ORDER-2014-146 : Amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance to create a Rail Corridor Overlay District and other related zoning amendments as set forth herein.

Transcript (~34 min @ 36:49)

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

▶ 36:49 Speaker 5: you tabled order 2014-146 amending Melrose revised zoning ordinance to create a rail corridor overlay district and other related zoning amendments as

▶ 37:00 Peter D. Mortimer: set forth herein motion to remove this order from the table madam president

▶ 37:03 Gail Infurna: pro tem and Mortimer makes a motion to remove this from the table there a second second second by alderman McAteer Margolis alderman Mortimer all those in favor of removing that from the table all those opposed that order is

▶ 37:18 Peter D. Mortimer: now before us i make a motion to suspend the rules that we may hear from the city planner and other

▶ 37:23 Gail Infurna: members of the planning board second alderman mortimer makes a motion to suspend the rules that was seconded by alderman Boisselle all those in favor suspension of the rules say aye aye all those opposed the rules are suspended and we shall hear from our city planner good evening denise

▶ 37:37 Denise Gaffey: good evening my name is denise gaffey i'm the director of planning and community development and with me to my right is andrews award and is the chairperson of the zoning subcommittee of the melrose planning board and on my left is manisha bhutra who is a consultant with the metropolitan area planning council the mapc as they have also known has been assisting us with the planning process leading up to the zoning initiative and i'll point out too that manisha happens to be a melrose resident so she is uniquely qualified to offer us guidance on this initiative so we're very pleased to be with you again tonight we have had two public hearings um on the proposed zoning amendment at this date and the planning board met last week to discuss some of the issues that were raised at the most recent public hearing on june 26th there were there were three primary issues that were raised at that hearing and so what the board did was discuss discuss them thoroughly and their in their session last week and then they developed a report that is dated july 18th and that has been sent to the alderman in advance of tonight's meeting so we hope you've had a chance to take a look at the report prior to tonight's meeting and i can kind of quickly summarize the the three primary issues that were raised in the report the first one had to do with the retail food establishment use and there were some comments that were raised at the last public hearing with the board of parliament about concern about the

▶ 39:07 Denise Gaffey: about the retail food establishment use. That use is the use that allows for beer and wine sales in conjunction with food sales at retail food establishments. And there was concern particularly about a use that allows for liquor sales in close proximity to the schools. The Melrose High School and Middle School campus in particular along the rail corridor. this issue was discussed amongst the planning board members and and I think

▶ 39:42 Denise Gaffey: essentially the board while not terribly concerned about the use along the corridor thinking that there were regulations that did prohibit uses within a certain proximity of schools at least that was the belief they also thought the use is better suited for our neighborhood commercial districts like the cedar park and the highlands and the wyoming business district and also of course the downtown and so they didn't see any harm in removing this as a permit permitted use from the real corridor overlay area so the recommendation in the report that's in front of you tonight is to take that use out of the from the real corridor it's still being proposed in the smart growth district area we think it would be appropriate there potentially we also point out that it is there we're not proposing any changes nor do we have the authority to over the the fact that there's only three of these licenses that are allowed in the city and there's currently three in use so we know there aren't any available today or any and there's there's no no one is contemplating changing that but um this we are attempting to think in the future with this zoning change so um so So for the purpose of the real corridor overlay, we do take that use out as was recommended by some of the members of the Board of Aldermen at the last meeting. So in the revised real corridor overlay zoning, which was also submitted to the Alderman, that use has been taken out. So that was the first issue that generated a lot of discussion. The second issue, I'm just going in order as of the report, was the parking issue. was raised by a couple of the members of the alderman that there was some concern about the minimum standard that was being proposed in the real corridor area of one space per unit and that is it is a departure from our existing zoning which is two spaces per unit it's an issue that the Planning Board and there's only subcommittee gave an awful lot of thought and consideration to the process leading up to presenting the proposal to the alderman and obviously there's the recognition that this is a transit oriented area that it is the area is in close proximity to to the commuter rail to two stops on the commuter rail and to bus service and we are trying to create we're trying to create an area that that allows for multimodal uses not just vehicle uses and we think we also see from our experience the planning board sees a lot of development proposals and they see that the as I mentioned earlier tonight that the it really is sort of the sort of the more status quo these days the need for less cars there's a lot to be said for trying to create opportunities for less cars associated with these types of developments and the the traffic congestion issues and the drainage concerns that come with to excess parking is something that we're really sensitive to so the planning board ultimately recommends keeping the one space per unit as proposed I wouldn't mind speaking to this myself

▶ 43:00 Speaker 7: because not only did we have months of meetings and talked about this but we also had a really lively discussion last week thinking about revising it one more time and i think it's particularly hard for me because i am 50 something and i think everybody drives cars but everything that we're hearing everything we're reading all the experts i mean we do have you know a professional city planner as well as people from the state who are helping us who are consultants are saying the trend is for young people they don't own cars they ride bikes they don't want it they use a zip car they use uber they don't want the expense of a car and And especially if you live in a place where you don't need a car, and the trend is becoming, there are these real small percentages of people who own cars, and Melrose is trying to get ahead of that trend and not end up buildings of white elephants that have seas of asphalt that aren't used anymore. And I really have been persuaded by this, even though it's not the way I would live my life, but also I was really persuaded by the self-regulating nature of this kind of zoning, Because if you build, you know, dwelling units that only have one space, if someone looks at it and has two cars, they're going to say, I'm not going to live there. The people who are going to live there are going to be people who can, you know, use it the way they want to. So they're going to be the people who ride bikes or who take the T. So I think the self-regulating part will help. And I do think we heard a lot of neighborly concerns about traffic in the area. And the more, if we make it, you know, we're going for kind of dense housing here, you know, a lot of it close on the street. And if we have a lot of parking, we're going to end up with a lot more traffic that is just going to make those streets more congested. So building the kind of housing that doesn't have a lot of parking is probably going to help traffic. It's going to help the flooding problems we have in Melrose. so for all those reasons I've been persuaded and I wanted to particularly speak to that because I'm not an expert and I am someone who thinks of cars as a necessity but I am persuaded that this is a these are good standards and they're only minimums and if there's a project that comes in where the developer is convinced he needs more parking or the planning board is convinced this is the kind of circumstance we would like a little more we can ask for more they can ask for more this is just minimum this isn't maximum there's no maximum so I wanted to point that out but I do feel strongly this is a good standard and that's ultimately what the whole board decided and that's why it's we in our recommendation we're recommending to stay with the standard even though it sounds low compared to

▶ 45:39 Denise Gaffey: what we're used to thank you very much and then and then finally the the third major issue that was raised was a concern about the height and about the allowance of a fifth story and in it is true that the way the zoning is structured the way is proposed the maximum permitted height for buildings in the real quarter is four stories and fifty feet however there is an exception that allows for up to five stories and 62 feet in height under certain in in the board the board the allowance for that by the board was based on unusual unusual site constraints and site conditions that are found along the corridor we spent a lot of time looking at the individual parcels along the corridor and understood that certain parcels might necessitate that additional height in order to be provide for a feasible project so so the intent was to allow for the fifth story under those unique circumstances and then to soften the impact of that and the visual impact that fifth story would require to be stepped back on three sides and there's also a requirement for an additional public amenities associated with the fifth story so it is the planning board's desire to to see four-story buildings predominantly along the corridor with fifth five-story buildings being the you know more of the exception when deemed necessary and we thought it might be worth since that was really the the underlying basis of the recommendation in the zoning that it would be worth pointing that out maybe more clearly in the language of the zoning so we recommended adding a clause to the statement where it says that buildings may be permitted up to five stories and 62 feet in height we add the language as follows at the planning board's discretion when appropriate given site constraints and or unusual site characteristics and then it goes on to say and provided that all portions of the building above 50 feet are set back at least 20 feet from all property boundaries and shall be stepped back a minimum of 10 feet from each facade of the floor below except for the facades which face the commuter rail right away where no upper level story step back is required so we think that added clause will help to just clarify the planning board's intent and maybe maybe provide for a little more comfort level on the planning on the board of aldermen's part when considering this zoning zoning proposal so we recommend approving the language with that amendment inserted into the language and so essentially there are two two primary changes that we're recommending removing the retail food establishment as a permitted use and then inserting that additional clarification language in the provision regarding the building and structure height and other than that we don't make any other recommendations but any other changes but recommend that the board of aldermen approve the real quarter overlay zoning and the other ancillary zoning amendments that were initially coupled with this as presented and as modified in the the attachment that was sent along and dated

▶ 48:59 Peter D. Mortimer: july 18th motion to amend the order to incorporate the changes delineated by our city planner ms gaffey we don't have our server online tonight so i can't give chapter and verse for the specific parts as we sometimes do but i think um our clerks our city clerk and our clerk section

▶ 49:22 Peter D. Mortimer: section 235-71.2e right that's the overall statute but the actual changes because our service down but I think our clerk of committees and our city clerk have the gist of it because we received it on email today I'm sure we all read it to coming here so I'll incorporate those changes described by mrs. Gaffey well we have

▶ 49:42 Robert A. Boisselle: discussions before we do the amendments we'll do the amendment and then if it

▶ 49:46 Peter D. Mortimer: passes then we have discussion on the amendment and then you don't have you

▶ 49:50 Robert A. Boisselle: don't want a discussion before you amend it no I made a motion that's it's an

▶ 49:57 Gail Infurna: water i make a motion yeah alderman mortimer has a floor and he made an amendment but so there's an amendment on the floor to add the dimensional and density regulations as ms gaffey stated and was the second by alderman Medeiros any further discussion on the amendment yes on the amendment

▶ 50:21 Robert A. Boisselle: in your discussion that you're having you mentioned a new phrase that popped up concerning the serving of alcohol beer and wine and so forth in section on page 3 section d subsection 1 f restaurants coffee shops similar establish establishments selling prepared food to be consumed on or off site is this comment concerning the beer wine and alcohol someplace else because the way the state's here you're only serving food in this

▶ 50:57 Denise Gaffey: corridor in restaurants correct so it's been removed as a use under the version you're looking at now which was amended but private previously the subparagraph C was there was an additional subparagraph in subparagraph C allowed for the retail food establishment use so we've taken that out that's out taking

▶ 51:21 Robert A. Boisselle: we've we've taken you know are we saying that the restaurant only restaurants serving food no alcohol or of any kind we're going to be used because the way it states here in the revised one restaurants coffee shops and similar establishments selling prepared food to be consumed on or off I guess I would

▶ 51:39 Denise Gaffey: point out to you that retail food establishment as a use is a distinct use in our zoning code it's been defined as a distinct use and use in the zoning

▶ 51:54 Robert A. Boisselle: so that's that definition is on section B there's no definition of that or it's just you refer to the it's in the existing zoning code there's a

▶ 52:01 Denise Gaffey: definition for retail food establishment so it's in the planning boards in the

▶ 52:10 Denise Gaffey: existing zoning code and the zoning code so that use is allowed in all in all the business districts today retail food establishment that's 3,000 no more than 3,000 square feet that allows for the sale of air and wine I'm not getting the

▶ 52:25 Speaker 7: language completely correctly but off-premises liquor license yes that's

▶ 52:27 Denise Gaffey: the direct language from the ordinance so that that comes from the zoning that comes from today's zoning ordinance this was something that the alderman voted on

▶ 52:37 Robert A. Boisselle: back in 2000 okay I'm just wondering because the way it stays here it just seems straight food is being served in these establishments the way it states

▶ 52:45 Manisha Bewtra: correct I think the confusion might because I'm looking at an older version

▶ 52:52 Robert A. Boisselle: what is I'm looking at the latest version that's online that someone would pick up not the latest for not the past version this is the one you're preparing so it doesn't mention liquor any licenses anywhere correct in the

▶ 53:09 Denise Gaffey: document right but that wouldn't preclude a restaurant that is allowed to

▶ 53:16 Robert A. Boisselle: sell liquor okay I just want to clear and I want to hear the lawyers down the line okay competing with this so forth problem and was L could I just ask do

▶ 53:21 Gail Infurna: you have dated July 18th sure do okay and I guess do you have anything on the

▶ 53:33 Gail Infurna: amendment because that wasn't on the amendment we were talking about the

▶ 53:38 Robert A. Boisselle: amendment according to this revise this is the amendments the amendment was

▶ 53:41 Gail Infurna: before us was had to do with the height the dimensional all three oh well three

▶ 53:48 Denise Gaffey: of them I'm sorry together and removing that retail food establishment right so

▶ 53:53 Robert A. Boisselle: okay and of course the off street parking which really is interesting for one space for dwelling which change which I think will be a problem down the line that's my opinion because I go by the old Grove village every Monday through Friday 7 o'clock in the morning and every parking spot is taken at this point I'm not sure about the underground parking that they claim they have but they may be charging an arm and a leg to park down there and that's why everyone's up on the ground level and but every spot is taken and on the weekends the parking lots in the Malden area it's jammed also even with the zip cards the zip cards are gone those are only two parking spaces they're left when the zip cards have gone for the weekend this I think will be a problem in that

▶ 54:42 Robert A. Boisselle: particular area because if you have high density people coming in and the question is well that's the the way people are going now well basically the young can't afford a car they're paying college loans and they can't afford to take out a loan to buy a home or condo and so forth because there's so much in death they're taking their bicycles and they're looking specifically for transportation for that but as soon as their loans are paid off there's gonna be cars everywhere and we got to find a place for them but if that's that's the

▶ 55:18 Robert A. Boisselle: way it should be and that's the way it's voted and that's the way the voters know that we want to do it but I have a problem with that particular area for

▶ 55:30 Gail Infurna: parking in the future thank you very much next we have alderman right just if

▶ 55:38 Francis X. Wright Jr.: i may um madam president um can we have a five minute recess so that the clerk can make a copy of um bob alderman Boisselle uh paper copy since he seems to have the advantage over all of us here

▶ 55:52 Gail Infurna: second the motion for recess alderman wright makes a motion for a five minute recess seconded by alderman mortimer on discussion seeing none all those in favor of five minute recess say aye aye all those opposed we are in a five-minute recess thank you I really

▶ 56:24 Gail Infurna: have the other one I have that one yep thank you for your patience to that through that we had a little technical difficulty tonight so we're dealing with paperwork and we all needed copies of something that usually we find in our

▶ 56:41 Gail Infurna: tablets thank you for making those copies I think we left it with Alderman

▶ 56:46 Peter D. Mortimer: Wright did you want the floor point of information miss Gaffey seems to be

▶ 56:48 Denise Gaffey: I just wanted to point one thing out so you now have in front of you the proposed rail corridor overlay district zoning regulations revised dated July 18 2014 and they're really there are only two changes I just want to make it clear there's just two changes one is on page three and I removed the sub paragraph see that previously allowed for the retail food establishments and then renumbered the remaining uses C to H so if I had done that in a track change mode you would see that it struck out but I actually removed it and just renumbered so that was change number one and then change number two is on page five and that is paragraph seven subparagraph a a subparagraph one where we inserted that clause on the first line which states that buildings may appear permitted up to five stories and 62 feet height at the planning board's discretion when appropriate given site constraints or unusual site characteristics so those were the only two changes from what you had in front of you for the last two months so I just want to point out just two changes thank

▶ 58:04 Gail Infurna: you very much Alderman Wright I believe you were next on the list thank you

▶ 58:13 Francis X. Wright Jr.: madam president I want to say that I'm going to support this I understand the concerns that have been expressed both by the public and thus far anyway by Alderman Boyzell I've had an opportunity to review this documentation I had a conversation today with Denise and I think what we need to keep in mind is that this is in fact transit oriented development which as Ann pointed out is something that our generation isn't necessarily used to but that in my experience is that young people do indeed look for other means of transportation look for they'll walk they'll bike they'll take public transportation and that in a lot of ways these units will be self restricting as Ann pointed out and that people will live there with the understanding that they'll only be able to have one vehicle and so if you know we have two people living in a unit two adults and one needs to get to route 128 they'll take the car and if the other person is working in Cambridge or Boston or some then they will take the train and you know if at some point they decide that they want to you know work in on route 495 or Wuburn or someplace like that then they will have to move they will not be able to to continue to live in those units in a lot of ways it's it's analogous to affordable housing units which cannot be sold at market rate but can only be sold at a rate that's reflective of the affordable nature of the unit you understand going in that there are restrictions the idea behind this is to take advantage of the proximity of the public transportation and you know Boston Cambridge etc so I'm going to support this one thing I would like to see the city do is make allowances for spaces in the area for zip car or other similar programs so that if people do want to have access to those types of communal vehicles that they'll be right there for them but that's something I guess what that needs to be addressed as the area becomes developed you know indicated to Denise that there are some changes that perhaps I would suggest making based on my experience but I think all in all this is a great piece of work and I'll support it and I hope the rest of the board will as well thank you thank you

▶ 1:01:14 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: very much Alderman Wright Alderman Lummerman my my question actually deals with the zip car which Alderman Wright just mentioned when when my husband and I first moved to Melrose we were a single car household for a long time and that was one of the things that attracted us to the city was that we one of us was taking the tea and the other one could drive but there were a few occasions where we didn't need another car and thought it would be really great to have a zip car available that was within walking distance where we're living but besides that I was wondering it sounds like maybe it's something that needs to be done through a potential developer but that was my question does this allow for any spaces that could be specifically allocated for a zip car or

▶ 1:01:54 Denise Gaffey: some sort of rideshare program well I will point out that that is a consideration that is always discussed under the site plan approval process we do require as part of the site plan approval that that transit a transit study you know first for developments that meet a certain threshold that are large enough that you you study the transit in the traffic impact and that you that the Planning Board has also for some of those larger developments required traffic demand management techniques I think that's the term and for example the reason there are two two zip car spaces that Oak Grove village is because it was required by the Planning Board as part of that approval ten years ago and so that is the kind of consideration that that is done under site plan review for especially for some of the larger projects we would require

▶ 1:02:45 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: zip car okay and um so so that would come a little later mm-hmm great thank

▶ 1:02:49 Gail Infurna: you thank you well said is there any further discussion Alderman Medeiros

▶ 1:02:53 Monica C. Medeiros: thank you again I just I want to thank the Planning Board for your deliberative work on this I know it's been over a long time and for taking our concerns from the last meeting you know back to your committee and and I know you've discussed this parking issue at length but we're looking at it again after our meeting I do appreciate that I thought it was very helpful last last time to hear and again to hear now from mr. Zeus award about you know your experiences on this and how you've come around to it and I I do still have some hesitations about the one space per unit but it is something you know that I am not willing to hold up this whole thing over by any means and hopefully people will sort of self-select themselves here and I think one one group and we've talked a little bit about you know younger people but I think perhaps this might attract some older people who have downsized and gone to just one car or maybe no car depending on what's happening in their life and I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the site plan review process just so you know maybe to alleviate some concerns at home about what happens if a developer actually comes in and wants to do this what what what are the steps that that's sure so

▶ 1:04:18 Denise Gaffey: I'm a developer who wants to do a project in the real corridor just like in the smart growth district will be required to seek site plan approval from the Planning Board so that is it's a it's a process that involves filling out an application and submitting sort of lengthy studies about the impacts that are that are being proposed or the modifications that are needed to infrastructure for example how the water sewage and wastewater are going to be treated and studies for you know studies of traffic impact and all those kind of things all of those types of reports are part of the application materials that are submitted to the planning board for review and they're part of the public hearing process. All these site plan cases are public hearings. So everyone, the direct debaters within 300 feet get notification just like any other public hearing for a special permit or for a variance. And so all of those types of impacts are reviewed and discussed and then mitigated through that process. So that would be the opportunity to better understand exactly what the developer was thinking in terms of their market analysis and their study for the parking spaces, for example, that they're proposing.

▶ 1:05:37 Monica C. Medeiros: And there was also some discussion about flooding mitigation, if you would. In the area that's there now, most of it is actually covered by like the tumulus or concrete, right? So possibly this might provide

▶ 1:06:02 Denise Gaffey: an actual new open yeah I mean we would certainly expect that that parcels that are today covered entirely in pavement that would that we knew that there would be more impervious or previous surfaces that would result true thank you

▶ 1:06:20 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Alderman McAteer-Margolis oh thank you madam president I I'm also going to be supporting this tonight and I want to thank you for all of your work on it and thank our consultant Melrose resident and from at the planning the planning mass metropolitan area Planning Commission right so I do think that it will be a self-selecting area I know a couple people who have recently moved into that area already one a young couple who has relocated back to Melrose who has just one car and takes the tea or bikes another older couple has downsized and gotten rid of a car so I think that's kind of a prime example of the kind of residents that we would be looking towards that would be more or less self-selecting in that respect and and I think Alderman Medeiros makes a good point that I was going to bring up that you know the more parking you have the less green space we have down there and I think a goal of this is to really you know do some street improvements and beautification in that area and by limiting the amount of parking and by having more green space around those parking areas I think we're going to really create a very desirable and environmentally appropriate area that will address things like flooding as well as you know a pleasant streetscape that will encourage people to to walk and to bike and to utilize other modes of transportation and just finally having gone to many hearings public hearings that the Planning Board has held for various site plan review projects I really have the utmost faith in our Planning Board that they will do all due diligence and take complete consideration of any butters or public input that reason that they receive from many new projects that are going forward so I think you've done a great job and and thank you very much I do think it's going to be a major step for for the city and really change the fabric of of that area for the better so I look forward to supporting it and hearing about what's coming forward thank you

▶ 1:08:34 Gail Infurna: okay thank you is there any further discussion

▶ 1:08:39 Jaclyn L. Bird: other than lavender Burke thank you madam president that's okay tonight's an off night for all of us I would like to thank the three of you as well I'm gonna be supporting this as well I was unable to make the June 26th public hearing and want to thank the members of this board for asking great questions I followed up to find out what happened at the meeting afterwards and the questions that were asked at that meeting were similar to the ones that were on my mind then and I want to thank the Planning Board for being so responsive to our concerns especially the concern about the retail food establishment use in proximity to the high school and middle school complex and happy to support the amendment tonight on that as well as on the height restrictions I think your response to us on this is incredibly thoughtful and in-depth and I'm pleased to see it and I just wanted to thank you this is an example of I think the process working really well with from the administration and from the city planning department from the Planning Board the zoning committee and publicizing the public meetings really well so that those were well attended getting the feedback and then really listening to that feedback and trying to come up with a constructive balance here I think this is a great example of that so thank you for that and I'm happy to support it tonight thank you all right

▶ 1:10:05 Gail Infurna: seeing no further discussion are we ready for the roll call so on order

▶ 1:10:15 Gail Infurna: number two zero one four dash one four six with the amendment as discussed

▶ 1:10:26 Gail Infurna: earlier all in favor aye all opposed being none the amendment passes so the

▶ 1:10:31 Peter D. Mortimer: order as amended madam clerk motion motion for passage of the order as

▶ 1:10:35 Gail Infurna: amendment all the men Mortimer makes a motion to pass the order as amended second by alderman McAteer Margolis any further discussion see you none we're

▶ 1:10:54 Speaker 5: ready for the roll call yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

▶ 1:11:07 Gail Infurna: yes 10 yes is that order passes thank you very much for your work on this thank you