2026-10-06 - City Plan Commission

08:46We're starting the meeting of the uh

08:48call to order of the city plan

08:49commission at 6 35.

08:53Um first thing I'd like to do is uh some

08:56of some of people here uh on the

08:59commission have worked with Mayor Fun in

09:00the past and some of us probably know

09:03his mother passed away. So I just want

09:05to have a quick moment of silence in

09:07memory of uh Mayor Fun's mother.

09:15Okay, thank you. Um, next order, next

09:19item on the agenda is the approval of

09:20minutes of September 1st, 2026. Are

09:23there any edits or discussion to the

09:25minutes?

09:28I see none. A motion to approve would be

09:30in order. Made by Commissioner Lanier,

09:33second by uh Commissioner Coupe. Any

09:35further discussion? All those in favor

09:37signify by saying I. All those oppose

09:39say nay. Uh eyes have it and

09:42Commissioner Barbari abstained.

09:47Next we have Kelly Platt. Is the

09:48applicant here and wishes to be heard on

09:50Kelly Platt.

10:17Good evening. Um,

10:19Mr. President, members of the planning

10:20commission. As you know, for the record,

10:23my name is Robert Murray. I'm an

10:24attorney with offices at 21 Garden City

10:27Drive in Cranston. I'm here tonight with

10:30uh to my right Patrick uh and Lauren

10:34Godfrey Kelly. uh they are the owners of

10:36the property at 17 Butler Street and

10:39they are the applicants for those

10:42subdivision uh that's before you.

10:46We know that the staff has already

10:47reviewed this for you, but uh with your

10:50permission, I'll just give a brief

10:52overview and try and answer any

10:54questions. Um the Kelly's own probably

10:58one of the larger lots on Butler Street.

11:01Um

11:03it is a uh wellestablished uh home. Um

11:08depicted on the zoning map there, you

11:10can see it outlined in red. You can see

11:11that it it's a combination of multiple

11:15uh record lots that they have owned

11:18since I believe 2021.

11:21Uh the proposal that's before you this

11:23evening is to uh

11:26create a small subdivision off the

11:29existing lot, retain the existing house

11:32where they reside

11:34and build a a new single family home.

11:38There is an existing

11:40garage uh shed on the portion that we'd

11:44like to uh

11:47create and that would be removed

11:49obviously. Uh uh this this property is

11:53in a B1 zone. Uh single family homes are

11:56a permitted use obviously. Uh the

11:59minimum lot size in a B1 zone is 6,000

12:02square feet uh and a requirement of 60

12:05ft of frontage.

12:07The lots as depicted on the uh plan

12:13would leave the existing house uh a

12:16approximately 12,393

12:19square foot lot uh and create a new lot

12:23um of slightly more than 5100 square

12:26feet. So in the first instance, we'd ask

12:29under the unified development

12:31regulations that uh consider granting a

12:34variance for the uh square footage of

12:38parcel B. Uh and that would be 893

12:43square feet of relief. And then as

12:46depicted on that plan before you, the

12:49proposed frontage uh would be slightly

12:53over 53 feet. So we need about 6.64 64

12:57feet of [clears throat] uh street

12:59frontage. Um obviously the existing

13:02house would retain its uh conformity in

13:06terms of area and frontage. Uh the new

13:09lot can be serviced by public water and

13:11sewer and we've provided those

13:14availability letters from Providence

13:15Water and uh

13:18the city of Cranston.

13:20The

13:24there is uh on the plan uh an area

13:27described as sidewalk uh which uh if you

13:31look in the staff report they have a

13:32picture of the frontage. Uh it's a grass

13:35area. It is not a sidewalk in the

13:38traditional sense of concrete or

13:40asphalt. Uh there are no established

13:43sidewalks on Butler Street. So, as part

13:46of our request, we'd ask that uh we

13:49would certainly retain the curving, but

13:51we not be required to formally install

13:55sidewalks where uh it would be the only

13:58lots um on that portion of Butler Street

14:01that have sidewalks. Um the

14:07under our subdivision regulations, so I

14:10believe we meet the requirements as far

14:13as access accessibility to a street. Uh

14:16we'd have a buildable lot if the zoning

14:19relief were granted. Uh and this would

14:22be an opportunity to provide an

14:23additional unit of single family

14:26housing.

14:28The Kelly's are happy to answer any

14:30questions, but uh

14:34That is in in short form what we're

14:38trying to do.

14:40>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Are there

14:42any questions for the applicant from the

14:44commissioners?

14:48Okay. Um,

14:52just make sure I'm I'm reading this just

14:54make sure. Single family home. Now, you

14:57want to build a new single family home,

14:58right?

14:58>> Correct. Um, any plans to turn that what

15:02the new single family home into a two

15:03family? None at all. Okay. Um, one last

15:09question for the applicant. Maybe the

15:10staff knows. I noticed that there was no

15:13comment from the traffic guy, Mr.

15:15Mohavey. Is that common that we would

15:18not get any sort of comments from him

15:20one way or another on a project like

15:22this?

15:22>> I can't speak to his normal practice. My

15:25experience is on something like this

15:26where it's a side street. It's not a

15:28major arterial.

15:29>> That's what I thought.

15:30>> Um, one additional curb cut in this area

15:33I don't think will impact. It's a Butler

15:36Street is not a heavily traveled road

15:38and I don't think this rose to the level

15:40where he'd have any concerns or

15:42questions, but I'll defer to Mr. Korea.

15:44>> None. Okay,

15:46>> that is correct.

15:49>> Okay. Just wanted to make sure I didn't

15:51see anything. Anything from anyone else

15:53before we turn over to the staff?

15:56Okay, staff, go ahead.

15:58>> Thank you. On assessor's plot 11, lot

16:01559,

16:03this is a proposal for a new single

16:05family dwelling as explained by attorney

16:08Murray. Um, I will just continue on with

16:10the staff analysis from this point in

16:12the presentation.

16:14Uh, we see consistency with the

16:16comprehensive plan per uh, housing goal

16:192 and housing policies 1, three, and

16:23six, which are outlined in the staff

16:24memo.

16:26Additionally, this proposal is

16:28consistent with the future land use of

16:30single to two family residential less

16:32than 10.89 units per acre. The resulting

16:35density will be 4.98 units per acre,

16:39which is obviously within the flum. The

16:42200 ft radius as well as the

16:44neighborhood zone density will also

16:46remain within the limit set by the

16:48future land use map. And overall, this

16:51project is conforming and mostly

16:54conforming and consistent with the comp

16:56plan, zoning ordinance, and future land

16:58use map.

17:01Here are some numbers that are based on

17:03the consistency with the surrounding

17:05area. All of these numbers do not

17:08include the subject lot. So, it's just

17:10kind of gathering an understanding of

17:12the surrounding lots.

17:14um showing you the parcel density um

17:19existing and proposed as as well as on

17:21the bottom the 200 foot res uh radius

17:24density and the neighborhood density all

17:26existing and proposed. And then also

17:28included on the side there to the right

17:30is the chart of the variances they are

17:33requesting for lot frontage and lot

17:34size.

17:38Overall staff finds this proposal

17:40consistent and therefore recommends that

17:43the city plan commission adopt the

17:44findings of fact outlined within the

17:47staff memo and approve the unified

17:48development review of the subdivision

17:50where parcel B will be granted the

17:54variance to allow 53 ft of street fun

17:56frontage where 60 is required and a 5100

18:00ft lot where 6,000 is required.

18:04There are no conditions set on this

18:05application or a recommended

18:08recommendation as the sewer availability

18:10letter was provided on 102. And I will

18:14also add that um this the applicant is

18:17requesting again the sidewalk waiver not

18:19the curving. Curving is proposed

18:22sidewalks to be waved.

18:26>> Okay. Thank you. Is there any questions

18:28for uh the staff from the commissioners?

18:32Okay.

18:33Seeing none, we'll do public comment

18:35now. Is there anyone here who would like

18:37to be heard on this matter? Please come

18:39forward.

18:43Okay. See none, Mr. Lemur, is there

18:45anyone online that would like to comment

18:46on this matter?

18:49>> There is no public comment online. Okay.

18:51Thank you. All right. Um, last

18:54[clears throat] chance for any of the

18:55commissioners that would like to talk

18:56about this, ask any questions of anyone

18:58on this matter.

19:01Okay. Uh, Solicer Marcelo, my

19:04understanding is this is a two motion um

19:08application. We have to do first approve

19:10if we're going to vote in the

19:12affirmative uh vote to grant the

19:14variance as in uh consistent with the

19:16staff recommendation and then grant the

19:18subdivision consistent with the staff

19:20recommendation along with the grant of

19:22the waiver of the sidewalk request. Is

19:25that correct?

19:26>> Correct.

19:27>> Correct. Okay. Thank you.

19:28>> Yeah. The the waiver comes with the

19:30subdivision.

19:31>> That's right. Yeah, that's why I was

19:32doing that way. Okay, now is the time

19:35for any questions or discussion.

19:42>> Commissioner Coupe.

19:47>> Okay. Commission, a motion made by

19:49Commissioner Coupe, seconded by Comm.

19:52Any discussion?

19:54Seeing none, all those in favor signify

19:56by saying I.

19:58>> Those oppose say nay. Eyes have it.

20:00Second motion, Commissioner Coupe.

20:08>> Okay. Seconded by um motion made by

20:10Commissioner Coupe, seconded by

20:11Commissioner Barberry. Any further

20:13discussion? Seeing none, all those in

20:15favor signify by saying I. All those

20:18post say nay. Eyes have it.

20:20Congratulations. It was that painless.

20:26>> That's what happens when you follow the

20:27density. It's really fast.

20:30>> [laughter]

20:34>> Um, next on the agenda

20:38is

20:41McDonald property.

20:44Is the applicant here and wishes to be

20:46heard on the matter?

20:48>> That's fine. We don't need

20:50>> If they all want to come up and speak,

20:52that's fine.

20:52>> They're all here.

20:54>> Okay.

20:57Um

20:59again, Robert Murray for the uh owners

21:02and applicants. Um with me this evening

21:05are the owners of the property that

21:07presently constitutes 32 Hoffman Avenue.

21:10Uh we have Angela and Kyle McDonald,

21:15Michael and Sandra Bur

21:19couple own interest in the property. Uh,

21:24and we're here tonight for a piece of

21:27property on Hoffman Avenue,

21:31the Glenn Hill School area.

21:34Members of the commission may be

21:35familiar with it. Um,

21:38the Berts and the McDonald's acquired

21:41this property several months ago with

21:43the intention of seeking a subdivision.

21:46Uh, you can see the property depicted on

21:49the, uh, plan before you. Uh it is

21:54slightly over 16,000 square foot lot.

21:57This is an A8 zone where the minimum lot

22:00size is 8 required to be 8,000 square ft

22:04and um 80 ft of frontage.

22:09There is an existing house that has been

22:11there for a number of years. Uh they

22:14bought this property from the Nolan

22:16estate. uh their intention would be to

22:19remove the the dwelling. Uh they're

22:22working on that right now and I believe

22:24there's a small shed on it that will

22:25also be removed. This is a rather unique

22:28property because it has front and forth

22:30on Hoffman Avenue on one side and then

22:33to the it extends to the rear of the

22:35property which uh is Melody Lane. So,

22:41we are looking to create two lots, both

22:44that would meet the area requirements of

22:478,000 square feet. One would be slightly

22:49over. You can see parcel A and parcel B

22:51there depicted. Uh these these lots

22:54would be used to develop single family

22:57homes. And uh

23:00the reason we're here tonight uh under

23:03unified development is because um these

23:06lots only have 75 ft of frontage where

23:0980 feet is required. So one is slightly

23:13over 75 [snorts] ft but in essence both

23:16are looking for five feet of frontage

23:19relief. That's the only relief that's

23:21being sought. Uh and um obviously the

23:26existing house that is being removed has

23:29public water and sewer available to it.

23:32Uh the help of Mr. Caro Province Water,

23:35we've provided letters of availability

23:37for both uh structures, but particularly

23:40Melody Lane

23:43because that would be a new new home

23:46fronting on Melody Lane. the um

23:51as part of our submission, we did ask on

23:55both streets that sidewalks be uh a

23:58waiver be granted for sidewalks. Very

24:01familiar with Hoffman Avenue. There are

24:02no existing sidewalks. It's all grass

24:05along the frontage of those properties

24:06along Hoffman and Melody Lane is a

24:09relative that area of Melody Lane. While

24:12it's been established a long time, there

24:14are several new homes in that area, but

24:16there are no sidewalks on Melody Lane

24:19that the opposite side of Melody Lane,

24:22those those houses back up to the myriad

24:26of condominiums along Hoffman Avenue

24:29there. Um, this uh is pretty

24:33straightforward because

24:36uh either since they acquired it uh and

24:40I've looked at the title records um

24:43these lots have always had 75 ft of

24:45frontage um and uh they were a series of

24:49record lots and prior ownership uh

24:52picked up one half of the adjoining lot.

24:55So they they had 50 feet and 25 ft. Uh

24:59and that's how these lots were created,

25:01but neither the Berts or the McDonald's

25:04have done anything to alter the frontage

25:06of this since they acquired it. They

25:08have no intention to. And like I said,

25:11single family homes are allowed and uh

25:14it's merely the street frontage that

25:16we're asking for. Uh I want to note for

25:18the record that in the public works

25:21department's recommendation for sewers

25:23on Melody Lane uh that that is a

25:26relatively new street being paved. Uh I

25:29think in 2022 Mr. Caro stipulated that

25:33that would require

25:38curb to curb paving. Uh we obviously

25:41would honor that. Uh we understand that.

25:44Uh that was the only uh condition that

25:47came to our attention through the review

25:49process.

25:53Dad, I'd be happy to answer any

25:54questions or have the Berts or

25:56McDonald's answer.

25:58>> Thank you. Is there any questions for

26:00the applicant?

26:03Here's a quick thing. I know that the

26:05issue is the sewer on Malady Lane and I

26:08think there's a couple of options. Have

26:09you guys kind of figured out what option

26:10you're likely to pursue?

26:14Um well we have uh Angela's uh father

26:18here who was a builder but um the when

26:22you say options we had one option we

26:25looked at is possibly bringing it in

26:26from Avenue.

26:27>> That's right.

26:28>> Um that would have required some type of

26:30easement. Um if as you know under our

26:34regulations if they opted for that then

26:38our we'd have to take that out of the

26:40developable land area formula

26:44>> um and then we'd be you know we'd be

26:46asking for relief for that. So presently

26:50we're

26:52option of Melody Lane. It is our su are

26:55in Melody Lane. It's just a question

26:56extending right. So

26:59>> that appears to be the option we're

27:00facing. Okay, that's what I wanted to

27:02understand. Um, okay.

27:06Any other questions for the applicant?

27:10>> The only thing I did miss, they did not

27:12ask for a side for a curbing waiver.

27:14Correct. Because we will be putting

27:15curbing in front on both sides.

27:17>> Yes.

27:18>> So, so we're all clear. What is the

27:20waiver you're requesting? Mr. Murray,

27:22come to the microphone.

27:24>> Sidewalks.

27:25>> Sidewalks is the only thing he's asking

27:27for a waiver from. Okay. Anything else

27:30for Mr. Murray?

27:32Okay, we'll turn it over to staff. Staff

27:36pres, please present your make your

27:37presentation.

27:38>> Okay, thank you for assessor's plat 16

27:41lot 169. I will continue the

27:43presentation for 32 Hoffman A from this

27:45point. Certainly let me know if you want

27:47to go back to any previous slides. Um we

27:50have the two proposed lots here on the

27:53screen conforming in lot size just the

27:55five foot uh relief for a frontage

27:58consistent with multiple goals and

28:00policies within the comprehensive plan

28:02as outlined in the staff memo. Again uh

28:05consistent with the future land use map.

28:07This proposed this proposal is uh yields

28:10a 5.4 4 uh unit per acre density,

28:15200 foot radius and um larger

28:18neighborhood zone density are unaffected

28:21and still remain within the slum. Mostly

28:24conforming and consistent lots.

28:27Um actually creating more conforming

28:29lots rather than the 16,000 square foot

28:32that exists now. Uh some

28:36um numbers here just to kind of wrap up

28:38the surrounding area.

28:41Um, I didn't focus too much on density

28:42since the density is conforming with the

28:46conforming lot sizes, but in the table

28:48there just outlining again the

28:49variances.

28:51And overall, staff finds this proposal

28:53to be consistent with the comp plan,

28:55zoning ordinance, and uh, required

28:57findings of fact and therefore

28:58recommends that the city plan commission

29:00adopt the findings of fact documented in

29:02the staff memo and approve the unified

29:04development review of the subdivision.

29:07um variances on parcel A to be 5 ft of

29:10relief for frontage and parcel B 4.88 ft

29:14of relief. No conditions on this on this

29:17recommendation

29:18as sewer availability letter was

29:20provided.

29:23Any questions for the staff?

29:27I just have a couple questions, Miss

29:28Valor. Um versus I think this is a

29:32typographical thing. On page eight of

29:34your report, you say, "The proposal

29:35intends to subdivide an existing

29:37oversized lot to create one new lot

29:38within a B1 zone." I assume that's a

29:40typo. Should be A8, right?

29:46>> Oh, yes. Thank you.

29:48>> Okay. Um the next bullet point, could

29:50you just explain to me the proposed

29:52frontages representing a a reduction?

29:55Both fall would in the zero to 25% range

29:58could have been addressed for

29:59administrative zoning modification

30:01without ZBR

30:03following applicable administrative

30:04subdivision review. What is what are you

30:06trying to get at here? Uh yeah, I just

30:08wanted I just wanted to um kind of help

30:14us understand the variances that are

30:17before us and

30:20how they're actually qualifying for

30:23modifications. So any dimensional

30:25standard uh you know in our in our uh

30:28>> that it's pretty much a routine kind of

30:31change. The modification that they're

30:34requesting is not that significant.

30:36>> Not that significant. Okay. Correct.

30:37>> All right. Um, last one is on your last

30:41page, condition of approval. Um, it says

30:44here, submission of a sewer plan

30:47um to demonstrate proposed method of

30:49providing sanitary sewer service um

30:52prior to recording a final plan.

30:54Wouldn't we still want to have that

30:55condition?

30:57>> Well, a preliminary plan requires

31:00availability. So,

31:03what that's what we have. We have the

31:05letter of sewer availability which is

31:07what we have for every other project. So

31:10to make this one go above the standard

31:12that we hold to other applications I

31:15>> Okay. So it has sewer availability

31:16because it's either going to come from

31:18Hoffman or they're going to extend it

31:19from Melody, right?

31:20>> And um the sewer availability letter

31:22states that um Melody is sufficient for

31:25the sewer main extension. So

31:27>> okay.

31:29All right.

31:30just because it wasn't ob like when I

31:32look at the map it's not particularly

31:33obvious um because it have looked like

31:36to me you're likely going to have to

31:37extend so I just wanted to see if that

31:40was um any kind of a thing but it's not

31:43an issue it's not an issue um any

31:45questions more for staff

31:48okay we will now do public comment is

31:51there anyone here would like to be heard

31:52on this project please come forward your

31:55name and address evening my name is Jeff

31:57Goldweight GT hi I reside at 27 Hoffman

32:02in our city. Um I am a diagonal neighbor

32:05of the proposed property at 32 32

32:08Hoffman out and I am here to speak in

32:12support of this variant and subdivision

32:15and ask for your approval. Thank you.

32:19>> Could you repeat what you just said?

32:22[laughter]

32:27Anyone else here would like to make

32:29public comment?

32:32See none.

32:34Uh, anyone online like make public

32:36comment on this application?

32:38>> There is no public comment online.

32:40>> Okay. Thank you. Are there any further

32:43questions from my fellow colleagues um

32:46to the applicant or to the staff?

32:49>> Mr. Murray, do you have something you

32:50want to say? Because you're doing

32:51something with a finger to me.

32:54Just uh first of all I want to thank my

32:55cousin for coming tonight. The um the um

33:00I just want to note for the record we

33:02have provided already to the uh public

33:04works department a proposed sewer main

33:07connection plan. Okay. Prepared by Domo

33:09Engineering. So um you know we're we've

33:12we went beyond that and just getting an

33:14availability letter. We've already

33:16designed the source.

33:18>> Okay. Thank you.

33:19>> Thank you.

33:21>> All right. It's my understanding if the

33:23solicitor will correct me unless anyone

33:25has any further questions or comments.

33:27Um that this is a again a two motion

33:29application. Uh first motion is to grant

33:32the variance uh consistent with the

33:34staff recommendation and the second is

33:36to um grant the subdivision consistent

33:39with the staff recommendation with a

33:41waiver of the sidewalk.

33:43Does that sound correct to you,

33:45solicitor? That does. Okay. All right.

33:48Now it's time for motions. Motion. make

33:51a motion to approve the recommendations.

33:55>> Commissioner Barbari makes a motion to

33:57approve the variance request consistent

33:59with the staff recommendation. Seconded

34:01by Commissioner Carrero. Um any

34:03discussion? All those in favor signify

34:05by saying I.

34:07>> Those oppos say nay. Eyes have it.

34:09Second recommend second motion.

34:14Okay. Go ahead.

34:20Okay. Uh motion to uh Mr. Commissioner

34:23Barbar's made a motion to approve the

34:25subdivision uh with a waiver of the

34:27sidewalk. Is there a second to that

34:29motion? Seconded by Commissioner

34:30Mancini. Any further discussion? Seeing

34:33none, all those in favor signify by

34:34saying I.

34:36>> Those oppos say nay. Eyes have it.

34:38Congratulations. Have a nice evening.

34:50That's right. Okay. So, right now, um,

34:54solicitor, I think Mr. Gary, he is here.

34:58>> Mr. Gar, would you like to do the zoning

35:00board stuff out? Get it out of the way

35:01so you can go home.

35:04>> Okay. So, what so everybody at home

35:05knows what we're doing. We're going to

35:07do the zoning board recommendations and

35:09then we're going to do the state law

35:11ordinance and subdivision and then the

35:13last will be the mixeduse corridor.

35:15Okay. So everybody knows what's going

35:17on. So let's flip it to Philippi

35:22zoning board recommendation to Philippi

35:24left year and Torres application for

35:27Maplewood A 118 and zero. Maplewood a is

35:30the applicant here and wishes to be

35:31heard on the matter. Mr. President John

35:34Garing on behalf of the applicant or

35:36maybe I should say Robert Murray, but

35:39[laughter]

35:44>> whenever you're ready.

35:47>> So, Mr. President, members of the

35:48commission, uh this is an application.

35:50There's actually two in one. This is

35:53zero Maplewood Avenue and 118 uh

35:56Maplewood Avenue. Uh uh we were uh

36:00scheduled for the zoning board at last

36:02month's hearing when we were here um

36:05with this presentation for you at last

36:07month. At the time um we were requesting

36:11a a two family dwelling on the vacant

36:15lot with the existing three family

36:16dwelling. The application has been

36:19amended now to only request a one family

36:23dwelling on the vacant lot with the one

36:25f family remaining. If you recall, the

36:28lot uh is a total of 10,000 square feet.

36:32There are two 5,000 square foot lots. Um

36:36the three family is built on the 10,000

36:39foot lot and therefore the two lots have

36:41merged by operation of law. We are

36:43asking for a variance from that

36:45requirement in order to construct this

36:48single family on the um

36:51substandard 5,000 square foot lot next

36:54to it.

36:56When I was here last September,

36:59um, Commissioner Lampere, I believe it

37:01was, asked me why we have to build two

37:03family and not one family. And, um, I

37:06said something to the effect of because

37:09the client wants to. Um, in any event, I

37:12think we've learned our lesson. We did

37:13not go forward at the zoning hearing. We

37:16requested a continuence. Maybe some of

37:18it based upon your recommendation, Mr.

37:21President. Um, so this this uh lot um a

37:25lot of these lots in this area

37:28um 5,000 square foot lots, but many of

37:31them were built on one side of the lot

37:33with I think the plan to build a second

37:35home on the other lot and then they

37:37merged by operation of law. So if you

37:39look at this area, it looks like there's

37:42a tooth missing in many of these. They

37:44they this lot and the one right next

37:46door is very similar to it. and I was

37:48before this board or the zoning board

37:50with similar one in this area. Um, so

37:54it's a single family dwelling house

37:55that's being proposed for the vacant lot

37:57with three families remaining on. It's

38:00less dense than the two family.

38:07>> Thank you, Mr. Gary. Is there any

38:08questions for Mr. Gary? He

38:12Okay. Um,

38:14I do recognize it's got less dense.

38:17[laughter]

38:18I can see the numbers. All right. Um, we

38:21will now go to staff. Could you make

38:23your presentation, Mr. Ray?

38:25>> All right. So, um, I did present this

38:28one uh last month and Mr. Gary already

38:32um outlined the one change which is

38:34going from a proposed two family to

38:37propose single family.

38:39And, um, here is the amended uh, floor

38:45plan. at the

38:49building plans. Um the site plan was not

38:53um changed, but um the footprint is

38:56going to remain the same. And the only

39:00um variance that is affected by this

39:02change is the minimum lot size variance,

39:06which requires uh 6,000 square feet for

39:08single family dwellings where uh the lot

39:11is 5,000 square feet.

39:15As I outlined in my presentation last

39:19week or last month, um this neighborhood

39:22is comprised of a good mix of single

39:23family, two family, three family

39:25dwellings. It does not have um there is

39:28not uniform lot sizes in this

39:30neighborhood. So you'll find single

39:31family dwellings on 3,000 square foot

39:34lots or lots as large as 10,000 square

39:36feet and similar variation among other

39:39types of housing as well.

39:43Um we also found uh this project

39:46consistent with the comprehensive plan.

39:48Um finding that while the density is a

39:51little higher than um future land use

39:54map designation uh the proposal is

39:57consistent with development patterns in

39:59the area. In addition, we found that

40:01it's consistent with the future land use

40:02map comprehensive plan um goal H2,

40:06policy H3, policy H6, policy H9, action

40:11H7, and action LU29.

40:15And I'd like to give a positive

40:16recommendation on um both of the zoning

40:20board review applications.

40:24>> Thank you, Mr. Ray. Are there any

40:25questions for Mr. Ray? Commissioner

40:28Lampier.

40:29Good evening, Mr. Ray. Just could you

40:32refresh my memory as to how many square

40:35feet um is generally required for a

40:38three family in this area?

40:40>> Yeah. So,

40:43>> and it the uh remaining three family

40:47home would sit on 5,000 square feet.

40:50Yes. Okay.

40:51>> Thank you.

40:54>> Okay. Um questions for Mr. Ray?

40:59Okay, I see none. All right, we will

41:02take public comment. Is there anyone

41:04here that wishes to be heard? Make

41:05public comment on the Maplewood

41:08application.

41:11I see no one present in the room. Is

41:13there anyone online that would like to

41:14be heard on this, Mr. Lima? Well,

41:17there's no public comment online.

41:20Okay.

41:22All right. Any further questions or last

41:24minute questions for the applicant or

41:26the staff?

41:29Okay. And then at this time we will do

41:33uh comment or motions. I'll make a quick

41:35comment. Um Mr. [clears throat] Gary, I

41:38appreciate your effort. I think you kind

41:40of know who I am and how I I vote. Um

41:45basically if it exceeds the density of

41:47the existing neighborhood around it, I

41:49don't vote in favor. Uh we'll see how

41:51the zoning board reacts because they're

41:53the final determination. that's a three

41:56a three family on a 5,000 foot lot

42:00I think is is difficult. Um but anyway

42:04that's my personal opinion. So we'll see

42:07what happened. All right. Any other

42:09further comment or questions?

42:11Commissioner Lamp here.

42:14>> I didn't recall Mr. Gary Gary he that I

42:17had asked the question about the one

42:19family,

42:21>> but if I did, I did not mean to lead you

42:23down the garden path because um I I

42:27would um agree with um

42:31Commissioner Frius that the density

42:34still is 17.4

42:37versus 10.8,

42:39which is better than what I think was

42:41somewhere around 22 but um considerably

42:45significantly higher than the future

42:48land use map and combined with the um

42:52general requirement of 14,000 square

42:55feet for a three family and this is

42:57going to be

42:59um not quite a third of that a little

43:02bit a little bit better um but

43:05considerably less than what's required I

43:08could not support this either.

43:13>> Okay. Um, so on this zoning board

43:17recommendation, we need to make two

43:18motions. One for 118 Maplewood A and the

43:21other for Zero Maplewood A. Is that

43:23correct, solicitor?

43:24>> Correct.

43:25>> Okay. So, obviously there are two

43:27possibilities here. Um, adopt the

43:31positive recommendation by the staff or

43:33a negative recommendation. So, the floor

43:36is open for motions.

43:50>> Okay. So, do you want to do 118

43:52Maplewood AB first? Okay, we'll do that.

43:54So, we have a a motion for a positive

43:57recommendation

43:59um of one for 118 118 Maplewood. Is

44:02there a second?

44:04Second by Commissioner Coupe. Any

44:06further discussion

44:08for a positive recommendation signify by

44:10saying I.

44:11>> Okay, we don't have to do hands. All

44:14those in favor of a positive

44:15recommendation signify by saying raise

44:17your hand. That's Commissioner Carrero,

44:19Commissioner Mancini, Commissioner

44:20Coupe. Okay, all those in the negative,

44:23please signify by raising your hand.

44:26That is Commissioner Kisanti, myself,

44:29Commissioner Exter, Commissioner

44:30Barbari, Commissioner Lanir. So, by my

44:33count, I believe it's a 5 to3. Uh, the

44:36motion is defeated 5-3. So, at this

44:38point, we will now do a a motion for a

44:40negative recommendation 118.

44:43Commissioner Lanier, you make the

44:44motion.

45:00You gota commission if you're you have

45:02to you have to you have to always keep

45:04the finger when you're making a motion

45:06>> on the button. [laughter]

45:10>> I'll repeat that. Um, I would move a

45:13negative recommendation because the

45:15proposal is not consistent with the

45:17comprehensive plan in that the resulting

45:20density would significantly exceed the

45:23future land use map and that the um

45:27placement of or allowing the three

45:29family home to sit on a 5,000 square

45:32foot lot when 14,000 square feet is

45:35required is also inconsistent

45:37comprehensive plan and does not serve to

45:41stabilize or pro protect an existing

45:44neighbor.

45:45>> Okay. Motion made by Commissioner

45:47Lanier, seconded by Commissioner Exter.

45:49Any further discussion? All those in

45:51favor of the negative recommendation, uh

45:53please uh raise your hand. Okay. That's

45:56Commissioner Exter, Commissioner Lampir,

45:58Commissioner Barbar, Commissioner

45:59Kazante, and myself. Um all those

46:02opposed, please raise your hand. That is

46:04Commissioner Coupe, Commissioner

46:05Mancini, Commissioner Carrero. So the

46:07motion passes 53. So we go to the next

46:09motion which is zero Maplewood A.

46:12Commissioner Lanir, would you like to

46:13make uh that motion?

46:16>> Yes, I would move a negative

46:18recommendation because the proposal is

46:20inconsistent with the comprehensive

46:22plan. The de because the density

46:24resulting density would significantly

46:27um exceed the future land use map and

46:31that it is not protective of existing

46:35neighborhoods.

46:36>> Okay. Is uh there a second to

46:38Commissioner Lampier's motion? Second by

46:40Commissioner Extter. All those in favor

46:42signify by raising your hand.

46:44That is Commissioner Extter,

46:46Commissioner uh Colossante, myself,

46:48Commissioner Barbari, Commissioner

46:49Lamper. All those opposed signify by

46:51raising your hand. That is Commissioner

46:53Coupe, Commissioner Mancini,

46:54Commissioner Carrerero. So the motion

46:55passes 53. Okay. For a negative. All

46:58right. Thank you very much. Best of luck

47:01at the zoning board. We'll see what

47:02happens. Okay.

47:03>> Thank you. Let me go home a little bit.

47:05>> All right. Thank you.

47:10Next is 88 Gansav which is the Davet Sha

47:15application. Is the applicant here wish

47:18to be heard on that?

47:21Okay. Staff could you please proceed?

47:24>> All right. So this is a use variance

47:27application um to convert the first

47:30floor of a legal non-conforming misuse

47:32building into a slide.

47:36And as you can see, it's in stadium

47:38neighborhood along Ganza have

47:42an aerial view.

47:49So the

47:51background on this property is that

47:56mixed use, but then it was converted to

47:58fully be residential and now they're

48:02proposing to change it back. So it

48:05already had that existing use in the

48:07house

48:10like I outlined. Um it was converted

48:12into office space in 1968.

48:15This application is essentially just

48:17asking for relief to restore this back

48:19to that previous use. Um, additionally,

48:23Gans A is a hub for commercial activity

48:25with many small local businesses lining

48:28the street to the south and along

48:29Cransson Street directly to the north,

48:31featuring compatible neighborhood uses

48:33such as restaurants, cafes, and other

48:35establishments. Um, a small salon would

48:39fit in the characterist.

48:41In addition, um, parking requirements

48:43for both the proposed salon business and

48:46the remaining residential use are

48:48satisfied by the proposal.

48:53Uh small neighborhood serving businesses

48:56um can be appropriate for um areas like

48:59this which can be kind of mixed between

49:02being residential and commercial and

49:05they don't really provide a large amount

49:07of disturbance to the neighborhood.

49:10In addition to that, the proposed

49:12business isn't particularly noisy and is

49:15placed next to other uh commercial uses.

49:21We also found that um goals, policies,

49:24and action items outline the

49:25comprehensive plan, support the approval

49:27of this application, goal ED2, policy

49:30ED23, and action ED18.

49:35And with that, we'd like to give a

49:36positive recommendation on this

49:37application to the zoning board of

49:38review. Thank you. Any questions for Mr.

49:42Ray?

49:44Uh Mr. Ray, just a very quick thing. If

49:46you go back to one of your slides, um,

49:48it says that this was used as an office

49:50at one point in the past, right?

49:53>> Okay. I believe so.

49:54>> Okay.

49:56Right. Any questions for Mr. Ray?

50:00>> Commissioner Lier,

50:03>> I I just want to be clear. This w was a

50:08legal nonconforming use when it was used

50:11as the office. Correct.

50:15Um

50:16>> I think you said that in your

50:19>> Yes. Yes.

50:21>> And and

50:24most recently

50:26that office use ceased and it has been

50:30used as a residence.

50:33>> Exactly.

50:34So I believe if and and I would just ask

50:37the solicitor to let me know if I'm

50:40correct that legally if that

50:43nonconforming

50:44use ceased

50:47then it reverts to

50:51the zoning that exists and therefore it

50:55should remain residential.

51:00That's what the variance.

51:01>> Correct. And that's why this would then

51:04become a use variance as opposed to a

51:06change of use for a non-conforming use.

51:08Correct.

51:09>> Would you agree that if it remained

51:11residential, it would also

51:15um

51:16also conform to many of the goals of the

51:19comprehensive plan because it would be

51:21additional housing.

51:28>> I guess so. Any

51:34further questions for Mr. Ray?

51:38Okay, seeing none, we'll take public

51:41comments. Anyone here like to make

51:42public comment on this application?

51:45I see none. Mr. Le, is there anyone

51:47online that make public comment on this

51:49application?

51:50>> There is no public comment online.

51:52>> Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, is there

51:55any further questions or comments uh

51:57before we have motion?

52:00Okay. Um, I usually make a comment now.

52:03I'll just say I usually vote against use

52:05variances because I think if you want to

52:07change your use, you should get a zoning

52:08change. But because we are going back to

52:11the way it once was, um, I can

52:15that falls into one of my exceptions.

52:17So, I will go along with a positive

52:19recommendation here. Okay. At this

52:23point, anybody have anything else to

52:24say? Otherwise, we'll make a motion. It

52:25can be a positive or a negative.

52:30Commissioner Carrero

52:33positive recommendation of staff.

52:35>> Okay. Is there a second to Commissioner

52:36Carrero's motion? Seconded by

52:39Commissioner Kisante. Any further

52:40discussion? All those in favor signify

52:43by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay.

52:47Okay. All in the affirmative with the

52:49exception of Commissioner Lier. Okay.

52:55Next is Eric Cox, 26 Herod Street. This

53:00is the fence.

53:02Is the applicant here and wishes to be

53:03heard on Herod Street?

53:06I do not see the applicant present.

53:08Staff can proceed with their report.

53:11All right. So, um this is a request to

53:15build a fence that goes above the

53:18maximum allowed height which is 6 feet

53:21and the proposed fence uh will be 8 ft

53:24tall.

53:27This is a view of the neighborhood.

53:30As you can see in the back, um there's a

53:33line of trees and um the applicants

53:37stated um their reason for this

53:40application.

53:42is sorry that's a horrible picture but

53:44it was the only one I could find. Um the

53:47reason for this application uh is that

53:51the trees that give them uh privacy from

53:54their neighbors um are dying and they

53:58want to maintain that level of privacy.

54:00And um they also point out the fact that

54:03this fence will only be in the back, not

54:05visible from the street really. So, um

54:09it'll follow the side property lines and

54:11rear property lines. Like I said, um the

54:15fence will enclose backyard of the

54:17property. Um and it will also fix an

54:20existing encroachment.

54:25We found this um application consistent

54:29with the comprehensive plan due to the

54:31fact that um it concerns a residential

54:34accessory use that is compatible with

54:36the residential designation.

54:38Additionally, we found that goal SF12

54:41and policy ED15 support the approval of

54:44this application

54:46and we'd like to give a positive

54:48recommendation on the application to the

54:49zoning board.

54:51>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ray. Any questions

54:53for Mr. Ray? Mr. Coupe, Commissioner

54:56>> Coup

54:59from any of the neighbors.

55:02>> Um, no, but um, yeah. No.

55:07>> Yeah. No,

55:12>> Mr. Coop. Obviously, they'll get notice,

55:14you know, they don't get notice of this

55:16hearing anyway, but they will get notice

55:17of the zoning board hearing. So, I mean,

55:20this this is an old school variance, as

55:22they as they say. So if if anyone is uh

55:26going to complain, they will then.

55:28>> Okay. Commissioner Barbari,

55:30>> just wondering what kind of fence

55:32they're putting up.

55:35>> I'm not sure if the

55:39type of fence was directly outlined in

55:42the application. I think it it was just

55:45the the details pertaining to the

55:46variance itself, which is about the

55:48height.

55:55Okay. Uh, any other Sorry, Commissioner

55:58Lamp here. Um,

56:00we had a a request for an an exceedence

56:04in fence height a few months ago and my

56:08recollection was that the city council

56:11had recently passed an ordinance um that

56:15we didn't have one before that or they

56:18changed it that that set it at six feet.

56:21And the matter that was before us, we

56:25didn't know it at the time, but when

56:26they went to the zoning board, they had

56:28a reason being that their property

56:31sloped in a certain way so that six feet

56:34was not very protective of their

56:38privacy. Um, is are there any additional

56:42pieces of information here why they

56:46can't comply with a six-foot fence?

56:48>> No. Um just the privacy consideration

56:51was also cited in this case.

56:56>> Any other fence questions?

57:00>> We'll go to public comment. Anyone here

57:02like to talk about the Herod Street?

57:05Oh, welcome. State your name and

57:09address.

57:10>> Kimberly Begoian, 45 Mount View Drive,

57:13Prince.

57:15I oppose the fence. Um, I feel like we

57:19should be more neighborly towards all of

57:22our neighbors and, you know, put on a

57:25happy face. Um, and then with a a

57:28flooding issue, maybe instead of a

57:31fence, maybe put some trees. You know,

57:35we have trees in the backyard and it's

57:38good for the environment. Thank you.

57:40>> Thank you, ma'am. Any other public

57:43comment?

57:46Okay, Mr. Mr. Le, is there anyone online

57:48that can make public comment about Herod

57:50Street?

57:52>> There is no public comment online.

57:54>> All right. Thank you. Um, any further

57:56questions for the staff?

58:00Um,

58:01I'm going to be inclined to vote yes on

58:03this because my understanding the

58:06problem is that the arborite tree is

58:08dying or has some problems and that this

58:09fence is a substitute for it based on

58:11what I saw in the report. But we'll find

58:14out when it goes to the zoning board if

58:16this is something that everyone's okay

58:17with or the neighbors um have an issue.

58:20But we'll see. That's one of the

58:22problems of the neighborhood. You know,

58:24there's no notice to the neighbor yet

58:26officially for this hearing. So

58:29any All right. At this point, a positive

58:32or negative recommendation motion is in

58:34order. Or no. Or you can do something

58:37else maybe.

58:41>> Commissioner

58:46All right. Positive recommendation made

58:48by Commissioner Carrero, seconded by

58:49Commissioner Mancini. Any further

58:50discussion? Seeing none, all those in

58:53favor of positive recommendation signify

58:54by saying I.

58:56>> I. All those oppose say nay.

58:58>> Okay. I want to see the hands. Okay. All

59:02those in favor of the positive raise

59:03your hand. Okay. That is Commissioner

59:06Kalisante, Carrerero, Mancini, Coupe,

59:08and myself in the negative. Commissioner

59:11Exter, Commissioner [clears throat]

59:12Lanier, Commissioner Bar. So that's a 53

59:15in favor.

59:17All right. All right. That concludes, I

59:20believe, the zoning board

59:20recommendations, but we're not done yet.

59:23No, no. [laughter]

59:28We got Right. So, we're going to do we

59:30are going to get the transit. Don't

59:31worry. So, we um we're going to do the

59:34state legislation first, the ordinance,

59:36and then we're going to do the

59:37subdivision regulations. So staff is uh

59:40they'll indicate they'll present it

59:42better than I will, but this is

59:43basically state law changes that

59:45occurred in the past year that we are

59:48incorporating and reflecting in our

59:50ordinance and in our subdivision

59:53regulation. So whenever you're ready,

59:57assistant director, you can proceed.

1:00:02[clears throat]

1:00:04All right.

1:00:06So for the I'm going to start with the

1:00:10zoning ordinance um [snorts]

1:00:13uh recommendations to for so um to

1:00:17briefly sum up again these are a handful

1:00:21of the changes that we saw um that are

1:00:23going to apply to the packet that you

1:00:25have in front of you. Um

1:00:28and uh there were four bills, one of two

1:00:31of them probably being the most more

1:00:33significant

1:00:35um H 8 8004A which is big packet with a

1:00:39lot of the various small changes in it.

1:00:42Um and 8005

1:00:45um which has the uh amendments to the

1:00:49parking requirements that I'll get into

1:00:51a little later.

1:00:53Um for the most notable changes, um

1:00:57there were some updates to to

1:00:59definitions. Um specifically like

1:01:02buildable law area and um we also

1:01:06suggested some definition changes for

1:01:08family daycare home as well in response

1:01:11to one of the state law changes.

1:01:14Um the transit overlay district which is

1:01:17related to H80005A which I'll talk about

1:01:19a little later. um general dimensional

1:01:22neighborhood character base

1:01:24modifications um was relatively

1:01:27significant change mostly that

1:01:30neighborhood character based

1:01:31modifications which was previously

1:01:33optional is now required um I can get

1:01:38more into it if you guys want to but

1:01:40I'll leave it to the end um there's some

1:01:43minor technical amendments to sub center

1:01:46lots of record though honestly most of

1:01:48the changes are just clarifications on

1:01:50things that we have already been doing.

1:01:53Um

1:01:55and um there are some changes to

1:01:57conditions on uh zoning variances which

1:02:01I explained in the the packet. Um

1:02:06there's also some discretionary

1:02:07suggestions. Um, if you have the

1:02:11ordinance guide in front of you, we'll

1:02:12actually list out which ones are

1:02:14discretionary and which changes are

1:02:17required that we're um suggesting.

1:02:21Um, discretionary changes are mostly

1:02:23either for clarification purposes

1:02:26um or

1:02:29um or small changes that we've noticed

1:02:32or just kind of general updates.

1:02:35Um,

1:02:37some of them where that I list here, um,

1:02:41are ways to both,

1:02:45um, follow the new state law or in

1:02:49addition to making some small changes

1:02:52that we're hoping are more um,

1:02:57simplify some some things or include

1:02:59some things that weren't quite in there

1:03:01before. So what I mean by that for the

1:03:04group family daycare home for example

1:03:07um the state the state has like

1:03:09licensing for both family daycare home

1:03:12and group family daycare home there's

1:03:14some very minor differences between the

1:03:17two and how the state licenses it. But

1:03:19if you're talking from a use basis

1:03:22they're very similar. It's just like the

1:03:25amount of caretakers versus the amount

1:03:26of children. Um,

1:03:29and

1:03:31we looking at the definitions, we

1:03:34thought they're basically the same

1:03:36definition, so we should just kind of

1:03:37group them under one category.

1:03:41Um, then there's something um with the

1:03:44critical facilities.

1:03:46That one is kind of a an an interesting

1:03:48change. Um, there's a state law. Which

1:03:54one is it? It is

1:03:58um 2601

1:04:01which allows cities and towns to grant

1:04:03zoning relief for protection of what

1:04:05they call critical infrastructure.

1:04:07Um

1:04:09in the bill so in our zoning ordinance

1:04:12we already have a definition for what we

1:04:14call a critical facility which in this

1:04:16case is mostly related to our special

1:04:19flood hazard area. though critical

1:04:22facility um also includes like utilities

1:04:26and stuff like that which is what this

1:04:28specific ordinance uh the state law

1:04:30change addresses. Um

1:04:34so our [snorts] suggestion was well

1:04:37rather than having critical facilities

1:04:40as well as critical infrastructure as

1:04:42like two separate definitions

1:04:45um we could just use critical facility

1:04:50and allow empower both the zoning board

1:04:54as well as the planning board um to

1:04:58grant variances based on um

1:05:03um in case there's like a like an

1:05:07environmental or a safety threat to um a

1:05:12critical facility. So those actually

1:05:15don't have a really good example for

1:05:17that right now. Um

1:05:21uh that was one of the changes we

1:05:23suggested.

1:05:25Um

1:05:29uh another of the changes was a

1:05:31categorization of our zoning districts.

1:05:34Previously we kind of categorized all of

1:05:37our zoning or currently we categorizing

1:05:39all of our zoning districts just kind of

1:05:41clustered them under general zoning

1:05:43districts.

1:05:45um because of this change to

1:05:50um 8005, the change to um which I'll get

1:05:56into a little later um basically

1:05:59requires us to create a new um overlay

1:06:02district.

1:06:04So, while we already have to add this

1:06:07overlay, potentially have to add this

1:06:08overlay district,

1:06:10um I went ahead and um try to clarify

1:06:15what is our base zoning districts versus

1:06:17what are our plan districts and what are

1:06:20our overlay districts. Um you see that

1:06:23on page two, three, and four of the um

1:06:27the the draft bill. Um so just generally

1:06:31kind of cluster them into specific

1:06:33categories just to make it a bit more

1:06:35clear. Um

1:06:40and

1:06:42there's also some minor changes to

1:06:44development on center of record.

1:06:47Um

1:06:49and uh finally also there's a section

1:06:51about the section that we suggested to

1:06:54be removed that exempts uncovered

1:06:56structures such as pools and decks from

1:06:59being exempt from the lot coverage

1:07:00calculations. That was specifically

1:07:03um asked by the zoning official to be um

1:07:08removed um as historically have included

1:07:12those actually as part of the lot

1:07:14coverage calculations.

1:07:19uh going to briefly talk about the

1:07:22transit hub overlay district. If you

1:07:25have the packet in front of you, that is

1:07:27mostly talked about on

1:07:31on page six.

1:07:34Um it's very brief as you can see. We

1:07:37basically, so this is part of H80005A,

1:07:43um, which,

1:07:45uh, requires cities and towns to,

1:07:48um, or limits our ability to apply

1:07:52parking requirements above one space per

1:07:55dwelling unit for multif family

1:07:57development within um, either a quarter

1:08:00mile of an existing regional mobility

1:08:03hub or an eighth of a mile of a frequent

1:08:06transit stop. Um we don't have anything

1:08:09that's currently designated as a

1:08:10regional mobility hub. So the only thing

1:08:12that really affects us is those frequent

1:08:15transit stops um which is basically

1:08:19defined as a transit stop that has 15

1:08:22minute or better service. Um which in

1:08:24the city is currently only two transit

1:08:27lines and the very very top of the R

1:08:30line kind of goes a little bit into our

1:08:32district. Um

1:08:35actually have a slide here that kind of

1:08:36shows it's mostly Elwood [snorts] Avenue

1:08:40that's affected by that as well as

1:08:43um the this the uh brewery parade area

1:08:50um up by Cranson Street. Um

1:08:54though notably for the brewery parade

1:08:56area, we don't actually allow multif

1:08:57family development in any of the zones

1:09:00that it affects. So as of now that is,

1:09:03you know, not actually really affecting

1:09:05much. Um

1:09:08though it really affects more Elwood

1:09:10Avenue because the very northern edge is

1:09:14um the is B2 zone currently. Um and this

1:09:18is also the area where we are proposing,

1:09:20you know, the mixeduse um corridor. So

1:09:23something have to keep in mind when we

1:09:25proposing that legislation.

1:09:28Um

1:09:31and

1:09:32yeah, when we the reason we went with an

1:09:34overlay zone specifically for this is I

1:09:38contacted both the

1:09:41um

1:09:43uh RIPA as well as the executive office

1:09:45of housing um about what the best way to

1:09:48comply with this ordinance is. And when

1:09:52I brought up the potential for an

1:09:54overlay, they said, "Yep, it's a good

1:09:56way to comply with this state law

1:09:58change." So, that's why we went with it.

1:10:01Um,

1:10:03and the language you see in front of

1:10:04you, it's mostly copied directly from

1:10:07the state law, just word for word. Um

1:10:10the only thing that we added was um

1:10:15C1B which is the boundaries shall be

1:10:18measured using map data provided by the

1:10:20Rhode Island geographic information

1:10:21systems and depicted on the zoning map.

1:10:24Um wasn't really specified

1:10:27um like how this should be measured. So

1:10:30we added well it's state law we should

1:10:32add use state data to calculate it just

1:10:36so that there's some sort of

1:10:37clarification here.

1:10:39Um

1:10:41yeah uh

1:10:47that is all I have right now. Um

1:10:52if you have any questions, I'm happy to

1:10:54answer them.

1:10:55>> Okay. Um are there any questions for our

1:10:58assistant director in regards to these

1:11:01changes to our zoning co uh zoning code,

1:11:04zoning ordinances that reflect state

1:11:07law?

1:11:10I will say just right off the bat, um

1:11:14I with the solicitor both sat down with

1:11:17the staff to go through this pretty

1:11:19carefully and um I believe the solicitor

1:11:23can speak for himself, but my

1:11:24understanding is this seems to be we

1:11:27have gone we have adhered to state law

1:11:29as closely as we can on these things.

1:11:33This is [clears throat] correct.

1:11:34>> Correct. We didn't implement any

1:11:37optional items whatsoever.

1:11:40We um

1:11:43>> yeah, the only thing I think we

1:11:44implemented was that was kind of

1:11:45optional was the building. I think the

1:11:47building guy wanted to change the stuff

1:11:48[clears throat]

1:11:49>> outside decks for lot coverage I think.

1:11:52>> Correct.

1:11:53>> From Stan

1:11:53>> from the city

1:11:54>> from the city. Right. For that exception

1:11:56because Stan had been interpreting it a

1:11:58certain way. We wanted to make sure we

1:11:59were consistent with how Stan's been

1:12:00interpreting it.

1:12:01>> Yep. Otherwise,

1:12:02>> Stan, by the way, is known as Stan Ple,

1:12:04building inspector.

1:12:08>> There any questions for the staff on

1:12:10this?

1:12:12Okay,

1:12:14>> go ahead, Commissioner.

1:12:15>> One quick question. Can you go back to

1:12:16the slide where you have the different

1:12:18legislations

1:12:20>> right here, the H7371,

1:12:23is that worded properly?

1:12:34No more. Yeah.

1:12:39>> Two more. We can't set a limit on the

1:12:42number of children that's below 12.

1:12:45So we have to allow them to have at

1:12:46least 12 children

1:12:49specifically for family daycare homes,

1:12:51which is also I think the maximum for

1:12:53what the state allows too.

1:12:55>> I Yeah. So we can't we can't as we can't

1:12:58as CR said, "Oh, you can only have six

1:12:59take care of six children in the family

1:13:01daycare homes." We can't do that.

1:13:03>> Yeah.

1:13:03>> Just a quick thing. I It's all new to

1:13:05me. Do we actually have family daycarees

1:13:08in the city that have that type of

1:13:11like 12 or 14 children?

1:13:13>> Oh, that I don't know.

1:13:15>> That I don't know. We certainly have

1:13:16family daycare homes and they're

1:13:18regulated by the state.

1:13:19>> Exactly. They If you want to run one,

1:13:21you need to have state approvals

1:13:23anyways. So,

1:13:31>> anything else?

1:13:33>> Okay. Um, I'll switch it over to public

1:13:36comment before we go back. Is anyone

1:13:38here like made public comment on the

1:13:40zoning uh code changes

1:13:43um to comply with state to make

1:13:45consistent with state law?

1:13:48I see no one here in the room. Mr.

1:13:50Lemur, is there anyone online that wants

1:13:51to speak on this? There is no public

1:13:54comment online.

1:13:55>> Okay. Thank you. Um,

1:13:59so just so

1:14:01people know, like I said, me and the

1:14:03solicitor went through this pretty

1:14:05carefully with the staff. I think we got

1:14:07everything, I think, pretty uh correct

1:14:10here. And there's some, you know,

1:14:11there's some areas are a little bit

1:14:12ambiguous under state law, of course. Um

1:14:16and uh I'm hoping that this is

1:14:19with the change in leadership in the

1:14:21state house. I am hoping that we not

1:14:23have to do this every year, you know,

1:14:25with these constant changes

1:14:27um because it's just a lot of effort um

1:14:33trying to bring this always you're

1:14:34always chasing after the latest law

1:14:37change. But um anything solicitor you

1:14:41want to add at this point?

1:14:43No, I I agree. Hopefully they'll see if

1:14:46some of this stuff works and give us a

1:14:49year or two to rather than keep changing

1:14:51it and changing it and changing it.

1:14:54>> Um

1:14:56and um

1:14:58so at this point I think um assistant

1:15:01director the idea is that we would

1:15:04approve the draft ordinance so that it

1:15:07would be submitted to the city council.

1:15:10Correct.

1:15:12>> Yes. So you'd be you would be submitting

1:15:14it recommending it and submitting it to

1:15:16the city council,

1:15:17>> right? So this would not come back

1:15:19before us. It's just like we just did

1:15:21this. They would then look at it. Okay.

1:15:25>> Correct. Um and are we doing that

1:15:30just because of the election? Is is

1:15:32there a timing bet that you had planned

1:15:34to do it is after the election after

1:15:37this town council after this council

1:15:39gets elected or

1:15:40>> you know I wasn't pl I don't think

1:15:42anything in this package rises to being

1:15:45political at that level but they would

1:15:47put it on their or they would put it on

1:15:49their agenda when they see fit.

1:15:51>> Okay. Yeah. I mean just you don't want

1:15:53them split, you know, if it's if it gets

1:15:56advertised for this council and then you

1:15:59get a new council, you got to revertise

1:16:01everything and all that. So it either

1:16:02has to kind of happen

1:16:04>> now or not happen until January because

1:16:07you you have the advertising and then

1:16:09you you know you have the ordinance

1:16:11committee and all that. So

1:16:12>> I would Yeah, I would agree with you

1:16:14solicitor because basically it has to be

1:16:17presented as new business by the end of

1:16:19this month.

1:16:20>> Yep. And then Yeah. advertised heard at

1:16:23ordinance voted on and approved probably

1:16:26by end of November at the latest end of

1:16:28December. So if we do we would vote for

1:16:30this today doesn't mean it's going to

1:16:32actually be approved by the end of the

1:16:34year but it gives us the ability the

1:16:36possibility of being approved by the end

1:16:38of this year and I think what we would

1:16:39do is it's our it's our recommendation

1:16:41is be adopted and we leave it to the

1:16:44administration and the city council

1:16:45president as to how they want to conduct

1:16:47this.

1:16:48>> No, I I agree.

1:16:49>> You okay?

1:16:50>> All right. All right.

1:16:51And uh in the meantime, we'll see how

1:16:53this goes. And you know, I wish the best

1:16:56of luck for those cities and towns that

1:16:58are challenging some of these laws. I'll

1:16:59just say that for me. But anyway, at

1:17:02this point, um I think a motion I I

1:17:06think the motion would be I think the

1:17:09staff created a memo. Am I correct,

1:17:12assistant director?

1:17:14>> That is correct. I unfortunately I

1:17:16didn't put it on the slides but there is

1:17:18a when forwarding it you you also need

1:17:21to make a finding that it is consistent

1:17:24with the comprehensive plan and

1:17:25consistent with the uh purposes of

1:17:28zoning.

1:17:29>> Yeah, this always bothers me the way

1:17:31this I have to make that kind of finding

1:17:33but I get the point. So the motion would

1:17:35be, if anyone wants to make it, it would

1:17:37be that the proposed zoning changes are

1:17:40consistent with our comprehensive plan

1:17:42and recognizes and considers the

1:17:45purposes of zoning in the city code. Is

1:17:46that pretty much Have I said it pretty

1:17:48much correctly?

1:17:49>> That is correct.

1:17:49>> Okay. So that would be the motion. Is

1:17:52there a motion to that effect?

1:17:53>> I'll make that motion.

1:17:55>> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Coupe.

1:17:56Motion is made to find that these

1:17:59proposed zoning code changes are

1:18:02consistent with the comp plan and

1:18:05recognizes and considers the purposes of

1:18:06zoning. Is there a second to the motion?

1:18:09Seconded by Commissioner Mancini. Is

1:18:11there any discussion?

1:18:14Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor

1:18:16signify by saying I.

1:18:18>> Those post say nay. Eyes have it. Okay.

1:18:22So I would direct the staff to consult

1:18:25with the administration and the city

1:18:27council president as to how they want to

1:18:30proceed with this. Okay.

1:18:33Recognizing as the solicitor said it is

1:18:35the near the end of the uh current term

1:18:39of the city council. Next on the agenda

1:18:42is the subdivision regulations.

1:18:43Assistant director could you please go

1:18:45forward and make your presentation?

1:18:47>> Yes. Um I so the subdivision regulations

1:18:52are honestly even more straightforward.

1:18:56Um I don't really even have a formal

1:18:59presentation for them. Um again most of

1:19:02the changes are discussed in the packet.

1:19:07Um

1:19:09and uh I'm mostly just here to answer

1:19:14any questions if you have any questions

1:19:16about it. Um

1:19:20and [snorts] um yeah, if the

1:19:25commission uh finds that this is

1:19:28prudent, uh you could um agree to

1:19:34potentially have it uh uh the official

1:19:38public hearing to adopt it on November

1:19:4010th.

1:19:41>> Okay.

1:19:43Um, so just talk to my colleagues about

1:19:46this again. Um, the solicitor and I sat

1:19:50down with staff, looked at our

1:19:52subdivision regulations and um, looked

1:19:55reviewed what the staff had put together

1:19:56to break them consistent with state law.

1:19:59They're overwhelmingly the same thing,

1:20:00which is um, we're just following state

1:20:03law. Um, minor changes here or there

1:20:06that I would call discretionary, more

1:20:08cleanup language at best. And um by

1:20:14we're not having a vote tonight because

1:20:16all this is is whether or not the

1:20:17commissioners are comfortable with the

1:20:19subdivision regulation draft so that we

1:20:22can then advertise and put it up for a

1:20:25hearing for hear from the public and

1:20:27then a vote would occur at that point.

1:20:30Would what was the date you suggested

1:20:32possibly for a hearing on this assistant

1:20:34director?

1:20:34>> November 10th which is the next regular

1:20:37meeting.

1:20:37>> Okay. So, that would be the next uh

1:20:40hearing on that. And then I would assume

1:20:42uh unless the solicitor tells me

1:20:43differently, we could potentially vote

1:20:45on it at that meeting and it could go

1:20:47into effect that meeting or January 1st.

1:20:50Either one, right?

1:20:52>> Yeah, I I would have it effective

1:20:54January. I mean,

1:20:56>> I would agree with you.

1:20:57>> January 1. That way it gives the

1:20:59applicants who were submitting anything

1:21:01over the holiday period time to digest

1:21:04>> digest. Right. Yeah.

1:21:05>> So that's that's basically would be the

1:21:08time frame, you know, but is there any

1:21:10questions for the staff on the sub the

1:21:11draft subdivision regulations?

1:21:17Okay. All right. Seeing none, I will now

1:21:19open it up for public comment. Is there

1:21:21any here that that would like to make

1:21:23public comment on the draft subdivision

1:21:25regulations prepared by staff?

1:21:29Okay, I see none. Is there anyone online

1:21:32that would like to make public comment

1:21:34on the draft uh created by staff of

1:21:36subdivision regulation?

1:21:38>> There is no public comment online.

1:21:40>> Thank you, Mr. Lima. Anything further?

1:21:43Otherwise, this will we will then you

1:21:45know the staff can then proceed to post

1:21:47it for hearing and we'll hear from

1:21:49people what they have to say.

1:21:51Well, someone else anyone else has

1:21:53anything to the contrary.

1:21:56Okay, I think that's it. So they'll be

1:21:57posted for your let's aim for the

1:21:59November 10th hearing with an effective

1:22:00date when you do the regulations

1:22:02effective date January 1st of 20207.

1:22:06Okay. Um at this time we've just

1:22:09completed

1:22:11the ordinance recommendations and the

1:22:13amendments to subdivision regulations

1:22:15related to state law. What leaves on the

1:22:16agenda is the MSU center corridors

1:22:18project. It is 10 of eight. Uh if you

1:22:21don't mind I'd like we take maybe a five

1:22:23to 10 minute break. come back and then

1:22:24we can spend the rest of the evening

1:22:26talking about mixeduse corridors and

1:22:28then it'll be it. Okay. So, uh let's say

1:22:318:00. Okay? And we will get to it

1:22:33tonight.

1:32:51The uh planning commission will now

1:32:54reconvene. We will now address the item

1:32:58on our agenda, mixeduse centers and

1:33:00corridor project. Uh director Ashman,

1:33:03please proceed.

1:33:04>> Sure. I'd like to start by reminding us

1:33:07where we started with this project,

1:33:09which is really the question, what what

1:33:11characterizes a great Main Street? What

1:33:14makes it liveable and aesthetically

1:33:16pleasing?

1:33:18And those questions take you to the mix

1:33:20of uses, the relationship of the

1:33:23buildings to the street, and the quality

1:33:25of the pedestrian environment. All

1:33:27things that are addressed in this zoning

1:33:30proposal. And I'd also like to draw the

1:33:33through line between um the Puxen

1:33:37Edgewood commercial corridor streetscape

1:33:39design review uh guidelines that were

1:33:42submitted by Jonathan Stevens years ago

1:33:46and the the Main Street America uh

1:33:49methodology for revitalizing Main

1:33:52Streets and how that those things lead

1:33:55us directly to the kind of proposals

1:33:58you'll see here in the zoning draft

1:34:00today. They they you know these

1:34:04instead of seeing your historic building

1:34:08taken down and be replaced with a box in

1:34:10the field of parking, you ask we're are

1:34:14the zoning proposal that we have in

1:34:16front of us today asks that buildings be

1:34:18placed close to the street with parking

1:34:20in the rear. It allows a mix of

1:34:22commercial and residential uses in close

1:34:24proximity with with contextsensitive

1:34:27design, but also asks buildings to

1:34:29relate to the street deliberately with

1:34:32the way they present their doorways and

1:34:34their windows. Um the areas of Ralph

1:34:37Square, Park Avenue, and Broad Street we

1:34:41will discuss tonight. These have been

1:34:43called out in our plans over decades as

1:34:46valuable historic main streets. The

1:34:49Elmwood Wellington area is a little bit

1:34:51different because it was formed by

1:34:54industry located in proximity to the

1:34:56railroad. But this area too, the future

1:34:59land use map has long called out this

1:35:01area as a special redevelopment area,

1:35:04acknowledging that the zoning has been

1:35:06limiting um this area and it's been

1:35:09giving us self- storage facilities when

1:35:11we could have other higher value uses.

1:35:14Uh it has a mix of uses and and quite a

1:35:16bit of employment. Um, but it's not a

1:35:19walkable care corridor today as the

1:35:22other areas that we mentioned. So, I'm

1:35:24going to hand this over to Megan Melo

1:35:25who's going to walk us through the

1:35:27proposed overlay zone and you all have

1:35:29the all had access to the full text of

1:35:32that. Um, and and we can talk about the

1:35:36specific policies that are being

1:35:38recommended to help these areas have

1:35:41their next chapter.

1:35:44Great. Welcome, Megan. And we also have

1:35:46uh Juliet from the team online. We won't

1:35:48be able to see her, but Oh, there you

1:35:51go. We've been working hard on on this

1:35:53this proposal for you.

1:35:55>> All right.

1:35:56>> And you sure you want to stand there?

1:35:58You don't want to like take a seat here.

1:35:59It's okay if you

1:36:00>> I'm okay to [clears throat] stand. Thank

1:36:01you, though. Okay. We we we talked

1:36:03through it. Um thank you for having us

1:36:07tonight. Um again, my name is Megan

1:36:09Melo. I'm a senior planner with KDson

1:36:12and Associates. We are a transportation

1:36:15planning and engineering firm in

1:36:16Providence and we've been working with

1:36:18Beth Jonas and others at the city on

1:36:21this project through um a Rhode Island

1:36:23housing grant. Um and like I said, uh

1:36:27Juliet Walker is online. She's a

1:36:29principal planner with us as well. And

1:36:32what we'd like to do is walk through the

1:36:35draft zoning revisions um that you

1:36:38should all have a copy of. Um, we

1:36:41there's a lot to get through in here.

1:36:43So, if it works for you all, we request

1:36:46maybe keeping track of questions and we

1:36:49can go through them over at the end. Um,

1:36:52we want to make sure we we run through

1:36:54everything um at least once and and that

1:36:56you can become familiar with what's

1:36:58included in this packet. Um, it is worth

1:37:01noting that this is meant to be

1:37:04representative of the content that we

1:37:06foresee being included in this overlay

1:37:09zone. Necessary edits will have to be

1:37:12made in regards to the wording and the

1:37:15legal ease and all of that to actually

1:37:17be implemented into the code. Um, but

1:37:19the content is what is important here

1:37:21and what we want to focus on today. So,

1:37:24we'll start with uh we're just going to

1:37:26go through section by section and we do

1:37:28have some slides just to draw everyone's

1:37:31attention to the most important points.

1:37:34Um we'll start with everything

1:37:37pertaining to the actual location of the

1:37:39overlay zones, the permitted uses,

1:37:41intensity regulations, and things like

1:37:43that. And then we'll get into some of

1:37:45the um building and site design

1:37:48guidelines and requirements that are

1:37:50included in the draft. All right, next

1:37:52slide.

1:37:53So, this is proposed as a standalone

1:37:56section of the code. Um, it would be uh

1:38:02it has relations to underlying district.

1:38:04That's all explained in there. Um, and

1:38:05there's references where applicable.

1:38:07Next slide, please.

1:38:09Um, so starting with section one,

1:38:11purpose. Uh, Beth uh provided a great

1:38:13introduction to this point. Um, the

1:38:16purpose of the these overlay districts

1:38:18is um there are multiple purposes. We

1:38:22want to connect various housing types,

1:38:24commercial and transit opportunities. We

1:38:27want to make sure that we're bringing in

1:38:28high quality development to the city. Um

1:38:32pedestrian friendliness is very

1:38:34important as well. This is um funded

1:38:37through a grant that focuses on transit

1:38:40oriented development, but the city um I

1:38:42think wisely wanted to broaden that idea

1:38:45to this idea of mixed use centers and

1:38:47corridors. Um they do feature Ripa

1:38:50service. So they have that transit

1:38:52anchor but it's really more broad. It's

1:38:55biking, transit, walking um and that

1:38:58sort of main street uh center. There's

1:39:00also the important purpose of increasing

1:39:03housing supply. Um and then of course

1:39:05there is a desire to reflect the

1:39:07community context. Um this is meant to

1:39:09enhance the livability of these

1:39:11districts and not to you know completely

1:39:14change it.

1:39:16Next slide please.

1:39:18So um this is meant this is proposed as

1:39:21an overlay zone. So it would be

1:39:23supplemental to existing regulations

1:39:27um unless otherwise stated all the

1:39:29regulations of the underlying zoning

1:39:31will apply shall apply. Um but then when

1:39:35there is a conflict between the overlay

1:39:37and the underlying district the overlay

1:39:39district regulations control at least in

1:39:41how it is currently drafted.

1:39:45Next slide please.

1:39:47the um this would apply to new

1:39:50construction to expansion of existing

1:39:53buildings by 30% or more of square

1:39:55footage and then to change of use for

1:39:58applicability. And right now the overlay

1:40:01zone um has three subd districts.

1:40:04There's Ralph Square um you know kind of

1:40:07on our doorstep right now. There is a

1:40:09Elmwood Avenue uh subdist which really

1:40:12almost connects to the Ralph Square one

1:40:15that you can see on the map and then

1:40:16there's Broad Street area.

1:40:22So just um a closer look at these

1:40:25subdists. R Square uh as many of you

1:40:28know is an established commercial core

1:40:30and Main Street. It has that walkable

1:40:32character already. Um and so this

1:40:35overlay would just further promote that

1:40:38um type of use along this area. Uh

1:40:41there's also been uh there's park a

1:40:45included in this section and then

1:40:46there's also a section a little bit

1:40:48south as well um that has been included

1:40:52in this mixed use center.

1:40:55Next slide

1:40:57for the broad street section. Um this is

1:41:00a transitrich corridor. So, this is uh

1:41:03connected to one of the, you know,

1:41:05highest frequency RTA routes um at least

1:41:08when we get into the Providence section.

1:41:10Um there's a lot of community

1:41:12destinations. Obviously, a lot of

1:41:13residential

1:41:15um neighborhoods as well. Um so, this is

1:41:18this is one that there would be that

1:41:20desire to kind of balance the the

1:41:23current um character of the neighborhood

1:41:26with the desire to create more mixed use

1:41:29and walkability.

1:41:33And then lastly, we have the Elwood

1:41:34Avenue and Wellington Avenue section. As

1:41:36Beth mentioned, this is um a lot more

1:41:39industrial or former industrial, but it

1:41:42really has that greatest redevelopment

1:41:43potential um and potential for job

1:41:46density as well. There is existing bus

1:41:49service. And then of course there's the

1:41:50rail, which um you know in the future

1:41:53could potentially be there could be

1:41:55access to that.

1:41:58All right. So, um, talking through

1:42:01permitted uses, there is a, uh, large

1:42:05table of permitted uses in your draft,

1:42:07and I'm not going to go through each

1:42:08item, but I am going to just point out

1:42:10that these uses were, um, selected to

1:42:13really support the purpose of the

1:42:15district as established in item one. Um,

1:42:19so again, we want to encourage active

1:42:21uses at the street level. We want to

1:42:24bring in various different housing

1:42:26options, allow commercial uses by right.

1:42:30Um, and all of that is lending to this

1:42:32mixeduse center and corridor um, style

1:42:36development. Um,

1:42:39there have been some adjustments to

1:42:41individual categories um, based on

1:42:43discussion with the planning staff. So,

1:42:45that is all in here and and you're able

1:42:46to see how the proposed zone compares

1:42:50with the current zoning as well.

1:42:55All right, moving on to 4B. So, there

1:42:58are um some additional requirements in

1:43:01the Rolf Square subdistically

1:43:05encourage that active streetscape

1:43:06because of that foundation that you have

1:43:09in this area. Um and that pertains to

1:43:12requirements for um

1:43:16uh permitted non-residential uses and

1:43:19then entries, lobby, stairs and

1:43:21elevators providing pedestrian access to

1:43:24upper floor residential uses. So this is

1:43:27um requiring specific um

1:43:31spec it's requiring specific things for

1:43:34the ground floor of the buildings in

1:43:36this subd district separate from the

1:43:38other two subd districts.

1:43:44There is um a section on accessory

1:43:46dwelling units. So, one accessory

1:43:49dwelling unit per lot shall be allowed

1:43:51by right um on a lot with a total area

1:43:54of 5,000 square feet or more for which

1:43:56the primary use is residential. That is

1:43:59something specific to this overlay.

1:44:04And then we now have um uh we we want to

1:44:08provide consistency with the schedule of

1:44:11intensity regulations for these three

1:44:13subd districts um regardless of

1:44:15underlying zoning. So, a few points

1:44:18here. Um, the minimum lot area is

1:44:23reduced. Um, the minimum lot width and

1:44:27frontage in comparison to underlying

1:44:30zoning um is typically smaller. Um,

1:44:35underlying zoning is anywhere from 60 to

1:44:37200 ft. Uh, the minimum front setback is

1:44:42eliminated. So, um that is anywhere from

1:44:450 to 40 feet in the underlying zoning.

1:44:48Um and one thing I will also point out

1:44:51is the maximum building height. We it is

1:44:53um proposed up to 48 feet for only the

1:44:56Elmwood Avenue subdist. Um and right now

1:45:00the underlying zoning is anywhere from

1:45:0230 to 35 feet in these areas.

1:45:06Uh for those buildings that are taller

1:45:09than 35 ft though, there would be a

1:45:11requirement for uh a step back from the

1:45:14lot line um to kind of help with

1:45:18the transition between um existing

1:45:22buildings and the new development.

1:45:29And then uh when it comes to parking and

1:45:31loading requirements, we know that that

1:45:33is something that often is a really

1:45:35important part of these overlay zones.

1:45:38Um so there is an exemption for the

1:45:41first 5,000 square feet of gross floor

1:45:44area of non-residential uses. And then

1:45:47there are minimum numbers of off-

1:45:49streetet parking spaces required based

1:45:52on use. And we've provided a comparison

1:45:55between the proposed and the current

1:45:57zoning. Um, a few things to point out is

1:46:00for multif family dwellings, we're

1:46:02proposing 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.

1:46:06Um,

1:46:08and that is down from uh two per

1:46:12dwelling unit for structures with three

1:46:15or more dwelling units.

1:46:18Um, there's no change to two and single

1:46:20family dwellings. Uh there is a shared

1:46:24parking calculation section which we can

1:46:26we'll talk about in a minute. Um that

1:46:29comes up for mixed use. No change for

1:46:32accessory dwelling units. And then for

1:46:33non-residential uses it is uh one per

1:46:37500 square ft of gross floor area.

1:46:42And we are proposing that these required

1:46:45off-street parking spaces are located um

1:46:50in again in a way to serve that walkable

1:46:52main street character. So not in any

1:46:54required front yard um or between a

1:46:58principal building and street.

1:47:01We are um for those mixeduse

1:47:05uh uses there is a shared parking option

1:47:09included in this draft where

1:47:11developments that contain a mix of uses

1:47:13on the same parcel shall reduce the

1:47:15number of off-street parking spaces. Um

1:47:18there is a methodology included here and

1:47:20it is just accounting for the fact that

1:47:22many uses especially for a mixed

1:47:26residential and commercial use have

1:47:28different peak parking demand. Um, and

1:47:31so where those peaks aren't overlapping,

1:47:33there's an opportunity to share parking.

1:47:37Um, oh, can you just go back one more?

1:47:40And then there's also a section on off-

1:47:41streetet loading requirements. Um,

1:47:44currently there one loading space is

1:47:47required for non-residential uses

1:47:48regardless of size. And so instead, this

1:47:51is proposing um requirements based on

1:47:55size.

1:47:57And it's providing an exemption option.

1:47:59Um if there is an existing loading zone

1:48:02along the street frontage already.

1:48:08All right. Um so there is an incentive

1:48:11zoning section of this proposed uh

1:48:14overlay zone. Um it allows the planning

1:48:17commission by special use permit to

1:48:20allow either uh well one or more of the

1:48:24following. um an increase in the maximum

1:48:27building height by 10 feet um and or an

1:48:31increase in building coverage by 5%. And

1:48:34the way in which that would be allowed

1:48:37um is to to be eligible for these

1:48:40incentives and development shall include

1:48:43public realm and streetscape amenities.

1:48:45So that first of the three that you see

1:48:48here as well as either affordable

1:48:51housing or publicly accessible open

1:48:55space. So the public realm and

1:48:57streetscape is the base requirement and

1:48:59then the affordable housing and public

1:49:01space would be um additional

1:49:03requirements.

1:49:07No. Can you go to the next slide? Yeah.

1:49:10Um, so for the public realm and

1:49:13streetscape amenities, um, at least two

1:49:15of the following to be eligible for

1:49:17bonus incentives, there's, um,

1:49:20stipulations for street furniture, um,

1:49:23you know, like seating along public

1:49:25streets, wide sidewalks of 10 feet or

1:49:28greater, and transit shelters with

1:49:31seating.

1:49:32for affordable housing. Um you there's

1:49:36an eligibility for one incentive bonus

1:49:38if 30% is affordable and then two

1:49:41bonuses. So both the the building height

1:49:43and coverage if 40% is affordable. And

1:49:47then for publicly accessible open space,

1:49:49um there's eligibility for an incentive

1:49:51bonus if the if it in a development

1:49:55includes um the improvements as defined.

1:49:58And there are um eligible categories

1:50:01stipulated in this draft um such as a

1:50:04park, a square or plaza, a playground,

1:50:07recreational field.

1:50:09And if a project does meet the

1:50:11requirements of both the affordable

1:50:13housing and publicly accessible open

1:50:15space, they may apply for um both of

1:50:18those bonus incentives.

1:50:24This draft does include um additional

1:50:29details on how uh a development would be

1:50:32approved for these bonuses. um the

1:50:34minimum gross floor area for affordable

1:50:37for sale and rental units and then

1:50:39documentation as well.

1:50:43All right,

1:50:45it's a lot I know. Uh so we're going to

1:50:48move on to the next section that is

1:50:50going to specifically focus on um you

1:50:54know site and building design.

1:50:56So the remainder of the document uh

1:51:00includes

1:51:02um it includes both guidelines and

1:51:05principles and then in some cases

1:51:07requirements for these uh different

1:51:10areas. So we'll start with uh building

1:51:12facades massing and scale. So for

1:51:15building facades, um the guidelines and

1:51:18principles are um

1:51:22specifying

1:51:23uh well not specifying guid the

1:51:27guidelines and principles are

1:51:30are guiding developments to um orient

1:51:32new construction towards the street um

1:51:35and really enhance that visual

1:51:37permeability.

1:51:40Again, this is a really key thing for

1:51:42walkable main street areas.

1:51:44um as opposed to having a you know a

1:51:48facade that is not um directly orienting

1:51:51towards the street. And this section

1:51:53does have requirements for um how much

1:51:56of the uh ground floor facads need to be

1:52:00permeable with low reflectivity glass

1:52:03and it also has requirements for signs

1:52:09for building placement and orientation.

1:52:11The guidelines and principles um point

1:52:14out how development should contribute to

1:52:17a sense of enclosure and how entrances

1:52:20should be located to allow for

1:52:21convenient, safe, comfortable, and

1:52:23accessible pedestrian access,

1:52:25particularly from transit stops. And the

1:52:28requirement is that um all buildings and

1:52:31structures must be located outside of

1:52:34any required front, side or rear yards

1:52:37except as otherwise permitted.

1:52:39And then lastly for massing and scale um

1:52:42this section does only provide

1:52:44guidelines. So no specific requirements

1:52:46but it asks that development consider

1:52:49the surrounding context. Um take steps

1:52:52to visually transition down if larger

1:52:55buildings are located next to smaller

1:52:57ones. Um using architectural features or

1:53:02materials to reduce the perceived mass

1:53:04of buildings. And then of course um

1:53:08having architectural design that's

1:53:09compatible with the character of the

1:53:11neighborhood.

1:53:15Then getting into site design. Um first

1:53:18pedestrian access and amenities. Um the

1:53:21guidelines and principles call out

1:53:23incorporating pedestrian amenities along

1:53:25the street frontage and throughout the

1:53:27site. So essentially amenities that

1:53:30allow pedestrians to gather, sit, rest,

1:53:34observe. Outdoor dining falls under

1:53:37that. And then in terms of requirements

1:53:39for these um amenities, there are

1:53:42requirements for overhead weather

1:53:44protection such as awnings, overhangs,

1:53:46and arcades. And then there are a number

1:53:49of requirements uh related to sidewalks.

1:53:52This is related not only to providing

1:53:55that walkable environment

1:53:58um

1:54:00but also providing an accessible

1:54:02walkable environment. Um

1:54:06street trees uh or sorry furnishing uh a

1:54:10furnishing zone along the sidewalk where

1:54:12street trees, lighting or other

1:54:13furnishings could be offered. Um clearly

1:54:16distinguishing between vehicular and

1:54:19bicycle traffic. um and a number of

1:54:22other uh specific requirements for

1:54:24sidewalks.

1:54:26The transit section is another one that

1:54:28just has guidelines, no requirements,

1:54:31but it asks that development um

1:54:33considers existing and future transit

1:54:35stops in their layout and where possible

1:54:38um providing overhead weather protection

1:54:42um through shelters and coordinating

1:54:44with RIPA where possible.

1:54:47And then for lighting, the guidelines

1:54:49and principles stipulate um providing

1:54:53safe and comfortable pedestrian

1:54:55environments with lighting and

1:54:57pedestrian scale lighting specifically.

1:55:00And it is requiring that outdoor

1:55:02lighting is dark sky friendly um and

1:55:06directed towards the sidewalk um you

1:55:09know really trying to reduce uh light

1:55:11pollution.

1:55:16All right, just a few more sections

1:55:18here. So, landscaping and storm water

1:55:20management. Um, for landscaping, um,

1:55:23these are, um, the the the draft

1:55:27includes, um, guidelines and

1:55:29requirements from the existing

1:55:31development plan review process. Um so a

1:55:35lot of that uh should be consistent with

1:55:37um existing processes, but the

1:55:40guidelines and principles um call out

1:55:44uh including large trees, including a

1:55:47mix of deciduous and coniferous trees

1:55:49and plant varieties that are resistant

1:55:52to um things like drought, moisture,

1:55:55salt, urban conditions, insects, and

1:55:57other pests. Um and then there's a

1:56:00number of requirements specific to um

1:56:03the percent of total land area that

1:56:06shall be landscaped. That's a minimum of

1:56:0815%.

1:56:09Um and then requirements relating to top

1:56:12soil preservation, removal of debris,

1:56:16protecting existing plantings,

1:56:19slopes,

1:56:21um and then specific requirements for

1:56:25trees maintenance and parking area

1:56:27landscaping.

1:56:31Storm water management section only has

1:56:33guidelines, no requirements, but it asks

1:56:36that developments um use storm water

1:56:39management techniques such as rain

1:56:40gardens, flow through planters or bio

1:56:43bioailes and that impervious surfaces

1:56:47are limited um as much as possible to

1:56:50parking lots, walking paths and things

1:56:52like that.

1:56:55All right.

1:56:57Then we have a section on access

1:56:59circulation and parking areas. So this

1:57:02includes parking area design uh both

1:57:05guidelines, principles and requirements.

1:57:08Um so in terms of guidelines uh parking

1:57:12garages and surface parking should be

1:57:14screened um from a public street using

1:57:18landscaping or public art. and uh

1:57:22parking garage openings should be placed

1:57:24where they will have the least

1:57:25disruption to pedestrian walkways.

1:57:29And then there are a number of

1:57:30requirements um that go into more detail

1:57:34uh when it comes to those principles in

1:57:36terms of how off-street parking spaces

1:57:39and lots should be located. um again

1:57:42with the the screening requirements

1:57:45um how they should be designed to allow

1:57:47access and then um things like parking

1:57:50space width and angle as well.

1:57:54We do have a bike parking section um

1:57:57that includes guidelines only, no

1:57:59requirements, but that is um based on

1:58:02some recently released um bicycle

1:58:05parking guidelines from uh the

1:58:08association of pedestrian and bicycle

1:58:10professionals. Um, so that gets into,

1:58:13you know, the number of spaces,

1:58:15um, the the the rack designs as well.

1:58:20Um, and enclosed or long-term bike

1:58:24parking.

1:58:27And then lastly in this section, curb

1:58:29opening, location, and spacing. Um, as a

1:58:32guideline, wherever possible, uh,

1:58:35parking areas on adjacent properties

1:58:37should be designed to allow for shared

1:58:39driveway access and internal

1:58:41circulation.

1:58:42And specifically, this section would

1:58:45require um, limiting single and two

1:58:48family dwellings to one curb opening per

1:58:50lot and then all other uses limited to

1:58:53one curb opening per street frontage and

1:58:57spacing those um, based on new

1:58:59requirements.

1:59:04All right. [laughter]

1:59:06We also just wanted to take this chance

1:59:07to share some success stories uh where

1:59:10this type of development has um you know

1:59:15has sorry this type of um overlay or

1:59:19district has encouraged the type of

1:59:22development that a city is looking for.

1:59:24um in Pucket uh where the Pucket Central

1:59:28Falls MBTA station is that is within a

1:59:31tood zoning district and um since that

1:59:34establishment seven years ago um they've

1:59:38had a thousand plus units of mixed

1:59:41income housing either completed under

1:59:43construction or currently in the

1:59:44permitting process. Um and a lot of this

1:59:47is in formal industrial um buildings.

1:59:51Along with that, there's been a really

1:59:52big increase in ridership of the train.

1:59:55So, it's it is sort of a chicken and egg

1:59:59situation and one thing helps the other.

2:00:01Um, so that's one success story that we

2:00:03wanted to highlight locally. Um, and

2:00:06then I think we have another one um from

2:00:08Newburyport, Massachusetts. They adopted

2:00:10a smart growth district around their

2:00:13station. Um, and they've also been uh

2:00:18they've had a number of um housing

2:00:21developments constructed or under

2:00:24construction or improved around that

2:00:25area. Um, and of course, you know, th

2:00:29those are around train stations, which

2:00:30is slightly different than what we're

2:00:32looking at here, but it's a similar idea

2:00:34of creating a a very um walkable and

2:00:38contained area where someone can, you

2:00:40know, live, commute, shop, work. um and

2:00:44have access to those different

2:00:45amenities. So, I think that's all we

2:00:48have for you,

2:00:50unless [laughter]

2:00:54Yeah, I think that's all we have for

2:00:55you. Oh, one more. Portsmith, New

2:00:57Hampshire. Um

2:00:59so, Portsouth, New Hampshire adopted a

2:01:01gateway mixeduse zoning district. So,

2:01:03this is a little bit more akin to what

2:01:05we have been talking about for Cranston.

2:01:07This was in previously commercial

2:01:09industrial locations

2:01:11um and has since expanded to additional

2:01:14locations and and this is another

2:01:16example where they've had a lot of um

2:01:18developments um come in following the

2:01:21adoption of that

2:01:25any any more slides. Okay. All right.

2:01:29Well, we we would love to um hear your

2:01:32questions again. Um I'm available.

2:01:34Juliet is on the line and then I imagine

2:01:37there might be a few questions that our

2:01:39uh planning staff can can help with. So,

2:01:42thank you very much for for listening.

2:01:48>> Uh thank you, Miss Melo. Um

2:01:52obviously, I'll just start with this and

2:01:53I'm going open it up for the

2:01:54commissioners. I'm not going to start

2:01:56the talking unless people want me to.

2:01:58But um this is a lot of information, you

2:02:02know, and um it in the past week and I'm

2:02:06still processing it to be honest with

2:02:07you. And this other thing I'll say off

2:02:11the bat is

2:02:14this is a big change than the zoning we

2:02:16have here in Cranston right now. And I'm

2:02:21not against a big change in the right

2:02:24locations or even um reimagining things,

2:02:28but it's I just want to caution people

2:02:32is even with a big change, it's going to

2:02:35be a long pro a little bit of a longer

2:02:36process. And I know the grant expires at

2:02:38the end of this year, but you know, we

2:02:41would need

2:02:43us to be satisfied with it. And then you

2:02:46got to get the council on board. And

2:02:48there's a lot of moving pieces here. And

2:02:50to be honest with you, I'm not a

2:02:51professional planner. I just happen to

2:02:53do this thing as a hobby, you know, as

2:02:55my public service. So there's a lot of

2:02:57this that's kind of above my pay grade a

2:02:59little. But I wanted to open it up first

2:03:02to my colleagues in particular, uh,

2:03:05first dibs to those who live in the

2:03:07east, the commissioners who live in the

2:03:10east. if you have anything you guys want

2:03:11to say right now because they're the

2:03:14ones that live in neighborhoods that are

2:03:16basically adjacent to and affected to

2:03:18this. Um, I have things I want to say,

2:03:20but I want to make sure they have first

2:03:22chance if they want to say something off

2:03:24the bat to you. And by the way, to you

2:03:27it's questions for you, but also to give

2:03:29direction to the staff

2:03:31on their perspective. Um, I know like

2:03:35about a third of us here are on the

2:03:37east. So, is there anything you guys

2:03:39want to say at this point or you guys

2:03:40want me to go first?

2:03:43It's up to you guys.

2:03:47>> If that's up to you, Commission, up it's

2:03:49up you commissioner if you how you want

2:03:50to proceed.

2:03:52>> First of all, thank you. Um I remember

2:03:56when we walked all those areas and um

2:04:00it's interesting to see what has come

2:04:03back to us. I did

2:04:08I'm sorry I didn't have the opportunity

2:04:10to go through this until today, but I I

2:04:12did go through it. I'm not going to ask

2:04:15all the questions I have because some of

2:04:17them were very technical but for

2:04:19purposes of of understanding

2:04:24I did see

2:04:26that

2:04:28do you have a map of the proposed

2:04:33districts that and I I think I saw one

2:04:36up there that can show us

2:04:40how far back the district extends.

2:04:44into the off of Broad Street, for

2:04:47example. It looked to me that it does if

2:04:50that's what the what the green

2:04:52>> represents.

2:04:54>> Yes, the green would represent the

2:04:57parcels that are currently proposed to

2:04:59fall within this subdist. Um, in

2:05:02general,

2:05:04we were going about, well, a block a

2:05:09block isn't really an accurate term, but

2:05:11we were looking parcel by parcel. Um, in

2:05:13a lot of cases, we were looking at the

2:05:16existing zoning. We were looking at um

2:05:20the distance to transit as well as um

2:05:25flood flood maps too. we we didn't uh we

2:05:29were and wetlands and things like that.

2:05:31Um and that was what informed the

2:05:33ultimate selection of the individual

2:05:35parcels. Um we do have and the planning

2:05:39staff has access to um online versions

2:05:43of these maps where you could actually

2:05:44zoom in and kind of see what is or isn't

2:05:47within that boundary. Um but but this is

2:05:50a

2:05:51>> and I will add there there are parcels

2:05:54in here that are not don't have devel

2:05:56redevelopment potential. Like for

2:05:58example

2:06:00to keep the district looking consistent

2:06:02there's a cemetery in the north that

2:06:03looks like a very large lot but that's

2:06:05not a developable lot. You know there's

2:06:07a church in the south that's already

2:06:10developed. There's a lot of

2:06:14It looks bigger than it is, I think,

2:06:15because of the cemetery because that is

2:06:18that is the largest lot shown there.

2:06:20>> I I do recognize the cemetery. Um, I

2:06:24mean, what I'm most interested in, and I

2:06:26think that people who live in the area

2:06:28would be most interested in and the

2:06:30other commissioners, not not just for

2:06:33this district, but for all of them, is

2:06:36to be able to see um a map with the

2:06:39streets on it, the lot sizes. You know

2:06:42what we usually get when we we look at

2:06:45changes with that overlay

2:06:48so that we can see exactly what parcels

2:06:52in what areas this would affect

2:06:58so that we can look at it and be

2:07:01informed in that regard. Um I think that

2:07:04that would be helpful. It's um

2:07:07to be able to come up with specific

2:07:10either recommendations or guidance or

2:07:12tell you what we think works great and

2:07:15what we might think doesn't work great

2:07:18because of of where it is.

2:07:20>> You want a map that shows the zoning,

2:07:23labels the zoning as it is today. And

2:07:25then and

2:07:27>> and I think the the lot the actual lots

2:07:31with the square footage of each lot

2:07:34that's in that green area because for

2:07:36example the ADU portion of the proposal

2:07:41>> indicates that there would be an an ADU

2:07:44allowed by right on all 5,000 square

2:07:47foot lots. So, I would like to be able

2:07:49to see which 5,000 square foot lots are

2:07:53in the Broad Street District so I know

2:07:57which of those would be affected by

2:08:00that. So specifically, we'll call out

2:08:02the ADUs because those are the

2:08:17very helpful to the staff to have

2:08:19specific suggestions on on the visuals

2:08:21we can provide to help this um become

2:08:24more intuitive and to answer questions.

2:08:28Could

2:08:32I um also ask I I know that the bonuses

2:08:36and and all of that may come into play,

2:08:39but the the most general way I can word

2:08:42this is you

2:08:45what is the maximum height that would be

2:08:49allowed

2:08:52if all of the bonuses could be applied

2:08:56for for height?

2:08:59in this district. You said Elwood Avenue

2:09:02might be different or maybe you can tell

2:09:04me for each of the districts.

2:09:05>> Sure. Um so

2:09:08the the baseline the schedule of

2:09:11intensity regulations that is proposed

2:09:14is a maximum building height of 35 ft

2:09:17for Ralph Square and Broad Street and

2:09:1948T for Elwood Avenue. And then the

2:09:22incentive bonus would allow an increase

2:09:26in maximum building height by 10 feet.

2:09:28So up to 45.

2:09:30>> But in order to do that, because of the

2:09:32stepped setback, you would have to be

2:09:35assembling lots.

2:09:37If you take one of the small lots,

2:09:39you're not going to be able to go above

2:09:4135 ft

2:09:44>> because you're not going to have the

2:09:45depth from the street to do that. So,

2:09:48>> because buildings taller than 35 are

2:09:50required to have that step back.

2:09:52>> And when you say, that was one of my

2:09:54questions as well. When you say step

2:09:55back, is that what we normally call a

2:09:58setback?

2:09:58>> No. Well, but it's 35 ft in the air.

2:10:02>> Yeah.

2:10:03>> It's a step back that's exists 35 ft in

2:10:06the air.

2:10:09>> And because it's taller, it has to be

2:10:11further back on the property.

2:10:13>> Yes.

2:10:14>> So, it is set further back.

2:10:17the taller part is set further back. The

2:10:20building itself could be right up on the

2:10:22on on Broad Street.

2:10:23>> Okay.

2:10:24>> Because the goal here is to the is um

2:10:28>> you know this this zoning proposal I

2:10:30think really speaks to the the sort of

2:10:32Dollar Tree issue of like do we want

2:10:36buildings in the middle of a you know

2:10:39boxes in the middle of the parking lot

2:10:40or do we want buildings to be up against

2:10:44the main street?

2:10:47And just to be clear, so there is only

2:10:51one 10-foot bonus per building.

2:10:57>> Um,

2:10:58>> if they qualify for two bonuses, they

2:11:00can't say, "I'll take two of the height

2:11:02bonuses," for example.

2:11:05>> I don't believe so.

2:11:06>> Correct.

2:11:06>> Written that way.

2:11:08>> Thanks, Juliet. [laughter]

2:11:11Just I don't want to interrupt

2:11:12Commissioner L here but so I know like

2:11:14my language 35 ft is what three three

2:11:17floors.

2:11:18>> Yes about that

2:11:20>> and 48 is what? Four floors

2:11:23basically. Okay. I just want I just want

2:11:26to understand it from like I call like

2:11:27me the me the regular person. Okay.

2:11:31>> Right. And you you see this distance

2:11:33from lot line. Um you know on some of

2:11:37the smaller lots in like Ralph Street or

2:11:40Broad Broad Street, you you're not going

2:11:42to have much of the lot that's

2:11:45[clears throat] that's it.

2:11:48You know, you you wouldn't be able to

2:11:50build something tall right up on the on

2:11:52the street.

2:11:54>> Would have to be the taller part would

2:11:56have to be set back if it went to 45.

2:12:00Sure.

2:12:10Sure. No, no, no, no problem. Um, anyone

2:12:14else want us to ask anything or have any

2:12:16comments? Commissioner Coupe.

2:12:19>> Thank you. Uh, Mr. President,

2:12:22listening to the presentation and

2:12:24envisioning

2:12:27what type of developments might lead to

2:12:31these bonuses, things like or or

2:12:34preferences for shared driveways and uh

2:12:39parking areas behind the buildings that

2:12:42have continuous sidewalks. I I'm

2:12:45picturing a major type of redevelopment

2:12:48taking advantage of of this district

2:12:52where multiple par parcels are are

2:12:56redeveloped in one project in order to

2:12:58be able to do that. But now listening to

2:13:00Commissioner Lanfair's questions, I'm

2:13:03also now picturing individual

2:13:06small lots being redeveloped under this

2:13:09district. And so my question first is

2:13:14how do you see it staff? I mean do you

2:13:16see this as really dependent on

2:13:20largecale redevelopment which I don't

2:13:24recall seeing much of that in the 20 30

2:13:28years I've lived in Cranston? Or do you

2:13:31see this as a tool for development of

2:13:34individual lots or maybe both? Or what's

2:13:37the real goal for this?

2:13:38>> Yeah. Now, that's a really fantastic

2:13:41question to me for the the for the Ralph

2:13:44Square, the Park Avenue, the Broad

2:13:46Street. This is a Back to the Future

2:13:48proposal where we're we're

2:13:52fixing the zoning to better match the

2:13:56the main streets that we love. Cuz we

2:13:59have zoning that says,

2:14:01you know,

2:14:04the newer buildings people look at and

2:14:06say that those those are places you took

2:14:08down something historic and and put the

2:14:10parking in front and that's not what we

2:14:14want. Um but I think for the Elmwood and

2:14:17Wellington corridors, there's quite a

2:14:18bit of redevelopment potential. Um those

2:14:21are areas that

2:14:23so the

2:14:26each of the underlying zones has a mix

2:14:28of current uses. All of them have some

2:14:32mix of uses currently, but the you know

2:14:35the place where you'd be able to build

2:14:38new larger apartment buildings would be

2:14:40Elwood Avenue.

2:14:44because there are larger lot sizes

2:14:46there, but you also could see um you

2:14:50know attached single family on a smaller

2:14:52lot.

2:14:57>> So that kind of is so I understand what

2:15:00you're saying about Ralph Square and

2:15:01Broad Street and and that's was sort of

2:15:03my thought was it would be very

2:15:06difficult to have large scale

2:15:07redevelopment in those areas.

2:15:09>> Right. You might, but it would, this

2:15:11zoning would make it a lot easier for

2:15:13you to reconfigure existing buildings to

2:15:15new mixes of uses. Um, add apartment

2:15:19buildings on the upper stories. It does

2:15:21lower the parking requirement. So, it's

2:15:23really about flexibility within the

2:15:25fabric of that.

2:15:26>> So, that makes perfect sense to me now.

2:15:28Mhm.

2:15:29>> Um but now when you look at the Elwood

2:15:31Avenue corer, do you not run the risk of

2:15:35individual lot developments

2:15:38where there is where there are the

2:15:40possibility for large scale

2:15:42redevelopment?

2:15:43Do you run the risk of redevelopment of

2:15:46individual lots in a way that would make

2:15:49it harder to do largescale redevelopment

2:15:51down the road?

2:15:53It is very possible that individual

2:15:55small lot owners could invest in their

2:15:58properties in a in

2:16:01within the the current small lot

2:16:03configuration that they have. Um it this

2:16:06zoning doesn't allow absolutely there's

2:16:09a lot of doesn't allow. We had someone

2:16:11walk in today and ask if they could uh

2:16:14you know build another single family

2:16:16house on off Elmwood Avenue and the

2:16:18answer was no. Not on not on the size

2:16:20lot you have. was [laughter]

2:16:24um

2:16:28when we I know a lot of our

2:16:31conversations have focused on the

2:16:34housing production potential, but when

2:16:36I'm estimating housing production

2:16:38potential, I see it's very modest on

2:16:41Ralph Square Broad Street. You might get

2:16:43a unit here, a unit there. Maybe over 20

2:16:46years it'll add up to a couple dozen

2:16:48units, but it's not going to be in a,

2:16:52you know, it's not going to be very

2:16:53much. But where we could could see

2:16:55significance if we new housing is if we

2:16:58had a an industrial mill get redeveloped

2:17:01for housing or a new apartment building

2:17:04built on some of the um you know, if an

2:17:07industrial concern had more land than it

2:17:09needs because some of them do. They have

2:17:11empty parking lots. You could have a new

2:17:13apartment building put in front of an

2:17:16industrial building right up on Elwood

2:17:18Avenue.

2:17:20>> Wellington, I I don't mention as much.

2:17:22Wellington's included in this proposal,

2:17:24but for a number of reasons, I think

2:17:25that uh

2:17:29it's less likely we'll see proposals for

2:17:31residential on Wellington. It doesn't

2:17:33have, you know, it's right up against

2:17:36the interstate highway. It doesn't have

2:17:38the transit. It's there many reasons

2:17:40developers would

2:17:42>> but wouldn't would focus on

2:17:44>> wouldn't Wellington be the ideal place

2:17:45for more mixed use.

2:17:49>> Yeah. And you know the last two things

2:17:51we've seen built on Wellington are are

2:17:54self- storage facilities.

2:17:56>> You mentioned that in the beginning and

2:17:58that is what sort of triggered this

2:17:59whole train

2:18:01>> and that northern part of Wellington

2:18:02near Park Avenue. I think you know it is

2:18:08is near a mix of uses as you get farther

2:18:12there's a more solidly industrial part

2:18:14of Wellington as you go farther south.

2:18:18>> Thank you Commissioner. Any other uh

2:18:20thoughts from my colleagues?

2:18:22Um by the way we will take public

2:18:24comment after the commissioners are are

2:18:26done Mr. Murray and gentlemen in the

2:18:29audience. Um,

2:18:32okay. So, let me just kind of give you

2:18:34my like me talk. Um,

2:18:39you've created a zoning overlay district

2:18:42that applies to me three very different

2:18:44areas that are very you've very common

2:18:47overlay district. The only difference

2:18:49really is height. Uh, maybe a couple

2:18:51other things. Um, but to me, those areas

2:18:54are very different and they serve

2:18:56different purposes. And I've said this

2:18:58publicly before to the staff.

2:19:01The Elmwood Wellington A area is an old

2:19:05industrial site that has seen is not has

2:19:07seen better days. And so I am very open

2:19:11and flexible about changing that concept

2:19:14in the zoning there to create more

2:19:16housing. And I know that in our draft

2:19:18plan, you know, at 12.5

2:19:22units an acre, it could be 1,200 units.

2:19:25Now, we know it's not going to be every

2:19:27acre there that's going to be utilized,

2:19:28but that's an example. I'm very open on

2:19:32reimagining that. Number one, I'm not on

2:19:36Ralph Square. I see it more as how do we

2:19:40revitalize an area that was supposed to

2:19:42be a downtown that never became a real

2:19:44downtown center because of everything

2:19:46after World War II. And that's a

2:19:48different type of zoning changes for me.

2:19:51that's trying to get some more

2:19:52flexibility maybe for commercial uses,

2:19:55some parking, maybe a little bit of

2:19:56residential, like a third floor maybe or

2:19:58second floor on top, that type of stuff

2:20:00versus the big stuff. And Broad Street,

2:20:03I I'm going to be honest with you, I

2:20:05feel very uncomfortable messing around

2:20:06with that area. Not because I live

2:20:08there, okay? But I don't see like it

2:20:11being like a I don't see it being like,

2:20:14oh, it's really not loved or there's a

2:20:16lack of utilization or something. I so

2:20:19I'm very uncomfortable with ch making

2:20:22changes to an area unless I know like

2:20:25there's a problem and I want to fix it

2:20:28>> and I'd like to address that there

2:20:30really is a problem and that problem for

2:20:32a lot of people is is represented by you

2:20:35know the dollar store that the the

2:20:37problem is the zoning that we have on

2:20:39Broad Street doesn't look anything like

2:20:41the zoning the the neighborhood you

2:20:43love. So you you're holding on to

2:20:46something

2:20:49>> which doesn't m

2:20:52>> but Beth I mean direct director

2:20:55>> I mean I'm not comfortable I mean I'd

2:20:58like to hear from the people who live on

2:20:59Broad Street before I completely change

2:21:00their neighborhood. That's something I

2:21:01want to say at the end. Okay. I mean you

2:21:04you'll make public comment you know.

2:21:07>> Yeah. [laughter] So, you know, so I'm

2:21:10saying is like there could be changes to

2:21:12it, but I'm I'm I'm not sold on big-time

2:21:16changes to Broad Street until, you know,

2:21:18maybe some residents tell me they want

2:21:20to change, but then even then I'm a

2:21:22little bit cautious about how big

2:21:23changes. Um, second is

2:21:29so so to finish up that point, I almost

2:21:31want to I would almost be better with

2:21:34this is overlay for Elmwood. This is an

2:21:36overlay for Ralph Square. And then I I

2:21:38just don't know about Broad Street.

2:21:40Okay.

2:21:41>> Okay.

2:21:41>> Um

2:21:43there is no density limit in these

2:21:45things that I see. Now in our city,

2:21:50everywhere basically has a density

2:21:52limit. Out west it's one unit per acre.

2:21:54As it moves eastward, it increases and

2:21:56increases. It goes to about 11.

2:22:00And then we have um

2:22:04adaptive reuse. It's 15 units per acre.

2:22:08And we have done what I call spots here

2:22:11and there that exceed that. Our manners

2:22:13are obviously more than 15 units per

2:22:15acre. We've done affordable housing

2:22:17units in some of our apartment projects

2:22:19and that are more than like I they're on

2:22:21average 30 that we've approved over the

2:22:24last few years. I would need to see some

2:22:26sort of density limit because I don't

2:22:30believe in a I call no no dens like a no

2:22:35density limit zone in our city. I can't

2:22:39really feel comfortable saying Scott.

2:22:41Now you may say to me practically

2:22:42speaking, Steve, there's only going to

2:22:44be 20 units per acre. There's only going

2:22:46to be 22. There's only going to be 24.

2:22:48Fantastic. Then we'll just put that in

2:22:49writing.

2:22:50>> [snorts]

2:22:50>> But but it's a you can only determine

2:22:53the density limit by providing the

2:22:56pedestrian realm, providing the

2:22:57landscaping, providing the parking,

2:22:59providing the storm water management and

2:23:02>> then we can

2:23:02>> and following the that's where

2:23:05>> it's a function of design rather than

2:23:07this um midcentury concept of we'll just

2:23:12do it by

2:23:14by by numbers in a grid. To me, if I

2:23:18know what the number is and they want to

2:23:19go above it, great. You can ask for a

2:23:22request to go above it. I, you know,

2:23:24we've done it before for like Legion

2:23:26Bowl. We've done it before for 747

2:23:29Pontiac A. We've done it before for um

2:23:331790 Cran Street. We've done it before

2:23:35for Nights Corner. We have gone

2:23:38higher than let's say 15 units per acre.

2:23:41I have difficulty telling people I'm not

2:23:45putting a number down.

2:23:47Now you may say like look we don't know

2:23:48it this way. It could be this. It could

2:23:50be that. We have to practically do come

2:23:52up with a number.

2:23:54We want to change it later. We change

2:23:56it. If we want to give a relief from it,

2:23:57we can. But I I don't I'm not sold on

2:24:01the idea of making a zones in our city

2:24:04that are basically no limit.

2:24:08Um,

2:24:12that brings me to the next point.

2:24:15Some of the examples you used, Pucket, I

2:24:18see it in report Mansfield.

2:24:21Um, you had another one. I think I can't

2:24:24remember it was Newberry Port.

2:24:27>> They all have the MBTA

2:24:30or train. We have ripped them.

2:24:34And I'm going to speak from personal

2:24:37experience. In the last 30 days, I've

2:24:39driven on I've been on Ripa and I've

2:24:42been on MBTA.

2:24:44And there is a stark difference between

2:24:46those systems.

2:24:48Okay. And therefore I'm not comfortable

2:24:52using density calculations or density

2:24:56models of a MBTA style mass transit

2:25:00system versus what I call the RIPA

2:25:04model. Now people say you got to imagine

2:25:06that RIPA someday will become like MBTA.

2:25:09Uh I've been living in this state for a

2:25:11number of years. I've read RIPA and uh

2:25:14the chronic issues of it. It's like

2:25:16people write on that thing for free and

2:25:18MBTA you got to pay. It's a whole

2:25:20different dynamic. So when any examples

2:25:25or application we have to remember we

2:25:27are dealing with the RIPA system not the

2:25:30MBTA system and therefore the amount of

2:25:33people who are going to rely primarily

2:25:35on mass transit I think is much smaller

2:25:38in a RIPA system than an MBTA system.

2:25:41Okay. Um,

2:25:45ADU, you have this thing in there about

2:25:47ADU. Um, by right 5,000 feet. Look, we

2:25:51have things that are 5,000 ft where we

2:25:52have two families on it. There's a guy

2:25:54over here who wanted to come in and put

2:25:56three families on a 5,000 foot thing

2:25:58today. I I'm really see no need to be

2:26:01messing with our ADU rules. I I don't

2:26:04understand what that serves this purpose

2:26:06here. We're trying to create a a

2:26:08mixeduse quarter and we're talking about

2:26:09ADUs and it's in East Providence.

2:26:11Um,

2:26:14biking,

2:26:15um, you have biking as an element and

2:26:17I'm okay with having biking as an

2:26:19element. Um, but I don't want biking to

2:26:21be a requirement. Okay? And what I mean

2:26:24by that is this. We are a cold weather

2:26:27bad. I'll call it a bad weather region.

2:26:30We can basically do biking pretty good

2:26:31for about four months from May through

2:26:33September. Now, you'll disagree with me

2:26:35and say, "Oh, no, Steve. We can bike all

2:26:37day long." I I get that. There's people

2:26:39>> hopefully we do have biking

2:26:41requirements,

2:26:42>> right?

2:26:42>> It's just guidelines.

2:26:44>> So, I just want to make clear is that

2:26:45I'm not into requirements on the biking

2:26:47stuff because I just don't see biking

2:26:50replacing cars.

2:26:53>> That's not the idea.

2:26:54>> Okay. All right.

2:26:56>> It's just about transportation options

2:26:58in these areas.

2:26:58>> And I know you're sitting there going,

2:26:59"Man, this guy's going through this list

2:27:01and it's all about this is this is the

2:27:03stuff I'm just going through." So, you

2:27:04know, next is density bonuses.

2:27:07um open to them.

2:27:10Um my only concern on the affordable

2:27:12housing one is this

2:27:15under state law

2:27:17for every for an inclusionary Arizona

2:27:19you have every market every affordable

2:27:22housing unit you have one market one and

2:27:25if you want to do a comp permit it's you

2:27:28know sewer water area it's basically

2:27:30five units for an acre nine units for an

2:27:33acre or 12 depending on the percentage.

2:27:36I don't want to create a situation where

2:27:38some guy's going to claim the density uh

2:27:41bonuses under a state law and then ours

2:27:43and we have a pancaking effect.

2:27:47Okay. Um personally, I just like dealing

2:27:51with the state thinks it knows what it's

2:27:52doing on this issue. So, if the state

2:27:54wants us to do this, I'm very happy to

2:27:56just do what the state wants us to do

2:27:57versus trying to reinvent the wheel.

2:28:00Um,

2:28:02I'm really happy about your parking

2:28:06alternative parking formula

2:28:08and I don't know if it's going to work,

2:28:10but I have wrestled with the idea of how

2:28:14certain people are required to have so

2:28:17much parking for commercial and then

2:28:19that parking could also be used for

2:28:20residential at night. And you've tried

2:28:22to create a formula that I think this is

2:28:23in Portsouth, New Hampshire is where

2:28:25it's derived from.

2:28:28Um,

2:28:30>> yes.

2:28:30>> Yes. Yes.

2:28:31>> All right. I've been to Portsouth, New

2:28:33Hampshire. That's a city that actually

2:28:34functions. Okay. So, I've been up there

2:28:36a couple times. They know what they're

2:28:37doing. I kind of like it's an

2:28:39interesting idea. And so, that's

2:28:40something I could see adopted in Ralph

2:28:42Square. If it works in Ralph Square, we

2:28:44can maybe do it elsewhere. We just have

2:28:45to be careful about I want to make sure

2:28:46what's working with it. And the last

2:28:48thing I'll say is as we proceed forward,

2:28:52we have to notify the residents in these

2:28:54areas we're affecting by writing. I

2:28:57mean, like, I know that costs some money

2:28:58to send a a first class piece of mail to

2:29:01these people, but I putting a notice in

2:29:03the newspaper of an ordinance change or

2:29:05our meetings is to me inadequate for the

2:29:08type of dramatic changes we are doing to

2:29:09these people's neighborhoods

2:29:10potentially. That may be a cost.

2:29:13>> Hearings are required and we will have

2:29:14to do notice.

2:29:15>> Okay? So, I know we're going to have to

2:29:16have a hearing and it's going to be in

2:29:18the newspaper, but I think there has to

2:29:19be something in the mail to these people

2:29:21say they know what's coming.

2:29:24And that's something I think the council

2:29:26would want too. So

2:29:29there's a other things I could say, but

2:29:31that's kind of the macro stuff. Um,

2:29:35and uh, the prioritization for me is

2:29:37Elwood. Secondly, Ralph Square. And I

2:29:39really, um, Broad Street, I have not

2:29:42been sold on that. But anyway, does

2:29:44anyone else have anything they want to

2:29:47say at this point? Commissioner

2:29:48Barberry,

2:29:49>> ju just very general, just to repeat

2:29:51kind of what the commissioners have

2:29:52said. There are three distinctive

2:29:54different neighborhoods and I think to

2:29:57generally put these improvements to

2:30:00apply to all three would be a difficult

2:30:03task that would not fit for each of

2:30:06these neighbor each different

2:30:08neighborhoods that require different

2:30:10types of improvements. I think we need

2:30:12to be sensitive to that and again it's

2:30:13just echoing what the uh my fellow

2:30:16commissioners have been saying. I think

2:30:18uh just be sensitive to that. Would you

2:30:22like to talk about what kind of public

2:30:24outreach you might want to do for Broad

2:30:26Street? I one of the things that we

2:30:27recognize as a staff is that we've been

2:30:29working through our Main Street

2:30:30initiative with a lot of engaged

2:30:32residents in Ralph Square. I'm not on

2:30:35business owners and we've also had uh

2:30:37more than one conversation with property

2:30:39owners on Elmwood, but we haven't done

2:30:42um any we don't haven't designed any

2:30:44specific outreach to Broadstream. should

2:30:46talk about what that should look like in

2:30:49order to customize that zone

2:30:52appropriately to the area.

2:30:56>> Um,

2:30:58you know who the property owners in

2:31:00Rough Square and the property owners

2:31:01would not that much. I I that's why it

2:31:03was easier. But I think maybe you just

2:31:06um maybe you provide um a letter

2:31:12to the people in those little

2:31:13highlighted lots

2:31:16and um and some sort of thing in the

2:31:19newspaper and then have a an event at

2:31:21Williams William Hall Library and see

2:31:24what people have to say. Maybe that's

2:31:26>> the really with the the really big map

2:31:28that um Kathleen's talked about where

2:31:30you can see the individual lots and

2:31:32their dimensions because that's that'd

2:31:34be hard to do for the full area, get it

2:31:36on a page, but we could do it for just

2:31:38that one zone and focus in on that. I

2:31:40think that could be really really

2:31:42helpful for spurring conversation and

2:31:45and and doing those kind of thought

2:31:46experiment test fits of like, well, what

2:31:48what would it mean here? What would be

2:31:50the maximum somebody could possibly

2:31:51propose here or there or the other

2:31:54place?

2:31:55to help sort of game it through.

2:31:59>> Yeah, I think that's a good idea. And I

2:32:01I also think that not just those

2:32:04parcels, but maybe within 400 ft of

2:32:08those parcels because it's not just it

2:32:12doesn't just affect

2:32:14the person who has property in that

2:32:17zone. It affects people who abut that

2:32:20area. It affects people even beyond

2:32:23that. I'm not suggesting that you you

2:32:25have to notify by letter every person

2:32:27that lives.

2:32:28>> I'm pretty sure that would exceed our

2:32:30budget. [laughter]

2:32:32>> But what I'm trying to say is that I I

2:32:34don't think it's quite that that narrow

2:32:36either. And maybe, you know, letters to

2:32:40some of the organizations

2:32:42in

2:32:43>> Yeah, I think activating organizations

2:32:46could be very helpful

2:32:47>> as well. And um you know I mean I'm

2:32:51trying to think what else would do it

2:32:53but but I agree there has to be some

2:32:55type of direct notice because people

2:32:58you never know how people

2:33:01get their information. So to try to get

2:33:03it to them personally I think would

2:33:05would be the best first approach. We can

2:33:08we can since it's a it's a defined area,

2:33:11we can even do leaflets. You know, we

2:33:13can

2:33:15literally walk the street with a flyer.

2:33:18>> And I I think just I don't want to let

2:33:21the Broad Street issue drop without

2:33:24saying that I'm not suggesting I I do

2:33:27think that there are portions of Broad

2:33:29Street that would benefit greatly from

2:33:33um what you have proposed.

2:33:37I'm not sure I agree with the exact

2:33:40areas that you've highlighted. I think

2:33:42personally I would have not gone from

2:33:45Montgomery to Park. I would have stopped

2:33:49at Norwood as you did with um

2:33:55you did that on on the other piece that

2:33:57then went a little bit onto Warwick

2:34:00Avenue.

2:34:031A is Warwick Avenue. Yes. Um, and I

2:34:06think you were trying to include there

2:34:09probably the old Walgreens

2:34:12um, and some other areas and and I could

2:34:14see extending that to Park Avenue.

2:34:17>> Um, I think that when when we walked

2:34:21that you could see a really big change

2:34:25from Norwood Avenue north. So, I I agree

2:34:29with all of that. And I also agree that

2:34:31the Warwick Avenue part of it to Park

2:34:35Avenue

2:34:37I think is more appropriate. That's just

2:34:39my personal opinion.

2:34:40>> Can you be specific about why you think

2:34:43those parcels are more appropriate

2:34:44versus the other ones being less

2:34:46appropriate?

2:34:47>> Yes, because I believe that from Norwood

2:34:51Avenue

2:34:53South on Warwick Avenue there are a lot

2:34:57of storefronts. there are a lot of

2:35:01multi- family housing things that would

2:35:05benefit from that. Whereas when you go

2:35:08from Norwood Avenue

2:35:11on Broad Street to Park Avenue,

2:35:15you have CVS, you have a church, you

2:35:19have a large apartment complex, you have

2:35:21the William Hall Library, you have a

2:35:24funeral home. you don't have as much

2:35:26opportunity or need for that area to be

2:35:32affected by those changes or proposed

2:35:35changes. I think it's more necessary in

2:35:39that other area,

2:35:42including the the Walgreens property,

2:35:45which yes, I'm sure you have um and

2:35:49rightly so. But um that's that's my last

2:35:54comment about

2:35:56>> Commissioner Lfield. My question for me

2:35:58the Walgreens is that in or out of the

2:36:00area you think that should be that would

2:36:02be in. Okay. Just want to understand. So

2:36:05>> I think what the commissioner I mean my

2:36:07this is kind of like Steve translation

2:36:09is like you know if if there's an land

2:36:12there that seems to be underutilized

2:36:14that is seen better days. Yeah. Okay.

2:36:17let's let's see if we can change some

2:36:19zoning to make it uh you know get some

2:36:21investment in there. But if it's the

2:36:22funeral home, doesn't make you know the

2:36:24William Hall library, it look nice to

2:36:26me, you know, when I go over there. So

2:36:28anyway, is there anything um else that

2:36:31the my commissioners want to say at this

2:36:33point or question or comment unless a

2:36:36solicitor you want to say something at

2:36:38this point?

2:36:39>> Um just one thing this is a lot. Um

2:36:44there were some bonuses for which

2:36:47special use permits were were needed to

2:36:51be granted. I given the new change in

2:36:54the law this year where you cannot

2:36:56condition a special use permit. It

2:36:59either has to be granted or denied.

2:37:01>> Yeah.

2:37:02>> I would caution the use of a special use

2:37:04permit to grant those. It was maybe the

2:37:08third or fourth slide,

2:37:09>> right? I remember

2:37:10>> um because you wouldn't be able to. It

2:37:14would be a yes or a no. The way I read

2:37:16the new special use permit law, you

2:37:19either have to allow it or deny it. You

2:37:22can't condition it. So,

2:37:25while you you certainly can get or give

2:37:28bonuses, I would caution the use of a

2:37:32special use permit to do that. That's

2:37:33the only legal thing I saw.

2:37:35>> I got you. Okay.

2:37:36>> Yeah.

2:37:38Um, okay. Is there anything else for

2:37:41Miss Melo, the staff at this point? All

2:37:43right. Um, we can come back to it again,

2:37:47but first I want to have public comment

2:37:48if you don't mind, Miss Melo. I I can

2:37:50tell people have been waiting to talk

2:37:52about this. So, whoever wants to come up

2:37:54and speak about

2:37:58the mixeduse transit corridor stuff.

2:38:01>> Um, hi everyone. Uh, my name is Jared

2:38:03Vella Smith. I live on 91 Bartlett

2:38:06Avenue. So, right in the thick of this.

2:38:09Um, and what I kind of wanted to, and

2:38:11I've been following this for since the

2:38:14meeting at the William Hall Library, um,

2:38:17which was I thought was super great. A

2:38:19lot of people came out and came to talk

2:38:21about it. But one of the things that I

2:38:24think I wanted to question, and I'm

2:38:28coming at this from someone who has been

2:38:32living here for 31 years. Um, also,

2:38:36has their family been here since, you

2:38:39know, my great-grandparents came here?

2:38:40My grandma still lives in Garden City

2:38:42since the house that they built. Uh, my

2:38:44great-grandparents lived in

2:38:45Knightsville. So, I've seen many

2:38:48different iterations of Cranston as it's

2:38:50kind of evolved. Um, I think maybe one

2:38:54of the things I wanted to talk about, a

2:38:56few things, but first and most to

2:38:58Commissioner Barbi and Commissioner

2:39:00Frius was this application of this

2:39:04generalized zoning overlay. I think

2:39:07maybe to look at it from the flip side

2:39:09of things is not maybe that you're

2:39:12applying this to different types of

2:39:14neighborhoods, but by giving them the

2:39:17flexibility to become the neighborhood

2:39:18that they want to be is a different way

2:39:21to look at it. It gives me the

2:39:22breathability, right, as a resident. If

2:39:25I want walkability in my neighborhood, I

2:39:27should be able to have that. Um, I chose

2:39:30to move there because when I, you know,

2:39:33my wife and I chose to buy our house,

2:39:35chose to be there particularly because I

2:39:38worked in the Broadway section of

2:39:40Providence. It allowed me to bike to

2:39:42work year round. Didn't have to pay for

2:39:44a car. However, I have to cut through

2:39:46the park. I can't just d go right down

2:39:49broad street. Now, as you can see, some

2:39:51of the growth that's been happening and

2:39:53promoting that walkability with Seven

2:39:55Stars there, the yoga studio there, but

2:39:58some of the zoning laws that are there

2:40:00are draconian in some way, shape, or

2:40:04form. Like the lot at the end of

2:40:06Bartlett, right, that belongs to the

2:40:09person that owns the bed and breakfast.

2:40:11I forgot their name, but that lot has

2:40:13just been sitting there empty, overgrown

2:40:16with weeds because it's zoned to C2.

2:40:19can't build the things that you want.

2:40:20That might give someone a little more

2:40:23flexibility. Um, might give some needed

2:40:26life to an area and you might see more

2:40:30people at the library, you might see

2:40:31more people at the stores and you might

2:40:33not end up with businesses that either

2:40:36fall by the wayside like the uh I forgot

2:40:41the A in whatever it was called that

2:40:43mini mark that's right next to the CVS.

2:40:46Uh, I know that they retired, but the

2:40:48building's sitting empty. And if we

2:40:50could make those areas more desirable

2:40:53for businesses, I think it's something

2:40:56that if we allow flexibility and

2:40:58breathability in zoning and people can

2:41:01decide what their neighborhood wants to

2:41:02be like, not the other way around, so

2:41:05that it's law dependent, more

2:41:08flexible in what we're looking for.

2:41:11Another thing I wanted to point out,

2:41:12particularly coming from this Broad

2:41:14Street area, is the topic of aging in

2:41:17place. You know, I'm 31, but my parents

2:41:20are 70 and my dad doesn't drive. Um, if

2:41:24you actually kind of look at the area,

2:41:27it's technically a food desert, right?

2:41:30You can't get to any form of grocery

2:41:33store or any form of doctor's office or

2:41:37flexibility without getting in a car.

2:41:40And I think that's an important

2:41:42consideration when you're thinking about

2:41:44these in the demographic of the

2:41:46neighborhood as well is if you give the

2:41:48flexibility in the first place, you

2:41:51know, there are a lot of elderly

2:41:52population that live there. If we can

2:41:55get them the ability to be 15 minutes to

2:41:58where they need to be or allow younger

2:42:02adults to come in and build ADUs on

2:42:04their property by right, it allows them

2:42:06to have a parent aging in place. It

2:42:09promotes people staying in a

2:42:11neighborhood, you know, kids moving

2:42:13through the school, people working

2:42:15nearby,

2:42:16people maybe getting out of their car

2:42:18and getting on foot and having things

2:42:19more at a human scale. So, that's kind

2:42:22of the things I want to talk about, but

2:42:24I also wanted to be here if anyone had

2:42:26questions as someone who is like right

2:42:30in that green dot, right behind the

2:42:32Walgreens, well, Dollar Tree now. I'm

2:42:34happy to kind of entertain

2:42:37questions or if you had any thoughts on

2:42:41what I'm an open book, so I'm I'm also

2:42:44the only person here. So, let's just

2:42:48>> No, I I we we I certainly appreciate and

2:42:51we do that you came out and spent the

2:42:53time [clears throat] to talk to us about

2:42:54this because um my view of everything

2:42:57comes like we we I like hearing from the

2:43:00residents who actually live in the place

2:43:02because they know best about their

2:43:04neighborhood. I've said that all the

2:43:05time. Some people don't like that when I

2:43:07say that, but that's that's my view. And

2:43:11second is we kind of um we still live in

2:43:14a democracy. And so if the people of the

2:43:18neighborhood want a certain thing in

2:43:20their neighborhood, I'm kind of cool

2:43:21with that. You know, it's your

2:43:23neighborhood, you know. So that's why

2:43:25for me before I tinker around in a

2:43:28neighborhood like Broad Street, which I

2:43:30don't live there. I go up there maybe

2:43:31like

2:43:33I it's like the Far East for me, you

2:43:34know? It's like I live in the western

2:43:36side. So it's like, you know, I go over

2:43:37there like once a year and then I come

2:43:38back and you know

2:43:40>> I know, you know, so so I don't like

2:43:41telling people what they're doing out

2:43:43east. You know what I'm saying? So I

2:43:45that's what I like to hear and I hope

2:43:46that we have outreach so that I hear

2:43:48from like you say, "Hey, this C2 zoning

2:43:51is not good enough for this area. We

2:43:52need to have more flexibility and more

2:43:54uses." Makes sense to me. Do you see

2:43:56what I'm saying? So So anyway, I I

2:43:58usually don't give feedback, but you

2:44:00kind of asked for questions and I don't

2:44:01have a question for you, but I wanted to

2:44:02give you feedback that I appreciated

2:44:04your comment. Does anyone else have

2:44:06anything else they want?

2:44:09>> I just wanted to say that that even if

2:44:12we expand

2:44:15some of of what's allowed by right on a

2:44:18number of those properties on on Broad

2:44:20Street, um we can never predict what

2:44:24will go there, nor can we say we're only

2:44:27going to allow this type of business or

2:44:30that type of business. So I think

2:44:33sometimes we um probably all have a

2:44:36frustration when a particular thing you

2:44:40know is built in an area or comes for

2:44:43some um variance and we think oh if only

2:44:48>> you can say Dollar Tree it's

2:44:49>> if only this particular kind of you know

2:44:53business went in there or if it was

2:44:56housing or if it was something else. But

2:44:59we don't we can't as a commission either

2:45:03dictate what goes somewhere or um tell

2:45:08someone they can't build something

2:45:10because we don't we don't think that

2:45:12it's the appropriate thing to go there.

2:45:14So all I'm saying is yes, we can open it

2:45:16up more, but we still will not know what

2:45:19will end up there. And it might be

2:45:21something that we think's appropriate

2:45:23for our community or not. And I think

2:45:26you know

2:45:28what I what I'm hearing you saying is

2:45:30that I I agree with you and I think it's

2:45:33important to challenge that like do the

2:45:36inverse of that. you know what I do for

2:45:38work is uh I'm a department head at

2:45:41UMasschan medical school right and we my

2:45:45job currently is tasking building

2:45:48computational infrastructure for

2:45:49biomedical researchers right so I need

2:45:53to translate and understand what these

2:45:55researchers are looking for while also

2:45:57balancing

2:45:59security hippo laws and things like that

2:46:02I the one of the arguments that we're

2:46:04having is now is If information security

2:46:08doesn't have the ability to oversee and

2:46:10dictate what kind of research the people

2:46:14want to conduct and want to do in the

2:46:15way they want to do it, they'll be able

2:46:18to say this is our safety bubble, right?

2:46:22This is what we want our our business,

2:46:25our institution to look like. Our job,

2:46:29my boss and I, when we were pulled in by

2:46:31the dean was to say the inverse of that

2:46:34and it was, you know, people are osmotic

2:46:36by nature, right? Like water kind of

2:46:40take the path of least resistance. And

2:46:43my point kind of coming here to talk

2:46:45today is that by just freeing this up,

2:46:49you will allow people to come and say,

2:46:52"Oh, I don't want that. We want to

2:46:55collectively build this together and be

2:46:58more as a community. I think most

2:47:00people, hence why I'm probably the only

2:47:02person here, feel that this is feudal,

2:47:05right? I'm not going to be able to fight

2:47:07with zoning. So my philosophy and my

2:47:10ethos on this is that and I wanted to

2:47:13talk to everyone about was by just

2:47:15opening the gates and putting in just

2:47:18some gentle safety rails in these kind

2:47:20of areas, you get to see the products of

2:47:24like a Puxit village multiplied

2:47:28further down. You know, Puxa village

2:47:30obviously was something that was built

2:47:31over many, many years, many iterations,

2:47:34but you can see the different flavors,

2:47:36the different ideologies that came about

2:47:39over the course of those times. And you

2:47:41get a culmination of what we appreciate.

2:47:45You know, you see things like why people

2:47:47love Garden City. It's walkable, right?

2:47:50So if we can allow that to happen again

2:47:54by not being so oppressive in those

2:47:57decisions but allow people to kind of

2:48:00circulate different ideas. I think

2:48:01that's something that is important for

2:48:03our neighborhood. I'm assuming you're

2:48:05probably in the same neighborhood as me.

2:48:07Yeah. So

2:48:09I think that's all I have to say. I've

2:48:12been following this for a couple of

2:48:13months now. So,

2:48:14>> no, I app and and and we do appreciate

2:48:17your um following this and if you're one

2:48:19of the people who watches at home,

2:48:21great, too. You know, um but um one

2:48:23thing I just want to point out and kind

2:48:25of follow up on what Commissioner Lafier

2:48:26said, then we'll hear from Mr. Murray.

2:48:28Um like you said, like, hey, my father

2:48:31doesn't drive and it's a food desert.

2:48:33Like, my father is 82 years old. He

2:48:36doesn't drive. And I sympathize with

2:48:39that, you know. Um, he lives in a

2:48:42location where he can walk to a

2:48:44supermarket, you know. Um, and yes, if

2:48:47the issue of zoning is we can't allow a

2:48:50grocery store to be over there, we could

2:48:51try to change that. The only thing I

2:48:54want to follow up on, Commissioner Laner

2:48:55is even if we allow it, it may not

2:48:57necessarily be the thing that goes over

2:48:58there. It may be something you may not

2:49:00want. I just don't know. You know what I

2:49:02mean? That's that's kind of what we're

2:49:04like once you open up the like you

2:49:05talked about open it up but then have

2:49:06guardrails. The argument about what

2:49:09zoning is is about guardrails and right

2:49:11now zoning is too tight of a guardrail I

2:49:13see from your view and it's about

2:49:16opening it up but not opening up too

2:49:18far. That's where the the balance is. So

2:49:21that's kind of my two cents. Okay. All

2:49:23right. Mr. Murray, would you like to

2:49:25come up and speak?

2:49:27Please come forward and please state

2:49:28your name and address for the record.

2:49:39Robert Murray, 21 Garden City Drive.

2:49:45I almost feel diminished it after the

2:49:47eloquence of this gentleman. Um,

2:49:51but uh, and in fairness, I haven't done

2:49:54a deep dive on on this topic. I've been

2:49:58to the some of the forums and tried to

2:50:02pay attention. Um

2:50:05I um

2:50:08I want to underscore my appreciation and

2:50:11respect for the effort of the staff

2:50:15consultants.

2:50:17Uh it is

2:50:20it's always a challenge to stimulate

2:50:23discussion, create ideas for

2:50:26consideration. I get all that.

2:50:32I was making notes as I was listening.

2:50:35So, I haven't really prepared anything.

2:50:37But I

2:50:40after I listened to the president, I

2:50:42thought, well, he's clearly the good cop

2:50:45tonight because what I'm going to say is

2:50:47going to be the bad cop. So, uh I don't

2:50:49know how you took his remarks, but uh uh

2:50:51let me just say this. Um some of the

2:50:54thoughts that I have uh with me first is

2:50:57I sat here and the first thing I wrote

2:51:00down is the expression uh we're here

2:51:03from the government and we're here to

2:51:05help you.

2:51:07That is u that is a

2:51:10philosophy that scares me. Uh

2:51:15in all honesty uh creative ideas in an

2:51:19educational classroom or planning

2:51:21laboratory uh often conflict with the

2:51:24real world.

2:51:27I wrote down urban utopia versus public

2:51:30reality

2:51:32and respectfully many times visions like

2:51:35this are nice and creative and they're

2:51:37generally unattainable

2:51:41and

2:51:45much of what I heard tonight, you know,

2:51:48and for the record, I'm representing no

2:51:51one tonight except my ideas and my own

2:51:53thoughts, but you all know I represent

2:51:56the largest property owner in Protective

2:51:58Village. I represent property owners in

2:52:00uh Ralph Square

2:52:04and I I did do the largest self storage

2:52:08facility on Wellington Avenue. So uh uh

2:52:12so you know I think everybody knows my

2:52:14background and

2:52:16approach. Um

2:52:21much of what I heard tonight in all

2:52:23honesty you know it's almost like you

2:52:25know let's knock some of these areas out

2:52:27and start over and we and we can build

2:52:29what we want. I and I know I know Beth

2:52:31is going to take offense at that but

2:52:34when I see things like requirements okay

2:52:38requirements are very scary okay okay

2:52:42incentives okay incentives have to be

2:52:46layered in reality okay the reasons that

2:52:52uh many of these areas may be

2:52:55undeveloped for some or could be better

2:52:58developed more

2:53:02quick more quickly developed, you know,

2:53:05isn't because we're, you know, you're

2:53:07not giving incentives. It's the economy,

2:53:10it's interest rates, it's the, you know,

2:53:14the required capital investment private

2:53:16property owners have to make. Okay?

2:53:20You know, many of the things that we're

2:53:22talking about tonight, okay? You know,

2:53:24and I hear discussion about residents

2:53:27and they're residents should have a

2:53:29major say in this, but I want to know

2:53:32what we're doing for the outreach to the

2:53:33direct property owners that we may in

2:53:36affect their properties. Okay. Okay. And

2:53:39that is because you know whether you're

2:53:42on Bartlett Avenue or Shore Avenue or

2:53:45you know Sheldon Street or you know

2:53:47Garden Street you know you know that's

2:53:50your neighborhood and you may have some

2:53:52views about what but you don't own the

2:53:55property and you know um you know I've

2:53:58listened to the city council the past

2:54:00month or so talk about the city spending

2:54:03money on vanity projects all stuff. Well

2:54:05I saw a lot of vanity projects for me

2:54:07tonight. Um I saw no discussion about

2:54:12what the role of the public sector is in

2:54:15all these improvements in the public

2:54:16right of ways. It seemed like we're

2:54:18talking about you know you know whether

2:54:21it's uh you know furniture street

2:54:24furniture or landscaping or lighting or

2:54:26whatever you know those are all you know

2:54:28are we putting are we shifting that on

2:54:30to property owners you know so that that

2:54:33maybe they can you know add a you know a

2:54:36two family dwelling to a commercial

2:54:38building. Um

2:54:40I I caution you to go slow here and I

2:54:44pick up the chairman on that. Um,

2:54:50you know, as someone who represents

2:54:52Dollar Tree and Dollar Store, um, you

2:54:55know, when you're a commercial land

2:54:57owner and you're getting a tax bill from

2:54:59the city every year and a sewer bill and

2:55:03you can't get a tenant for a 14 or

2:55:0515,000 square foot building and Dollar

2:55:08Tree is willing to come in, okay, there

2:55:12are great tenants, okay? or you know

2:55:15when Benny's closed and everybody

2:55:17thought that was the end of the road.

2:55:18Well, you know, I gota be honest with

2:55:19you, Dollar Tree filled that nicely for

2:55:21copy and auto and uh it seems to be

2:55:24working out. Okay. So, um you know,

2:55:27we're not going to create, you know,

2:55:29North Conway, New Hampshire, you know,

2:55:31on Ralph Street with Zuck, you know, Ze

2:55:34hardware store and and all

2:55:37reality needs to be overlaid on this

2:55:40entire discussion. Um, and I say that

2:55:42respectfully with the efforts that the

2:55:44consultants have put in on this. Uh, but

2:55:48we need to go slow here. You know, this

2:55:50is the planning commission. I get that,

2:55:53but we need to be the reality

2:55:55commission, too. And, uh, so those are

2:55:58my top of the mind comments. Um,

2:56:03if I offended anybody, I apologize. Uh,

2:56:06but I um I wanted to at least give an

2:56:09initial reaction because it's uh we need

2:56:12to go slow here.

2:56:14Thank you, Mr. Murray, and I certainly

2:56:17always appreciate your comments. Um, and

2:56:21I really appreciate the fact that I was

2:56:23the good cop tonight.

2:56:26I'm used to being Dr. No, and I really

2:56:30appreciate when I don't have to be big-

2:56:32time Dr. No. Um,

2:56:37oh yeah, I'm just thinking one thing I

2:56:40just want to say before we go take

2:56:41online. Um, and I [clears throat] said

2:56:44this before to the staff and I've said

2:56:46this publicly, we can make zoning

2:56:49changes, but macroeconomic conditions

2:56:53really determine what happens and gets

2:56:56built because of interest rates and all

2:56:58this other stuff. I I've had this

2:56:59argument with people

2:57:01um about like oh the problem is the

2:57:04cities and towns and their zoning. If

2:57:06interest rates are as high as they are

2:57:08it's the financing is difficult. I get

2:57:11it that we can make changes but we

2:57:13always have to keep that in mind or as

2:57:14Mr. Murray said reality.

2:57:17Okay. Anyone else here? You want to make

2:57:19more public comment.

2:57:22If if you want to make comment you have

2:57:24to go you have to go on the microphone.

2:57:25>> Um it wasn't necessarily a comment. You

2:57:27have to state your name and address

2:57:28again.

2:57:29>> This is [laughter] Jared Velis 91. Okay.

2:57:32>> Um, this wasn't necessarily a comment,

2:57:34but maybe a suggestion for these public

2:57:37meetings when you come to have them. Is

2:57:39it possible to get like a heat map of

2:57:42kind of the areas to show like the gross

2:57:46tax revenue per acre?

2:57:49>> Yes,

2:57:50>> because I've seen

2:57:50>> I will be putting that on the website

2:57:53for you.

2:57:54>> Okay. Yeah, because I've seen some heat

2:57:56map of these mixeduse areas before and

2:58:00what you can see is usually like a very

2:58:03high peak of tax revenue coming from

2:58:06these mixeduse areas and in areas that

2:58:10are not mixed use there's a giant

2:58:12sinkhole in that it's usually that's the

2:58:14area that's being subsidized by the

2:58:16mixeduse areas. So I think it would be

2:58:19very helpful to see from business points

2:58:21of views if you can showcase to these

2:58:24land owners that their land is actually

2:58:28extremely valuable. It gives them

2:58:30incentive to develop it. So if we can

2:58:32get that map for these areas that would

2:58:35be like super helpful. That's all I

2:58:38>> Thank you sir. By the way for the record

2:58:40Mr. Murray I like Dollar Tree store.

2:58:42I've gone there and shopped. My I live

2:58:44in New Befford and when I go to my

2:58:46parents house, I usually go over there

2:58:47because everything's so cheap where they

2:58:48live. Anyway, um

2:58:52anyone online, Mr. Lima, who'd like to

2:58:53make comment on this presentation?

2:58:59>> Not.

2:58:59>> There is no public comment online.

2:59:01>> No public comment. Okay. All right. Mr.

2:59:05Commissioner Coop,

2:59:05>> may I just finish up real quickly? No

2:59:07problem. I don't want to I don't want to

2:59:08belabor this, but um

2:59:12sometimes I feel like

2:59:16the commission

2:59:18is Dr. No because someone comes forward

2:59:22with the project and it just doesn't fit

2:59:24or it doesn't match the zoning. I mean,

2:59:27zoning is at its heart

2:59:31a list of things you can't do.

2:59:33So

2:59:35to the extent we're

2:59:38looking at ways to provide more

2:59:40flexibility,

2:59:42I think that is what Mr. Murray wants.

2:59:49We talk and there have been so many

2:59:51mentions of mixed use

2:59:53and I think

2:59:56that's what we're looking for in these

2:59:57districts. I think that's what even what

2:59:59we envision

3:00:02what Ralph Square should be. You should

3:00:05be able to have the hardware store with

3:00:08the bakery across the street with an

3:00:11apartment upstairs. I think that's what

3:00:14we're trying to get at.

3:00:16Several times during this conversation,

3:00:18we've sort of defaulted back to

3:00:20largescale housing because I think it's

3:00:23been beaten into our heads for a couple

3:00:25of years now that that everything comes

3:00:27back to more housing, more housing, more

3:00:29housing.

3:00:33>> I think if the idea I think it is, is to

3:00:38generate possibilities

3:00:40for mixed use that has a strong housing

3:00:44component. Then you make it attractive

3:00:48for the bodega with the apartment

3:00:50upstairs

3:00:52and maybe you know the small grocery

3:00:54chain wants to go into that building

3:00:57because there's enough walkable housing

3:01:01nearby. I don't I hope we don't fall

3:01:04into the tr I don't want to say trap but

3:01:07into the habit that we've been forced

3:01:09into to just constantly talk about

3:01:11housing all the time. I don't I housing.

3:01:14I'm I'm in favor of housing. I But I'm

3:01:17more in favor of

3:01:20a good economic

3:01:23center for the city that has to be, I

3:01:26think, more of a mixeduse focus than

3:01:28just straight housing,

3:01:31especially because we're not going to

3:01:32have the industrial base that we used to

3:01:34have in that area particularly. So, I

3:01:36just want to kind of come back to that.

3:01:38>> Thank you, Commissioner Coop. I

3:01:40wholeheartedly agree with you, which is

3:01:42something I don't always say. Um, I I

3:01:45think Ralph Square, possibly Broad

3:01:48Street, that's your mixeduse. Let's, you

3:01:51know, focus on revitalizing. Elmwood is

3:01:53more of like the housing production. And

3:01:56so that's why I came back to the

3:01:57beginning, which is the overlay district

3:02:01for Ralph Square, Broad Street is going

3:02:04to be, in my opinion, needs to be

3:02:05different than what we have for Elmwood.

3:02:08That's what it is. And I try I know you

3:02:09tried to make all of them the same. The

3:02:11staff did with you. I just see them as

3:02:13three different neighborhoods. And I

3:02:15want to see I want to see I'm

3:02:17[clears throat] okay with seeing, you

3:02:19know, a little house, you know, a little

3:02:22apartment on top of Dery's Hardware if

3:02:24Dery wanted to do that or whatever it is

3:02:28in Ralph Square. As long as we can

3:02:30figure out this parking and you've come

3:02:31up with a parking ratio plan that kind

3:02:33of could work, I think. But anyway,

3:02:36thank you, Commissioner Coop. telling me

3:02:37to keep talking. Um, anything else from

3:02:40anyone else?

3:02:42Okay, that will then conclude. We'll

3:02:44we'll I was going to say to the staff,

3:02:47um, we can have some further discussions

3:02:48and I encourage my colleagues, you know,

3:02:51to talk to the staff too and we can

3:02:53figure out where we go from here and I

3:02:55understand your your thing is um, ends

3:02:59at the end of the year. It's just um,

3:03:03like I said earlier and what I said to

3:03:05Mr. M what Mr. Murray kind of said we,

3:03:07you know, we have to, we can't rush

3:03:09this.

3:03:10>> Yes. And I don't think that was ever the

3:03:13intention, our intention or the planning

3:03:15staff's intention. We knew that this

3:03:17process was probably going to extend

3:03:18beyond the life of this grant. So, our

3:03:21support as consultants um has to end at

3:03:23the end of the year, but we knew that

3:03:25this this is going to require more

3:03:26discussion, potentially more engagement,

3:03:29public hearing,

3:03:30>> right? But I really do appreciate um

3:03:34people who come to things with different

3:03:36ideas. It challenges my thinking all the

3:03:39time. Um you can probably guess from the

3:03:41way I talk. I'm like a Uklitian zoning

3:03:44person. You know, I can go back to

3:03:46George Sutherland in 1926. He's a great

3:03:48guy. Really love that guy. I mean I

3:03:50don't Anyway, but um you know that's

3:03:52kind of where it is and so I got to

3:03:53think outside that. And I do I am

3:03:55willing to think outside that when that

3:03:56occurs. Uh, director, you have anything

3:03:59you want to say at this point?

3:04:01>> Um, I just think it's I think you summed

3:04:03it up well. We are definitely open for

3:04:05more comments. We we will plan another

3:04:08event focused on the Broad Street for

3:04:10more engagement. We'll talk about that,

3:04:12but if people who are out there

3:04:14listening um want to send us a letter or

3:04:16give us a call with an idea or a

3:04:19question um that that is absolutely

3:04:23appropriate. The the goal here is that

3:04:24we'll we'll get a lot of input. we'll

3:04:27have that reflected in the draft and

3:04:29then even at that point then we'll still

3:04:31have to have public hearings and on once

3:04:34we have a a final draft that we're want

3:04:37to put forward for consideration. So

3:04:40>> thank you director and again the the

3:04:42city there will be a new city council in

3:04:44January. So that's with new council

3:04:47people from ward one and w two which

3:04:49this is going to primarily affect. So we

3:04:52have to get input from the council

3:04:53people as well. Okay. Thank you very

3:04:55much. plan director. Last thing on the

3:04:57agenda is your report. Um, I think

3:05:00everyone got the copy of it. So, if you

3:05:01have any questions, feel free to talk to

3:05:04the director about it. Go ahead.

3:05:06>> Garden City.

3:05:07>> Date for a kickoff for the Garden City

3:05:10um neighborhood nomination for the

3:05:13National Register. That's on there if

3:05:14you want to pass that around. Thank you.

3:05:17>> Thank you, director. Um, our next

3:05:19meeting will be November 10th. So, it's

3:05:21not the first Tuesday in November

3:05:22because the first Tuesday in November is

3:05:24election day. Um, so we'll be meeting on

3:05:28the I think that's the second Tuesday of

3:05:30November. So that's a little change of

3:05:32schedule. So with that, do I have a

3:05:34motion to adjurnn?

3:05:37Commissioner Coupe makes a motion to

3:05:38adjurnn. Second by Commissioner Lampere.

3:05:40Any discussion? Hearing none. All those

3:05:42in favor signify by saying I.

3:05:45>> All those opposed to nay. Eyes have it.

3:05:46See you in November.

```*