total time: 19.26 minutes
total words: 3249
total time: 5.24 minutes
total words: 780
total time: 4.05 minutes
total words: 631
total time: 5.5 minutes
total words: 895
total time: 1.28 minutes
total words: 135
[Collins]: 15th, 2025. This meeting will take place at 6pm in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: President Bears. Present. Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: present, five present, zero absent. The meeting is called to order. The action discussion item for this committee meeting is again, 24-033, zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. This is the first planning and permitting committee meeting of the new year. We have seen a lot of work in this committee so far. A lot of that is still ongoing. the fall. We shepherded through the Mystic Avenue Corridor District proposal. The Salem Street Corridor District proposal is still being considered in public meetings by the Community Development Board. The Green Score proposal is still being considered in public meetings by the Community Development Board. There's a lot of things in the pipeline. Tonight, we are beginning our consideration, just the very beginning of the conversation on a new topic, which is the neighborhood residential topic. So before I turn it over to our zoning consultant, I just kind of want to orient us to the goal of this meeting, what we're gonna be looking at. This topic, which we're calling neighborhood residential, is just a jumping off place for adjusting the zoning rules for the areas of the city that are currently residential and zoned as single family one or single family two. There are districts like this throughout the city, as everybody knows, but they're especially concentrated in North Medford, West Medford, with some pockets in Glenwood, Wellington, and Hillsides. So why are we looking at SF1 and two districts now? You know, the same goals that carry us through the rest of the city for the rest of our zoning overhaul. We know that there are areas of the city where the zoning does not reflect what is currently built on the ground. We know that there are areas of the city where the zoning isn't allowing us to use our property or land the way that we know community members want us to, where it could better affirm our goals or where it could better affirm just what's already there. And we also know that we have a need to allow for more housing development in Medford to keep pace with high demand, high scarcity, and increasingly high property valuations. And zoning can offer tools to help us with all these problems. So with a lot of the current SF districts, we know we'll have to let geography and context guide the way. For example, in North Medford, narrow winding streets and steepness affect what is appropriate and possible. We also do have areas that are next to, for example, some brand new transit hubs, and it doesn't make sense to not take advantage of those areas of the city for greater density in a thoughtful way. So in just a minute, I'm going to turn it over to Paola from NS Associates for slides about what we're going to be considering tonight. This presentation will walk us through a jumping off point for considering some new neighborhood residential approaches and existing SF and GR. It also incorporates what new state law dictates around allowing ADUs by right in single family districts. So just to recenter on the goals for tonight before we get into the weeds, and I know that pal is also going to reorient us in kind of the where this falls in the overall trajectory of, you know, what topics have come before this and what topics will come after this. Tonight we're not looking at a proposal that we're going to be voting on or approving. This is to serve as a jumping-off point that's based on the current zoning of SF1 and 2 districts. We're very much not going to do this all in one fell swoop. My goals for tonight is for this to be councilors' chance to put their initial thoughts, concerns, questions, requests for changes on the record. Then we'll come back at our next meeting in two weeks, and as associates, we'll have taken all of that feedback and put together an amended proposal that we'll look at again before it is then referred for further review in more public meetings by the CDB. So at this point, I see President Bears has his hand up, and then I'll turn it over to Paula.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank you for getting us off to the start of this meeting. And I want to note just that the comprehensive plan and the zoning that we've been implementing based on the comprehensive plan for the city which was developed over two years with input from thousands of residents, is based on a model of neighborhoods, squares, and corridors. We have been looking at corridors so far, and we'll be looking at squares going forward, and this tonight we're talking about neighborhoods and neighborhood residential and I really appreciate that this meeting you know we're taking a second meeting in two weeks to look at a proposal and starting tonight just looking at general ideas and the research that has been done on the neighborhood residential and having looked at the presentation that was sent over by email I I'm really looking forward to the presentation, but also, you know, do have some thoughts and some suggestions that I'm going to make after this meeting and look forward to seeing those hopefully incorporated into the draft that we see in two weeks. And with that, I just want to thank again, the chair and the team that's working on this as well as fellow members of the committee. Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. All right, I will now recognize Paola. Thanks as always for being here.
[Ramos-Martinez]: Hello, good night. I'm here. I'm Paola Ramos Martinez. I'm senior planner and urban designer at Innos Associates. Here at my right is Emily Innos. She's the director of Innos Associates. And I'm very glad to be here to share our thoughts and proposal. I'm going to share now my screen. There we are. So I'm going to repeat some of the things if I can. Sorry, it's taking a bit of time for some reason.
[Collins]: So I'm going to take your time. Is the screen frozen?
[Bears]: We can see the screen share on Zoom. I think it might require maybe with the Zoom update a change in the booth to click the screen share instead of the video.
[Ramos-Martinez]: Okay, perfect. Yeah.
[Innes]: Is it safe?
[Ramos-Martinez]: I'm using the internet. It definitely saved on the desktop. What I can do is.
[Collins]: Are you not able to share, Paola? Like, is it not reflecting what's on your screen?
[Ramos-Martinez]: I'm going to try to share the PDF.
[Collins]: OK. I can share on my side if that is easier, but you'd have to tell me when to switch.
[Ramos-Martinez]: Okay. Sorry for that. All good. So I'm going to just repeat a few things that were already introduced by Vice President Collins. So in the agenda today, we're going to look at the timeline, the plan for the 2025 the public hearing process and this is where public can give their comments when and we will look at those precise dates that we will be updating in all our meetings from now on. We will give a bit of introduction and that is the comprehensive plan. Where do you where we are basing our proposals. We will look at some of the analysis that we used to do the proposal and then we will show the proposal for the neighborhood residential districts. And at the end we will leave obviously the time for everyone to comment on the proposal. One thing that I want to make very clear is this is a draft. This is nothing decided. This is why we are here. We want your comments. So here are the all the dates that we are going to have a planning and permitting committee meeting in this from now until May. So we are in starting this year January 15th as today and we are looking into neighborhood residential with especially the SF1 and SF2 districts. What we did today was making a frame of all that residential structure so that it will help us to not only for this month but also for the next one for February when we will look more into the denser part of the urban residential. In March and April, we will look at the commercial framework that is the squares, that is Medford Square and West Medford Square. And then we will look at other corridors that we have not looked into yet. And then at the end, we will look into Wellington Glenwood area. So if we look at the topics from January, as we said, neighborhood residential, we are looking districts SF1 and SF2. We are looking at those dimensional standards and development standards. And then citywide topic will be, we are working with housing, housing affordability and many other topics that we will look later. district. Uh February, urban residential districts, apartment one, two, and general residential. Again, dimensional and development standards. And as a citywide topics, we will look into ADUs and neighborhood notes. Um then in March, the commercial framework and Medford Square. Uh we will look at district C one, commercial one, and then the topics again, dimensional and development standards, and then the citywide topics, we'll look into And then April, West Medford and other corridors, commercial one, we will look into dimensional development standards that's in all of them. And the citywide topics will be transport demand management and the site plan review. we will end up with Wellington Glenwood area in May, districts office one, two, industrial and mixed use zone, and then dimensional development standards, and we will review the parking requirement at the end so that we have a better knowledge from the studied districts already. So this is the plan that we have, it's quite tight, but yeah, we think all these topics are big importance. So what are those opportunities for the public? What is the process every time that we bring a draft that has to go through until it gets approved? So first we present the topic as we are doing today with the neighborhood residential. We presented at the planning and permitting meeting to city council, and then we have a moment of comment from the public. We presented a second time in the next planning and permitted meeting committee meeting where could be already referred to this topic from the city council into the city board. Again, in this place, we have a moment for public comments. It goes into city board. Um hoping to be voted on the topic. Um and in this place we also have a moment for public comments. Then it will if it gets voted um and approved by the uh city board maybe with recommendations then it goes to the city council again and gets voted to be approved and here again we will hear comments from the public. So there are as minimum we have these four moments to hear from the public. So I just wanted to be clear on where we are now with other topics and what are those dates for the city board or the city council later on. So for example, the gray text are those meetings that we already had. the blue is the ones that we will have, and then the red is the ones that we are having. So we already have, for example, with Salem Street, we already have the first two meetings, and then next week, the 22nd, we will have Salem Street to be on the city board. So if anyone wants to comment on Salem Street, we will go with Salem Street and Green Score. Sorry for that. So both topics will go next week on the city board, and we will hear comments from the public. And then in February, if it gets voted and referred to the city council, then in February, we will vote and hear again for Salem Street and Green Score. So today we are first time that we will present this topic. So this is the 15th of January. We will bring back the neighborhood residential with any comment and adjustment with the comments that the city councilors will give and comments from the public. We will bring it the 29th of January in the next planning and permitting meeting. And then once we know we can more or less in. If everything goes well in February, we will have the city board and then in March will be here back in city council. So we will be updating these dates whenever we know the next one. So in every meeting, we will have this and see what topics have been done, what topics are in process and which ones are starting. So I hope that that is helpful for everyone that wants to give us their comments. So as an introduction, as President Collins already said, we have been basing our principles on the Medford Comprehensive Plan that was released and was published in January 2023. I really recommend that people to, if it's interested to read this plan, or at least these strategies that were in, that were created at the end in this product, in this booklet, because we are basing our update in the zoning into those principles. We also based ourselves in the climate action and adaptation plan that was released in April, 2022. So here in these, this is a plan that is in the comprehensive plan. And here we see all the identified corridors, squares, transitional areas, civic anchors, and then the densities of those residential neighborhoods. So this is really the base that we are working on to create the upzoning. So that is the introduction that I wanted to talk about. We now are going to go on to the analysis that we have been doing. This is your current zoning. We are looking now at the SF1 and SF2, single family one and single family two districts. You can see them in this map as the yellow, very light yellow and a bit brighter yellow. So this month we are going to be studying these neighborhoods and giving some proposals. What we are going to bring today, and you will see it on the proposal, is the framework for the residential neighborhood. We also have all the transit in a plan so that we can really see it where the big hubs for bus and for the T or the commuter rail are. And these are all the mixed use districts, the non only residential kind of districts that we have from the comprehensive plan. So if I analyze this a little better, we have in orange and then in dark orange or brownish color. Those are the corridors. We already worked on Mystic Avenue. I have it as a bit different because that's a citywide corridor and the others are more regional. We are working on Salem Street and that's one of the other corridors. And Then we have the squares that we will look into in March. We have the institutional, which is the University Tufts area, and then a special district that we will study at the end. So we are looking into residential, so we wanted to know what is there at this moment. So in this plan, we have the different types of residential buildings. So if it's a single family, a two family, three family, four or more than nine units. And this help us already to see what is the density, not really the density that the current zoning has, but the real density that we have at this moment in the city. And so from here, we already introduced this, this incongruence, incongruency, incongruence, sorry, sorry. These differences that we can find from the existing and from the current zoning so that when we update it, we reflect the existing so that we can take out some of the non-conformities that we have. So I wanted to introduce one residential typology that you are going to see in our proposal, which is historic conversion. So what is this about? This is an existing structure that is originally designed for one unit dwelling. And we are going to propose a conversion from this one unit to a two-unit or multi-unit dwelling with no change of the external structure. And so each unit will have an independent entrance directly from the outside or through a common vestibule. What is the goal of this historic conversion kind of typology or type? We want to preserve the cultural heritage of that community and ensure that the changes that are made are keeping the historical character of the area. We want to increase density citywide, but this will help in small increments, and we will enable that smaller and more diverse housing options. Also, it will protect historical buildings as well. So this is our proposal. Again, this is a first draft. We will explain why the thought process that is behind all this, but we want to hear your comments. So we have to give you a proposal so that we can comment on it. So we have neighborhood, we identified four different neighborhood residential. So we wanted to give a bit more gradient from the single family that you have now to general and to apartment. We wanted to give a bit more gradient in those definitions, in those districts. So we have neighborhood residential one, neighborhood residential two, three, four, and then urban residential, which has more density. And this we will look at in the next month. So neighborhood residential one, what we have is single unit dwelling and ADU. So the ADU is something that we will explain also next month, but we can obviously, if you have any question, we can answer this. This is accessory dwelling unit. There is a new law that is being passed. So we need a bit of more information. That's why we are placing this for next month. But if there is any question about this, please, you can ask. single unit dwelling plus ADU, and then we allow historic conversion to a maximum of two units. In neighborhood residential two, we have single unit dwelling plus ADU, two unit dwelling, and the historic conversion two to three units. Neighborhood Residential 3, we have single unit dwelling plus ADU, two unit, three unit, downhouse, and historic conversion from two to four units. And Neighborhood Residential 4 allows two unit dwelling, historic conversion from two to five, downhouse, multiple unit dwelling from two to four units. And then we have urban residential will be multiple unit dwelling from plus four units. So where do we locate these areas, these districts? And just keep in mind, these lines are not, we will present the precise boundaries next time. So this is a bit just to understand the area where we want to increase or maintain the existing density. So neighborhood residential one, this will only be in North Medford Fulton Heights, and then the very north of West Medford. Why we're doing this is the topography makes it very difficult to allow more parking. So we have some restrictions in there. And then these are areas that do not have a lot of public transit. And so they depend on their own mobility. modes. Where we keep neighborhood residential, too. So Lawrence States, the north part of Lawrence States and the mid to north part of West Medford, these are neighborhood residential, too. And then the rest of the base of this map is neighborhood residential three. So we have it in West Medford area, south of Lawrence States, Haines Square, Glenwood, north of Wellington, hillside very in the north, and then between the two T stations. Ball Square and Medford Tufts T stations. And around that transition between the main street corridor and the T station area. And then we have neighborhood residential four. Where have we allowed this is in two areas, well, three areas, sorry, exactly where the T stations are, Ball Square and Medford Tubs. So we are increasing density in these areas because of transit being available in here. And then Medford Square, where we have a hub of bus stations, we also allow just a bit on the north of Medford Square, this higher density of all this neighborhood residential floor. So we can obviously I will come back with this plan and we can discuss it further. So we also have some dimensional standards proposals. This is what you have in your current zoning. So in your zoning, how it works, it's not about giving different dimensional standards to each district, but it goes by use. So that is a bit different from other communities. And so it makes it a bit, to uniform without having really representing the district character, but just representing single family or multifamily or detached family. All are the same. There is no difference or nuance within every district. So that's something, one of the changes that we make. What we do is change from one, looking at what is there right now, what your current lot sizes, for example, are, and where we can reduce as much as possible nonconformities. So for example, the minimum lot dimensions, we decrease in neighborhood residential one to 5,000 from 7,000 to 5,000 in this district, then neighborhood residential two, 4,000, and then three and four, 3000. Maximum height stories we keep in neighborhood one and two, the 2.5, two and a half stories. And then neighborhood three and four, we increased to three. Minimum front setbacks are very much maintained only in neighborhood three and four. We reduced to 10 and five and minimum setbacks we maintain, we just reduce in three and four to five minimum reserved bags are the same, all 15 maximum building coverage 40. percent and 50 percent in neighborhood residential 4 and minimum open space we increase in neighborhood residential 1 and 2. I actually think that you do not have in your current minimum open space for single unit if I'm not mistaken. So one of the things that I wanted to clarify with the accessory dwelling unit is that your accessory dwelling unit, according to the law that we see today, because this is still in progress, so we haven't seen the final, final But what we are seeing and what they have already sent is around or zero parking or one car. And this depends on where it is located, if it's close to a bus line or a transit area. And then the maximum size for the ADUs are 900 square foot or the 50% of the total area of the principal structure. And then the single unit dwelling, what you have right now is two per dwelling unit. And then the other residential types can be decreased to 1.5 per dwelling unit. And then, yeah, we want that historic conversion will follow certain design standards and guidelines, and that will be developed. So here is a bit that idea of that decrease of where that changes and differences between all these residential neighborhood districts. And this is it. So I'm going to go to the plan that I'm guessing this is what we will discuss. And if you want any to change or something, let me know.
[Collins]: Thank you so much for the presentation, Paola. Really appreciate it. I think that this gives us a pretty substantive jumping off point for talking about, you know, kind of the why and what next of developing amended zoning rules for these types of neighborhoods. I'm gonna recognize Councilor Scarpelli first, but just to quickly bookend the presentation. I think some of the language that I find, like, really useful about this is thinking about creating a, new, more appropriate gradient from our most single-family, our most classic single-family lots, a lot of which will be kind of maintained exactly as they are. I think a lot of the zoning that currently exists makes sense. Maybe the terminology needs to be updated, but a lot of that will remain that way and has to remain that way, but we can affect the gradient from smallest, least dense up to the most dense parts of the city in a way that creates that range of housing that we know that we really need and kind of fill in some of those gaps where people need types of housing that aren't being built because they either can't be developed under our current zoning or we haven't encouraged it enough. So thank you for that language. I think that that's a really helpful way of thinking about this. Just one really quick clarification. I know you're going to come back to this on the ADU's piece when we're talking about that law being developed that is a state law that communities like Medford will be obligated to factor into their zoning. So I'll first recognize Councilor Scarpelli and then we'll go to President Bears.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And again, my question was from the beginning of the presentation, but Paul, thank you very much. Um, you could see the hard work in the presentation, and there is a lot of excitement with some of these opportunities. But I think that I'd be remiss to say that, you know, we're seeing some we're seeing the impacts of, um, the lack of communication again to really get the word out to the neighborhoods and Um, I know that in the last few weeks we've done, we've tried to do the best we can and we're doing more than we can. But I think we were seeing it now with so many questions. And as we're getting to the end of the Salem Street district and the neighborhoods rallying um, and really not feeling like they've been part of the part of the process or have been given the questions answered. Um, and there's a lot of fear and a lot of questions going on. So, um, as tonight started, I received a few emails from, um, residents from Lawrence Estates, uh, letting me know that they just found out that there's some sort of a meeting. Uh, and I think we I know that I've shown you the date from when the last council really focused on implementing a more robust process and communications and bringing these meetings to the neighborhoods. And I know it's not it wasn't written in the R. F. P. I know Councilor President Bears informed us. But I think As we move forward, we really need to find a better way, even if it's a reverse 911, letting the neighborhoods know that these meetings are happening. Because I know we've had up to almost 20 meetings now discussing this process, but I implore all of us to understand that there is groundswell starting in a negative undertone when it doesn't have to be for the fact that even the Salem Street situation, a lot of these, the questions that the fair, a lot of them could be answered in the meeting with the simple sentence or two. And, um, And I think again, uh, if we when we move forward, I see our schedule. The schedule looks great. We're at the beginning phases of this process, this new process. And, um, I just don't want to be in the same place we are with the Salem Street uh quarter and what we're hearing now and the displeasure and the the anger and the discourse and this divide now and it's it's it's something that I think we need to find a way that this council this uh city administration needs to really we we have so many avenues a communications director we have um we have different avenues that we can tap into I mean it's we really need to find a way if we can to please set the schedule, alert people when we're going to be talking about their neighborhoods so they can be present or at least to be told that we've done A, B and C. I just don't think people have heard us and they truly don't know the impacts that are being created in their neighborhoods until it's time to to the end product, which we're seeing Salem Street getting really close. And, um, and I'm sure everybody there is heard the negative undertone. So again, I hate to be the Debbie Downer every time. Um, you come to come to us for for meeting because of all the hard work you've done. But I just had to share that with you as we move forward with this next process. So thank you. Thank you, Vice President, for allowing me to speak.
[Collins]: Thank you Councilor I really do appreciate that feedback and, you know, I think that there is a lot in there that I think. you know, that I agree with. I think, well, since our last meeting wrapped up at midnight last night, a lot of what I've been working on today has been kind of revamping that communications strategy that we can use so that, you know, the next six months of this zoning project are better communicated. I think the highlight for me, and I think this speaks to some of what you're saying, is that the information is out there, the meetings are public, the answers are out there, but they need to be easier to find. And that's what we're working on. And follow through on the plan that me and President Bears are drafting as council leadership to make that successful. It'll take the collaboration of the city administration. But I think you're right that, you know, there's so much positive in these proposals and we really want to be able to broadcast and communicate well with the community to answer their questions easily and quickly so that people can know exactly what's going on, be informed, and ideally be as excited as we are about implementing the goals that the community put into the comprehensive plan. So thank you for that comment. It really- Appreciate it.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you.
[Collins]: And we're working on it. Thank you. I'll recognize President Bears next.
[Bears]: Thank you. And thank you, Chair Collins and Councilor Scarpelli for your comments. And thank you Paula and Emily and the team for this presentation. I do have a concern about the level of incremental step up that we see here. And I'm not necessarily saying I'm going to make a motion, and I'm not saying that it has to go exactly by the lines in this proposal as exists now. But I think for neighborhood residential, it really should just be NR1, NR2, and NR3. And perhaps we could consider something like NR4 as an urban residential one and an urban residential two. And I think that would be a more incremental change to allow for more of what we see actually existing in a lot of these places compared to the zoning that was passed in many cases decades after homes were constructed. That limited what could be built beyond what's actually there and created all the nonconformities that we have. So I would recommend, and I'm gonna make a motion and I will email it to the clerk. And I do have a second motion, but I would move to adjust the proposed neighborhood residential districts by one, removing the NR4 district type and considering that as part of the urban residential topic as a potential urban residential one district. Classifying all the areas currently on this proposal listed with some adjustments based on the work that you guys are going to do to go down to the parcel level. Currently on the proposal listed as NR1 and NR2 as NR1. Classify the areas currently in the proposal listed as NR3, as NR2. and classify all the areas currently listed on the proposal as NR4, as NR3, and to adjust the NR3 type to remove the one unit by right, which I think will meet some of the changes. And then I would also just note that any parcel where the current district is general residential should be at least NR2. and that any district where the current zoning is an apartment district should be NR3.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Perez. Would you email that motion to myself as well as the clerk?
[Bears]: Yes, I'll do that. And I have a further motion, but I know folks want to discuss that one first. It's a significant change.
[Collins]: Great, thank you. I'll wait for that to come through. I might need part of that reread, but that was to remove neighborhood residential four, have that be considered instead as part of the urban residential that we'll be considering in February, those denser districts, and then to downshift neighborhood residential two and three to kind of step the gradient down by one level of density. Is that an accurate synopsis? I know I left out a lot of the detail that you mentioned.
[Bears]: I think, yes, that's fair. And I'm emailing it now.
[Collins]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thanks. First, I'll say that given the garbled nature of the Zoom call and the complicated nature of the request, I definitely need that reread because I did not understand what that was. I had a couple of things. Number one, I'm really excited about the idea of historic conversions. I think that's wonderful, like not changing the exterior of the building but allowing for it to become maybe, you know, a five-bedroom becomes a two-bedroom and a three-bedroom is such a great idea. And then I wanted to ask a little bit about the NR2 and NR3 areas that used to be single-family. And I'm specifically thinking about, as I look at the map, like Lawrence Estates and those parts of West Medford that were single-family, single-family one. And curious, because you did mention that you're trying to get it to reflect what's currently there, Do you think that in those areas, the two-unit and three-unit allowance under these new zoning neighborhoods, is that reflective or is that going to be a significant change in those two areas, the Lawrence Estates and the West Medford?
[Ramos-Martinez]: Yeah, that is a good question. So from going to single family one to single family two, it's not that big incremental. It's not a big defining change of the structure or a super high density. So we are increasing just that small increment. The current zoning, it shows that in the area of Medford, the West Medford area, we do see some of the single, the two units going further than this general residential that is already there. So we are following a bit that trend that it seems that is expanding more than what is reflecting on the general residential. And there we have a commuter rail station, so we think that it is a place that we could increase just a little bit that density, and especially the sizes of these lots are more than good to have a two-unit dwelling, so it's really possible to to apply a two unit at least in that area. And then south of Lawrence, so there is a bus line that cross area. The south is quite flat and it's close to the Medford Square and the commuter rail transit areas. So it seems a good area also to up to increase a bit that density in that south area. The north is a bit more difficult because of topography. So we also keep it in these two, in the inner two, instead of increasing.
[Innes]: Yeah. You saw me moving around, right? So I think, Councilor, you had also asked specifically about Lawrence Estates and sort of the division between the northern and the southern part of that. And this map here that has the current types of residential dwellings I know it's a little hard to see on this screen for people but maybe when they go to the website afterwards they can zoom in. You can see that there have in the southern part of the Lawrence Estates have been quite a few conversions into two family. there, that's that orange color that's popping out a little bit on that screen. And so, you know, in seeing that trend that there might not be that much of a difference, I think, too, we can recognize that a lot that has a building on it is probably slower to change than a lot that is vacant. That's something else that as we As we check with you the sort of the framework idea of this and then zoom further in to understand which areas have vacant lots that might be redevelopable if these dimensional standards change. and which areas the dimensional standards won't make a difference. So I think that's another part of looking at the existing density and where there are already buildings of a certain type. So we pay a lot of attention to this map because it's showing what's actually on the ground as opposed to the current zoning.
[Collins]: Does that address your question, Councilor Callahan? I think you were talking about the difference between SF1 and SF2, NR1 and NR2.
[Callahan]: Yeah, no, mostly I was kind of, what I was looking at, and thanks for pointing out this particular map, because now I can actually see it for myself and zoom in on it, but like in that Lawrence Estates especially, it really does look like it's currently mostly single family, and we are, you know, upping it by one and two, potentially like, you know, one and two levels more. So, just, I just wanted to know how much change was suggested. I had a question that is perhaps a silly one, but I was curious when I look at the, the sort of diagram, the very last page that has the two and a half stories and the three stories. And I know that I see that architecture all over the place and like the two and a half story looks, you know, a certain way and the three story looks very like blocky and cut off. how much does it, that half story matter to like not blocking people's view or not blocking people's sunlight or not blocking other things because like as an architectural piece and for the amount of extra space people get in their homes, like it, I don't know, to me seems like that might be nicer actually. But I'm just like, this is a, I'm totally not an architecture person. So I'm just curious more than anything, not making a suggestion.
[Innes]: I keep forgetting that green means stop and red means go.
[Collins]: That's just not constantly on.
[Innes]: Exactly. So it's a good question. We were actually talking right before the meeting that for the the three and the four that we actually wanted to show two buildings. We had gone with the two of the same size next to each other. But in fact, what we'd like to do is show that you could have a flat roof or you can have a pitched roof. I think the interesting thing with height is that when you start to think about stories rather than feet is that the building code and often, and I don't remember what it is in Medford off the top of my head, the zoning definitions have a definition of story height. And so if you limit it to two and a half, say, and somebody wants to put on a full dormer to bump it out, that might, by the amount of livable space, that might take you up into a three-story. So I think it's important to understand that a three-story or a four-story limit does not mean necessarily that you're going to have a flat roof. And so we're going to change our diagramming before the next meeting to just call that out. And we'll double check the height definitions. As I said, we were talking about it right before the meeting. I think your idea, too, of how much of a difference does it make on the street, one of the things that I've noticed with a lot of our historic buildings in New England is that you can have, and it's funny when you read the assessor's records, because I recognize this, you might get a 2H or a 2T or a 3T. floor heights and our building heights are actually taller maybe than what's been built now. If you look at a beautiful historic home. I for example lived in a house that probably violated the 35 foot requirement in the community that I was living in, but it was built before zoning was put into place. And so that's something else we want to recognize in the portion of our thinking where we're reducing the number of non-conformities is, again, being aware of how old the buildings are, what they are, not putting an undue restriction on them. Having said that, we talked about the idea of design guidelines for historic conversions. We could certainly think in the development standards part of this. How do we set up an expectation that people will be considering the contacts for a new building as opposed to a rehab and considering their relationship to their neighbors? And that's something that we can talk further as we go through these two months about thinking about residential buildings in Medford and the rules and requirements around them.
[Callahan]: Does a half story, does a two and a half or three and a half limit encourage pitched roofs?
[Innes]: Not necessarily, there are other ways around it. I mean, I think you could say, okay, this is a two and a half story building, but then there's a perhaps out of proportion, full shed dormer put on it, makes it really more like a three, but it's not necessarily architecturally well done sometimes. And so that's why I'm saying we need to collectively think about the components of these houses. potentially as well as the houses themselves because it's not just the building massing that might affect views or light. It's the position of the building on the lot you know how far is it set back relative to next door. What is the solar orientation there's a there's a bunch of things that can come into that and I think one question. for the city council and the community to consider is how much regulation do they want to put on single family dwellings, understanding that we're looking at a way of making housing easier to do. And I think that's a question that we can also continue to explore with you over this period.
[Collins]: Great. Thank you so much. I see a couple hands up. We will take all public participation at the end of the meeting. Thank you so much for being here. I'll go next to President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make my other motion, which is to request that the chair work with the administration to increase accessible materials, notices, and communications about upcoming meetings and distribute them to the community. and I've sent the language for both of these over. I have to step out in a few minutes, five minutes, but I'm happy to answer any questions on my motion now and potentially consider them if possible. But if not, I hope my colleagues will consider them and approve them.
[Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bears. So I'll reread both motions. The one that was just made was motion by President Bears to request that the chair work with the administration to increase accessible materials, notices, and communications about upcoming meetings and distribute them to the community. And the, do I hear a motion? Sorry, a second? Seconded by Councilor Leming. And the first motion given towards the beginning of the meeting was the motion to adjust the proposed neighborhood residential districts by removing the NR4 district type and consider that as part of urban residential topic as a potential urban residential one district. Classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR1 and NR2 as just NR1. So that's a downshift from NR2. Classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR3 as NR2. Classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR4 as NR3. Adjust the NR3 district type to remove the one unit dwelling by right. And any parcel where the current district is general residential should be at least NR2. And any parcels, sorry, the last bit of this got cut off. Sorry. And any, sorry, that last clause is any parcel where the current district is general residential should be at least NR2, and any parcels where the district, current district is apartment one or apartment two should be at least NR3. Does anybody need that read back again, put on the screen, or do I hear a second on the motion? Councilor Leming? Oh, sorry.
[Leming]: Thank you. Just for some, Council President Bears, just for some clarification, so you mentioned, I believe part of that motion was, for instance, making all NR2 into NR1. Just to clarify, is that a, I mean, would that mean that all of the current NR1s get updated to include two-unit dwellings and historical conversion of two to three units, or would that mean that all And our twos get that requirement for two-unit dwellings removed.
[Bears]: It would be the second one. It's essentially downstepping each of the shades. So the very light yellow would stay the same, the medium yellow would go down to the light yellow, the lighter orange would go down to the medium yellow, and the dark orange would go down to the lighter orange.
[Leming]: Well, I'm sorry. Sorry.
[Collins]: You want to finish your thought.
[Callahan]: What mic number are you?
[Collins]: You're six. Sorry, guys.
[Callahan]: Go for it. Thanks. So what I heard Zach say is the opposite of what I wrote down that you read. So my understanding is that now the lightest yellow and the northern parts of Lawrence Estates and the middle part of West Medford would all include two-unit dwellings. That's what I heard, Zach. That's what I heard in the rereading of the thing and I am concerned because I think that's I'm not really comfortable if that's what we're doing is making every like two unit everywhere like that's I believe president bears please step in and correct me I think it's the opposite I think it's that yeah I'm saying the opposite I'm saying that this is an increment too far and each shade should go down one increment That is, I feel much more comfortable about that, but I'm a little concerned about the wording because to me, the wording said the other.
[Collins]: Okay, so the current wording classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR1 and NR2 as NR1. So NR1 stay the same, NR2s become NR1. That's how I read that.
[Bears]: Yes, that's the intent.
[Callahan]: Thank you. I'm much more comfortable with that.
[Collins]: Okay, great. Thank you for the clarification.
[Innes]: Go ahead, Emily. Thank you. I just want to repeat something that Paola said at the beginning and just Just to give the council some information. So she had said that the boundaries. These are very high level boundaries and so we do an understanding the direction that President Bears has suggested, we have no objection at this point but we just want you to know that we need to go in and just check the boundaries and make sure that with this change that they still make sense as shown or you know do they wiggle need to wiggle around a little bit more I think as I'm saying it's a high level so just to make sure that the councillors are aware of the kind of the scale that we're looking at in this particular image.
[Collins]: Great thank you that makes sense that the uh the boundaries between the proposed districts would have to change in any case and especially if we're contemplating this downshift for the proposal that we'll see in two weeks great. Councilor Luebbing, I'll recognize you.
[Leming]: I don't know if I could support President Bears's motion. I mean, I think you do need additional density, particularly around the T stops. I mean, I personally don't see the need to sort of increase the the amounts of single unit dwellings quite that much. So yeah, I personally like it as it is.
[Collins]: Go to Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: We got a lively debate. This is exciting. So I am in favor of sex change. And I'll just let you know why. I think, like, I'm really encouraged by the fact that we are allowing for historic conversions and ADUs by right throughout what is currently considered single family. To me, that is enough change in those areas that I do not feel like we need to move further than that. And I think we will get pushback from the community is my concern that, you know, that's a little bit like those areas of Lawrence Estates and West Medford that already that is, I think, excellent and just the right amount of change that we're going to allow that doesn't really change a character of the community. I think once we're allowing two units, that for me, that belongs more in the areas that were on this new map considered neighborhood residential three. And that also will be a change for much of those places, but I'm comfortable with that level of change. So I feel quite good, and I think better than the current suggestion, given that I do understand that because of some of the existing housing that is there, because you guys plotted this very carefully, that the boundaries are going to adjust a little bit. But to me, this feels more comfortable. And it also does mean, because of the ADUs and the historic conversions by right, that we are allowing more housing throughout the city, but just in a way that I think feels more comfortable to the residents of the single-family, current single-family one areas.
[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Yeah. As one councilor, I think that you put that well. I think that historic conversion and being able to implement the statewide ADU law will be meaningful. We could go further. We will go further in other areas of the city where I personally think that it makes more sense topographically, geographically. Is that a second to the motion by President Bears? Great, thank you. So the motion by President Bears is seconded by Councilor Callahan. Is there a, sorry, was that a hand? No, okay, I was imagining things. Is there any further discussion on, President Bears's had his part, we can vote on these motions anytime. Any further comment by councilors on the presentation, questions, concerns, potential amendments we'd like to see in the updated draft that we'll consider for January 29th and just in my, mental note-taking. I know that in addition to the changes that we'll vote on, we can also expect to see more finessed boundaries between the various sub-districts. And I'm also looking forward to the diagrams, the residential requirements, including not just one type of what can be built in each district, but more varied buildings that folks can envision them in context of what these neighborhoods might actually look like with the possible buildings, or perhaps already look like. Seeing no further hands from councillors, we have a second on both those motions from President Bears. I'll take them in order. read this one more time just so we can hear it and to give people time to think of potentially more motions. This is a motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan to adjust the proposed neighborhood residential districts by removing the NR4 district type and consider that as part of urban residential topic as a potential urban residential one district, classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR1 and NR2 as NR1. Classifying all areas currently on the proposal listed as NR3 as NR2. Classifying all areas currently listed on the proposal as NR4 as NR3. Adjust the NR3 district type to remove the one unit dwelling by right. Any parcel where the current district is GR should be at least NR2 and any parcels where the current district is apartment one or apartment two should be at least NR3. So on the motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan, Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears both had to drop off so we can do a voice vote. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Two in favor, one opposed. The motion passes.
[Callahan]: Three out of five is a quorum, isn't it?
[Hurtubise]: But it's two in favor and one opposed out of three. No, but the quorum is... It's a majority of the quorum.
[Collins]: On the motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Leming, to request that the Chair work with the administration to increase accessible materials, notices, and communications about upcoming meetings and distribute them to the community. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Any further comments or questions from Councilors at this time? Okay. We will go to public participation. Seeing nobody at the podium, I will go first to Zoom. I'm going to request that you unmute. Please state your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes.
[Wing]: Good evening. My name is Maureen Wing. I live on 36 Dudley Street in Medford, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak and everything that's been reviewed tonight. I really appreciate it. I'm going to apologize up front. I was unable to make The December meeting due to a previous commitment. So I know that I'm behind the eight ball here and trying to catch up. I just would like to. mention again, uh, what a brief description of what, uh, Councilor Scarpelli said in that, uh, some of the friends and neighbors that I've been speaking with in the route 60 Salem street area are just a little bit nervous about all of this. And I really appreciate that you're, um, considering other types of outreach or increasing the outreach to get us more informed and involved. And I really appreciate that. Um, some of the things I know that people have talked about are what, um, and I think you've addressed some of that, but again, height of buildings, they're concerned about traffic impact on route 60 route 60. Um, and there's nervousness about a butters to Salem street. So I just wanted to mention that, um, going down the road. So you'd be aware of what I'm hearing from, uh, neighbors and residents that live near me.
[Collins]: Thank you so much for attending tonight and for sharing that feedback. It really is duly noted and really appreciated. We want to make sure that we're improving at letting the residents know about what their opportunities are to get informed about these proposals, including Salem Street, especially for abutters and neighbors so that folks can be at the meetings and be in the spaces where they can ask questions, get their questions answered. So thank you for raising that. I know that the current proposal the proposal. Developed by Ennis has they were. I know that these folks were really careful about factoring in, you know, neighborhood compatibility and being thoughtful about if we're increasing height. By how much under what conditions we're not going to be going into that proposal in depth tonight. However, I hope you're already aware a week from today. January 22nd. The CD board will be discussing the Salem Street proposal for the first time. I'm sure it will be a really helpful overview with an opportunity for questions and answers as well. So thank you so much, and please continue to attend, even on the meetings that aren't specifically germane to your residence area. Thanks for being here. Next, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes. Oh, sorry. That's me.
[Fiore]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Gaston Fiore, 61 Stickney Road. I took a few notes during the presentation that I went to address, and I would like to thank President Bears and everyone that voted yes on the changes, because they address most of my concerns. So I live in the north of Lawrence Estates. and there there's a lack of public transportation so you either have to drive or bike and it just makes gives me some doubts that so NR1 which was north-mid for Fulton Heights is actually closer to the subway than the north of Lawrence Estate so it makes me wonder how come you know Fulton Heights was in R1 and we were in R2. To me, that's a little bit concerning. Because again, when I take the T and I don't bike, I have to walk all the way through Fulton Heights up to Malden. And then on West Medford, we actually have the commuter rail, which is not as efficient as the Orange Line. So to me, that didn't make too much sense. But thanks again to President Bezos and everyone that voted yes to that address. So I just think that Councilor Callahan also mentioned, if you look at the map or if you walk around the neighborhood for us, all of us that live there, there's just not two-unit housing there. And not only in the north of Lawrence Estates, but then if you cross to the south of Lawrence Road, where Summit Avenue is and all of that, there's not even a single two-unit house. So that would be like a huge change from what we have right now. Other points. So the north of Lawrence Estates is also locked in by the false reservation. There's a lot of dead end roads, cul-de-sacs and things like that. So also, you know, having density there doesn't make much sense to me. There's a lot of private ways. I live in a private way. And as you might know, the city does not do repairs of those roads. I'm going through that process myself. We have an area of our private way that is in pretty bad shape. I've been in conversation with engineering and DPW, and then they actually just patch it, but they would not repave it. We have to ourselves. So if, for example, we started having two-unit houses over there, it's more neighbors that will have to become in agreement whenever we have to pay to maintain our private way. I'm already going through the pain that not everyone wants to participate in chipping in. So it will make everything a lot harder. So and I will be interested in considering private waste at a future meeting as well because I talk to people that live in them as well and then all of us voice concerns. And the last point that I wanted to say is that so all this kind of I believe and maybe Councilor Lehmann can correct me on this but units are less than, dwellings are less than six units actually will not pay a linkage fee. So if we're increasing density, what's going to happen to our existing infrastructure? And then where is the funding to sort of either upgrade it or make sure that it holds up if there's more density? How is that going to work? Because again, I think the linkage fee is only paid for joints that are more than six units or greater than or equal to, I don't remember. But these ones that we have been discussing today don't apply. I think that's it. And I would like to thank everyone for the very interesting discussion that we're getting to speak up. Thank you so much.
[Collins]: Great. Thank you for the thoughtful comments, as always, Gaston. Just to quickly respond to a couple of those, and I know, sorry, we're not supposed to go back and forth, but just since you brought it up, on the linkage piece, I think that's a really reasonable question. I think that when we look at the zoning overhaul in totality, That issue becomes less because in some areas like the proposed NR1 districts, we're not encouraging developments that would be large enough to kick in the linkage fees. In other areas, for example, the places that are really close to the very, very high transit stations, we might be encouraging developments that would kick into the linkage fees. So I think it would have an equalizing effect, maybe not when we're just considering the neighborhood residential as a single project, but citywide, I know Councilor Leming, in particular, has been making sure that we're updating our linkage fees so that when we do create new zoning, especially along places like Mystic Ave, where we're encouraging big new developments, that they're gonna be paying their fair share and that their fair share is calculated correctly. So thank you for bringing up that point. And then the other thing I was going to say was not important. Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful commentary. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Diesso]: Sharon Diesso, Mass Avenue and Circuit Road corner. Thank you. I'm just wondering, I came in a little late and I didn't hear the announcement of who this group is here. Okay, I've seen the name before on different agendas coming into the city. So let me just get a retrospect here. I see the word density, density, density. What's the goal? What's the goal here? I mean, why promoting density? It has to do with helping out taxes and tax rate and whatnot. What's the goal?
[Collins]: I'm happy to let you finish your three minutes, and then I can respond after if you have more that you want to put on the record. I'm sorry? If you have further questions behind that, I'm happy to just give you your full time, and then I can respond afterwards.
[Diesso]: No, I'm wondering. this planning board and the zoning changes that are being proposed. Let me just give you an example. It has been a study, for instance, in the Lawrence Estates of how many lots are 7,000 feet or more. Do you know? How many homeowners have 7,000 feet or more? So why would you go into an area like that and propose changes even if someone sold their home? You still can't. There's not enough land because there's only 7,000. It wouldn't equal 10 unless I'm really doing you know, bad math. I'm wondering why you are not going to places like even the state to see if they even have land that they would be willing to sell. Why are you destroying the look and the ambiance and the reason why some people come to those areas, they come to Medford. I've seen beautiful homes on 6,500 square foot lots They've brought children. It's such a nice vitality to see them walking to the school buses. They have beautiful play areas built in their backyards. Many, many people have put in pools. I don't understand why you're going into residential areas that have practically no land to offer in the first place. And from what I'm understanding this week, it's not going to happen because the residents make sure that it doesn't happen. It shouldn't happen in TNT area because there are better ways to raise taxes in cities besides destroying areas. And when you leave this council, I hope you don't go on to another town and that's your plan somewhere else. Thank you.
[Collins]: Thank you for your comments. I'll just quickly note that all of the goals that are guiding the zoning overhaul come out of the Community Informed Housing Production Plan, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and Medford Comprehensive Plan, and are guided by our knowledge that Medford is a beautiful place that a lot of people live and a lot of people want to move into. And people who live here are struggling to stay here. People who want to live here, people who grew up here and want to buy a home, people who want to stay here are struggling to find housing to do so. Those guide the goals around thoughtfully adding densification where it makes sense in each neighborhood.
[Diesso]: Excuse me. I just have one more question. Suppose there were an area where there was land dividable and whatnot. If you had, even just as an example, 5X, you had twice as many homes, the property value would come down. So how are you gaining a tax? you know, hike anyway, because the value of the home would be only two-thirds of what it originally was. So I'm just saying, along with my family, I maintain all the flowers. I hope you enjoy them next to Colleen's. That whole island was dedicated to my family by Michael Marks about four years ago. So I hope you enjoy the decorations and all the flowers I put in. It was mainly recognized to go to my father and my family because my dad was one of the longest living residents who never moved after he bought his home years ago, so I inherited the second property. But that's why people come and why people stay. People used to come and admire our pine trees, the lots. Now, some of my yard parties are popular because of the size of my yard and the way that we maintain the beautiful trees. So, there are different areas, not that anyone should be overly affected more than another area, for instance, Salem Street. So, I'm really asking, I know a lot of you, and I don't mean this as a criticism, are not big business entrepreneurs and you haven't been on city planning boards before, etc. Go to areas where you know you can actually generate appreciated revenue coming into the city that does not disturb residents. If they want to move to Medford, I'd love to move to Winchester, but I'm not going to go every week and tell them to start changing all this owning ordinance so I can afford a home. So I think you need to do more math than this. And thank you. And a merry and healthy new year to everyone.
[Collins]: Thank you so much for your comments. And I will just note that the goals of the housing production parts of the zoning overhaul, I believe, are motivated by the community's desire to build more housing, not as a revenue strategy. Seeing no further hands on Zoom, are there any further comments or motions from councilors? Councilor Leming? Gaston, do you have an additional comment? Yeah, I have a question.
[Fiore]: Great. I'm very sorry, I apologize. I have a question about, this is the, what number is this? 17. So NR1, it says minimum load dimensions, 5,000 square feet. So could you explain to me, so how does that work? Because I know that in our area, there are several loads that are larger than 5,000 square feet. So what does this mean? That you can subdivide it? Like, for example, we have a 10,000 square foot load, then would it be able to be subdivided into two 5,000 square feet?
[Collins]: I'm sorry, would you guys just speak into the microphone?
[Ramos-Martinez]: That's okay. In addition to that, that it needs to meet all the requirements, not only the dimensions, is that we analyze the existing lot sizes in all the SF1s and SF2s. And a lot of them are non-conforming. A lot of them are below the 7,000. So they are non-conforming. So we wanted to reduce those conformities. And so 5,000 met a lot of those dimension.
[Fiore]: The last related question. So NR2, I see in the table that it's actually the minimum dot dimension is smaller than NR1. and then given that NR2 got converted into NR1, are you planning on keeping the minimum load dimension for the new NR1 as 4,000 or 5,000? And what's the rationale? Why was NR2 smaller than NR1, the minimum load dimension?
[Ramos-Martinez]: So what we're doing here is the requirements of the space around those areas as well, not only the built, but also the open space around it. So usually we are making a transition from the inner one to inner four, so that the density of what you see on the face in the street, so the setbacks are reduced. So you can build, you have a larger build coverage. And so you can build more house. So you need a less, a smaller lot size to build more. That's the, so you will see, for example, the open space, it goes from 40% to 20%. And that's how much you can build that space. And so your house actually is bigger or the same. It's just that the lot and the surroundings are getting narrower. So you see that transition.
[Collins]: Great. Thank you, Paola. Thank you for your questions and comments. All right. Seeing no further questions or motions from Councilors, I want to again thank Innocence Associates so much for being here with us. Time and time again, you've done so much hard work for us over the course of the past year. Emily's gesturing at Paola. Team effort, I know. really shaping the goals that the community has put into our guiding documents into zoning that we can consider, discuss, deliberate, amend, and talk about in public as much as we need to and vote on. So thank you so much. We will be meeting on this topic again in two weeks with an updated proposal for councilors to review. So I look forward to that. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? I have a motion by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes, meeting adjourned. Thank you.
|
total time: 19.26 minutes total words: 3249 |
total time: 5.24 minutes total words: 780 |
total time: 4.05 minutes total words: 631 |
total time: 5.5 minutes total words: 895 |
|
total time: 1.28 minutes total words: 135 |
|||