by the end of the summer. Then the ideas that have been gathered durlnE the cour~ of discussions will be draR into some prelimlnm3r "Alternatives." The "Alternatives" will be bro-~ht to the citizens in a broader gorum during the fall. By ]ate fall/early winter the "DraR plan" will be prepared. The final re~o~ns for the Master Plan will be through the end oftbe year and into the tim part of next year. Cecil Group Presentation Buddand states the major issues to be discussed are City Core/Waterfront issues and Resideraial Conservation Development. City Core · C. en~md Business District · Wat~,fiont [Designated Port Ama] · Adjacent Residential neighborhoods Muter Plan Steering C~pmni~t~e bietqing Minute~ J~dy aO. ~.000 Page 2 Central Business District (CBD¥South issues · Building values · Low valuations · Lower value than replacement costs · Indicates mod for redevelopmmt and new growth encouraged by City zoning and infrastructure Central Business District - Direct Change Illfi~tru~"tllre: Parking problem at the rail road station There is potentially $600,000 for clean-up of the site near the train station for the purpose of a new structured garage. There is an option for ground floor retail included in the plan. Buckhnd asks members of the Committee for their comments on parking issues. Preston states that parking at the station has had a negative impact on local businesses (Park, River and Rantoul Streets) and there is a nccA for parking for residents and businesses. Fronteiro states she is not sure she would encourage ground floor retail because it would take business away from the local bush~ses. Pearl states building something at tl~ location might he a good opportunity to provide b~e storage. She adds it could he a "commuter transition place" and it would be a good opportunity to deal with it as more than just a car issue. Pearl expresses concern about the design of the building and recommends using a good architect. Central Business District - River Street Growth Constraints River Street, by Federal and Webber Streets, is zoned I~. Mostly small; developed lots less than one acre. Several large lots between two and five acres. The context and type of the existln~ businesses may not be co?atible and appropriate. Many border the watr~fiunt and are on filled tidelands so must follow regnhtious regard~g use, · Pem-&a~ble uses according to the zonin_e l'eg]]tqtiom may not allow proposed uses such as office developments. P~ge 3 Central Business D~ict/North: Issues · The IO zone includes the Cummings property and the Park River Street areas. A roposed change in the IO zone would allow six-story buildings. · Benefits: Increased building heights at same floor area allow additional parking areas and open space at grade. · Issues: Taller buildings may not be compatible with the surrounding building contel. Increased traffic, limiting views, and increased shadows. · Response: Limit the sites for taller buildings by setbacks or minimum lot coverage areas. Central Business Di~i~ict/North: Directed Change Area status: IG zoning of approximately 60 acres. Options: · Phase out industrial and warehouse uses. · Allow/encourage high value coramercial and residential uses. · Aggressive open space and reo~e~ion program for tbe Bass River. There is discussion regarding siltation problem in the Bass River. Houseman asks for clarification regarding Cecil Cu'oup's recommendation to encourage commercial uses. Cecil responds that if you look at this on a regional basis, Beverly may well have a very unusual resource. Th,~re are relatively few places left that are urban which have good waterfront qualities and in which there are some large parcels intact. He states that you need to have a plan in place to react to it. It could also be and remain a working or industrial portion of Avallon states she feels som~ caution that there is not another Pickering Wharf. She adds that she is interested in making thin "all forms ofcommuter-centric' area. Young states it is convenient to drop offyour car at the body shop and take the traln~ He adds that there is opportunity for people to come up from the city and enjoy the wa~=r£ront area (pleasure boats, whale watching, b~e rental, ~c.). Cecil agrees that the "commuter-ceuUic or rail-ceatric" notion is very imponam. He adds th~ over the long-haul a downtown station would be fantastic as a connection for businesses and residents to the greater region as a whole. Cecil states the empty nester housing or the young professional hou.~in~ could be important for the downtown. People could walk to the train station to go to Boston- He adds thst the taxes these kinds of unit.s generate are typically greater than the costs of servic~ them. Minster l)bm S~eerin~ Commi#ee Meetin~ Mimutes July 20, 2O00 D'mkin states he would like to create a new category that encourages the mix of reskicntlal and recreational uses. He states you want destination uses versus supporting uses. Rodenbaugh states you need to zone properly to encourage new business. Fred Pullitzer, RKO Associates states there needs to be some type of incentive in thc zoning to make it worth it for a developer to build. Cecil states you can also look at more sophi.edcated ways of thinking about redevelopment along an area that has classically small parcels. Houseman expresses his concern about rezouing businesses along River Street. He states they will be grandfathered and asks how you transfo,,u the area. Membem of the committee state it is intended to be a long-term plan. Harborfront Issues Enforcement of Chapter 91 licensing: . Public Access at new Salem/Beverly Bridge: ~y promised public access near the new Salem/Beverly bridge. MassHighway has not upheld their statements to provide access, and DEP has not enforced the regulstlons. · Public Access at Marimc A fenoe blocks aceess to the water aiong tbe marina near the fo~,l~er McDonalds. DEP has not enforced the license conditions that provide for public access to the * New boundary for Designated Port Area: Change the Desisuated Port Area (DPA) boundary by elimi,~tinl~ the Tuck Point Condominium property. DPA regulations only allow uses that are either water-dependent or support wateF-.depond~ uses. Hous/ng units and residential facilities are categorically excluded. · Conflicts between the Waterfrom Development D'~rict and Chapter 91 Regulations: The WI) allows a density bonus if a developer provides appropriate public access. This provision may be in conflict with the state's Chapter 91 requirements which require public access. Harborfront Direction statUS; I(] a{~d WD zonln_.;r ofapproxiya,,,tely 10.7 ao'es. · Ventron site redevelopment for off~ee or rnsidemial · Former McDonald's site for 'gateway" use. · Reco~ internal ~ c~c,,htion_ Cecil states Des4.gnated Port Area (DPA) is a very intricate regulatory mechanism through Chapter 91. lb goal is to provide for marine industrial uses. DPA's have been established in 9 communities a,-ross the state. Once you are a DPA, there are many limitations. You can not develop housir~ and housing is not supposed to be near a DPA. It is a very complicated topic and can be a burden on property owners. The Dedesignation of DPA has never been done. Cecil states he needs xo know what kind of waterfront the community would l~e to have and then can review the re?l~tions and offer suggested changes. Cecil asks thc members what they think should happen to the Ventron site. P~on ~o~',,..~ ~ work g dock~ for lobstermen but states he would like more information before m~ldr~_ or, her recormmndations regarding the area. Dinkin states ~ site should he used to serve the lobster industry. He adds he would not lilce to see office workers because the cars would choke the neighborhood with traffic. Houseman s~ tha~ are buoys that disallow boating in from of the Ventron property and there is a cable cro~--%E there. There is discn~.~on regarding the role of the Harbor Management Authority. Cecil responds that there is goln~ ~o be a comprehensive plan with two associated elements l) Harbor Plan and 2) Open Space ami Recreation Plan. The I-Iarhor Management Authority was moving toward having its own separ~e _Master Plan (M, micipal Harbor Plan with the state). An RFP and scoping process went om. The scale of the undertaking to he a Municipal Harbor Plan was approximately $100,000 of work and the state advised them not to move forward. As a result, the master plan was to have a h~orfront plan elem~ and the subcommittee (Harbor Authority) would oversee the preparation of that element. There will not he a full frce-standln~ Harbor Mamg=ment Plan, however, there will he a chapter in the Master Plan. Cecil states the State needs to know the City's policie~ for the interpretation of the state standards (DEP Guidelines for Chapter 91). Murray states z_he Ventron site could pote~i~lly be a good site for a stroll scale hoteL Fred Pullitzer? P~O Associates states the type ofproject for the Ventron site would probably he an extended s~ay hotel and possibly a restaurant. A member oftbe public notifies the committee that there are several houses across from Ventron owned by the former owner of the comp~--y. That area could be developed. Master Phm Steeri~ Committee ~ Minutes July 20, 2000 l~ge 6 Conservation Development Buckland describes the steps of the Comervation Development Plan Process: · Sketch plans are prepared to det~mdne density allowance - how many units are reasonably' possible on the land. Plans ar~ not highly detailed. Conservation areas on the property are mapped - including primary areas such as wetlands · Houses arc laid out within the remaining areas with the focus on siting them related to the · Roads and trails are laid out to provide access for vehicles and pedestrians. Waivers from road stain,ds are analyzed to allow atypical des'~ns. Trails are laid out as pedestrians would move through the site. Last, lay out the lot lines. The lots should provide high quality, private open space associated with the homes, without restricting the views and access, while allowing public services and term). Bucldand responds that the~ would be Conservation restrictions that would limit its use to natural resources. Houseman responds that open space would Ix: subject to some kind of conservation restriction. He states you would need to have some type of funding mechanism to provide for the_ m~intenance of the open space. Dinkin expresses his concern that if you zone exclus'rvely for single use/s'mgle residential type use, you create comnumities which are homoge~leous economically and generationally. On the other hand, if your zoning allows for some ncighbottz~ls in which residential uses are mixed, you provide increased opportunities for a variety of income levels and for general variety within a co ..... ~Lmity. He adds that it is essenthlly urb~niw~tion. Houseman states affordable housing could be built in as a component of the conservation subdivision ordi~nce. Coc'd states when you do creative things, it is important to be clear about what you want and how to do it so somebody has the il~ to do it. Ifyou l[lce it better, make it easier. You%o asks if Beverly is willln~ to embrace a conservation subdivision plnn. Houseman states he wants to make it clear that a conservation subdivision is e,~:,lmtle~lly not a cluster subdivision. Conservation subdivision means somethin~,~ quite different. The whole focus of thc conservation subdivision design is thc first and forcmost step is to designate thc primary Muter l)bn Steertn~ Committee Meefinf Minutes July 20, 2000 l)age 7 and secondary natural resources that you want to preserve. Everythin~ else flows fiom that. A standard cluster subdivision goes in the opposite direction- figure out where you want to cluster your houses and the last consideration is the natural resources you want to preserve. Pearl recon'anends providing technical assistance to developers. Houseman responds with a conservation subdivision plan the subdivision ordinance would he that a certified landscape architect would be the one to initially lay out the plan. That way the government does not get into choosing who lays out the plan. Cecil states whatever the review process is, it has to be symp~ to people solving the problems and moving ahead, rather than it being seen as a series of barriers. Houseman adds that communities can exercise waivers or denial of waivers as a way of blocking a proposed development that they don't like. By getting a development that does it the '¥ight way" (i.e. preserving open space and conservation values) you remove the road blocks that would o~ be present. Cecil states thi.~ topic should he presented as an alternative in a broader public setting, get input and then develop it further. The meeting is adjourned at 9:25 p.m.