City Council Work Session   11/1/2023

I guess we're ready to get started.

I will call this meeting.

City Council is a work session.

Call it to order.

It's 6.05.

Sorry for the delay as we were trying to work out a couple of technical difficulties as we're down in the basement conference room, a place that council does not usually end up having a meeting from and live streaming it to the world.

But here we are.

So I will note that we have three members of council here.

Mr. Puryear is here, Mr. Payne is here, I'm here, and then we have Brian Pinkston, so we have a quorum physically present at the moment, and Mr. Pinkston is with us by Zoom.

Yes, I am ill, and I met my home, 1108 St.

Charles Court,

and I will tell you, I'm not sure if COVID's worse or Pavloxid is worse, the medicine they give to help with it.

Any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

The task is 3-0.

So now welcome to the meeting officially.

We're having a hard time hearing you.

Okay.

Okay.

I will note that Mr. Wade, Vice Mayor Wade, will be with us a few minutes late.

He told us in advance that when we start scheduling these meetings on nights other than times we've already set up for council meetings, he sometimes has a little conflict that makes him a few minutes late.

So he'll be with us and he'll join us short.

We have set aside a number of work sessions with the idea that there are specific topics that we wanted as council to discuss in ways that we as council had not discussed collectively and so we have a we've worked we worked through three work sessions

that were sort of general kind of background, almost urban economics and theory kind of stuff as much as anything else.

On tonight's agenda, I think we're talking about the anti-displacement part of the process.

And Mr. Freeze, do you want to lead that off?

Yes, absolutely.

from counselors.

I think at the last meeting we touched on these districts a little bit.

It would be helpful if I went ahead and did a refresher on those.

Yes, please.

So there's two districts that constitute the anti-displacement districts that we've talked about.

The first of those is the RNA district, the Residential Core Neighborhoods A district.

That district pretty closely adheres to the concept that was presented in the comprehensive plan for sensitive community areas.

It proposes that the base density within that district be one unit per lot, that as presented by the Planning Commission, that the bonus for preserving the existing structure allow two additional units, so three total units, and then

for affordable dwelling units provided you can get up to six units where all of the bonus units are affordable.

The other distinction between this proposed district and the regular residential A district is a reduction in the overall building scale that's allowed via reduction in the building coverage and footprint as well as building width and

and I believe height.

Yes.

As far as the mapping of this district, this district was mapped.

There's a map up here on the wall behind Councillor Currier that shows the area as it was recommended by the Planning Commission.

And it's primarily based on our understanding of those areas that have served the city by providing more affordable housing units over time, workforce housing.

Just to be clear, they have never been zoned RA because we've never had RA.

They've been proposed to have been zoned RA.

Yes, that's correct.

Then skipping over to the

Core Neighborhoods Corridor Overlay District.

This district is proposed or was proposed for the Preston Avenue and Cherry Avenue corridors, basically the commercial districts adjacent to these identified core neighborhoods.

And in that district, the base zoning would be proposed at up to three stories.

Those are each CX3 districts or would be proposed CX3 districts.

And then the district would allow some amount of additional bonus height.

I think the draft says up to four stories on Preston and up to three on Cherry.

in order to allow in exchange for which a developer would provide up to two or provide a minimum of two community benefits based on a list of community benefits that are provided within the district.

Those things include things such as additional affordable housing, affordable units beyond what's required under the base affordable dwelling unit ordinance or providing commercial space for

neighborhood serving uses at a more affordable rate could include community gathering spaces, community gardens.

Also included here was idea of sustainable design features being something that could be included towards basically being able to qualify for that additional height.

That additional height would also require a special exception permit, which would be granted by city council.

Now in our discussions, as far as what

The advertised zoning ordinance would show relative to these districts.

As we discussed at the last meeting, the text of these districts would be included in that advertised zoning ordinance, but the maps would not be advertised in order to allow the city council flexibility to decide where to apply these districts based on your discussions and based on the feedback that you guys get from the community.

So any questions on those at this point in time?

We have gotten a number of emails in the last week from folks who do not live in that area saying we want this applied to all of the city, to all RA, all RB, I guess.

And my first recollection of this and my first reaction to it was that

30-plus years ago when we first proposed a form of zoning that was intended to be protective of 10th and Page and Fifeville.

At that point, when I was on Planning Commission, we were calling it an R1A designation.

It later became known as R1S.

It was intended to be specifically for those neighborhoods that we felt were under most pressure

from university for having students move in and so on.

And after I got off the planning commission, it got turned into everybody in the city wanted to have that protection for themselves as well.

And that is one of the reasons why we wound up with so much of the city zoned R1 or R1S and

because this what had been intended to be almost like an overlay district around the university got expanded

Citywide.

Part of the reason we're in the mess we're in right now with so little housing and so many lots zoned for single-family use only is because we submitted to that, or the Council and Planning Commission back then submitted to the same temptation in 1991 as is being dangled in front of us in 2023.

But I'm curious, you know, we're

We're thinking about doing this because we are specifically concerned that these neighborhoods are most at risk of being

topic of gentrification and displacement and so on.

And I'm assuming that what that really means as a practical matter is that we think that there is the greatest likelihood that the houses would be bought at some available opportunity and turned into student housing or not huge 50 unit

and under the current zoning, they would be allowed to have even more students living there under the current proposal than we have under the current zoning because of this extension of staying up to three dwelling units per residence.

And so part of the concern has been, and I think the economic analysis we heard a couple of weeks ago confirms this, that the greatest incentive

The greatest profit margin for somebody to do this and to buy up something and basically take it out of the market for those who want to simply buy and own in that neighborhood.

The greatest incentive for that to happen is going to be in this Tent and Page area, Fifeville area.

I can't remember, is it C&D?

Are those the categories?

They were on the C&D.

And so this is really an attempt to respond to what our expert economist folks are telling us is this is the most problematic area.

And so if there is to be something that we are going to do, some reason to treat this area separately, it is because that's where the temptation is going to be greatest.

And it's where, frankly, you know,

10th and Page used to be a distinct neighborhood that extended up to 12th and 13th, and now it's what we would call 10th and Page doesn't extend.

I mean, in terms of the Black community that had been living there for generations, they're not there on 13th Street anymore, 12th Street, really much anymore, an awful lot of students in there.

So there's a very specific neighborhood preservation component

to this effort that I think neighborhood preservation is one of the things that zoning ordinances are intended for.

And I would just add to that my thinking is an agreement in addition to that, the concern of

I think the discussion on both ends has been very focused on home owners and a question of renters, if the price at which an outside investor is willing to purchase a property goes up by, or if you saw a 50% increase in the valuation of that land and you're a renter,

You're not going to gain anything from that increase in value and you may just get screwed.

So in addition to neighborhood, well, I mean, I guess it's maybe neighborhood preservation in a way as well.

But, you know, I also think of our, you know, the couple existing remaining mobile home parks we have, an area like the Meadows as that concern about displacement of specifically renters who aren't using a voucher or any subsidy.

or the increase in taxes being causing increase in rent because my taxes have gone up in the home that I own, but I rented in order for me to continue to be able to do that and not sell, then the people that are in my unit, their rent will go up.

Even though the renters may have vouchers, at some point, the vouchers may not cover

Well, not that all vouchers cover 100%, but if I have a voucher and I'm now paying, I don't know, $100 a month as an example, but because my property taxes have gone up, my real estate taxes have gone up as the owner of the home,

and I have to have my rent go up.

The voucher may still cover whatever it covers, but the additional monies I may not be able to afford.

So consequently, I become displaced.

And you'd say the sort of the countervailing concern that I've heard from some folks in the neighborhood is basically

What you are proposing to do will limit my ability to profit from appreciation in the value of my house.

And, you know, mama had lived there for 50 years and she died and none of the kids want to live there anymore.

They want to sell the house.

Why shouldn't they be able to maximize their profit?

Their generational wealth is embodied in that house.

And you're saying we can't access that.

and that for some folks that would seem to be just as much a racial issue as the composition of the neighborhood.

And so I'll say that it's a lot of black people have been making that same kind of comment to me.

So I'm

I frankly am torn about how how to reconcile or whether to even to try to reconcile those two views because I I've represented a number of folks who have written the wills for the mother who died and then the house had to get sold because none of the kids wanted to be there.

I definitely don't disagree at all with that tension, but the RNA designation is still an increase in the buy-right development rights over the

Jr.

: existing conditions, and you know, you're still accessing wealth, both from that change in existing conditions in terms of increase in assessments.

But obviously, obviously true.

You know, if you had an RC designation for as just an example, that would be greater than RNA in terms of your your value increase.

Just a few, yeah.

So, James, this is what we're looking at here.

What's in your memo is it matches what was in the handout that you gave us the other day, I guess.

The addition, the modification, the amendment to the zoning text that has the figures for the RNA is what you described earlier in your is what's in the memo.

Yeah, in other words, the documentation we were given a few days a couple weeks ago at this point that had the new text for RNA with the new figures and sketches and all of that text that matches

Yes.

One of the places where there was a discrepancy in what you guys received earlier was in the

in the copy of the RNA text that was submitted as part of the resolution of the Planning Commission, there was an inaccuracy.

It noted that for existing for the existing building bonus, it allowed it said a maximum number of units of two.

But the Planning Commission's recommendation was actually for three that the the

preservation of the existing building would basically allow you to do two additional units on top of preserving that existing one.

So that that is I want to make sure it's noted that that was that's a different that was that's different.

Okay.

In terms of the overall, I mean, I'm looking here at the map of the, it's remarkable the range of the areas that would need the RNA overlay runs all the way from down on Ridge Street to up Rose Hill.

even across Ridge McIntyre, a few units over there.

So it's actually a broader swath of the city than I had originally thought it would be.

So that's interesting to me.

Are y'all able to hear me OK?

Vice Mayor Wade has arrived.

Do you have the answer technologically how we can turn up the volume?

All right.

Fantastic.

Yeah, I think the bottom line is for me, just to sort of cut to the chase, is I feel like this has really been probably the most difficult issue conceptually to try to work through.

And I feel like there were lots of people who gave lots of helpful input

both through the HAC and with the Planning Commission and I feel like and with your staff as well, James, that you all came up with what you thought was a good compromise.

It's not perfect.

There's definitely going to be the trade-off that was mentioned between

whether a person is able to fully take advantage of selling out their equity where they are now versus the fact that if we aren't careful, all of these neighborhoods will just be eroded by gentrification.

For me, I think that I want to air, if that's the right word on the side at this point, at least in time of minimizing the risk of gentrification, knowing that

that causes other problems.

So I support the RNA.

I understand the reason for it.

I think it's a creative solution.

I think that lots of people have thought about this for a long time.

I've had lots of really good conversations about it.

And I think this is an example of the process being responsive to those needs.

I would say the same thing about the corridors as well for Preston and

and Cherry.

The only change I would make for the corridors is I think it needs to go down at least to Reed's on Preston, not stop at the railroad.

Maybe go all the way down to, I'm not sure, the Wendy's or wherever down there, but I think it should go a little further.

But I think that...

What's being proposed for the corridors is responsive to the concerns that were brought to us about the dairy market project when we had all of the people show up at our planning commission meeting back in August, I think at this point or September.

There again, some creativity.

I think Councilor Payne played a big part in that in terms of helping us think through options about

You know, creative ways to get some density, but not let those areas be overrun by luxury student housing.

So again, both of these, I understand the concept.

I understand the details and I am in support of them both.

Again, I think they reflect a lot of thoughtful collaboration with a range of different folks and to me represent the fact that this process has tried to be and is responsive to people's concerns.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Wade, we're just discussing the RNA and the corridor issues associated with that.

Any thoughts?

You know, I guess it's a comment that I just want to be sure because this is the sensitive areas of neighborhoods.

What I am most concerned about is that we're going through all of this that it will have the desired outcome.

You know, and I know we can't control the market, you know, what people would do, but man, if we go through all of this and we still lose our neighborhood, it just would really be tough, you know, and I know it's hard to say, you know, someone comes to someone and say, we're going to give you a million dollars for your property.

There's no

ordinance or, you know, in a world that will prevent something like that, but just large scale neighborhood wise, you know, if these plans, and I believe that it will, but what I, and this week and today is only Wednesday and I didn't meet with anyone today, probably met with like a half dozen people with individual meetings over coffee, over breakfast,

to express their concern about this.

And what they all have said is that, you know, is this going to give us what we want?

And I said, I believe that it does.

But I think that that is one of those

that feelings that a lot of people in the community has is that, you know, will this give us what we want?

So one of the questions that I had, and it relates to the corridors, um,

I had a separate sort of thing I wanted for us to be talking about that relates to this.

That's the question of how we deal with transitions from one zone to another.

And when the discussion of the corridors, particularly on Preston Avenue, first came up, it had to do with the controversy about the expansion of the dairy market and

or Derry Central, and in particular, that sense of how the transition would be made.

And I confess, I don't really understand what that transition is going to end up looking like under the new ordinance.

Can you, Mr. Freese, sort of run us through some of that?

Yeah, I can.

I think that bears on this issue.

Sure.

Well, I will say that one of the things a special exemption process does give you the opportunity to do is address that transition directly and say that

on a particular project, that transition might be found to be insufficient.

But just if we look at the base of what the zoning calls for, in each instance where you have a higher intensity district adjacent to a lower intensity district, whether they abut along property lines or abut across the street, there is a set of rules that basically give you a standardized transition.

and those transitions are in the form of both landscaping increased setback requirements and then finally a step back requirement where above a certain height a building has to step back.

Yeah.

The

I mean, if you take the full host, I mean, there's a lot of requirements that are being put in place.

Again, our effort is to move a lot of those things we might discuss on the discretionary permit into the base zoning ordinance.

So most significantly, we've got the affordable housing requirement as a base requirement.

Every project that exceeds nine units has to meet.

But there's requirements for landscaping, tree canopy, streetscape, pedestrian walkability, pedestrian passages through developments.

There's just a lot that would come into play, particularly on a corridor like Preston where you have larger parcels that have been assembled and are available for development.

We do have, I mean, if it's helpful, I believe Code Studio is listening in to the conversation and could be brought in.

A lot of the questions, Michael, were things that you have been raising.

I think the proposal addresses it in the areas where it's been defined as.

I think it's an approach that seems, as a framework, reasonable to me.

At a certain point, I think, you know, there's a building of a certain height, you know, if it's eight stories and it's adjacent to a residential neighborhood.

You can have step backs and tree plantings.

It's still going to be a change to the existing condition that you just can't get around.

I guess

I don't know.

I mean, I think the framework makes sense in the areas where it works.

I think it's reasonable, especially in the context of us going to revisit our next comprehensive plan in about two years.

But I'll still admit I kind of wrestle with it.

The politics aside, just thinking about it, I still think about

You know, areas in the city in these mixed use corridors that are still going to go to eight, 10 stories by right.

And you look at the existing businesses there.

I just have a hard time seeing how it's not just going to result in the fabric of the small business community fundamentally changing.

In some areas, that may be fine.

I understand there's the idea to move away from discretionary processes and there's a trade-off in terms of costs there.

But there's still part of me that just wonders beyond even what's outlined, what is the

Great Fear that there's a special use permit or equivalent to that in some areas where you're talking about a change to 10 stories or eight stories where the existing conditions may be like 35 feet by right.

And there's also unlimited density with that.

I mean, I've just got to imagine the change in the value of that parcel is going to go up by like a

some factor of like three, four times X. And again, I mean, there's areas where that may, we may want that, but I still just wonder, you know, what kind of change is that going to look like for the fabric of existing businesses and neighborhoods?

And how aware are people in that?

I mean, like, for example, I mean, Reed's market is not in this current, you

Outline of the corridor overlay.

My understanding now is they do own their land, but even still, if you're talking about a site like that going to like eight stories by right with unlimited density,

How how would we not expect that business to just be gone?

And again, maybe that's what we want, but I don't know how widespread the awareness of that is or the discussion of the tradeoffs are in some of these neighborhoods or how deeply we've even thought about it.

And I also think the research in terms of affordability for mixed use corridors is

different than research and changes in residential areas in terms of there's at least some research to indicate that there's a small regional benefit to reducing the cost of housing, but it may still increase gentrification within that immediate neighborhood.

And that's a difficult tension.

But yeah, I understand, you know, you know, what

You know, your concern with that, Mike, I'm trying to think, you know, I'm sure that there is a way that there, you know, because we're talking about it for kind of some existing use, because I think we all, you know, like places like Reed, as long as they want to be there, we don't want

You know, down the road that the owners of it or places similar that if they want to sell or do something, they'd be allowed to, you know.

But if you've got special use permits, I mean, you can still get there, but it's adding a level of kind of review to what conditions are.

But even if they own the land, Michael, I think I hear you saying, and if I don't hear you saying it, tell me.

But I think what you're saying is, even if they own the land...

based on what is currently being proposed.

We wouldn't want them to feel that they have to sell because of what's going up around them or what goes up around them makes their business no longer viable.

Which one are you saying?

or even more valuable because I think most retail places would say, well, you know, we got hundreds of thousands more foot traffic or people living near us.

They may shop here.

My concern would be, is that just a theoretical example?

If they didn't own, if there's any business that doesn't own their land, which is a substantial amount of the small business community, they're going to have no...

their owner decides to sell because your buy-right allowance went up five stories and now there's unlimited density that increased the value of that parcel five times.

What's their situation?

Reed owns it.

But again, like that parcel going to eight stories by right with unlimited density, what is the value increase of that parcel overnight?

What does that impact on their real estate taxes?

And at what point do they say like,

Yeah, you know, we're just going to sell.

First off, I think it would be important to actually clarify how real estate taxes are calculated.

My understanding is for commercial property, it's based on the rent.

The rent, you say?

Right.

But I would want to go and talk to the assessor about how that calculation has arrived at.

But...

It's been noted before, but I want to focus on this for a second.

We can't, through zoning, control what stores or retailers are located in these properties.

So we can't mandate that reads continue to be a grocery store instead of a furniture store.

Well, let's, you know, perhaps get off of that as a specific example, although I think it's useful to think about, is it?

Shouldn't we have to acknowledge if you're talking about changing a business, the existing zoning is, say, 35 feet by right, and there's a density limit, and you change that to 10 stories with unlimited density, you're going to see a fundamental change in the type of business that comes in in the real estate market in that area.

And again, maybe we want to do it, but I mean, I just really struggle to see how that's not...

a fundamental change to even the the economics of investment in that area and then what type of business is likely to come in.

I think there's a completely different market for a type of business that comes in on the bottom floor of a mixed use development that's eight or ten stories.

I'm sorry, could I ask a quick question?

So you're referring not just to the area it reads, but for example, East High Street or others of these NX or CX designations throughout the city.

Your concerns are for those as well, not just specifically in this area.

Broader and just trying to, you know, even still thinking through it myself, you know, what is what is even the tradeoff in some areas of still having special exceptions, special use permit, especially as we see, you know, what the impact is over the next two years?

Because I just see a high degree of uncertainty in terms of what it's going to look like in

the fabric of existing businesses in commercial areas.

Again, particularly when you're talking about a change as significant as removing a density restriction and going to eight or 10 stories by right when the existing condition may be, again, 35, 40 feet.

It is the existing build condition or the existing zoning.

Existing zoning.

Because I think it's important to acknowledge that pretty much as soon as you go to new construction, you're likely to be increasing those commercial rents, right?

So it's kind of virtually at the point of redevelopment.

There's a saying attributed to King Jacobs, right, that says new ideas of old buildings.

And what she's basically getting at is entrepreneurial activity seeks out old buildings because that's where lower rents are.

Right.

So that so.

But our objective with these by by zoning a wider area for for for higher intensity use, we are concentrating the redevelopment activity.

We're we're spreading out the potential for it.

I'm trying to would it be conceptually I mean, is it even conceptually wrong to consider you have your comprehensive plan laying out

You know, future land use map in some of these areas.

I mean, in my mind, it's a tension, but I'm not even sure it's would be conceptually inaccurate to say if you're having a special use permit that can still go up to eight, 10 stories with unlimited density.

It's still a zoning change.

It's just introducing an element of

discretionary decision where people in that area have a voice.

And I understand there's the concern that increases cost.

There's a concern that politically council may just never prove anything.

And I understand politics change quickly, but I just look at our recent history of special use rezoning permits.

So that was something.

I'm sorry.

I think that's worth responding to.

I saw Lee raise a hand.

I actually just got a quick question for Councilmember Payne because I think this is a really tough topic that you guys are tackling here.

But would you consider Councilmember Payne starting the requirement for SUP at something like more than five stories, for example, where

You might believe that you would get the right outcome on a site, you know, at three stories or five stories, but you're quite concerned about the more radical change of seven, eight, ten stories.

If that were a possibility, I think a couple of things would be true.

One, the ability to pay the freight, if you will, of sticking through the process of a special use permit is easier when the change is more substantial.

and it might encourage some people to stay at those more moderate level heights that choose not to go through the SUP process.

We might be able to begin to craft a solution that allows a little of both to occur.

Asking more of the taller building because it is less in keeping with the existing scale of the surrounding area.

I think that framework kind of gets at my concern.

It's what we've outlined just in certain areas.

My concern is really less even the built environment than just my uncertainty of a certain level of the value increase of the parcel.

There's just a lot of uncertainty in my mind.

What the impact is that going to be in our 10 and a half square miles, the

the business community in those areas.

And even just, you know, what is the mix going to be of a hotel built versus office space versus apartments?

I mean, in my mind, there's uncertainty as, you know, you go up to eight, 10 stories by right.

How much of that is office use and how much of that do we even want to see in some of these areas?

So, Michael, I mean,

You know, in my mind, we kind of find solutions and I'm trying to figure out what would make you feel make this, you know, acceptable to you or maybe it's not.

But with, you know, I think with Lisa, it was something like that to a certain degree or, you know, I'm

What would you like to see?

Because there's going to be some uncertainty in all of this.

What would you, if you were writing your own ordinance, what would it look like?

Well, part of my difficulty is I don't know that answer.

I think

I think the framework of the corridors that's in front of us tonight addresses the concern I have for where it is.

The question in my mind, are there areas where that kind of general framework, you would want to expand it beyond where we've outlined it?

I think in general, what Lee brought up is that idea kind of addresses the tension I have.

I don't know.

And where, you know, we land on that in the in the context we're visiting in this two years in two years, I guess I'm just I wonder, Michael, could we could we just see how things go over the next two years?

And if we need to craft a solution, then I mean, I feel like.

The two corridors that we're speaking about tonight, we specifically made this request because we were concerned about displacement of people, really, in homes, residences, although I guess we're also concerned about displacement of neighborhood businesses, so I can see that connection.

But in other places, and the only other place that kind of comes to mind is the East High corridor there.

I mean, when the FLUM was worked through a couple years ago, was there, I know most of the conversation has been around the impact to residential neighborhoods, but was there discussion then about, you know, the impact to commercial, the commercial side of things?

because I have a little, I don't know, I'm interested in this.

There was no discussion of commercial and I don't think we really even discussed mixed use corridors at all.

And it's long since gone.

But the idea then that the future land use map was a long term maximum build out and that the immediate zoning change didn't need to necessarily go to what the future land use map was.

But we did not discuss, in my memory, commercial or mixed use corridors.

Okay.

And obviously they have been maxed out.

All right, I'm assuming they have that.

So I want to talk in particular about the Preston Avenue corridor because in the original, I shouldn't say the original, I guess it was the August draft, the Preston Avenue corridor between 10th Street and the railroad tracks was all various shades of CX-5 and CX-8.

and then the map that was proposed on October 13th basically took everything within that corridor and dropped it back to CX3 and then there was a recommendation on October 18th

that basically kept that as CX-3 except for the area that is bounded by the railroad tracks across Preston Avenue and then by the railroad spur that goes down by the county office building and then one

one lot in each direction.

So that would basically mean on one side, Bodo's.

On the other side, it would mean reeds and the Random Road Brewery, basically.

and those particular areas under the current version of things have reverted to CX eight.

And so one of the questions that I guess we we ought to talk about is whether whether we like the original version of CX five and CX eight, whether we like the intermediate version of CX three or whether we like the the version.

In fact, I'll just

point out that this is Reed's and this is Bodo's.

So that's Reed's and that's Bodo's.

See, that goes from CX3 to CX8.

And to be clear, the middle one is based on the idea of incorporating the corridor overlay.

Well, I remember at the Planning Commission meeting on October 18th discussion of sort of specifically, are we trying to protect reads?

Are we trying to protect photos?

And I didn't hear an actual everybody going around the table and saying, OK, four to two, we're deciding we're protecting region photos.

But we still we end up with that recommendation.

So and I believe the difference differentiation was the planning commission was focused on adjacency to the neighborhoods and they noted that that you with the neighborhood adjacent.

Right.

But I mean, if you if you go back to the intention of this corridor overlay, it's really focused on

on these as the commercial corridors that serve these adjacent neighborhoods with certain amenities, retail stores.

We've talked about grocery stores, laundromats,

I don't know why I keep at that.

That's what I don't come up with.

But there being there being those types of amenities and that doesn't necessarily refer to adjacency.

It refers to these are the accessible.

This is the accessible corridor that that provides these services to these populations.

And it all will.

And for what it's worth, I was just looking at the use chart and I guess it would be pages 3-4 through 3-7.

And there

is almost no difference between CX-3 and CX-8 in terms of the uses permitted.

It's purely a matter of intensity.

I see a little bit of a difference in that CX-8 could have a hospital by a special use permit, but a CX-3 could not.

You could have an animal care facility outdoors in a CX-8, but not in a CX-3.

There are a few things like that, but only a very few.

If we could circle back just a second in terms of Michael's earlier questions about the CX zones in general, I guess my first question is,

I mean the topic of this meeting was really on the the RNA and then these two particular corridors and then this more broad this broader topic that Michael brought up which I think is an important one about the commercial corridors in general I'm wondering

Can we at least get some agreement on the, you know, sort of the original thing we were talking about, the RNA and then these two commercial corridors and then see where we land on, you know, perhaps next steps for the commercial, just more, I say commercial corridors more generally.

Well, I think you make a good point in one respect.

Look, maybe it'd be a good idea to try to close the book on a chapter before we move on to the next chapter, so at least we get a sense of a decision having been made.

Yes.

How do folks feel about the RNA?

I had a general sense that people were okay with the way it's been recommended to us, but I don't want to speak for everybody.

Yes.

I'm good with RNA.

I would note the areas where it is or is a smaller geographic area than the sensitive original sensitive communities overlay in the comprehensive plan.

I'm good with the framework.

Okay, well, let's just take the definitions for now, and then we can step next to the question of whether there are specific concerns to have about the areas.

Councilor Puryear, you okay with it?

Okay, it sounds like we have a consensus then behind the text of RNA.

And then the the next question that Michael was raising was about where and he correctly notes that we had in an earlier draft had a suggestion of what sometimes been called sensitive areas or however you want to characterize it.

But basically being areas that we thought were most likely to be the subject of gentrification slash displacement.

One of the things I'm assuming, although I probably shouldn't assume this, but Ms.

The analysis by RKG included everything that was designated sensitive community included the meadows.

When you see that designation C slash D, C was everything that's

close to downtown Ridge, Rose Hill and Page, et cetera, University in downtown.

The Meadows was D. It was treated separately, but the finding was largely the same.

The differentiation, we didn't include the Meadows because, granted, we haven't had extensive conversations with anyone, but the conversations we've had with folks from that neighborhood was that they were not interested in, at that time when we were just talking about sensitive communities, the indication I got was we don't want to be included in this sensitive communities designation.

Now, I will not claim that we talked to an extensive number of people.

We held a meeting out in that neighborhood, but

Well, and I. But why wouldn't they want to be included?

Well, the primary reason is that they say they don't the statement from the folks that were in the room was that they don't they aren't seeing the same development pressure that's happening at the page.

They're not seeing turnover in in properties.

But that could change.

And so if they're not in the mix and it changes, then they're on the outside looking in.

Right?

Am I wrong?

Am I right?

Yes.

What are my thoughts?

And I don't know if this is I mean, I've had I've had more conversations with people from 10th and Page and Fifeville than I have with the people from correct from the Meadows.

And partly my sense is that a lot of the people who are renters up there in the Meadows are more transient.

Certainly the people who were the folks who are most vociferous in talking to me about in 10th and Page were the owners

the tenants, but I heard a lot from the tenants through various other groups who were representing the tenants.

You know, old apartment buildings in the Meadows or, you know, some of the mobile home parks, mobile home parks.

I don't think we've heard from anyone who lives there.

I doubt we ever will unless we go canvas there ourselves.

So what do you, given what you're saying, Michael, which makes perfect sense, I don't want my land swooped up.

but even though I'm renting the land, what is it that could be done that they could be included?

What could I do?

I mean, is now the time for them to be included or do you just say, well, you know what, in 18 or 24 months we go back and we put them in the mix?

We could.

I mean, I'm asking.

I don't know.

The disadvantage of doing it or the piecemeal fashion is that something may change.

Somebody may do something different in the next 18 to 24 months.

If we think that that's a valid concern, a valid problem, then it might need to address it now.

I would raise that with the mobile home parks in particular, if we were today and then the R&A district, as we've discussed this, that would actually be a lower density than they currently have today in terms of how those lots are zoned.

Yeah, I'd like to understand a little more, I guess, going back.

I see sort of the historical and cultural and economic rationale for what I'm looking at on my screen here, which is in the memo of all the lots, the parcels that y'all are now including.

This is on page.

City of Charleston maps draft October 2023.

I don't know if y'all

pull that up on your screen.

In any event, I see how these connect to the notion of a sensitive community.

A lot of these, you know, in terms of the census tracts, the historical development, I understand why these would belong to a sensitive community type scenario.

I don't see how that

translates to the meadows.

So I guess at some point, I just, I worry if we continue to carve things up, we're going to get to the point where things have a real sort of ad hoc

or at least we run the risk of an ad hoc kind of approach to this.

Again, the sensitive communities that we have here, it's a high BIPOC area, you know, a lot of these places have already experienced a lot of impact from the university, you know, Tenth and Page, Ridge, Fifeville, all those make sense, but I'm struggling to see

My thinking is if the goal is to try to prevent displacement of renters and the ideal would be if you could find specific parcels that have a high percentage of low income renters with no subsidy.

My concern is, again, you know, mobile home park, you allow you change the zoning to allow unlimited density, five stories with the height bonus.

If that increases the value of the parcel by 100 percent and the owner sells it,

All those people are screwed and they're never going to live here again.

And we never heard from them.

We never will.

But you just got rid of that community and that housing type.

And we say, oops.

And, you know, but they'll probably never even vote.

Well, I would like to say, yes, I would like to suggest that we're talking about having a specific meeting in the next couple of weeks to talk about the, frankly, details on the zoning map that we can identify this question of the meadows and whether they ought to be designated as part of the the.

What are we calling it?

Are there other places in the city that might, I mean, again, I hear what you're saying, Michael.

One of the things I was going to say at the end of the meeting was to kind of tee up this notion that we would have a meeting that would be discussing individual aspects of the zoning map.

and one of the things I was going to do is ask everybody to give not necessarily tonight, but in the next day or two, a list to Mr. Freeze of any particular areas, parcels, streets, blocks that we want to talk about on an individual basis.

And I would

Perhaps we should defer further discussion of the specifics of the Meadows inclusion and the anti-displacement zone to that time.

If we have a general consensus, we apparently have consensus around the language.

We have consensus, it would appear, at least as to 10th and Page in Fifeville.

Is that fair to say, everybody?

Yeah.

Okay.

And so the next question of including the Meadows, that's something that we can take up when we have that further discussion in a couple of weeks.

That seems appropriate, everybody.

I'd like to try to get through the few things that we know we had said we wanted to accomplish and and sort of closing a chapter and moving on to the next chapter so that we come to the end of the meeting and Mr. Freeze knows what he's being asked to do for the next meeting for Mr. Freeze.

It's what he gets paid the big bucks for.

Oh, OK.

So, okay, so why don't we, hearing no objection to that proposal, let's figure we'll talk more about the Meadows in a week or two.

Okay.

The text, yes.

Yeah, text.

Yes.

Text, yes.

Okay.

All right.

So we've got that agreed to.

Do we want to if we can come to an agreement without a whole lot of difficulty this evening?

Fine.

If not, we can put it off till the next meeting.

But how are people feeling about proposals specifically for for Preston Avenue?

and we had the three choices.

The middle choice was everything was CX3.

The right hand choice was taking the parcels that are basically reeds and the gas station across the street and I guess Brown's cleaners and photos and those would get would be allowed to go up to CX8.

Yeah.

OK, thank you, Miss Creasy.

Can someone please point out where Harris is?

Yeah, this is this.

This is the brown.

Yeah.

If you see Preston, let's look at the middle one.

Preston Avenue runs up through the middle of the corridor, and then there is the railroad tracks are the thickest white area that's going from east to west.

Middle one, okay.

Like the 13th one over the 18th one?

Yes.

How do the rest of y'all feel about it?

Likewise, the 13th, my recollection is the Planning Commission said they changed it because the bridge where the railroad is, they considered it to be a geographic barrier that separated it, but I think

I'm fine with the Planning Commission, the 18th, but if the majority goes with the 13th, I'm in that area all the time.

Railroad is definitely not a barrier.

It is if you are, you know,

in a wheelchair or something like that.

And that's one of the persons I met with this week.

I can go either way.

I think the 13th addresses what Michael was talking about earlier.

Am I right, Michael, about the extension?

Remember, you said beyond the railroad tracks down?

Yes.

The 13th addresses what your concern was earlier.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, the three to five, I don't know, that eight seems to be an awful lot to me.

However, I'm not a planning commissioner, and I presume they did the 18th for a reason.

Well, OK, we're undecided at this point, but let's revisit that when when we come back to individual individual plots.

Are there related issues pertaining to displacement?

Maybe ask that more question more broadly.

I've got the two districts.

That's that's our.

I think we already decided to advertise the maps for either.

Right.

Thanks.

Maintaining maximum flexibility.

All right.

That's number one.

No matter what else we do, that's always one.

There you go.

All right.

So are there, I'm hearing no other topics related to displacement in particular.

Are there other topics that we can, I mean, that was the one that was most advertised for this evening.

Are there other things that we can be talking about profitably right now?

Well, so it would seem a proposal was put on the table to consider the SCP requirement over five stories.

And I'm presuming that would be on a broader scale than just these corridors we've just been talking about.

Let's talk about that a little bit.

Yeah.

I mean, I will say that

We have a couple of different tensions here.

One tension is that we know that every time we end up talking about SUPs, it slows the process down and causes more expense for applicants.

On the other hand, it also gives the government, the planners, more control over the process.

And the idea is that we may not be able to so finely tune our zoning ordinance that we can

We can say with certainty which results we would always find to be acceptable.

So I guess one of the questions I've had is whether there is a way to have what I would call an SUP light.

where maybe you don't have to go through all of the engineering stuff or whatever is necessary or at least desirable.

I know that's been one of the complaints is a lot of times SUP applicants have not done all of the detailed engineering work largely.

And I understand the reasoning that they don't want to spend the money on that kind of thing until they have an idea as to whether the concept is going

Commission.

It certainly is the question of what constitutes a packet, an application packet, right?

And certainly seeing SUP packets that rely on more conceptual drawings.

Now, what the developer is going to say is that there's a certain amount of network they have to do anyway, because they got to make sure they don't get permission for something that then turns out to be infeasible.

So that's a tension.

That's a risk.

I mean, the challenge of an SUP is really for the developer.

It's just it's a dollar amount, right?

And it's a dollar amount that's based on risk.

They're doing design work at risk.

or they're risking that they get approval for something that then they're not able to make work at the end.

Time is a major factor in that too.

That's a cost.

But all of that at the end of the day is cost.

And so it's in some respects weighing on our side of cost and benefit.

I would note you said it's an additional cost for the applicant.

I also said it is also an additional cost for the city, because we have to expend staff time, your time, your valuable time.

So it's not free for the city either.

We'll never know.

Right.

One of the things that I've seen with SUP processes is that they tend to favor local developers over outside developers.

And maybe that's viewed as a good thing.

Maybe that's viewed as a bad thing.

Any time where you're you're jiggering with the competition and creating kind of monopoly conditions for one part or another, you're you're kind of messing with

The value that competition brings into the marketplace anyway.

So that's just the issue right there.

It's just measuring the costs and benefits of providing that.

I think you've well stated many of the benefits that come with it.

Right.

A question, I don't know if it fully resolves some of the tensions I feel, but could you have

I don't know, special exception, specialties permit light in terms of there's that discretionary decision based on the use of the building.

Because my understanding is some of these areas you've got by right office as well as hotel use.

I have no idea if it's likely the market responds in that way, but I'm not sure.

I mean, does it meet our goals if

a corridor became a devout outside developer bought six lots, consolidate them and build a mix of five and eight story hotel and office uses.

Maybe that would never happen.

But to me, that seems contrary to our goal and different to me than if, you know, you've got housing built in that manner.

I mean, that's what a special use permit is meant to be.

And that, right, it's it's it's meant to focus

Yeah, and it can't focus on the identity of the user.

Hi, Mr. Mayor.

I really, to Councillor Payne's point, so it seems there are two trains of thought.

I think discussion is articulating that.

Councilor Payne's point, it really is all about use.

Because to me, one of the discussions we had briefly was about the distinction that this ordinance would set up between a special use permit and a special exception.

We do.

And what our ordinance says is you can only request those kinds of dimensional exceptions in the context of a special use permit.

Sure.

The current code allows one who wants to obtain an SUP the opportunity to ask for size changes.

Well, by separating those out, someone can just seek the setback change that they were looking for, for example, rather than going through the process of asking for a use that they aren't actually necessary.

So, and to the point you're kind of making, if we were to do an SUP for height, note that this corridor district refers to a special exception because we were focused on height, not use.

And we would probably reconstitute that idea as a special exception to allow you to go to a greater height as opposed to a special use moment.

Well, I mean, that seems fairly, I mean, I guess the idea that the, you know, the architects, as it were, of this whole enterprise, one of their main criteria was that we would get out of the business of having so much, you know, paperwork, for lack of a better word, and people would have a pretty good sense of what they could build by right, just by essentially looking at the

the zoning map.

But if what's being described, particularly with the commercial districts, is a pretty simple bureaucratic artifact, for lack of a better word, we're a special exception, I think you're calling it, to allow a person to go from one height to another.

I mean, if the sense from the professional staff is that it's not going to like totally quash all development, and then this is a reasonable sort of tool to use, and if that helps, you know, with Counselor Payne's concerns about, you know, having businesses

displaced.

We've spoken a lot about the displacement of people and now we're shifting to discussions of displacement of businesses, which is important too.

So there wouldn't I mean, for the purposes of understanding the uncertainty and the cost associated with uncertainty and the time principle, there's really no difference between the SAP and the special exception.

And I mean, notably, I'm sure there's a number of local developers who are listening to this and

probably scrambling to send you guys messages right now.

But they would also point out the other uncertainty is in the form of the conditions that might arise.

What conditions am I going to get that are going to blow my pro forma?

And again, that's one of the things we're trying to front load into the ordinance.

So in this example, the core neighborhoods overlay district,

That's why rather than just kind of saying it's a special exception and we're done, we kind of created this menu to try and reduce that degree of uncertainty and make it clear.

We're not going to ask for anything.

We're asking for one of these things.

And then it puts a little bit more predictability into that.

Yes, yes.

Very good.

If I might just add to that, you can set your application requirements differently and require

to be just localist, the back of the envelope type of schematic or elevation for it.

And you can leave it at that.

What's going to happen, though, if you're interested in the community's participation and input, is they're going to start asking for more things.

And so if you haven't required them up front, you then have the developer going back and having to redo plans, redo other things.

It might practically be illusory.

And it also, again, when you talk about the cost associated with the discretionary review process, it's the rework as well.

Thank you.

My goal would be to try to enable people to get to an acceptable yes with less hassle.

But you still maybe I'm thinking about it wrong with me.

The question is, do we greatly reduce discretionary processes and land use or do we completely

Eliminate them for the most practically.

I mean, let's assume and I don't even think this would be the right approach.

Let's assume you have this discretionary process in every mixed use corridor.

The by right allowance, both in height and density, just in those corridors overall would be significantly increased in terms of by right allowances, plus all the residential changes in greatly increasing by right allowances with no discretionary processes.

So, you know,

Yeah, I mean, I think part of the discussion is that, you know, we don't want to seem like we're just like we don't want to make things too difficult for developers.

They they they know how to get around.

But I think one of the reasons that we're in this housing crunch and things now is because things have been difficult to get developed here for many years and and

and there's been a lack of development that this is just my summary of what has happened.

So it's where that balance is, you know, and I think that if we could say maybe you could do certain things up until this point, but after that, let City Council or the Planning Commission or whatever review it.

Yeah.

And

Correct, correct.

And the other question is, I mean, do other counselors think and genuinely have no idea maybe the market just never would respond this way?

Would we view it as a successful outcome for our goals if an outside developer bought, you know, five lots and what they developed was five to eight stories hotel and office uses without housing?

Well, in the abstracts, I personally would probably say I wouldn't welcome that result.

But on the other hand, it's also not likely to happen unless there's some significantly different market pressures than what I'm seeing right now.

Can I also say, for that to happen, that implies that there's a very strong market for office space in the city.

Well, there isn't today, but if that development proposal comes

to fruition, it means that there is a really strong market for office space.

And I actually don't know why we would say no if there is a really strong market for office space.

Because if there's a really strong market for office space, that means our existing office space is going up and up and up in value like our residential is today, right?

The same rules of supply and demand apply.

I would add that my experience with

developers of commercial products is they're even more attuned to the bottom line than residential developers.

So someone just sent me this, and I remember reading about this in my planning days about pre-approved plans, maybe with that speeding up, and that gets into question, what you just said, it's like, do we know what

So it's one of those things like what markets said, you know, is needed or what we want as the city council or as a community.

So I don't know.

Oh, there's a lot.

I mean, in the field, there's a ton of conversations happening around pre-approved plans.

And so the notion is that you've

at least make sure we're talking about the same thing.

The city or even another party could develop a set of standard plans for, say, backyard accessory apartments or duplexes or whatever, and get them pre-approved.

Basically, all you'd have to do is bring in that plan, make sure it fits within the lot and otherwise meets under the lot requirements, and then off you go with the building permit.

Yeah, there's a there's a lot of conversations happening where you don't need architects, you don't need all.

Yeah.

So so I guess my question is, has has there been discussion like the years with the Planning Commission or the previous council ever talk about anything or it's kind of touchy, sir, in that we

You know, we are an economist and things like that.

Or you could have things that have a small regional benefit that overall is good, but a specific neighborhood bears extremely high cost.

I think we I think we did discuss that with accessory dwelling units, though, but we never acted on it.

Well, I mean, it doesn't sound like it was a bad idea.

So, I mean, I think there's something we can maybe, you know,

The specific question that was raised earlier is, I guess it would be the question of whether, for example, whether the review process might be easier for, let's say, for the process of going from CX3 to CX5

of getting the bonus within CX-3 as opposed to getting the bonus within a CX-8 where you'd be going to 10 stories or 11 stories.

Would it be possible to figure out some way to make a distinction and to make it easier for folks if they're not?

I mean, perhaps to make it

Yes.

Either.

I'm thinking right now it was within the context of what would it take to get the bonus to go from five to seven stories or to go from eight to 11 stories.

That was one of the conclusions of our economist analysis right now is that with the cost of concrete and steel, the revenues just aren't there for most projects for us to see buildings of that height right now.

The exception being student housing,

That's my understanding, but I think I want to be careful here.

I think The Economist was looking primarily at residential, but we've already talked about the market for office space in the city.

It's not strong enough to support.

Then you get the third hotel market.

Yeah.

I don't know what the hotel market looks like.

So it's unlikely in the short run that we would see many proposals to go from CX-5 from five to seven stories.

If we were at CX-8, maybe to go from eight to 11 stories because you're already into the concrete and steel construction at eight.

I want to come back to a comment that's made about the participation that this discretionary review process is bringing.

One of the challenges that's inherent in those processes is that public hearing environment is generally at the end of the process.

Occasionally you have a developer who will engage with the community and do something like Cherry Avenue, but I hesitate to call that something that will happen on a planet.

of frequency.

And so you're talking about engagement at the end of the process, and that's what leads to rework and cost and all that stuff.

What we really do try and do is incorporate to do it as part of this legislative process, right?

So if we're thinking about that line of five stories and up and recognizing that it's not terribly viable right now,

Maybe one option is that we just cap our zoning at that for now and come back to higher intensity, higher story districts.

And I'm sure planning commissioners who are listening to this aren't thrilled to hear me say it, but I'm just trying to look at options that are available.

Yeah, just all the higher stories.

Or you do it that way.

Right.

There's more than one.

Maybe maybe that's the way you do it.

You say it's CX five.

You can go through a special exception or some sort of discretionary process to get higher than that.

And then you then

But then as we go forward, we may look for places where we can remove that discretionary permit to go higher in the future.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm thinking this realistically wouldn't happen for a long time, probably isn't realistic, but I know ages ago the idea was

Everywhere where you have a really major up zone, small area plan and go before it.

Sure.

Then you based on that, you go there.

And like those areas, I mean, you've got a confliction with like I see possible exceptions like Ravana River urban corridor plan.

Areas like that is where I see the conflict.

And I need to narrow down my concerns with those are because I also agree.

I mean, you've got you've got areas like barracks, you've got areas in the in the urban ring.

We're on multiple dimensions.

So back to the question of special use permits and if there's something else that we want to do.

OK, let's take a step back and look at the questions.

We want to say, let's just let's just back off going above five stories right now.

I think to make that change citywide is far too dramatic of a response to the concerns I have.

So were there areas where you raised the issue of a discretionary review process?

More specific areas than citywide, but I mean, if I were to list out every single one of those, I wouldn't know the answer.

Thank you.

Every place we're talking about a height bonus would be a special use permit or a special exception?

I'm just wondering, every place where we're talking about having a height bonus, go from 5 to 7 stories or 8 to 11 stories or 10 to 13 stories, that that added height, would that be a special use permit or are we calling that a special exception?

Or does it matter?

That's how that's structured right now.

Is that the only way?

Oh, I see.

Okay.

Yeah.

And do we allow that in CX as well?

Yeah.

Okay.

and NX.

Yep.

So that's that is in all the RX, CX, NX, IX.

In all of those, there's a bonus height that you're able to achieve in exchange for providing that affordable dwelling unit at a AMI at 50 percent of AMI.

Right.

So the base requirement

is that everybody has to do without any bonus is 60% of AMI, 10% of units and 60% of AMI.

Yeah, I guess my question, Michael, is could you

maybe gesture towards what you think might be possible criteria for a special exception permit.

I mean, the notion of reducing them across the city, you were saying is too extreme.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is how do we strike the balance between

having even a special use permit or special exception permit that is kind of a credible deal that people know what they're getting sort of signing up to with the sort of specificity of the particular areas that I guess you're concerned about.

A very good and fair question.

I mean, I don't know what the objective criteria is because I mean, my thinking is too much kind of like vibe based in terms of like areas adjacent to residential areas where you have an existing pattern of kind of like small business.

ownership in development and the impact there.

And if you address that with five stories by right above that is special exception permit, I think that is a framework that seems reasonable, potentially hotel uses special use permit rather than by right.

Yeah, well, it's a complicated topic and you did a really good job responding.

So thank you.

I'm impressed as always.

What about the transition zones, the transition planning, does that help?

The transition, what are we calling?

Transitions, I guess.

I think those are reasonable.

My concern is less even the built environment than changes to the economics of investment in those areas.

So I'm not really as concerned with.

I mean, my concern was, at least in the short term, be unfounded.

Is it something that we could come back to in two years?

Sure.

Well, of course, the reality is that anything we would do right now, if we passed it into effect on the 1st of January, nothing is going to get built under that for at least two years anyway.

If it's going to be a five to eight story building, the two years may not be time enough to know.

Yeah, I mean, it just sounds like it's a complicated enough question that I don't know that staff is going to have time to to help us or we'll have time to lay out even the questions we have for them if we want to get this done by the end of the year.

So I guess my personally, I'm sort of backtracking on some of my concerns about this.

I don't know if other people are in sort of the same boat, then we can keep moving forward.

I just raised one concern, as we talked about at the last meeting, if there's a desire to, and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's a desire to have some form of discussionary permit,

Five stories and up.

But what you have said is that the bonuses to go from 5 to 7 to 8 to 11, 10 to 13.

Yes.

So we will be sending materials out mid next week.

The mailing has to go through a processor.

So that's the date when the materials have to get to the printer for the mailings.

So we have to do a citywide mailing again, right?

So our goal was to publish the draft ordinance that we're advertising by closing business on Friday of this week.

That was our objective.

So give everybody a full month to review that draft ordinance before the public hearing in December.

Otherwise, if we think about the latest that we need to publish that draft, it has to be published on the day of the first ad, which is the 21st.

The other possibility is if the only places that we're affecting are the parcels that are in these corridors, although it's not nothing,

the subject of a separate advertisement or a separate notice.

Mr. Mayor, maybe the only one confused.

Probably not.

No, I'm with you.

I thought on the corridors, you already have a permission in there for a special exception permit for increase in elevation.

What I thought Councilor Payne was talking about was for all commercial buildings

to require or potentially require a special exception permit above a certain five stories or whatever if you wanted additional height, whether it's in the corridor or out of the corridor.

There already is a provision separately.

That's on the commercial side.

The housing side is by right for bonus density if you do affordable housing.

So that's already in there.

That's already in there.

So what I thought we had narrowed it down to perhaps, and maybe I'm wrong, is whether we include a special exception permit requirement for commercial elevations that are higher than five stories.

That was one of the ideas that floated by.

Is

I guess the way I think about it, the existing corridor overlay proposal, there's a question of the extent to how many parcels that applies to.

And there could also be a question of what is the base height?

Is that something that requires re-advertisement?

We haven't advertised anything to do with the map, right?

Because we said we weren't.

Because we said we weren't.

So in terms of the extent of this district,

We still want to tie it into the purpose of the district, but this could go beyond Preston and Cherry if that was the desire.

Mr. Fraser, I think where perhaps some of the lawyers are pondering is just to ensure based on this discussion, for example, if there's going to be a change on special exception, special use permit, then that might be something that we don't want to incorporate in the ad.

Yes, I think at this point we we still need to flesh out if we want to do it, like have special in, you know, our we review it after supply level.

So let's go ahead and put it in the advertisement.

You know, that's that's what I that for any commercial use of five store of more than five stories, there would have to be a special use permit.

Yes.

Unrelated to whatever use.

I'm saying if we're starting from any commercial use over five stories requires a special use permit or whatever,

and then we decided to go to just being hotels, for example, that's reducing the intensity and that would not require re-advertisement.

Certainly.

I was just using the term commercial generally.

So can we do that?

I think I would.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding what we're saying.

That's what that's what I was thinking.

And the reason for that was that to say a commercial use, we get into the issue of, well, supposing you've got three stories that are commercial and four stories are going to be residential.

Is that a commercial use or residential?

Let's not have that argument, at least not right now.

have that argument.

We're going to have it in May, but not before.

That's very helpful.

When Leah's gone.

Is there a bonus for Rx5 to go?

And then there's DX and IX.

So I'm going to interpret DX as a form of NX.

So I'm going to incorporate DX into the NX.

So then the only other one is the IX, which is the industrial mixed use.

I assume we want to include that as well.

Sure.

Right.

Looks like we forward everybody else.

That is our goal.

But I'm trying to make sure we're monitoring that.

Yes, we are.

The calendar is rolling ahead.

Yes.

And so are we.

No, no, no, no, no.

We are rolling ahead like the calendar.

Stay with me on this.

Okay.

Are you good, Mr. Friedman?

I'm good.

Okay, so I'm just thinking ahead.

Not be available.

Okay.

If you need him.

I don't know that we do.

I don't have, my questions have not, I don't think they implicate.

So the topic for.

Maybe it should.

Well, so we have the question that was raised at the last meeting around the bonus density in the in the residential districts and the viability of projects under that.

So that's one question.

Then we were also going to do a deeper dive into the ADU coordinates.

There's a handful of policy questions that have been raised in the in the that are

in the Planning Commission's recommendations and then some policy questions that we wanted to talk with you all about as well, particularly as it relates to regular housing versus student housing and how those are treated in the ordinance.

So we have a handful of policy questions and

and so Kyle is helping us, Kyle RKG is helping us with those with those questions.

So that's the only reason I'm not going to say it's impossible for us to go forward without him.

Is that better for Kyle or do we know?

We didn't ask because I had a different schedule prepared.

I had the ninth on my calendar.

But could you flip?

But but but because I had nothing to do with this, this arose

recently that your clerk has received an inquiry about a joint meeting of the school board.

I would ask that you not do that on the same day that you consider any of this stuff.

That's my preference.

But that would mean we would have to send that request back to them and let them come up with an alternative and then use the 29th.

So you have two former school board members here, and I think we can massage that one.

Yeah, I think we can massage that one, and I think we can make the necessary adjustments to put Kyle on the 29 and put the 29 on the 8 and keep it moving.

But we will text him or call him.

just to ask on the 20 for the 29th.

Well, this guy would like you to still have anything else moment at the end, because that's when anything else happens.

Right.

It would just depend on what else surfaces.

I agree that there might be a meeting for that moment.

I expect we'll have enough talk about in terms of parking anymore.

Okay.

There you go.

So I guess then what I'm suggesting is that you would reach out to find out if Kyle is available.

If he's not available on the 29th, we proceed without him.

And could we just stick with the schedule?

Is that doable?

Yes, but I still am asking you not to do the school board meeting on the 21st.

Okay.

We've already decided we're not.

They are important.

We love them dearly.

Yes.

So I will say now what I said at the beginning, counselors, if you have specific

on the zoning map that you want to talk about.

Let's get them to Mr. Freeze so that we can talk about them.

As I have complained all along, we didn't do this two years ago and we ought to do it now.

So if we don't have it,

November 13th.

I had suggested moving things around, including that after the consideration of other issues, but it looks like we're not going to be able to do that.

Yes, but we don't know if Kyle can be here.

So Kyle is definitely available on the 13th.

Okay.

It's moving.

The map goes to 29th.

Okay.

Okay.

So, all right.

Yes.

And on the 13th is Kyle.

Yes.

And he got to bring it.

And then on the 29th is parking and anything, I mean, and on the 29th is the map and anything else.

Yeah.

At least that's the current plan.

No, he said he could come on the 13th.

I know.

Yes, ma'am.

There you go.

Don't you want to be done?

We've been elected.

No, I'm just sorry I'm not there.

We're doing this for you, Brian.

We want you to have comedic relief.

It's all good.

It's good to see everyone.

I think we're...

We're grinding to a close.

Anything else, Mr. Freeze?

Mr. Sanders?

Are you good, Mr. Freeze?