ORDER-2021-96 : Amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance to create Incentive Zoning Provisions and related Zoning Map and Parking Regulation Amendments as set forth herein.

Transcript (~17 min @ 1:11:05)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 1:10:50 Speaker 1: Councilor Garipay? Yes. Councilor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councilor Migliorelli? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Thomas? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. President Sonnella? Yes. 11 yes. The motion passes.

▶ 1:11:13 Speaker 3: Thank you, Chief Lyle, for being with us this evening. I think we can let you go.

▶ 1:11:18 Speaker 6: Thank you. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

▶ 1:11:22 Speaker 8: You as well.

▶ 1:11:24 Jeff McNaught: Next, we have Order 2021-96, amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance to create incentive zoning provisions and related zoning map and parking regulation amendments as set forth herein. I believe we have Chair Sampson of the planning board with us. as well as Director Gaffey.

▶ 1:11:45 Speaker 8: Good evening.

▶ 1:12:03 Speaker 3: Good evening, Director Gaffey and Chair Sampson.

▶ 1:12:08 Speaker 9: Good evening.

▶ 1:12:11 Jeff McNaught: I was going to give you the floor first to speak to the, I guess we call it the response letter, I forget the name of the letter. If you'd like to do that, give an overview of that.

▶ 1:12:27 Denise Gaffey: Sure, so I'm planning to just start out by making a few remarks about the report and then Greg will also participate to clarify any, any elements of report report that need clarification. And then, of course, we'll. We're happy to answer any questions. Um. So, we're here, we're here to circle back to report back on the zoning proposal. That was submitted by the planning board to the city council. Um, this zoning, um, just for our listeners out there, there's only provides provisions to incentivize mixed use development. And our transit oriented areas includes a map change that would move approximately 13 parcels in the southern edge of the downtown between grove and 1 only street. From the 1 zoning district to the 2 zoning district. So, these parcels, so that those parcels can take advantage of the incentive provisions. And the zoning proposal, it proposes some miscellaneous adjustments to the zoning, particularly as they relate to parking. In terms of process, there was a public hearing that occurred on April 29th. That was a joint public hearing. Between the planning board and the city council as required by statute. And then there was a further hearing discussion with the appropriations committee on May 6. The zoning subcommittee met subsequent to those meetings, those hearings on May 18th. To review all of the comments that were discussed. At both of these sessions of the public hearing members also reviewed all the comments that were submitted in writing to the council. And some additional comments that were submitted in writing directly to the planning board. There's only subcommittee thoroughly considered all of the comments that were made. and has made some recommended changing to the proposed zoning amendments in response to those comments. And the 21 also met on May 28th, I believe, or May 20th, sorry, I think it was May 24th. And they voted on those revisions. And these revisions have been summarized in the report to the city council that we submitted June 1st. Um, and in addition to the report, the report basically analyzes all the comments that were made summarizes them and, um, and and make some suggested revisions. And we have, um, copy, we have provided those revisions to the council. In a document that is dated, um, May 27.

▶ 1:15:06 Denise Gaffey: Oh, that's. So, we are where we are with the process and I, I just point out that, um, you know, we, we're very pleased with all the, the comments that we've received. I feel like there's been a really robust process and a lot of great, great comments and great participation from the public. Um, 1 of the most significant issues that was raised, um, and that we've really been considering throughout the whole process. is how to incorporate sustainability into this zoning provision. And we did get a lot of comments from members of the Mellows Energy Commission that there should be mandatory requirements for green building practices in order to take advantage of the incentives that the zoning provides. So, we gave that some serious consideration and actually we recommend moving The green building practice section that was that had, it was originally presented as an optional community benefit to 1 of the required benefits. And we thought that was a good suggestion and. So, we have made some, we have proposed some language in this revision that, um. That addresses that comment and, um.

▶ 1:16:22 Speaker 10: We, you know, we did get.

▶ 1:16:25 Denise Gaffey: A lot of, um. There's a sentiment to to try to make that standard or those requirements. Extremely rigorous as it relates to net 0 and. Passive house construction, so this is something that the planning board kind of had to weigh very carefully because. We, we wanted to, we're trying to create a flexible tool that is a balance. Um, approach and provides for a number of different community benefits. So, 1 of the 1 of the ideas that we did not adopt is this idea of a particular building certification. Um, so we, we sort of explain our thinking around that in the report and we think we've come up with a really good compromise by requiring a menu of, um, of building, um, green building design standards in, in, as a, as a requirement. So, that's 1 of the elements of the revisions that are being proposed. Um, another comment that was raised at the public hearing. Was, uh, uh, interest in expanding the boundary. Of the, um, map change that was proposed for, um, the medical zoning district. And we had some interest among the word counselor to expand that boundary change. Um, East to Lebanon street, which was incorporated in the original proposal, but then also to the north to hospital square to try to encompass more more of the property that's currently zone for medical that. We felt would be better zoned, um, similar to our, our downtown zoning. Um, so we, we gave that consideration some thought, and we also factored in some concerns that we received from the preservation community. Um, it was pointed out to us that, um, there are a number of parcels in that particular. Uh, zoning district boundary change that we were proposing. That were also in the historic district. And, um, there was a concern that we might be sending a message to developers that we were trying to. Promote the redevelopment of the, um, the parcels that are in the historic district. Um, which was which, which is the concern that we, we recognize, um. Could be, uh, you know, we could provide that perception and we thought that was legitimate concern. We were, you know, to sort of, um, kind of go back to what our original, um. Objective was this location we were trying to. Um, we were, we were trying to allow for the redevelopment of the cruces property in a way that better reflects the city's. Vision for that area and I think. What we realized is in the process of. Of looking at this more closely that they are. It seems like we might want to step back and. Take a closer look at the entire medical district and rather than just focusing on those particular parcels. And and give that its own consideration. And including all the stakeholders that would have an interest in that from the hospital to other medical business owners to residents in the district. And to enter the preservation community, so we feel that at this time, it would be better to take that particular map change out of his own proposal. And we would prefer to to have a separate zoning effort. I'm looking specifically at the metal medical zoning district. Um, so that is the recommendation that is in revised zoning amendment. There were some comments raised. I think there was some concern or confusion about. Affordable housing and whether affordable housing would be required of any developments in the incentive zone zoning district. And I think that was just some confusion about some language that was struck out of the zoning because it's now. It's it's obsolete language now that we have affordable housing zoning. So we just. Clarifying the report that any development, you know, in Melrose, including any development that's going to take advantage of the incentive zoning provisions will still require 15% contribution, a 15% contribution of affordable units. And obviously, if they're taking advantage of some increase in density through the incentive zoning tool, then that's even more affordable units that would be created. So, we just sought to clarify that point. There was also some concern raised at the public hearing about open space and a sentiment that we were concerned that we were. Eliminating the open space requirement for parcels that are using the incentives only tool and. What we really seek to do here is to recognize that a lot of those parcels don't have. They don't have open space to begin with. There's no real. Practical way to construct open space. So we, we think that a more flexible approach to open space, which allows for balconies and other types of green roofs and roof decks and things of that nature would be more appropriate. So, um, clarify that in the report. You got a comment from a member of the public who was concerned that we were. um we were promoting parking in the front yard and that piece we just wanted to clarify in the report but we were actually just doing some housekeeping with that section of the zoning because it was um it was referenced that provision around front yard parking was referenced twice and in conflicting ways in our zoning ordinance so we took we attempt to clarify um the rules around front yard parking and we do think it's appropriate and we see a lot of cases with two family homes where parking in tandem is appropriate so we do clarify that as an appropriate use but the zoning itself is not changing any way of interpreting park it is not allowing for people

▶ 1:22:53 Denise Gaffey: to park in front of their homes we also received a comment a couple of comments from an architect who was who has looked pretty closely at the zoning provisions and thought we really wanted to have a height limitation for five-story buildings of 65 feet versus 62 and that's just a recognition that for mixed-use building which again those are the types of buildings that we're trying to promote in in the real the business neighborhood districts about where this tool would apply um the additional couple of feet is necessary in order to have um appropriate floor-to-ceiling height for commercial space in mixed-use buildings so we would recommend making that modification from 62 feet to 65 feet we also got a comment about compact spaces and a suggestion that it might be beneficial to increase the amount of compact spaces that we would allow in our base zoning um right now we don't allow for any we're proposing to allow for up to 30 through this zoning change and um there was a suggestion that we we consider going up to 50 there are some certainly some benefits to doing that in terms of the amount of space that's needed for compact cars and the less less pavement associated with that um more flexibility with with building building design but we also are a little concerned about making sure that that's functional um in a given building so we were recommending um consideration of going up to 50 but doing that um through a special permit that would be issued by the planning board so it would become part of a process of reviewing a proposal And the point would would have to, you know, determine whether that was appropriate, given the specific circumstances of a project.

▶ 1:24:54 Denise Gaffey: Um, we also received a comment about. Change the amendment that's recommended around loading spaces. Um, some of the comments that. are concerned that um changing the loading space requirement would cause additional traffic congestion or be unsafe and we feel the planning board feels that um it's reasonable to allow for

▶ 1:25:21 Speaker 11: to change the the minimum uh commercial space requirement to 5 000 feet before loading space is required um otherwise we would get into a situation where where it we would have a lot

▶ 1:25:39 Denise Gaffey: of space dedicated towards loading um in our downtown areas where it's really just not feasible to do so especially for small for many of the small commercial developments small commercial businesses that we see voting just isn't it's not really a big concern it can be done in off hours and this is the type of of consideration that the planning board would set carefully in any event through site plan review so we did not recommend making any changes to the proposal um when it comes to the local space requirement um finally we uh we wanted to comment a bit about the concern that was raised that there was not there was insufficient stakeholder participation and um we i think we felt that there was actually quite a bit of participation in this zoning amendment um we actually began we get we began working on this back in july of 2020 and we held four to five zoning subcommittee meetings throughout the summer and the fall of last year and all of those subcommittee meetings were were public meetings and we um entertained comments from members of the public including members of the energy commission and the bike pedestrian committee in all of those meetings um also at our planning board meetings we planning board as a full full boardings met at least twice on the zoning and in all those instances we obtained comments from the public we read all of the comments that were submitted on the record for this proposal and there were quite a few people that participated in the public hearing both on the 29th and the 6th of May so we feel like there's been actually quite a bit of stakeholder participation in this zoning and we're really actually pleased with all the feedback that we've received and I feel like the planning board has been very responsive to that and has made changes to the proposed zoning amendment in response to all of that feedback so that's That's pretty much a summary of the report that's been submitted and I'm happy to answer some questions and Greg might want to comment as well. And we can, we can also walk through the actual revisions if you like, to the, to the proposed zoning. We, we submitted those in highlighted form. where we highlighted all of the changes and they're not they're not aren't very many changes as you saw from the report but we did um highlight those so so that they were clear but happy to take