City Council - Zoning Committee

City of Chicopee City Council Zoning Committee Approved 7-26-2023 Members George Balakier, Chair William Courchesne, Vice Chair Mary Beth Pniak-Costello Joel McAuliffe Delmarina López Robert J. Zygarowski Gary Labrie MINUTES June 28, 2023 The following are the minutes of a public hearing held Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 6:30 PM in the Chambers, 4th floor, City Hall Annex, 274 Front Street, Chicopee, MA 01013 and via Zoom. Members Present: Balakier, Courchesne, Pniak-Costello, López, Zygarowski, Labrie Absent: McAuliffe Also Present: Timothy Reilly (Associate City Solicitor), Councilor Laflamme, Lee Pouliot (Planning Director), Councilor Dobosz, Chris Casali (IT) The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM In compliance with the Open Meeting Law the Chairman asked if anyone in the audience was recording the meeting. Here none the meeting continued. ITEM #1 Special Permit application under Chapter 275-58 (c)(5) for the purpose of four (4) residential units located at 1682 Memorial Dr. Applicant – 896-900 Prospect Street, Inc., David B. Williams, 32 Haig Ave., South Hadley, MA 01075. Attorney James Baker and David Williams were present via zoom. Attorney Baker stated that he knows that the Building Department conducted an inspection of the property, but he didn’t know whether the Fire Department conducted an inspection. Councilor Balakier read the following emails that he received from the Building Department and the Fire Department. 1 Building Department The Building Department has no concerns on the special permit for 1682 Memorial Drive. They will have a business use on the lower level with residential on the upper levels. – Frank Boron, Building Commissioner Fire Department I performed an inspection of the common front hallway at 1682 Memorial Drive. There were no exist signs, no emergency lighting and the fire extinguisher was not tagged as required by 527 CMR 1.00 the Massachusetts Comprehensive Fire Safety Code. The main hallway was partially obstructed by tenant belongings. The smoke alarms that are there are currently not compliant with 527 CMR 1.00. As I did not have an appointment, I did not try to see the basement commercial space was compliant. I did knock on a tenant door to see if they would let me check the in-unit smoke and or carbon monoxide alarms, but no one answered. Please let me know if you need additional information. – Captain Katie Collins-Kalbaugh Councilor López stated that the email from the Fire Department was received after 5:04 PM and that’s 4 minutes after the cut-off time. Councilor Balakier asked if anyone would like to speak regarding this application from the public. There was no public input. Motion made by Councilor López and seconded by Councilor Balakier to close public input Roll Call Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Courchesne X Pniak-Costello X McAuliffe X López X Zygarowski X Labrie X Motion passed. Councilor Pniak-Costello stated that she went the property today to take a look and she observed that it is a very crowded area. She asked that the number of units be reduced. Councilor Balakier read the following from the Planning Department: Property is zoned Business A; applicant is seeking Special Permit to allow for up to four (4) residential dwelling units; current conditions consist of a building with four (4) residential units and one (1) units used as a professional office for a total of five (5) units; the proposed uses are permitted in Business A by Special Permit 1. 275-58(C)(5): Up to four (4) dwellings in a business building; 2. Parking requirements are regulated under 275-40(N)(1)(B) Multifamily dwellings four or more units 1.5 spaces per unit two guest spaces per 10 units. 2 Planning recommends approval upon confirmation from the Building and Fire Departments that all Building Code and Life Safety requirements are met. David Williams stated that the units are 1 bedroom efficiency apartments. Lee Pouliot stated that the primary use of the property is Business. Under a special permit up to 4 residential units are allowed. The Council cannot restrict the use of the property. Applicant is to contact the Fire Department for an inspection. Attorney Reilly stated that the applicant will need to submit a letter to extend the timeframe of the special permit decision by 60 days. Motion made by Councilor López and seconded by Councilor Balakier to postpone to the July 26, 2023 Zoning Committee meeting at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers, 4th floor, City Hall Annex, 274 Front Street, Chicopee, MA. Roll Call Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Courchesne X Pniak-Costello X McAuliffe X López X Zygarowski X Labrie X Motion passed. ITEM #2 Zone Change application from Industrial Garden Planned Unit Development Type 1 to Industrial for 2.58 +/- acres of property located at Burnett Road (Parcel ID Map 294 Lot 6 and Lot 7) for the purpose of eliminating the existing split zone property. Applicant – Scannell Properties #705, LLC c/o Leo Leighton, 294 Grove Lane, Suite 140, Wayzata, MN 55391. Attorney Matthew Eckel and Leo Leighton were present via zoom. Attorney Eckel stated that this is a zone change request from Industrial Garden Unit Development Type 1 to Industrial for approximately 2.5 acres for the purpose of creating a consistently zoned property. The City has been working to eliminate split zones and is requesting that this split zone for this property also be eliminated. The proposed project is allowed in both zones. Lee Pouliot presented the committee with the following map: 3 Lee Pouliot stated that about a third of the property is already zoned Industrial and a smaller portion is zoned IPUD Type 1. He continued that the Council and the Planning Board over the last few years have been very consistent and working together when a willing property owner comes forward and wishes to address these zones. There are a lot of them throughout the City. Lee stated that some communities have language in their zoning laws that state that when you encounter split zone property, the zoning district that has the majority of area takes precedence for development. The City of Chicopee does not have that language. And what happens is in a project like this, a portion of the development project will have to meet the dimensional and other requirements of one district and then the portion of the property in the other zoning district will have to meet the dimensional requirements and other special requirements of that district. Instead of being designed and permitted as one project, it will be designed and reviewed almost as two projects. Lee stated that he doesn’t 4 know how this property ended up being a split zone. The IPUD district was developed to see the redevelopment of the City’s industrial parks and so there are different dimensional requirements. If the Council were amenable to rezoning the portion it would allow this applicant to design one project that follows the same design requirements versus essentially two projects in one. It will also make the Planning Board's review and the staff who sit on this draft review committee much easier because they only have to look at the requirements of one zoning district versus doing the reviewing calculations for both. Public Input David Amo, 72 Fairway Drive, stated that he does not care what was done in the past and he does not want this project compared to other projects. The applicant was supposed to come in and present the setbacks for this project and the applicant has nothing to present. The residents of Ward 6 are not in favor of creating one zone for this property. He stated that if extra work is required for this project because of the split zone, so be it. Motion made by Councilor López and seconded by Councilor Balakier to close public input. Roll Call Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Courchesne X Pniak-Costello X McAuliffe X López X Zygarowski X Labrie X Motion passed. Councilor Dobosz stated that he agrees with the statement made during public input. The applicant was asked to present why the zone change was needed for this project and that has not been satisfied. Councilor López stated that she agrees with Councilor Dobosz. The split zone does not present a risk to the plan. Councilor Pniak-Costello stated that the resident that spoke during public input makes sense. The residents in this area have been under a great deal of stress in regard to this development. If the zone change is not needed and there’s no sense in going in that direction, especially if you have residential concerns in an area that has been very compromised in regard to traffic and public safety issues. Councilor Balakier stated that the Planning Board voted 6 in favor and none opposed to the zone change request. Councilor Labrie asked if the zone change is not granted would the building still be esthetically pleasing or would it create a zigzag building. Lee stated that there may be some dimensional requirements that may require some shifting to meet the portion of the building that will be in IPUD zone versus the portion that will be in the industrial zone. We don’t know this yet because the site plan review process has not started yet. 5 Lee Pouliot stated that under the Industrial Planned Unit Development permitted uses. The following uses will be permitted in an industrial planned unit development – Industrial uses, except those uses described in Industrial Districts. So both zones allow the same thing. Councilor Zygarowski asked why the applicant is seeking this zone change. Attorney Eckel stated one reason is to partner with the City to eliminate the split zone and the other is to provide their team consistency that is not subject to interpretation; a clear understanding of standards they must be adhered to. Leo Leighton stated that the project cost is approximately $15- $20 million. Councilor López stated that the Planning Department has not provided legitimate reasons for the zone change. Councilor Courchesne stated that the applicant was asked last month to come back today and show how this split zone effects their plan and nothing has been provided tonight. Lee Pouliot provided the following information regarding Industrial and IPUD districts – In Industrial districts dimensional requirements include the height of buildings, minimum setback which are at 25 feet side setbacks only if they abut a residential property are 25 feet. This property does not abut residential property. Rear yard at 25 feet and there is some specific language about signs. In IPUD districts there are a number of calculations that have to be run. First minimum parcel size of 50,000 square feet. There is a maximum height of structures. It’s different than industrial 45 feet versus 60 feet. There is maximum aggregate building coverage of not exceeding 33% of the total parcel area. Total parcel area in two districts but we are going to need to apply 33% to a district that is not IPUD. There’s a minimum tracked frontage or parcel frontage of 125 feet. Minimum setbacks for any street line are 50 feet versus 25 feet. Minimum rear and side yard setbacks are consistent at 25 feet. There are corner lot requirements and there are buffer area screening requirements. A maximum of 75 or 70% of the total track can be rendered impervious. Parking standards are consistent between the two districts. IPUD has landscaping requirements written into the zoning code versus just in site plan regulations. The goal again was to create a consistent look throughout an industrial park. The landscaping requirements at site entrances, signs, parking areas and building entrances. There is a minimum ratio of trees per parking spaces but it’s broken down by the first 80% of parking and then the next 20 and above versus it being one formula in industrial for the total number of parking spaces. Loading docks and facilities have specific requirements for where they can be located. There is a slightly different requirement for signage. Councilor Laflamme asked if the applicant submitted a definitive plan. Lee replied that they have not submitted preliminary plans yet. Lee stated if the Council is amenable to the zone change then he can tell the applicant that he is following one set of regulations and the review process is more efficient because they are only reviewing against one set of regulations. Councilor López would like to speak with residents to see if the differences in the district regulations are an issue for them. 6 Motion made by Councilor López and seconded by Councilor Balakier to approve. Roll Call Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Courchesne X Pniak-Costello X McAuliffe X López X Zygarowski X Labrie X Motion passed. ITEM #3 Minutes – May 31, 2023 Motion made by Councilor López and seconded by Councilor Balakier to approve. Roll Call Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Courchesne X Pniak-Costello X McAuliffe X López X Zygarowski X Labrie X Motion passed. ITEM #4 Adjournment Motion made by Councilor López and seconded by Councilor Balakier to adjourn at 8:24 PM. Roll Call Councilor Yes No Absent Abstained Out of Chair Balakier X Courchesne X Pniak-Costello X McAuliffe X López X 7  Zygarowski X Labrie X Motion passed. 8