Good evening. Let's get started. If you have not signed up, please do. Wanna grant an opportunity for everyone to have a say in what on the complaint. So today is October 2.
Welcome to committee on ordinance. The time is 05:40. I'd like to welcome you all. Thank you for being and participating. Madam clerk, please call the roll.
Vice chairwoman Peterson? Present. Councilwoman Harris is absent. Council
Vargas? Vargas? Present. Present.
You have four present and one absent. You have a quorum.
Thank you. We're joined tonight by Councilwoman Anthony. Thank you so much for being here. Councilor Joanne Ryan, thank you. As well as Councilman Gonkow, you for the Department of Planning and Development, our policy team, and everyone that is here tonight.
Thank you so much. Madam clerk, item number one.
Item number one is an ordinance adopting the city of Providence's official comprehensive plan.
Thank you. And I have a couple of exhibits. Exhibit C, it's many, many comments. So, we're grateful and thankful for everyone for participating and also for submitting your comments. I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record Exhibit C.
So moved. Moved by Councilor Peterson, second by Councilor Mervagus. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed?
The ayes have it. Thank you. Also, a proposed zone change map, six eighteen, which will be exhibit d. I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record exhibit d.
Made by councilor Peterson, Second by councilor Vargas. All in favor, aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Okay.
City sergeant, would you please bring me the list of people that have signed up? Thank you. All right. And to get us started, we'll start off with mister Bob Basar from Department of Planning. Mister Azar, please.
Thank you very much mister chair, members of the committee. My name is Robert Azar. I'm the deputy director of the Department of Planning and Development. And I just wanted to briefly start off by saying that since the last session of this public hearing, we've had a lot of very fruitful conversations with members of the public, with members of the council, and we feel that we're in a very good place. We expect to have, working with council staff, some text amendments to present to you at the next session of this public hearing.
But tonight, we simply wanted to bring your attention to the exhibit that we presented to you. You you have it. There are a handful of copies here. There's a there's a map and then there's a property list. These are properties that in discussion we have, we are presenting to you for amendment to the proposed zoning map.
And I can briefly walk through these amendments. And I'll go in order of ward. There's there's one property in Ward 1 on Ive Street, which is directly adjacent to a commercial zone. The proposal is to make that commercial. 189 Cole Avenue in Ward 2 is a small commercial property that's currently zoned C 1.
Proposal is to make that R 3 so that the small scale neighborhood commercial establishment can continue, but that it would not be allowed to be a large building. There are a number of properties in Ward 5 where there's a considerable amount of R 2. Much of that R 2 is still proposed to be zoned to R 3, but there are some areas that in discussion with the councilwoman, they are predominantly single family. So the proposal is to make those r one single family zoning. And then in in Board 7, there are a few properties that are directly adjacent to a commercial property that are in the residential zone.
We propose to put those into the commercial zone. And by the way, each one of these has either come to us at the at the request of or with the consent of the council person for the ward. In Ward 8, there are properties along Benedict Street in Buffalo Court. These are all in the same region. This is area right up against Route 10 west of Cranston Street, and the proposal is to to up zone those to R 4.
In Ward 11, there are two pieces of property that have been identified by a non profit housing developer. They would like to build higher density residential than would be permitted in the R 3 zone. They would also like to have a modicum of of of non residential. So we're proposing R 3 for those on Public Street. On Branch Avenue, there is a larger piece of property where the developer would like to build multifamily and with the consent of the council person, the proposal is to rezone that to R 4 as opposed to R 3.
And then finally, there are two parcels in Board 15. One on DeSoto Street that has a long standing commercial industrial use that that should be zoned as such. And then a parcel on Delane Street where the owner wishes to develop higher density housing. So for both of those properties, we are showing a slight up zoning. So that constitutes the all of the map changes.
If there's anything that comes in between now and next week, we'll be back to to talk to you about those. But those are the ones that that we have vetted. And again, with the concurrence of the council person and our also our analysis of how it fits into the overall scheme of the comprehensive plan, we're supportive of these changes. And and just briefly, there are a number of other things that we've been been talking about. We've got a list of things that we're in ongoing conversation about with council staff.
And we expect to have a fuller report for you next week.
Thank you, mister Azer. Any question from the committee members for mister Azer in regards to these changes? If not, I would like to offer an opportunity to Counselor Ryan, since this is the most of the changes are in her ward. If you would like to say a few words, Counselor Woman, you're more than welcome.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think Bob Azar expressed my comments on generally on the properties that are identified in this change request. Most of them, many of them are condominiums that are townhouse condominiums. I have another set of condominiums in my ward that are in R 1.
So it made no sense to convert these to R 3. That was the primary thing that caught my attention on as well as my constituents. The other properties are single family homes in a section that are all single family homes. Other than that, I applaud the work of the planning department. They came out, made a presentation at my community library and informed my neighbors and collected input from my neighbors.
So I support the process. I support the effort. I would just like these changes to be made.
Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. So now let's get on with the members of the public that have signed up to speak. And the first person is Justin Baptista.
Name and address for the record, please.
Justin Bautista, 34 Hilltop Ave.
Thank you. You have two minutes.
Alright. This time I'm not gonna talk about character. I am not gonna talk about charm. I'm gonna talk about fairness. Upselling changes in the comprehensive plan are not fair to all province residents.
And when I say all, I don't just mean homeowners, I also mean renters and the homeless, especially the homeless. I am a renter. I am for affordable housing. But affordable housing of a less vague and more extensive percentage than what would be the result of the extent of the comprehensive plan. Just a moment.
In the areas with the most space for it instead of the other way around because the more space for those who would benefit the better, right? The comprehensive plan is meant to represent progress for Providence in the next ten years. Ten years. With that in mind, affordable housing must be more than a semi pacific standard. It must be the most effective requirement for all new residential housing for all of Providence.
A requirement that complements the city, not upset it. Because at the end of the day, that's what this is all for. You know, not sides, but Providence as a whole. No one's a island. Thank you.
Greetings. My name is Rochelle Lee, and I yield my time to Grant Dugarian. Thank you. Mr. Grant Dugarian.
Good evening, Grant. Good evening. How are you?
Housing. I'm glad that, Bob Azar is making some specific changes to some of the blanket overall changes that he proposed last week or last hearing. But I am still not supportive of the rest of the blanket. To change r two to r three makes no sense at all whatsoever. It's not planning that sort of
and burn. I grew up 2nd Floor of a three family house in an r two zone. We had a mixture of r one of single family, two family, three family. It was crowded enough. We don't need to change stuff to make it overcrowded.
That's why people left urban areas, especially Providence, after World War two. 1950, we were a population of quarter of a million. In two decades, we lost 40% of our population. We're now gaining some of it back incrementally. But the reason people left was they wanted a little more elbow room.
They wanted to raise some kids, have a little place for the kids to play. I didn't have a place to play. Played in the street. Broke my share of windows, repaired everyone, but that's not what we want. We want a little more elbow room for folks.
Also, happened to the concept of starter homes? Starter homes are small homes on small lots. We have small house lots, 50 by 105,000 square foot lots. Let's maintain them and retain them. What I asked, requested from the Department of Planning and Development, didn't get was from 1950 to 1970, what were the and and 2020, those three decades, what were the what was the census of of the city of Providence by census tract, 1950 and 1970 and 2020.
