Loading...
05-01-2017 CC and BPB MinutesBeverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing May 1, 2017 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Joint Public Hearing of the Planning Board and the Beverly City Council Date: May 1, 2017 Location: Beverly City Hall, City Council Chambers Members Present Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, Wayne Miller, Ned Barrett, Catherine Barrett, Zane Craft Members Absent: Chair John Thomson, James Matz, David Mack Councilors Present: Council President Paul Guanci, Vice President Scott Houseman, John Frates, Don Martin, Jason Silva, James Latter, Matthew St. Hilaire, Estelle Rand, David Lang Councilors Absent: None Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne, City Clerk Wesley Slate Recorder: Mary Alice Cookson *BevCam videotaped the meeting. Council President Paul Guanci asks City Clerk Wesley Slate to read the Joint Public Hearing notice then invites Vice Chair Ellen Hutchinson to call the Planning Board portion of the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Joint Public Hearing: City Council Order #144A — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Article XV — Affordable Housing ( Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) Planning Director Aaron Clausen is invited to the podium to give his first presentation of the evening. He says the point of the proposed zoning amendment is to make sure that the inclusionary zoning ordinance that has been around since 2007 is meeting its objectives and aligns with Beverly's Housing Plan. The first slides are about the Needs Assessment. Beverly's population is rising; it is an aging population and there is a decrease in school -age children. Poverty is low comparatively speaking but has increased slightly. There are strong trends in terms of household income, but there is still a significant need in terms of affordable housing. Rents in town for a one - bedroom are about $1,500 /month. The median housing requirement is $385,000 with a median income of about $75,000. Residents shouldn't be spending more than 30% of their income on housing, but in Beverly more than 35% are. He notes there is a delta between what people are making and the cost of housing. He adds that almost all of the Subsidized Housing Inventory units in the area are rental units. Clausen then explains the current inclusionary ordinance. He describes the four methods by which affordable housing requirements can be met currently, noting these apply to projects with 10 of more dwelling units. These are 1) On Site: 12% of the Units at 80% AMI (Area Median Income) or 12% of units with half at 50% AMI and half at 100% AMI; 2) Payment In -Lieu (only for ownership units), which is calculated at 35% of the average of the lowest 50% of home sales Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing May 1, 2017 over the past three years. He notes the Planning Department is also recommending the Planning Board update this fee structure. 3) Off -Site units, which is a land donation for comparable number of units and 4) Credit units for a comparable number of units. Only the first option is "by right." The others are allowed by Special Permit if approved by the Planning Board. The inclusionary application typically comes in through a Site Plan Review. Clausen notes that the Fee In -Lieu payments now go into the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust that will be managed by a Board of Trustees to make decisions about how the funds can be utilized to meet housing needs. Clausen introduces the specifics of the proposed inclusionary amendment, noting the applicability is lowered to 6 units or more. He notes one additional option for On -Site units: 12% of units at 80% AMI or 10% of units with half at 60% AMI and half at 80% AMI or 8% of units at 60% AMI. This is helpful because currently there isn't much difference for renters between what's considered affordable housing (the 80 %) vs. current market rates. He adds that under the proposal, the off -site units or donation of land can be for rental and ownership units, which is a change to what's allowed currently. While not subject to this amendment, he notes the staff recommend a change in the Fee in Lieu structure to 35% of median housing sales prices over the last three years, removing the average of the lowest 50 %. He says this represents a roughly 20% increase in the fee in lieu payments. Guanci opens the hearing up to questions for City Council members. Councilor Jason Silva asks what the 20% increase in the fee structure means in real terms. Clausen says it depends. Every neighborhood has a different cost structure and there are 45 different sets of neighborhoods. He cites examples of different condo costs showing what the increases are and that they are generally about 20 %. Silva asks Clausen if he can quantify how many affordable units have been approved under the current ordinance. Clausen says 44 units have been constructed or approved. Silva asks why have the buy -out option at all? Clausen explains it is intended so we can see new good quality projects start and to leverage other kinds of funding for affordable housing. For example, contributions could go to a tax credit program or other programs that help home owners. Silva says he's seen projects come in that are "less than stellar" in terms of affordable housing. He would like to see affordable housing be included within the developments and doesn't love the buy -out option because he hasn't seen it used effectively. Because of this, he notes he has been considering drafting an amendment to the proposal to eliminate the in -lieu option. Councilor Matthew St. Hilaire says he's hearing from those overburdened with housing costs who can't afford market rates and neighbors who think Beverly is being over - developed. He asks how many of the new units are projected to be affordable. With all the projects going on, he wants to know how many are at 80% AMI and how many are at 60% AMI. Clausen says it's a case by case basis and what we are likely to see in the future is a mix of the three proposed options. He says the changes can provide funds to the groups that can't quite afford the market rate but are not looking for the deep subsidies provided by a non - profit developer. He clarifies for St. Hilaire that 44 units were approved and constructed. Ten percent of total units is what is likely to be seen in the future, which would be more like 100 units. Currently he says they have not utilized the funds paid to the City but there haven't been that many payments that have come Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing May 1, 2017 in yet and the Affordable Housing Trust was only recently established. But having the option to take a payment should stay, he says, because it gives the City a way to leverage those funds. Councilor Estelle Rand thanks Clausen for bringing the proposal forward. She says she is in favor of the deeply tiered system. She notes that the 60% AMI can mean that a renter will pay a couple hundred dollars less in rent per month. She says there are people in Beverly who would like to transition through career paths and like to stay here and the 60% will help young professionals and others stay in Beverly. She asks if there is a mechanism to deny the payment in lieu. Clausen says yes, it is discretionary. She asks if the Affordable Housing Trust will have a say about the payment in lieu and how it's used or would that just be the Planning Board. Clausen says that the Trust won't have authority on it, although they'll have an opinion and can help in coming up with programs. The Affordable Housing Trust will work with the Planning Board and the City to use those funds in the most efficient manner. Rand says what bothers her is that we have things in place to help renters but not necessarily entry -level home owners. She'd also like to see the City do something to help families who own a home but can't afford to maintain it. She says it's important to remember that this is one small tool in their toolbox to support the citizens of Beverly and she supports it. Councilor David Lang asks for an estimate of how many units will be created in the next ten years. Clausen says they don't have that estimate but want to meet the 10% threshold and the inclusionary housing ordinance is just one of the ways. Lang says he wonders if we are going to always be behind the eight ball, never having enough affordable homes available to meet the demand. Clausen says that the inclusionary housing ordinance is just one tool to keep up with the 10% threshold and they will continue to work to leverage other resources, such as nonprofits like Harborlight Community Partners, to create affordable units and also to preserve existing units that are affordably restricted. Lang thanks Clausen for his hard work and says there's more to do. Councilor Rand asks if Clausen considered proposing a priority for Beverly residents within the ordinance. Clausen says they've been talking about that through the 40R process. His understanding is there isn't much they can do for local preference, although they can seek a small one through the 40R process. He responds to Rand that the language isn't usually found within the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Guanci turns the meeting over to Hutchinson to lead questions by the Planning Board. Hutchinson says they're seeking to lower the affordability option to 60% AMI and asks if there is evidence of other communities where that has worked. Clausen says communities they've examined all treat affordable housing differently. Some have tiered systems. In their studies, they didn't see any community that has the exact options Beverly is proposing. He says they proposed it as such to incentivize affordable housing at varying tiers; but are not looking for all of them to be at 60% AMI. The best affordability outcome is to see a little bit of each. Hutchinson asks if that decision is at the discretion of the developer. Clausen says yes. Guanci asks for examples of cities and towns that were looked at. Clausen answers that they looked at a mix of urban and rural, for example, Cambridge, Somerville, Amherst, Barnstable, Belmont, Hopkinton, Watertown, Duxbury, Newton, Wellesley, and Yarmouth. He says one L; Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing May 1, 2017 thing he didn't stress earlier in his presentation is that right now the applicability is 10 units or more and they are proposing to change it to 6 units or more, which is what they found many other communities do. He notes that projects that are under 10 units (between 6 and 9 units) need to provide just one unit at 80% AMI. Guanci asks for public comments. Rick Marciano, 141 McKay Street, asks if, in other towns that were looked at, if senior citizens or families with children made out better under this change. Clausen says anyone of any age can benefit. Marciano asks if they have seen any evidence locally of benefiting one or another type of family. Clausen says one thing they found is that a requirement in one of the communities was that a certain amount of affordable units have three or more bedrooms to make sure they are available for families. Beverly isn't setting that minimum. Guanci closes the City Council portion of the public hearing and refers it back to Hutchinson and the Planning Board. N. Barrett: Motion to close the public hearing. Ellen Flannery seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously (6 -0). Guanci asks Slate to read the notice for the next public hearing. Joint Public Hearing: City Council Order #374A — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Article XVII — District Regulations to Ground Floor Activated Uses in Mixed -Use Buildings in the "CC" Zoning District Guanci reopens the public hearing and calls it to order. Hutchinson calls the Planning Board to order. Clausen begins his next presentation by saying that Darlene Wynne will walk everyone through the proposed change. He notes this item was among the first agenda items on the Mayor's list when he first started working for the City of Beverly and that the existing 25% of commercial use for mixed -use buildings has been a challenge to apply. He hopes this prescriptive path will make for a better walkable commercial center and better development of our downtown and meet the City's objectives. Wynne says this amendment is designed to improve upon the current requirement that there be 25% commercial use in mixed -use buildings. She says it's been difficult for the Planning Board to apply that standard when evaluating special permit applications. She notes there are not many guidelines around that standard and they don't always achieve the desired outcome. She indicates this new amendment specifically calls out what the City wants to see, especially pertaining to ground -floor use. She says its fine for commercial uses to locate in upper floors, but it is the City's desire and policy documents to have activated ground -floor spaces. This amendment will help the Planning Board evaluate projects and also help applicants know what's expected so perhaps they will not need to ask for a special permit. Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing May 1, 2017 Wynne outlines specifics of the plan that includes non - residential uses that are permitted by right as well as non - residential permitted by special permit, with some exclusions. She gives examples of the types of uses permitted. She notes they propose adding lobby space serving a multifamily dwelling as an allowable use as they believe it should support an active walkable, pedestrian - friendly space rather than be just a vestibule. She adds that publicly accessible open space on the street front would also be allowed. She describes how they propose dividing the CC District into two areas: a Core Pedestrian Area and anything else. The Core Pedestrian Area is all parcels that face Cabot Street and Rantoul Street on both sides of the street and all parcels on Lower Railroad and Broadway facing Odell Park. She notes they looked at communities and their own experience to develop these standards. Sixteen multi - family projects in recent years have sought special permit relief. In the last few years, they've had five projects come in under the 25% standard and only one that actually met the standard. She shows an example of a current project and how they might meet the proposed standards. She details the proposed new design standards concerning glazing of windows, doorways, retail depth, and first floor height which are important for the Board to review. Guanci opens the hearing to questions from City Council. Councilor Rand says she would like to hear more about the decision not to go whole length of the CC district, particularly about not connecting to the waterfront. Making a connection from downtown to the waterfront, she says, has been high on her list. Wynne says they didn't want to require that this plan be drawn down that far, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to do that. They didn't want to require it at this time because they didn't want to end up with vacant spaces. Clausen adds that when you look at the length and scale of the CC district, it is a lot of square acreage to require commercial uses on the ground floor. For the downtown districts to work, they want to have a variety of commercial space within close walking distance and are concentrating on areas where they're already seeing success, such as sites surrounding the Beverly Depot station. As these areas become more vibrant, that could extend it. Councilor St. Hilaire asks how they arrived at 100% of ground floor, going from projects with 2 percent to now requiring 100 %. Clausen says they are talking about 100% of the street frontage now, not about the backside of a lot but only about the area that's devoted to this type of land use that is on the street. They have moved away from wanting a percentage of the gross floor area of the building and are focusing only on the ground floor. A good example is 131 Rantoul Street and at the MBTA site, which has a lobby that interacts nicely with the commercial ground floor. Councilor Lang says he has gotten feedback from people wanting to know when development is going to stop. This change give flexibility to designers, builders and developers, he says, but what is the benefit to the citizens of Beverly? Clausen says this takes away some of the flexibility and establishes guidelines to meet the objectives of the downtown plan. There is still going to be a special permit option for an applicant if they can't meet the standard, but this gives 4 Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing May 1, 2017 the requirements more specificity about what the expectations are and if they deviate they will have to show how it will benefit the community and its downtown Councilor John Frates asks about buildings that are non - conforming and if there is a mechanism in place for owners who want to make a change to become conforming. He asks what percentage now is non - conforming. Clausen doesn't know this figure off the top of his head. Councilor Don Martin says that people are concerned that the City is over - developing and asks if there is a point where we say no more. Clausen responds that the policy is that there are areas where we want to support development and that is the City's downtown. He says it's not about saying "no" to development but about saying yes to appropriate development in the right place. Councilor Silva notes that projects along Rantoul Street should have a much larger commercial component to them, especially in close proximity to the train station, and says that these pro- active zoning changes are ways we can control the type of development we want in the areas of town where we want them. TOD has always been a key component of downtown development goals and the City wants an active, thriving streetscape. He hopes these changes will improve upon this and appreciates the staff taking a proactive look. Councilor Latter asks if one of the goals is to make the special permit more of an exception rather than a rule. Clausen says yes, as well as to set the standard and provide more of a structure to consider when a project comes through the approval process. Councilor Rand comments that she loves that something is named the core pedestrian area because creating a downtown that is a pedestrian- friendly space is good for our local economy. She asks if this will open up grant opportunities. Clausen says it isn't a requirement of a grant but it certainly doesn't hurt. Anytime we can show matching land use planning with transportation planning is good. Guanci turns the meeting over to Hutchinson to lead questions by the Planning Board. Hutchinson notes that the commercial areas allow for taxi, rail and subway terminals. She thinks it's awkward that a residential space have those terminals. Clausen says it wasn't a decision to leave that in and they might consider altering that. Regarding the activated ground floor development, Hutchinson asks about the safety of having residential doorways opening to the sidewalk. Wynne notes this is only permitted outside of the core pedestrian area and that this was permitted for 480 Rantoul Street. She says that historically, there are vibrant healthy downtowns where they have stoops and front doors that open directly to the street. Clausen says the design standards address the safety issue so a person won't walk out the door and hit a pedestrian. Guanci asks if 130 Cabot Street is an example of the type of development we're looking for. Clausen says the short answer is yes. N. Barrett says that regardless of what the final draft looks like, having a regulation of more specificity will result in fewer special permit requests and will give the City some direction in deciding them. 4 Beverly Planning Board / Beverly City Council Joint Public Hearing May 1, 2017 Guanci opens the hearing for public comment. Rick Marciano, 141 McKay Street, says he is completely in favor of the changes. He says that residential property pays half of what commercial property pays, so more commercial space helps the City, for example, in supporting the students who are costing taxpayers $10,067 each. Guanci closes the City Council portion of the public hearing and refers it back to Hutchinson and the Planning Board. Miller: Motion to close the public hearing. C. Barrett seconds the motion. The motion passes unanimously (6 -0). Beverly Planning Board Special Meeting May 1, 2017 This Document is Subject to Review and Approval by the Planning Board CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Board: Special Meeting of the Planning Board Date: May 1, 2017 Location: Beverly City Hall, Conference Room B Members Present Vice -Chair Ellen Hutchinson, Ellen Flannery, Wayne Miller, Ned Barrett, Catherine Barrett, Alexander Craft Members Absent: Chair John Thomson, James Matz, David Mack Others Present: Planning Director Aaron Clausen, Assistant Planning Director Darlene Wynne Recorder: Mary Alice Cookson Discussion / Decision on public hearing subiects Vice -Chair Hutchinson resumes the meeting, calling it to order. Regarding the two proposed amendments, she notes that the Board can vote or put off the voting until a future meeting. Wayne Miller asks if the Board can submit a recommendation with comments. Darlene Wynne responds yes. He says he is asking this question because it sounded like Councilor Silva might be submitting an amendment striking in -lieu payments and he thought the Board would want to clarify its position on this. Clausen says the Board would want to take the time to make its case to the rest of the City Council about why they want to maintain the in -lieu payments. Miller brings up Councilor Rand's question about why the plan doesn't expand down the length of Cabot and Rantoul Streets from east to west. He doesn't see the downside to expanding it. Nor does N. Barrett, who says the plan could extend to where Cabot and Rantoul meet at both ends and mentions that the Briscoe Building is going to become available and the plan could also include that. C. Barrett agrees and says that the Board would want to consider this if they're thinking 10 to 15 years out. Clausen explains that the building types in this area are multifamily homes and aren't easily converted to commercial use. Right now an investor who buys a four -unit complex can continue using it as is; but if the investor goes to submit for a building permit to change the use, he or she would have to meet this new requirement and the only way to do it would be to tear the building down or to come before the Planning Board to seek relief through special permit. Clausen says if the plan requires this when it isn't marketable, those ground floors might stay vacant. He says it's hard to say whether Beverly could ever support it the whole length of both roads. While other towns have a town square, Beverly has these two long corridors. Beverly Planning Board Special Meeting May 1, 2017 Zane Craft asks about the process from the Planning Board perspective. Clausen says it is the same process that they do now when developers come in. He noted that they believe it will be successful and there has been a resurgence in the market; the downtown has changed from having a high vacancy rate a few years ago (Bell Market, Casa de Moda) to buildings that are full now. He noted the importance of the design guidelines to make sure new buildings are constructed to accommodate future commercial uses if the market necessitates it. As the City starts to see these new businesses continue to succeed and stay, will price per square foot increasing as an indicator, and a more walkable environment. Miller says he's trying to imagine Beverly in 20 years when he predicts the Liberty Tree and Northshore malls will close in response to people buying mostly online. Clausen says he agrees that when the malls are gone, the downtowns will get stronger. There will be a greater emphasis on services that are experiential, too, such as Clay Dreaming. Clausen says the idea that zoning is supposed to be written in stone is wrong. Zoning should be looked at frequently. He clarifies that the 25% of the whole building being retail has been in the City's zoning since the 1960s. Miller asks if the distinction was clear that the existing is 25% of the whole building while the proposed is just the ground floor areas. Wynne says she hopes she was clear in explaining it. C. Barrett asks if it's the front 50 %. Wynne answers it is the front 25 feet, noting that many of that size commercial spaces exist now; but she adds it is just a minimum. Members discuss various buildings in town that have relatively small ground floor retail with the kitchen area being included in the 25 feet. Wynne said they had thought about putting in a ratio for minimum size to frontage, but the architects and urban planners they talked with indicated having minimum retail depth is necessary. They also recommend the minimum ceiling height should be 12 feet. N. Barrett asks if that is defined to include kitchen area or just consumer spaces. Wynne says it is the whole ground floor use. N. Barrett notes that the Board is missing three of its members this evening and suggests that they table the votes so that the entire Board can look at what was presented tonight. Clausen says Legal Affairs will meet next Monday and agrees these zoning amendments are substantive changes. He notes legal affairs will wait for the Planning Board's recommendation before discussing. Clausen adds there are not any specific timelines for the vote on zoning amendments. Joint Public Hearing: City Council Order #144A — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Article XV — Affordable Housing (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) Miller: Motion to table the discussion of this amendment to the May 30, 2017 special meeting. N. Barrett seconds. The motion passes (6 -0). Joint Public Hearing: City Council Order #374A — Proposed Amendment to Beverly Zoning Ordinance #300 — Article XVII — District Regulations to Ground Floor Activated Uses in Mixed -Use Buildings in the "CC" Zoning District Beverly Planning Board Special Meeting May 1, 2017 Miller: Motion to table the discussion of this amendment to the May 30, 2017 meeting. Craft seconds. The motion passes (6 -0). Discussion ensues about the past special permits the Board has considered and approved regarding the fee in lieu option for inclusionary housing. New Business Wynne mentioned the department received notice that the McKay School is looking to convert to condos and they've notified all their tenants. She adds that tenants have an option to purchase. Market rate renters have a year and affordable rate renters have two years. Clausen notes occupancy there is 100 %. The Board members speculate about what will happen regarding affordable housing there. Clausen notes that the units will have to stay affordable when converted, but they need to change their regulatory agreement. The max limit is approximately $200,000. He adds they could instead request to pay the fee in lieu. N. Barrett comments that now that the City has an Affordable Housing Trust, he feels better about the payments in -lieu. Wynne encourages members to go to site visits on their own, for any project, which is the subject of public hearings coming up. Wynne announces that a joint public hearing is being held May 30, 2017 concerning a temporary moratorium on medical marijuana. Adjournment Flannery: Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:36 p.m. C. Barrett seconds. The motion passes (6 -0). s$