2006-09-06
CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Date:
September 6, 2006
Board:
Economic and Community Development Council
Location:
Beverly Public Library
Members Present
Tina Cassidy, Carla Cox, Frank Killilea, Pat Grimes,
Neil Douglas, Bill O’Hare, Don Fournier, and Don
Members Absent:
NoneStacey
Recorder:
Eileen Sacco
Cox called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Discussion with Mayor Scanlon Regarding Waterfront Development Issues
Cox welcomes Mayor Scanlon to address the ECDC. She notes that the ECDC sent
the Mayor a letter on May 11, 2006 that outlined the proposals that the ECDC
heard from the property owners on the waterfront as well recommendations from
the Committee regarding those proposals.
Scanlon states that we would all like to see the waterfront progress and feel that
more could be done down there. He also states that it is also a source of significant
frustration. He noted that the City acquired the Glover Wharf Marina with a grant
of about $400,000 from the state. He notes that the grant came with a lot of
restrictions and the City has issued Requests for Proposals at least four times,
unsuccessfully. He notes that the current proposal (to build a Black Cow restaurant
on the site with public space and uses on the first floor) is the first viable proposal
worth pursuing
Scanlon explained that the city has been working on getting the proposal for the
destination restaurant but the status of the Designated Port Area is a concern.
Cassidy notes that there is a meeting on Monday with the agency that oversees
DPA’s. Cassidy explains the process for modifying the DPA or eliminating it
entirely. She also notes that there are several criteria to follow in the process. She
also explains that there is an alternative to the typical “de-designation” process that
involves going to the State legislature to eliminate the DPA. However, that would
mean side stepping Coastal Zone Management and the City would prefer not to do
that if at all possible.
Scanlon notes that if the City could get approval for the restaurant without doing
away with the DPA, CZM would rather do that. He notes that he wants to be
careful with that. Cassidy states that she hoping for a meeting on Monday with the
developer and officials to see if there is any way to make the project viable for the
sake of expediency. She cautioned that before the City eliminates the DPA it needs
to have the waterfront zoning changes in place. She notes that the Harbor
ECDC Minutes 9-6-06 Meeting
Page 1 of 7
Authority has concerns that there are provisions in the existing zoning ordinance
that would be detrimental to leave in place. She explains that she hopes that can be
accomplished between October and January.
Cox states that she sees the DPA as an obstacle to the development of the
waterfront. She recommends that the City proceed with drafting legislation to
abandon the DPA. Scanlon states that if the prescribed typical process to eliminate
it would take a long time and kill the Black Cow proposal, he would advocate for the
quicker State legislature route to preserve the Black Cow proposal. He notes that
his first objective is to get that proposal underway. He also explains that he spoke
with the City Council last night and updated them on the issue.
Cox notes that the Committee would like to see the Black Cow built and adds that
the proposal has been designed to accommodate the grant and regulatory
restrictions on the site. Scanlon states that he is hopeful that the City will get a lot of
money to do some good from the state through the Seaport Council but he does not
expect a funding decision to be made until after the election in November. Cox
states that it is important to keep in mind that at some point the DPA has to go
away, and she would hate to make promises on the Black Cow proposal that would
hinder or prevent that from happening in the future.
Cox notes that she was unable to attend the hearing on the Ventron rezoning
proposal last evening. Scanlon explains that the hearing went for 1 ½ hours and
much of the discussion centered around the subject of parking on the site and the
proposed 45 foot height limit which is 10’ more than is allowed by current zoning.
Cassidy notes that in some sections, the building would actually be as tall as 55 feet.
Scanlon adds that the site’s topography drops off from Congress Street toward the
water.
Cassidy explains that the good thing about having some of the parking unassigned
to specific units is that it provides for guest parking. Scanlon says that Ward 2
Councilor Miranda Gooding has asked for a report on how much blockage of the
view will result from the project and the developer agreed to provide that at a
future meeting. He also notes that the hearing was continued to October 2, 2006;
Cassidy says she heard today that the date may be changed to October 16, 2006.
Grimes outlines the process for considering the zoning change, noting that the
Council gets a recommendation from the Planning Board on the proposed
amendment, and that while the Council has no obligation to adopt the Planning
Board’s recommendation, it often does. She states that there are concerns that the
City will end up with a development resembling the former Parker Brothers site in
Salem. She notes that there appears to be consensus that residential uses are the
most appropriate for the site, but there are questions about how massive the
buildings (and the resulting density) will be.
Scanlon states that he would be a little concerned about the proposed building
height, noting that it would be a real challenge to maintain the integrity of the
waterfront’s view. Cox agrees but notes that this proposal is consistent with the
ECDC Minutes 9-6-06 Meeting
Page 2 of 8
master plan. She adds that she was impressed with the developer’s rhetoric.
Scanlon says that there was a discussion on what the owners could do by right and
they suggested the possibility of a boat warehouse. Cassidy says that it is one of the
few things that is not an allowed use in the IG zoning district, but the owners could
build something fairly massive.
th
Cox asks if a decision is likely to be made on the zoning amendment on October 16.
Cassidy answers no, explaining that the Council will refer the matter to the
Planning Board for its recommendation once the public hearing is closed. While the
Planning Board could potentially make its recommendation that night if the hearing
was in fact closed, that recommendation would be acted on by the City Council at a
subsequent meeting.
Scanlon states that he appreciates the interest and the attention that the ECDC has
paid to redevelopment of the waterfront area. He states that the City is
investigating the issue of the limits of the Federal Channel in Beverly Harbor and
that a modification of the boundaries is likely; eliminating it entirely would cause
misunderstanding and confusion. He says that he would like to see more slips in the
water there if it would not be unsafe for navigation.
Cassidy explains the City hired a consultant to review the City’s options with
respect to changing the Federal Channel. She explained that the study was
predicated on the premise was that small cruise ships (of a maximum size of 80-90
feet in length) would dock at the City pier and need sufficient room to turn around
and reverse course to the open ocean. The study concluded that the channel width
could be reduced and while providing enough turning area for such a vessel. She
notes that the analysis concluded that moving and reconfiguring the Federal
Channel would allow for expansion of slips at various marinas. The City could add
four slips to its recreational marina, Beverly Port Marina could add about 125 slips
and Tuck Point could add about 28. Scanlon notes that there are boat slips
available now on the North Shore, which until recently was not the case. He notes
that the study provides a good basis for future discussion of the iss ue.
Cox states that she is stymied by how many slips are the right number of slips and
that would be good information to have. Scanlon explains that the consultant
recommended the number of additional slips that could safely be added, which
might not necessarily be the number of slips we should have. He explains how boat
slips are rented based on the size of the boat that could be accommodated by the
slip, not by the actual size of the boat that is docked. A lot of the slips are currently
located within the limits of the Federal Channel.
Scanlon intends to investigate ways to get some compensation for the City if private
marina operators are allowed to expand their facilities as a result of the Channel’s
relocation/reconfiguration. He is cautiously optimistic in this regard, but is
concerned as to whether there will be sufficient demand to fill so many additional
slips. Cassidy notes that boating seems to be one of the first things that people give
up in times of economic downturn, since many people view boating as a luxury.
ECDC Minutes 9-6-06 Meeting
Page 3 of 8
Douglas states that he feels that if the City is going to seriously pursue economic
development it must have an individual to oversee and coordinate that economic
development. He explains that someone needs to bring economic development into
focus, noting that the waterfront alone has numerous issues that need to be overseen
and he is afraid that it could be swept aside in favor of other initiatives. He suggests
that the City should have an independent office for economic development with its
own staff to do that. Scanlon asks if he sees this office as having the role of going
out and attracting business to the City. Douglas says yes and explains his vision of
that. Scanlon explains the process that has been used in the past for encouraging
and facilitating businesses that want to come to Beverly. He notes that the
waterfront has its own unique issues but in general there has not been a problem
coming to agreement with prospective businesses. He explains that as Mayor he
runs an efficient operation from a personnel point of view and is not yet as
convinced as Douglas that the costs of an independent economic development office
would be justified, adding that there are not a great number of places and sites left
to develop in Beverly. Cassidy says that there might be a dozen good
parcels/facilities that could be developed.
Douglas says that something has to be done about the access and egress to Beverly
Hospital. He says if the Mayor had someone on his staff to oversee economic
development it would be beneficial. He also notes that it would be beneficial to the
ECDC to have that entity to rely on. He says he has the highest regard for Tina
Cassidy and what she has accomplished. Scanlon states he will seriously consider
the recommendation but notes that it was a difficult year from the perspective of
developing the City’s annual budget and does not expect that task to get easier in
the foreseeable future. He recognizes Douglas’ motive as a great one, and thanks
the Committee for inviting him to the meeting.
Cox introduces Mike Cahill to the Committee, who has joined the meeting in
progress to talk about his work with Beverly Main Streets’ economic restructuring
committee.
Cahill addresses the ECDC and explains the Main Streets organization’s general
goals and mission. He explains that Main Streets is focused largely on the
downtown and says the economic restructuring committee has been reaching out to
some of the larger property owners in the downtown and lists the parties that they
talked to. He noted that they were looking at community life issues. He says that
committee members asked the landowners what they needed and found that
communication was an issue as was a need to market Beverly to prospective
residents and relocating businesses. He notes that they were looking at the easily
identified marketable qualities of the downtown to put together a brochure that
those major landowners can use. He notes that the North Shore Music Theater has
also stepped up to partic ipate in the committee’s work as well.
He says that he is impressed with the response that they have received. He says that
the committee is trying to reach out to certain types of business that need to be
recruited into Beverly, noting Gloucester Crossing out to Route 62 is an area it has
been looking at.
ECDC Minutes 9-6-06 Meeting
Page 4 of 8
Cassidy says that Ann Marie Casey is trying to establish an inventory of space that
may be available for rent or sale and is trying to create a network of contributing
realtors and property owners that would provide information that could be
compiled on the Beverly Main Streets’ website. She states her opinion that this
would be a positive thing for the City and fill an obvious void in on-line information
about the community.
Cox notes that Main Streets also has a design committee that is looking at what the
gateway to the City should look like. She notes that they don’t have the manpower
or the resources to do that and they should be included in the process. Grimes
agrees, noting that she had no idea that such was being undertaken. Cassidy notes
that they are looking at streetscapes, a much broader look than simply buildings.
Douglas says that when Christine Sullivan of the Enterprise Center at Salem State
College met with the ECDC, she pointed out the real demand for live/work space
and that people are looking for cultural amenities as well, and the City should be
reaching out to promote what it has in this regard.
Cox states that this is a tremendous opportunity for Beverly to distinguish itself
from surrounding communities. Discussion ensues on the prospect of people
running businesses from their homes. Cassidy explains the zoning ordinance allows
the use of a room in a dwelling for that purpose and permits up to three employees.
Scanlon notes the current parking constraints in the downtown and explains that
the MBTA has a study that calls for the addition of 400-600 parking spaces for
commuter rail users. He says he is optimistic that something will develop from that
in the near future.
Discussion with City Planner on Current Planning Studies and Upcoming Initiatives
Cassidy updates members about the design guidelines for taller buildings in the
downtown. She says the City Council briefly considered a zoning change earlier this
year that would have allowed the Planning Board to grant special permits for
buildings up to 75 feet in height. The proposal included the CC zoning districts
along both Cabot and Rantoul Streets. It was decided that buildings of that height
would not be appropriate for Cabot Street but that it might be appropriate for some
portions of Rantoul Street. She explains that $75,000 was included in the Planning
Department’s budget for consultant assistance, and the development of design
guidelines for taller buildings will be one of those initiatives undertaken. She
summarizes the provisions of the current design guidelines which did not address
the urban planning issues inherent with “taller” buildings. A two-firm team was
hired to develop the new design guidelines and a public workshop was held several
weeks ago that was well attended. The consultant presented architectural examples
of design techniques and explains how the City could use these guidelines to its
benefit. She cites the tiering of upper building stories and roof top gardens as
examples of design techniques that can reduce the apparent scale and mass of a tall
building. She notes that the examples used by the consultants intentionally showed
“bad” design techniques to illustrate the difference between options. She adds that
ECDC Minutes 9-6-06 Meeting
Page 5 of 7
there will be a second public workshop when the design guidelines are drafted,
probably to be held during the second week in September. Once the guidelines are
finally drafted, the rezoning concept will be resubmitted to the City Council and
Planning Board. It will likely encompass the area along Rantoul Street from School
Street to Cabot Street at Gloucester Crossing. She says that the guidelines will be
very helpful to the Planning Board and the Design Review Board even if the zoning
isn’t changed to allow taller buildings.
Next, Cassidy explains that the City will be hiring a consultant to complete the Bass
River and working waterfront rezoning as well as design guidelines for those areas.
She says she intends to deal with the working waterfront first and the Bass River
area second. She explained the current concept of creating a new zoning district
rather than an overlay district, which would encourage both residential and retail
uses. She says the Master Plan Committee viewed the Bass River area to be
different from the working waterfront, encouraging smaller scale retail, residential,
and perhaps recreational boating.
Douglas expressed concern about the current uses that would be displaced by such a
rezoning. There are few other places in the City for existing industrial uses to
relocate. Cassidy agrees, and says that is the philosophical question that needs to be
answered as the concept of rezoning the area to other uses is discussed. Douglas
expresses his opinion that the overlay district approach might be appropriate, since
it would allow for redevelopment to other uses without displacing existing
businesses.
Cassidy hopes the consultant money will also allow for the development of a so-
called “Great Estates” ordinance. The concept of “Great Estates” zoning is to allow
new residential development to occur, but to occur in a way that minimizes its
impact on abutting properties. For example, rather than having a single, large lot
with a single family home on it to be subdivided into individual lots, the City could
encourage the construction of condominium units in the existing house instead. In
this way, the owner/developer would still realize the development potential of the
site but in a way that did not impact the neighborhood so significantly. She points
out the area around Lothrop and Ober Streets as one where there is potential for
such an ordinance to work effectively. Grimes notes that there are some lots in
Beverly Farms that would fall into that same category.
Cassidy says that a rezoning to facilitate redevelopment of the McKay School into
residential use will be resubmitted to the City Council this fall. There is an existing
zoning provision regarding the reuse of public buildings for residential uses which
calls for the City Council to be the special permit granting authority. She had
earlier proposed amendments to that ordinance that would have made the Planning
Board the special permit granting authority. Several councilors opposed that
particular aspect and preferred instead that the Council retain that authority.
Cox asks about the possibility of an ice rink being constructed in the vicinity of the
airport. Scanlon explains that there is a City-owned parcel near Sam Fonzo Drive
that would be a good candidate for such a project. The City is drafting a Request
ECDC Minutes 9-6-06 Meeting
Page 6 of 8
for Proposals that would solicit development proposals that would result in
additional real estate tax revenue to the City as well as preferential ice times for
school and community-based skating teams and organizations. He noted that the
proposal is not quite complete but is expected to be completed shortly.
Cox thanks Mayor Scanlon for his participation this evening, and Scanlon in turn
thanks the committee members for all their efforts on the City’s behalf.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the ECDC meeting held on June 14, 2006 were presented for
approval. Cox suggests that the draft minutes be amended to reference the
Committee’s discussion on the feasibility study that was conducted relative to
potential dredging of the Bass River
Stacey
: motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Grimes. All in
favor, no one opposed. Motion carries.
New Business
Douglas distributes notes to the members for their review relative to the waterfront
rezoning as was promised at an earlier meeting. Cassidy suggests that members
review the document prior to the next meeting where it can be further discussed.
Next Meeting
Cox states that the next meeting of the ECDC will be held on October 11, 2006.
November and December meetings were scheduled for November 8, 2006 and
December 6, 2006, respectively.
Grimes
: motion to adjourn, seconded by Fournier. All members in favor, motion
carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
ECDC Minutes 9-6-06 Meeting
Page 7 of 8