Loading...
2005-11-16 CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Economic and Community Development Council SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: November 16, 2005 LOCATION: Beverly Public Library (Program Room) MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carla Cox, Vice-Chairman Pat Grimes, Don Stacey, Neiland Douglas, Bill O’Hare and Tina Cassidy (ex-officio) MEMBERS ABSENT: Joyce McMahon, Jason Silva (Planning Board, ex-officio), Conservation Commission (vacant, ex-officio) OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Tina Cassidy Cox opens the meeting by stating that the first order of business is discussion of the redevelopment concept for the former Ventron site that was presented by the owners at the last meeting. She recaps the highlights of the owners’ proposal and the mission of the ECDC. The redevelopment proposal outlined by the owners involved residential development at a density of 20-25 units per acre with adequate parking to support the use. Cox suggests that if the concept is in compliance with the conclusions of the master plan, then the Committee should express its support for it. If it is not consistent with the master plan, then the committee should suggest specific changes to the proposal that would bring it into conformance. First, Cox asks if the property is considered “harborfront” property. Cassidy says that despite the retaining wall between the site and the watersheet, the property is certainly considered to be waterfront under the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 91. Douglas asks what the owners spent to acquire the site – the best collective recollection is between $700,000 and $1.2 million. He notes a desire to create a continuous walkway along the waterfront, parking and traffic issues generally in the vicinity of the bridge, and complicated traffic routes that may be detrimental to the value of condominiums on this site. Cox suggests that members indicate their initial impressions of the general redevelopment proposal, asking whether each member leans toward or away from supporting it. O’Hare says that in general, the redevelopment proposal seems to agree with the goals and objectives of the master plan. Grimes states that a residential use on this site makes sense, depending necessarily on the specifics of the proposal that might be advanced. She notes that she has heard an interest in having a café or coffee shop on the site. Cox agrees with Grimes and says she has heard neighborhood support for the same concept. Stacey says that a residential use would be an acceptable and logical reuse of the site. He expresses concern however that condominiums may not in fact be constructed there, citing recent trends in the residential condominium market. He suggests that moving the Federal Channel to accommodate additional recreational marina slips may not be advisable until a specific long term proposal is advanced. Douglas agrees that recent market trends are interesting. High end condominiums are not selling. He suggests that there may be “additional” units at stake, referring to his conversation with the Kinzies, the owners of Beverly Port Marina. Those owners are considering residential uses in their reuse plans which they shared with Douglas during a meeting. He suggests that the ECDC invite the Kinzies to a future meeting to make a presentation to the committee, and believes the ECDC may be able to forge a better relationship with the Kinzies than the Harbor Authority has. He also believes a coordinated approach to redeveloping the waterfront is important. Cox expresses uneasiness with trying to link the two redevelopment proposals (former Ventron and Beverly Port Marine). The owners have different legal counsels, timelines, and needs, among other things. Douglas states that the Kinzies are serious about redeveloping their property, and would like to remove all boat storage on their site and create residential and commercial uses instead. O’Hare asks Douglas if he knows whether the Kinzies were interested in the former Ventron site and if so, why they didn’t bid on the property. Douglas states that buying the former Ventron site probably didn’t make sense because of the open issues and difficulties they have with their current property. Cox says it would be appropriate for the committee to give the Kinzies the same consideration as it did to the owners of the former Ventron property. The committee may be able to help the two work together in a coordinated approach if they wish to. Stacey asks Douglas how many residential units the Kinzies may be envisioning. Douglas answers maybe 100 units. Grimes notes that the greater the number of residential units there are in the area, the more need and support there will be for restaurants, shops, etc. Douglas expresses his opinion that the City is at a crossroads with its waterfront, with an opportunity to redevelop a significant portion of the waterfront in a coordinated manner. O’Hare suggests asking City Solicitor Roy Gelineau for his opinion on the appropriateness of the committee meeting with the Kinzies in light of the pending litigation between the two parties. Next, the Committee discusses other potential waterfront redevelopment such as the City owned former McDonald’s property. Cassidy explains the time line and basic parameters of the Request for Proposals that is under development for the site. It will be issued later this fall, and will call for a two story building housing recreational/conservation related public uses on the first floor with a restaurant on the second floor. Cox suggests that public and private redevelopment initiatives can be coordinated through the use of common elements such as homogeneous landscaping materials and treatments. Douglas states that there must be some resolution to the legal action between the City and the Kinzies. Grimes cautions that the Kinzie’s plans remain speculative no matter how good they sound. Douglas urges the committee to support the notion of a comprehensive – not piece-meal – approach to waterfront redevelopment. Next, the Committee discusses another parcel of waterfront land, that of Rowand’s Fisheries. Cox suggests that the site might provide an ideal place for parking for waterfront uses if the business were ever relocated. The location adjacent to the railroad tracks and the narrowness of the site lend itself to use for parking. Douglas suggests that the Committee invite the Kinzies to a subsequent committee meeting to discuss their thoughts on redeveloping their site. Stacey reiterates his concern about the softening condominium market and creating competition between two property owners. Douglas states that both projects (former Ventron and Beverly Port Marine) could create significant tax revenue for the City by creating hundreds of new residential units and thousands of square feet of commercial space. Cassidy interjects that a meeting has been scheduled by the Harbor Management Authority th with Dennis Ducsik, coordinator of the Chapter 91 program, for November 30. She invites Cox to attend because the subject of Beverly’s designation as a Designated Port Area (DPA) will be discussed. Cox adds that the subject of DPA is important to the future of Beverly’s waterfront because DPA designation prohibits recreational boating, residential, and restaurant uses in that portion of the waterfront so designated. th Following the discussion, the committee agrees that Cox will attend the November 30 meeting with Ducsik; that the Committee will decide its general agenda for 2006 at its th upcoming meeting on December 7; and will invite the Kinzies to address the Committee at th its meeting on December 7. The owners of the former Ventron site will be invited to attend the committee’s February meeting, at which time the committee expects to discuss the results of the waterfront study now being conducted. Next, Cox updates the members on two issues. First, McMahon called to say she could not attend this evening’s meeting but expressed her general support for the Ventron site redevelopment outlined at the last meeting. Second, she spoke with Ward 2 Councilor-elect Miranda Gooding. Gooding informed her that some residents of Ward 2 were disappointed that the Ventron owners met with the ECDC before meeting with the residents, and said that some support the idea of a coffee shop on the waterfront. Douglas states that the committee must be wary of becoming adjudicators between the neighborhood and the property owners. Grimes adds that the approval of details of the redevelopment proposal should be left to the neighborhood and the Planning Board during the permitting process. Cox says she will draft a letter expressing support for the general redevelopment proposal outlined for the former Ventron site which Cassidy will share with the Mayor. Cox will issue an invitation to the Kinzies after Cassidy confers with the City Solicitor regarding the appropriateness of doing so. Next, the committee reviews the draft minutes of the October 19, 2005 meeting. Cox asks if there are any edits needed. There are none. Douglas: motion to approve the draft minutes of the Committee’s October 19, 2005 meeting as drafted, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, motion carries. Next, Douglas asks if the Mayor has appointed anyone to fill the vacancy created by Larry Smith’s resignation. Cassidy says she hasn’t spoken with him yet. Stacey suggests that Cox bring a list of suggested committee meeting dates for 2006 to the next meeting. Grimes: motion to adjourn, seconded by Stacey. All members in favor, motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 9:00 p.m.