ORDER-2015-90 : Amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 235, Article III, Section 235-6 (Division into districts) and other related zoning amendments as set forth herein, for the Commuter Rail Station Areas.

Transcript (~1 h 5 min @ 18:56)

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

▶ 18:49 Speaker 4: here i believe that constitutes a quorum of the planning board and at this time we can commence our public hearing on order 215-90 amending melrose revised zoning ordinances chapter 235 article 3 section 235-8 division into districts and other related zoning amendments as set forth in the order for commuter rail station areas and as we usually do we ask the proponent of the proposed ordinance to come forward make a presentation and i see miss gaffey from the planning board who's anxiously awaiting starting her presentation good evening my name is denise

▶ 19:32 Denise Gaffey: gaffey i'm the director of planning and community development and on my left is manisha bhutra who is our consultant with metropolitan area planning council and on my right is aaron zwergo who is my assistant in the planning office and we're really pleased to be here tonight to talk about our latest zoning initiative and we've prepared a couple of slides for you which we're going to walk through and I know also that you have received in advance of tonight's public hearing a large packet filled with lots of information so we're going to try to break that down tonight to the best that we can and we're really looking forward to having a discussion with the members of the Alderman and the Planning Board on this on this proposal so we're calling this the commuter rail station zoning amendments and and the

▶ 20:25 Denise Gaffey: purpose of this zoning initiative is to promote transit oriented development around the commuter rail stations this is the third part of a three-part zoning

▶ 20:40 Denise Gaffey: initiative you'll recall that we were here last spring and last summer the first first time around we were doing a very minor zoning change to change the

▶ 20:50 Denise Gaffey: BB designation along the real community rail corridor to a BB one designation and then we followed that up with a more extensive proposal that we refer to as the real corridor overlay district and this and at that time we mentioned that

▶ 21:08 Denise Gaffey: we decided to split out the commuter rail station areas because we thought it would be a little bit easier to to explain and to break it down if we if we did it that way so we're back again with this third piece to to talk about another one of our efforts to try to promote smart growth and transit oriented development along the community rail corridor and this of course is supported by the effort that we went through about two years ago with the assistance of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council the MAPC is our regional planning agency and they awarded us a technical assistance grant a couple of years ago to help us with this initiative to take a look at our valuable transit resource and in our opportunities to promote redevelopment along the rail to the commuter rail corridor line and along the in the commuter rail station areas and of course we have a really successful model in the smart growth district which is kind of our homegrown effort back in 2008 and we're now seeing the the fabulous success of that down in the lower Washington Street and so we are we envision that we're going to be promoting similar types of redevelopment along the commuter rail corridor and in the station areas and that was all underpinned by that commuter rail corridor plan from a couple years ago and I also just want to mention that

▶ 22:31 Denise Gaffey: this effort has taken has been accomplished through the efforts of our zoning subcommittee the zoning subcommittee is represented by four members of the Planning Board they all happen to be here tonight which is great and working in conjunction with the planning staff and also with Manisha from MAPC we've met several times many many times over the past four months or so in the public meetings in order to come up with this proposal we've also gotten input from the building commissioner and from the city solicitor so we feel like we have a pretty comprehensive package to present to you tonight so the probably the primary primary change that we're making here is to establish a new designation a new zoning designation for the three commuter rail station areas and we'll get to in a second but you received in your packet maps of the three different commuter rail station areas the Highland station the Cedar Park and the Wyoming station area and they all are vibrant business neighborhood what we call neighborhood business districts that

▶ 23:50 Denise Gaffey: have kind of created you know have grown and over the you know in over the decades and are supported by the transit stations and they are currently two of the three are currently designated as BC zoning districts that's just what we column and the BC designation comes with it certain density and dimensional criteria and certain uses that are allowed or prohibited or allowed by special permit so one of our first efforts was to take a look at what you know what we liked about those designations what made sense and then what didn't some uses that we thought made sense in those business districts to be allowed uses like restaurants for example actually require a special permit and so we felt like that that really didn't make a lot of sense so we wanted to try to fix that we originally were a little confounded by the fact that the Wyoming district has a different designation and also there are

▶ 24:45 Speaker 7: two other BC districts throughout the city so we were a little bit we were a

▶ 24:51 Denise Gaffey: little bit you know that took us a little bit of while to get through but finally what we came up with we actually had an epiphany when we were looking more closely at our zoning ordinance and realized that the BA one designation which is our downtown designation actually has a lot of the characteristics that we think will make the community rail station areas really effective and so once we realized that it became a little easier for us to see how we could fit the BA one designation into the three community rail stations and the best way to do that was to create a new designation which we're calling the ba2 and it's very much modeled after the ba1 district in terms of density and dimensional regulations and uses but with a few exceptions if it was as easy as just saying you know we like everything about the ba1 and we think it'll fit perfectly we would have just called it we would have renamed all three districts to a ba1 but there were some uses that we thought didn't make sense or we wanted to we wanted to create the distinction for the three community rail station areas and I'll I'll get into that in a little more detail as we go through but that that is just sort of the background for why it's called the ba2 designation and it would apply to all three community rail station areas and of course the goal ultimately is to create vibrant streetscapes that maximize opportunities for pedestrian activity and create new hubs for activity in our community rail station areas so this next slide is a

▶ 26:20 Denise Gaffey: picture of the Highland Station area the boundaries around what we're calling the ba2 district are essentially the same as the boundaries around what's called the

▶ 26:32 Denise Gaffey: BC district today on Franklin Street in the Highlands area and the only difference is we're proposing to capture two additional parcels to the east and I'm sorry I don't have a pointer okay so to the two parcels to the Far East here are actually our properties that are currently used for commercial uses I think one of them contains the Domino's Pizza and the New Decade hair salon and the other one has a couple of uses like a skin clinic and maybe a florist but those two those two buildings on those two parcels at the very eastern edge of the BC district are actually currently in the residential district they're not zoned for business and it made a lot of sense for to us to capture to to change the line of the existing BC to include those two parcels as part of our new

▶ 27:36 Denise Gaffey: designation for the ba2 so that's that's one of the changes to the boundaries in this that's the only change to the boundaries in this communal station area that we would recommend otherwise this station area includes it includes on the western portion all the businesses that you're familiar with like Ernie's learnings lunch in mother's pizza and the Corinthian Hall former hardware building on this side La Cuchara La Cuchara and spiced high so and it also happens to it includes a couple of includes the the VFW building and it also includes a couple of multifamily buildings as well so that's the that's the overview of the Highland station area with the two additional parcels that we're recommending adding to that district so that's and that would be a

▶ 28:31 Denise Gaffey: map change so the next station area we want to just present you with is the Cedar Park station area and here in in the brown color and what we're calling ba2 and again today that's BC you change it to a ba2 we don't make any changes at

▶ 28:45 Denise Gaffey: all to the boundaries here so this this commercial commuter rail station area which stays the same is but we changed the category from a BC to a be at ba2

▶ 28:58 Denise Gaffey: and this one also contains a number of successful small businesses I'm sure you that you're all familiar with in addition to a couple of multi-family

▶ 29:13 Denise Gaffey: dwellings and finally this is the third station area the Wyoming station area so this one's a little bit different in the sense that currently it is this whole area here that I'm outlining in with the laser pointer is all categorized as a ba one district in the bin it actually is an extension you can't see it it's off the map but it's an extension of our downtown which is also designated as a ba1 so what we thought made sense for consistency it makes sense to kind of zone all the commute commuter rail station areas alike we may we we thought it made sense to create a new boundary here and then call that the ba2 and so

▶ 30:02 Denise Gaffey: the ba2 here this is um so the proposed boundary line would actually include this building here which is a mixed-use building that includes capitalist trackside and the one below that which is essentially multifamily condominiums it also includes this kind of an odd shape building here which is just had a

▶ 30:22 Denise Gaffey: variety of uses over the years most recently well currently I think it's a vaping store and prior to that there was an antique store in there and there's some storage facilities in the back and a couple of multifamily on this side so that is where we were recommending placing the boundary line between ba1

▶ 30:44 Denise Gaffey: and the b2 otherwise all these other properties and some of them are single family and multifamily are two-family dwellings and most of them are commercial dwellings those boundaries that boundary line stays the same and

▶ 31:00 Speaker 7: it's it's just the designation changes to the BA too so on this next slide we

▶ 31:04 Denise Gaffey: wanted to illustrate some of the more significant uses and how they would be affected by this new designation this is um this is not comprehensive and in your packet we have provided and this is also of course online for the viewers at home home, but we have provided a copy of the entire list of uses in our zoning ordinance.

▶ 31:29 Denise Gaffey: And in gray, we've illustrated the column for this new BA-2 designation, so it's easy

▶ 31:41 Denise Gaffey: for you to see how this designation compares to the BC today and the BA-1 and all the other

▶ 31:45 Speaker 7: districts for that matter.

▶ 31:46 Denise Gaffey: So that's provided in your packet. these are the ones that were the most significant changes and we just wanted to spend I want to spend a minute just going through them the multifamily

▶ 31:58 Denise Gaffey: dwelling is is currently allowed by special permit in the BC district and it's a special permit that's granted by the the zoning Board of Appeals we would and the ba1 multifamily dwellings are allowed by special permit from the Planning Board it's under that special provision that allows for multifamily in in a residential in a non-residential zone and we proposing that same use be allowed by special permit from the Planning Board in the ba2 district the retail retail establishments selling general merchandise things like apparel or hardware or accessories that's what general merchandise is categorized as in our zoning that is um that requires a special permit in the BC district right now in the in the commercial commuter rail station areas and it's permitted as of right in the BA one does a district and we think it should be permitted as

▶ 32:57 Denise Gaffey: of right in the BA two so we think that use is appropriate in the commercial commuter rail station areas and it would allow for a broader range of uses which we think is a good thing so that's one of the distinctions with this new zone designation and eating and drinking establishments I already mentioned this that it actually requires a special permit in the bc district today and it's permitted as of right in the ba1 which again is primarily the downtown area and we think it should be permitted as of right in the ba2 or the community rail station areas so that's that's another significant change the sale of new or used cars and accessories is not permitted in the bc district today and we would recommend that's continued to not be permitted in the this new

▶ 33:45 Denise Gaffey: designation is the ba2 it is allowed in the ba1 and there are a couple of instances in the ba1 there are a couple of existing uses in the ba1 so we're not recommending making changing that funeral establishments are allowed by special permit in the BC district and we're suggesting that they not be permitted there there are a lot of opportunities for funeral establishments in other parts of the community that we think makes sense medical office offices

▶ 34:18 Denise Gaffey: where we spent a lot of time talking about there are actually three medical offices in the Highlands Station area right now and we feel well that's that's

▶ 34:28 Denise Gaffey: not a bad use I mean obviously people need to people patronize these some

▶ 34:35 Denise Gaffey: these places we all do but typically what we find is they're not very good first floor uses they tend to shut themselves out to the public either by

▶ 34:43 Denise Gaffey: the use of shades or other kinds of window treatments so they it doesn't create the kind of vibrancy that we would like to see and we think that's a

▶ 34:52 Denise Gaffey: bit of a limitation right now in the Highlands area so we we are recommending that we still allow the use by special permit but we but only only if it's not a ground floor use so it would be appropriate on the second floor or even maybe even a basement as a use but not on the ground floor because again we're really trying to create um vibrancy on the first floor so so that's something a little bit different and something we gave a lot of thought to so we're interested in your feedback on automotive repair and auto service station again that's allowed by special permit in the bc today and we think

▶ 35:27 Denise Gaffey: it should be a prohibited use in the BC district because again we're trying to promote transit oriented and really encourage these this concept of transit

▶ 35:39 Denise Gaffey: oriented development and we think the auto repair use is sort of kind of

▶ 35:45 Denise Gaffey: productive to that and finally the miscellaneous professional and business offices things like banks real estate companies insurance companies that kind thing require a special permit right now in the bc district and we think should be a permitted use

▶ 35:59 Denise Gaffey: in the ba2 or in those commuter rail station areas so these are the sort of the highlights and again you can go back in your free time and look at all the uses and how they compare but these were the most significant ones and the ones we spent the most time thinking about and this was this this table probably summarizes why we thought it was most effective to create a

▶ 36:24 Denise Gaffey: new category, BA2, rather than just piggyback on the BA1, because we really did give a lot of thought to some of these uses and thought and wanted to make a distinction. In our next slide, I want to just highlight some of the density and dimensional controls and modifications that we're making.

▶ 36:55 Denise Gaffey: So what we have here is a column for the existing B.C. zone, the existing B.A.1 zone, and the proposed B.A.2 zone.

▶ 37:09 Denise Gaffey: and as you can see we thought the ba1 which again is primarily our downtown and the the towers Plaza area was a really good fit really good match we

▶ 37:22 Denise Gaffey: essentially are are using the same zoning the same dimensional criteria

▶ 37:30 Denise Gaffey: probably the biggest change is we we make an adjustment here in the existing BA 1 which allows for four stories but currently I'm sorry 50 feet in height for buildings but eight stories that's sort of an oddity in our existing ordinance which doesn't make any sense at all you can't build a building an eight-story building with 50 feet so we actually are gonna fix that and we think the author is back back then meant to make that four stories and in fact if you look in our downtown area and you spend some time walking along main street you'll see a lot of four-story buildings it's not uncommon at all to find a four-story building you you'll see one or two eight-story buildings it's a little bit more unusual and those were probably done under a special permit kind of arrangement or they happen to be like our senior housing buildings which are pretty tall but for the most part you're going to find four stories and i think the other important thing here to point out is that in the bc district today which again is those community real station areas particularly cedar park and highlands the um the density alone only allows for two stories and 30 feet and we thought that really was not um we thought it was appropriate to promote greater density in these areas that um are already pretty you know densely built but um could if you could

▶ 38:53 Speaker 7: afford to have a little more height so we thought the four-story 50 feet

▶ 39:01 Denise Gaffey: dimensional criteria in the va2 made made a lot of sense so again we are pr we are trying to promote density in these areas because we think it makes sense being so close to the commuter rail stations and we're also trying to promote um mixed-use developments this concept that works so well in our downtown of you know commercial and retail on the first floor with residential above and this this this criteria will help will help foster that um otherwise i think that's really the only other noteworthy thing here is we we don't have this currently on our ordinance but we thought it would be a good idea to establish a maximum front set front yard setback right now the minimum that we're proposing is zero a lot of the buildings in our downtown area and in our station areas are right at that back of sidewalk, which we think, which is very appropriate and effective. But we also thought it made sense to, to put a maximum setback in there too, so that we, we continue to have these buildings be close to the back of sidewalk, which just creates vibrancy on the street. So that's something we're

▶ 40:08 Speaker 2: proposing as well. Excuse me, Denise, could you just identify what maximum FAR

▶ 40:15 Denise Gaffey: stands for so far is um floor area ratio and that's an yeah that's an existing dimensional control in our ordinance and we don't make any change to what's proposed didn't know the

▶ 40:26 Denise Gaffey: acronyms sure um so we spent a little time talking about parking requirements and again similar to the discussion that we had several months ago when we were here to talk about the rail corridor overlay we thought it you know it makes sense being transit oriented areas that are served by commuter rail in bus bus stops and fairly close to transit mass transit it made sense to talk about parking reductions and to talk about looser restrictions for parking so we make a change we propose a change to the

▶ 41:03 Denise Gaffey: parking code B oops sorry for parking code B for multifamily dwellings and we amend that to require one space per unit in the ba1 and the ba2 districts versus

▶ 41:16 Denise Gaffey: the current two spaces per unit and again that is consistent with where we came down in the commuter rail overlay district we've also we've also included

▶ 41:28 Denise Gaffey: in this proposal the language that similar to what we proposed in the real corridor overlay district and in the smart growth overlay district to allow for shared or reduced parking in the ba1 and ba2 districts through a through a site plan review

▶ 41:48 Denise Gaffey: process and and that so if an applicant comes to the planning board and demonstrates that they'd

▶ 41:55 Speaker 7: have to demonstrate that they don't need the the parking that's required and the part of the

▶ 41:59 Denise Gaffey: planning would have to be convinced that that was was legitimate or that they maybe made arrangements for alternative parking or shared parking and they had something they had a document that can substantiate that so this would allow the Planning Board to look on a case-by-case basis and evaluate whether that was something should be should be considered and would be beneficial both for the project and

▶ 42:25 Denise Gaffey: for the community and getting we're getting towards the end of the highlights the we've also made a couple of modifications some of them are sort housekeeping related changes and section 235 dash 65 and 235 dash 66 are two sections of our ordinance which have been they don't get a lot of use but but and they use rather discreetly but they've been used effectively to permit some really successful projects in recent years and I'm thinking about okra village and station crossing and most recently willow crossing I think it is 185 Essex Street and the project on Essex Street 99 Essex Street as well the former Unitarian Universalist Church so this this special permit has been very effective but one of the things that you know that we've realized and it was also discussed last time around was that there is some discretion that's provided to the Planning Board and evaluating projects and right now they have the discretion to permit a project that might be 80 feet tall and we thought that was a bit excessive so we would make a change to that section of the

▶ 43:41 Speaker 7: ordinance to change that 80 feet to 62 feet and then yep these next two

▶ 43:48 Denise Gaffey: bulleted items are again really sort of just housekeeping items because we're

▶ 43:56 Speaker 7: creating a new zoning designation this ba2 we just we we add the ba2 language

▶ 44:00 Denise Gaffey: in a couple of other sections of zoning where it makes sense where in reference

▶ 44:08 Denise Gaffey: to plan developments and also that tool for residential use and non-residential

▶ 44:12 Speaker 7: districts we add we add the be the ba2 to that to that category of uses and

▶ 44:22 Denise Gaffey: before I conclude this is essentially the kind of overview of the commuter rail station zoning amendments the other thing I wanted to point out which was explained in the in the letter that was sent down to the with this package is that we wanted to also make a technical amendment to the real quarter overlay zoning that was approved back in July of last year it had it was brought to the planning board's attention recently that the density allowance that just to back

▶ 44:57 Denise Gaffey: up a little bit for the real quarter overlay we allow for a new some new uses that aren't along the commuter rail line that aren't currently allowed in the

▶ 45:03 Denise Gaffey: zoning one of them being assisted living and we had established a dimensional criteria in that zoning of 44 45 dwelling units per acre and it was brought to our attention that that that particular number was overly restrictive and might limit the limit the about viability of a assisted living project

▶ 45:24 Denise Gaffey: in along that corridor term on Street Essex Street so when that was brought to

▶ 45:32 Denise Gaffey: our attention we had a lot of discussion about it and we did a little research and we learned that there really isn't any common common density standard a lot

▶ 45:44 Denise Gaffey: of it has to do with the the different the variations in different properties like different site constraints or locations or what your potential market

▶ 45:54 Speaker 7: might be and so that each each site or each area needs to be looked at kind of

▶ 45:58 Denise Gaffey: on a case-by-case basis and we we decided that it made sense given these this given our evaluation to change we were we were convinced that the 45 dwelling units might be so much of a limitation that would prohibit a successful project from happening and so we are recommending that that density number be changed to 60 units per acre and and while that seems like a big number I just want to point out that it doesn't most of the other dimensional criteria that's established in the rail corridor for for projects would be controlling in this instance like we still have pretty restrictive parking requirements and height restrictions and setbacks so it wouldn't it's not going to change the overall density of a project but because the number of units can fluctuate in a project some some projects have smaller smaller dwelling

▶ 46:53 Denise Gaffey: you know actual living spaces than others and some have more common space it just gives us a little bit more flexibility when evaluating a project so

▶ 47:02 Denise Gaffey: it's kind of a long-winded explanation but we were we're recommending that we make that technical amendment and just fold that into this this zoning amendment while we're at it and I think that's it I am I know this was a really

▶ 47:17 Denise Gaffey: quick review and I I do want to just go very quickly and just mention all the other handouts just so that everyone's clear we did have a cover letter that we submitted that that kind of outlined all of sort of we took our slide presentation almost from the cover letter so we kind of walk you through some of the highlights and we also submitted a summary document that is more extensive that it kind of flushes some of these things out and actually proposes the actual language that would change and that's the document that's dated January 13 2015 and it's called proposed station area rezoning so that

▶ 47:53 Denise Gaffey: has all the very specific language and modifications highlighted so you definitely want to take a few minutes to look that over and of course I we've included all the the maps of the three areas with the with the breakdown of the

▶ 48:09 Denise Gaffey: current uses and also submitted with your packet the rail corridor overlay zoning that was approved last July with that technical modification that I suggested for dense for assisted living density highlighted that we were

▶ 48:28 Speaker 8: recommending is approved and that's pretty much it really look forward to

▶ 48:30 Denise Gaffey: hearing your questions or engaging in a discussion with you about this okay

▶ 48:38 Speaker 4: before we start a question and answer I just want to wrap up the public hearing

▶ 48:47 Speaker 4: portion of the presentation here today there is nobody in the audience but is there anybody who else who wishes to speak at the public hearing on this zoning proposal it does not appear to be i would suggest that it would be appropriate to conclude the public hearing portion of the discussion of this order and then we can open it up so mr president second all the mortar moves that would conclude the joint public hearing of the board of alderman and the planning board the motion is seconded by alderman inferno all those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye anyone opposed so the public hearing is hereby concluded the order is before you do we have questions or discussion alderman inferno thank you very much mr president um

▶ 49:27 Gail Infurna: thank you for your presentation this evening just a quick question in talking about medical offices um you have that it's a special permit but not permitted as a ground floor use and i was kind I kind of, when I first saw that, I was a little curious about what your response would be. And I certainly understand your response as far as they are not attractive in a sense. I know there's one in the Franklin area and it just doesn't add anything to that. It's three. It's three. That doesn't really add anything to the ground floor. Did you talk about not permitting it at all? And I only ask this because I would think a medical office, you would need to be handicap accessible for the most part. I'm just not really aware of many elevators in any of these buildings down in those areas true So did that come up at all just to not permit them at all it did and we did talk about the fact that that

▶ 50:21 Denise Gaffey: Would be a burden that you'd need an elevator and that could be a limitation to that use Although you know it wouldn't preclude a new building that might be built that with with an elevator

▶ 50:33 Denise Gaffey: That wouldn't comment that comment that you saw not on a second floor or in a ground floor a basement level

▶ 50:38 Denise Gaffey: But we did, we spent a lot of time talking about whether just to exclude it outright and I think we kind of fell in this sort of compromise position, which would allow the use again by special permit, it still has to be evaluated by the plan.

▶ 50:52 Gail Infurna: So once again, if they were to come before you for the special permit, you would be talking about the handicap accessibility?

▶ 50:58 Speaker 8: Oh, I'm sure, yeah. Okay.

▶ 51:00 Gail Infurna: Yeah. any medical offices that probably wouldn't want to be handicap accessible even if it's a dentist you know thank you okay I just kind of that went through my head when I saw it there so

▶ 51:15 Denise Gaffey: thank you and obviously anything that's pre-existing there now we this does not affect pre-existing use the medical uses that are that are there today that are on the ground level

▶ 51:26 Speaker 2: you know continue to could could stay there pre-existing use right sure thank you thank you

▶ 51:33 Robert A. Boisselle: Thank you. Alderman Boisselle. In your documentation on page 3.1.b, you talk about the off-street parking requirements, parking code B, used for multifamily dwellings. The number of off-street parking spaces is two per dwelling unit, except in BA1 and BA2 districts, in which cases it which will be one per dwelling unit, which is what you referred to during your presentation. But what is interesting, just below that, section 235-40, where you crossed off municipal parking lots and put in parking reduction provisions. The Board of Appeals, by special permit, may allow the substitution of spaces within municipal parking lots in lieu of the parking requirements of this article, provided they are located within 1,000 feet of the building which is intended. So are you saying that you're going to give to these developments spaces in public municipal parking lots?

▶ 52:42 Denise Gaffey: Well, we do that now.

▶ 52:45 Robert A. Boisselle: I mean, any language- But who pays for that permit?

▶ 52:47 Denise Gaffey: Just to back up a little bit, I mean, any language that's not underlined or struck out is existing language right so our zoning today allows for these shared

▶ 52:58 Robert A. Boisselle: parking kind of provisions that's why we have but that's what that's what to per dwelling unit now you change that to decrease that amount to one for dwelling so that means you may have more well there's always been discussion here on how many cars come to a dwelling but you all what you're now compressing that number down and pushing more cars into the municipal lot and my point of view I have a lot of vendors or owners of stores telling me that there's no parking in Melrose now you're taking these particular and you're giving this

▶ 53:36 Denise Gaffey: so these parking places away or they should be paying for that permit that's

▶ 53:43 Robert A. Boisselle: two per dwelling and with this at this point right now that's crossed out and now you're down to one per unit in this ba2 and ba1 I believe right ba1 ba2 area so what happens to those extra cars so just to clarify so today right and a

▶ 54:05 Denise Gaffey: developer who who meets this criteria of being within a thousand feet of a municipal lot can can ask for a special permit to reduce that to so that so they're not to lower that to that requirement or to meet I shouldn't put it that way oh they need that requirement through the provision of

▶ 54:26 Robert A. Boisselle: these what happens to the car at the municipal what happens that an extra car

▶ 54:30 Denise Gaffey: so typically what they do is they they're required to buy a permit and they if it's a residential it could also be commercial right but if it's a residential use they have to buy the permit from the from the city and then they can only park overnight they have to move their car it's 6 in the morning

▶ 54:44 Denise Gaffey: whatever that restriction is they really can only park it there in those evening hours and then have to move it out of the municipal lot in the morning and

▶ 54:50 Robert A. Boisselle: with the seven feet of snow I noticed quite a few cars in the back of that parking lot for three or four days for a long time and they had the DPW had difficulty trying to plow that area yeah yeah that's always been done though just

▶ 55:04 Denise Gaffey: so you know I mean that's an existing that's existing legend and and I and I I kind of would argue that it's been a very effective tool to allow for the redevelopment of especially some of our downtown area and in our station area.

▶ 55:19 Robert A. Boisselle: Yeah, but your owners of stores and so forth are really screaming that there's not enough parking in downtown area. And especially in these concentrated areas that you're talking about, the station areas, that's even higher concentration than actually Main Street itself.

▶ 55:34 Denise Gaffey: Well, I guess we think they would also benefit from the additional patronage.

▶ 55:37 Robert A. Boisselle: Well, let's put it this way. In the Highlands MBTA station, the lot behind number four off Franklin Street, is that a public lot or is that private?

▶ 55:48 Denise Gaffey: That's a public lot. The one behind Mothers?

▶ 55:51 Robert A. Boisselle: Yes. That's a public lot. That is public, and that's packed every day.

▶ 55:56 Speaker 4: Utilization of municipal lots to meet parking requirements, I believe, was first enacted in Melrose in the 1970s.

▶ 56:05 Speaker 8: Yeah, it's a longstanding provision.

▶ 56:11 Robert A. Boisselle: But I think we're just giving, we're giving these parking places away. I mean, we are getting some sums for it, or some money. But the owners of the stores in Melrose are, they need that parking space to get people to come in.

▶ 56:23 Speaker 1: All right, thank you. Thank you.

▶ 56:26 Speaker 4: Ms. Gaffey, while you're on this subject, I'm quite interested in your shared parking provision. Could you explain that a little bit to us, please?

▶ 56:35 Denise Gaffey: so so we thought and we have and I think the planning board partly born from some recent experience the planning board has been presented with with proposals to share parking with a use that might be compatible so I think I think Highlands is a good example you know we think there's opportunities there for some for restaurant uses maybe for you know dining in the evening when the commuter rail station parking lots are empty and it seems to us that if you had a real onerous parking requirement for the restaurant that couldn't be met you know but with a parking lot or on means or on Franklin Street that it would be perfectly legitimate to use the station parking that's not being otherwise used to meet that requirement so we think that that's pretty much what that language would allow for examples like that and I think we're we're establishing a pretty rigorous test here that the planning board would have to go through they'd have to be convinced that you know these um these spaces are you know are available or if there was a certain kind of arrangement that was going on and you know between two private entities that

▶ 57:48 Speaker 8: we you know we were privy to that arrangement and that it seemed like it it was legitimate and it

▶ 57:52 Denise Gaffey: was not long-standing and things like that um so we that's pretty much what that what that provision

▶ 58:02 Speaker 4: outlines okay i have alderman medeiros then alderman wright

▶ 58:09 Monica C. Medeiros: thank you um i guess further on parking i wanted to to clarify so right now the the commuter else lot at the Melrose Highlands that's owned by the city of Melrose so that is currently a municipal lot technically and there's are those spaces not counted as available spaces for the businesses that currently exist there as available

▶ 58:38 Denise Gaffey: public spaces not unless they get this special permit I mean if they if you came in as a new business today before this zoning change if you came in as a business and you had a certain parking threshold you had to meet say 20 spaces and you didn't have a parking lot but you were close to that lot you could make that special permit application to the

▶ 58:57 Monica C. Medeiros: board of appeals and ask for that permit and do we do that currently in the ba1 district in downtown

▶ 59:05 Denise Gaffey: so we do do that yeah actually there's no distinction for that piece right there in the ordinance again that the one that um alderman Boisselle pointed out there is no distinction between

▶ 59:16 Monica C. Medeiros: zoning districts at all okay and and I know that we do use the the commuter allots and I think in particular probably the one over in Wyoming a lot for overnight it it would be helpful to to have for our information maybe how many permits we were actually granting from the parking department so we know can kind of get an idea of what's actually currently being used of available permits and how many are currently being used I you know I do certainly share some of the concerns that all the employees all brought up and I know you know especially if had events at different places in the downtown that sometimes you know people just give up because they can't find a place to park and told me personally they've you know run out of spots and

▶ 1:00:11 Monica C. Medeiros: just didn't come so you know one of my other questions is you said that you're looking at amending the not just this new this new proposed ba2 parking but

▶ 1:00:24 Monica C. Medeiros: but amending ba1 also is that did I hear that correctly for the parking so yeah

▶ 1:00:29 Denise Gaffey: the parking because this parking code be that we would we would amend from the

▶ 1:00:36 Denise Gaffey: two dwelling units, two spaces per dwelling unit to one space per dwelling unit, we would apply to both the BA-2 and the BA-1.

▶ 1:00:43 Monica C. Medeiros: And the BA-1. So basically, the existing downtown would go into this new category of one space. And so, and I'm sort of in the last, the second to last slide, slide 12 of your presentation, You say amend section 235-25 to specify that all existing and new residential usage in non-residential districts shall be subject to the density and dimension controls of the URC district.

▶ 1:01:17 Denise Gaffey: So I kind of skirted over that one, sorry. And this is kind of a housekeeping item because this is written in, this is, the way it's written in the ordinance right now and it's really brief so I'll read it it says that existing residential uses in all non-residential districts shall be subject to the regulations for the particular type of dwelling in the URC district so it's saying apply the dimensional criteria from the URC to across the board for new residential I'm sorry existing residential uses in non-residential districts and then it will goes on to say any new residential uses in non-residential districts shall be subject to the dimensional and density regulations of the nearest residential district as determined by the building Commissioner and so the building Commissioner actually asked us to take to strike that provision and just to make it consistent across the board that these residential uses in non-residential districts he would apply the URC it's essentially what he's doing now and what's what's worked really effectively and having that extra clause in there just creates confusion and I

▶ 1:02:25 Speaker 8: I think it came across some problem with the, there's a law in Chapter 40A, what's the conformity

▶ 1:02:31 Speaker 8: clause? I'm saying it wrong.

▶ 1:02:33 Denise Gaffey: Yeah. Some things don't matter. Yeah. That it also ran afoul. We had an attorney raise an issue with that particular clause related to a project that it ran afoul with some statute under the state zoning law and I'm not remembering exactly what it is. he thought it would be very clear and it was his recommendation that we thank you

▶ 1:02:57 Monica C. Medeiros: for that explanation and just sort of to clarify again for the uses that are currently existing like those medical buildings that are in the highlands that are on the first floor I know there is an auto repair so there's a lot of sales

▶ 1:03:13 Denise Gaffey: there is an auto repair in the highlands as well jrm I think it is yeah like that yes um so those are pre-existing and they would not become you know they would not have an issue

▶ 1:03:26 Monica C. Medeiros: so when would that become an issue if they if the owner changed hands or if the use changed

▶ 1:03:30 Denise Gaffey: i think if if the use changed to something else and they tried to bring it back to that use they they couldn't do that or a new use in a separate parcel in the district couldn't would not be allowed but correct me if i'm wrong but i think i think the use would go with a new owner that would

▶ 1:03:47 Monica C. Medeiros: would not be the use so so anybody who has an existing business is not gonna you know I shouldn't change their resale value or anything like that they can

▶ 1:03:57 Speaker 8: continue to operate we're very careful not to do that okay and then I guess

▶ 1:04:08 Monica C. Medeiros: maybe my last question on this would have to do with with alcohol as a use so in some of these cases restaurants were either not permitted or by special

▶ 1:04:24 Monica C. Medeiros: permit and retail sales so in adding these new usage does that open these areas up to alcohol sales in restaurants and in retail stores if you are yes it

▶ 1:04:43 Denise Gaffey: does yeah but you know we have that we have the limitation on the retail stores to three permits which I think are all in use now but I don't I think possibly any one of these areas would be appropriate for that use it's just there aren't any opportunities for that but and then certainly restaurants that had sales you know alcohol sales and then still have to go through the

▶ 1:05:01 Speaker 9: licensing commission and the state laws and the city of course and and

▶ 1:05:10 Monica C. Medeiros: which areas is this really does that really affect in the the Highlands or there are all three of them all three of them it's all three because we're now

▶ 1:05:24 Denise Gaffey: proposing to apply the same designation this be a to designation in all three

▶ 1:05:32 Monica C. Medeiros: communal rail stations and I just on a personal note I want to mention I I happen to attend at the Mass Municipal Association conference a couple weeks ago, a great seminar, and it was talking about what private investors are looking for when they're choosing their sites, and it was a great presentation, and they had actual people from the actual private sector get up and talk about what they're looking for, and as I sat through it, I really noted and felt that so many of the things that were mentioned are things that we're doing in Melrose, doing a lot of the proactive work to set up the zoning and that when people are making a choice about where to develop they're choosing a place that it's it's simple and it's welcoming and they know that they've got you know that the rules are clear and they can get in and get up and running quickly so i know you guys have put a lot of hard

▶ 1:06:28 Francis X. Wright Jr.: work into that and appreciate it thanks on the right thank you mr president um first i want to say um thank you for this presentation thank you for all the hard work i mean it's a great presentation I think it has a lot of potential to bring vibrancy to the business districts to a witcher in Ward three Cedar Park in Wyoming so I look forward to to it being enacted and the potential it all brings along the lines

▶ 1:06:59 Francis X. Wright Jr.: of all the men boys L and all the men Madeira's questioning with regards to parking I guess it's my understanding of transit oriented development which is to get away from vehicular travel and traffic and all that and if you're reducing the number of parking spaces to one but you're allowing those vehicles

▶ 1:07:34 Francis X. Wright Jr.: to be parked off-site, then what you've allowed for is for the developer to build a more dense building, perhaps more units, but there still will be that number of cars, which potentially will be on the road, used to commute, and I thought the whole idea of building these types of developments so close to transit is to accommodate people who will be using public transportation either those train stations or getting up to main street and getting on the bus and going down to grove so i i'm not against it i understand there are going to be situations where people will want to have a car but they still will take the train and i'm sure you've considered this um but i will i guess i'll just speak my opinion which is i hope that when this comes before um planning for approval for to park off-site that you will consider not necessarily

▶ 1:08:42 Francis X. Wright Jr.: allowing an additional vehicle per unit but maybe something less so that when a developer comes and he wants to propose say 30 units and he's going to have 15 parking spaces well maybe you will allow for seven off-site vehicles something along that line because we do want to preserve the parking you know I know people don't necessarily leave their vehicles they're all during the day and take up you know retail spaces but on the other hand I think it takes away from the goal of transit oriented development perhaps if somebody's living in Cedar Park but jumping in their car

▶ 1:09:21 Denise Gaffey: and driving the route 128 right right so no i think that's a valid point um definitely something

▶ 1:09:26 Denise Gaffey: i think the the planning board would be sensitive to um i can just say that there have been a couple

▶ 1:09:35 Speaker 10: of examples where um where either you know the projects would not have gotten off the ground

▶ 1:09:39 Denise Gaffey: if they didn't have a creative arrangement for parking i think of 99 essex street for example they they actually needed to get into a lease arrangement with deering lumber for a corner parcel to build a separate parking just so they could have adequate parking for their project so you know there are there aren't just they become instances where you know you need to be a little

▶ 1:10:04 Francis X. Wright Jr.: creative but i think it's important yeah no i understand that and uh for you mr president um

▶ 1:10:11 Francis X. Wright Jr.: to some extent we're part of a grand experience experiment here of transit oriented development and i i would like to try to stay as faithful to that as we can while remaining creative so and i think we're on the same page which is allowing for that creativity with an eye towards being faithful to the idea of transit oriented development um just one more point if i may with regards to restaurants in these districts i think it's a great idea i think it's got a lot of potential i've got some ideas when i know the mayor has some thoughts and i know when he comes before us i've talked to him a little bit about it and i have my own ideas but nothing dramatic but i think that if we can open up these areas to restaurants i think that having some level of alcohol table service has the potential to enhance these districts and bring them to life and yet we we can preserve the quality of them as residential neighborhoods at the same time so i'm excited about that and i'm excited about this aspect of what you bring to

▶ 1:11:15 Speaker 4: us tonight thank you mr president right anyone else alvin mcateer margolis thank you um thank

▶ 1:11:20 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: you for your work and and all your board members as well um uh i think it was great to kind of um section out the station areas separate from the rest of the rail corridor overlay because it does give us an opportunity to talk about things like restaurants and and other businesses as well. I am also concerned on the parking and would second Alderman Wright proposed sort of idea that you would not automatically allow for one and one offsite. I think the more that we do that, the more we're going to impact those municipal lots, which Like the one at the Highlands is pretty much taken up with commuter parking most of the day. So in essence, it's difficult for those business people to have their customers use that lot. I think the same is true more or less with Cedar Park. I know like if we go down at the farmer's market in the spring and summertime, it's really jumping down there and it's always been an issue for many of the businesses down there that even just the coming and going of the traffic. And certainly this winter is a perfect example of well-intentioned owners who put their cars in and can't get them out by six o'clock in the morning because there's a foot of snow on top of them. So I really would urge you to talk to the parking department, talk with the police department about enforcement and, you know, where we think we can or want to go with enforcement in these types of situations, as well as, I think you still have a, do you still have a parking committee that's kind of reviewing? We do, yes, yeah. Yeah, so I mean, I would just be interested in hearing any of their thoughts about this as well, particularly as it relates to the permits, because what I have heard is that there is some discussion about whether those permits are valid or will they be phased out or how will they be handled. And as attractive as we want this community to be to developers, I do think what we really need to also focus on is selling, and it's probably not a really good sale right now when we say public transportation, but the access generally to public transportation is a key to this whole, to your whole rezoning of this, really, and to kind of sneak in the back door and say, yeah, we want you to, but we're still going to let you have two cars, even though we're only going to make you provide for one. And I know that's not your intent, and I know it does have to be looked at on each development one at a time, because there will, of course, be different. Have you made, like, is there, I haven't studied all the language, but I know when we did the corridor overlay we had provisions for more like bike friendly areas and you know bike stations or that type of thing are there any provisions in in this zoning for those kinds of things nearby like a like a hub hub stub thing or whatever where you can rent the bikes or that kind of

▶ 1:14:58 Denise Gaffey: thing yeah I know we talked about that and it was a little bit hard to figure out how to incorporate that into this these districts so we don't have we don't have those provisions right now it was a little bit easier when we were

▶ 1:15:13 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: talking about overlay projects I mean like we put those two charging stations in the back for electric cars you know maybe you take two parking spots and make a bike thing out of it or you know a bike rental or something but it is

▶ 1:15:29 Denise Gaffey: true and just to your point about the shared parking provision is into clarifying part of that if you read that whole passage it is it does envision that there may be you know when I say we need to be creative like a developer may say well listen we don't actually think we need the one space per we may need less than that and these are the reasons we're gonna build a parking cage or we're gonna build a hub station and that might be very compelling and that'd be hugely consistent with our goals of transit oriented development and that's with that paragraph okay and I think the other really important point is just to remember that it's part of a site plan review process and everything is evaluated on a case-by-case basis and we think there are circumstances where there are probably lots of private developers I mean private property owners who have space like maybe a bank for example picture the co-op bank downtown that parking lot is pretty much empty half the day right I mean when they're not you know so so put a restaurant for example use that space at night or even overnight parking you can see how that might be an effective way to use existing parking that's underutilized and instead of building more parking we really don't want to build more parking parking is unsightly parking ads you know to the kind of things we're trying to move away from more vehicular traffic and smog and stuff so if we think they're again this provision allows for that kind of creativity but it would be evaluated on the case-by-case basis it's part of a site plan review process and as you know the planning board is very thorough and we talk about traffic it reports from traffic engineers who substantiate you know if they want to make a claim that

▶ 1:17:11 Denise Gaffey: they're occupants their patrons or their residents aren't going to be using cars for whatever reason they need to back it up and it needs to be something that we can peer review and feel comfortable with well I mean I think like it's

▶ 1:17:20 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: certainly like down by windsor oak grove village where they you know built that whole lovely access area so people can walk over to the t you know maybe there are those kinds of opportunities that that as a planning board you'll be presented with too right and i mean that's a perfect example

▶ 1:17:36 Denise Gaffey: because back when we were viewing that project and granted it was a lot many years ago and we were kind of right on the cutting edge of this transit oriented and didn't really didn't even know it at the time um you know they their proposal they were originally proposing a garage in order to accommodate our parking requirement of two spaces per unit they needed to build a garage and it was going to completely transform the look and feel of that project and nobody wanted that and we much prefer this idea of of you know encouraging less parking or figuring out a way to you know require less parking through transportation demand management through other other you know through through walking paths to the t or through handing out uh providing um t-passes or like the combinations and that kind of stuff right well thank you i i would like to see

▶ 1:18:23 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: um you know some ideas coming about the biking bike thing you know whether there's an opportunity for any particular designated area or anything like that i do have one more question mr chairman on your amendment for the um number of units per acre the density um how big is that site that we're talking about i mean how many units would this affect is that like a three or four acre site

▶ 1:18:56 Denise Gaffey: or um so you know well if we're talking about the the assisted living development that we that we that's kind of in the um you know getting ready to um become a proposal in front of the planning board it's the daring lumber site and it's about 1.75 acres okay and we believe that project to

▶ 1:19:17 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: ultimately be about 90 units about 90 units so that um the this change would allow it to go to 90 as opposed to keeping it at maybe like 60 or something yeah something less than that 75 or

▶ 1:19:27 Speaker 4: it would also apply to any other development of that nature of course in this in these zones

▶ 1:19:34 Denise Gaffey: The assisted living use in the real quarter area, so we're not doing it just for that site, but we did, upon reflection, realize that was going to be a limitation that we didn't intend.

▶ 1:19:44 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: But it's just for assisted living designated properties? Correct.

▶ 1:19:49 Denise Gaffey: Thank you. And you can see that in the marked up version of, you know, it was kind of a lot of paper that I had to produce for like a very small one number change, but it kind illustrates that's that's all it is that's all right that's that's how i read it but i wanted

▶ 1:20:10 Speaker 4: to be sure so thank you thank you anyone else i have a couple of thoughts to share um with you um and i know you folks have done a lot more study on this than i have but um i really can't for the life of me see that a law office would be more accommodating than a medical use um and i would like to see that carve out eliminated and the other thing i'm concerned about is that these districts are a lot different than the smart growth district smart growth district was much larger they were large parcels and there were places where you could kind of put and hide parking i'm not not not in favor of this proposal but my concern is is if we're increasing the density and not requiring much parking and funneling everything out into shared use parking i mean or you know credit for municipal i get a little bit concerned because i think that these areas around the rail corridor are tighter and they're less easy to work with and like i say you folks have done more work on this than i have but it's of concern to me okay anyone else okay

▶ 1:21:30 Speaker 4: Okay, Chair Wood, Alderman Mortimer.

▶ 1:21:33 Peter D. Mortimer: Just a quick, the wish list, I want to commend you and your whole office for writing some unbelievable grants over the last couple of decades, getting us some grants. If there's any way ever, it's always been a pipe dream of mine, I don't think it could be any more than two stories. But in the area behind the fire station, if we could ever get a two story parking garage, I know it's soft soil under there, it used to be a pond, probably some 60 or 70 years ago. But if we could ever get a two story garage back there, I think it would really help with a lot of problems. If that ever comes up across your radar in the grant writing world, I think it would make a lot of these problems and issues go away.

▶ 1:22:18 Speaker 4: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you. Chair would entertain a motion for brief recess.

▶ 1:22:22 Speaker 11: Motion for two minute recess.

▶ 1:22:23 Speaker 4: mctier margolis moves for a recess the motion is seconded by alden mortimer on the motion all those in favor aye anyone opposed motion passes board is in a short recess kept landing in front of me

▶ 1:23:02 Speaker 5: all right well thanks for stopping by

▶ 1:23:15 Speaker 4: right thank you see ya thank you yeah we're just gonna table this I believe

▶ 1:23:59 Speaker 4: having lots of people bye-bye bye-bye okay we're back back from recess I think we need a motion to table order 215-90 second Alderman McAteer-Margolis moves the table order 215-90 motion is seconded by Alderman Mortimer on the motion all those in favor anyone opposed motion passes that order will be retained on the table if we could proceed to new