The City Planning Commission (CPC), a citizen board “charged with developing the city’s plans for preservation, revitalization, and growth of the city,” met Wednesday evening. They concluded with a discussion about the potential zoning changes that could follow the approval of Providence’s Comprehensive City Plan.
Though the Comp Plan has not been approved yet, the CPC had a preliminary discussion led by Deputy Director of Planning and Development Bob Azar about what these potential changes could look like from a zoning and regulatory perspective.
“We don’t want to jump the gun and assume that they’re going to approve everything that’s in the Comprehensive Plan,” Azar said. “We also want to be ready so that when the Comprehensive Plan is approved, we can move forward with our zoning changes pretty quickly.”
- Upzoning — changing regulations so certain zones are allowed higher density — is a core pillar of the proposed changes. Eliminating R2 would take some regulatory work to ensure buildings are up to code.
The commission discussed how the upzoning changes — or ordinance modifications to allow for higher density in certain types of zoning — is focused intentionally around commercial areas.
The changes would largely be that R2 (moderate density) zones become R3 (higher density), commercial C1 (Neighborhood Commercial District and C2 (General Commercial District) zones would merge, and the areas of R3 and R4 zones would increase throughout the city. While lower density buildings would still be able to exist in these areas, new developments could feature more units or stories.
The Zoning Ordinance User’s Manual details each type of zoning throughout the city.
The commission discussed how special regulatory attention and building inspections would be needed to ensure buildings with two units could increase to three while still aligning with the building code. Illegal third units in these areas would also need special consideration to reregister as compliant dwelling units.
- Eliminating parking minimums for new development is definitely on the table. And developing on surface parking lots is desirable, but hard to make happen.
The draft Comp Plan suggests “[eliminating] parking minimums for new development and [considering] the establishment of maximum parking levels” as a strategy to reduce the number of car rides “while still maintaining quality infrastructure and connections, such that driving alone makes up approximately half the share of trips that it does in 2024.”
Eliminating parking minimums has garnered mixed reactions from the public, with some in ardent support as a means to encourage density and others worrying about how it could contribute to congestion or difficulties for businesses.
Azar explained that parking takes up a lot of square footage that could be used more effectively. “We’ve heard developers say if they didn’t have to build so much parking, they could build more housing.”
He added that eliminating the requirement would “simply leave parking up to the market. And if the developer wants to build it, they should build it. If not, they don’t have to.”
Austin, Minneapolis, and San Francisco have all eliminated the parking spot requirement for new developments.
CPC Chair Michael Gazdacko also pointed out how sustainability and environmental goals could fall in line with eliminating parking minimums by creating green spaces or other permeable surfaces on that land. “I’m in favor of eliminating parking minimums, just taking that out altogether. But I also want to think about impervious coverage as well, and not just add more building footprint to the parcel,” Gazdacko said. “We have to think about where the stormwater is going.”
- Design review is finicky from a legal perspective. But public officials and the CPC are thinking about how to incentivize good design in a legal manner.
At the public hearing on the Comp Plan on Sep. 16, many citizens expressed concern about the quality of architecture in new developments throughout the city. One attendee went so far as to ask that architects who design things to look like Costco or Walmart be kept at bay.
“We’ve been told we’re not doing enough to review design but that’s been a consistent theme, that we need to be more involved in the design review, and the planning department needs to be more involved in design review,” Gazdacko said.
But the planning department legally can’t deny applications on subjective or aesthetic grounds.
“We need to make sure that we’re being consistent with state law, which generally says you’ve got to be explicit and objective in your standards,” Azar said. Certain regulations, such as limits on how many steps a porch can have, could be a factor for improved design. But the look of buildings is largely up to the developer.
Still, some cities have design review for certain kinds of projects, including Chicago and New York.
- Demolition is going to continue happening throughout the city. Protections against demolition exist in areas like Local Historic Districts.
Demolition has been a hot topic throughout the comprehensive planning process.
Demolishing lower-density buildings to make way for multi-unit housing would likely occur in some places for the city to increase its population and housing stock. But some neighbors have been frustrated that historic or culturally significant places aren’t protected outside of local historic districts.
Noel Sachez, CPC member and PPS’s lead BuildingWorks instructor, asked how permitting functions and whether future construction plans for a lot are required prior to demolition. “I think that’s one of the objections from the public,” he said.
“If you come in front of the City Plan Commission with a land development project, once you apply, if there are buildings on that site, you can’t knock them down until the process is complete,” Azar said.
But he emphasized that people are allowed to demolish structures on their property.
“We had a couple of months ago, a very public demolition of three houses on the corner of Brook Street and Angell Street,” Azar said. “And that was allowed. There was no land development project proposed at the time.”
Vacant buildings can carry significant costs and liabilities. And Azar was skeptical of denying owners the right to demolish their buildings. “We’re talking about a significant imposition on unfettered property rights.”
“There’s a presumption here that we — the City — everybody in the city has control over somebody’s parking lot or someone’s vacant land,” Azar said. “We can’t make anybody build anything.”
He explained that he believes that is why “despite the best, most permissive regulations in the city, North Main Street has seen zero development over the past 10 years. It’s not because the zoning is not right,” he said. “The people who own the property aren’t interested in doing what we say we want there.”
Gazdacko raised that during public testimony last week, residents talked about ways to “disincentivize demolishing buildings and leaving parcels vacant,” through means such as taxation.
“Despite what I would consider to be a little bit of fear-mongering, the good news is that we don’t see a lot of demolition in the city,” Azar said.
- There is interest in strengthening incentives for affordable housing and sustainability.
The CPC discussed potential incentives for developers to practice sustainable construction methods, add affordable housing, or promote mixed-use by adding bottom-floor retail to residential buildings.
Many agreed that incentives for sustainability — and how sustainable development would even be measured — warranted further discussion.
“What does that mean?” Azar asked. If there is no burning of fossil fuel in a building, “does that get you an extra story? Does that get you an extra two stories? Does that get you more density?”
“I think the issue we have throughout the city is we’re finding that due to climate change, where our city is not built for the large rain events, and our stormwater system can’t handle it,” Gazdacko said. “That’s something maybe we add to our development guidelines, but also in places where they’re exempt from stormwater, maybe that is something that gets you additional points.”