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