Providence City Council Meeting |November 4th, 2024 | Committee on Ordinances
Call to Order and Roll Call
Councilman Pedro Espinal calls the Committee on Ordinances meeting to order and the clerk conducts the roll call establishing a quorum. Staff and attendees are introduced prior to calling the first agenda item.
Item 1: Zoning Amendment Regarding Nonconforming Self-Storage Facilities
The committee reviews a proposed zoning ordinance amendment allowing limited expansion of existing self-storage facilities in M1 industrial districts subject to environmental land use restrictions. After hearing testimony from the property owner's attorney and the public, the committee approves the ordinance as amended.
Item 2: Zoning Amendment Relating to Entertainment Regulations
The committee discusses proposed changes to incidental and temporary entertainment regulations for restaurants, outdoor dining, and other venues across the city. Following extensive testimony from business owners and residents regarding noise and enforcement, the item is continued to December 4.
Item 4: Nonconforming Uses Zoning Text Amendment
The committee takes Item 4 out of order to consider an amendment permitting up to a 5% expansion of nonconforming uses under a special use permit and site improvements. Following a presentation on a car wash property and discussion of citywide application, the committee votes to approve the petition.
Item 3: Zoning Amendment Modifying Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units
The committee considers an ordinance aligning Providence's zoning regulations for accessory dwelling units with recent state legislative changes. After addressing questions regarding owner occupancy, zoning density, and public comment, the committee votes to approve the amendment.
Adjournment
With no further business remaining on the agenda, a motion to adjourn is made and seconded. The committee votes unanimously in favor to conclude the meeting.
Unknown
-
To committing an ordinance. I'm councilman Pedro Espinal. Welcome all. Madam clerk, roll call, please.
Unknown
-
Chairman Espinal? Present. Vice chairwoman Peterson? Present. Councilwoman Harris?
Unknown
-
Present. Councilman Vargas? Present. Councilor Royas? You have five present.
Unknown
-
You have a quorum.
Unknown
-
Thank you so much. And the date is November 4, and the time is 05:37. Tonight with us, we have a city solicitor, Ethi Swaps, welcome. Our communication department, our policy team, thank you all for being here. Mister Bob Basen from the Parano Plenium Development.
Unknown
-
With that said, madam clerk, councilman, Miguel Sanchez, welcome. First item on the agenda, please.
Unknown
-
Item number one is an ordinance and amendment of chapter 27 of the code of ordinances of the city Of Providence entitled City Of Providence zoning ordinance approved 11/24/2014 as amended to change certain text in article 20 regarding the nonconformity of existing self storage facilities.
Unknown
-
Thank you. Mister Azer, you wanna go first and ex illustrates what we have here?
Unknown
-
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Robert Azar, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Development. This is a petition that came from a property owner, And the goal here is that there's a as you know, there's a prohibition on self storage facilities. This owner of a particular self storage facility is seeking to expand the business on an existing site, both within an existing building and also elsewhere on the site, that would not be allowed under the current prohibition.
Unknown
-
So this would be a carve out specifically for certain existing self storage facilities. When the city plan commission reviewed this, they felt that the ordinance, it was it was appropriate to allow for some expansion, but they also felt that it was a little more expansive than it should be. Their recommendation was the amendment should specify that only expansion within an existing building is acceptable. And that proposed language pertaining to exemption from restrictions on expansion and relocation should be struck. I've learned that there is a proposed amendment to this.
Unknown
-
And if you're inclined to take that up, It should be read into the record. So, I'll do that.
Unknown
-
Absolutely.
Unknown
-
So, language is unchanged in section in the first paragraph of section h. This is in 2,003 2,001 nonconforming use, the section of the zoning ordinance. First paragraph is unchanged. There would be a second paragraph that would read, this subsection shall only apply to those properties located within an m one zoning district that are subject to land use restrictions prohibiting residential use. These prohibitions include, but are not limited to, land use restrictions imposed by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.
Unknown
-
So qualifying language that would limit the applicability of this ordinance. So as I said, the Planning Commission had their own opinion on this, and this is this is obviously another option for you to consider.
Unknown
-
Thank you. Any question from committee members for mister Azar, councilor Peterson?
Unknown
-
Thank you. How are you, deputy director?
Unknown
-
I'm well. Thank you.
Unknown
-
Good. Would you be able to speak or maybe it's not you, somebody else, to speak a little bit more on the second paragraph, the actual change of the amendment specifically detailing what that would entail.
Unknown
-
Yeah. So first of all it would only apply within the M1 zoning district. So that's a limiting factor. M1 is our general industrial zoning district within the city. And then further for properties within the M1 zoning district, it would apply if there's an environmental restriction.
Unknown
-
These are imposed by the state when there's been some environmental contamination, when the property has been cleaned up. And there are different levels of cleanup when it comes to environmental land use restriction. There's sort of a lower level for commercial and industrial and then a higher level for residential. Typically with industrial properties that are gonna be continued in use as industrial or commercial properties, that lower level is sufficient. You won't have children playing, for example, on grass or bare earth.
Unknown
-
So this restriction, frankly it's a little bit redundant because we don't allow residential uses in the M1 zoning district anyway. But I suppose is a there's an additional qualifier that the land has to have been contaminated, cleaned up, and subject to this environmental land use restriction. So what I would say, I can't say with certainty, but there are a limited number of self storage facilities within the city. And then a further limited number in the M 1 zone. And then further a limitation on those that have environmental land use restrictions.
Unknown
-
So as a practical matter, this would apply only to a very small handful of properties.
Unknown
-
Thank you, mister Azar. Welcome. Alright. So attorney John Garahee, please.
Unknown
-
Mister chairman, members of the committee, John Garahee, on behalf of Patriot State Storage located at 207 Hartford Avenue in Providence.
Unknown
-
Good evening.
Unknown
-
Good evening. So as indicated by mister Azar, the the the ban on self storage facilities affects existing storage facilities that want to expand. So in our case, our client had a facility that he was building out. If if this committee recalls, we sought a zoning variance to put certain of their property in the M 1 zone in order to accomplish that purpose. The the ban on self storage facilities because of the nonconforming language would have prohibited him from further expanding it.
Unknown
-
This language makes clear that that expansion can continue on the premises both inside and outside. But it only applies to those properties which are in the M 1 zone, which as mister Azar indicated, cannot have residential property, residential use anyway. But also, it limits those to those properties, which includes the facility that I represent, which has an environmental land use restriction on it, which prohibits residential use. Know, the the the an old mill building in this case, which is, you know, adaptive reuse. They're reusing that property for a self storage, but cannot be used for residential properties, but can be expanded within it and outside of it as long as it meets those requirements.
Unknown
-
Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you so much, mister Garahi. City sergeant, do we have anybody that signed up to speak on this item, item number one, please?
Unknown
-
Thank you. Eric Nittelman? Good evening, Eric. Good evening, counsel. I just wanted
Unknown
-
to thank everyone for having the opportunity to take a look at this again and consider the implications of the nonconforming use decision from last year and how it affects the local community and what we're trying to do to provide spaces for people. So we do appreciate everyone taking a look at it and consideration for it.
Unknown
-
Thank you so much. Thank you. We did have an opportunity to go over there, we met with you. We could clearly see what you're trying to do. Thank you.
Unknown
-
Thank you. Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion to enter into the record. Subtitles by councilor Peterson and second by councilman Vargas. All in favor, aye.
Unknown
-
Aye. Opposed? Abstain? You guys have it. I'll also entertain a motion to enter into the record exhibit one b made by councilwoman Peterson.
Unknown
-
Second. Second by councilman Vargas. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed?
Unknown
-
The ayes have it. And also with that, I'll entertain a motion to approve. Entertain a motion to close the public hearing on this item only. So moved. Made by councilor Peterson and second by councilor Mabargas.
Unknown
-
All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, the ayes haven't. So that concludes the public hearing on item number one. And with that said, I'll entertain a motion to approve as amended.
Unknown
-
So moved. Made by council member Vargas, second by councilwoman Peterson. All in favor, aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.
Unknown
-
Item number one is approved. Thank you. Madam clerk, item number two, please.
Unknown
-
Item number two is an ordinance and amendment of chapter 27 of the code of ordinances of the city of Providence entitled the City Of Providence zoning ordinance approved 11/24/2014 as amended to change articles two and twelve relating to entertainment.
Unknown
-
Thank you. Mister Azar, would you like to comment on this?
Unknown
-
Thank you, mister chair. Thank you. Okay, so this amendment, we in the planning department worked on this with council staff, and this is an attempt to refine some of our regulations regarding entertainment, specifically incidental entertainment. Incidental entertainment, the way it's set out today, is intended to be background music that you might find in a restaurant or a bar. It's not allowed to be if it's if it's instruments playing, they're not allowed to be amplified.
Unknown
-
It could be a preselected playlist over a preinstalled sound system. But the point of it is that it's supposed to be quiet and the sound is not supposed to permeate beyond the boundaries of the establishment. Some have found that especially with respect to the amplification standards, that it's it's very restrictive. It would prohibit, for example, if if any sort of vocal amplification. If it's an acoustic guitar, you wouldn't be able to amplify it to the point where certain types of music would be simply inaudible in in in a a setting where there's any number of people.
Unknown
-
So the attempt here was to refine this so that it would be a little bit more practical. So this amendment removes restrictions on the maximum number of instruments and the prohibition on amplification. It adds prohibition on DJs. There's new language that allows incidental entertainment for outdoor dining but adds a curfew of 09:00PM. It maintains prohibitions on cover charge, flashing laser or strobe lights, and also it maintains the condition that the maximum volume is limited solely to the boundaries of the premises at all times.
Unknown
-
Incidental entertainment continues to be allowed explicitly at bars and restaurants. It would also be allowed at other types of facilities like schools, art galleries, community centers. And it would also maintain the standard that incidental entertainment would not require an entertainment license from the board of licenses. Further, there are regulations that clarify what we mean by temporary entertainment. It's known variously in the ordinance as temporary outdoor entertainment or periodic entertainment.
Unknown
-
This is all brought together under the expression temporary entertainment. And there are rules around that, specifically new rules that would limit the number of recurrences of temporary entertainment in a given year. City Planning Commission reviewed this They and they felt that this was appropriate regulation consistent with the comprehensive plan, and they recommended that the council approve this.
Unknown
-
Thank you, mister Azar, for your explanation on this item.
Unknown
-
Councilor Royes. Thank you, chair. Mister Azar, I just I I loved I loved and support this amendment. I do have a questionconcern around when it comes to incidental entertainment, particularly outdoor dining, when it says that maximum volume irrespective of the format is limited solely to the boundaries of the premises at all times. Could you just maybe talk about how that regulation what's the how do we measure that regulation?
Unknown
-
Like it seems pretty subjective.
Unknown
-
Yeah. So so the I think I think on its face, it means that the the sound from the entertainment wouldn't be audible off of the property. So if you were across the street or on an adjacent property that you wouldn't be able to hear the entertainment. If it's outdoors, it would have to be pretty quiet to meet that standard. I could imagine, say, an outdoor patio area adjacent to a to a restaurant where maybe there's there's some speakers that are mounted in such a way that the noise is pointing inward and it would be played at a volume that might be audible by the people eating outdoors but not by someone adjacent.
Unknown
-
You know, I think there is a certain degree of subjectivity to it. I think that the spirit of the law or the proposal, and actually the way it's written today, the spirit is that this is not supposed to be the main event. It's not the reason why people are going. It's there to add some ambiance. It shouldn't overpower any dialogue or anything like that.