Loading...
2006-10-11 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: October 11, 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 Members Absent: Don Stacey, Planning Board and Conservation Commission representatives Recorder: Eileen Sacco Cox calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Approval of Minutes Cassidy reviews the amendments that were made to the June 14, 2006 ECDC meeting as discussed at the last meeting. She notes the minutes were approved as amended at the last meeting held on September 6, 2006. The minutes of the ECDC meeting held on September 6, 2006 were presented for approval. Cox asks if there are any questions/changes to make to the draft. Fournier : motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Grimes. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. Discussion of Douglas’ Notes on Waterfront Development Cassidy reviews the zoning map to facilitate the discussion. Douglas addresses the Council and explains that his notes are not intended to be definitive suggestions, just discussion points for the Council to think about. He notes that he thought it would be initially important to discuss the obvious or not so obvious noting that often we look at zoning as the master plan. Douglas says that we have to look at the objectives for the waterfront itself and look at the components of the ordinance to help facilitate the redevelopment of the waterfront. He further notes that it is clear that the zoning by-laws do not represent a plan, but should be deployed as a set of guidelines for achieving a plan through the specification of use, bulk, height, and character of physical development within the geographical area. He notes that they frame the magnitude of what you can accomplish. Douglas states that the Beverly waterfront represents a very unique area of the City, representing a primary gateway to Beverly. What develops in this area will set a positive Minutes 10-11-06 ECDC Meeting Page 1 of 7 or negative tone for the City and the potential ensuing economic and community development of its primary business corridors, notably Cabot and Rantoul Streets. Douglas notes that the waterfront plan calls for the redevelopment and utilization of this area as a major water-oriented center attracting public use, commercial and business service, and residential accommodation for year round populations. Douglas suggests that the defined area should be delineated as an overlay district (i.e. Jubilee Yacht Club to Ventron property) allowing public, governmental, residential and commercial functions. He notes that the Ventron site could be used for industrial uses which he does not want to see happen, but rezoning would take away that right. He suggests that you can promote property owners to work together. Cassidy states that she was intrigued by the overlay district concept, noting the advantage that existing uses do not automatically become non-conforming with an overlay district approach. Douglas adds that you want to promote uses that are good for the city and encourage developers to come up with creative solutions. Douglas says that the scale and intensity of these uses should be regulated by such criteria as: ?? Parking requirements (under cover if possible) – noting that the parking requirements are excessive at times. He adds that incentives could be offered to encourage underground parking (i.e. bigger buildings). Cassidy explains the current zoning requirement of 1 parking space per boat slip in the water or stored on land, and suggests that it could be excessive. Douglas notes that outside parking can be unattractive and parking under cover could be an attractive amenity to a project. ?? Variable building bulk and building heights that represent a minimal obstruction of ocean views from immediately adjacent residential neighborhoods. Douglas notes that he thinks that high walls would diminish the value of abutting properties and encouraging variable heights and variable bulks should be considered. He notes that he does not have a problem with a taller building if it does not obstruct the view of the abutters. ?? Defined floor area ratios – Douglas states that these are key, noting that he would not recommend specific setback requirements but instead offer incentives to developers to enhance the project by offering floor area ratios that would benefit the development of the waterfront. He explains that defined floor areas would limit the size of buildings that could be constructed and suggests offering incentives instead. Minutes 10-11-06 ECDC Meeting Page 2 of 7 ?? Full public waterfront access. ?? Functional traffic and circulation plan. ?? Qualified and experienced architecture, engineering, and construction management personnel for proposed project. Douglas notes that when the City issues RFP’s it looks for applicants that have qualifications that will promote a good project. ?? Construction program embracing best management practices and environmental controls and emission specifications. Green requirements should be part of the criteria. Douglas says that if it were up to him, every building from now on would be required to include “green” building requirements. He recommends that any new ordinance require some form of this type of construction be included in development plans. ?? Architectural criteria reflecting sensitivity and consistency of building and landscape design with abutting property development and/or development plans Douglas suggests considering including a methodology in the zoning ordinance that will allow projects to move forward that promote maximum return and architectural sensitivity and creativity. Douglas notes that since administration of waterfront overlay district regulations will involve multiple jurisdictional authorities, a two-phased application process seems desirable. The initial phase should entail the submission of concept plans, tentative schedules and sufficient analyses to facilitate discernment of basic design, engineering and construction standards and criteria by the public and the Planning Board . If supported by the Planning Board the City, through its planning and economic development officer, would assist the applicant in the establishment of a coordinated process to facilitate public review in accordance with the planning schedule. Douglas adds that if a project is not supported because it is inconsist with the zoning criteria, the project would be rejected by the Planning Board or returned with a recommendation to correct specific problems. Cox states that she appreciates the effort that went into this “report”. Cassidy explains the current zoning for the area and the proposed zoning as far as it has been discussed publicly to date. She explains the existing setback requirements and notes that it is fair to characterize them as not being significant. She notes that simple setbacks do not encourage creativity. Minutes 10-11-06 ECDC Meeting Page 3 of 7 Douglas states that variable building heights on a parcel can promote creativity in a project, noting that 6 or 8 stories could be beneficial and not an unattractive consideration from his perspective. He notes that as long as it can be done within the framework of adequate parking, circulation and traffic controls he would not have a problem with heights of this magnitude. Cassidy notes that several waterfront properties abut the historic Fish Flake Hill district, which is largely residential. A taller building could well be considered a negative from the perspective of those residents. Douglas notes that being allowed to build tall waterfront buildings by right may not be a good thing either. Cassidy suggests that a special permit would be one potential way to address at least some of the issues. Douglas suggests that if so, a developer be required to prove that they have obtained neighborhood and abutters’ input regarding the size of the proposed building. Cassidy notes that it would a subjective thing and difficult to get unanimity on. She also notes that there are unknowns that should not be left so open. Douglas notes that quality and creativity should be included in the process of creating new developments. Cox states that design guidelines could be developed to address some of the concerns, noting that they would not have the same force of a zoning ordinance but would be a step in the process. Killilea notes that in practice, the Planning Board does not encourage “pre applications”, and when faced with a preliminary plan often elects not to take any action rather than have the developer leave a meeting believing all issues have been worked out to the Board’s satisfaction. Douglas notes that Salem has some projects that were completed and are unattractive and notes his concern that it could happen here. He suggests that the developers should be encouraged to be creative. Cox suggests that there should be a provision for the relaxation of onsite parking requirements, noting that this is not Los Angeles where, unlike Beverly, you cannot walk across town. She notes that the Council earlier agreed it would not advocate for projects unless they provided adequate parking. She recommends that providing parking within a two or three block distance of a project should be allowed. She notes that if a developer did not have to provide all of the parking required for a project on the same parcel as the development, they could perhaps do different, more imaginative things with the proposed site plan. Douglas adds that developers should also be responsible for constructing off- site improvements where needed, as well. Cox states that she does not necessarily think that parking has to be on site to be effective. She notes that she is not sure what the solution is but she does not want to see a sea of parking spaces on the Ventron site. Minutes 10-11-06 ECDC Meeting Page 4 of 7 Grimes notes that her son purchased a small condo in Boston and there is no parking with his unit. She states that she has a concern with the proposed height of buildings on the Ventron site and would be just as concerned with a “tower” concept on the working waterfront of Beverly. She saw similar waterfront buildings when visiting Puerto Rico and they are not in keeping with Beverly’s waterfront. Cox notes that unique designs can be interesting. She suggests that “tower” concepts might be more appropriate near the airport. Fournier asks what the current building height limit is for the waterfront. Cassidy states that it is 35 feet and explains that the measurement of a building’s height in the WD district is different from the way the measurement is taken in all other districts. Douglas notes that the developer could make better use of a site if there are design guidelines to follow, noting that it would represent something other than the monotonous look that presently exists on the waterfront. He adds that “under cover” parking would be beneficial from an aesthetic point of view. Cassidy questions whether a developer would put parking on the first floor and their primary uses (such as retail and office space) on the upper floors. Cox states that her vision for the waterfront area includes a boardwalk area bounded by retail with residential units on the upper floors of buildings, as opposed to the ground floors. She suggest it is unlikely that people would go up to a second floor business. She says that she has been looking at the preliminary redevelopment proposals of the people that own the land and most of them propose some retail use on the ground floor. Cassidy states that she brought along information about where the City was heading with redrafting the waterfront zoning to give the Council and idea of where the City was leaning in that regard. She distributes information on the Bass River area as well. Cox suggests that the ECDC take a look at the material and see if members have any recommendations to add. She asks if the ECDC is going to recommend a zoning district based on this information. Cassidy notes that the City Council approved funding for a consultant to finish the public participation and drafting of new zoning ordinances for the working waterfront and the Bass River. She explains the process of hiring the consultant and a preliminary idea of having a small group of people to act as a liaison committee, and at least one member should be from the ECDC. She states that she will email the details of that to the members in the near future. Cassidy suggests that the ECDC consider coming to a consensus on the basics of a new waterfront zoning district and that discussion of that consensus should be part of the public consideration process that will follow. Douglas explains that his position is that the waterfront has been identified as a major concern and a task of this committee is to address that. Minutes 10-11-06 ECDC Meeting Page 5 of 7 Cox asks Cassidy if she is suggesting that the ECDC come up with a draft of what they want for the new ordinance. Cassidy explains that she thinks that recommendations from the ECDC on density, floor area, parking etc. would be helpful to the consultant in drafting the ordinance. Cassidy suggests that the ECDC review the information that she will email to members later this week, and discuss the issue at a future meeting. Cox suggests that the ECDC has to develop a consensus of what they want to see in the ordinance. Cassidy states that she would like to hire the consultant by the middle of November and notes that she has been researching firms that might be appropriate to hire. She suggests that she would like to do that with a small committee of people and include a member of the ECDC on that committee. She reviews the time line for this, noting that she would like to hire a consultant by mid November and anticipates that it would be a 3-4 month process to conduct public meetings and develop a draft for consideration by the City Council. Douglas asks what the status of the Black Cow project is. Cassidy reports that she met with the developer of the Black Cow and has had meetings with several state agencies. She lists the agencies and says that they have identified the regulatory impediments to constructing a restaurant on the site, which is within a Designated Port Area. She notes that the agencies seem to be working with the City to allow the project to go forward within the constraints otherwise presented by the current regulations. Douglas asks if there is light at the end of the tunnel. Cassidy explains that the developer had a proposal in Swampscott that seemed to be moving along but that has been appealed by a group of abutters. This may be fortuitous for the Beverly project. Douglas asks if the elimination of the DPA is needed for the project to move forward. Cassidy states the elimination of the DPA would make it easier and says that she is optimistic that the City can make the project work within existing regulations based on meeting held with officials. Douglas notes that the relationship of this project to the DPA and zoning indicates that the zoning should be in place before proceeding with steps to eliminate the DPA. Cox states that she feels that the DPA has to go but not necessarily today. She states that she can see the logic in letting the Ventron and Black Cow projects go in and then pursue the elimination of the DPA. She states that she thinks it is inevitable that the DPA should be eliminated for the success of the waterfront. Cassidy notes that the Federal Channel is another issue impacting development along the working waterfront and distributes a map showing the existing conditions and the locations of existing floats in relation to the limits of the Federal Channel. Minutes 10-11-06 ECDC Meeting Page 6 of 7 Cox states that if a developer could put 100 more slips in the harbor it might provide the additional economic return needed so that he/she would not need additional building stories to make a project economically viable. Douglas says that the housing market has gone “south”, and while it now takes longer to sell a property, sales prices have not yet been significantly affected. He adds that condominiums are not selling well. Cox asks for an update on the Federal Heights housing development. Cassidy explains that the Planning Board issued the special permit and the developer has run into financial difficulty. She says that the developer did not follow the plans that were approved by the Planning Board and Design Review Board prior to construction commencement, and lists some of the differences between the approved plan and what was built. Fournier asks if the City has shut the project down. Cassidy explains that it has not, but to do so is a real difficult process. While the City usually requires that a bond be posted for new subdivisions by State law, there is no corresponding provision for projects needing a special permit. Cox suggests that the committee’s vision for the new waterfront rezoning be discussed at the next meeting, where a consensus on it will hopefully emerge. She will also call for a status report on the Route 128 overpass project and the proposed skating rink off Henderson Road. Douglas suggests a similar update on the airport area in general. The Committee schedules its next meeting for November 8, 2006. Grimes : motion to adjourn, seconded by Fournier. All members in favor, no one in opposition. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Minutes 10-11-06 ECDC Meeting Page 7 of 7