2026-10-21 - ZAP Hearings with Evans Administration Day 1

00:12>> To any council members out

00:13there, we're going to try to

00:15start as close to 5:00 as

00:16possible. So please take your

00:18seats if you're here.

03:13Good

03:14evening, everyone, and welcome

03:15to the first day of the City

03:17Council's zap hearings. I'm

03:20going to ask our what? I don't

03:22know what to call you. Our

03:24honorary deputy or honorary

03:25deputy clerk.

03:26>> Deputy clerk on call.

03:28>> Deputy clerk on call to

03:30please call the roll.

03:32>> Council member Gruber here.

03:35Council member Leslie Smith

03:36here. Council member Lupien

03:39Council member.

03:40>> Martin here.

03:41>> Council member.

03:42>> Monroe here.

03:44>> Council member. Paterson.

03:46Council member. Smith. Vice

03:49president. Harris. President

03:51Melendez here.

03:53>> Thank you. And I'm sure

03:55we'll be joined by the rest of

03:57council shortly. I'd also like

03:58to note that we are streaming

03:59today's hearings live on our

04:01social media. And WXXI is

04:02broadcasting as well. To my

04:04colleagues this evening, we

04:05will begin the hearing with the

04:07administration's presentation

04:08on the zoning code, which will

04:09include an overview of articles

04:11one, two, and three, along with

04:12the final generic environmental

04:14Impact statement, also known as

04:15the FGIS. We will then move on

04:18to asking overview questions on

04:20articles one, two, and three.

04:23Following those sections will

04:24have a short break and conclude

04:26this evening with questions

04:27from Council on the first half

04:29of the zoning code. As much as

04:31we can get through our. From

04:32article four through 12, pardon

04:36me, I do want to note that we

04:40will have time to circle back

04:42to additional questions about

04:44articles one, two, and three,

04:45which is specifically articles

04:47two and three, which is the

04:48meat of the entire code. We all

04:50have time to go back to

04:51questions about those tomorrow.

04:53There's plenty of time baked in

04:55to be more specific and

04:56granular as we go along.

05:00Tonight and tomorrow are really

05:02about having dialog about the

05:04code. I think there's so much

05:06about the communication between

05:08council and the administration

05:09that happens in writing, and

05:12that makes perfect sense

05:14oftentimes. But this these

05:17hearings are specifically about

05:18having dialog about what is in

05:21front of us. I've actually

05:23specifically requested that the

05:25administration, in their

05:26presentation, they're about to

05:27share with us, not spend too

05:28much time talking about process.

05:30And the last roughly seven

05:32years, there is a lot of good

05:34information about process that

05:36is on the website. There are

05:37several presentations that

05:39anybody has made over the years.

05:41We've had multiple work

05:42sessions on process. There may

05:44be some process questions that

05:45come up, but this is really

05:47about focusing on the code in

05:48front of us. There will

05:50inevitably be some dialog

05:52tonight and tomorrow that is

05:54adjacent to zoning. I think

05:56we'll be talking about things

05:57like policy, things like

06:00funding, things like laws that

06:01are not particularly in the

06:03zoning code. And I think

06:04there's no way to stop those

06:06conversations from happening

06:07outright. The way I see my role

06:09as chairing these hearings is

06:11to make sure that we don't go

06:12too far down the rabbit hole in

06:14any of those subjects and

06:15circle back to the content of

06:17the code in front of us. With

06:19all that said, the other thing

06:20to note is that this is not the

06:22end. We will have a public

06:24hearing or multiple public

06:25hearings still, when we

06:26actually take this up to vote

06:27on, and there will still be

06:29ample time for there to be

06:30written question and answer

06:31with the administration. So

06:34that's framing for the night

06:35before I turn it over to the

06:37deputy mayor for some opening

06:38remarks, I want to give the

06:39council president an

06:40opportunity to say anything.

06:42Yes. Thank you, Chair Gruber,

06:44for giving me some space here.

06:47I just want to highlight a

06:48couple things. And to my

06:50colleagues and the public. In

06:53terms of process and also the

06:55amount of material we have to

06:58review as part of this process.

06:59So I will say this first and

07:01foremost. This is probably the

07:03most important thing we will do

07:06as a body in our time as

07:08council members. So in saying

07:11that out loud, I think it's

07:12important that we take the time

07:14that we need to review,

07:16understand, ask questions. I

07:18think these hearings start that

07:20conversation. I know there's

07:21been some questions already

07:22submitted, but this is not a

07:25rush job. This is something

07:27that we have to spend enough

07:29energy on, making sure that we

07:31feel comfortable with whatever

07:32it is that we decide that we

07:34want to move forward with or

07:35change. I do want to highlight

07:38for the public some of the key

07:41considerations that we have to

07:42go through as part of this

07:43process. So first, we obviously

07:44have the the final code that

07:47was produced in April that's

07:49been shared with Council. 336

07:52pages of it. We have the FGEIS,

07:56which is really a lot of the

07:58public comment. So there's 134

07:59pages of public comment. Our

08:02staff, I want to commend the

08:03council staff for working

08:05around the clock. I mean, I

08:06mentioned this yesterday in the

08:08council meeting, but working

08:09around the clock to produce a

08:11226 page analysis. So thank you,

08:15staff for all your work on this.

08:17And then we have 100 plus pages

08:20of comments that just came in

08:22hot off the presses yesterday

08:25from the nine public forums

08:27that we've had so far. So

08:29there's been a lot of feedback

08:31from the community already

08:33since council has received the

08:34zoning code through legislation.

08:38And that just is the beginning

08:40point, because if you look at

08:41any council members email inbox

08:42right now, there's tons of

08:45additional feedback that we're

08:46all receiving. I say all that

08:48to say that there's a lot of

08:51review that we will be doing

08:52beyond what is done tonight and

08:55what is done tomorrow. In the

08:56hearings, we will have public

08:59hearings, and I would

09:01anticipate that all of us

09:02should be expecting to be here

09:03for a while. On November 12th,

09:05we'll have public hearings

09:06beginning at 6:00 here in

09:07council chambers. We'll make

09:08sure that we amply advertise

09:11that and promote that. In

09:13addition to that, I want to be

09:15clear, we will not be voting on

09:17this in the month of November,

09:19just flat out we will not be

09:20voting on this in the month of

09:22November, because I think we.

09:23Based on the feedback we have

09:25already, we know we're going to

09:26need time. So I anticipate

09:28another set of public hearings

09:30in the month of December. And

09:31at that point in time, I think

09:33we all need to decide, are we

09:34ready to move forward? Are we

09:36ready to make amendments? What

09:37does that process look like for

09:39us? So we'll the point is,

09:41we'll spend the appropriate

09:42energy making sure we're

09:43comfortable before we decide

09:45how we're going to move. What I

09:47don't want to do is rush this,

09:50but I also want to balance that

09:52with making sure that we are

09:54moving as a council, moving

09:56forward with a process and a

09:58plan that gets us to a place

09:59where we we either will have

10:02amendments to propose, or we

10:05will make a decision on whether

10:06or not we're voting on this.

10:09I'll say December, maybe it

10:10takes longer than that, but I

10:12just want to put on the record

10:14that we're not voting in

10:15November. We're going to take

10:16our time with this. And I

10:18appreciate all of your energy

10:19so far working on this. I know

10:21that this is a lot of work, and

10:24it's important, and we need to

10:25make sure that we spend the

10:27time to do that. So thank you,

10:29chair, for the opportunity to

10:30say that.

10:30>> Deputy Mayor, any opening

10:32remarks from you?

10:32>> Just briefly so and mainly

10:34thank yous. So tonight has

10:36really been five years in the

10:37making, as I think we all know.

10:39And that effort would not be

10:41possible without the great work

10:42of our city staff team. Matt

10:44Simonis, Kevin Kelly, Johanna

10:47Brennan and Doreen Kirchmeyer.

10:49Their efforts over that period

10:51of time have really been a

10:54tremendous professional labor

10:55that they can and should be

10:56proud of. And on behalf of the

10:59mayor and myself, thank you all.

11:02It is much appreciated. Their

11:13efforts have really brought

11:14about a draft code. That's

11:15something that we can and

11:16should be proud of as a city.

11:18It's built upon. Rochester 2034

11:21is the policy that forms the

11:23basis for the technical code

11:24that we will spend the next

11:26couple of evenings reviewing on

11:28during these hearings, and it's

11:30a draft code that is informed

11:32by a significant level of

11:34community engagement over that

11:36time, both before we embarked

11:39on a council process and

11:41certainly during the council

11:43process, right on through the

11:47voluminous number of comments

11:48that the council president

11:50referenced. So we've certainly

11:51provided a very appropriate

11:54opportunity for community

11:56feedback, which I think is

11:58critical given something of

11:59this magnitude. You know, if

12:00it's anything like the last

12:02zoning code, it will shape our

12:05path forward over the next 15

12:08to 20 years. I also want to

12:10thank the council staff, led by

12:12James Smith and Jen Biedermann,

12:14for your work in organizing

12:16this latest round of community

12:18engagement. And really, for all

12:19the support that you've

12:20provided thus far and shaping

12:22the process that we're in the

12:23midst of, and also to for the

12:26support that I know you all

12:28will provide as we finish up

12:31these hearings and process

12:32through all the follow up and

12:34next steps. So thank you. And

12:36continuing on the theme of

12:38thanks, I also want to thank

12:39the Council for the opportunity

12:40to have these hearings. Council

12:43President Melendez, for your

12:44leadership in formulating the

12:46approach and Chair Gruber for

12:47your efforts to lead us through

12:49these next two days of hearings,

12:51using what I think we would all

12:53agree is the tried and true

12:54model of the budget hearings to

12:56inform this approach. So with

12:58that Chair Gruber, I turn it

13:00back over to you to begin this.

13:02>> Thank you. I'm actually

13:03going to turn it right over to

13:05our director of zoning, Matt

13:06Simmons. It's 512. So we're

13:08already already dipping into

13:10our time, but we're going to

13:11give you a full hour, assuming

13:13you need it. And we will be all

13:16ears and ask some questions

13:17afterwards, specifically on

13:19articles one, two and three.

13:21Terrific.

13:22>> Is Mayor Evans going to join

13:24us as his name is behind this?

13:26I I'm wondering where the mayor

13:28is and is he going to join us

13:30at any point during the these

13:31hearings?

13:32>> I am hearing instead, as I

13:34usually am during committee

13:35hearings and and in a lot of

13:38other settings. So.

13:39>> Got it. So we can't ask the

13:41mayor questions directly. We'd

13:42have to just ask you throughout

13:43these hearings, Mayor Evans is

13:44not going to be here. That's

13:46correct. Got it.

13:47>> Matt.

13:48>> Okay. Good evening Council.

13:50Thank you for hosting this this

13:53evening. I will echo the Deputy

13:56mayor's thank yous. I won't

13:58repeat them because that's not

14:00necessary. But I do just want

14:01to build off of that. As the

14:03Deputy mayor indicated, this

14:04has been a this evening has

14:05been a long time coming, and

14:08it's incredibly important for

14:09me to thank, first and foremost,

14:11the community that participated

14:12in this. I can personally

14:13attest to the thousands and

14:15thousands of conversations I

14:16have had with the community

14:18over the last five, six, seven

14:21years, also building off of

14:22Rochester 2034. So it is

14:25incredibly important for me to

14:26thank them. Many of them are in

14:28the room this evening. Many of

14:29them are not in the room this

14:31evening. But either way, it is

14:33important. I want to thank my

14:34colleagues that the deputy

14:35mayor mentioned Kevin Doran.

14:36Johanna, they are sitting

14:37behind me. This was a team

14:39effort in conjunction with our

14:40consultant. I want to thank

14:42council, council staff. You

14:43guys have been tremendous

14:44trying to get through all this

14:45information. I appreciate that

14:46and anyone I am forgetting. My

14:48apologies, but with that I will

14:50get started so we don't waste

14:52any more time. So my kind of

14:55plan for this evening is to

14:56spend this hour. I'm going to

14:58go through the code, the map,

14:59and then I'm going to give a

15:01presentation on some topics

15:02that I think align with

15:04council's priorities. So with

15:06that, I'm going to start with

15:08the zoning code, which you can

15:09see here. As the agenda states,

15:13the we're going to do articles

15:15one, two and three, one and two

15:17are quite short. I'm going to

15:19mostly focus on three. I want

15:21to be able to set the stage for

15:23council to be able to

15:24understand how to read the code,

15:25and then we can move into the

15:27PowerPoint presentation. So as

15:30you scroll through the code,

15:31there is a table of contents

15:32breaks down. As I said by

15:35article here, zoning districts

15:38and map the use table standards

15:39and use definitions. Then it

15:42gets into the breakdown of

15:44residential districts, followed

15:45by mixed use and commercial

15:47districts, village center

15:49districts, the industrial

15:50District, the open space

15:52district, the rest of the

15:53districts. I will not keep

15:55reading them. Standards

15:56applying to all districts,

15:58accessory, off street parking

15:59and loading and so on and so

16:00forth. So you can see each

16:02article has a relevant area as

16:03it relates to administration of

16:05the code. Getting right into

16:07article one, title, purpose and

16:10applicability. This is really a

16:11lot of legalese that sets the

16:12stage. Much of it is very

16:14similar to other codes across

16:17the state, which sets the stage

16:19for why we are administering

16:21the code, or why the city has a

16:23code that includes the title,

16:25which is the zoning code of the

16:27City of Rochester. The purpose

16:30outlines a series of purpose

16:32statements, which are the. I'll

16:35say most simply, goals to

16:37achieve as part of the zoning

16:38code. Why? Why it's occurring?

16:40The applicability of such code.

16:42This gets into things like

16:44private agreements and deed

16:47restrictions and things like

16:48that. That zoning does not have

16:50anything to do with. This is

16:51the section that talks a little

16:53bit about that. Section 1.4

16:57gets into the applicability of

16:58what's called preexisting

17:00conditions. So these are

17:01existing legal uses that exist

17:04and how they got there, and

17:05what that means for when they

17:08come in to request changes

17:09under the new code, how they

17:10were established before, and

17:12how they would be processed

17:15under the new code. Skipping

17:19ahead here, zoning does not

17:21have anything to do with the

17:22right of way. The right of way

17:25is managed by the Department of

17:27Environmental Services, as this

17:28council knows. Okay, so kind of

17:31getting into the meat of it

17:32here, article two establishes

17:33the zoning districts. So in

17:35order to carry out the purposes

17:36and provisions of this code,

17:37the City of Rochester is here

17:39to hereby divided into the

17:41following zoning districts. And

17:43so you can see here a through I

17:47are a series of zoning

17:49districts and all plus or

17:53-64,000 parcels within the

17:5536mi² that make up the city of

17:56Rochester are covered by one of

17:59these zoning districts. There's

18:02a purpose statement for each of

18:04these zoning districts as well,

18:05which guides how uses were

18:08determined in many ways as well.

18:10Talks a little bit about the

18:11zoning map. If there are errors

18:14in omitted land district

18:15boundaries. Again, this is a

18:16lot of legalese information.

18:17You'll find it in the existing

18:19code, although it's been

18:20changed. You'll also find it in

18:22other zoning codes that you

18:23read, as it's relevant for the

18:26actual carrying out of the

18:30administering the zoning code.

18:31Okay, so I'm going to jump now

18:32right into the use table, and

18:34then I'm going to do the map.

18:36And then I want to start the

18:37PowerPoint presentation in the

18:38PowerPoint. Well, I'll get into

18:40that in just a second. Okay. So

18:42key for table three one P

18:44stands for permitted, which

18:45means the use is permitted as

18:47of right in the district s p.

18:49This light yellow is a special

18:51permit. It means the.

18:56Application requires a special

18:57use permit, which is a use

18:59that's thought to be permitted,

19:00but it requires Planning

19:02Commission approval. It's not

19:03administrative as permitted as

19:04of right permitted or specially

19:07permitted. If you see this

19:09green color with a P and SP, it

19:12will be indicated by the number

19:14of the additional requirements.

19:15So if you see that and you go

19:17to the key for requirements,

19:18it'll be a permit or special

19:20permit depending on those

19:21requirements. And if the color

19:23or the box is white blank, it

19:25is just a prohibited use, which

19:26means it's not allowed. Anytime

19:30you see in the chart one of

19:32these numbers, these numbers

19:33next to a P or s p, this is

19:36where you refer to this chart

19:37to find out more. So here is

19:39the chart. The top has a list

19:41of all the zoning districts.

19:43Low density medium density high

19:45density downtown mixed use

19:47neighborhood. Excuse me.

19:48Boutique mixed use.

19:49Neighborhood. Mixed use.

19:51Flexible mixed use. Downtown

19:52mixed use. This is the key

19:54across the top. The uses are on

19:55the left side. You go through

19:58the chart, you find out you see

20:01here. If it has a P, it's

20:02permitted. If it's a P with a

20:04three, you go to the key at the

20:06top to find out what the

20:08additional requirement is. The

20:09one thing you will not find on

20:10here are planned development

20:11districts. These are custom

20:13zoning districts that are

20:14carried over from the existing

20:16code. These are things like

20:18institutional like

20:20organizations, things like the

20:22University of Rochester River

20:23campus that don't fit easily

20:25into one of the established

20:26zoning districts, and those

20:29institutions create their own

20:31essentially custom zoning

20:32district known as a planned

20:33development district, or PDD.

20:35Those are adopted by City

20:36council. So the creation of the

20:38district is in fact adopted by

20:41City Council, just like all the

20:43other districts. It starts with

20:47residential uses. First, it

20:48goes on to commercial and

20:50industrial uses. Continues on

20:55into. Other uses. Accessory

20:59uses. ET cetera. ET cetera. So

21:01as you scroll through the chart,

21:02you can see that some things I

21:04want to point out on here, some

21:05pretty unique things that are

21:08definitely unique to this

21:09zoning code, not in our

21:10existing code that were in many

21:13ways directives of Rochester

21:152034. And that's this column

21:16over to the right here. Special

21:18considerations, the Special

21:20Considerations column, and this

21:22is explained just above the

21:23chart, non residential and

21:25mixed use. That's what NRM

21:27stands for. And R is adaptive

21:30reuse. So one of the directives

21:31of Rochester 2034 was around

21:34reactivating what we call

21:36nonresidential floor area in

21:39residential zoning districts.

21:40And so in order to do that,

21:42we're utilizing this special

21:45consideration piece. So by way

21:47of example, dwelling units

21:50within a mixed use building

21:51here in residential, in non

21:55residential and mixed use, it

21:56would be a permitted as of

21:57right. I'm going to go through

21:59an example in the PowerPoint,

22:00but I just wanted to point this

22:01special consideration out as as

22:03part of the presentation.

22:08Jumping over to.

22:09>> The not to interrupt, but we

22:10did have a request from our

22:12council. If it's not possible

22:13to make it bigger on the screen,

22:15if maybe you could just give a

22:17shout out to page numbers.

22:18>> Absolutely.

22:19>> So I just finished off on

22:21page ten of the actual code. If

22:24you're in the PDF, it's page 18.

22:29Jumping over to the zoning map,

22:31and I pulled this right up from

22:32Rochester zap.com. This is what

22:34we call a swipe map. On the

22:37left side, you will see the

22:38existing zoning districts. On

22:40the right side, you will see

22:42the proposed zoning districts,

22:45keeping in mind that the

22:47districts are not an equivalent.

22:49Exactly. The regulations and

22:51dimensional standards and other

22:53provisions within the districts

22:55are changed. So what I mean by

22:56that is R-3 high density

22:59residential in the current code

23:01is not exactly HDR in the

23:03proposed code, but this just

23:05gives you a sense of the zoning

23:08map as a whole. What's changed.

23:11And it also really demonstrates

23:14one of the factors as part of

23:16Rochester 2034, that Rochester

23:19has these essentially

23:21concentric circles that start

23:22with downtown, where the

23:23density is desired. And then as

23:27you work your way out with a

23:28high density to medium density,

23:30and then further out to the

23:31lower density, the simple

23:32reason for this is the downtown

23:34and immediate neighborhood

23:35surrounding that were largely

23:36built before modern zoning, so

23:38they were built largely

23:40differently than the areas like

23:42the 19th Ward, for example,

23:43that were built more or closer

23:45to more modern zoning, where

23:47the automobile might be the

23:49more predominant form of

23:50transportation as opposed to

23:52walking. So there's denser

23:53development toward downtown. So

23:55this is the map. There is a key

23:58that shows these different

23:59colors if it's difficult to see,

24:01but you can also click on it

24:02and it will tell you what the

24:04district is and it'll outline

24:06it. So MDR here is what I

24:07clicked when I looked at this.

24:10Before I jump into the

24:11PowerPoint, does Council have

24:13any questions about. Okay,

24:17terrific. Just one slide here

24:27on how we got here. So in

24:30November 2019, Rochester City

24:31Council unanimously adopted the

24:33city's fourth ever

24:34comprehensive plan. Rochester

24:362034, Rochester 2034 is. The

24:39deputy mayor indicated forms

24:41the policy on which the

24:43proposed zoning code and map

24:45are based. Since the adoption

24:48of Rochester 2030.

24:50>> We don't have copies of the

24:53PowerPoint.

24:58>> We can share them following

25:00the meeting, or I can email

25:01them out to everybody now.

25:03>> If you can email it. Sure,

25:05that'd be great.

25:09>> So Rochester 2034 forms the

25:11policy on which the proposed

25:13zoning code and map are based.

25:14Since the adoption of Rochester

25:162034, the city has been working

25:18on the drafting of a new zoning

25:20code and map. Comprehensive

25:21list of engagement activities

25:22can be found in what is known

25:25as the D, GEIS, as well as the

25:29FGEIS, the final generic

25:31environmental impact statement.

25:32I won't go into any detail on

25:33that. It's all outlined in

25:35those documents. These next two

25:37bullet points are really,

25:38really critical for council to

25:41understand. So a zoning code is

25:42not intended to decide decide a

25:45community's vision. Major

25:47choices about housing, mixed

25:48use development, connectivity,

25:50economic development, and other

25:51major goals belong in adopted

25:54plans and policies. So this is

25:56the connection to Rochester

25:582034. The code and the map were

26:02largely derived from directives

26:04as part of that plan. Now is

26:07every single thing in Rochester

26:092034. No, it is not. There are

26:10decisions that had to be made

26:12based on community input, based

26:13on feedback from, for example,

26:15council through work sessions

26:16that we've had. So there are

26:18additional considerations. But

26:20largely it is important to note

26:22that the code is not intended

26:23to decide that vision. That's

26:24where the comprehensive Plan or

26:27other adopted policies come

26:29from. I also mentioned in that

26:31bullet the New York State pro

26:32housing community. This council

26:34adopted the pledge to become a

26:37New York State pro housing

26:38community in order to tap into

26:40discretionary funding from the

26:41state, which required the

26:43administration for us to submit

26:45to the state our zoning code,

26:47which I. I submitted the

26:49proposed zoning code, and we

26:50were certified as part of that

26:53program as a New York State pro

26:55housing community. And what

26:56that means is that the state

26:58has determined that the

27:00framework within our zoning

27:02code meets the requirements for

27:04the necessary construction of

27:05housing that the state is

27:07seeking statewide. Last bullet

27:11on the screen here is that

27:12zoning facilitates the desired

27:13outcome. It does not work alone.

27:15Much like most of us, it is

27:17also one of the many

27:19considerations by developers

27:20when determining where to site

27:21projects. So, you know, market

27:24conditions are a big part of

27:26siting projects in a region.

27:28But developers, property owners,

27:30applicants, etc. have many

27:33considerations to make beyond

27:34just beyond just zoning and

27:36zoning code. So that's another

27:37important piece to remember.

27:41The next two slides, I'm going

27:42to go over some direct changes

27:44regarding housing in the

27:46proposed code. And then the

27:47third slide after that will be

27:49two examples related to housing

27:51and what that does. So the

27:53first bullet on there, it

27:54focuses population growth and

27:56commercial development along

27:57key commercial excuse me, along

28:00key transportation corridors

28:03and within mixed use centers in

28:05order to. Can you hear me? Had

28:13you heard enough? I got you. So

28:19this first bullet again so

28:21focusing population growth. So

28:22this is a directive right from

28:23Rochester 2034. So in a city

28:25with a population of

28:28approximately 206, 208,000

28:30people, but a city that used to

28:32house 333,000 people within the

28:34same 36mi². A key consideration

28:38is when growth begins to occur.

28:40Where should that growth be

28:41focused? And again, directly

28:43from Rochester 2034 is focusing

28:44that growth in key areas where

28:47the infrastructure exists in

28:49order to build the necessary

28:51housing. The second bullet down,

28:54new use not existing or the

28:57existing code does not define

28:58accessory dwelling unit. The

29:00proposed code does. The

29:02provisions for accessory

29:03dwelling units, or I should say

29:05the defining of an accessory

29:06dwelling unit came directly out

29:09of a council work session that

29:11we met with council along the

29:12way in this process, and where

29:14this landed in, the proposal is

29:16permitted as of right in the

29:19medium and high density

29:20residential districts, while

29:21permitting it with a special

29:23permit in the low density

29:24residential district. Two

29:25things to explain accessory

29:28dwelling units are smaller

29:29subordinate units to a

29:30principal dwelling. They can be

29:32detached from a structure, they

29:34can be attached from a

29:35structure, or they can be

29:36within a structure. These are

29:38things like basements, third

29:39floors, etc. Rochester 2034

29:42gave some information around

29:44not tackling accessory dwelling

29:46units during the adoption of

29:47the zoning code. 2034 was a

29:50number of years ago, and we

29:52heard from council and others

29:53that this was a use that people

29:55would like to see as an option,

29:57so as a mitigating factor of

29:59incorporating it into the low

30:01density district, we opted to

30:03put it in there as a special

30:05permit. Special permits are

30:06uses that are thought to be

30:08permissible. However, they do

30:11sometimes have unique

30:12circumstances based on parcel

30:14configuration. So the Planning

30:15Commission has jurisdiction

30:16over that. I do encourage

30:18Council to remember I talked

30:20about this earlier, fitting

30:2264,000 properties into 15

30:24zoning districts. There's going

30:25to be unique parcels. There's

30:27different shapes, there's

30:28different sizes. So there's

30:29always going to be

30:30circumstances by which to

30:32consider that need to be

30:33reviewed. Because it's not a

30:35one size fits all. And actually

30:38not on the screen. But I'll say

30:40it because I think it's

30:41relevant here. And my comment

30:43dovetailed from it. One of the

30:45considerations that

30:46municipalities make when they

30:47are coming up with a zoning

30:50code and a zoning map, is

30:51determining how many zoning

30:53districts that they would like

30:56to have. Right? There are much

30:58smaller cities than Rochester

31:00that have many more zoning

31:02districts. And just from a

31:03basic understanding of that,

31:04the more zoning districts you

31:06have, the more exclusive areas

31:08you can have because you're

31:09creating zoning districts for

31:11separate areas of the city. For

31:14a city like Rochester to only

31:15have three residential zoning

31:17districts with 208,000 206,000

31:20people is quite unique. The

31:21city of Richmond is a city

31:22that's slightly larger than

31:24ours. They have 18 residential

31:25zoning districts. So there's an

31:28inherent difficulty, or I

31:30should say, there's a benefit

31:32to bringing down the number of

31:33zoning districts because it

31:34allows parcel citywide to be

31:36subject to the same regulations,

31:38but it also creates challenges

31:40around the number of parcels

31:43and how many districts you have

31:44in there. So a point to mention

31:46and just a consideration as you

31:48work through this. I'm on the

31:50third bullet down here. So a

31:51change to the loss of rights

31:53provisions. So the existing

31:55code has this provision that

31:58came out of the 2003 code.

32:01There was a lot of work done at

32:02the time that determined the

32:04number of people residing in

32:05the city versus the number of

32:08dwelling units, and there was

32:10way out of balance. So one of

32:12the tools that the city

32:14embarked on was forcing

32:16deconversion of properties in

32:17districts, if they were

32:19constructed as a single family,

32:20had units added after the fact,

32:23and then if they went vacant

32:25for nine months, they had to be

32:26converted back to a single.

32:28Results of this are mixed. I've

32:29talked to neighborhoods where

32:30they say it was successful

32:32because it created more owner

32:33occupancy, but there are other

32:34neighborhoods where it largely

32:37created vacancy as a result of

32:39there not being a demand for

32:40large single family homes. So I

32:42do encourage Council to think

32:43about that provision in 2003

32:45years and not 20, 26 years,

32:48because I think at the time it

32:49was well-intended. It's just a

32:51matter of charting a new course

32:54as part of this code. The

32:57fourth bullet down. This is a

32:59big one for a number of reasons.

33:01So in the current code, and

33:03actually in many city codes,

33:05especially across upstate New

33:06York, if you have a single

33:08family or two family or three

33:09family or four family that is

33:12damaged or destroyed, it needs

33:14to be rebuilt in accordance

33:15with the regulations from that

33:17district. So if you have even a

33:18built as four family and it

33:20burns to the ground or burns to

33:22some level of of destruction,

33:24it would have to be rebuilt as

33:26a single. Aside from the

33:28obvious reasons of it doesn't

33:31respect the built form of the

33:32given area where the structure

33:34is. The other reason we made

33:35this change, that you can

33:37rebuild these structures that

33:38were built that way, as they

33:40were, is access to financing.

33:42It has become, I'll say,

33:44somewhat commonplace for

33:45lenders to request what's

33:47called damage or destruction

33:49letters, where they'll call.

33:50And if the municipality cannot

33:51provide a letter that says it

33:53can be rebuilt in its existing

33:55form, the potential buyer is

33:56unable to get financing

33:59>> On the property, which takes

34:01people who need financing out

34:03of the market and can often

34:05lead to more cash buyers. So

34:07one of the other things we

34:08wanted to do is to the extent

34:10that we could within the code

34:11as one thing, is to level the

34:13playing field with that by

34:14being able to issue these

34:15letters that the structures can

34:17be rebuilt. There are also

34:18sometimes considerations with

34:19that, which I will not comment

34:21on, because that is an area I

34:22don't know anything about. The

34:25second to last bullet there,

34:26the increase to the amount of

34:28land area dedicated to medium

34:30density residential. It's

34:32approximately 1600 acres, and

34:35the decrease in the amount of

34:37land area, approximately 2000

34:38acres dedicated to the low

34:40density district across the

34:42city. So not only did we shift

34:46into more medium density and

34:47less low density, we also

34:49increase the amount of medium

34:51density. What's permitted. So

34:54the current code R-2 allows two

34:55units as of right, while the

34:57proposed code allows four units

34:59as of right and five or more is

35:00a special permit. This was also

35:02a directive from Rochester 2034

35:06to incorporate this provision

35:08within the zoning code. Another

35:12new use defined in the proposed

35:15zoning code is a community home.

35:18Most simply put, it is a

35:19residential use that provides

35:20services to its residents and

35:22is permitted in all three

35:23residential zoning districts.

35:25Examples are transitional

35:26housing and sober homes. Other

35:27times these are called SROs or

35:29single room occupancy. There

35:30are many names for them that

35:32people use, but I do encourage

35:34people to check that definition.

35:36If that's something that they

35:37are looking to see if there's a

35:40comparable use for it.

35:43Townhomes are also permitted in

35:44all three residential zoning

35:46districts. This allows for

35:47additional density within each

35:49of the residential zoning

35:50districts. It also, on the

35:52topic of housing types,

35:54provides another housing type

35:56in the city. We have heard from

35:58people that townhomes are in

35:59fact a desirable housing type.

36:00There is not a lot of them out

36:02there, I can tell you that's

36:04not necessarily related to

36:05zoning. There might be other

36:06factors because they are

36:09permitted, but something to

36:10consider that it is an

36:11additional housing type to be

36:13able to explore for potential

36:16developers. This third bullet

36:21down significant decrease in

36:23the dwelling unit conversion

36:25standards for existing

36:26buildings. So for existing

36:28buildings, the conversion of

36:31them to add dwelling units are

36:33subject to what's called

36:34dwelling unit conversion

36:35standards. There are four

36:37things that are included in

36:38those dwelling unit conversion

36:40standards, and they're in the

36:42requirements applying to all

36:43districts section in the basic

36:45premise of this is is quite

36:46simple. Existing structures

36:48that were not constructed to

36:50house the number of dwelling

36:51units that an applicant may

36:53want to put in them can create

36:56issues around parking. It can

36:57create issues around

36:58overcrowding, it can create

36:59building code issues. And so

37:02making sure that there are

37:04standards for people to be able

37:06to follow was something that

37:08was left in the code as a

37:10carryover, but they were

37:11significantly reduced. The

37:13numbers that you actually have

37:14to meet are significantly

37:15reduced. So more properties

37:17would in fact be able to be

37:18converted. New construction is

37:21not subject to these zoning

37:23dwelling unit conversion

37:24standards. The next one down is

37:27the removal of the minimum lot

37:28size for housing. Said

37:31differently, it's no density

37:33maximums. The removal of

37:35minimum lot size is a pretty

37:37unique thing that I've not been

37:38able to locate in other cities.

37:41The basic premise of that is in

37:42most zoning codes, a minimum

37:44amount of lot area is required

37:47to construct a single family, a

37:48two family, a three family. So

37:50what we did, or what the

37:51proposed code does was removes

37:53that minimum lot size, which in

37:55the current code is 5000ft² for

37:58a single family, and focus more

38:01on what is important to the

38:03feel of a given area, which is

38:04more about the lot frontage or

38:06the massing or the scale of the

38:08structure. And so we focus on

38:11that. And there's a range which

38:12you can choose, which is less

38:13of a focus of creating a bigger

38:15backyard that someone may not

38:17actually want to begin with.

38:18They're just doing it to meet a

38:19minimum lot size. The other

38:21thing it does is in areas where

38:23there's a significant amount of

38:24area to assemble land. If

38:25someone is platting out a new

38:27subdivision development, the

38:29minimum lot size is not a

38:30consideration for that. So the

38:32possibility is very real that

38:34more dwelling units would say

38:35it's a fact actually, that more

38:37dwelling units can actually be

38:39constructed as part of that,

38:40getting platted out because of

38:42the fact that there's not this

38:43minimum lot size, and that's

38:45applicable in all of the

38:46residential districts. Another

38:48new use is the pocket

38:50neighborhood residential

38:52development. This is also

38:53available in all residential

38:54districts. The use allows

38:56residential development and or

38:58co-housing options in a manner

38:59that organizes dwellings around

39:01shared spaces designed as a

39:04cohesive whole. This council

39:07probably is aware of the

39:08Edgerton Tiny Home project that

39:11was proposed. I don't know

39:12where it is in process, but I

39:14can tell you that's the best

39:15example I have for this

39:17proposed use that is not in the

39:18existing code, but it is

39:19something we heard about from

39:21the community as again, another

39:22housing type that was

39:23incorporated into the code in

39:26this last bullet here, removal

39:28of prohibited variances. So

39:29what does this mean? When I

39:32talked about the use chart

39:33there is the cell where

39:35something is not permitted or

39:36it's prohibited. When something

39:38is not prohibited. Prohibited,

39:40there's a relief valve within

39:42zoning that's called a use

39:43variance, which means the

39:46municipality has to be able to

39:47offer the applicant to apply to

39:49the zoning Board of Appeals for

39:50what's called a financial

39:51hardship or use variance, and

39:52the applicant has to prove that

39:54they can't realize a

39:55practicable financial return on

39:57the property, not a personal

39:59financial return, but just on

40:00the property itself. They're

40:02extremely difficult to get.

40:04They're generally not applied

40:05for, because if there's a

40:06problem with uses getting

40:08established, the map just gets

40:09amended. Why that's important

40:11to this last bullet is there's

40:12currently a set of what we call

40:14prohibited variances in the

40:16existing code, meaning an

40:17applicant cannot even ask for

40:19that relief valve for that form

40:21of relief and apply to the

40:22Zoning Board of Appeals. That

40:24section has been struck from

40:25the code. The most applicable

40:29scenario in that is in the

40:31current R-1 district and the

40:33conversion to a single family.

40:34So I mentioned earlier, if

40:35there's not a market for a

40:37large single family or there's

40:38a need to convert it, in some

40:40cases, there's not a path for

40:41it. Now there is a path for it.

40:43Now within the existing code.

40:48Okay, so with that, I want to

40:49give two housing examples that

40:51I think will hopefully bring

40:52the words off the page into

40:53like real life sort of thing

40:55for, for council to understand

40:56what the impacts of these

40:58changes for the Rochester

40:59market specific to the

41:00Rochester market actually mean.

41:02So a parcel in LDR, the city's

41:04low density district containing

41:06a building or buildings with

41:08commercial floor area. This is

41:09sometimes the case with

41:10churches where they have former

41:12schools or former outbuildings.

41:13It is also the case with other

41:15sorts of buildings because the

41:17city is built. Form is has been

41:18around for a while. Developer

41:20comes in and says, I'd like to

41:21convert the family to

41:22multifamily residential. I'd

41:24like to convert the building

41:25into multifamily residential.

41:26And I'm in a low density

41:28district. Under the current

41:29code, there's a series of

41:30what's called area variances to

41:32request. Under the proposed

41:35code, the conversion of the

41:37commercial buildings to

41:39multifamily and LDR is

41:41permitted as of right in all

41:43residential districts. Because

41:44of that Special considerations

41:46column that I pointed out early

41:47on, those non residential mixed

41:50use buildings, that was

41:52intentional, putting that in

41:53there to be able to get

41:54buildings reactivated, or I

41:55should say, not let zoning be

41:57the hindrance for getting

41:59buildings reactivated. There

42:00are, of course, many

42:01considerations by developer

42:02developers financing. ET cetera.

42:04ET cetera. But to the extent

42:05that zoning didn't need to be a

42:07challenge, we we were

42:09intentional about that. A very

42:11similar scenario parcel and LDR

42:14containing buildings with

42:15commercial floor area and would

42:17like to keep potentially keep

42:18the commercial floor area, but

42:20also add dwelling units to the

42:22commercial buildings in the

42:24nonresidential floor area. It's

42:26currently what I just described

42:27as a prohibited variance

42:28because it would make it a

42:30mixed use building. If you have

42:31commercial and residential in

42:32the same building, you can't do

42:34that because that's not

42:35permitted in R-1. But under the

42:36proposed code. Again, the

42:38special considerations addition

42:40of dwelling units to commercial

42:42building is permitted because

42:45of the dwelling units within a

42:46mixed use building permitted as

42:47of right. Because of that

42:48Special considerations column

42:52in the use chart. Jump to

42:56parking, parking in non

42:59residential zoning districts

43:01something many people will be

43:02excited to hear what I'm about

43:04to say. There are no minimum

43:05off street parking requirements

43:06in the nonresidential zoning

43:07district. So what does this

43:09mean. Property owner comes in.

43:10I've got a commercial tenant

43:11space. I want to establish the

43:13use. And I'm going to give

43:14parking examples actually

43:15specific ones that have

43:16occurred. They have to provide

43:18a minimum set of off street

43:19parking requirements that can

43:22be prohibitive to a small 1100,

43:251200 1500 square foot tenant

43:27space. And, you know, the city

43:29is very common mixed use

43:30buildings with commercial

43:32storefronts. And the impact on

43:34parking is minimal because the

43:35space is not significant in

43:37size. So the number of people

43:39that can even occupy the space

43:41based on the occupancy posting

43:43is minimal. So we removed

43:45removed that parking

43:46requirement for that reason.

43:48And again, this ties directly

43:49back to directives from

43:50Rochester 2034. We have

43:53something newly proposed called

43:56a transportation access plan or

43:57tap for short. If you've not

43:59noticed, zoning loves acronyms.

44:01It is required for our boutique

44:04mixed use neighborhood mixed

44:06use and flexible mixed use. The

44:09establishment of any place of

44:10assembly, which is bars,

44:11restaurants, gymnasiums,

44:12gymnasiums, reception

44:13facilities, arcades, theaters

44:15with an occupancy posting of

44:17100 or more. What is an

44:19occupancy posting? An occupancy

44:21posting comes directly from the

44:22New York State Building Code.

44:23The New York State Building

44:24Code determines how many people

44:26can be in your building, and

44:28it's safe based on the code,

44:30based on your floor area, based

44:31on how you submit to the city,

44:33that you're going to use that

44:35space. And a occupancy posting

44:37is then given to that business

44:39owner. So part of Zap or one of

44:42the goals of zap was to align

44:44with other codes and other

44:47policies or procedures that we

44:49have and not be duplicative. So

44:51we looked at this and said,

44:53there is a trigger for 100 or

44:57more in the building code,

44:58which is directly related to a

45:01minimum set of health and

45:02safety standards. As part of

45:03the building code, it puts the

45:05building code into a different

45:07category. So that's why we're

45:08trying to align with the zoning

45:09code where we came up with that

45:11100 or more. This is not

45:13applicable in the downtown

45:14mixed use. This is not

45:16applicable in the village

45:17center districts. Those

45:19districts will not have any off

45:21street parking requirement. The

45:23other thing this is looking to

45:25do is to incrementally move in

45:27a direction where we may not in

45:28the future, have to have any

45:30off street parking requirements,

45:32very desirable goal for the

45:34city, but also still

45:36recognizing that the private

45:37automobile is in large part,

45:38the predominant mode of

45:39transportation for many city

45:41residents. So how do we create

45:42that balance? And that's

45:43actually the first time I've

45:44said the word balance tonight.

45:45For those of you who've heard

45:47me speak before, I usually say

45:49it 500 more times creating that

45:50balance, right? We have heard

45:51you all have heard from so many

45:53people. And for everything you

45:54hear about this, you hear the

45:56opposite and vice versa. So

45:57where do we create that balance?

45:58And keeping in mind instituting

46:00something like this, council

46:02has the ability to adopt or

46:03excuse me, amend the code. You

46:05amend the code monthly for

46:06projects or almost monthly, I

46:08would say. So things can be

46:09tracked and followed up on and

46:12amendments be made if something

46:13like this works. New

46:15construction of 20,000ft² or

46:17more of in those same districts

46:20there. I'm on letter B. 3000ft²

46:24or more of nonresidential gross

46:26floor area. The tap may be

46:28waived for low occupancy use.

46:30So even if you have a 20,000

46:31square foot building, but it's

46:33has no employees at it, there

46:35may not need to be any actual

46:36parking. So we shouldn't

46:38necessarily be forcing the

46:39dedication of land to parking

46:40when it's not needed. And then

46:43in the Bmu, NMU and FMU

46:45districts, a multi-family

46:46dwelling or mixed use

46:47development with a residential

46:48component of five or more units

46:50that is located within an LDR

46:52or MDR district. And the final

46:54one, and again, these are

46:55requirements for tap

46:57development or redevelopment of

46:58hospitals and colleges or

47:00universities. I want to make

47:01sure council understands,

47:03though a tap is not a minimum

47:05set of parking requirements,

47:07it's an ability for a developer

47:08to talk about how

47:09transportation is going to be

47:12accommodated based on maybe

47:13parking, maybe transit, maybe

47:15walking, maybe rideshare, maybe

47:18valet parking. It may be any

47:20number of things. So it's not

47:21an actual prescriptive set of

47:24number of minimum off street

47:25parking requirements, but it

47:26allows the city to have an

47:27additional review and say, this

47:29seems reasonable based on the

47:30context of that area and where

47:32it's where it's being cited.

47:34The process for the tap when

47:35site plan review is required

47:37for a project and a tap is also

47:40required. The tap will be

47:41reviewed as part of that site

47:42plan review, which is an

47:44administrative review. If no

47:45site plan review is required,

47:47the tap is proposed to be

47:49reviewed through what's called

47:50an administrative adjustment.

47:52It is an internal process. It

47:53does not require a public

47:55hearing, and so the applicant

47:58would submit. We do send out

48:00notifications to neighboring

48:01property owners, but it does

48:03not actually include a public

48:04hearing. And again, it's not an

48:06actual set number of parking

48:08spaces. Again that's non

48:11residential zoning districts.

48:12So now I'm going to jump to

48:14parking and residential zoning

48:15districts. So this is the LDR,

48:17MDR, HDR a table 15-1 in the

48:21code outlines the parking

48:24requirements within residential

48:25districts. The second bullet

48:27there credit is given for

48:29preexisting deficiencies. What

48:30this means is the code

48:32recognizes that much of our

48:33city was built without off

48:34street parking requirements.

48:37The code recognizes that it

48:38gives credit for that

48:40deficiency that it never had to

48:41begin with. So that's something

48:43to consider when parking

48:45requirements are being

48:46calculated. I will not read you

48:48the next four paragraphs, I

48:50promise, but directly from the

48:52FGEIS is information about the

48:54city's experience as to why off

48:56street parking requirements are

48:58being proposed to be retained

49:00in residential districts in.

49:02Much of that is largely due to

49:04the city's experience around

49:06issues with front yard parking,

49:08issues of conversions of

49:10buildings that did not have

49:11parking at the time to

49:13accommodate. And again, while

49:14it's a laudable goal to be able

49:16to say we're moving in that

49:17direction, I think everyone

49:18would likely agree with that.

49:20Based on the data that we have,

49:22we we determine that retaining

49:24in residential districts for

49:26the the time being is, is, is

49:27what's being proposed just for

49:30some, you know, data points.

49:32The last bullet there, there

49:34are approximately 50 open cases

49:36with a zoning violation for

49:38front yard parking right now,

49:40with nearly 100 cases since

49:432022. And keep in mind, many

49:47times these front yard parking

49:49issues start with a

49:50conversation with the occupant

49:52of the building, the car owner.

49:54So not all front yard parking

49:56cases will translate to a

49:58actual code enforcement case.

50:02So I just want to give two

50:04examples that are real examples

50:06that came through our Zoning

50:07Board of Appeals that needed

50:09variances for parking, just so

50:10folks understand exactly what's

50:11going on. So in the current

50:13code, I'm at 36362 Arnett

50:15Boulevard in a mixed use

50:16district, a commercial tenant

50:18space was vacant and a change

50:19of use was requested to convert

50:21to a sit down restaurant with a

50:22bar area. While the use was

50:24permitted as of right, the

50:26property was required to go

50:28before the Zoning Board of

50:30Appeals for a variance for the

50:31increase in the number of

50:33parking spaces, and I don't I

50:34don't have the exact square

50:35footage off the top of my head,

50:37but it was one of those smaller

50:39commercial tenant spaces that

50:40we have in the city with the

50:42mixed use buildings. And so it

50:43introduces unknowns to the

50:45applicant, right? It introduces,

50:46you know, some money to spend

50:49unknowns, the public hearing

50:50what's going to happen under

50:52the proposed code. The spaces

50:53change of use would not require

50:55any board approval, as there

50:56are no off street parking

50:58requirements in nonresidential

50:59districts. Very similar case at

51:02260 North Winton Road, also in

51:03a mixed use district,

51:05commercial tenant space was

51:06legal as a retail store and a

51:08change of use was requested to

51:10convert to a sit down

51:12restaurant. So the use was

51:13permitted as of right, but the

51:15new classification of the

51:16property was required to go

51:17before the zoning board,

51:18because the off street parking

51:20requirement increased for a sit

51:21down restaurant from what it

51:22was. And so in the proposed

51:25code, the spaces change of use

51:26would not require any board

51:28approval, as there are no off

51:29street parking requirements in

51:31the non residential districts.

51:36Last big topic and I think it

51:38keeps us on track for the first

51:40hour. Climate change and

51:41sustainability. So I talked a

51:44little bit about this when I

51:45showed the map early on

51:47directly from Rochester 2034.

51:48Regarding the zoning map. I

51:50will read this. I think it's

51:52important if there are mapping

51:53questions, I think it informs

51:54or might help inform some of

51:56those questions. The geographic

51:58relationship between low and

51:59medium density residential is

52:01both reflective of the desired

52:03pattern of restored density in

52:05somewhat concentric in nature.

52:07I think I mentioned this, as I

52:08said early on, the medium

52:10density residential or MDR

52:12should be clustered closer to

52:14downtown, forming a radial band

52:15that starts about a half mile

52:17from the city center and

52:18stretches between 1.25 to 2

52:21miles from downtown. This

52:22reflects the historic built

52:24form of Rochester, as these

52:25areas were generally developed

52:27prior to 1900 and reflect a

52:29city built around walking and

52:31relatively limited transit

52:32options. These areas are home

52:34to the majority of side streets,

52:35adjacent to primary mixed use

52:37corridors, heavily interspersed

52:39with older industrial and

52:41commercial buildings. So this

52:42describes a little bit about

52:43development of the map. But I

52:45will also say the development

52:46of the map also came directly

52:48from Rochester 2034. By way of

52:50the placemaking plan. The

52:52placemaking plan was not at a

52:54personal level. It was not

52:55distilled down to a parcel

52:56level in Rochester 2034, but it.

52:59It did have a higher level

53:01direction based on which areas

53:03of the city would fit into,

53:05which fit into which zoning

53:06districts, a continuation here,

53:09climate change and

53:11sustainability. From the draft

53:15generic environmental impact

53:17statement. Just some

53:19information here on climate

53:20change, its causes, and a

53:22commitment to keeping that in

53:24mind in the draft or the

53:26development of the draft code

53:27and map. I will read the next

53:29bullet down. I do think it's

53:30important. The proposed code

53:32balances and allows for

53:33increased density. There's

53:35balancing again while retaining

53:36green space, which reduces

53:38pollution, stormwater runoff,

53:39and surface temperatures. The

53:41code maintains maximum

53:43impervious surface area

53:44coverage in residenal

53:45districts, although increased

53:47from the existing code while

53:49increasing landscaping

53:50requirements for new

53:51development. It imposes EV

53:52charging stations for certain

53:54parking facilities. It adds

53:56bicycle parking requirements,

53:58and it actually sort of

53:59decouples them from the off

54:00street parking requirement,

54:01like in the existing code. It

54:03also identifies solar energy

54:05systems and wind energy

54:06conservation systems as

54:07principal uses and increases

54:10the areas where they are

54:12permitted. And before I finish

54:14up, I'm going to jump over to

54:15page 64 of the draft Generic

54:18Environmental Impact Statement.

54:20I'll call your attention to

54:21this. For those looking, this

54:22is page 64 of the document,

54:25page 72 of the PDF. And again,

54:27I'm in the DGEIS from the

54:30website Sustainable Development.

54:33There are a series of bullet

54:36points that go through what the

54:39city is doing to respond to

54:42sustainable development. I will

54:43try and summarize them here

54:45because I do think they're

54:46important. The city's manager

54:48of environmental quality, which

54:49is part of our Department of

54:50Environmental Services, is

54:52proposed to be added to the

54:53required membership of the

54:55Project Review Committee. The

54:57Project Review Committee is a

55:00advisory board as part of the

55:01code that advises the city on a

55:04set of design professionals.

55:06Volunteers advises the city on

55:08projects, so adding the manager

55:09of environmental quality is a

55:11key piece of sustainable

55:13development. The proposed

55:15zoning map puts more acreage

55:17into mixed use categories.

55:19These boutique boutique mixed

55:20use my apologies. Neighborhood

55:22mixed use. Flexible mixed use,

55:24downtown mixed use, legalizing

55:26and allowing more mixed use

55:28development throughout the city.

55:30Mixing of uses, which is

55:32defined as including

55:33residential units alongside

55:35commercial units. If you think

55:36of our commercial corridors and

55:38the more traditional built form

55:39of the city, is part of a

55:41strategy of sustainable

55:43development because, among

55:43other things, it reduces the

55:45need for car ownership, reduces

55:48vehicle travel miles and

55:50supports alternative forms of

55:51transportation like walking and

55:52transit. One of the key pieces

55:55of Rochester 2034 is focusing

55:57the built form on the more

56:00historic built form in the city

56:01that you see, where there is

56:03access to necessary services or

56:05the ability to access necessary

56:08services. The zoning code

56:10allows for it, right? In a

56:13given neighborhood, people can

56:14walk to things, people can

56:16arrive at things. And that in

56:18and of itself is a sustainable

56:19form of development as it

56:21reduces car dependency.

56:23Existing, built as commercial

56:25and mixed use buildings being

56:26allowed as of right, subject to

56:28specified parameters and

56:29residential zoning districts.

56:31It's another strategy for

56:32supporting mixed uses,

56:33preserving existing buildings

56:35and their embedded energy, and

56:36conserving the energy required

56:38for demolition and

56:40reconstruction. So another key

56:41piece of sustainable

56:42development is having a

56:44framework in place. As I as I

56:46keep reminding, zoning doesn't

56:48create the development. It

56:49provides a framework. If the

56:50development is there to be able

56:54to repurpose buildings as

56:55opposed to needing to demolish

56:57them or board them up because

57:00there's vandalism or any sort

57:02of perpetuation of vacancy. The

57:04the MDR district I mentioned,

57:06this already covers more than

57:07double the acreage of our two

57:09and allows for up to four

57:10dwelling units as of right

57:11where the current R-2 only

57:13allows two. Increasing

57:15residential density not only

57:16provides more housing options,

57:18it also concentrates people

57:20near existing infrastructure,

57:22transit stops commerce and

57:23community services, which are

57:25sustainability strategies. If

57:28council were to adopt the

57:29zoning code tonight, I can

57:31promise you there would be no

57:32tangible change tomorrow or the

57:34next day. A zoning code is a

57:36long range plan where the

57:39fruits of the labor of it

57:41sometimes are not readily seen.

57:43Things take time. We have a

57:45market for financing challenges.

57:46There are all sorts of other

57:49impacts that developers have to

57:50consider. But what I can say to

57:52you is that having a zoning

57:54code where the framework is in

57:55place to move in a direction of

57:58this more compact, sustainable

58:01development was a directive of

58:02Rochester 2034, which then

58:04informed the development of the

58:06code and the map. Third, I'm on

58:09the third to the last bullet.

58:11Residential density is advanced

58:12with the proposed elimination

58:13of minimum lot sizes. I talked

58:14about the 5000ft² from the

58:16existing code. Infill housing

58:18creates opportunities for more

58:20housing in existing

58:21neighborhoods. Again, amassing

58:23an area of land where there is

58:25a significant amount of it to

58:26be able to construct without

58:27having to incorporate minimum

58:29lot sizes, allows more housing

58:31to be constructed. The proposed

58:33pocket neighborhood is a

58:35strategy for allowing compact

58:37communal living. It allows

58:38another option. We talk often

58:39about housing, housing options

58:42across all stages of life and

58:44all facets of life. So that's

58:46another consideration in the

58:48new code language, encourages

58:49the placement of plant material

58:51to help insulate and shade

58:52development to reduce the

58:53energy consumption needs. So

58:55the landscaping section, which

58:56you see will have requirements

58:58in there for things like shade,

59:00trees and bushes. All things

59:01that absorb water help bring

59:03heat island effect down and

59:05things of that nature. So of

59:06course, not all of those things

59:09can be accommodated neatly each

59:10time, but it provides that

59:13landscaping plans to developers

59:15as their starting point as they

59:17begin to site out, as they

59:19begin to site out projects.

59:22Also in sustainable development,

59:25I will I think I have a few

59:27minutes, I can touch on a few

59:29of these here, and if I don't

59:31get through all of them, just

59:32based on based on timing, I

59:34think the concepts in here,

59:35again, I'm starting at page 64

59:37in the DGIS are really

59:40important to be reviewed

59:41because from a very high level,

59:43they really help folks

59:45understand exactly what the

59:47strategies are within within

59:49the draft code, there's an

59:51alternative transportation

59:53section, of course, putting

59:54more acreage into mixed use and

59:55higher density residential

59:56zoning design standards will

59:58continue to require

1:00:00transparency entrances and

1:00:01continuous streetscapes to

1:00:02support walkable mixed use

1:00:04corridors. The joke I like to

1:00:05make is if someone has to play

1:00:07Frogger to arrive at the front

1:00:09door by going through a parking

1:00:10lot and dodging cars, they're

1:00:12probably less likely to walk to

1:00:13that destination again. So how

1:00:14the building is sited on the

1:00:16parcel, how it interacts with

1:00:17the street that built form is

1:00:20really a big piece of a big

1:00:21piece of the zoning code. EV

1:00:24charging stations, bike parking,

1:00:26eliminating parking minimums.

1:00:31Bike parking. And then there's

1:00:33a stormwater management section.

1:00:35For those that may not know,

1:00:36the combined sewer system in

1:00:38Monroe County is in fact,

1:00:40overtaxed, and there is a

1:00:41desire for stormwater

1:00:43management to be managed on

1:00:45site. And that is a big reason

1:00:47for our residential districts

1:00:49retaining a maximum impervious

1:00:51surface coverage so that there

1:00:53is green space plants land

1:00:56available for properties to be

1:00:58able to absorb water during

1:01:00extreme water events, reuse of

1:01:04vacant and underutilized

1:01:06properties. Of course, another

1:01:07sustainable development

1:01:08strategy. It is not sustainable

1:01:10if we have policies in place or

1:01:13it's largely not sustainable.

1:01:15If there are policies in place

1:01:17or framework in place, like a

1:01:19zoning code that force people

1:01:20to develop outside of the city

1:01:21limits. So drafting regulations

1:01:24and a framework within a

1:01:27reasonable level. And that's

1:01:28the balance that's trying to be

1:01:29created to keep people from

1:01:32developing outside the city, to

1:01:34assist with retaining the

1:01:35city's tax base and

1:01:37reactivating underutilized

1:01:38properties, open space networks,

1:01:41renewable energy. Again, I'm

1:01:42still in the sustainable

1:01:44development section here, and I

1:01:46will say that that ends on page

1:01:4966 of the DGEIS. So I encourage

1:01:53folks to read through read

1:01:55through that section. Any

1:02:01questions at the moment?

1:02:03>> Well, there's. A there's

1:02:04going to be a lot of questions.

1:02:06Is that the that the end of the

1:02:07presentation. Any more slides

1:02:12to share anything.

1:02:14>> Great. That's it.

1:02:15>> Thank you very much.

1:02:17Appreciate it. So we will

1:02:19definitely turn to questions.

1:02:20Now, just as a reminder to

1:02:23council, the goal here for the

1:02:25next half an hour is to try to

1:02:26ask questions that are as broad

1:02:30as start out the 30,000 foot

1:02:32view on the map and the use

1:02:35table. And over the course of

1:02:36the rest of tonight, after a

1:02:38quick break, and then tomorrow

1:02:40to get a lot more granular and

1:02:43and again, we will then be able

1:02:44to circle back at the end of

1:02:46the hearings tomorrow. If there

1:02:48are additional kind of broad

1:02:49questions about the code that

1:02:51have not been asked yet. So I

1:02:52want to start with just a

1:02:54couple, and then I'll look to

1:02:56my left and right and see who

1:02:57else has questions as well. I

1:02:59appreciate the presentation. It

1:03:00certainly shed a lot of light

1:03:01on what the. You can run to the

1:03:10bathroom whenever you're like,

1:03:11we're gonna. We have a, we have

1:03:13a set break at 630, but feel

1:03:14free to run to the bathroom

1:03:16whenever you like. The

1:03:19presentation shed a lot of

1:03:20light on what the kind of goals

1:03:22and intentions are of this code,

1:03:23but there. There wasn't a whole

1:03:25lot of explanation as to what

1:03:26the. What the argument is or

1:03:28the case is for the changes of

1:03:30our existing districts. Now to

1:03:32the new districts. So this

1:03:34community is very used to the

1:03:36language of R one through three,

1:03:38C one through three, etc. and

1:03:39now we have a whole bunch of

1:03:41new districts. The definitions

1:03:43are certainly in the code and

1:03:44are much appreciated, but I'd

1:03:45like you to just make the

1:03:47argument for why these new

1:03:48districts.

1:03:48>> I will take the first part

1:03:50of that question, and then I

1:03:51will defer to my colleague,

1:03:53Kevin Kelly, who was integral

1:03:54in the development of Rochester

1:03:552034. The districts came

1:03:57directly from Rochester 2034 or

1:03:59the district names, I should

1:04:02say, came directly from

1:04:03Rochester 2034. And while the

1:04:06existing codes R one, R two and

1:04:09R three are in name, if you

1:04:11keep reading beyond those first

1:04:13two digits, it'll say R one low

1:04:15density district R two medium

1:04:17density district R three high

1:04:18density district. The thought

1:04:20on the residential districts

1:04:21was that people tend to think R

1:04:25one means single only, and R

1:04:26two means double only, and r

1:04:28three means triple only,

1:04:29whereas that's not necessarily

1:04:31the case in a city like

1:04:33Rochester that was largely

1:04:34built before modern zoning. Our

1:04:37R-1 district and our proposed

1:04:40LDR district are largely low

1:04:44density. On paper, there are

1:04:46neighborhoods that have larger

1:04:47structures within them that

1:04:48were built that way. I talked

1:04:49about those non-conforming

1:04:51structures. So moving away from

1:04:52that very prescriptive R1, R2,

1:04:57R3 was the reason for the

1:04:58residential district as it

1:04:59relates to the mixed use

1:05:01districts. The same thing is

1:05:03somewhat similar in the

1:05:04existing code. We currently

1:05:05have C1, C2, and C3, which

1:05:08stands for commercial, but they

1:05:10are in many ways a mixed use

1:05:13district, but it doesn't come

1:05:15across that way based on the

1:05:16names for it. So by

1:05:18recategorizing the districts

1:05:19and again changing the

1:05:21regulations as part of them, of

1:05:22course, calling them a mixed

1:05:24use district puts the emphasis

1:05:27on what they actually are. It

1:05:28tells the story to potential

1:05:31development or potential

1:05:32repurposing of buildings. What

1:05:34the city is seeking, starting

1:05:35with the name and then

1:05:39industrial, because

1:05:41manufacturing, I think

1:05:42industrial probably made more

1:05:43sense than manufacturing and so

1:05:45on and so forth. I will defer

1:05:47to Kevin if there's any

1:05:48additional thoughts on that.

1:05:49>> Yeah. Thank you Matt.

1:05:53Continuing on the theme of

1:05:55balance, one of the first

1:05:57questions that we asked as a

1:05:58team when we were developing

1:05:59the placemaking plan during

1:06:002034 was what is the

1:06:02appropriate number of districts

1:06:03that are that make the most

1:06:05sense for Rochester? And on one

1:06:08end of that spectrum, you have

1:06:10simplicity and ease of use and

1:06:13equity, as Matt described

1:06:14earlier, the more districts you

1:06:16have, you start to flirt with

1:06:17some real problems with equity.

1:06:20So, so on one hand, you want to

1:06:22kind of limit the number of

1:06:23districts. On the other hand,

1:06:24you want enough differentiation

1:06:26between your districts to make

1:06:29sense for the actual built

1:06:30environment and the future that

1:06:31you desire in the city. And so

1:06:33kind of with that balance in

1:06:34mind, that's kind of how we

1:06:36arrived at the 15 or so

1:06:38districts. So for example,

1:06:40looking at other cities, as

1:06:41Matt pointed out, there are

1:06:43many, many residential

1:06:44districts. We felt like you

1:06:47really if we're going to do

1:06:48that, you have to have a good

1:06:50reason to really add that kind

1:06:52of nuance. And the more we

1:06:53looked at it, we only felt like

1:06:55three was necessary. We flirted

1:06:56with 4 or 5, but ultimately

1:06:58decided that three was really

1:06:59going to do the job, and then

1:07:01kind of took a similar approach

1:07:02to our mixed use districts and

1:07:04figure out what is, what is the

1:07:05number of districts that make

1:07:07sense to, to identify different

1:07:08areas of character in the city.

1:07:11And that's how we came up with

1:07:12boutique mixed use and

1:07:13neighborhood mixed use and

1:07:14downtown mixed use. And then in

1:07:16that conversation, we came up

1:07:17with a new district that was

1:07:19not in the existing code, which

1:07:20is the flexible mixed use

1:07:22district, which we think

1:07:23reflects kind of how our

1:07:24environment has changed over

1:07:25time from a lot of sort of

1:07:28industrial areas or

1:07:29post-industrial areas that a

1:07:31lot of developers have tried to

1:07:32develop into kind of loft style

1:07:34apartments and mixed use

1:07:34buildings, but have struggled

1:07:36to because industrial zoning

1:07:38doesn't really, you know, it's

1:07:40not really supportive of that.

1:07:41So we knew that we wanted to

1:07:43create a new, new district to

1:07:45support that evolution. And

1:07:46that's how we ended up with

1:07:48flexible mixed use. But that's

1:07:49just kind of like a

1:07:50philosophical background in

1:07:51terms of how we arrived at the

1:07:53number and types. And Council

1:07:55member Gruber, happy to answer

1:07:57more if you're looking to go

1:07:58deeper into that.

1:07:59>> Thank you. That's it. I

1:08:01think that's a great, great

1:08:02opening to the to the dialog

1:08:03that we're going to have.

1:08:05>> May I add one thing to that?

1:08:07>> Sure.

1:08:07>> I'm sorry to cut you off. I

1:08:09do think it's important to note,

1:08:11Kevin, thank you for the

1:08:12reminder. The flexible mixed

1:08:13use district, or FMU is not

1:08:14something in the existing code.

1:08:16The existing code. While I was

1:08:18not here for the development of

1:08:20it, I would argue that it was

1:08:22attempting to be very

1:08:23protective of industrial land.

1:08:24Again, thinking of the city at

1:08:26the time 2003. Industry is

1:08:28leaving, population is leaving.

1:08:30So the the actual industrial

1:08:33district was really drafted to

1:08:34protect industrial and did not

1:08:36give a lot of use permissions

1:08:38for the conversion of those

1:08:40buildings. And as the city has

1:08:41seen since 2003, there are

1:08:43industrial buildings across the

1:08:44city that have been converted

1:08:46to mixes of uses. Residential

1:08:49village gate is just the best

1:08:50example that comes to mind. Of

1:08:52course there are. There are

1:08:53others. So in the development

1:08:55of 2034 and the development of

1:08:57the code, when we were

1:08:59incorporating uses into FMU, it

1:09:02was a. It was important to have

1:09:04that district be something that

1:09:05could, you know, have the

1:09:07ability to have buildings be

1:09:09repurposed in a manner which

1:09:11was more flexible.

1:09:12>> Thanks. Give me a sense of

1:09:15how many properties are

1:09:19non-conforming now in the

1:09:21existing code and what that's

1:09:22going to look like during if,

1:09:25if this were adopted as is,

1:09:27because non-conforming is

1:09:28obviously something that it's

1:09:29probably a nightmare for the

1:09:31zoning department. It's

1:09:33certainly unclear for people

1:09:34who are looking to, to do

1:09:36different things with

1:09:37properties here. How does this

1:09:39change the number of

1:09:41nonconformities?

1:09:41>> Yeah. So without giving

1:09:43actual numerical values, which

1:09:44I don't have in front of me,

1:09:45the thought in Rochester 2034,

1:09:47and you'll see this actually in

1:09:50some of the directives is to

1:09:53not necessarily, I'll say shun

1:09:57nonconformities, but attempt to

1:09:58embrace them. In many ways, I

1:10:00think the argument could be

1:10:01made that Nonconformities were

1:10:04seen in 2003 as something to

1:10:06try and eliminate or bring the

1:10:08intensity down, whereas as part

1:10:10of Rochester and

1:10:11Nonconformities, let me give an

1:10:13example of that. A mixed use

1:10:14building in a residential

1:10:15district where someone used to

1:10:16walk to the end of their street

1:10:18to go to a store or a

1:10:20restaurant, or access services

1:10:21in the. The thought is part of

1:10:23Rochester 2034 and of course,

1:10:24the. The draft code and the map

1:10:26here is to move in a direction

1:10:28where we have these buildings

1:10:30and we don't want to perpetuate

1:10:32vacancy with them or. The city

1:10:33doesn't always have an interest

1:10:34in perpetuating vacancy with

1:10:36them. So that special

1:10:37considerations tab that or

1:10:39special considerations column

1:10:40that I talked about on the

1:10:42right side of the use table

1:10:45really can be. Your question

1:10:46can be best answered by. There

1:10:48are use permissions. So even if

1:10:50the building is non-conforming,

1:10:52we're giving as of right use

1:10:54permissions to more easily

1:10:55activate them.

1:10:56>> Got it. Thank you.

1:10:58>> And if I could yes. Sorry if

1:10:59I could add to that. I would

1:11:01say in addition to providing

1:11:04more intentional support for

1:11:06those types of uses, to your

1:11:08original question, I would say

1:11:09the overall number of

1:11:12nonconformities in the city

1:11:13would be reduced significantly.

1:11:14Would you say that's accurate,

1:11:16Matt?

1:11:18>> I'm sorry. Say that one.

1:11:19>> More time, that the number

1:11:21of nonconformities would go

1:11:22down quite a bit.

1:11:23>> Oh yeah. Just based on.

1:11:24Correct. That's a correct

1:11:25statement.

1:11:26>> We don't have the exact

1:11:27number, but it's a significant

1:11:28reduction.

1:11:29>> Thanks. Yeah. As part of the

1:11:302003 map, it's it's pretty

1:11:31widely known that the there was

1:11:33a significant down zoning as

1:11:35part of the 2003 map, the

1:11:36number of properties that moved

1:11:37into the R1 low density

1:11:39district from what were either

1:11:42higher density or mixed use

1:11:43districts was quite significant.

1:11:45And so there's actually

1:11:46information in the draft

1:11:47environmental impact statement

1:11:48that shows what was previously,

1:11:52what we have now and then

1:11:53what's being proposed.

1:11:54>> Great. Council member

1:11:55Patterson.

1:11:56>> Okay, so first of all, I

1:11:59just want to start by saying

1:12:00thank you for this amazing work

1:12:02that you've done with this map.

1:12:03It is tremendous part of the

1:12:05observation in the AI reviews

1:12:07of it that I've used have shown

1:12:08that for the most part, the

1:12:10vast majority of the city isn't

1:12:12really changing its zoning use.

1:12:15What's happening is the

1:12:16language might be changing, but

1:12:18the use really isn't, which is

1:12:19good. But one issue that comes

1:12:23to mind that I have a grave

1:12:25concern with is how it relates

1:12:27to low density residential and

1:12:29two family homes. In 1957 is

1:12:33the first time in our zoning

1:12:35code when we specifically said,

1:12:37no, you can't build a two

1:12:39family in the equivalent of an

1:12:41R-1 district. Prior to that, it

1:12:42was allowed by right. It seems

1:12:45as though we've continued that

1:12:47thinking with this code, which

1:12:49I'm opposed to, and I just want

1:12:52to understand why you've why

1:12:55you've decided to continue with

1:12:57that thinking. And I ask that

1:12:59because from review of the

1:13:01records and the documents that

1:13:02we have, the community was

1:13:03actually asking for two family

1:13:06homes to be something that you

1:13:08could build as. Right on a

1:13:10vacant lot in the city of

1:13:12Rochester. So as you guys have

1:13:14done this work, why, why didn't

1:13:16you make that change? The other

1:13:18question is we've got a fair.

1:13:21The other question is we've got

1:13:22a fair number of non-conforming,

1:13:25non-conforming uses. And

1:13:27especially with the two

1:13:29families, we've got like 15, 50,

1:13:30300 non-conforming,

1:13:32non-conforming uses in that low

1:13:35density. And so, so why not

1:13:38make it a right, which also

1:13:39opens up some funding

1:13:41opportunities, some building

1:13:42opportunities, some expansion

1:13:44opportunities and maintenance

1:13:45opportunities for these

1:13:46properties.

1:13:47>> Yeah. So the quickest answer,

1:13:49and then I'll get into some

1:13:50more specifics, is that

1:13:51Rochester 2034 explored this

1:13:54issue quite extensively on

1:13:57where to land on this issue.

1:13:59And the directive was within

1:14:01Rochester 2034 to not go that

1:14:04direction at this time. And

1:14:05that forming the policy of the

1:14:07code is, is how we ended up

1:14:09here. I can go into more

1:14:10specifics about like additional

1:14:12reasons to your question. I

1:14:13don't know if you want to

1:14:14answer anything.

1:14:15>> Well, I, I, I've, I've

1:14:16shared the, so you guys already

1:14:18know that I've got amendments

1:14:19on this and I've shared these

1:14:21amendments with you. So we, I

1:14:22won't, we don't. I mean, the

1:14:24general answer, please, because

1:14:25I mean, we don't want to get in

1:14:27the weeds.

1:14:27>> Yeah. So general answer is

1:14:29just. So one of the

1:14:30considerations was that single

1:14:31family homes are in fact a

1:14:32housing type, right? So we did

1:14:34hear from a lot of members of

1:14:36the community that wanted to

1:14:37retain that. The other factor

1:14:38that was considered was that

1:14:39the city's owner occupancy rate

1:14:41is approximately 36, 37%, which

1:14:43is in fact a bit lower than our

1:14:46counterparts on either side of

1:14:47us down the Thruway. And so the

1:14:50ability to create more housing

1:14:53being a significant goal as

1:14:55part of Rochester 2034, what we

1:14:57are proposing, we feel we did

1:14:59the ability to create more

1:15:00housing without having to

1:15:01incorporate that, because it

1:15:03may be more attractive for

1:15:04investors to buy up two family

1:15:06homes and further reduce the

1:15:08the city's owner occupancy rate.

1:15:11So that was one consideration

1:15:13as part of it. The other

1:15:14consideration is Rochester

1:15:16being a city within a larger

1:15:19region, we wanted to be able to

1:15:21make sure that we were

1:15:23providing enough housing

1:15:25options to attract residents

1:15:26from all sorts of areas, even

1:15:28if they want to move in from

1:15:29the suburbs into the city. Many

1:15:31of the suburbs have a much

1:15:33larger single family only

1:15:35district. The city doesn't have

1:15:37it in that size, but being able

1:15:39to retain that as a housing

1:15:40option for potential residents

1:15:42was was a consideration.

1:15:44>> Okay, let me push back on

1:15:46that a bit. So in the northeast,

1:15:48northwest and a sizable section

1:15:51of the South District, we have

1:15:54a significant number of vacant

1:15:55residential lots that are zoned

1:15:57low density residential. It is

1:16:02currently the only way that we

1:16:03get new construction in those

1:16:06spaces is when we get money

1:16:07from the state of New York, and

1:16:09the state of New York agrees to

1:16:11spend almost half $1 million in

1:16:16a bit more to build a new

1:16:18single family house. I have

1:16:20often said, and I will continue

1:16:22to say, so long as the state

1:16:23wants to send the money we need

1:16:25to spend the money. I have no

1:16:27opposition to that whatsoever.

1:16:28But Rochester was not built

1:16:30with state revenue. Rochester

1:16:32was built through private

1:16:34lending, and we are now in this

1:16:37space, in this time where we

1:16:39have an opportunity where we

1:16:40could be looking at between

1:16:41modular and manufactured

1:16:43housing, a market based

1:16:44solution for filling these

1:16:45vacant lots. And, you know, it

1:16:48goes a lot farther in writing

1:16:50that loan when you can say, I

1:16:52have two units, one that I will

1:16:54live in and be owner occupied,

1:16:56and I have another unit that I

1:16:58will be able to rent. And it

1:16:59seems as though it it seems as

1:17:02though we have we have not

1:17:05quite taken into consideration

1:17:07those areas that suffered

1:17:10greatly through the last

1:17:12downsizing down zoning,

1:17:14particularly the northeast, the

1:17:16northwest sections of the South

1:17:18District. And then I'm going to

1:17:19leave you guys alone.

1:17:21>> Yeah. So I'll also just add

1:17:23to that and thank you for the

1:17:25comments. The zoning map,

1:17:26largely, as I said earlier,

1:17:27came from the placemaking plan,

1:17:29which also answers the question

1:17:30of how the map ended up like

1:17:32that. Another consideration to

1:17:34tell, creating balance, one of

1:17:36our community outreach events

1:17:39was a tele town hall, where we

1:17:41called 20,000 some odd people

1:17:43and told them to please not

1:17:44hang up. We're going to talk

1:17:46about zoning, and one of the

1:17:47questions that was asked was

1:17:48around, what is the number one

1:17:50thing you look for in a

1:17:51neighborhood? Or what is what

1:17:53is the number one thing you

1:17:54look for in a neighborhood? And

1:17:56it was overwhelmingly over 50%.

1:17:57People were like, we want

1:17:58single family homes. So we

1:17:59heard that. And I will also say

1:18:01that that tele town hall was

1:18:04probably the most

1:18:05representative of the city

1:18:06engagement that we did as part

1:18:07of Zap, because we called

1:18:09people where they were. We

1:18:10didn't have people come to us.

1:18:11We called them. They were in

1:18:13their homes, they were eating

1:18:14dinner, and they picked up the

1:18:15phone and they got to talk to

1:18:17us and they got to get pulled

1:18:19and da da da da da. The other

1:18:21thing I will say to you is,

1:18:23keep in mind that this code is

1:18:25a living document. And so I

1:18:26think there's a real

1:18:27opportunity, to your point,

1:18:28about certain areas of the city

1:18:29having been been a. Forgotten

1:18:34significant part of, yeah,

1:18:35population loss, decline,

1:18:37concentration of poverty, etc.

1:18:39etc. to be able to potentially

1:18:40use maybe an overlay in those

1:18:42areas that can accommodate and

1:18:43it can be studied to say, this

1:18:46is a problem in this given area,

1:18:48and you can draft specific

1:18:50regulations for them. That is

1:18:51something that can be done

1:18:53after code adoption. It can be

1:18:55an amendment, it can be

1:18:56initiated by council. But I do

1:18:58think it's a good conversation

1:19:00to have.

1:19:01>> Wonderful. Can you share the

1:19:02results of the tele town hall

1:19:04with us? Can you. Is there can

1:19:06you.

1:19:07>> Absolutely. I believe the

1:19:09parts of it are in the

1:19:10Environmental Impact statement.

1:19:11We will verify. If they are not,

1:19:13we can give you everything.

1:19:14>> Yeah. If you can send the

1:19:16whole document, that would be

1:19:17great. Thank you.

1:19:18>> Before I pass it over to

1:19:19President Melendez, I just want

1:19:21I want to lift up one of

1:19:22Councilmember Patterson's

1:19:23questions. He specifically

1:19:24asked about 5300 nonconforming

1:19:26properties that are in what

1:19:28would now be called R1. That

1:19:29that number tracks with you.

1:19:31>> I don't know, I would have

1:19:33to look.

1:19:33>> So. But what happens to the

1:19:35to the huge number of

1:19:36properties that are already

1:19:39non-conforming? So we're

1:19:40talking about in a largely low

1:19:42density residential

1:19:43neighborhood, a six unit

1:19:45building, which there's plenty

1:19:46of them that exists. What what

1:19:48happens to those upon adoption

1:19:49of a new code?

1:19:50>> So essentially nothing. Well,

1:19:52I should say it gets better for

1:19:53them if they go to refinance.

1:19:55And the lender needs a letter

1:19:57that says it can be rebuilt if

1:19:58destroyed or damaged, we can't

1:20:00currently provide that. The

1:20:01city can't currently provide,

1:20:03that we will be able to provide

1:20:05that post adoption. The other

1:20:07thing to consider here, I

1:20:09mentioned this before. The city

1:20:10was used to house 333,000

1:20:13people. We have a lot of land.

1:20:14If you hear the director of

1:20:16real estate talk, you'll say he.

1:20:18He'll hear him say he has lots

1:20:19of lots. So the housing market

1:20:21study really in 2034 really

1:20:23looked at. How do we look at

1:20:26based on what the housing

1:20:28market study says, middle

1:20:29markets or weaker markets and

1:20:31build off the edges of stronger

1:20:33markets. So there are areas

1:20:34that are in the low density

1:20:36district, but have more than

1:20:37one unit or more than two units

1:20:39in the structure. It doesn't

1:20:40mean they're going away.

1:20:41They're not. It means that that

1:20:43given area may have reached a

1:20:46point where there's enough

1:20:47people, there's enough cars

1:20:48parked on the road. ET cetera.

1:20:49ET cetera. But somebody's

1:20:51looking to add units may be

1:20:53able to do that around the

1:20:54edges of that strong area,

1:20:56which then moves the needle on

1:20:57that. And actually, the city's

1:21:002025 update to its housing

1:21:02market study that that was used

1:21:05to inform 2034 actually has

1:21:07data indicate data in there

1:21:09that indicates that there is a

1:21:12closing of that gap based on

1:21:13the criteria that were used,

1:21:16meaning that this sort of

1:21:18strategy over the long term is

1:21:20showing some positive impacts.

1:21:23>> President Melendez.

1:21:26>> Yes, thank you. Thank you

1:21:28for the overview, presentation,

1:21:31high level information. I want

1:21:34to specifically dive into a

1:21:36little bit of article one,

1:21:37which I know is very short

1:21:39lived in the document, but I

1:21:40think it's critically important

1:21:41for the rest of the document.

1:21:43And in Rock 2034, one of the

1:21:46policy principles was equity.

1:21:50And when I look at the purpose

1:21:52statement inside of article one,

1:21:55I could read between the lines

1:21:56and find equity in my own

1:21:58interpretation, but it's not

1:22:00explicitly called out. And I

1:22:02just wanted to maybe poke and

1:22:05prod a little bit around that,

1:22:06because I think that's kind of

1:22:08sets the tone for the rest of

1:22:10the document, the purpose of,

1:22:11of what we're doing here, and

1:22:13maybe just kind of highlight

1:22:14and ask, why is that not

1:22:17included in the purpose?

1:22:18>> Yeah. So the, you know, easy

1:22:20answer to that, as you

1:22:21indicated, of course, it was

1:22:23part of the policy, which is

1:22:252034. The easy answer to that

1:22:27is this is this is the

1:22:28framework that carries out the

1:22:30policy. And so what is included

1:22:33in the purpose statement is in

1:22:35many ways language that is used

1:22:38generally in zoning codes about

1:22:40the use of land. It's not, you

1:22:43know, a intentional omission or

1:22:46it's not a, you know, nefarious

1:22:48thing. It was more about

1:22:50focusing on the uses of land in

1:22:52a traditional sense of zoning.

1:22:54But certainly there's

1:22:57opportunities to amend. That.

1:23:01>> I can bounce around one, two

1:23:02and three. Right. Okay. So the

1:23:05other question I had was

1:23:07specific to ADUs, and I

1:23:10appreciate the the work that

1:23:11was done to add that in, I do

1:23:14want to poke a little bit

1:23:16around the use of shipping

1:23:19containers and maybe the

1:23:20thinking around why that was

1:23:23not allowed overall.

1:23:25>> Sure. So shipping containers

1:23:28or pre manufactured housing or

1:23:30fabric, fabricated housing is

1:23:33something that the New York

1:23:34State Building Code has to

1:23:36consider. And so currently for

1:23:38a developer to use a modular or

1:23:41prefabricated home, they have

1:23:43to get approval from the New

1:23:45York State Department of State,

1:23:46which certifies with an

1:23:47insignia that it meets certain

1:23:50requirements, and then the city

1:23:51is then therefore responsible

1:23:53for carrying out permits

1:23:55related to like plumbing and

1:23:56electrical and things of that

1:23:57nature. To date, we have not.

1:24:02Well, I should say we have not

1:24:03received many requests for them,

1:24:05but the few that have come in

1:24:06have not achieved that state

1:24:09level Department of State

1:24:10insignia that would allow it

1:24:12anyway, per the building code.

1:24:14Because remember, the building

1:24:15code is also a requirement here.

1:24:17That is is not a City of

1:24:18Rochester code. The other piece

1:24:21of that is we heard from, and I

1:24:24don't know if it's in the

1:24:25comments or through

1:24:26conversations, but potential

1:24:28impacts around the use of

1:24:30certain prefabricated prefab

1:24:33materials in manufactured

1:24:34housing and what that impact is

1:24:37on esthetics or look or feel of

1:24:39a given, of a given

1:24:41architecture of a given area.

1:24:44>> Yeah. And I, I can

1:24:45appreciate the, the thinking

1:24:46around that. I, I do also know

1:24:49just from experience of the

1:24:51international plaza example, I

1:24:53know that's a commercial

1:24:54development, but using

1:24:56containers for, for use year

1:25:00round has been proven in this

1:25:02climate and also in the

1:25:03community. Now, I don't think

1:25:06neighborhoods want to see this

1:25:07without some kind of adjustment

1:25:11to how it should look in a

1:25:12neighborhood, a residential

1:25:13neighborhood. But I do think

1:25:15the idea and the concept of

1:25:16being more creative and

1:25:17creating opportunities for

1:25:18these types of models to exist

1:25:20is something that we should

1:25:21consider and talk more about. I

1:25:24do want to poke around the map

1:25:26now a little bit. So one of the

1:25:29big pieces of outreach that I

1:25:31think many members of council

1:25:33have received, and it's getting

1:25:34a little granular, but is

1:25:36around the changes specific to

1:25:38Grove Place in that

1:25:39neighborhood going from, I

1:25:40think I think it was high

1:25:42density or maybe it was medium

1:25:44density to downtown. Could you

1:25:46maybe talk through the thinking

1:25:47and why that change went from

1:25:49in the final versus the draft?

1:25:51What what changed there?

1:25:53>> Sure. So in the final

1:25:55generic environmental impact

1:25:56statement or the FGEIS, it

1:25:58outlines this information a

1:25:59little bit. And two factors

1:26:01associated with that. There are

1:26:03commercial uses within that

1:26:05stretch, as well as the fact

1:26:06that the district is a

1:26:08preservation district. So any

1:26:10physical alterations or changes

1:26:12to the properties within that

1:26:14area do require the Rochester

1:26:16Preservation Board approval.

1:26:17But I will note, for the record,

1:26:19the City Planning Commission

1:26:21recommended an amendment to the

1:26:23map that included the

1:26:25properties on the northern side.

1:26:28Excuse me, southern side of

1:26:29University Ave that I believe

1:26:31you're referring to President

1:26:32Melendez to be rezoned back to

1:26:34the medium density residential

1:26:36district.

1:26:38>> Got it. So City Planning

1:26:39Commission reverted that back

1:26:40to me.

1:26:41>> They recommended. Correct?

1:26:42That's correct.

1:26:43>> Got it. Okay. Thank you for

1:26:44that. And then specific to East

1:26:47Main and Lower Street, I know

1:26:48Laura Street has been cited for

1:26:51a long time as a potential

1:26:53municipal building. It looks

1:26:55like in the map there was some

1:26:57adjustment to include more

1:26:59properties on Lower Street in

1:27:00the same zoning. The the

1:27:03flexible mixed use zoning is

1:27:07this. I guess from a zoning

1:27:10perspective, is, is this

1:27:11something that is going to add

1:27:14value or opportunity for this

1:27:16site? Or what was it thinking

1:27:18about extending that zoning

1:27:19further up the block?

1:27:23>> President, you answered the

1:27:24question yourself. So in terms

1:27:27of marketing the property,

1:27:28either through an RFP or

1:27:30whatever means is necessary for

1:27:32redevelopment, I've talked

1:27:34about this earlier, not having

1:27:36the need for a zoning map

1:27:38amendment to facilitate the

1:27:40development was a large part of

1:27:42of doing this. So putting all

1:27:45of the parcels that, as you

1:27:47noted, were originally part of

1:27:49a development, it's it's come

1:27:50and gone sort of sort of thing.

1:27:52But having them all in the same

1:27:54district so that there's no

1:27:55need to actually amend the map,

1:27:57might be more attractive to be

1:27:59able to get the parcels

1:28:01developed.

1:28:03>> Do you mind if I add a note

1:28:05about the map in general

1:28:07related to these questions?

1:28:08Because I think they're two

1:28:10good examples of of this

1:28:12principle. We talk about the

1:28:13idea of refining the edges and

1:28:16both the examples that you

1:28:17cited, Council president are

1:28:19essentially that. So when City

1:28:23Planning Commission was

1:28:24entertaining the idea of

1:28:25changing that portion of Grove

1:28:27Place back, they were looking

1:28:30to us as the zap team to say is,

1:28:33would this be a essentially a

1:28:35legitimate change, or would

1:28:37this be at risk of being

1:28:40substantially in conflict with

1:28:41the comprehensive plan, in

1:28:43which case it would set back

1:28:44the process substantially? And

1:28:45our our opinion of that was it

1:28:48would not be a substantial

1:28:49contradiction to the comp plan.

1:28:51So it would essentially be

1:28:52refining the edges. So we don't

1:28:54necessarily have an issue with

1:28:56that particular change from a

1:28:57comp plan integrity perspective.

1:29:00And the same goes here. You're

1:29:01talking about refining the

1:29:02edges of that flexible mixed

1:29:03use district, which would not

1:29:06impact the environmental impact

1:29:09process as opposed to a much

1:29:11larger proposal. Say someone

1:29:14says, I think this whole

1:29:15corridor should be not NMU, but

1:29:18Bmu, or someone says, I think

1:29:20this whole neighborhood or a

1:29:21large portion of this

1:29:22neighborhood should be low

1:29:24density residential instead of

1:29:26medium density residential.

1:29:27Such proposals like that would

1:29:29be largely conflicting with the

1:29:31comp plan and not completely

1:29:33out of the question, but

1:29:34probably requiring a comp plan

1:29:36amendment and adding a lot of

1:29:37time to the process. So as map

1:29:39changes and ideas come up, just

1:29:41kind of be aware of that sort

1:29:43of binary dynamic of, of us

1:29:45need to kind of weigh in on

1:29:47whether we consider that to be

1:29:48refining the edges or a

1:29:51substantial enough change that

1:29:52it would really impact the

1:29:54process and the timing

1:29:55significantly because of the

1:29:56comp plan.

1:29:58>> And my last comment, the

1:30:01elephant that we've experienced

1:30:03in the room is short term

1:30:04rentals. And I know that we

1:30:06received a memo, which I think

1:30:09it's on the website, actually,

1:30:10there's information on the Zap

1:30:12website. That being said, it's

1:30:16on the agenda for tomorrow. So

1:30:18for those that are interested,

1:30:19we have a discussion at 730

1:30:22tomorrow specific to items that

1:30:24are not listed in the code, but

1:30:26because it's in section three,

1:30:27I just want to ask that at this

1:30:31discussion tomorrow, if it

1:30:32doesn't get asked by other

1:30:33colleagues today that we have a

1:30:35robust discussion around the

1:30:37implications of short term

1:30:38rentals going in versus not

1:30:41going in now. And I basically

1:30:44want to make sure that council

1:30:46is armed with all the

1:30:47information that it needs to

1:30:48make an informed decision on

1:30:49how we want to move on short

1:30:51term rentals and make sure that

1:30:53the community understands what

1:30:54we may or may not be doing

1:30:55there. So I'm not asking for

1:30:57that right now because we're at

1:30:58high level, 30,000ft, as

1:31:00council member, Gruber said.

1:31:01But I think we need a clear

1:31:03indication of some of the

1:31:04decision making that went

1:31:06around that, and then the

1:31:08ability to ask more robust

1:31:10questions around that. So thank

1:31:11you.

1:31:13>> This I think this is a good

1:31:15time for us to take our one

1:31:16break. We I'll talk to folks.

1:31:18Maybe we want to get an answer

1:31:20to that. Now, I know Councilman

1:31:21Martin has questions and I want

1:31:23to make sure everyone else does

1:31:24too. But regardless, we'll take

1:31:26a quick break now and come back

1:31:27at, say, five minutes. 636.

1:33:33>> The result from one day.

1:34:02And

1:34:02we're not even going to. We're

1:34:03not even going to.

1:34:40We're going

1:34:41to. Hyperfocus. We're. Not even

1:35:00sure. Like 15 to 20. I'm not

1:35:03convinced it'll all be down

1:35:06even by then. Yeah, exactly.

1:35:40That sounds great for you on

1:35:43the. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah.

1:35:50Okay. I know, but I. Yeah. Yeah,

1:36:12yeah. I guess, what are you, a

1:36:15morning or evening person,

1:36:17right? Yep. Yeah. So so it was

1:36:31kind of like just amazing. Some

1:36:35mornings was just. Yeah. Place

1:36:52to go. Yeah. Well. I was able

1:37:01to. Yeah.

1:37:08>> Okay. We're going to try to

1:37:09jump back into it. If folks can

1:37:11come take their seats.

1:38:03Okay. So

1:38:04we. We went to break after

1:38:10President Melinda's question

1:38:11about stars, and I was ready to

1:38:14jump the gun. But the truth is

1:38:16we have it on the agenda for

1:38:17tomorrow. So let's just stick

1:38:19to the agenda and we will get

1:38:20to those questions tomorrow.

1:38:23And the administration will be

1:38:24able to answer to us why stars

1:38:26are not in the code currently,

1:38:27what the timeline may be when

1:38:29they when we do vote on them,

1:38:30etc. The the impact of seeker.

1:38:32ET cetera. ET cetera. We'll get

1:38:34that question tomorrow in the

1:38:37latter part of the meeting for

1:38:39right now, I was going to call

1:38:40on Council Member Martin, but I

1:38:42will instead go to Council

1:38:43member Leslie Smith, and I'm

1:38:45just going to come down the

1:38:46line for anyone who has not

1:38:48asked questions yet about

1:38:49articles one, two and three

1:38:51council member.

1:38:52>> So a couple of questions I

1:38:54do. I would love to give a

1:38:56bunch of pleasantries, but in

1:38:57the the light of how much time

1:38:59we have, I did want to just ask

1:39:01a question about the DGEIS. I

1:39:04don't see that on the website.

1:39:07I see the final. But that is

1:39:10not as many pages as the

1:39:11document that you had shared

1:39:12with me.

1:39:13>> Let me show you real quick

1:39:15how to get there. So if you go

1:39:17to the website, you can go to

1:39:18Documents and Presentations

1:39:19where you'll find all the

1:39:21current information. If you

1:39:24scroll down toward the bottom.

1:39:35You are interested in viewing

1:39:37previous versions of documents

1:39:38that have been released. Do the

1:39:39click here and then scroll down

1:39:41and you will see the draft, the

1:39:44D, g, e, I s at the bottom of.

1:39:46>> Okay, great. Thank you. It

1:39:47was hidden.

1:39:49>> Not intended to be. Got it.

1:39:51So much information.

1:39:53>> So I was curious which

1:39:55neighborhoods see the largest

1:39:57shift from LDR to m d are. And

1:40:01how are those changes decided?

1:40:04Were they decided neighborhood

1:40:06by neighborhood?

1:40:07>> So I don't have the actual

1:40:10statistics. I will say

1:40:11anecdotally. And then we can

1:40:12follow up in writing the

1:40:15northeast probably. I think

1:40:17it's a fair statement to say

1:40:19that the northeast faced the

1:40:20most significant down zoning as

1:40:22part of the 2003 map. So the

1:40:24easy answer to your question is

1:40:26likely the northeast. How were

1:40:28those changes decided? So as

1:40:31I've talked about before, the

1:40:32placemaking plan, which came

1:40:34directly out of Rochester 2034,

1:40:37largely developed the map.

1:40:39Kevin talked a little bit about

1:40:40fine tuning the edges. It was

1:40:42more at a 30,000ft, and then it

1:40:45had to be sort of drilled down

1:40:47from there. I will tell you,

1:40:49the Rochester 2034 team went

1:40:50out to, I believe, every

1:40:53neighborhood individually met

1:40:55with them and worked through

1:40:57things. I can tell you, you

1:41:00know, we hear so much of the

1:41:02same stuff, regardless of where

1:41:04we are in the city, which I

1:41:05mean, that is such a positive

1:41:07thing, right? People largely

1:41:08want the same thing. People

1:41:09want, you know, safe

1:41:10neighborhoods. Sometimes they

1:41:11want a low density, sometimes

1:41:12they want a medium density. I

1:41:15also think it's fair to say

1:41:16when you look at the map, I've

1:41:18talked about the concentric

1:41:19circles having a mostly

1:41:24equitable amount of LDR, MDR

1:41:26and HDR in each quadrant

1:41:29actually allows for, I would

1:41:32say in some ways what they call

1:41:33NOAA naturally occurring

1:41:35affordable housing in each of

1:41:37the quadrants. And so the price

1:41:40points are of course different

1:41:42across the city. We know that

1:41:43for obvious reasons. We also

1:41:44know that as part of our

1:41:46housing market study, housing

1:41:47Citywide Housing market study.

1:41:49But it also allows a range of

1:41:52housing types across a range of

1:41:55housing price points across the

1:41:57entire city.

1:42:00>> Thank you. And I believe

1:42:01earlier in your presentation,

1:42:02you were saying that this was

1:42:04not done with parcel level data.

1:42:07>> The placemaking plan was not.

1:42:09So. Yeah. So the placemaking

1:42:11plan was at a 30,000 foot level,

1:42:13for lack of a better way to say

1:42:14it. But the zoning map now is

1:42:16actually where the edges were

1:42:17fine tuned, and it is down to a

1:42:19parcel level.

1:42:20>> Got it. Okay. It looks like

1:42:22new places of worship can't be

1:42:25built in residential districts

1:42:27anymore. Only in existing

1:42:29nonresidential buildings. Why

1:42:31was this change, and were there

1:42:33faith leaders consulted in that?

1:42:35>> Yeah, I don't think the

1:42:36change. So the current code

1:42:38allows special permit, but it

1:42:42can't be a conversion of a

1:42:46residential structure because

1:42:47there's a prohibition in R1 and

1:42:48R2 in the current code on

1:42:51residential structures. So I

1:42:53think the answer to your

1:42:55question is the proposed code

1:42:56allows them as of right. So the

1:42:58proposed code is more

1:42:59permissive than the existing

1:43:01code by way of establishing one

1:43:02from a special permit to. As of

1:43:04right, as far as the new

1:43:06construction of one. That is a

1:43:07great question. I don't believe

1:43:10that was intentional, but

1:43:11something we can definitely

1:43:12look at.

1:43:12>> Well, and that just

1:43:14piggybacks on the next question

1:43:15around. With existing churches

1:43:17in a residential district, can

1:43:19they expand build parking?

1:43:21>> Yeah, there's there's always

1:43:22a path forward. One of the

1:43:24things about zoning to keep in

1:43:25mind, aside from the fact that

1:43:26it's a living document and it

1:43:28can be amended, is that there's

1:43:30always what's called a relief

1:43:31valve, because municipalities

1:43:35within New York state, as a

1:43:36result of home rule, do their

1:43:38own land use. We have our

1:43:39zoning Board of Appeals and our

1:43:41planning commission that allow

1:43:42for relief valves. If people

1:43:45need to apply for variances or

1:43:46special use permits and things

1:43:48of that nature.

1:43:48>> Okay, great.

1:43:52>> Let's see. Can staff give

1:43:53Council a list of every use

1:43:55that will no longer need a

1:43:57public hearing? Residents

1:43:59really want to know where they

1:44:02still have voice.

1:44:05>> Yeah, we can definitely take

1:44:06a look at that and consider it.

1:44:09I'm as I'm talking to you, I'm

1:44:10thinking through in my head

1:44:11what that looks like. Yeah,

1:44:13it's a good question. And one

1:44:14of the things that was

1:44:15addressed in the, I believe

1:44:18FGEIS was around public

1:44:19notification, but not actual

1:44:20public notification. It was

1:44:22more about if think more things

1:44:25are as of right, there's less

1:44:27public hearings. So one of the

1:44:30sort of challenges in some ways

1:44:33and other ways opportunities is

1:44:36creating a balance is you want

1:44:38to provide assurances to

1:44:40property owners around, or I

1:44:42should say applicants or

1:44:43property owners around

1:44:45potential as of right

1:44:46development lending

1:44:47institutions like to hear that

1:44:49the use is as of right. But

1:44:50making something as of right,

1:44:52of course, eliminates the need

1:44:53for a public hearing. So

1:44:55attempting to create a balance,

1:44:56as I've talked about, is really

1:44:58something that you'll find

1:44:59throughout the code where what

1:45:00can we do to get things

1:45:03reactivated and not be a

1:45:04hindrance? We're at the same

1:45:05time, we of course, don't want

1:45:07to eliminate community voice.

1:45:08We want people to weigh in on

1:45:10projects. And so we'll we'll

1:45:12take a look at your questions,

1:45:15certainly. But from an overall

1:45:17standpoint, yes, that is a

1:45:18balancing act of trying to have

1:45:20as of right development as to

1:45:22not deter development, because

1:45:23people don't want to go through

1:45:25special processes, but also at

1:45:26the same time, not try to

1:45:28eliminate community voice in

1:45:30projects throughout the city.

1:45:31>> I'm glad that you brought up

1:45:32public notice, because one of

1:45:34the things that has always

1:45:35frustrated me is that the city,

1:45:37when our when they're noticing

1:45:39people within the development

1:45:41boundaries, it only goes to the

1:45:43owners and not to the residents,

1:45:45the tenants. Is that something

1:45:47that can be changed? And I also

1:45:49believe that the notice time

1:45:51frame is going to be limited as

1:45:53well. And post it online. I'm

1:45:56just wondering if there is a a

1:45:58more robust process for us

1:46:01engaging people when notices

1:46:03are required.

1:46:04>> Yeah, I can talk a little

1:46:06bit about public notice. So

1:46:07there are proposed changes.

1:46:08I'll talk on your first point

1:46:10with owners versus occupants of

1:46:12properties. We actually did a

1:46:13deep dive into this a number of

1:46:15years ago. We did another deep

1:46:16dive.

1:46:17>> Can you point us to where in

1:46:19the code we should be looking

1:46:20for this language?

1:46:21>> It's the one of the last

1:46:24articles. So public notice is

1:46:34going to be part of article 20.

1:46:38>> I'm sorry.

1:46:39>> No, that's this is this is

1:46:41relevant to the free flowing

1:46:44dialog. Sorry, sorry. Sorry to

1:46:46interrupt you. I just wanted to

1:46:47be able to follow along.

1:46:49>> I can find the exact page

1:46:50number.

1:46:51>> 255 is article 20. I'm sure

1:46:53we can find it while you talk.

1:46:55>> So with regard to owners

1:46:59versus occupants of properties,

1:47:01there is to be very candid with

1:47:03council, a very significant

1:47:05cost associated with postcard

1:47:07mailings to the extent that it

1:47:09is quite expensive. We also

1:47:12receive a significant amount of

1:47:14postcards back as return to

1:47:16sender as a result of a forward

1:47:18address being done, somebody

1:47:19out of country, somebody

1:47:22refusing mail, whatever the

1:47:23case may be. So there's a cost

1:47:24already spent on those. We

1:47:27estimate based on what we know

1:47:28now, it would likely be more

1:47:31than four times the amount in

1:47:33order to deliver also to

1:47:35occupants. That does not mean

1:47:36we are trying to not include

1:47:39them, of course. So we have

1:47:40other means of notification

1:47:42which include a public notice

1:47:43or excuse me, a notice posted

1:47:45on the property that is going

1:47:47before a board. It is told to

1:47:52the applicant of the

1:47:54application that they need to

1:47:55post it 20 days in advance of

1:47:57the hearing that they're going

1:47:58to be heard from, and it needs

1:48:00to be in a visible space. One

1:48:02of the changes in the new code

1:48:03is if it's a corner property,

1:48:05we're requiring two signs, one

1:48:06on each street frontage, and

1:48:08that is a direct result of

1:48:10trying to engage people

1:48:13certainly as much as possible.

1:48:16We in comparison to Syracuse

1:48:18and Buffalo, we mail our

1:48:19postcards to 600ft. Buffalo

1:48:22does 400ft, as does Syracuse,

1:48:24so we actually have an increase

1:48:25from them. They also do owners

1:48:27only in the change to the

1:48:30publication and the Daily

1:48:31Record that you'll find in the

1:48:32notice. I've talked before

1:48:34about aligning with other

1:48:35requirements and other codes.

1:48:37General municipal law, which is

1:48:39state law, requires that those

1:48:41things happen five days in

1:48:42advance. So we were trying to

1:48:43not be duplicative where we

1:48:45didn't need to be in, in our

1:48:49notice requirements to that

1:48:50extent.

1:48:50>> Got it. Yeah. I totally

1:48:53understand the, the cost of

1:48:55mailing and how prohibitive

1:48:58that is. I am just wondering

1:49:00with like GIS and AI and social

1:49:04media and like.

1:49:05>> A list serve.

1:49:06>> Yes, exactly. If there is

1:49:08just some concerted effort that

1:49:10can be made.

1:49:11>> Yeah, that's a great

1:49:11question and we can definitely

1:49:13look into that.

1:49:14>> Okay, great.

1:49:15>> And I do, I support the, the

1:49:17increase of the larger ADUs

1:49:21from the 400 to the 800ft². I

1:49:24do want to know why or remind

1:49:28me of why the special permit is

1:49:31required for that.

1:49:32>> Yeah, absolutely. So as part

1:49:34of Rochester 2034, accessory

1:49:36dwelling units were not

1:49:38contemplated to be included as

1:49:39part of the draft zoning code.

1:49:40And actually one of the city

1:49:42council work sessions that we

1:49:43had a number of years ago,

1:49:45there were several council

1:49:46members that said, look, we got

1:49:47to we got to work on this

1:49:49accessory dwelling unit thing

1:49:50and make it sound like it's

1:49:51nothing. The, the, the

1:49:53accessory dwelling unit

1:49:54provisions. And so what we did

1:49:56is, and the purpose of those

1:49:57work sessions along the way was

1:49:59to get council feedback so we

1:50:00could bring a project to you.

1:50:02That would be something that

1:50:04you could say generally support.

1:50:07And so what we did is we went

1:50:09back to the drawing board and

1:50:10we realized that in Rochester

1:50:122034, it states that accessory

1:50:14dwelling units are not going to

1:50:15be included in LDR, just as a

1:50:18general statement. And so we

1:50:19did include them in MDR and HDR

1:50:22and to mitigate potential

1:50:24impacts associated with

1:50:25including them in LDR, we opted

1:50:27to do them as a special use

1:50:29permit. Special use permits are

1:50:32intended or excuse me, are

1:50:34thought to be permissible. And

1:50:36to your point about public

1:50:38notification, it it does allow,

1:50:40you know, public notice and a

1:50:42hearing where property owners

1:50:43can weigh in by way of example,

1:50:46if a neighbor who lives behind

1:50:47it gets a postcard and says

1:50:49they're putting up the Adu, but

1:50:50that's my backyard Zen garden

1:50:54and I'm going to be impacted by

1:50:55it, right? There can be a

1:50:56consideration that the Planning

1:50:58Commission makes when they're

1:50:59making their determination.

1:51:00>> Got it. And two other

1:51:02questions around the ADUs. I

1:51:04know owner occupancy is

1:51:07required to be proven with a

1:51:09utility bill or whatever. Have

1:51:10you, but is there a recheck

1:51:12over time? How do we ensure

1:51:13that the ADUs don't become

1:51:15short term rentals?

1:51:17>> Yeah, so that's a great

1:51:18question. I don't know as

1:51:20though about a check over time,

1:51:22but I'm going to defer to

1:51:25Deputy Commissioner Reed. Are

1:51:27you able to speak on the

1:51:30requirement of a certificate of

1:51:32occupancy? And if an accessory

1:51:34dwelling unit is created, the

1:51:36need for an additional dwelling

1:51:38unit on the parcel, I'm

1:51:39guessing, would likely need a

1:51:41certificate of occupancy. And

1:51:42the connection I'm making is

1:51:44certificate of occupancy expire

1:51:46every so often, where something

1:51:49like verifying owner occupancy

1:51:50could be.

1:51:53>> I think this would generate

1:51:54from a complaint that we could

1:51:56get involved from a code

1:51:57enforcement standpoint, since

1:52:00it wouldn't require a

1:52:01certificate of occupancy. So

1:52:03take us as far as a complaint

1:52:05for us to realize that it's

1:52:07being used as a short term

1:52:09rental.

1:52:09>> So the ADUs don't require

1:52:11certificate of occupancy

1:52:12because they're owner occupied

1:52:14the the main house's owner

1:52:16occupied. Correct. And, and I

1:52:18guess that makes me wonder,

1:52:20just with the zoning code in

1:52:22general, whether or not the

1:52:23zoning office has the resources,

1:52:26the manpower to sort of enforce

1:52:30and oversee all of these new

1:52:34implementations.

1:52:34>> Yeah. So enforcement is a

1:52:36very big piece that we heard

1:52:37from the community over the

1:52:38years. To the extent that

1:52:40there's sections in the

1:52:41environmental impact statement

1:52:42that talk about enforcement,

1:52:43I'll touch on those briefly.

1:52:45There has been an expansion of

1:52:46code enforcement officers. I'm

1:52:48saying all this I don't have

1:52:50code enforcement under me. My

1:52:52my colleague does, but there's

1:52:52been an addition of an attorney

1:52:54who focuses on code enforcement

1:52:56issues. And so that unit is

1:53:00responsible for the enforcement

1:53:01of various codes. One of them

1:53:03is one of them is zoning. And

1:53:06so ensuring that proper

1:53:07training occurs with code

1:53:09enforcement officers for an

1:53:10understanding that they are

1:53:13responsible for enforcing these

1:53:15additional codes is something

1:53:16that is in the works as it

1:53:18relates to this, because at the

1:53:20end of the day, you're

1:53:22absolutely correct. We can put

1:53:23what we want in here and we can

1:53:25issue permits for it. But if a

1:53:27residents lived experience is

1:53:28the thing is not being enforced,

1:53:30it almost becomes meaningless

1:53:31in many ways. So we do

1:53:33understand that. And we we do

1:53:34need to and will continue to

1:53:35work through that.

1:53:36>> Okay. And, and my last

1:53:38question with the ADUs, and

1:53:39I'll send the rest in writing,

1:53:42my understanding is that they

1:53:43have to match whatever the

1:53:45historical look of the existing

1:53:48home is. Is there any variance

1:53:50for that?

1:53:51>> Yeah, there is, and it's,

1:53:52it's, it was really another

1:53:54mitigating factor that we

1:53:55borrowed from another city. I

1:53:58can't remember which one, but

1:53:59it was another process by which

1:54:01to help mitigate what is, for

1:54:05some people, a very new, very

1:54:07different thing or something

1:54:08they may not be in favor of,

1:54:09but we still need it as a

1:54:11housing option for people. And

1:54:13so attempting to match the I'll

1:54:15say, I think it says original

1:54:17architecture. I don't have it

1:54:18in front of me to some extent

1:54:21is part of it. But there is

1:54:23relief from that. And the

1:54:25relief for that would be the

1:54:26Planning Commission waiving

1:54:27that. As part of the approval

1:54:29in the LDR district.

1:54:31>> Thank you.

1:54:31>> Councilmember Martin.

1:54:36>> My first question is a bit

1:54:41process oriented. So for a lot

1:54:44of the questions we may ask,

1:54:46we'll get answers in writing.

1:54:47How are those then going to be

1:54:49shared with the public? And I

1:54:52don't know who to ask. We can

1:54:54brainstorm, but that's a big,

1:54:55big piece of, you know, getting

1:54:57those that information out.

1:55:01>> I think that would be a

1:55:02council staff question. We can

1:55:04maybe talk about it after the

1:55:06hearing. Is that okay? Just for

1:55:07the sake of time?

1:55:08>> Yeah, for sure. And one

1:55:09suggestion would be maybe

1:55:10putting it on the zap website.

1:55:12I know the administration runs

1:55:13it, but just throwing that out

1:55:15there. And also thank you all

1:55:17for all the work you're doing.

1:55:19And thank you to community

1:55:20members who are watching and

1:55:22have all given feedback on this

1:55:24proposal. Regarding ADUs. Can

1:55:29you talk about the reason

1:55:31behind limiting limiting them

1:55:33to elders?

1:55:36>> So they're they're permitted

1:55:37in the medium density and high

1:55:39density, and they're specially

1:55:41permitted in low density

1:55:43special.

1:55:43>> Sorry, that's what I meant.

1:55:44They're not of as as of right

1:55:46and low density.

1:55:47>> Correct.

1:55:48>> That's correct. Why.

1:55:49>> Yeah. So Rochester 2034 gave

1:55:52a directive that these which is

1:55:54the policy was not going to be

1:55:56taking on accessory dwelling

1:55:57units at the time of the

1:55:58development of the code. But as

1:56:01I mentioned earlier, one of the

1:56:03work sessions we had with city

1:56:05council, as well as

1:56:06conversations with the

1:56:07community and all sorts of

1:56:08other people, were, why aren't

1:56:09you incorporating this use? So

1:56:11we went back to the drawing

1:56:12board. As a result of that

1:56:13feedback and incorporated them

1:56:16into the use or into the LDR

1:56:18district. But to try to

1:56:20mitigate the fact that it is a

1:56:22slight deviation, we

1:56:24incorporated them in as a

1:56:25special use permit as opposed

1:56:27to as of right for that

1:56:29mitigating feature. And that

1:56:30turn from what the policy said

1:56:32was going to happen.

1:56:33>> Gotcha. So up like the

1:56:35framework here is almost

1:56:37incrementalism. Start with two

1:56:39other other districts and build

1:56:40into the lower density.

1:56:42>> Correct? I think yeah, I

1:56:44think that's a great way to say

1:56:45it actually. It's an

1:56:46incremental way of, of looking

1:56:48at it in terms of, in terms of

1:56:50how to do it.

1:56:51>> Gotcha. Thank you. And when

1:56:52we talked a bit about parking

1:56:54minimums, and this would have

1:56:55to be in writing, you mentioned

1:56:57there was some data you relied

1:56:58on around making the decision

1:57:00to eliminate them from downtown,

1:57:02but not residential districts

1:57:03just yet. So in writing, could

1:57:04you just share some of the

1:57:06bases you know you relied upon

1:57:08for that?

1:57:09>> Sure. Absolutely. And just

1:57:10so you understand too, it's not

1:57:12just downtown. It's also

1:57:13eliminating them from the

1:57:14additional mixed use districts

1:57:15like the corridors throughout

1:57:16the city. And I will give a

1:57:19shout out to the 2003 code that

1:57:22eliminated off street parking

1:57:24downtown back in 2003. It was

1:57:26also eliminated from the

1:57:27village center districts. I

1:57:28think it was pretty innovative

1:57:30at that time. You know, we

1:57:33didn't want parking to be an

1:57:35inhibitor to getting things

1:57:36done. And actually, one of the

1:57:39directives of Rochester 2034 on

1:57:41parking, as well as form based

1:57:43dovetailing into another

1:57:44section. But I think it's

1:57:46helpful for Council to

1:57:47understand the directive was

1:57:48given as part of 2034 to expand

1:57:50what is largely a form based

1:57:52code downtown out into the

1:57:54mixed use districts. And what I

1:57:55mean by form based, it's

1:57:59different from what's called

1:58:00Euclidean, which is use based,

1:58:03the design of a building and

1:58:04how it interacts with the

1:58:06street is almost more important

1:58:08than the use inside.

1:58:09>> So I did it again. That was

1:58:12me.

1:58:12>> I'll just take that as a cue

1:58:14to stop talking.

1:58:15>> You could.

1:58:17>> The the the are there

1:58:18windows is the door facing the

1:58:20street, etcetera, etcetera. So

1:58:21those were borrowed from the

1:58:22downtown district and expanded.

1:58:23>> Out.

1:58:24>> And, and just we will talk

1:58:26substantially more about

1:58:27parking when we get into

1:58:29article 15 or 13, whichever one

1:58:31it is.

1:58:32>> And still on article three,

1:58:35cannabis use in retail

1:58:37dispensaries and lounges. Can

1:58:39you talk about your reasoning

1:58:42for why these establishments

1:58:45would only be open till 9 p.m.

1:58:49>> I will get back to you in

1:58:51writing, but I believe it is

1:58:52based on the New York S, and.

1:58:55If Johanna is able to talk on

1:58:56this. If not, we can get back

1:58:58to you in writing. I do believe

1:59:00it's related to the legislation

1:59:01from New York State OCM related

1:59:03to liquor store hours, but we

1:59:04can definitely get that

1:59:06information.

1:59:07>> Sounds good. And finally. In

1:59:13reading the code, I didn't see

1:59:16anything about, I guess the use

1:59:18of pesticides, pesticides on

1:59:20lawns. And that's been one on

1:59:23lawns and I guess on city owned

1:59:25properties. Is there a policy

1:59:27somewhere I can read to better

1:59:29understand where that fits into

1:59:30all of this?

1:59:32>> So that's not a zoning

1:59:33matter. It's not a land use

1:59:35matter. I'm not sure if there's

1:59:36a policy in another area of

1:59:38city government. It's not

1:59:40zoning, but we can mark it down

1:59:42and get back to you in writing.

1:59:44>> Thank you.

1:59:46>> Councilmember Monroe.

1:59:50>> Hi. Good evening everyone.

1:59:52And I want to say also thank

1:59:54you for the wealth of work that

1:59:56you've done. You know, to

2:00:01follow up with the Adu piece.

2:00:06So the ADUs aren't going to be

2:00:09subjected to C of O s, but now

2:00:12we do have, even if it's owner

2:00:15occupied duplexes, they do have

2:00:17to do a C of O. Now, is that

2:00:20because of the state's changes?

2:00:28>> So the requirement would

2:00:29again only apply to properties

2:00:31that are within the city of

2:00:33Rochester lead paint high risk

2:00:35area. So if they're within that

2:00:37boundary, yes they would. And

2:00:39it's a rental property would

2:00:40require C.

2:00:42>> Okay. Thank you. I'm

2:00:53wondering with the pocket the

2:00:55pocket neighborhood

2:00:56developments, why the decision

2:00:58was to limit the multifamily

2:01:00piece to just duplexes.

2:01:06>> We can definitely get back

2:01:07to you in writing on that one.

2:01:09>> Okay. And, and my thinking

2:01:10there is, I mean, we have that

2:01:12that one in Edgerton, which

2:01:13would be the small house. And

2:01:15they were talking though for

2:01:17savings to have it essentially

2:01:18be a duplex. Right. But then

2:01:22I'm thinking if there are other

2:01:23places, given the fact that we

2:01:25have so much empty land that we

2:01:27ended up doing some kind of

2:01:29really interesting, different

2:01:30kinds of developments, being

2:01:33able to create a particular

2:01:35neighborhood that could be, you

2:01:37know, really kind of different.

2:01:39And on the far end of things,

2:01:40you know, even if it's, you

2:01:42know, 100% sustainable houses,

2:01:44things like that.

2:01:45>> Absolutely. We can

2:01:46definitely get back to you.

2:01:48It's a great question.

2:01:49>> Thank you. There is a

2:01:54section about cannabis retail,

2:01:57and the hours I saw were ending

2:02:00at 9:00. I've seen that some of

2:02:02them right now are open at

2:02:04least till ten. And wondering

2:02:06why the restriction was made to

2:02:08nine.

2:02:09>> Yeah, just like Council

2:02:10member Martin asked. We are

2:02:12going to look into that. And I,

2:02:16I think there might have

2:02:17actually been a change to

2:02:18liquor store laws recently with

2:02:20regard to hours of operation,

2:02:22but we will look into that.

2:02:23>> Okay.

2:02:24>> Yeah, I we will definitely

2:02:25confirm that information for

2:02:26you.

2:02:26>> Okay. Which I guess goes to

2:02:28the same thing is the state and

2:02:30then the city dealing with

2:02:32cannabis the same way we deal

2:02:33with liquor and other regulated

2:02:37items like tobacco.

2:02:40>> So tobacco, let me I'll

2:02:42piece tobacco out of it. Okay.

2:02:44As far as applicants that

2:02:47register for an OCM license,

2:02:49there is a or my end of it is

2:02:52mostly similar to liquor

2:02:54license, where they are

2:02:55submitted to the city clerk's

2:02:56office and the City Clerk's

2:02:57office distributes out the

2:03:00notices and then the various

2:03:02reviewing agencies from around

2:03:03the city. City departments

2:03:05provide responses back to the

2:03:07Law Department and subsequently

2:03:09the clerk's office.

2:03:10>> Okay.

2:03:11>> As it relates to tobacco.

2:03:13Thank you for bringing that up.

2:03:15In the use table in article

2:03:17three is a use called smoking

2:03:19goods establishments, which is

2:03:22separated out from commercial

2:03:23uses indoors. This was the

2:03:25direct result of hearing from

2:03:27many community members about

2:03:30proliferations of smoking goods

2:03:32establishments across the city,

2:03:34and subsequently what their

2:03:36contribution or lack of

2:03:37contribution is to the

2:03:38neighborhood. And so the city's

2:03:41response to that, as part of

2:03:42this draft code, is separating

2:03:44smoking goods establishments,

2:03:46uses out separately as its own

2:03:49use, and further restricting

2:03:50its use to assist with

2:03:53responding to those comments.

2:03:54>> And so with the smoking

2:03:56establishments, then, would

2:03:57that also prohibit them from

2:04:00having outdoor smoking use? Or

2:04:04I might be conflating two

2:04:05things I got with no.

2:04:07>> It's a good.

2:04:08>> Question piece that there is

2:04:09a there's a prohibition on an

2:04:11outdoor piece. When you talk

2:04:12about a cannabis lounge.

2:04:14>> Correct. We will look into

2:04:16it and get back to you in

2:04:17writing on the piece about

2:04:19smoking goods establishments,

2:04:19because that is a good question

2:04:21as it relates to. The cannabis

2:04:24connection, which you which you

2:04:26just mentioned. And I will note

2:04:27on the record, just so everyone

2:04:29knows, smoking goods

2:04:29establishments are not the same

2:04:31as cannabis retail. Cannabis

2:04:32retail has its own separate

2:04:34category because of OCM. But

2:04:36we'll get back to you on the

2:04:38outdoor component of smoking

2:04:39goods establishments.

2:04:41>> Thanks. So these are still

2:04:48within the the section one of

2:04:49them, page 46, is about outdoor

2:04:52animal care. So there are

2:04:55standards there. But they don't

2:04:59go so far as to include

2:05:01standards that the state has,

2:05:02for instance, on levels of

2:05:05insulation for outdoor runs.

2:05:08>> I'm sorry, Council member,

2:05:09which use on 46 are you

2:05:11referring.

2:05:11>> To outdoor animal care e.

2:05:15>> Outdoor animal care. So an

2:05:18applicant that's doing that

2:05:19would still be subject to those

2:05:21requirements, just the same as

2:05:22if someone's establishing a

2:05:24business that serves liquor.

2:05:26It's subject to SLA

2:05:28requirements. It not being

2:05:29there doesn't mean it's exempt

2:05:30from it. They would still be

2:05:32responsible.

2:05:32>> For okay. And then it saves

2:05:34us from having to update it. If

2:05:35the state changes something.

2:05:37>> Exactly what that does.

2:05:41>> As we're looking at the

2:05:42climate aspect, I just didn't

2:05:44notice anything about

2:05:46geothermal. Green roofs. I

2:05:51guess those would be the two

2:05:53big things.

2:05:56>> We will get back to you on

2:05:58that. Okay, well, I will just

2:06:00do a search and find that.

2:06:01>> And then for definitions for

2:06:04article three. So there's no

2:06:06longer a definition of family

2:06:09or dwelling unit. I know

2:06:11there's an explanation of what

2:06:12sleeping units are.

2:06:14>> There's there is a

2:06:15definition of family. So one

2:06:17thing to note about this code

2:06:19is that article three. The

2:06:20definitions included in article

2:06:22three are only things that are

2:06:24included in the use table.

2:06:26There's a separate definition

2:06:28section in article 24 for

2:06:30anything that is not a use.

2:06:32>> Okay.

2:06:33>> So it's it's it's the

2:06:34definition of family is still

2:06:35in there. And I believe it is a

2:06:37fair statement to say it was

2:06:39copied over from the existing

2:06:40code. And the simple reason for

2:06:42that it is withstood a number

2:06:44of legal challenges.

2:06:45>> It's on page 309, Councilman

2:06:47Monroe.

2:06:47>> Thank you.

2:06:50>> And my last question is with

2:06:53the change or the addition of

2:06:55the Marina village up in

2:06:59Charlotte, separate from the

2:07:01harbor town, was there much

2:07:04discussion? I, I when we had

2:07:06our public hearing up there? I

2:07:07didn't hear discussion about

2:07:08that. And I'm just wondering

2:07:10how much discussion there was

2:07:12when the administration was

2:07:13doing their public hearings and

2:07:14taking comments.

2:07:15>> Yeah, absolutely. So the

2:07:18village center districts and

2:07:20the Marina district, which is

2:07:21of course, adjacent to Harbor

2:07:23Town, as you mentioned, they

2:07:24were largely just updated with

2:07:27terminology from the new code.

2:07:29The reason for that mostly is

2:07:32because a lot of those

2:07:34districts came after the 2003

2:07:36code, and went through their

2:07:37own process for development.

2:07:39They received their own

2:07:40community engagement process.

2:07:42They received their own secret

2:07:44process in order for those

2:07:45districts to be established. So

2:07:47many of them were actually

2:07:49established sometime between

2:07:51now and 2003. So they're newer

2:07:54than the 2003 code. So they

2:07:56were more or less just updated

2:07:58for terminology. I believe we

2:08:01also just made the change that

2:08:04we instead of MD Marina

2:08:06district, I think it's Marina

2:08:07village district because it

2:08:08really is a village center

2:08:10district.

2:08:11>> So it.

2:08:12>> Resembles the same format as

2:08:14the other village center

2:08:15districts.

2:08:16>> So basically it was taking

2:08:18some of the same, same things

2:08:19that had already changed over

2:08:21time from 2003 and reflected in

2:08:24there.

2:08:25>> Yeah, it was taking the

2:08:27districts that were developed

2:08:29post 2003, like the Marina

2:08:32Village district, and just

2:08:33copying it into this code

2:08:34because it already received its

2:08:35own review. Now, if somebody if

2:08:38somebody, if a member of the

2:08:39community commented on it, and

2:08:41I don't have all of the

2:08:42comments in my head, but we

2:08:44would have definitely looked at

2:08:46it. I do know there were some

2:08:47comments out of the Maplewood

2:08:48neighborhood with regard to

2:08:50urban renewal districts,

2:08:53separate from general zoning

2:08:55districts. So we did take a

2:08:56look at that. For example, the

2:08:57Ridgeway Urban Renewal District

2:08:58had expired since the 2023

2:09:01draft. So we removed that. So

2:09:02if we did receive a comment

2:09:04about it from the community, it

2:09:05was explored.

2:09:06>> Okay. Then. Oh, for the so

2:09:10for both the Harbor town and

2:09:12Marina is is five stories the

2:09:15limit.

2:09:16>> That I will need development.

2:09:17>> Can we get into those when

2:09:19we get into those particular

2:09:20articles on the on those each

2:09:22of those districts has their

2:09:23own Arc. Article seven.

2:09:25>> Yep. Okay.

2:09:26>> Any other questions on

2:09:27article 2 or 3, Councilman

2:09:29Monroe?

2:09:29>> No, I'm done.

2:09:31>> Councilmember Smith.

2:09:34>> Thank you.

2:09:39>> Again, like everyone said,

2:09:40thank you guys so much for

2:09:41taking the time to. Create this

2:09:44really comprehensive plan again,

2:09:45to the team for doing such a

2:09:47great job creating these side

2:09:50by side. This is I had no clue

2:09:54the first day of French class

2:09:55for me as a new council person.

2:09:57So. Doctor Leslie has the

2:10:00privilege of working in this

2:10:02space. So she is knowledgeable

2:10:04here and I have no clue. But I

2:10:07wanted to ask. I know that

2:10:09Council President touched on it

2:10:10briefly concerning. Equity and

2:10:18me specifically. I wanted to

2:10:19know, has the administration

2:10:22and maybe you talked about this

2:10:23and I blanked out. Has the

2:10:26administration conducted a

2:10:27neighborhood level equity

2:10:29impact analysis for Zap,

2:10:31particularly for neighborhoods

2:10:32like one four, 621 and

2:10:34Jefferson Avenue and other

2:10:36communities that have been

2:10:38historically impacted by

2:10:40redlining at all.

2:10:42>> We we'll get back to you in

2:10:44writing on all of the aspects

2:10:46of the development of the code

2:10:47that relate to that question.

2:10:48Absolutely.

2:10:49>> Thank you. And then also,

2:10:52you know, residents have been

2:10:54concerned about the

2:10:55concentration of stores in

2:10:56certain areas. Again, those

2:10:59historically disadvantaged

2:11:01neighborhoods, as I just

2:11:02mentioned. So I wanted to know

2:11:03how would the zoning changes

2:11:05address the concentration of

2:11:07convenience stores, smoke shops,

2:11:08vacant properties and other

2:11:10commercial uses that residents

2:11:11have identified as concerns in

2:11:15economically disadvantaged

2:11:16neighborhoods?

2:11:16>> Absolutely. Great question.

2:11:17So I talked a little bit about

2:11:19smoking goods establishments.

2:11:20So in the use chart, there's a

2:11:22list of uses on the left column.

2:11:24And then it of course

2:11:25corresponds to where things are

2:11:27permitted. We took a form based

2:11:30approach or a quasi form based

2:11:32approach by having this

2:11:34definition or this term called

2:11:35commercial use indoor unless

2:11:37otherwise stated. So if you

2:11:39don't see it on the list, it

2:11:41falls under that commercial use

2:11:42indoor category. But one of the

2:11:44uses you will find in that list

2:11:46is smoking goods establishments.

2:11:48So many of these corner store

2:11:51type uses that I think you're

2:11:54inquiring about where there is

2:11:56a proliferation of them. The

2:11:58code took into consideration

2:12:00that it is a problem largely

2:12:01based on community feedback and

2:12:04separated that use out and was

2:12:06the proposal is restrictive on

2:12:09where they're able to be

2:12:10allowed. So we can't

2:12:12retroactively go back and

2:12:14what's called strip rights from

2:12:15existing businesses. But what

2:12:17we can do is future state going

2:12:20forward, attempt to prohibit

2:12:22the opening of more of these

2:12:25uses, which contributes to this

2:12:27proliferation of of uses. I

2:12:29will note the city worked on

2:12:32this just over a decade ago now.

2:12:34I think there were some council

2:12:35members on council at the time,

2:12:38which was called high Impact

2:12:40legislation, and there were a

2:12:42series of court cases that

2:12:44resulted in that, that

2:12:45prohibited the city from doing

2:12:46certain things related to uses

2:12:49without getting into the

2:12:50specifics of it. And so what

2:12:52we're doing now is we studied

2:12:55what we did to try to do this,

2:12:56which did not withstand a court

2:12:59challenge and are attempting to

2:13:00do it differently this way to

2:13:02do exactly what you're

2:13:03describing, which is attempt to

2:13:05prohibit the establishment of

2:13:06more of these businesses to

2:13:08prevent a proliferation of them.

2:13:17>> Also, can the administration

2:13:19identify publicly owned

2:13:21properties that could

2:13:22accommodate sanctioned

2:13:24encampments or low barrier

2:13:26emergency housing? So we know

2:13:27that we have well, yeah, answer

2:13:32that question.

2:13:33>> Oh, yes. We can get back to

2:13:35you on that. Absolutely.

2:13:36>> Okay.

2:13:38>> And then. How would the

2:13:44proposed zoning code address

2:13:45the need for emergency housing

2:13:46for individuals who do not

2:13:48qualify for traditional

2:13:49shelters or specialized

2:13:50programs? Or is that not your

2:13:52thing?

2:13:53>> It is to an extent, and I

2:13:55want to be very specific when

2:13:57we respond. So we'll get back

2:13:58to you. In writing, there are a

2:14:00series of use definitions that

2:14:01accommodate your question and

2:14:02where they can be established,

2:14:04and we can get you that

2:14:05information.

2:14:05>> Thank you. And then lastly,

2:14:07how would the administration

2:14:08ensure that emergency housing

2:14:09facilities are distributed

2:14:11equitably rather than

2:14:13concentrated in historically

2:14:15disadvantaged neighborhoods?

2:14:16>> That will mostly be a non

2:14:18zoning related matter because

2:14:20we don't control where people

2:14:22site these operations. I should

2:14:25say the city.

2:14:27>> Okay.

2:14:28>> And then lastly, did the

2:14:30administration take into

2:14:32account the increased

2:14:35development? Would it will

2:14:36affect demand on city services,

2:14:39including public safety,

2:14:40sanitation infrastructure and

2:14:42code enforcement? Can you talk

2:14:44a little bit about how you guys

2:14:45are looking at that?

2:14:47>> Yeah, absolutely. So the

2:14:48zoning map was really developed.

2:14:50Rochester is, for lack of a

2:14:51better way to say it, a hub and

2:14:53spoke city. Downtown is at the

2:14:54center. The more dense

2:14:55neighborhoods surround it just

2:14:57by way of it being developed.

2:14:58Before modern zoning, so much

2:14:59of the infrastructure is built

2:15:02out in those areas and can

2:15:04accommodate the increase in

2:15:05population. These are things

2:15:06like roads. These are things

2:15:07like stormwater management.

2:15:08These are things like access to

2:15:11transit, etc. etc. So the the

2:15:14thing about the city that we

2:15:16have citywide or the city has

2:15:18citywide is the infrastructure

2:15:20is in place, whether or not the

2:15:22street has had a series of

2:15:24demolitions, the curbs exist,

2:15:25the sidewalks exist, the fire

2:15:27hydrants exist, the street

2:15:28lights exist, all of the

2:15:31infrastructure is in there,

2:15:32which is in contrast to, of

2:15:34course, suburban development or

2:15:35greenfield development, where

2:15:36that stuff is getting built

2:15:39newly now. So the benefit of

2:15:41that, that's something we can

2:15:42promote. That's something the

2:15:43city can promote and say the

2:15:45infrastructure is in place. It

2:15:46doesn't have to be built, and

2:15:47it doesn't have to be passed on

2:15:49down to the owner buying the

2:15:51property. There's a lot of talk

2:15:53about who should pay for that

2:15:55infrastructure work when it's

2:15:56newly constructed, and then

2:15:59those costs get passed down. We

2:16:00don't we don't have that, which

2:16:02is a good thing. It's a good

2:16:04thing to promote for the city.

2:16:07>> I'm going to ask a couple

2:16:08follow up questions on articles

2:16:10two and three, and then we'll

2:16:11launch into article four. We'll

2:16:13get as far as we go tonight.

2:16:14We'll stop at 8:00 sharp, and

2:16:16I'm confident tomorrow we'll

2:16:17get through a whole lot of

2:16:18articles one by one. But I want

2:16:20to there's been a lot of

2:16:22questions about ADUs, and I

2:16:23appreciate Director Simmons. I

2:16:25appreciate your answer about

2:16:26how this differed from the

2:16:27original comp plan. And, you

2:16:30know, one of the things that

2:16:32we've heard from the

2:16:33administration, and I think

2:16:34there's there's good reason for,

2:16:35for hearing this, is that we

2:16:38can legalize ADUs all we want.

2:16:41It's going to be very expensive

2:16:43for a lot of these to get built.

2:16:45And in most places when they've

2:16:48legalized ADUs, there just has

2:16:49not been a lot of them built

2:16:51afterwards. I've been doing

2:16:52some research on this, and one

2:16:54place where that seems to have

2:16:55really kind of figured it out

2:16:57is California. Obviously,

2:16:58California has there's a lot of

2:17:00places with a lot of money in

2:17:01California, so it's hard to say

2:17:03exactly what's what in terms of

2:17:05the why. But one thing that

2:17:07California has done is they

2:17:08passed a law several years ago

2:17:10that specifically allows for

2:17:12anyone who builds an Adu to

2:17:13sell the Adu. I want to be

2:17:17clear. I'm not asking us to

2:17:19encourage people to sell ADUs.

2:17:22However, the argument when that

2:17:23law was passed was that if

2:17:25there is not severability or

2:17:26the ability to sell the Adu, it

2:17:29is virtually impossible for

2:17:30someone to go get financing for

2:17:32an Adu. So if someone. I think

2:17:34the reason why we see a whole

2:17:36lot of people, community

2:17:38members talk about wanting to

2:17:39use is because there's a great

2:17:41opportunity for these things to

2:17:42actually help build wealth,

2:17:46generational wealth. If it is a

2:17:47way to massively increase the

2:17:49value of your property by

2:17:50having a another unit in there,

2:17:53someone who has someone who

2:17:54lives in any neighborhood, you

2:17:55name it because they're legal

2:17:58anywhere as it's written right

2:17:59now, although a special permit,

2:18:00an LDR, someone who lives

2:18:02somewhere wants to go build a

2:18:04build an Adu in their backyard,

2:18:06or transition their garage into

2:18:07an Adu, they're most likely

2:18:09going to go need to get to

2:18:10borrow money for it. My

2:18:12understanding is that without

2:18:14severability, without the

2:18:15ability to sell, those very few

2:18:16banks are going to offer

2:18:18financing. I'm not asking you

2:18:19to comment on that right now,

2:18:20but what I am asking is why

2:18:22outlaw it? Why? And it's the

2:18:24same question that I have about

2:18:26the shipping containers. I

2:18:27totally understand your point

2:18:28that right now, there's not a

2:18:30lot of precedent for having

2:18:31shipping containers that that

2:18:33fit the building code. However,

2:18:35the Evans administration is

2:18:36being very intentional right

2:18:37now about trying to build

2:18:38modular homes. So why not allow

2:18:41a permitting process? Why have

2:18:43language that outlaws these

2:18:45things that could ultimately be

2:18:46very helpful?

2:18:47>> So on.

2:18:48>> On the first point about

2:18:50severability and selling it, I

2:18:51would have to research that. My

2:18:53quick answer is it is an

2:18:55accessory dwelling unit. If you

2:18:57sell it, it removes the A from

2:18:58the due and just becomes a

2:19:00dwelling unit or another single

2:19:02family home accessory dwelling

2:19:04unit is inherently accessory to

2:19:06the principal use. So if you're

2:19:08if you're selling it, you just

2:19:10have another single family home.

2:19:12And if that's the case, this

2:19:14code allows flag lots. There's

2:19:16a. If you look in article 24,

2:19:17you can look at this a little

2:19:19bit. The other thing that ties

2:19:22into your question about moving

2:19:23it from an Adu and selling it

2:19:26is it becomes a second single

2:19:28family home is. We don't have

2:19:31minimum lot sizes anymore. And

2:19:32I talked a little bit about

2:19:34this before a lot of times

2:19:35minimum lot sizes. When you're

2:19:37siting a property or siting a

2:19:39development, if you're just

2:19:41trying to get to that magic

2:19:42number of 5000ft², you may end

2:19:44up just taking up area in the

2:19:46backyard to get to that number,

2:19:48even though nobody wants it. So

2:19:50because we don't have that

2:19:51anymore and we're focusing on

2:19:53frontages instead, the

2:19:55opportunity exists to do some

2:19:57sort of a situation where you

2:19:58just build another single

2:20:00family home as opposed to an

2:20:01Adu.

2:20:01>> But so let me let me ask the

2:20:03question differently. So I'm

2:20:04looking at page 44. It's 3.7, a

2:20:09point two. Ownership of the Adu

2:20:11shall not be legally severed

2:20:12from ownership of the

2:20:13associated lot and any other

2:20:14structures on such lot. For

2:20:17what it's worth, I am not. I

2:20:19want to say it again. I am not

2:20:21saying I don't want to to to

2:20:23pass a code that allows people

2:20:26to sell their lots or sell sell

2:20:29their ADUs. Because to your

2:20:30point, that would completely

2:20:32undermine the purpose of having

2:20:34any of these districts. I just

2:20:36don't know why we why we choose

2:20:38to include language that

2:20:40outright prohibits it versus if

2:20:43that was struck and there was

2:20:45still in, in the world of

2:20:49permitting, in all of the kind

2:20:51of administrative functions

2:20:52that your office and NBD has

2:20:54still a need to make the case

2:20:59for selling it. Or as you

2:21:02mentioned before, the use

2:21:03variance is a much harder

2:21:05variance to achieve, right? If

2:21:07if it was a use variance in

2:21:08order to to make it severable.

2:21:11If that if we have evidence and

2:21:13I understand that that I just

2:21:14threw this on you now, but if

2:21:16we have evidence that

2:21:17severability allows for

2:21:19financing in a much clearer way,

2:21:21not city financing, private

2:21:22financing, I don't know why we

2:21:25would outlaw it. So I'm going

2:21:27to I'm going to put a pin in

2:21:29that question, because I don't

2:21:31think there's enough

2:21:31information that you have to

2:21:33answer it. And now ask the same

2:21:34question about shipping

2:21:35containers. So shipping

2:21:36containers for ADUs. I

2:21:37understand your reason for

2:21:38right now saying shipping

2:21:39containers there. It does not

2:21:41pass the Department of State

2:21:42code, the building code to

2:21:43allow us to do this. But we

2:21:46have we know that that this is

2:21:48something that the state and

2:21:48the city both are working on

2:21:51adamantly to find ways to build

2:21:54more modular housing. So why

2:21:56outlaw it first? Just making it

2:21:59something harder to do over

2:22:00time.

2:22:01>> Yeah. So, you know, we can

2:22:02definitely get back to you on

2:22:04this if you'd like more

2:22:05information. But there's a big

2:22:06difference in my mind. And I

2:22:08think I would say a lot of

2:22:10residents mind across the city

2:22:12of a difference between

2:22:14manufactured homes or

2:22:15prefabricated homes, which can

2:22:17literally have walls that look

2:22:19like walls that are stick built

2:22:20but are actually built in a

2:22:22factory and then shipped in and

2:22:23dropped. And this is happening

2:22:24across the state versus someone

2:22:27dropping a shipping container.

2:22:28The largest difference between

2:22:29those two things is the

2:22:31esthetic of what's happening. I

2:22:33would venture to say that there

2:22:35are a lot of residents that

2:22:36would be calling my phone

2:22:38number. If a shipping container

2:22:39was dropped in between their

2:22:41two traditionally stick built

2:22:43homes on a parcel. So that's

2:22:45the the quickest answer I can

2:22:46give. Is there an ability to

2:22:49retrofit a shipping container

2:22:50into a house that looks not

2:22:53necessarily similar, but has

2:22:54more similar features? That

2:22:56possibility certainly exists.

2:22:58We've not seen it. Our market

2:23:00is soft and it's a challenge.

2:23:02And the only thing we've gotten

2:23:04and it hasn't gone anywhere, is

2:23:05phone calls about people quite

2:23:07literally dropping a shipping

2:23:08container with no insulation,

2:23:10nothing.

2:23:10>> Which I don't think is a

2:23:11good idea. But before you

2:23:13talked about relief valves and

2:23:15there's just there's some

2:23:17language in the code as it's

2:23:19written right now that is so

2:23:22specific and particular and

2:23:24strong that there actually is

2:23:25no relief code. But later on

2:23:27doing an amendment, which I

2:23:28suppose is always the relief.

2:23:29>> You could do a variance. So

2:23:31there's always a process for a

2:23:32relief, even with the existing

2:23:34code. If council adopts this

2:23:35tonight and never makes another

2:23:36amendment for 55 years, if

2:23:38someone comes in and says, no,

2:23:40no, I got Department of State

2:23:41approval. It is a shipping

2:23:43container, looks like a

2:23:44shipping container, is a

2:23:45shipping container. Looks

2:23:46nothing like the neighbors. The

2:23:48relief valve is they can apply

2:23:49for a variance from the Zoning

2:23:51Board of Appeals, and they have

2:23:52the opportunity to use the

2:23:54criteria that is set out in

2:23:56state law to make their case

2:23:57before the zoning board.

2:23:59>> Thank you for that. I think

2:24:00it's there's a whole lot more

2:24:02conversation to have there. I'm

2:24:03just going to ask, well, I'm

2:24:05not going to ask any more

2:24:07questions because we can always

2:24:08circle back to this. I'm going

2:24:10to move us to article four and

2:24:11start with Council member

2:24:12Leslie Smith, and go down the

2:24:15line and see how far we go with

2:24:17article four. Actually, I'm

2:24:18going to strike that article

2:24:21four. Well, I'd like to keep

2:24:24this. Let's keep it right now

2:24:26to the residential districts.

2:24:29So article four, maybe 4 or 5

2:24:32and six if you have questions

2:24:33there.

2:24:36>> Okay, so we were talking a

2:24:37little bit about minimum lot

2:24:39size. And I am just, which I'm

2:24:43excited about, but I'm also

2:24:46curious what is going to keep

2:24:47new homes on small lots in

2:24:50scale with their blocks,

2:24:52frontage, setbacks, matching,

2:24:53you know, whatever the

2:24:54neighbors have going on. And

2:24:56does the city have anything

2:25:00sketched to give us residents

2:25:02an example of what that might

2:25:03look like?

2:25:04>> Great questions. The answer

2:25:06to the first part of your

2:25:07question is yes, it is the

2:25:09dimensional requirements, and

2:25:10I'm going to give you a page

2:25:12number for.

2:25:13>> Reference.

2:25:15>> Starting on page 59 of the

2:25:17code, there's a table that says

2:25:20for Dash one residential

2:25:22districts. What you're asking

2:25:23about without saying it is

2:25:24dimensional standards. So these

2:25:27dimensional standards are what

2:25:28I would call the siting of the

2:25:30building on the parcel. Does it

2:25:31fall in line with, as you

2:25:34described, someone's house on

2:25:35either side of them? So a

2:25:37consideration is the city loves

2:25:38open front porches or loves

2:25:40porches on the front of homes.

2:25:41The property has to be in line

2:25:43with the neighboring parcels.

2:25:45So that. That basically street

2:25:47wall that was built originally

2:25:49continues on. And it also

2:25:50assists with sight lines. And

2:25:52people aren't, you know, being

2:25:53blocked from looking down the

2:25:55street. So those dimensional

2:25:57requirements are about the

2:26:00siting of the prop or the

2:26:01structure on the parcel. To

2:26:02your point about the, I'll call

2:26:05it context or massing of the

2:26:07structure that's getting built

2:26:08adjacent to the neighbors.

2:26:09There is a requirement to have

2:26:11not the same, but within a

2:26:13range of lot frontage. So if

2:26:15you have a. And this is

2:26:17basically. This is most simply

2:26:19explained by the fact that we

2:26:20have a very diverse set of

2:26:22housing stock in the city. We

2:26:23have neighborhoods with 70 foot

2:26:24frontages, 30 foot frontages,

2:26:2540 foot frontages. We didn't

2:26:27want to write a zoning code for

2:26:29each of those neighborhoods, as

2:26:30we've talked about this evening.

2:26:32So what we did is we said

2:26:33there's a range. So if you look

2:26:36at it's the first one there,

2:26:38minimum lot frontage, and

2:26:39there's actually a range based

2:26:42on use. So that when there is a

2:26:46siting of a new building, there

2:26:48are some dimensional

2:26:49requirements which will more or

2:26:52less mimic what is already

2:26:54there. I will tell you, it was

2:26:56an interesting exercise as we

2:26:57were going through this,

2:26:58because there are a lot of

2:27:00neighborhoods which appear to

2:27:01have a very similar lot

2:27:02frontage, but when you actually

2:27:04look at it, it's like, oh, this

2:27:05one's ten foot more, this one's

2:27:07ten foot less, this one's. So

2:27:08there is some variation already

2:27:10built in, which is the reason

2:27:11we carried that variation over.

2:27:12>> Awesome. Thank you. Now with

2:27:16no parking requirements

2:27:17downtown, how will spillover

2:27:19parking into nearby

2:27:22neighborhoods be managed?

2:27:24>> Yeah.

2:27:24>> So we.

2:27:25>> I'll start with we don't

2:27:26have a parking requirement

2:27:28right now. Downtown and the

2:27:30downtown mixed use district is

2:27:32slightly smaller than the

2:27:33current CCD district. So it's

2:27:37actually moving in a little bit.

2:27:40The down the Center City

2:27:41district was really expanded

2:27:42beyond the bounds of the former

2:27:43inner loop for, I would venture

2:27:47to say, development purposes,

2:27:48but actually making the

2:27:49downtown mixed use a little bit

2:27:51smaller, there's going to be

2:27:52less of that impact anyway.

2:27:55Physically speaking, the

2:27:57neighborhoods that surround

2:27:58downtown Cornhill has its own

2:28:00parking requirement in the

2:28:01northwest part of downtown.

2:28:02It's heavily commercial with

2:28:04parking lots. Kodak, the

2:28:05northeastern section has the

2:28:07inner loop, which is currently

2:28:08a physical barrier, which is of

2:28:10course its own project being

2:28:12managed by DES. Where I'm going

2:28:14with this is there's been what

2:28:17I would say are minimal impacts

2:28:18as a result of how we currently

2:28:20have it. And I'll just tell you,

2:28:22if it's a large housing

2:28:24development, it's rare, even

2:28:26though we don't have a parking

2:28:28requirement that developers

2:28:29still build parking because

2:28:30even if someone's going to be

2:28:32using transit or biking or

2:28:34walking, they still need a

2:28:35place potentially to store a

2:28:37car, even if they're not using

2:28:38it every day.

2:28:39>> Thank you.

2:28:41>> Yeah. And just to modify,

2:28:43I'm going to make this 4 or 5,

2:28:44six and seven. So Councilman

2:28:46Monroe specifically can ask

2:28:47questions about the village

2:28:49center districts. Councilmember

2:28:52Martin, Councilman Monroe.

2:28:59>> I think I already had the

2:29:00question that you'll respond to

2:29:02later. As far as the five five.

2:29:06>> Story, the height of the

2:29:07buildings. Yep. We will get we

2:29:09have that marked down.

2:29:10>> Okay. Thanks.

2:29:10>> Of course.

2:29:11>> No other questions,

2:29:12Councilmember Monroe. Okay.

2:29:14Councilmember Patterson.

2:29:16>> Okay, gentlemen. So I'm

2:29:17going to be getting into my

2:29:19amendments. So here we go.

2:29:20We're going to start with. An

2:29:24LD and LDR and HDR. There's a

2:29:27general prohibition against a

2:29:30house going into a church. Can

2:29:32you address this? And I'd also

2:29:35like to hear from law, like how

2:29:37do we tell somebody that you

2:29:39can't do church in a house.

2:29:42>> Just to to clarify, you mean

2:29:44if it's an existing detached

2:29:45single family home, converting

2:29:47it to a place of worship, right?

2:29:49>> Using it as a place of

2:29:51worship. That's why I'm asking.

2:29:59>> Yeah. So we can get you more

2:30:01information in writing. The

2:30:02quick answer is the

2:30:03preservation of housing, right?

2:30:05The preservation of the

2:30:07cheapest way to get housing

2:30:08online is to use the existing

2:30:10housing stock. And so carrying

2:30:12over the ability for people to,

2:30:16I'm saying, carrying over from

2:30:18the existing code to be able to

2:30:20convert their residential

2:30:21structure into a place of

2:30:22worship, assists with taking or

2:30:26mitigates taking housing off

2:30:28the market. The other

2:30:29consideration of that is, of

2:30:30course, parking. It may be once

2:30:33a week, it may be daily, it may

2:30:35be more a single family home

2:30:36with a single wide driveway

2:30:37that leads to a detached garage

2:30:39being converted to a place of

2:30:40worship will have impacts on

2:30:43the surrounding neighbors. I

2:30:44think is. A pretty fair

2:30:46statement.

2:30:47>> Okay, so my challenge is

2:30:49this. I am the only council

2:30:53member who is still here. When

2:30:56we changed the law, restricted

2:30:58make putting this restriction

2:30:59in place when we did it in 2017,

2:31:02and it was tossed in as a bunch

2:31:07of little, it was tossed in as

2:31:08one of the many cleanup items

2:31:10to our code that we were doing.

2:31:12There was no discussion, there

2:31:13was no debate, and I missed it.

2:31:16Now, look, I got a bunch of

2:31:20little house churches across

2:31:21the northeast. What I have

2:31:23never heard from anyone is,

2:31:26pardon my language. That darn

2:31:27church down the street is a

2:31:31problem. I have seen little

2:31:33house churches, you know, all

2:31:35over the place. My aid has a

2:31:37little house church on her

2:31:38street. They're busy. One day a

2:31:41week they park on both sides of

2:31:43the street. Thank goodness.

2:31:44Thank God we don't give them

2:31:46church. We don't give them

2:31:46tickets on Sunday. We got 99

2:31:51problems in churches. Ain't one.

2:31:55So that's why I've put an

2:31:56amendment rolling this back.

2:31:58I'm sure you guys will be

2:31:59getting back to me on that, and

2:32:01I look forward to hearing it

2:32:02and having a conversation. Next

2:32:04one. Daycare, homes and

2:32:09daycares. Same sensibility,

2:32:11same concept. So currently in

2:32:13our code, you can, if you, you

2:32:17can have a daycare home, which

2:32:19means you live in the home, you

2:32:23do a daycare in your home, then

2:32:25the home that you live in that

2:32:27is a daycare home. Thank

2:32:28goodness for Ida Perez who

2:32:29explained it to me. Anything

2:32:32else is a daycare center. So

2:32:34the challenge is this. Okay, so

2:32:36you've got a single family home

2:32:39in a in a low density

2:32:40residential neighborhood, and

2:32:42you decide that you're going to

2:32:43use it as a daycare. Nope.

2:32:45That's a daycare center, not an

2:32:46approved use. The question then

2:32:48becomes, okay, well, look, what

2:32:49if I have a double? I live on

2:32:51one side and I have my daycare

2:32:53on the other side is what it is

2:32:56at an approved use. It seems as

2:32:58though since you don't live on

2:33:01the other side, that's a

2:33:02daycare center. And the answer

2:33:03is no. Okay, then the next

2:33:05question is okay, well, what

2:33:07about an apartment in a

2:33:08building in a low density

2:33:11residential neighborhood? Could

2:33:12I do a daycare in there? And it

2:33:14seems as though and I don't

2:33:15live in the apartment. Well, it

2:33:16seems as though the the answer

2:33:18there is no. That's a daycare

2:33:20center. And like I said, I got

2:33:2199 problems in the northeast

2:33:23and daycares ain't one. I have

2:33:25never heard anybody say, you

2:33:26know, the problem in Rochester

2:33:28is we have too many Dag burn

2:33:29daycares all over the place and

2:33:31they're just too close to my

2:33:32house. So that's why I've

2:33:35submitted those amendments. I

2:33:36look forward to hearing back

2:33:37from you. I definitely look

2:33:38forward to hearing back from

2:33:40law on the restriction of the

2:33:43expression of faith within the

2:33:44community. Yeah, I went there.

2:33:49So that's a, that's B. I got a

2:33:54bunch of them. You guys have

2:33:55them. I wait for your. I await

2:33:57your responses in writing.

2:34:01>> Councilmember Smith. Yeah,

2:34:04I'm I'm gonna jump in and I'll

2:34:06pass it over to you. President

2:34:07Melendez I, I, I appreciate

2:34:09Councilmember Patterson's

2:34:10questions. I just just for

2:34:11clarity, the, the only people

2:34:14at this point who can amend the

2:34:17code are the people up on the

2:34:18dais, not the people who. I

2:34:21mean, I guess it's fair to ask

2:34:22corporation council questions

2:34:24about what is a legal or not

2:34:26legal amendment. Personally, I

2:34:29totally agree, Councilmember

2:34:30Patterson. I don't think

2:34:31churches are are a problem. If

2:34:33the city has 99 problems, I

2:34:34would. I would agree that

2:34:35churches are not one. I also

2:34:37completely agree with Director

2:34:39Simmons's perspective that our

2:34:41job right now with this code is

2:34:43to try to deal with a housing

2:34:45crisis in front of us. It's

2:34:46also to try to deal with a tax

2:34:49base challenge in front of us.

2:34:51And I think it's really

2:34:52important that we preserve

2:34:53single family houses for

2:34:56residential to the extent that

2:34:57we can. I'm curious about the

2:35:00the childcare center questions.

2:35:02I look forward to seeing those

2:35:04answers. I have a couple

2:35:06questions on article four.

2:35:10Specifically in. MDR. So the

2:35:17height in MDR is to not exceed

2:35:212.5 stories. AM I reading that

2:35:23correct?

2:35:23>> Can you tell.

2:35:24>> Can you tell me what page

2:35:26you're on?

2:35:26>> Council member.

2:35:27>> Maximum building height page

2:35:2860. Table 44-1. Maximum

2:35:31building height in MDR not to

2:35:35exceed 2.5 stories. Is that

2:35:36correct?

2:35:37>> That is correct, yes.

2:35:38>> So in medium density. We

2:35:44would not allow someone to have

2:35:47a 3 or 4 story building.

2:35:49>> So they could, depending on

2:35:53the number of uses, it could be

2:35:56waived by the Planning

2:35:57commission. So speaking of like

2:35:59relief valves, if someone comes

2:36:01in and wants a 3 or 4 story

2:36:03building, I would venture to

2:36:04say it's probably five or more

2:36:06units making it a multi-family

2:36:08dwelling that requires a

2:36:11special use permit from the

2:36:12Planning Commission and any

2:36:15standards that are not met. As

2:36:18far as. Let me just verify this.

2:36:29Let me

2:36:29>> Get back to you on the price.

2:36:31There is a relief valve. I just

2:36:33want to verify if it's a waiver

2:36:35from the planning commission or

2:36:36a variance. But there is a

2:36:37relief valve. I just want to

2:36:39confirm which one it is.

2:36:40>> Okay. In addition to

2:36:41following up on the relief

2:36:43valve, can you also just share

2:36:44the kind of philosophy behind

2:36:45how we how we get to medium in

2:36:47two and a half story buildings?

2:36:49>> Yeah. I think the the best

2:36:51answer to that question is just

2:36:52because up to four are as of

2:36:54right up to four units are

2:36:56generally in that I'll say two

2:36:59and a half story structure.

2:37:01That is much of the city's

2:37:02housing stock. Once you start

2:37:05getting into five or more units,

2:37:08it tends to be a much larger

2:37:10structure, and you already need

2:37:12the special use permit from the

2:37:13planning Commission. And so

2:37:15that's where that thought

2:37:17process came from.

2:37:18>> So you would say that most

2:37:20sub six. So 4 or 5 unit

2:37:23buildings are in in shorter

2:37:26than three story buildings.

2:37:28>> I don't want to I'm not

2:37:30going to make an absolute

2:37:31statement. I would say it is a

2:37:33reasonable thing to say that

2:37:34there are many properties

2:37:35across the city. I don't know

2:37:37how many, but that they are.

2:37:39They can have up to four units

2:37:41and meet this requirement. Are

2:37:43there outliers or are there

2:37:45ones that don't meet this

2:37:46requirement? Absolutely.

2:37:46>> Well, what what is two and a

2:37:48half stories? It's two stories.

2:37:50And then and then like, what's

2:37:51the half story, I guess? Let me

2:37:53help me understand.

2:37:54>> That it's the roof style.

2:37:55The pitched roof style is the

2:37:57half story.

2:37:57>> And like an attic,

2:37:58essentially.

2:37:59>> Correct, correct.

2:37:59>> Okay, my other question, and

2:38:02you've heard me talk about this

2:38:03in the past. I, I really I'm a

2:38:05big believer in townhouses as

2:38:08part of the future of

2:38:10development in our community,

2:38:12both because they are.

2:38:17Substantially cheaper to build.

2:38:18They offer some density, but

2:38:20not an insane amount of density.

2:38:24And they also offer home

2:38:25ownership opportunities. I'll

2:38:28also share that my mother lives

2:38:30in a townhouse, and I talked to

2:38:32my mom and her friends a lot,

2:38:34and their favorite part about

2:38:35living in a townhouse is not

2:38:37having a lawn to deal with. So

2:38:39I still don't really understand

2:38:41why we have as much. As much

2:38:47forced lot or as much forced

2:38:49lot coverage for townhouses as

2:38:50we do. Why? Why are we? If

2:38:53someone wants to build

2:38:54townhouses in a place where

2:38:55they're allowed to build

2:38:57townhouses, why do they have to

2:38:58have much of a lot much of a

2:39:02yard at all? I guess is the

2:39:03question I would ask. And I'm

2:39:05referencing the dimensional

2:39:06standards in table 4-1 again.

2:39:08>> Yeah. So I talked your

2:39:11points. Your question is a good

2:39:12one. I talked earlier about our

2:39:14residential districts retaining

2:39:15green space for all of the

2:39:17reasons that are outlined in

2:39:18the Sustainable Development

2:39:19section of the D, G, E, I s.

2:39:21And the fact of the matter is,

2:39:23you're of course right, there

2:39:24are people out there that don't

2:39:25want to maintain a don't want

2:39:27to maintain a lawn, but the

2:39:30need to deal with stormwater

2:39:32exists in the residential

2:39:33districts, regardless of use.

2:39:36Now, I would say that. Keep in

2:39:38mind that most townhouse

2:39:41developments also include back

2:39:44alleys for access or back

2:39:46parking areas with easements

2:39:48for access into either garages

2:39:50or parking hidden around back.

2:39:52And so sometimes the green

2:39:54space is through landscaping

2:39:56within that parking area, or

2:39:57sometimes the green space is a

2:39:59small gardened area out front.

2:40:01And I say all of this because I

2:40:03think there's abilities to meet

2:40:04it that are not in the form of

2:40:06a traditional lawn. But yes,

2:40:09they are retained as part of

2:40:10the residential district.

2:40:12>> And that is like, this is

2:40:16not I I'm I want to frame this

2:40:18question the right way. It is

2:40:20the administration's stance or

2:40:23philosophy that this framing of

2:40:25of dimensional standards, this

2:40:27coverage, you you wouldn't be

2:40:28proposing if you didn't think

2:40:29this was the right thing to do.

2:40:31And that's partially balancing

2:40:33things like stormwater

2:40:34management and how we

2:40:37appropriately build townhouses.

2:40:37That's a safe statement to make.

2:40:39>> Yeah, because it's in the

2:40:40code. Absolutely.

2:40:42>> So my last thing about

2:40:43townhouses are just, I, I

2:40:45really like Councilmember

2:40:46Leslie Smith. I appreciate the

2:40:47fact that that the, the minimum

2:40:50lot size has changed. I want to

2:40:52give kudos to the

2:40:53administration for putting that

2:40:55forward. I'm curious about some

2:41:00of the coverage requirements,

2:41:02though. So minimum, there's no

2:41:05minimum lot size, but in for

2:41:08one minimum lot frontage,

2:41:11particularly again for

2:41:13townhouses is 20ft per unit. So

2:41:17even though there's no minimum

2:41:18lot size, we. And that's on

2:41:19page 59. In the first the the.

2:41:23I'm just looking at MDR and HDR.

2:41:26Actually all three of them

2:41:29townhouses, 20ft per unit. So

2:41:31what that is essentially saying

2:41:32is even though there is no

2:41:34minimum lot size, a townhouse

2:41:36could not be built that is

2:41:38built that is narrower than

2:41:4020ft. Is that is that correct?

2:41:42>> That's not correct.

2:41:43>> Help me understand it then.

2:41:46>> So if you read this here,

2:41:48townhouses and single family

2:41:49attached, which are the same

2:41:50thing depending on how many

2:41:51units you have, it reads 20

2:41:53foot per unit for units

2:41:54abutting a public street. To

2:41:56achieve the total development

2:41:58frontage. Minimum individual

2:42:00unit widths, which is your

2:42:02question may vary. So in

2:42:04article 24.4 where that

2:42:06reference is, let's say you're

2:42:08building. You guys are going to

2:42:10watch me struggle through math

2:42:11here. Let's say you're building

2:42:12a townhouse development that is

2:42:15100ft wide. You don't have to

2:42:17have 520 foot wide townhouse

2:42:21units. You can have a 15 and

2:42:23then you can have a 22, and

2:42:25then you can have a 23 and then

2:42:28a 19. You only have to achieve

2:42:30the total minimum while varying

2:42:32within for each of the

2:42:34individual widths. Keeping also

2:42:36in mind that townhouse

2:42:38developments, depending on how

2:42:39many total structures are in a

2:42:41row, corn Hill is a good

2:42:43example of this. They create or

2:42:44they include access points to

2:42:47get like to the river, for

2:42:48example. So what ends up

2:42:50happening is you're you're

2:42:52doing a total development width

2:42:54that includes the walkways, the

2:42:57widths of the townhomes. Does

2:43:00that make sense?

2:43:04>> Ish?

2:43:05>> You can vary. We can get

2:43:07this to you in writing. I'll

2:43:08explain it. We will put it in

2:43:10writing, but you can vary the

2:43:12townhouse width just within the

2:43:16required total width based on

2:43:18how many units you're building.

2:43:19>> So if you have if you're

2:43:21building a townhouse

2:43:22development, you still have to

2:43:23get to 100ft of frontage. To

2:43:25your point, an individual

2:43:26townhouse can be, it can be

2:43:28smaller, but the average is

2:43:29going to have to be 20.

2:43:32>> No, because and I'll confirm

2:43:33this when I send it to you in

2:43:35writing, I believe it also

2:43:37includes walkways and access

2:43:38points, which are also part of

2:43:39developments of townhouse

2:43:40developments. So in that case,

2:43:41depending on how wide your

2:43:43walkway is, you could actually

2:43:44have narrower townhomes than

2:43:45okay, 20ft.

2:43:46>> I look forward to seeing it

2:43:47because I, I will.

2:43:49>> We will confirm this.

2:43:50>> I do think that that

2:43:51narrower townhouses are going

2:43:53to be a great opportunity to

2:43:56let more people buy homes in

2:43:59the city of Rochester. And to

2:44:00the extent that we can be

2:44:02encouraging that and not making

2:44:04it more challenging, the better,

2:44:06in my opinion. President

2:44:07Melendez.

2:44:07>> May I add one more thing to

2:44:09that council member? So as part

2:44:11of the development of this code,

2:44:12the City Planning Commission,

2:44:14other than making the

2:44:15recommendation, also served as

2:44:17a steering committee for us.

2:44:18There are at least one

2:44:19architect on there, and we went

2:44:21to them over the course of

2:44:23these last five, six, seven

2:44:24years with questions like this.

2:44:26And one of the things that the

2:44:27architect shared with us is

2:44:29narrower than 20ft for a

2:44:31townhome is doable, but it's

2:44:32getting more difficult because

2:44:34of stairwells. So once you

2:44:36incorporate the stairwell in

2:44:37there, depending how wide it is,

2:44:40and then if you're trying to

2:44:41build an accessible unit, there

2:44:42might be additional widths. So

2:44:44it was another consideration

2:44:47just in understanding where

2:44:48that provision came from.

2:44:49>> Yeah. And I believe that

2:44:51there's probably very it's it's

2:44:53unlikely that many people will

2:44:54want to build a much narrower

2:44:55than that. I just don't want to

2:44:57preclude it. Similar to not

2:44:58wanting to preclude the

2:45:00shipping containers,

2:45:01understanding that I also don't

2:45:02want people to just drop

2:45:03shipping containers in. And I

2:45:04understand that's the balance

2:45:05the code is trying to strike.

2:45:07I'm just trying to kind of put

2:45:09a little bit of, of, of

2:45:10friction on those words to

2:45:11figure out if there's a way to

2:45:13make it slightly more

2:45:14permissible. President Melendez.

2:45:16>> Yes. Thank you. Kind of

2:45:18poking around the map a little

2:45:20bit and thinking about recent

2:45:22projects in the last decade or

2:45:23so and how the new code might

2:45:26impact those types of projects.

2:45:27So I'm going to give you two

2:45:29examples. And I want to just

2:45:30kind of walk through them. One

2:45:32is the CSD Housing Project and

2:45:34the Craven Estates on Joseph

2:45:37and Clifford, which in the new

2:45:39zoning map would be a mixed.

2:45:42Actually, it would be a medium

2:45:44density. Whatever the new term

2:45:48is. Hang on. Yeah. Medium

2:45:52density residential, which my

2:45:54understanding, based on the

2:45:55conversation we're having,

2:45:56would have a two and a half

2:45:57story maximum on those

2:46:00properties. There's a five

2:46:03story building on that corner

2:46:04now, and the townhouses that

2:46:07exist are actually three

2:46:08stories. So there'll be above

2:46:09that two and a half maximum. So

2:46:11a project like that, which has

2:46:14provided high quality and

2:46:16affordable housing to that

2:46:17neighborhood would be

2:46:19prohibited, is my understanding,

2:46:21in this zone.

2:46:23>> So two things on that, that

2:46:26project would or received a

2:46:29series of land use board

2:46:30approvals in order to get it

2:46:31there. If it came in today, the

2:46:36process would actually be

2:46:37slightly easier for them. I can

2:46:38confirm this in writing. I

2:46:39don't want to give you a wrong

2:46:42information, of course, but

2:46:43generally speaking, it would

2:46:46still need a special permit for

2:46:48the use and the Planning

2:46:49Commission would need to waive

2:46:50that height requirement. So

2:46:51when you say it's prohibited,

2:46:53there's there's a relief valve,

2:46:55whether it be through the

2:46:55Planning Commission or.

2:46:56>> They would just go through

2:46:58the Planning commission process.

2:46:59Correct.

2:47:00>> It's not a hard no.

2:47:01>> Okay. Gotcha. So as of right,

2:47:03we're talking as of right, two

2:47:04and a half stories. If someone

2:47:06wanted a variance on that, they

2:47:08could go through the Planning

2:47:09commission just as any other

2:47:10project in the past.

2:47:11>> Yes, it either be a variance

2:47:13or a waiver from the Planning

2:47:14Commission, but either way, and

2:47:15that's where those boards

2:47:16review based on unique

2:47:17circumstances, right? Where the

2:47:18applicant has the ability to

2:47:19say, look, we understand the

2:47:21medium density district on a

2:47:22residential street is much

2:47:24different than the medium

2:47:25density residential district on

2:47:28a commercial corridor, like

2:47:29like Joseph Avenue. And so

2:47:31that's where the applicant has

2:47:32the ability to tell their story

2:47:33about the uniqueness of that

2:47:35and, and seek relief from the

2:47:37code.

2:47:38>> Got it. And I'm going to ask

2:47:40you this because you may know

2:47:41off the top of your head, but

2:47:43in flexible mixed use, what is

2:47:45the height maximums? Do you do

2:47:46you have that?

2:47:47>> I can look that up, but my

2:47:49commissioner just informed me

2:47:50that this is NMU for this. Edna

2:47:53Craven Estates. For the

2:47:57apartment building. The

2:47:58townhouses on. East of it are

2:48:03in MDR.

2:48:06>> Right. So the townhouses

2:48:07would. Yeah.

2:48:08>> Yep. So your the question.

2:48:09Yeah. Still the answer still

2:48:10remains. But there is a relief

2:48:12for that. And I am going to get

2:48:14you an answer to your question

2:48:15about FMU if you just bear.

2:48:17>> With me. And the reason I

2:48:18bring up FMU.

2:48:19>> On page 71.

2:48:20>> Got it. Thanks. Thanks,

2:48:21Mitch. Until you've poked

2:48:22around the book a little bit,

2:48:25the reason I bring it up is

2:48:26just thinking about projects

2:48:27like Tent City, where while we

2:48:30had a project and it was a

2:48:32conversion at first, now,

2:48:34because of the fire ends up

2:48:35being a new build and thinking

2:48:37about like the height

2:48:38requirements and trying to

2:48:39match the preexisting version

2:48:42of that building. Just want to

2:48:44get a sense in those districts

2:48:46what the heights are.

2:48:48>> Absolutely. So the maximum

2:48:50building height in FMU is six

2:48:52stories not to exceed 70ft. And

2:48:55that gives room for architects

2:48:57to design in a manner which

2:48:58there's, you know, a space

2:49:00between the, the roof of a or

2:49:01the top of a floor, I should

2:49:03say the bottom of the floor and

2:49:04the roof of the floor below.

2:49:06Got it. Thank you.

2:49:07>> Yep. That helps. I, I have

2:49:10questions on 11 but I will.

2:49:11>> Any other questions on 4 to

2:49:167. If not, we'll open it up to

2:49:17from 7 to 12 and just go down

2:49:22the line. Council member Leslie

2:49:23Smith. Oh no worries, President

2:49:27Melendez. Then we'll circle

2:49:28back to you. President Melendez.

2:49:30>> Yes. So I just have a few

2:49:32high level questions regarding

2:49:34urban renewal districts.

2:49:36Everyone's favorite thing,

2:49:38because we're agents of that.

2:49:42But I in terms of redevelopment

2:49:44of and and this could be in

2:49:45writing, not not for answering

2:49:47right now in terms of these

2:49:50designations, could we get a

2:49:52sense of when the urban renewal

2:49:55districts, the timelines for

2:49:56each of them, when they're

2:49:57going to end? I think there's

2:50:00one that maybe either ended or

2:50:02is close to ending, and what

2:50:04the process is for renewing

2:50:06those. And then similarly in

2:50:10writing, please, from a zoning

2:50:13perspective, if there's any, I

2:50:15guess, regulations or things

2:50:17that might prevent development

2:50:19of or hindrances to development

2:50:21in urban renewal districts that

2:50:22are different than the rest of

2:50:24the zoning code. If, if we can

2:50:26get a sense of some of the

2:50:28roadblocks, some of the

2:50:29barriers, some of the rules and

2:50:30regulations, I know they vary

2:50:31based on each district, sure,

2:50:33per se, based on the

2:50:34requirements of the district,

2:50:35but it would be helpful for us

2:50:37to understand in in the new

2:50:38code and thinking about the

2:50:39future of urban renewal

2:50:42districts where we want to go

2:50:43as a council.

2:50:45>> Yeah, those are all great

2:50:45questions and we can easily get

2:50:47you that information.

2:50:49>> Councilmember Leslie Smith,

2:50:51we're on all the way. Anything

2:50:52from now from the beginning to

2:50:5412.

2:50:55>> Oh, I see okay, great.

2:50:57>> But 7 to 11, 7 to 12 is the

2:51:00focus right now.

2:51:00>> Okay. Well, I really want to

2:51:03know, could an overlay district

2:51:06be used to carry out like a

2:51:07resident led comprehensive plan

2:51:11into zoning?

2:51:15>> The the quick answer to your

2:51:16question is yes. So it would

2:51:18have to be initiated. I will

2:51:19get back to you in writing who

2:51:21it has to be. There has to be

2:51:23an initiator of it city Council,

2:51:25the administration, something

2:51:25like that. But there is an

2:51:27ability to use overlays within

2:51:29a legal context. Of course, to

2:51:32create certain things. Yes.

2:51:35>> Okay. So maybe maybe that's

2:51:38that's. When you're saying it

2:51:41has to be an initiator. So a

2:51:43neighborhood group like the

2:51:46neighborhood plan, as an

2:51:47example, was initiated by

2:51:49neighbors, not necessarily by

2:51:50the municipality. So that could

2:51:53not be utilized as an overlay

2:51:57district. They would have to

2:51:58get the support of council or

2:52:01the administration to do that.

2:52:03>> Give me one second. I want

2:52:06to answer your question right

2:52:07now.

2:52:16>> So amendments.

2:52:20>> Proposal may be made by

2:52:22either the mayor, the City

2:52:23Council, the Planning

2:52:24Commission, the zoning Board or

2:52:25the pres board by transmitting

2:52:27the proposal into our office.

2:52:30So those would be the options.

2:52:32I want to touch on what you

2:52:33just said because that's a

2:52:35great example. There are

2:52:36absolutely neighborhood plans

2:52:38that exist throughout the city

2:52:40that correspond with

2:52:42development proposals. And if

2:52:44someone doesn't do an overlay

2:52:46like what's being talked about

2:52:48here, we have and done

2:52:49everything we can to work with

2:52:51the group to get them through

2:52:52the process, sort of shepherd

2:52:54them through it and they can

2:52:56they've told our land use

2:52:57boards, right? Like we

2:52:58understand this doesn't meet

2:52:59the code, but it's based on

2:53:00this plan. And I don't in large

2:53:03scale know of any issues with

2:53:04that. And that's how we've

2:53:06handled them to this point.

2:53:07>> And for neighborhoods that

2:53:09do have a comprehensive

2:53:10neighborhood plan, is there a

2:53:13process for zoning or any of

2:53:16the planning boards for

2:53:18notifying those community

2:53:19groups when development is

2:53:21going to be taking place in

2:53:22their community?

2:53:23>> It would only be if it needs

2:53:26a deviation from the code. So

2:53:27if it's as of right development,

2:53:29there would not be public

2:53:31notification. If there is a

2:53:31need to go to the zoning board

2:53:33or the planning commission or

2:53:34get some sort of special

2:53:36approval, that's the point

2:53:37where the public notification

2:53:38would come into play.

2:53:39>> Got it. Thank you.

2:53:40>> 7 to 11 Council Member

2:53:41Martin, 7 to 12. Pardon me.

2:53:49>> So this is not within 7 to

2:53:5212. It's from questions earlier.

2:53:53I wanted to go back to the cost

2:53:57of mailing to residents in

2:54:00writing. Can you provide how

2:54:02much it costs now? And if we

2:54:04were to expand to mailing to

2:54:08tenants, not homeowners, how

2:54:09much do you think it'll cost?

2:54:11And I think we may need some

2:54:13assistance from other

2:54:14departments, because I'd want

2:54:15to see what it costs right now

2:54:17for human resources to mail out

2:54:22there, sorry, the Recreation

2:54:24Department to mail out their

2:54:25summer guide and just compare

2:54:27all of it.

2:54:28>> Yeah, we can get that for

2:54:29you.

2:54:29>> I think. And also on the

2:54:33short term rental, since we

2:54:35will be talking about it more

2:54:37in depth tomorrow, I would like

2:54:39to hear just advance notice.

2:54:41Any ideas you have around, how

2:54:43long it'll take for us to start

2:54:46to get a proposal from the

2:54:48administration, and just

2:54:49generally, what timelines we

2:54:50can expect for the separate

2:54:52plan. Thank you.

2:54:55>> Council Member Monroe.

2:54:58>> I'll have the balance of my

2:54:59questions tomorrow.

2:55:01>> Council member Patterson,

2:55:03Council member. Smith. Okay, I,

2:55:08I have one one other 1 or 2

2:55:11other questions that I just

2:55:12didn't get a chance to guess.

2:55:14>> Just real quick on, on

2:55:15Council member Martin's

2:55:16question about STRs. So the the

2:55:19administration's STR proposal

2:55:20is public and it is, is, is

2:55:22with you guys. It's it's on the

2:55:24website. It was released in

2:55:25April. So it is there to be

2:55:28reviewed.

2:55:29>> So answer that quickly. So

2:55:31we in a letter sent to us by

2:55:33the administration, it it was

2:55:36more in the vein of what I'm

2:55:37saying that we'll be updated of

2:55:41when a new proposed plan would

2:55:42be given. So two things can be

2:55:45true.

2:55:45>> Yeah. So the the proposal is

2:55:47there. The question is it. But

2:55:49it's not. The legislation

2:55:50hasn't been brought before you.

2:55:51Right. But the proposal is. So

2:55:53we'll touch on that tomorrow.

2:55:55>> Yeah, I think I think

2:55:56there's there's a whole bunch

2:55:57of clearing up to do about next

2:56:01steps. I think both the Y STRs

2:56:03are not in the current proposal

2:56:05and next steps on what happens

2:56:08with STRs. Both if this

2:56:13proposal is adopted as is or

2:56:15with small amendments, and if

2:56:17there was an appetite by

2:56:18council to try to weave STRs

2:56:20into the current plan. I think

2:56:22that's what what folks need to

2:56:24hear tomorrow. At some point, I

2:56:27have 1 or 2 last questions, and

2:56:29then I'll just turn it to

2:56:31anyone else. If they have any

2:56:32last pressing questions on

2:56:33these matters. The this is back

2:56:38to the use table. Commercial

2:56:39uses indoor. So there is now a

2:56:43requirement for a business

2:56:45permit, right? AM I am I

2:56:47correct about that.

2:56:48>> For certain businesses? Yes.

2:56:50That's outlined in chapter 90.

2:56:51>> Including like restaurants

2:56:52and bars.

2:56:55>> Correct.

2:56:56>> So everyone does that mean

2:56:58that any restaurant or bar that

2:56:59exists right now when this code

2:57:02is adopted, will have to then

2:57:04apply for a business permit if

2:57:07they like?

2:57:08>> No.

2:57:08>> It does not mean.

2:57:10>> That, no, the requirements

2:57:11for a business permit, which

2:57:13are part of chapter 90, are not

2:57:15changing. The reference to

2:57:16chapter 90 in this code would

2:57:19be for new establishments. As

2:57:20part of that, special

2:57:22considerations like if a

2:57:23restaurant wants to open in

2:57:26like a non residential zoning

2:57:27district, and if it's a special

2:57:29use permit, if a business

2:57:31permit is required, they would

2:57:32go for the special use permit

2:57:34and then secure their business

2:57:35permit. But there's no change

2:57:37to existing businesses with

2:57:39regard to who needs a business

2:57:40permit.

2:57:41>> And no change on the

2:57:42sequencing. They would still be

2:57:43able to go do all of their work

2:57:45to get approved before actually

2:57:47sitting down to get the

2:57:48business permit.

2:57:48>> That is correct.

2:57:49>> Okay. Thank you. And my, I

2:57:53think my last this is just a

2:57:55comment. I've talked to a bunch

2:57:57of people about the pocket

2:57:58neighborhood proposal, people

2:58:00who I think really like the

2:58:03concept and like the idea, and

2:58:06felt that there were a couple

2:58:08of reasons for that. The

2:58:09dimensions. I think this is a

2:58:10little bit. As a council member,

2:58:12Monroe's question earlier, the

2:58:14dimensions are not necessarily

2:58:15going to work for something

2:58:16that's not like the the tiny

2:58:17house village you talked about.

2:58:19I just want to hear from the

2:58:20administration. I mean, you you

2:58:22spend the time scoping this out.

2:58:24I it's great. I have no I have

2:58:26no arguments with how it's

2:58:27scoped at the moment because I

2:58:28don't know. But if in three

2:58:30years there's not a single

2:58:32proposal for the pocket

2:58:34neighborhood development, is

2:58:37that going to trigger something

2:58:39to say? How do we go solicit

2:58:42these or just kind of sits

2:58:43there without anyone doing it?

2:58:46>> Yeah. So I mean, that's like

2:58:47with anything, right? With the

2:58:49administration or council can

2:58:50initiate, a man can initiate

2:58:52amendment and say, wow, this is

2:58:55not working. It's, it's usually

2:58:57comes from proposals that we

2:58:59get right. So if we're meeting

2:59:00with potential property

2:59:03developers or applicants or

2:59:04owners and they're like one

2:59:06after another, they can't meet

2:59:07this one requirement. That

2:59:10should be probably a text

2:59:12amendment.

2:59:12>> And your office will be

2:59:13trying to encourage people who

2:59:14are on the verge of being a

2:59:16pocket neighborhood, say like,

2:59:17hey, you should consider this

2:59:18type of development and you'll

2:59:20kind of get the data of why it

2:59:21does or doesn't work.

2:59:23>> Yeah, absolutely. I mean,

2:59:24when the Edgerton project came

2:59:25in, it was like, wow, this is

2:59:27exactly or somewhat what we're

2:59:28trying to create here. We just

2:59:30don't have a code adopted. So

2:59:31we had to send it through a

2:59:33much more restrictive process.

2:59:35I will also add the pocket

2:59:36neighborhood residential

2:59:37development. We did rely a fair

2:59:40bit on our consultant for this,

2:59:41because this has been used in

2:59:44other municipalities. The way I

2:59:46understand it, based on what

2:59:47our consultant shared. And so

2:59:50they, based on conversations

2:59:51with us, thought that the

2:59:53dimensional requirements that

2:59:54exist within it are reasonable.

2:59:57And that's how that landed.

2:59:59>> Got it. Any last questions

3:00:01tonight on anything really

3:00:04between article one and article

3:00:0612? Councilmember Leslie Smith?

3:00:12>> I did just want to ask about

3:00:14community gardens and whether

3:00:16or not permanent fixtures would

3:00:18be allowed, like the planting

3:00:21of fruit trees and things like

3:00:22that. And if there is an

3:00:26appetite to get rid of the

3:00:28permitting process and or the

3:00:30annual process of renewing a

3:00:33lease for whoever is managing

3:00:35that community garden.

3:00:37>> So to your first point, we

3:00:38will get back to you in writing.

3:00:40I do not believe that's an

3:00:42issue in terms of planting of

3:00:43things. As far as the second

3:00:45question about the permitting

3:00:46process, it's my understanding

3:00:48that the city's real estate

3:00:50division does a permitting

3:00:51process for city owned land. So

3:00:55that's a question that we would

3:00:56run through our division of

3:00:58real estate. I suspect there

3:00:59are legal implications to

3:01:02people using city owned land

3:01:03for certain purposes, but we

3:01:04can confirm that for you. It's

3:01:07going through dries now. Thank

3:01:09you, Commissioner Frisch. And

3:01:11the the other piece I was going

3:01:13to say is that what we don't

3:01:15currently have an easy ability

3:01:17to do now is the community

3:01:19gardens that are not city owned.

3:01:21That's why this proposed code

3:01:22looks at taking those on that

3:01:24when they're not city owned.

3:01:27>> Okay. Thank you all very

3:01:28much. That will conclude our

3:01:30first night of hearings. We'll

3:01:31pick up tomorrow at 5:00 sharp

3:01:32with article 13. Thank you very

3:01:34much. Appreciate it.

3:01:35>> Thank you Council, I

3:01:37appreciate it.

```*