Planning Commission Deliberations on Zoning Map and Ordinance   10/18/2023

formal packets that people that- Did we ever find an author?

We found it kind of embedded on page two, and then Lyle had been corresponding, and then Matt and our office had been corresponding with Cavill Marshall.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

Yeah, but it wasn't readily apparent.

Everyone is happy to be here.

This is the best place to be here.

Oh, yeah.

He's like, okay.

All right.

I'm happy to have a possible place for it.

Yeah.

All right.

It is a work session.

And that was notified as part of the determination.

Oh, there are.

That would be better.

That is a packet that I sent you to scan last week.

That was from the lady, Harold Marshall, concerning a strip line.

Yeah.

We should try emailing us.

Like, we kept getting an email.

We got it, yeah.

I got it.

Yeah, I didn't know what that was.

I definitely paused.

My mom does that to me all the time.

I get emails from UPS.

Yeah.

Okay.

I did print out a couple copies for you guys.

I'm curious.

I can project.

So you guys have three to share.

I have got to close my save it.

That's not $15?

Yeah.

Wow.

That's almost five bucks a pop.

That was a mistake.

It was nice.

Nice paper.

In fact, that there's more money.

And he is planning to be here.

Bill is not planned.

Oh, hello.

Oh, hello.

Oh, no.

No, my, sorry, not that bad to do it.

I think that's a OneDrive thing.

OneDrive will never work here.

A lot of stuff is blocked by, like, Dropbox is blocked by the, like, public internet.

The internet.

So I can never pull up my spreadsheets in a box.

But DriveWorks.

Oh, does it?

Well, it's my version.

Yeah.

Yeah, well, my version of DriveWorks.

I have my computer on charging.

is a second mile here, but I think an organism is a musician, so I can represent him.

Yeah, just vote on him, perhaps.

It'll be fine.

You want to take this off, Chase?

Let me just kind of leave us through.

Sure.

So what we have is

in the document that you all received in your packets, we have basically just really two highlighted items, each one representing the new district.

And then we have the overlay district, which is the

in four neighborhoods for over the district.

So those are the two sections we have before us.

Yes, we are live.

Communications is monitoring from not in this room, but they are in this room too.

monitoring for us.

And again, we are in this room because council chambers is being renovated based on the flood work, the flood that occurred many weeks ago, and it's in a bit of shambles.

And a lot of meetings have been kind of shifted around.

So pretty much any meeting room is full right now.

And so this isn't the most ideal necessarily if we were to have a big crowd, but at this point we don't.

So we may end up with a virtual crowd virtually.

So we're not taking, the commission's not going to be taking any verbal comments this evening, but if individuals who are in person would like to provide written comments, we can take those.

And then individuals who are virtual or even individuals who are here can email comments to me

I will compile.

You guys will have those tomorrow morning, and we will attach them to the minutes for this meeting.

Okay.

I'm not going to read every bit of this, but on this highlight, we have what is effectively an intent statement that would be added into section 2.2.1.

That's the summary district section.

And then we have the standards themselves.

So the highlight reel of that is

This is a modification based on the RA district that most of the standards carry forward from RA, but significantly the base number of joiners maximum is brought down to one.

There's a bonus for preserving the existing structure that allows you an additional unit, and really that's targeting the, giving the ability to do accessory joiners in particular.

And then finally,

So as with our, in the regular eight districts, we can get up to six units as a bonus for affordable building units, but all of the bonus units have to be affordable.

So four or five, depending on whether you're performing the existing structure or not.

Then the building corporate is reduced to 2,500 square feet, and the

building width is held at the 40-foot maximum, which was our previous for the RA district.

And then the map shows the areas that we generated the map with a combination of the sensitive community areas identified in the comprehensive plan and our neighborhood mapping districts.

So I'll pause there, see if there's any questions, and I know we have some materials from

Yeah, so the hacknet today, and you got my, it was briefer than the Gettysburg address, but certainly less eloquent, on some requested tweaks, and I can talk through them on this.

So, starting from the larger piece of trying to

but some sort of governor on McMansion creation and on sort of the driving force of it.

We wanted to make the hack, sort of agreed to make some suggestions referencing the coverage and to make a distinction between one unit and two units.

and this lends itself to the anti McMansioning.

And then for one unit and then for the building footprint to have a maximum of 2,500 square feet, but

Thank you.

And then if it's an affordable single family, then 2,500 square feet is fine.

This was sort of in a sign that CRHA pointed out they have some very large families.

I was going to ask how it relates to existing blocks now.

What do you mean how it relates, sorry?

What is their footprint compared to what we're saying it should be?

Well, so you mean in these sensitive areas in general what the footprint is?

Yeah, or if you look through a sample

You know, our meeting was today, we knew we were meeting today, so we didn't, I think, and I don't want to sort of answer Rory's query while he's still clicking buttons and rummaging, but I think the answer to that is, if there's an extant dwelling on it,

Footprint.

Yeah, footprint.

Existing.

Existing.

I missed the 50% part.

So if there's an existing dwelling and you're replacing it with a single-family residence and it's not an affordable single-family residence, if there's an existing dwelling, you can expand the footprint for the lesser of 50% over what you've got

or 2,500 square feet.

Okay.

And I thought you were talking, there was something else about if you demo the building, there's, I thought that's where you mentioned it last year.

You said the footprint is both.

Well, if there's no dwelling there, you're at 2,500 feet.

It's a fair lot.

It's open.

Yeah.

So I'm just gonna, generally, I only have a minute to look at this, but I'm generally not a huge fan of tying standards to existing conditions.

It forces us to look at, to define, in a general sense, it forces us to find a point in time at which we're measuring from, but I'm also,

also kind of invites the question, well, if 2,500 square feet is perfectly fine on this lot, why would you not perfectly fine on this one?

Well, from the public policy perspective, we're saying that because your existing house is smaller, you get less than the next house over might get.

I'm troubled by that.

Yeah.

And I get that.

So I guess the answer would be, the answer would be, you've been living there, and you say, I've got this 1,000 square foot footprint, I want a 25 hundred square foot footprint, and my AMI happens to be 62%, that you would ask for an exception on that, because you need to be 20.

So it can't be about people.

Right.

Yeah.

Well, I don't disagree about the clarkiness of it.

And so if I do that, then I'm asking for a deep restriction on that property or something to make it affordable, not as a matter of its tenants, but as a matter of its as it's now an affordable

No, because you defined it as an affordable unit.

You don't have to go out and put a deed restriction on it because it's an affordable unit.

It's not produced.

It wasn't produced for sale.

If it was produced for sale, I guess you would.

I would, yeah.

But again, I don't want to tie the zoning back to the individual in the household that's there.

I want to tie it back to the

that if we're creating an exception to the zoning ordinance, it has to be in order to achieve some benefit that's tied to the use, and that use would have to be the, that it is an affordable by our definition, which means that there is some, that it meets the standards of the affordable volunteer section.

If they're a portable, why are we researching into less than RA anyway?

Yeah, but for the affordable one.

Doesn't matter.

So, I mean, to me, it seems like you define one thing for not affordable and another larger, looser thing for affordable, and that's probably not less than R&A, and you're done.

So we have $2,500 is our current draft footprint.

You could say $2,000 or $2,500 for generic, and then you could say $3,000 with affordability.

Well, which is essentially what we're saying.

Yeah, you're just trying to tie it to the existing house instead.

Right, but so, yeah, I get the point of trying to move it from, yeah, of course, to me, it's inextricably tied up into conveyances too, which doesn't sort of fit neatly into the box.

I mean, they're not adding it.

Unless they're putting a big addition.

Right.

In which case,

they are limited to expanding it by 50%.

And my point there was that I'm just, I'm generally more comfortable with saying there's the standard.

This is the maximum book right here a lot and a half and not trying to rig that back.

Yeah, see the thing about the 2,500 that's a little awkward is that you're talking four bedroom house of moderate to reasonable size, 18 to 22.

Are there instances of McMansions being built in any of these neighborhoods?

There's one on Belmont and Bowling Avenue going up now.

But that's not one of these neighborhoods, is it?

Well, I'm just giving you a missing, but it's a wonderful, it's a 10th and page lot by size and dimensions.

Well, the commission wants to.

I just wrote to Missy saying, I concur with the points you are making.

I really have a feeling like this is going to be amazing micromanaging and not developing general standards.

And all of the points that James has made causes me to have that concern.

Well, again, we were sort of

I can see some justification for being looser with the standard for affordable units, like getting up to what RA allows.

You're talking about 45, 15?

No, no, no, I'm talking about the coverage.

45 versus 55?

45 versus 55.

Lyle's house would be able to build.

Actually, I can.

I just ran the numbers on that.

Sorry, Lyle.

Lyle's house.

I think a bunch of this, although a lot of the PHA and Ellis have been able to build.

Those are all very, very small lots.

It is, sorry Lyle, about 830 square feet.

It's about a 2,500, 2,550 square foot lot.

Then again, building coverage counts.

Does the coverage counts?

Other information pieces like driveways?

No.

No, it's just buildings.

Just buildings.

All buildings.

All covered.

You couldn't put

Building coverage is measured by the cumulative building footprint of all buildings and covered structures on the lot by the lot area.

Structures.

Yeah, so all structures.

Those are much

Michael Koch- You said 1136 and 12 what?

Michael Koch- 1215.

Michael Koch- So, I mean, we're clustered pretty tight.

Michael Koch- Is that on the ground?

Michael Koch- That is the footprint.

Michael Koch- At least as drawn on GIS, like the shape.

Michael Koch- That's the house.

Michael Koch- Yeah.

Michael Koch- sizes there?

Do you have that all set up, you can just do that?

All sorts of stuff.

So I still, I think I get where we're going at it.

I see the importance of where we're going with this.

I still have the concern that you've got, you know, people who've lived in the neighborhood forever,

that lived there their entire lives, and they've got a dwelling that is their personal wealth that, you know,

I've got a number of neighbors who have all done things.

It's the case that we don't want to see, which is the family moves out of the city.

The last remaining parent dies, and the kids don't want to move back.

But that house is their inheritance.

So are we hurting those people through this?

Secondly, I don't think that you're going to see, I mean, you still have plenty of value there.

You can still

Yeah, conceivably.

But, you know, I mean, you can still sell it.

It doesn't, it doesn't have value.

It doesn't have value.

It's just got a little more constraints on it than it would elsewhere.

It's not that it's valueless.

And this is purely a question not meant to be leading at all.

When you say that there is overwhelming support for preservation versus value,

What's the- Providence?

What's the constituency?

It's largely the African American community.

I've heard about it.

I agree.

Provenance, the origins of this.

Yeah.

North Island or something.

Yeah.

But we're just still talking about coverage.

The median structure, the median lot size is about 21%.

So, wait a minute, they're both at about... They're both about 21.

So- Right.

Yeah.

The idea of the second by right is an accessory unit production.

essentially.

Yeah, I mean, I think in most of these cases, you're going to be keeping the structure just from an economical sense.

Structures are valuable and expensive to replace.

Yeah, I think with McMansion, the teardowns, you're getting

That's where you get to tear downs, right?

But I don't see much of Apple.

People are trying to make decisions of different motivations than financial.

Yeah.

I don't think people in situ were going to be highly motivated to do that because they don't have to learn anyone.

Yeah, I don't think it makes a difference, right?

Why don't we just go with that?

and then we change that in RNA to not allow 65.

That's the requirement we got here.

I don't know why we're... I guess I don't understand why we're restricting those affordable six-plexes more than we would be in RA.

Yeah.

That's on what number?

What is the number?

Oh, it's 65% for more than 40.

So we do 65% for more than four units.

More than two is what we're saying.

All right.

Yeah.

So you have up to two units, three to four units, and more than four units instead of up to two units and more than two units.

So we're capping two units at 45%?

Yeah.

All right, one unit for 35, two units, 55, more than 265.

Correct.

One, 45, two, 55.

More than two.

More than two, I mean, yeah.

And if there's more than two, we're getting an affordable unit out of it.

So I'm talking about restoring once in three there.

You know, if you want to change one unit to 45.

I don't think that's something crazy.

No.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Rory, only your one unit is going to be 45.

Okay.

So we reached that.

That's fine.

I think, okay.

Is that a consensus at this point?

Yes.

45, 55, 65, one, two, and more than two.

Yes.

45, way over.

Sorry.

One unit, 45.

Two units, 55.

More than two units, 65.

So in RA, three or four units is 60.

So I think if we want to add one unit 45, we should add a fourth category.

Well, I mean, if you want to keep pouring ingredients into the cocktail, that's okay.

What have we decided to do about food cream?

We don't do that elsewhere, but...

Yeah.

Yeah.

So on one unit, we're only talking about one unit, everything over two units is two units and more 2,500 anyway.

So it's only that.

Well, I think that's, I mean, that's, that's, I don't know how impactful that would be if we're arguing that these lots tend to be small anywhere to go in two stories or two and a half stories.

So maybe it doesn't matter here.

But.

Yeah, you can still build it.

I feel like cheaper or affordable is now adding a level of complexity because we don't do that elsewhere.

So if you were to say building footprint 2500 square feet, building footprint affordable 3000 square feet or whatever we have.

Yeah, is that?

Declined it as new construction if you're done with it, so you're not tripping up.

Is that?

We can do that?

Okay.

All right, because I remember some of these have, like, language to talk about somewhere.

Oh, when we say it's affordable.

What are we doing to get jobs?

Does that make sense to you guys?

Yeah, I just need to hear about it.

And I mean, I can see me going a little bit looser than $3,000.

I guess one complication that that raises is like, what if it's a sixplex, but you have one market rate unit, does that count as affordable?

Yes.

What does it really mean to qualify for that within a building?

At least one unit.

I'm sorry.

If it's a mixed building.

Yeah, see that I don't want to run into- But everything over two, everything's better.

Wait a minute.

Everything over two has to be afforded.

Yeah.

I think the answer is actually put built to seven and just say, don't make it bonus affordable.

You need to say anything over two is good.

Do you want to do 3,000 or do you want to do 3,500?

Let's do 3,000.

is the assistant, but that's, but that's easier than defining a footprint.

So, because if you've got, if you're trying to do a, or the, if it's the structure you're replacing and it's one story,

Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle Solla-Yates, Michael Koch, Lyle

No, wait a minute, let's see.

Well, I don't think you do.

Is this a one story house or a two story house?

That seems to be a shorter argument.

Well, if you're trying to reduce the rate of change, I think that's your goal, and that's what you're...

and that's what you're accomplishing.

That's the purpose.

And then allow more if it's more units.

If it's affordable.

So one unit, two stories, saying two and a half and 35.

It's a little restrictive.

Two-story height limit.

Part of the problem that we're dealing with here is that we walked away from the height bonuses in general, which is sort of constricting what we're doing.

I was going to ask about that.

Yeah, there was a three-story height bonus.

We don't have two over twos.

We don't have bonus height.

We let you have more height if you have more units.

So,

I mean, I would, I would pose that, that you can go to, you know, three and 40 if you're over two.

I'd make it the same as regular RN, right?

What is being proposed?

And then we have what is proposing.

More than one unit is three stories of 40 feet.

So why don't we apply at least that?

And then we're applying more consistent standards.

It's going to make our lives.

That's fine.

So what we're saying is, are we going one unit

Are we going to match or are we going to be more restrictive on the one unit?

I'm going to match two and 32?

Well, we should match it.

I guess we're at 6,000 square foot lot size doesn't make sense, whatever.

None of that makes sense to me at all.

But in our near right here, we're at 6,000.

I mean, in most cases, I mean, you can still do some lots, right?

most, almost, in almost every case, except unless you have a back alley already, which is like a handful or lots in Belmont, or a lot of them, a lot of them.

A lot of them.

A lot of them.

A lot of them.

and more than that.

Base is one, existing structure, you can go to two, anything over two has got to be affordable to six.

45, 55, 60, 65 on coverages for units.

I'm just running through it all to see where we're at here.

And then on footprint, Rory's last suggestion was 3,000 if it's affordable.

Yes.

3,000 for over check.

All right.

All right.

I mean, it's where we... We just matched.

All right.

All right.

So, and then these are a couple of minor things that popped up.

No way.

So, Sharon, this would be an item that we've talked about.

So we did come back, Sharon, there's some additional research on this concept with no net loss.

This is the concept of saying that the number of units, that you cannot further reduce the number of units on the block here.

I will say that I have concerns around that language and I

I would not support expanding it beyond this district.

And I'm saying my concern within this district is remember that what we're talking about is a residential unit, right?

So it's not a physical space, it is the use of the unit, which means we're now enforcing how people are using accessory apartments.

So somebody, an accessory apartment as a unit,

if somebody decides to put their own business in that unit, is there a way to... No, I don't see why... Because in a home business, there's an accessory used to the residential...

to the household occupied in the residential unit.

If somebody, if a separate household is living in the accessory apartment and they put their home business in there, then that's accessories perfectly.

I don't see why we have to make the distinction if it's a unit that someone can live in, period, we're done.

It doesn't matter what you happen to be using for that week.

It's, well, I think that's, you say that week, but so if I have

and accessory apartment inside to install business and we're still leading the standard of no net loss.

It means in the first place you've been built as a residential unit, what we'd be saying, right?

That accessory dwelling has got, you know, it's got a full bath, it's got a cooking area, it's got a window that a fireman can drag you out of.

were once single-family houses that could be conceivably turned back into single-family houses, and then you lose the most affordable units in these areas.

I mean, I think that if it's... My point being that if it is able to be a residential unit, what you as the owner of that unit actually do with it

doesn't matter.

It removes the incentive as someone who wants a big house to go buy a few units and provide all of these, since now they still have to be separate.

Can we see the language you guys have talked about?

We haven't gotten to a point of language.

So, I mean, I can tell you where we would put it.

What we talked about is determining that this was something that we could potentially do.

Yes, I think what James has said is correct is that we determined that it was possible to do this and not be inconsistent with state law, but the implementation of it may not make sense or may not be a good idea.

I do not, no.

Just to throw out an anecdote, I do know that these two families that I have worked with that have

And the plan, the intention was that the family group would eventually take over the unit.

They leave the kitchen intact.

So... Like, the intention is, like, they've got a duplex.

Right.

So dogs have got to be on the kitchen.

I'm not following them.

They expand it, they cut a door in the firewall or whatever, so they can pass back and forth through the two units, whatever.

I mean, they find some way to, and there's a kitchen there that still exists.

No net loss.

So, given the complexity of this issue, I am comfortable kicking it to our future small area plan for agenda page and talking about it in that.

process.

I mean, again, I raised it because we didn't see it anywhere.

Yeah, I mean, I realized it was potentially possible.

Well, we can, sorry, I mean, I don't object to tabling that yet.

We don't have the language.

These are about, mostly about item 43 and 41 in our, all right, let's, can we finish the conversation around, okay, well, I'm done with that again.

We're doing the map.

You picked up the map.

Jose wants to do the map last.

Let me talk about all the text stuff.

Oh, all the text stuff.

All the text stuff or all the RNA text stuff?

Oh, the RNA text stuff.

Okay, so that's what I was getting at.

Minor typo thing.

I do have a couple of other things that I had pointed out about unit that's not on the RNA.

It has to do with two things.

One is to add

to the sectional equivalency of units, the section three that we have on item 43, which is the standard language is, if the intent is an affordable development that fits with the comprehensive plan, et cetera, et cetera, the administrator can make acceptance to this.

The second thing about the equivalence, and so that's just cutting and pasting from what we've got on item 43, which is about resales.

And then the second thing was on equivalency of units.

If we're over 20% of the total number is affordable in that development, to look at an exemption for the equivalency,

This comes from Sunshine who says, we've got affordable units, we're making them all different sizes on a sort of ad hoc basis.

And it's really hard to figure out the equivalency with the market rate units that are in there because it may not be appropriate to have an equivalent in size.

So the argument being that if we're more than 20%, we're really talking about a significant affordable housing development that has market rate in it, not a market rate development that's got a couple of token affordables.

And the final thing is on 43, change it to 80%, not 60% on the resets.

I thought we took out any requirements for resale.

There was one of the properties.

You said 80%?

You want to bump it up to 80%?

Yes.

The reason for that is that we may be at 60% of the first time around, but there's a sort of vast, there's nothing for 61s to 80s, basically.

All right.

There's an item 43 on our text, which has to do with- 43 is only the equivalent C of the event.

Hold on.

Let's get back to where we are.

You may have- I may have-

So that's on the first sale.

Yeah.

No, 80%, I'm sorry, yes.

The idea being that there isn't, um,

No, I think that, you know what?

I'm dropping it.

Never mind.

And then the thing that's below it, this item three.

Item three.

All right.

I want to add that to 43.

So, which is on page 15.

That's item 43.

I want to copy it.

Sorry, I didn't need to cut and paste.

Sorry, that's fine with me.

Basically, the administrator can change the benefit and weight the bar.

Within the requirements of the manual.

Right.

And then the 20% item is that the equivalency of units, if it's more than 20% affordable, that's also under 43, it doesn't exist.

We're in a development where more than 20% of the units proposed are affordable units.

And the reason that this was requested is Sunshine pointed out that when you're doing a large number of affordable units and you've got mixed income in it, this is really an affordable housing project that has market rate in it to support it,

James?

And then we also need that.

Isn't the labor good enough?

I mean, we're ready.

We'll get up for three worries.

saying the finishes can be different, the finances can be different.

Right, and when the largest developer of these sorts of units says that gets really, really sticky if you're trying to make the equivalence to us in terms of size.

Because over in one, if you look at the actual section, it's

Isn't that the goal to make them fit in the development?

And be, you know, generally not singled out?

Yeah, well, there's also an evenly distributed requirement.

But I guess the idea here is they might want to put market rate units that are all one bedrooms, whereas the others are mixed.

Correct.

Exactly.

Or the opposite.

a workaround is that this is for something that's significant affordable housing.

It's more than 20% of units are there.

So you've got these market rate units are there to support the balance sheet and the income sheet.

in some part.

They're not trying to satisfy a requirement.

This is connecting the other direction.

If that's the case, you're going to deal with several units that need several different sizes that may not be what the market rate calls for, and you just want to be bound by that.

What's the percentage of affordability that you're looking at for this?

More than 20% was the suggestion.

More than 20%.

That seems relative to the level.

So more than 20% of the project is affordable.

Yeah.

Well, that was a suggested number.

If you've got a higher suggested number.

I don't know.

So one direction I was thinking about going with this is to actually exempt affordable dwelling projects that are affordable projects whose primary purpose is to be affordable, exempt them from the affordable dwelling section entirely.

But we're leaving it sort of undivided.

Well, then I need to define what is a project that's affordable.

More than 30%.

Right.

So I think an interesting, you know, way to think about that is that even if 80% of your units are affordable, only 10% of them are required for the section, right?

Well, this is the other way I was thinking about it.

Yeah.

Well, yeah, I mean, required overlay, follow up, getting you a bonus of some kind.

Right, exactly.

Yeah.

So how would we, but then you're, just blew out my head, but the issue there is then how does that not present, we're calling them affordable units

It's the moment, it's the naming here, right?

The point that Rory made was the other thing I was thinking about here is that what this section is really trying to get at is the required for big bills.

You build a project with greater than nine units, you're required to provide one affordable unit, and it must meet the standards in this system.

If you're building a project of 10 affordable units, 100% affordable unit project, theoretically only one of those needs to meet the requirements of this section.

The rest of them are just affordable units.

I differentiate by saying capital A versus lowercase a. Right, but does that not get us into trouble if we're trying to count affordable units generated capital A?

Depends on what we're counting from.

Yeah, yeah.

So what's the harm of picking a number like 30% and that's our threshold to what we're calling a development where none of this matters?

Now the only thing that comes to mind is the other issue that we're wrestling with, which is, I don't know if it's an issue, I'm just kind of going out loud here, but we're wrestling with that issue of somebody picking up the two-story bonus, but it's probably one affordable unit.

Yeah.

I don't know how that interact.

Did we resolve that?

The bonus units.

Oh, interesting.

So, I mean, I think the fact that only a fraction of your actual hortical units are capital A zonings of hortical units seems to resolve that problem, but

except that, again, you run into a issue of confusion and regulatory when you're going to look for the money.

So if you just say, none of this applies, don't worry about it.

That was, I mean, that was... You're just looking to... Well, at this point, yeah, I mean, that's sort of where we're at.

To him, this is a serious issue because he says that this is not...

We may think it's better than 20% is better.

The number you were talking was 30.

Is there something we could put in the manual as a way to waive it automatically?

because we're comfortable with the ordinance having waivers in it.

Absolutely.

The concern we have with putting waivers in the manual is that that is an improper delegation of legislative authority.

See, the other problem with your life situation is like,

They don't meet the 99 years.

Yeah, I don't see that's a pretty sure.

They're going to do it anyway.

I'll set it under the Equivalency Section 422 C18.

Yeah, you want to type that real quick.

You want to remember what I said?

No.

For units.

For projects where with over 30% of units

We started with meeting the 99 years and taking at least 30% of units meeting the term of affordability requirements in 422 and C1, whatever equivalency requirements that are not available in C1.

Right, cool.

I don't think you wrote that in too, but if you can email it to me.

I wrote it to you, I know that.

Does that make sense?

I wrote it into a Google document.

That would seem better.

Oh, or not.

Oh, yeah.

So I would add section numbers, the number of board requirements with the section number and the equivalency section, I would also add.

Well, this will be under the equivalency section as the last.

Okay, so the equivalency requirements of this section.

Okay, I can make that happen.

All right.

And then the additional thing on that.

Okay, that's, I think that's all I got on this, and I thank you for your indulgence.

Oh, I do have a question.

We said that the use matrix is the same as R&A.

Yeah, we haven't talked at all about use, actually.

It seems reasonable to me.

I'm just... Yeah, I... You can only do a shop-run house if you get an S&P for commercial use, right?

Right.

Okay.

Seems one of a mixture reasonable.

We haven't excluded it.

I do have some stuff on the BAR meeting last night.

I don't know if it's the perfect place to insert it now or if we're going to just kick stuff to council.

It's a minor or little things.

The last words.

They're minor or little.

I'd like to be in a different section of the city code.

So right now, we are required to have either a landscape architect or a licensed contractor.

And we want to make a requirement that we have a landscape architect.

You can add this.

So while you guys do that, we should go back.

It can't just be the term reportability requirements.

It also has to be the cost requirements.

Does that seem good?

Uh,

the 99% AMI requirement, as well as the 99-year requirement.

Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have the 99, if they got the 99-year requirement.

Yeah, I guess we could make it 99 years and be at 90% AMI for some weird reason, but yes.

Yeah, point taken.

It's bizarre, but... Yeah, it seemed implied by the fact we're calling them affordable dwelling units, but it seemed... This is the...

The one after a cost of just support work.

So if it's capital A. Oh, I see.

I got you.

I'm sorry.

Yes, that's fine.

Got it.

Carl Schwarz, Danny Yoder, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, Hosea Mitchell, H

Was the Planning Commission decide that they were okay with the change in membership?

We did.

Pending our motive.

We're requiring landscape architects.

We're planning.

The history of this is we've always had a landscape architect and we got our contractor as a business owner.

The problem is there's very few contractors who operate their business in a design control district.

What did you say you wanted to do?

It's one landscape architect and then you took out the ore.

Yes.

And we're requiring one historian.

And the second historian is an either or with a contractor.

Got it.

OK.

Next.

There was a question about visible light transmittance and windows.

So the code has a requirement that is a little bit less stringent than what the BAR has.

So the question was raised, do we need to add a note that

So if it's implied, it's okay.

He's thinking about it.

I mean, there's a statement that always exists within the zone that where there's conflicting regulations for restrictive rules applied.

And in this case,

Okay.

The next one was just to add a line about asking with

We want to add without deference to the prior action of the administrator.

That was something from Sherry.

Isn't that kind of repetitive, though?

Which one is this?

This is on the next page.

I guess that's what I read.

As a publication, I mean, that's what I read that is saying.

Yeah, I agree.

That's fun.

That is it.

I don't think we're going to answer the next one.

At some point, you need to define what ordinary maintenance is, but I don't think we're going to do that tonight.

Oh, there's a question about who can initiate a COA application.

And is that

A contract purchaser, does that make sense that they can do a B.A.R.

Okay, obviously they don't own the property yet.

I think what's happening is it's while he's requiring the owners to sign, I think the language

The next one, someone asked if excluding parking entrances would encourage wider entrances.

I think it's also the opposite, right?

Because the build width is a minimum.

If I'm not allowed to count the entrances, I'm going to reduce that as much as possible.

I think we're good for that.

I've been writing that for like 10 years now.

296BA.

Everything like that or just who says everything about it?

Are you going back into last week's conversation?

He's in the core neighborhood.

What are we looking at?

Well, this is maybe a little pedantic, but the way I would address that issue is by changing those parcels to whatever zones we had them at, because this overlay only applies to the CX3 parcels.

If we were to leave them as CX3 and not apply the overlay, then we would be further reducing what's left there.

So if we need to restore the previous zones that we had, we're going to do that.

So we're doing maps now, not doing the text.

Yeah, that's a map question.

You got any text questions?

I'm looking up a list of comments that are looking at.

I'm on this computer right here.

I didn't tell anybody.

Okay.

Making sure we're all equally.

Sure.

Also, 296C, Special Exception Permit for a Public Benefit Bonus.

Basically, BID has changed it to a bonus for the Affordability Boxes.

And let's move the section to Division 4.2.

What page are you on?

296C.

So instead of Special Exception Permit, you want to call it a Public Benefit Bonus?

Yes.

So, okay.

So, let's just be clear.

You're proposing to get the discretionary climate aspect of it.

And move it as opposed to.

Okay.

So I get that.

The thing I'm concerned about is, so we provide bonuses for these

before we draw on the bonus, right?

So we'd have to do a substantial amount of work to arrive at something that I could say very clearly, okay, yes, Ms.

Remiss's developer, you have achieved the bonus requirement here.

And I can grant you these additional stories.

We agree.

Yeah.

So I think you need to make a distinction between what I think the right thing to do on this corridor is and what councils ask of us seems to be.

I mean, I like what staff has put together.

I said, it's art.

It is, but it is such an easy thing to do.

I mean, you know, it's still a discretionary review so that don't pay.

And because the language court kind of implied that the developer would be paying for it and not now just space for it, which is really just making it a blank wall.

But that's a separate question from is a special exception.

Yeah.

I mean, I could go into why this is here, but I think it's kind of clear.

Right.

So one question, I will say, even if you were to make this non-discretionary, you're still requiring some of these new things that make it different from everywhere else.

And in that way, you're providing some of those community benefits that we're worried about losing on this corridor.

However, that raises the question to me of, would that even be legal?

Do we have authority to incentivize affordable dwelling units?

The way that this district has been put together is to have it within your general zoning authority.

So I don't have that concern

So even if it weren't a special exception,

That's an interesting question.

I think the answer is yes, you could do that.

The concept here and James, you're the original architect of part of this is to provide some options that collectively will, when those corridors are developed,

So I don't disagree that it can be that.

Yeah, I get it.

I mean, I generally agree with the Rory on that clarity is important, and that's the goal.

And I feel like with each meeting, we're overcomplicating things, generally speaking.

And that is the only

way with which, without, if we don't have a special exception, there is no mechanism for the community to have that voice.

I agree with the sentiment that was expressed in one of the messages we got on this that I think we can accomplish this and more through how we might approach the small area of planning.

makes the city more of an equal partner in the conversation or in the implementation.

I mean, the same thing, I don't want to bring back the original, you know, Carl's point earlier today is how would we approach the anti-displacement zones?

And like now we're a small area plan.

Yeah, if we say we can work, you know, smaller plans to create a real long-term plan that is not description or review based.

No, let's tell them what we think and then up inside what they want to do with it.

Some of them anyway.

Yeah, sure.

They don't like what we suggest.

I'm sorry we're not talking about Christmas lights.

What are you looking to me for?

I'm looking to you.

What do we think?

I mean, I said what I think.

What do you think?

I'm pretty comfortable with what we've got here as it is.

I mean, parts of it are squishy, but it's where we are at the moment.

It leaves us the flexibility to deal with the new ones.

Yeah, and we can deal with it.

I still have hard burn on the RNA.

But that's better at home.

I'm just going to get this in.

My one concern is that someone's going to provide a B building and put a mural on the wall and assume that they're going to get seven stories.

And that is going to do nothing in the neighborhood.

But it's still discretionary.

It is.

And then say that's not good enough.

That's where the arbitreiness seems to come in.

But if someone's going to offer

100% affordable, right?

That means A, none of the others.

Well, that's where other features or amenities that support the intent of the section and goals of comprehensive plan.

So that's 20% affordable plus 80% affordable.

I'm making that up in my head.

I mean, I think it's because we're requiring two things.

I'm fine with one thing being easy, but everyone thinks what's the kind of tool.

And yeah, everyone's going to do that one and probably do one of the others.

Yeah, so my suggestion is to take out the first forward space people allow for, just a local art installation.

So they need to make that art installation happen one way or the other.

They can't just say, oh, I provided the blank wall and no one painted on it.

I would argue for removing the commissioning or selection of set art to be left to a qualified local public art organization.

But that does address the concern of someone painting a white square.

And you make a happy donation to the local public art organization that might say that the White Square is a beautiful statement piece on contemporary minimalism.

I don't think it's reasonable to judge what the art is.

I think I was specifically wanting to not burden counsel without any of that.

The reason I went for space is because it doesn't obligate the developers to figure out what the arts are going to be before they even at the political project or any of those things.

Yeah.

That's going to be a stretch.

People are going to say it's not good enough, right?

Yeah, I think the more we talk about it, the more problematic the source becomes.

Yeah, I think you're fine.

All right, let's go ahead and take out the RFP.

Everybody good.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

It's hard to do.

It's hard to do.

It's hard to do.

It's hard to do.

I think the art's good.

Or drop it to one, at least one of these things.

I mean, otherwise it's like crazy hard to add to this pressure review of each.

I don't know each.

Or they do the dedicated outdoor community space, which would probably be part of their outdoor amenity space anyways.

We're doing a light-like project, definitely going to have some sustainability.

Zero Energy Ready or some, you can opt to do Passive House for future credits on another side.

Isn't green and something, what is that, I think you can use.

Intervising communities.

There's aircraft.

Okay, the final decision.

If we do keep art, I would want to take out the qualified local organization.

And what would you replace that with?

I don't think you need to replace it.

Who's going to be the judge of the art?

People are going to throw a bunch of tomatoes at it, rotten tomatoes, and it will become art.

We'll see what happens on the first special occasion.

here.

I'm in the middle.

I don't think you're doing any harm.

It's still discretionary for your review.

All the paper.

We're taking it out.

Oh, crap.

Now.

The Doritos inventory was buried in Doritos.

Oh, I said buried in Dorito.

As though it was a place called Dorito, New Mexico.

Like, in a pile of Doritos, his coffin was filled with Doritos.

Or Doritos into his coffin.

Okay.

What we want you to do is walk us through the maps.

Let's not go parcel by parcel.

Let's go through the, you know, the major.

All right.

Before we start, I just wanted to let our viewing audience know that no activity took place as part of the meeting while you could not see the meeting.

We had our technical folks here making things work, so you did not miss anything.

Riving discussion of whether the

founder of Doritos, buried in a pile of Doritos.

It was a real loss, I think, if you didn't get it.

Okay.

I'm just going to start with the last one, the not-art-any one, the poor neighborhood throwaway one, since Lyle brought it up and we were already talking about those.

So the request from the property owner was to end it at the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks on the east side.

I didn't even mention it.

Yeah, up to Random Row and the gas station.

So on the north side of your gas station, you have photos.

So I think there's a strong argument being made that by the way we're envisioning this overlay,

You know, these areas aren't really connected to the surrounding neighborhoods, the core neighborhoods, if you will, in the same way.

On the south side, they're kind of islanded by the mainline, north or southern, and the railroad spur that goes down like concrete.

And then on the other side of the spur, there's the city yard.

we can consider putting it back to the way it was, which was CX8.

And that is that, you know, with our,

There's a near and dear.

Is the suggestion, Lyle, do you have anything to say about that?

Just Kevin Lynch, if you read the image of the city, which probably you shouldn't, but many people do for some reason, I feel like Plantingberry, he talks a lot about how they understand the shapes of the cities and talks about what we call railroad tracks as being a good way to understand that there's an age condition

Yeah.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I think you can do it either way.

We can do it to the railroad and everything beyond the railroad.

We've restored to its previous semi-designation, or we simply restored to the previous semi-designation.

But the language is 6-1-1-1 another.

I guess I probably prefer to move the boundary just for greater clarity.

Yeah.

Move the boundary to the boundary in the text.

In the text, sorry.

Yeah.

So what do you guys think?

The railroad is the boundary.

So then everything east of the boundary is the X8?

I hear you on reads and photos.

I'm sure you're concerned, but we don't know that they're going to be there forever anyways.

Those are on the west side of the river.

Done.

All right.

I feel guilty about that one.

Wow.

Or photos can open on the mall.

All right, we are good on that?

You get on that?

Yes, you got to say.

We want to protect these or put them on the screen for the public somehow.

So, quick overview.

I can talk about RNA as an abstract concept, which I think might be a discussion we could have.

To be honest, I'm kind of uncomfortable with RNA as a concept.

I understand the reasoning behind doing it.

I worry that it's not going to have the impacts that we hope.

You know, the strategy in 1991 did not work and arguably made things worse.

And I think this is, in a sense, continuing that strategy.

And I think the greatest thing we can do for anti-displacement is to upset all the other areas, which we are doing that at least.

All that said, I think if we're going to do it, we should do it in the right areas that we are talking about applying it to.

And with that in mind, I have suggested some map edits

If you'll recall, way back when we adopted the comp land, Commissioner Dowell also called out that the areas of the sensitive areas, the boundaries of the sensitive areas in the comp land or the future land use map.

In some cases, it didn't make a ton of sense and could be tweaked.

Part of that is because they followed census block groups, which are fairly coarse in the city.

So, number one, follows Breger, Tent, and Page.

Essentially, it's the area of southeastern Venable that, in my mind, I don't want to get anyone mad at me.

The scale of the buildings, you know, the kind of, yeah, the historic nature of the neighborhood.

I don't want to get into that.

So what are you doing?

So if you go to the third page is my suggestion.

Third page, one more.

Okay, one more.

But it's basically the whole R1SU and R2U, the top thing there, all that hatched area, changing that from RA to RNA.

If we're doing RNA, it makes sense, especially people coming to the meetings at Tendon Page and they're part of that community.

Yeah, they've answered that question.

Yeah, and I think, you know, when we talk about people, like students moving into Tendon Page, like encroaching on historically non-student areas, kind of this area that we're talking about more than actual Tendon Page by the neighborhood boundaries, as MDS defines it.

So.

Hopefully by building more student housing.

I have a question.

I live in this area, so I'm not going to vote on this item.

I've talked to some of my neighbors who live in this area and asked them, like, hey, we're talking about this.

Is this what you want?

Quoting my neighbor, Bumblebee, my property value is mine.

Everyone has said, no, they don't want this.

Okay.

For R&A in general.

And I

I believe that's the uniform.

Everyone I've talked to has said that.

Sorry.

Yeah.

You know, maybe what we should do is do one and then the other.

So, yes, I would point out as a preamble to that, that the formal of anecdote

was anecdotes, not data.

The second piece that I would point out is that I am taking a leap of faith that I may be dead wrong about and I may be terribly disappointed.

And if we fall down on that job, we fall down on that job.

Yeah, I mean, I guess my biggest problem with it is that it seems like we're doing something to do something.

And the question is, will this actually stop displacement or flipping?

No, which I think is the biggest concern.

And will it even reduce it or mitigate it?

I think my answer is probably no, because what we're seeing right now, people buying up houses for relatively cheap, perhaps less than they would be worth with a good realtor who knew what they're worth.

And then they are flipping them largely within the existing building envelope into, you know, well over median houses.

And nothing we do here is going to prohibit that.

Nothing is going to make that harder.

It isn't what's happening now.

And in fact, we're doing that with a light touch.

I would find it very difficult to put forward a zoning code with nothing addressing anti-displacement areas.

Is it in fact a slightly less of an upzone than the things around it?

Do I think it's sufficient?

No.

Do I think it will be ineffective?

No, I think it will have some impact.

My problem is it could also be an anti-wealth generation there.

I think that you can still say, that goes back to Rory's point that people are selling their houses, they're doing it within the envelope, and if that's going to continue, that's going to continue.

So

I mean, I think that still reduces the wealth you get because if you're saying your worry is that essentially that people who want to turn things into three units or four units with an existing tractor bonus are going to outbid the people who want to flip it into the house.

So that's going to reduce the price they're selling it for, could sell it for at least.

And then at the same time, the thing you get at the end is either a bunch of smaller units that are new and not

be referred to to portable, but generally smaller and, you know, setterus paribus affordable, like all else being equal, or you get a flipped house, a single flipped house.

I don't think it does though.

I mean, those, right.

So, I mean, two things are happening.

One, those flips are happening.

We don't have a zoning mechanism to stop that.

I think.

And do we want to do the answers?

The only zoning tool you can do to apply that.

That's a big side is to provide houses to meet the demand elsewhere.

And we're doing some of the forming and we need to get to work on the lab.

We're doing some of the former and we need to get to work on the lab.

But again, I do not view this as the permanent solution.

It may even be, I don't want to call it token because it's not.

Is it as robust as I want?

So I think that one, I don't want to say failure of this body in the process because I'm sure there's more than one, is

Everyone?

Can you make another announcement?

Sure, yes.

Again, as we're addressing our technical issues, we did not talk business of the meeting.

You really don't want to know what we've been thinking.

But it has nothing to do with zoning.

Thanks for making Michael sad that we didn't appreciate his fun facts.

We continue the work on the map so that this RNA is going to exist.

Let's continue to talk about Rory's recommended changes.

And let's make a recommendation based on this that council wants to go another direction, let them go another direction.

Because again, a lot of the folks that I'm talking to are

and the council that I've been giving them as well is that this is not going to be forever.

The intent is to get to these small area plans.

And I think one of the first ones that Mr. Brees wants to get to is Preston and then to do Cherry Avenue.

Is that accurate?

Right now, I'm focused on Tuff and Pace.

So let's keep working on this.

Can I ask just a question on that?

Just because I don't know.

Are we hearing from all neighborhoods that are on here that they want that?

Because that's a big, I don't want to have to force it down.

And the option you get is just to leave it as it is.

as opposed to the extension of alterations as recommended by the commission.

So while we're discussing the ones that we're identifying, can somebody give me a coherent explanation for why the Meadows is not on this list?

I mean, we have heard from Meadows that they did not want from the president.

All right, because I've spoken to five people in the Meadows who were not approached about this subject at all, who are informed people.

I mean, they're not.

We can pay attention, so they weren't asked.

So.

All right, thank you.

Oh, Andrew, we had a greater depth of page.

Does it make sense?

How do you define depth of page?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Let it know.

Yes.

First up is the what I'm calling slash maybe officially called the Forest Hills subdivision.

It's lumped in to a census block group with Prospect Orangedale, but it's across the creek and across Forest Hills Park.

It's characterized by post-war development with larger

that I think doesn't make as much sense to keep in there.

So I would move it to RA.

This is everything in the track block group threes, essentially?

No.

I mean, only the northwest part.

So this area, all this area, essentially, would go to RA, and this would stay in.

So it stays in, so it's staying in as Rock Creek, Orangedale Ave, the Prospect.

Is that what we're doing?

Say again?

So what we're jumping in is the Orangedale, the Prospect, Forest Ridge Road, the Rock Creek Road.

I was just gonna say, if you look at the totally zoomed out map of a veil, which is actually the page.

It's not as obvious because the colors are just ridiculously thin words of each other, but I'm not gonna make color recommendations.

Gotcha.

Great.

Sure.

Cool.

is the Valley Road Extended area.

And this is sort of Valley Road Extended and North Baker Street.

That's sort of the issues here.

Right now, the neighborhood boundary as it's typically defined ends at Valley Road, in the middle of Valley Road.

And so you get a situation where you have, you don't have light facing light.

You have Eastern Valley Road, the Eastern half of it is in RMA and the Western half is not.

in RNA.

So I would, I have three suggestions, and I will tell you which one I sort of recommend.

But the options are basically make the western half part of RNA, make the eastern half RA, or make push RNA even further east to sort of the core of Byteville,

that stops at Patton Street at the end of Grove Road, where all of this gets moved into RA.

And my reasoning for this is that, so Valley Road does have a bunch of, a lot of duplexes and relatively more modest single family houses that sort of might fit the definition.

North Baker Street, not so much.

Those houses there are closer to the city median.

There are a few duplexes at the very top.

And we are already adding a lot of parcels here.

So I think it depends on how you think about how you want to how you want to define these R&A areas.

Is it the core neighborhoods and like the historic core of those neighborhoods as we've kind of named it after?

Or is it, you know, any, you know, random street, regardless of where or when it was developed?

and exactly kind of what its physical characteristics are if it has relatively affordable housing on it.

And, you know, I think similarly to if you guys read the whole document, how I use the 10th and page,

historic survey boundaries as a kind of decent definition for what we would consider Hempton-Page in a sort of cohesive cultural sense.

over Brown Boulevard, but we're talking about way over here on the west side.

I would recommend the bakery one, yeah.

So I think while if you're looking just on affordability, Valley fits pretty well, Baker Street a little less so.

And so you're kind of bridging that gap with Baker, kind of ignoring Baker, Baker in a sense.

So you're talking about the far right hand of these three maps here.

So I would point out that Valley Road Extended has got several units on it that look like they're duplexes, but they're actually condominiums.

That's true.

And they can be sold and split that way.

And they are, quote unquote, affordable in that process.

I don't know how that informs our discussion other than saying that those are there.

Yeah, I mean, that's true.

So my inclination is that, you know, the Valley Road has got a piece in this.

It's a little hard to see here, but you can see this line is the neighborhood line, a.k.a.

Valley Road.

This pink blob are the condos.

So on this map, it's these ones that have that L-shaped block running behind it.

But they're single units.

True.

So if you divide the cost of the new black card two, those tend to be a little bit lower than the cost of the condos.

That's not universally true, but... No, they're also, because of the size of the associations, they're easily used and can be approved for them.

I think the other thing to mention is that we did approve a rezoning for this top three parcels to currently R3.

We approved that.

Yeah, we approved.

It's a little weird to put that that is in medium or something here.

I know that we did that after the mutual land.

I want to say, sort of two-building multi-family housing project that we talked about a few years ago.

An even larger ridge here.

It's almost like it's in a valley.

You might say that, yeah.

And you put a road in it.

Yeah, pretty much right on top of it.

So now, which one do you like?

I mean, if you have to pick one.

Have not studied this in detail.

I think what's going on on Baker Street is very different from what's going on on the street to the east.

It's going already.

That's my preference.

And I would do it last Baker Street.

So 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 2, 1.

And actually, while we're here, do we want to do something with that area?

I mean, they have vested rights from their rezoning, so I guess they can still run with that.

It just seems a little weird.

Of course, the compliment doesn't call for it.

That's all that we do.

All right.

Next up, we have Rayon Street.

That is not actually part of this.

That's that top parcel.

That was 3am?

3am?

Yeah, that was 3am meeting.

That was a big night.

I wonder if I don't remember it super well.

This is kind of where you go into Ix from Elliott.

This is where the Fasinal is.

And then there's this little like street Colesac-ish thing here that honestly, it's very similar to the, I mean, it's all worker bungalows from the textile plant.

It's basically the same as the rest of the areas in the east and south.

It just happens that the way we draw the neighborhoods and block groups,

or the sense of the block groups.

It's actually part of the Bridge Street neighborhood if you look at the neighborhood map.

Yeah.

To me, it makes sense to keep that as RA with all of the areas around it.

You want to type sort of a single?

Yeah, I'm good with that.

That makes sense.

Great.

You get it.

So I think this is what Tania was talking about in general when she first brought up this idea of we need to kind of fix these sensitive area borders.

I've heard some people on council have been talking about it lately.

It's kind of all the area east of fishery, right, up that big ridge, you might say.

I'll admit, this map is maybe a little bit less scientific and informed as the others.

I have scooted down this area a few times, but I don't

not generally like ridiculously familiar with this area of the city, but I think this is mostly looking at, you know, kind of year-built and distribution of house values.

So I've scooted this too and to go back on, you know,

I mean, I'm sure we're going to disagree on maybe the exact edge of it, but we're not going to have that conversation.

Yeah, I mean, this whole area is kind of also difficult to map because there's a whole lot of, like, random new development houses and then also, like, new developments kind of sprinkled right in the middle there.

Like, this big red blob is Payne's Mill Road, which is a very recent by right development.

You know, you have Bernard Commons, obviously.

So I'm going to give it a shot.

Pretty much ideal buffer.

Buffer to what?

Oh, he was talking about the high-end development, the last place he was talking about.

Well, it's not a bad suggested border, but I would suggest that city council needs to look at this to see if there's actually, I mean, I think you've got the sensible square around it.

The question is, is it sensible to do period?

And I say we punt that to city council.

Yeah.

We just come up with an area.

This is the area we think.

That was kind of my intent with all this.

As I said, I'm not super enthused about the whole RNA concept.

It really gave me a lot of heartburn, and I felt kind of icky looking at all these areas and trying to map it out like this, and then saying, let's expand it to all these places.

I mean, let's define the area.

This is the sensible area that we call it.

And I don't think, and if council, yeah, by the time council gets it, there will be more data, you know, if it's infinitesimal.

Oh, I'm not clear.

What exactly do you, are you, what are we doing with this?

I need to define the area.

What beyond defining the area, are we doing this?

Michael Koch- These are my orders for doing it.

Michael Koch- And the hatched area is confusing.

Michael Koch- Sorry, yeah, it kind of makes the colors.

Michael Koch- Yeah.

Michael Koch- Not, especially the slower.

Michael Koch- That makes sense.

Michael Koch- I know people live on this.

Yeah.

So we're good with borders.

Yeah.

I didn't want to raise the idea sort of last time, allowing two units with the existing home preservation thing.

I don't have a sheet in front of me, but I think he probably doesn't need it.

You know, the biggest way that an existing homeowner can leverage their parcel, especially their smallest parcel,

is with the sublot and lot split concept.

And I think if you're wanting to maximize the way that existing homeowners can tap into that value of their land and not leave their home, the best way to do that is to give them the opportunity to, because most people are going to literally develop that back

I propose a duplex, whether that's one unit over the other.

In some cases, you might be able to fit two side by side.

What designation are we talking about?

RNA.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, it's all about RNA.

Are you suggesting the base goes up to two, or are you suggesting the bonus for the existing structure reservation goes up to three?