Joined: January 16th, 2007, 5:15 am

November 9th, 2017, 4:57 pm #701

Leland33 wrote: I viewed dozens and dozens of Dolben developments and liked about 10% of them - the others meh.

I am surprised that a "preliminary" "conceptual level" drawing or photo is not available for a building that is on public land sold to the Fuller consortium.

The public flying blindly I guess "nice" as you mentioned Karly is okay but "very nice" would be better.

After all these years the public should have an idea of the conceptual/preliminary design. Both interior and exterior.
I haven't looked, but most of the Council packets are online and if they've submitted a full application to the Council, it should be included in one of those packets. Check the City Clerk website.  http://gloucester-ma.gov/Archive.aspx
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2007, 6:00 pm

November 9th, 2017, 5:01 pm #702

The developers are not as dumb as they pretend to be. They are just trying to confuse us enough to give up in frustration and approve our gift to them.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

November 9th, 2017, 6:20 pm #703

jasongrow wrote:
Karly wrote:  The developer said last night they hope to break ground in January 2018 I think.
HA! Seriously, they have trouble reading both our GZO AND calendars??? There's only 3 (maybe 4 if they meet on the day after Christmas) Council meetings until the new council is sworn in on the 1st... I don't expect a lot more movement on this project until the financial analysis is finished and submitted to the council... The sewer issue still hasn't been resolved to my knowledge... I kinda don't think they're breaking ground in January. 
Yeah...since it isn't going to the full council for awhile and it is already November I didn't think so either.  Though the reason I said "I think" is because  I didn't write that part down.  They may well have said "early 2018"  but I doubt that is happening either.  
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 16th, 2007, 5:15 am

November 9th, 2017, 6:38 pm #704

I'm of the mind that the affordable housing issue is gaining some traction and that it will need to be addressed on site. I know the downtown Y has been bandied about as a possible substitute, but they are and remain separate projects and frankly should be treated separately. Unless the Y sells their property to Dolben and then Dolben makes the case that they can put the 30 units there instead of at the Fuller, it hardly seems likely that that is less expensive than building on-site at Fuller.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

November 9th, 2017, 6:56 pm #705

Jason thank you sir.

I'll get to it.  

Of the dozen or so of Halfden Hanson I like ALL of his work... especially the one that recently sold for $6M - could have been "nice" low income housing.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

November 9th, 2017, 7:05 pm #706

Something I've learned from this is that our city ordinance is not good the way it is written. We shouldn't be allowing an in lieu of that is based on 80% of the area median income...which is $98,500 since we are included in the Boston area.  

We could use state data as some districts in NY are doing or we could rewrite the ordinance to account for the fact that Gloucester's median income is around 60K and discount the AMI by the appropriate percentage.  Or take away the in lieu of and make affordable based on 30%, 50%, 70% area median income if we must use the HUD numbers. Lots of options and I like and voted for the councilors who will be addressing them!!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2007, 6:00 pm

November 9th, 2017, 7:17 pm #707

The only council candidate I noticed stressed that point Karly was Melissa Cox.
I do not agree with her on everything, but she had that right.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

November 9th, 2017, 7:26 pm #708

One of three of them that told me they think that should happen. I know she will and that is one of many reasons I voted for her.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

November 9th, 2017, 8:46 pm #709

One of the goals identified in The Housing Production Plan is to review and revise the Zoning Ordinance to encourage production of affordable housing.  Included in strategies listed to achieve that:

"Explore modifications to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to create incentives for the production of more inclusionary units while discouraging payments in lieu of building units. Consider reducing the threshold for triggering inclusionary housing from eight units. Enforce the provisions of the ordinance to ensure actual construction of the required affordable units. Consider an alternative calculation for the payment in lieu of so that it is an amount equal to the required number of affordable housing units multiplied by the median price of a market-rate home comparable in type, size, and number of bedrooms over a period of 18 months prior to the date of application submission."

http://gloucester-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4238
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

November 9th, 2017, 8:54 pm #710

My crankiness is directed at the Administration.  In addition to accepting the payment-in-lieu deal as the developer "elected" to do, there is the smoke and mirrors misrepresentation of the PILOT requirement, the spin about 35 interested parties requesting the RFP docs and only one submitted (we were lucky someone responded!), the spin about how much the developer is actually going to contribute to Housing Trust ...
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

November 12th, 2017, 10:11 pm #711

Someday the developer will want to put videos and photos about the Fuller 200 - for now I've condensed dozens of developments I researched" into two choices.  I think I read the max height is 5 stories but I guess there's a possibility of variances

This Dolben Property was the one I liked the most - Lake Arbor Tower in Mitchelville MD.  Part of the Lake Arbor was single family homes by the developer of Levittown NY, France, Puerto Rico, NJ and Levittown PA.  But only 41 house were sold.

Ironically up until 1963 Levittown homes were allowed to be owned by Caucasians only.  The Lake Arbor area is now 90% upscale blacks.

Movin on up.

In Boston there are market rate, affordable rate, low income rate and sub-low income rate apartments.

There are areas of the Lake Arbor Towers which aren't safe - car breakins despite it being gated. It is just out of DC $1300 1 BR/BA.  $1600 2BR/2BA




==================

Dolben has 80% of their properties designed with cookie cutter generic designs. I don't find that appealing.  Plain vanilla FLAT Gables without a mix of architecture like gambrel roofs and shed dormer similar to the hotel,

Chelmsford MA

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

December 8th, 2017, 3:56 pm #712

The City Council agenda for December 12 lists a public hearing for the Fuller project special permit with a notation that it is to be continued to January 23.

http://gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCenter/ ... /Item/8225

The City calendar lists a Special City Council meeting for Wednesday, December 13, 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM in the auditorium and a Special P&D meeting for Wednesday, December 13, 5:30 PM - 7:30 PM in the auditorium.  Agendas have not yet been posted.

Is that Fuller related?  There have been no P&D minutes posted online since the October 18 meeting and none have been inlcuded in the online agenda packets for City Council  (they are noted in the packet as being provided "under separate cover"  which I assume means that the Council does get them in hard copies but the minutes were not available at the time of the posting of the packet online), so I've lost track of where the permit process is at with P&D.

All three current P&D members will still be on the Council for the next term, but the new Council president will make committee assignments for the new term.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

December 8th, 2017, 4:29 pm #713

When I went to P & D on November 8, the subcommittee decided there would be a third party review of financial hardship.  That review is underway and expected to be complete in mid-December (I don't have my notes with me or I could give you the date.)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

December 10th, 2017, 8:58 pm #714

Thanks.  The last I knew was the November 8 meeting and the request for the hardship review.  Agenda for the December 13 Special Meetings should be posted by tomorrow afternoon.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

December 11th, 2017, 10:29 am #715

Cathy (Admin) wrote: The City Council agenda for December 12 lists a public hearing for the Fuller project special permit with a notation that it is to be continued to January 23.

http://gloucester-ma.gov/ArchiveCenter/ ... /Item/8225

The City calendar lists a Special City Council meeting for Wednesday, December 13, 5:30 PM - 6:00 PM in the auditorium and a Special P&D meeting for Wednesday, December 13, 5:30 PM - 7:30 PM in the auditorium.  Agendas have not yet been posted.

Is that Fuller related?  There have been no P&D minutes posted online since the October 18 meeting and none have been inlcuded in the online agenda packets for City Council  (they are noted in the packet as being provided "under separate cover"  which I assume means that the Council does get them in hard copies but the minutes were not available at the time of the posting of the packet online), so I've lost track of where the permit process is at with P&D.

All three current P&D members will still be on the Council for the next term, but the new Council president will make committee assignments for the new term.
Is there any chance that the city will back out of the deal because the builder is not kowtowing to the affordable housing demands?
I think that the city back out of the deal tear down fuller and build the two school they want to force on us there has there been any talk on that subject?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2007, 6:00 pm

December 11th, 2017, 12:47 pm #716

There has been much talk about building whatever
schools we need on the Fuller lot. However the
important people are not the ones talking about it.
We are not important.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

December 11th, 2017, 2:09 pm #717

CANCELLED - Planning & Development Committee - Special Meeting - CANCELLED

Wednesday, December 13

http://gloucester-ma.gov/Calendar.aspx?EID=6177
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2008, 8:26 pm

December 12th, 2017, 9:00 pm #718

Damon wrote: There has been much talk about building whatever
schools we need on the Fuller lot. However the
important people are not the ones talking about it.
We are not important.
What can we do to get them to listen? maybe we can get the schools to only build one school that would be nice and a savings to taxpayers not that the school committee cares about that.plus we would have the added bonus of not having 200 more units to crowd the city.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 20th, 2007, 11:54 pm

December 13th, 2017, 5:12 am #719

It sounds like the Fuller project is ending up costing the city money!

One would think.... if you apply common sense.... that a developer would know the city's housing ordinance would have to be factored in any housing plans. In my opinion 200 units of any type is too large on this cape if you consider available jobs and the distance required if a commute is involved. And that's if the wind turbine noise and shadow flicker issue is resolved.

 (http://www.hmmh.com/gloucester-review-w ... dy-ma.html)

Per the GD Times:
Gloucester officials have hired a second consultant to examine elements of the Fuller School redevelopment project, this time to review whether requiring 30 units of affordable housing in the site's 200-unit housing component would create financial hardship for the Fuller Mixed Use Ventures partnership.
The partnership — Windover Construction, the YMCA of the North Shore and Sam Park & Company — wants to pay the city $1.5 million in lieu of the affordable housing. The city's affordable housing ordinance otherwise requires any project with more than 11 units to include 15 percent as state and federally recognized affordable residences.
The peer review of the Fuller partnership's hardship claim comes on top of a $75,000 peer review of the partnership's development plans already being carried out by Environmental Partners Group of Quincy. The cost of both reviews is being borne by the developers.

The hardship review is being performed by LDS Consulting of Newton, whose founder and chief practitioner, Lynne Sweet, is a certified member of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts and a member of the Newton Housing Partnership. Neither partnership nor city officials could confirm a cost for the hardship analysis as of Tuesday afternoon.
The city had initially scheduled a special meeting of the City Council's planning and development subcommittee for Wednesday to go over results of the hardship study, but subcommittee Chairman and at-large Councilor Paul Lundberg confirmed Tuesday the full results are not yet in. The meeting will now be pushed back into January, while the council's public hearing on the entire project, initially on the council's agenda for Tuesday night, is now off until Jan. 23.
Those schedules signify the latest delays for a project that Park and Windover Construction CEO Lee Dellicker had hoped would be underway by the end of this year. The estimated  $70 million project calls for 200 units of market-rate rental housing managed by the Dolben Company of Woburn, a new Cape Ann YMCA, and 25,000 square feet of retail space for Park. The partnership has held a $5.6 million purchase-and-sale agreement with the city for the 10.6-acre site for more than a year, but has not closed on the property pending permitting.
"It's a significant delay," Windover project development director Peter Gourdeau said Tuesday. "We are looking forward to continuing the discussions on all the peer reviews. This process can have positive impacts on a project, and we will consider any recommendations seriously.
"With regard to the delay, we are disappointed to lose any opportunity to make progress," he added. "However, we understand that it is necessary to allow the consultants time to complete their work before we can have a meaningful discussion with the city boards and committees."
The dispute over a hardship is tied to the developers' claim to need all of the 200 Fuller units as market-rate rentals. In presentations last April for an overlay zone, which opened the door to the project, Gourdeau and others cited figures showing that including 30 affordable housing units at the Fuller site would diminish the value and revenue from the $35 million housing complex by $2.5 million, raising questions over its economic viability.
But city officials and residents have questioned those figures, and whether construction costs of the entire Fuller project should be factored into a hardship declaration that only applies to the housing component.
"That's huge," outgoing Council President Joe Ciolino said Tuesday. "I would think they have to consider the cost  of the housing project only. You can't say the housing is a hardship because you've included the other construction costs for the Sam Park retail and the YMCA all under one heading. That's not part of the housing costs."
Lundberg said that question is one of many that warrant the review by Sweet and LDS Consulting.

"One is whether some of those (YMCA and retail) costs should be separated out from the housing," he said. "Another is that our ordinance doesn't define any of this. It just says 'hardship.' What that means is one of the other issues we have to resolve."
Gourdeau said the Fuller partners support affordable housing and recognize the city's need. The group has proposed converting the current YMCA building on Middle Street into a 52-unit affordable housing complex as an alternative — but one that cannot be considered in tandem with the Fuller project. The Middle Street site would not be available until after the YMCA moves into its new Fuller home.
"We are supportive of inclusionary housing," Gourdeau said, "and we remain willing to build the units on site if we can simply offset that cost. But ... in response to a (request for proposals) that emphasized the financial return to the city, we maximized the bid price by stating that our offer was based on 100 percent market rate housing.
"We continue to believe," he said, "that the opportunity to leverage a 'payment in lieu' to create more inclusionary units at lower qualifying income levels (on the current Y site) would offer greater benefit to the people of Gloucester over the long term."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

December 13th, 2017, 7:09 am #720

This recent link displays a rough arrangement of the proposed housing, retail and Y Building.

It’s not my favorite facsade - I like the apts/facsades built in Beverly:

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... 36838.html
Quote
Like
Share