Loading...
2009-06-15 Special Meeting CITY OF BEVERLY MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION: Planning Board, Joint Public Hearing and Special Meeting SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: June 15, 2009 City Council Chambers, Beverly City Hall, 3rd Floor Chairperson Richard Dinkin, Charles Harris, Ellen Hutchinson, Stephanie Williams John Thomson, Joanne Dunn, Ellen Flannery, David Mack Planning Director Tina Cassidy Andrea Bray MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Council President Flaherty calls the Joint Public Hearing to order. 1. Joint Public Hearing: City Council Order #72 - Zoning Amendments relative to parking requirements for subsidized elderly housing facilities and residential uses in the IR and IG zoning districts (Section 29-25.A.) and to the inclusionary zoning ordinance (Section 29-34.B.2.) City Clerk Frances Macdonald reads the legal notice. Council President Flaherty invites Chairman Dinkin to sit with the Council. Dinkin takes his seat and calls the Planning Board hearing to order. Planning Director Tina Cassidy states that this hearing covers three separate zoning amendments, two of which would affect the parking section of the ordinance and one that would amend the inclusionary zoning section of the ordinance. She adds that these amendments will clarify some inconsistencies in the zoning ordinance. Cassidy explains each amendment, making the following points: . Proposed amendment La. pertains to parking requirements for subsidized elderly housing projects. For projects consisting of the "traditional" townhouse-style units, the amendment would require the "typical" number of parking spaces (2 per unit) and for congregate elderly-type units, .75 space would be required. . Proposed amendment Lb. would add the IG and IR zoning districts to the list of districts included in the parking requirement table, for future reference and use. . Proposed amendment 2 clarifies the inclusionary zoning ordinance which requires 12% of all units in a residential project to be set aside as affordable. Since the "subsidized elderly housing" definition requires a set aside of 15% of all units as affordable, this amendment would make it clear that the inclusionary zoning ordinance does not apply to projects that meet the definition of "subsidized elderly housing", and that nursing homes are exempt from the provisions of the inclusionary housing zoning ordinance. Councilor Burke asks about the clarification in the third amendment, stating that the most restrictive rules should pertain to each ordinance anyway. Cassidy states that she wants to make that absolutely clear. Councilor Slate asks for clarification about the zoning designations. Cassidy explains that "IR" stands for "restricted industrial" and "IG" stands for "General Ind ustrial" . Councilor Hobin states that there can't be many properties that would be affected by these changes. Cassidy states that this situation is somewhat rare, but references two recent projects as examples (a proposed subsidized elderly housing project at the corner of Conant Street and Cherry Hill Drive, and a conversion project on Park Street). Councilor Troubetaris asks what the impact will be on the IG zone along River Street. Cassidy states that the parking requirements are more dependent on use than on zoning district, with the exception of the CC zone where different parking requirements are spelled out for small sized units (studios and one- bedrooms) and larger (two bedrooms or more). Harris asks if any of these amendments will affect the McDonald's property on Water Street. Cassidy states that they will not, and that the amendments are just as she described. Rosemary Maglio of 30 Pleasant Street states that the requirements for parking for congregate elderly housing were changed in 1996 from 1.25 spaces per unit to .75 space per unit. She expresses concern about a possible shortage of parking spaces as a result. Dinkin states that the specific parking requirement of .75 space per congregate elderly housing unit is adequate because this type of housing is almost "dormitory" style living, and folks for which this ordinance is designed are very frail and unlikely to be driving. He goes on to explain that this parking will mainly be used by visitors and having 1.25 parking spaces per unit would allow for more than one car per unit, and this is excessive. Mary Rodrick of 14 Peabody Avenue asks for a clearer explanation of the "townhouse style unit" discussion. Cassidy explains that with the changes, a subsidized elderly housing unit that was designed as a "traditional" housing unit (i.e. a townhouse) would have a parking requirement of 2 spaces per unit. A subsidized elderly housing unit that was designed as a "congregate elderly housing" unit would have a parking requirement of .75 space per unit. Flahery asks if there are any other questions or comments on these zoning amendments. Hearing none, Flaherty closes the City Council public hearing and refers the matter to its Legal Affairs and Accounts Committee. Dinkin closes the Planning Board public hearing and announces that a regular meeting of the Beverly Planning Board will be held immediately afterward in Conference Room B, adjacent to the City Council Chambers. 2. Special Meeting: Discussion on Joint Public Hearing: City Council Order #72 - Zoning Amendments relative to parking requirements for subsidized elderly housing facilities and residential uses in the IR and IG zoning districts (Section 29-25.A.) and to the inclusionary zoning ordinance (Section 29-34. B.2.) Dinkin states that since there are only four members of the Board present at the moment he will not convene the special meeting and will instead continue discussion of this matter to tomorrow evening's regular Board meeting. He asks if the minutes can be prepared in time to "qualify" an additional Board member to vote on the issue. Bray and Cassidy state that they will do their best to get the minutes prepared in time.