Housing and Human Welfare Committee - Regular Meeting

Thing. I am currently here along with Alderman Huntley and Alderman Gay. Alderman Gay is having some technical issues, so he will be taking over the as a his routine chair duties as soon as he has those sorted out. Before we begin the agenda, I am going to ask for a motion to move AP fifty seven twenty five to the bottom. I'm gonna move AP fifty seven twenty five I am currently here with Alderman Huntley and Alderman Ms. Valerie Brown. Alderman Gay has had some technical issues. So he might be taking

Can you hear us fine? Everything working? Thank you. We appreciate that very much. Alderman, I the last name that you called I'm sorry. I'm looking, on the agenda now.

We have miss Janine Tasker for Human Relations Commission, AP fifty six twenty

five.

Working? Which I do not believe she's present. I don't see that on, my screen. So thank you. We appreciate that very much. Alderman, we can move on to the next step. You called. I'm sorry. I'm looking, which is now. Next AP. Can you read that one for me? I'm still getting, registrar.

It looks like We have looks like having problems. So human relations commission. I can hear him. He's looking exasperated. Exasperated.

I do not believe she's present. I don't see that on, my screen. So thank you. We appreciate it very

we go on. Our

Okay.

Alright. Whenever you are ready. Yep. Awesome. Thank you very much, to the general public for waiting. Just fixing a quick technical issue there. Is there a motion to, reconvene our meeting?

So moved.

A second? All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

None

opposed. Thank you very much. We'll get right back into the APs. Starting with AP fifty six twenty five, miss Tasker, I do not believe is is present with us, but, none of us will, move her, her appointment, forward to the full council. Next on the agenda is AP fifty seven twenty five.

Appointment is miss Valerie Bonham to the Commission of Aging.

I do not believe is present either.

Brooks made a motion to amend the agenda to move 58 to the bottom.

You're right. Thank you.

To the bottom.

57 to the bottom. In 56, you have to vote on it to move it to the

So I move we postpone action on 56.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. We'll come back to AP fifty seven twenty five. Next on the agenda, AP fifty eight twenty five appointment is Samantha Watts of the Education Commission. Mind you, we've been off for a month to the public, so we're getting back to the swing of things. Miss Watts, thank you for joining us tonight. Are there any questions from the committee on the, for the appointment appointee?

I'm seeing now, Ms. Watts, if you wanted to just share, your interest in the education commission?

Yes. So, in my professional life, I've been a teacher, a substitute teacher, and I now work in the corporate training field. I have experienced, volunteering in the community as a volunteer tutor for the Anne County or the Anne Arundel Literacy Council as well as, being a youth volleyball coach. And so I'm really excited to contribute to Annapolis in this way. I live in Ward 7, but I believe the position that I'm being appointed to is, at large.

That is correct. Yeah. And, again, I appreciate you very much for stepping up, to this commission in particular, just due to the importance with, obviously, the youth and, trying to make a connection between the public school system and our city. Mhmm. Alderman Schindelmeyer, I see your hand.

Yes. Thank you, mister chair. Miss Watts, I see you work for Fellow now.

I do.

The disability advocacy organization. How so, how long have you been with them?

So I actually started, mid July, so I'm relatively new with them, and I'm the corporate trainer there. So I handle, all of the essential trainings for new employees.

Alright. Well, it's a fantastic organization. I know some of the folks who have been long timers there when they were still at the ARC. So Mhmm. Very, happy that they have good people like you there. So Thank you.

Yes. I'm very excited to be a part of their team.

And they also, have been incredibly supportive of some of the, housing efforts in the city, obviously, working with a vulnerable population. So

Yeah.

That's fantastic. Any questions, Alderman Huntley?

No. I'll just say I'm excited to, see some folks on our committees whose, year of birth has a a nine in it. So in the nineties.

Yeah. That's yeah. True to that. True to that. So we'll we'll make a motion to recommend this to the, full council. You'll come back. Well, you don't have to if you if you do not want to, but, this will be before the full council. I believe, the meeting has been moved to the twenty ninth?

Yes.

Okay. Fantastic. Yeah. September 29.

And will that be oh, sorry.

Oh, no. Please.

Will that be virtual as well?

The, full council meetings are in person. So that'll be at the, council chambers, right off of, Duke.

Yeah.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

So, mister chair, I would like to make a motion for a favorable recommendation, for miss Watts to join the Education Commission.

Second.

There's a second to that. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. Thank you very much, miss Watts. We appreciate your time and look forward to, your work on this commission.

Thank you so much.

Our, next section, for the agenda is legislation. We'll get started with o 1425, implementation of the Annapolis of Head Comprehensive Plan of twenty twenty forty. We've had a pretty in-depth discussions about this legislation previously. If there are further questions from, members of the committee, I will entertain those. I see we also have members, from our planning department president.

And, obviously, for expertise, would defer to them. Any questions on o fourteen twenty five or any of the amendments? I'm seeing none. Are we, yes, making a final vote on this? This has been to public hearing. And so if the committee is comfortable with it, I'll take a motion.

Well, shouldn't we do the amendments first?

Do you wanna do them separately, or do you wanna carry it as as one?

Yeah. I have an amendment.

Okay. Let's do it separately starting with, amendment one introduced by Alderman Huntley. You want, please explain?

Sure. Well so my my biggest concern with this is around the areas, of Dock Street. So this is let's see. I believe this is page 10. Yeah.

We're talking about page 10 through page 11. And if you look on page 11, you'll see where it's sort of well, the council is the legislation, I should say, is allowing these options to exceed the height limit if three conditions are met. And the way the legislation is drafted is that it has to be condition one, condition two, or condition three. I believe that was an oversight, and it's supposed to be condition one, condition two, and condition three all have to be met to be able to exceed those, the height limit for those accessory structures. So all this amendment one does is change or to and.

Yeah. And and excuse my ignorance. Please explain, bullet point b to me. The aggregated footprint of any sub, of any sub structure shall, comprise of more than 25% in the area of the roof.

I'll take a stab at it, and then, if somebody from planning and zoning, feel free to tell me if I'm wrong. What it's saying is the that these structures, which are the so we're saying certain structures here can exceed the existing height limits. That's the title, the allowable projections. And what that b here is saying two b is just saying that those structures can make up more than a quarter of the roof area. So if we're talking about these for, you know, air conditioners, right, I think that's one of the examples that's been given. You can't put air conditioners on the entire roof. You can only do it on up to 25%.

Okay. And then, bullet c, to me then, are we sure that the or is is is not correct and that the and would be incorrect? Any such structure shall be positioned on the roof to minimize to the extent possible to agree to which is viewable from all public right right of ways and shall be screened on all four sides with such green being an integral arch element architectural element of the building and the required green. Why would that be a requirement? Is that within I need someone from, planning and zoning, please, or or our city manager, I see, is here, to jump in on, bullet c.

Alderman Gay, Chris Takubiak, Planning and Zoning. Each of these, three points are meant to minimize the minimize the impact of any of the structures that may be located, on the roof that projects above the the height limit. So c is very important. It calls for screening, which would be, helping to visually obscure to the extent possible. And, this would be a standard that would be applied by the planning commission and site plan review and historic preservation commission as well to some extent, because, it's a part of the the developer's, application.

And screening, I I guess I'm just lost there. What does that look like? It what is that am I thinking of the traditional screening material, or, is this you know, are they building something to, you know, obviously hide the upstairs? I'm thinking of just buildings downtown that have, accessible rooftops and trying to think of what facilities currently have screening, around structures.

Yeah. I don't know that many do. Screening could be, the use of certain colors to camouflage, to blend the, any structure into its surroundings. It could be an architectural feature that blends nicely with the surrounding roofline, or that's meant to disguise the structure that's housing the equipment or or other feature of the roof.

So it really could even be like artificial greenery or something.

Yeah. Yeah. Sure could. It could be integrated into the green roof in a way as well. But, you know, it's it's it's meant to be broadly interpreted so as to provide the the designer and the the regulatory authorities enough leeway to secure the best outcome possible.

Okay. That's fantastic. I have, no issues, Alderman Huntley. My apologies for I just wanted clarity on that. I'm curious if if possible if at at some point we could see if other developers were required to do the same in the past. Obviously, if you are just fixing this language, they've probably been operating off of the four, which could explain why we haven't seen anything like that previously. All

three all three, standards are new. And so this is a a new set of code. Otherwise, not they're not applicable to other situations, and and there are quite a few situations where we have kind of roof structures popping above, height limit or where, smaller buildings are using their rooftops for, certain activities. But so this is a new it's in a a new, standard that will apply moving forward in this particular part of, the c two zone.

On page 11, Alderman, is this language blue? I think the confusion for me there is that in the amendment, the only language was I I was assuming that the, this was preexisting text.

No. So the amendment just changes the or on line 16 of page 11 to an and.

Okay.

And that both the or and the and and everything around them are new additions to the code that are being done by this ordinance.

Alright. I appreciate that. If there are no further questions, I, I'll turn it over to, take a vote on this. If we could also have miss Jackson, can you have, miss Router take a look at this? I think something either in the key is off or in the amendment is off. Because it says underlining in red is new matter, black, but there's no reference to the blue text, which is kinda confusing there even on the first reader and the explanation. Mhmm. So if that could be added, that'd be helpful.

Okay.

We wanna take a vote on this amendment.

Yeah. Make a motion for a favorable recommendation.

Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye. None opposed? Awesome. Thank you very much, Alderman Huntley. Next amendment is amendment two introduced by, the administration.

Is anybody any questions or concerns from the committee on this amendment? It is a rather bulky amendment.

It seems like the amendment makes the chain makes it possible for that section the the docstring section we were just talking about to happen. So my concern is I don't like the whole section. So I'm gonna vote no on the amendment. But, it is, I will say, internally consistent in that if you want the, changes at Doxry, I understand why this needs to amended this needs to occur.

I have a quick question in just in regards to obviously, the development is taking place. What is going to happen with the, adequate public facilities and the requirements for the developer to and particularly, I'm concerned about the flow of traffic at Dock Street. I've been, you know, trying to raise awareness about this since the beginning of the city dock project, and people are still talking about it till this weekend. Randall And Dock Street is just absolutely terrible. With this and the city dock project, obviously, the traffic pattern changes, but there's been no mention of traffic lights still. Is that something that will come up in in future conversations?

I don't know exactly if that would come up. It could very well come up in future conversations. But the impacts of any land use change are subject to, those types of considerations. This is why they go through the planning commission, and, just indicates that while this is a zoning text amendment, it creates the possibility, but it doesn't ordain anything. Yeah.

Any development, that is subject to these regulations has to go through the, planning commission and historic preservation commission. And if it's a use that's called called to be a special exception, it has to go through the board of appeals, which is the body that looks at potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties and neighborhoods. So any land use change will go through an extensive review process involving at least most likely three public hearings, special exception with the board of appeals, planning commission site design review, and historic preservation commission, for historic district standards, guy guidelines. So, you know, these these things get tested in those venues.

Yeah. And and I hope that each of those stops, it is brought up or mentioned. I think, obviously, when you introduce amendments like this and and and legislation of the likes, something will be there. I don't know if it will be, you know, the, aforementioned hotels or anything like that, but there will be some sort of development. I think that will be for the betterment of our city dock and for our downtown. And I think that when the city is willing to lend assistance to a developer, they should be looking out for the best interest of the general public. And included in that, obviously, is pedestrian safety. And so any

If I can.

Yeah. I'm sorry. My apologies.

I just wanna clarify. The the intent of this bill is not to lend assistance to any particular developer. It's it's to allow for the redevelopment of properties and bring them into compliance and better adherence to the historic standards in that particular area given the public investment in the the park. So whether a developer or more developers or individual property owners seek to a change under these regulations is is something we don't know. We we just are setting the terms, overall better design, for that section of the city, not for any particular developer.

And I would imagine if a developer, was seeking a zoning text amendment, this would probably be the one that they would most appreciate. Still, keeps in place the extensive review process and and the standards that are applied, in this particular zone.

Awesome. And and thank you for correcting me. Yeah. Mayor director Jakubiak, I

Sure.

Would hate to be in circuit court over over comments on a meeting, and so I appreciate that very much. Can we take a a a a vote on this amendment?

Make a motion for a positive recommendation.

I'll second that. Is, well, all those in favor, aye.

Aye. Opposed?

Nay.

Thank you very much.

And then I I I have a third amendment that I'm gonna not overly work, but, I do wanna suggest it that we strike. So if you guys are looking in the line, go the legislation, it would be to strike from line 16 on page 10 all the way through to line 26 on page 11.

Line 16, page 10, starting with, obviously, city code title 21. Yeah. And striking out all the way through on line I'm I'm sorry. Page?

Page 11, line 26.

Page 11, line 26. So the entire

Selection.

Can you give, brief explanation, and then I need to hear from, planning?

Look. I just think, I think there's a lot of good stuff in this bill overall. Right? I mean, the correcting the thirty two fifty square foot rule, like, that's great. It's a lot of stuff in here is making our code simpler and more reasonable, correcting these things that we know have caused all sorts of problems. I just don't think this is that. I think it makes our code more complicated, actually. And I think it is I understand the argument from a a legal standpoint from the director of planning and zoning that this is about a block, and it's not really about any one person. But it certainly feels unfair to me that we're saying this is only for one block. Right?

If this is such a good idea, then why not do it for a a broader area? And then the third thing is I just think that in many ways, our height limits have served us well. Certainly, are exceptions to that, like, with anything. But in general, our height limits have served us well. And if we're going to change them, we need a really good reason that I haven't been convinced this is a really good reason. So, three things that is making us more complicated. This is doesn't seem fair, and it's nibbling at the fabric of our high limits.

And and and understanding that's including amendment one. Correct, Alderman Huntley?

Yeah. It would strike whether it's an or an end, it would strike all

of it.

Yes. Just just making clear that that it would impact the, previously passed amendment. Yes. Do it. I'll I'll I'll do I'll

one, I do think we kind of narrowed ourselves down by keeping this so narrowly focused. But some of the things to point out is that these limits would keep it in line with the height wise with the adjoining buildings right next to it, as far as the skyline goes. The buildings right next to it are in line with the height limits now. These would be in the exact same heights. And if we compare this height limit to other historical cities that people compare to Annapolis, like Charleston, this is still lower, and they have also done things similar with things like the Hotel Bennett.

It anchored their renovated park, and it created a wonderful community space. I've also been to other historic cities older than Annapolis. Montreal had a similar setup where they allowed for accessory structures, rooftop dining, cut up a little bit back in their old port area. Hell, I've been to Riga, a city that's medieval, and they've had places like this in their old town area, dating back to the fourteen hundreds. And it didn't ruin the history.

It just provided some additional flexibility. I know the guy who owns the property is an SOB. It doesn't feel good, but making entire blocking entire land use decisions because of someone that we don't like and blocking flexibility for something that can create a good anchor for a project because there's one person we don't like doesn't seem like good land use to me. So

And and and, again, here, just for clarity, as the director has mentioned, no project has been submitted. And so the comments that myself and the alderman have made are are based on speculation. And so we should just set that right for the record.

I do wanna bring up one point, though. A constituent of mine had asked for this to go to the historic preservation commission. And I understand there were some issues, but I thought that there had been, like, a compromise potentially reached. Director Kubiak, could you elaborate on that? Like, a presentation may be brought to the HPC?

I'm not aware of of that at all.

Okay.

Or any compromise or

Right. The this do you wanna respond, office of planning and zoning at all to the introduced amendment three to strike starting on page 10, line 16 through page 11, lines 26.

Well, I don't wanna be in a position to counter the reasoned arguments from another alderman. I can ask any answer any questions that you might have, Armand Gay, or if you would like me to address any particular points, I can.

Well, if you would just clarify this one point for me, amendment three would effectively kill the bill.

Well, amendment three would kill, a major section of of o fourteen twenty five. Because o fourteen twenty five deals with many things including planned developments. Whether it kills the whole bill or not, I I don't know. I mean, it depends on how consensus is maintained among those who are sponsoring and and voting for it. The proposed amendment would remove the section of this bill that allows certain projections to extend above the current building height. That's what it would eliminate.

I appreciate that very much. Any other questions or concerns, Alderman Huntley, if you might care to share anymore, or are you prepared for us to take a vote?

I yeah. I've said my piece on it. I would potentially be, open to making a second smaller amendment if this fails. But, yeah, let's go ahead and vote. So I guess I made the motion to have an event amendment. Does

You did. And and was it I believe Alderman Schandermeyer gave you a second. And so

we I will second it because not letting something get seconded is, disrespectful.

And thank you, Alderman. We appreciate that. So there's a second on the floor. Let's take a vote. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Opposed? There's one. Opposed? Aye. So they're, two to one. The, motion fails. Any other, concerns before I take a final vote on o fourteen twenty five for favorable recommendation to

I'm the sorry, Alderman Gay. You just said my motion failed. You and I voted for my amendment.

I just voted no.

I'm sorry. I must have misheard you. Okay. Sorry.

My apologies. It it it

I thought you when you said, all those in favor say aye, you must have. Okay. Sorry. The amendment failed, if that's what you're saying. I was just, I misheard you. I thought you voted aye on it.

My apologies. That that could have been, misspoke on mine.

Said aye to a nay. You did say aye, but you said aye after all those opposed say nay if we wanted to the technicalities. Did you intend to vote in favor?

Or did you I was about to say for the, yeah, for the record, it was an it was a nay. Okay. Just, yeah, just for the clarity there. Okay. And so do, are did you are you introducing a second amendment, or are you

I was considering suggesting, after Alderman Schonenweyer suggested it, that we strike the provision limiting this to properties with frontage on Dock Street, but I think I would like to do some more research before suggesting that. So I'll, I'll do some more research on it, and I don't want us necessarily to vote on that tonight. I only considered it when Alderman Channermeyer said that.

Okay. I appreciate that very much. And, again, I think with these legislation that we have in front of us right now, there is no real opportunity to postpone. And so pretty much, these votes are final once they get you, out of this committee. Let's take a final vote on o 1425. Is there a motion to assume?

Before we make a motion, Alderman, mister chair, if I may, director Kubiak, I do think that this does need to have some presentation or something with the historic planning, historic preservation commission, at least on that one part. I I had let it go over August because I had believed we had come up with a potential compromise. I know that there was legal issues on why it couldn't be a full hearing, but I had thought that there was a potential compromise reached on how to do that. And I gotta express a little bit of frustration there because I did think that the chair of HPC had a very valid point of view on why they deserve to at least hear the hype portion on this.

Yeah. I I was under the same impression, Alderman Chathamy. Not not to just to let you know you're not crazy. I truth be told now, I can't remember with whom I had that conversation, but I did think we heard at one point that this was going to at least get a, if not a hearing, a presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission.

Well, the the correct the the correct or the appropriate thing would do is that either the sponsor, would indicate that they'd like to have it sent to that commission, or the chair would make a request to the council to have it sent. In any of our meetings, was there a request from the council to have it sent to the historic preservation commission? I'm looking I had

made I had made multiple requests, but

That's alright.

There had been there had been legal concerns for the full hearing, and I understood those, which is why I had not pushed. But I had believed we had reached a compromise on a presentation. So

Alderman, do you have the next, date for the historic preservation commission? I'm here on the web page, city of Annapolis' web page. I don't

know. We're in September, and, like, I'm not gonna derail the entire comp plan for that. Like, but, you know, I'm a little

Well, our let's quote this quickly. Our city manager is present. If a request can be made to the city manager to handle this, offline, that would be, helpful if if, maybe cc'ing, the chairman of that commission, the planning director, and the all the people here.

Sure.

Awesome. Thank you very much. Just to, put that to rest in, Alderman, whatever you get, then, you know, feel free to turn it over to the public. And if necessary, it obviously can be presented, on the twenty ninth. Is that fine?

Yeah. That's cool. But I don't wanna jam this up here because we are under under the gun, and, like, I'm not gonna derail our whole comprehensive plan because of all this.

Jam it up.

Alright. And with that, I will be making a motion to take a vote on o 1425.

I will second. Favorable recommendation.

Thank you, Ben. Can I ask the director one other question before we have our final vote on this?

Was a second. There was a second, but I will allow it.

Okay. Thank you. Direct to Jakubiak, one other concern I have with this is that, from my looking, both mechanical penthouses and green roof are not defined in code. And I can understand why we might need a flexible definition, especially in green roofs. You know, I've actually done a fair amount with them professionally, and I understand they change. They've evolved a lot. But my question is, why would we not, as part of this legislation, define at least what a mechanical penthouse is and maybe what a green roof is?

Further definitions are are not a bad thing. The I believe the environmental standing committee standing matters environmental matters standing committee is gonna be addressing that particular issue on the green roof. And the rules committee received an amendment from Alderman Savage about the mechanical penthouse definition as well. So I I believe those definitions will be worked out in that particular committee, and brought to the rules committee as well. The the green roof definition is, you know, to our way of thinking, it's self it's self evident.

It's it's the storm water management solution to, you know, improve water quality, but I understand why it's relevant and and would be helpful. So we fully anticipate working with the rules committee as we kinda work through those, and the environmental matters committees. We work through those two topics.

Okay. That's a a satisfactory answer. I just I think a little bit about, I I got married at Chesapeake Bay Foundation's headquarters, which was the very first lead certified platinum building in the country. And they have this great story about when they asked for a green building, the first person who tried to bid on it said, we'll paint it whatever color you want. So I wanna make sure we don't end up with that situation for the roof.

Fair enough.

And if I'm not mistaken, Alderman Huntley, our deputy director or deputy city manager of resilience, director Guild, has done extensive work on the green roofs, obviously, based out of the legislation that we passed coming from, The Netherlands trip. And and I'm pretty sure that could be used or the base of her research could be used to assist you there as well. And we're in the middle of a second, so I'm going to call the vote. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Those opposed?

No.

Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is, continuing with legislation. O 2925, Tyler Avenue Complete Community Overlay Districts. We had great public testimony, this past week. Any questions from the committee before I ask my one question?

Seeing none. My, only question, and mister Lashinsky or the city manager would be able to, help with this. Can you please provide, either written or if you have it handy now, just an update on the, streetscape projects? As I mentioned last night, I know, I think it's still in procurement, but am I correct in that?

Alderman Yeh, Eric Lashinsky, chief of comprehensive planning. Good question. I'm glad you brought it up at the city council public hearing. We believe it's going to be implemented in the next month or so. We, our comprehensive planning team in planning and zoning, have been coordinating with Jeff Wentz, the traffic engineer in public works.

We've seen a drawing of the restriping that is being planned and some of the other features. So it's it's definitely in the works very far along. I think he's really just trying to tee up the, the construction crew that does the the work on the street. I think he's trying to coordinate with other work that's happening in the city. So the same crew can do that work, you know, when they're doing other similar work, but, it should be. It's imminent as I understand it. So

I appreciate that. I I just think that's critically important. Obviously, it's not directly attached to this legislation, but I I I believe it is because that is, one of the promises that was made to the community just based out of out of some fear. Secondly, if you could just respond to one, thing I've heard last night, that obviously you've talked about me, with, but for the benefit of the public. This the idea that the legislation for example, if, you know, I live at the property next to the tire shop and I sell it I get in quotes with my neighbor and we get together, that there could be, you know, four houses, you know, stories high built on on, on those properties, combining properties.

Can you just address that, concern, please?

Yeah. Absolutely. So the development guidelines in the legislation that would apply to this corridor, this overlay district, Tyler, we've defined the the overlay district being from Forest Drive to Bay Ridge Avenue along Tyler Avenue, and, there's a very clear line that pulls in the properties, that front that corridor. The guidelines are very specific and very measured to respond to what we heard from community members. I'll give you an example.

The height limit does not change from what is allowed today. That's two and a half stories, 35 feet. That is the maximum height limit in the R 2 zoning district, which is the the predominant zoning along this corridor today. That does not change. So concerns about, you know, how tall buildings overwhelming what's there today, are are somewhat unfounded, but I know people get concerned about those types of things.

I don't fault them for, the concern. But, we also, in this legislation, have pretty specific, guidelines that determine when and how you can do certain housing types, and this is also by design. Basically, the idea is, we wanted to, more than anything else, allow for a variety of housing types, many of which are not allowed, in our current zoning. The idea being that we could create a a more, diverse community of housing of different price points and sizes for different household sizes. Really, a lot of these are in the city today.

They're just not legal. We're talking about smaller single family homes. I mean, that one in particular, it's hard to argue against that, you know, a smaller single family house. But the reality is, there's no real economic incentive to do that because we put a very large minimum lot size for, residential develop single family development. And so we said, you could do a smaller single family house.

We have square footage on that. Have it right in front of me, but, basically, on a smaller lot size, you know, about half of what is required today. And that was something we heard from community members. You know, they like these sort of small ranch houses, that's in the community today. So there's some incentive now to do that. A duplex is another example. Frequently just looks Are

you sure? Duplexes. That sounds scary. I'm sorry. Just don't to you.

Please don't count them. Yeah. Yeah. Just don't count the mailboxes. And most of the time, they're gonna look like single family homes. You know, that's that's the point we tried to make. There's, there's a number of duplexes in the neighborhood today. Many of them are in in an r three zoning district, which allows for them. The r two zoning does not allow for them and something alder Alderman Huntley knows about. So it it's pretty reasonable.

I think everything that is in this legislation, I would say, is is considered an incremental change. It's really, it's sort of ticking up, density in a very minor way, and it's all very contingent upon the size of the lot. So these housing types go up to a fourplex, a a building that has four units in it, apartment units, but you have to have a pretty sizable lot to do that. And so, a typical lot might not be able to accommodate a fourplex. I think the legislation has that at let me see here.

To do a fourplex or a threeplex, you need 10,800 square feet. And yeah. So not every lot is gonna be able to do that. The the other thing that we're creating a avenue for is, cottage court. You know, this is a interesting housing type that we get requests from, property owners occasionally who have a a sizable lot, and they wanna create a cluster of small homes that have shared open space, shared parking.

There are examples of this today in the city, but this is, another housing type that is not allowed anywhere really in the city unless you were to do a plan development, which is a more complicated scenario. And so we're really trying to make these housing type options more feasible for a typical homeowner or property owner, something that you ideally don't nothing against land use attorneys, but we're trying to make our code a little bit more accessible to property owners so they don't need to hire an attorney to get through the process, that they can do things by right. They don't need to seek a special exception. Yes. That's the idea here.

And could you also just quickly just touch on to the point where you spoke about, obviously, if you have large lots, you know, the and you want you wanna continue the single family building, it can be done so just on a minimum lot size. And and in particular, one lot that you showed me had, like, three houses on it, and they had the shared driveway. Yeah. And so something of of of of of a similar idea. Correct.

Yep. Yeah. That's a great that's a great example that already exists on the street today. You have, essentially three individual single family detached homes that share a driveway. Now our code is written in such a way that, one of those actually is vacant right now because, it the owner of the property does not live in Annapolis.

They rent out one house. There's another house in the back that's separately owned and that's occupied. But that third house can't be rented out because it's it you're not allowed to rent it out. You can't have two principal dwellings on a lot. That's really the the crux there. So it's a it's a tricky situation that we we think this legislation would would legalize that that site and, and enable that vacant house to be rented.

Which is which is obviously all of our goal of affordable housing. And So I don't think I mean, alderman Shenoy, I I don't see any concerns. No?

I'm really excited for this. I think this does a great step in trying to address the lack of starter homes in the city. And we all know the main cause of our housing crisis here is the fact that there's just not enough homes to meet the needs and budgets of our working families. So this really helps address that that shortage of of available starter homes. I have some concerns about how we still make it easier for these things to get built.

We all know there's a whole lot of layers on layers of code, but, you know, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. I we just introduced legislation on Monday that I think is gonna help with some of the financing on these smaller scale projects to make it a little bit easier as well. So, hey, this is a great first step. I'm not even gonna call it a great small first step. This is a great big first step. So I commend our planning and zoning department on the amazing work that was done. And

And and are you telling me you will sign on as a co sponsor is what I'm hearing?

I kinda shocked him out already. So, yeah, let's do it.

Alderman Alderman Huntley, did you have anything?

I would echo Alderman Shandelar's comments. It seems phenomenal. And just when we heard the public hearing on Monday, the, I mean, overwhelming praise for the process, it was really impressive. It was I I can't remember the last time we have somebody had people come out and talk that way about any bill before the city council, how much they felt like their voice was so being heard on this. So just, not only what seemed to me to be a good bill, but really kudos to the whole planning department on the process by developing it.

Exactly. I I I think mister Leshinsky, your crew, obviously led by, director Jakubiak, planning has very quickly, I've always said, become one of my favorite departments. I I think it's, the work that you all have done. And the general public speaks back about that, and and, obviously, we get some of that from director Jakubiak, but this is fantastic. And and I think, obviously, like you just said, it's in line with with with what we want.

You know? One of our employees, their house on, on Tyler, their next door neighbor's house just sold for, like, two and some change. One of the more most affordable, housing sales in the in the city, this street, as some expressed, is is based on affordability, and I think it'll stay that way. I don't, you know, think there is any undermined, motives here. And so what I'm gonna do is call a vote so we can get out of here.

If I can address that one major concern that folks have had and

Please. I think

it's being it's being said as like, oh, this is already affordable. These because a lot of these are older units. But here's the thing. What you can do right now when these older units eventually deteriorate is you can either do complete renovations interiorly and complete total renovations, brings them up to a very high value. We saw this in Primrose Acres, where there was a house that sold for $60,000 and is now for sale for $400,000, because guy did great work.

I know the guy who bought it. He lives in my neighborhood, renovated it. It looks great, but it's really expensive now. Or you can tear it down and build a McMansion, which doesn't help anybody either. By allowing these smaller types of builds, you allow for a smaller new starter home to happen. So we need to allow this smaller new stock to come online as these older, homes reach their age limit.

Absolutely. And that makes me think of the the gentleman, the veteran that you, extended help to a while back on, Tyler, who was, having issues with the, quality of housing.

Eldemar. Correct. So while, he we were he, definitely wanted to stay in his home, and we were able to fix his home with DHCD, grants. Fixing it was a massive renovation and cost, and it cost about $300,000 to get that up to snuff. So, like, total renovations on older homes cost a lot of money. Like, it's something that adds up to a cost. Then if you can build newer homes for lower cost as well, you can kind of add to our housing stock, address our housing shortage, and give people new starter homes.

Amen. So let's take a vote. I am going to recommend favorably o 20 09/25 to the full council. Is there a second for that?

Second. Second.

All those in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none. Thank you very much, Mr. Liszynski, and Director Jakubiak for coming, through this portion. Really appreciate it.

Well, thank you. We're happy to be here.

The next item on the agenda is, just general discussion.

I do Mister chair, we have AP fifty seven twenty five.

I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. We did amend the agenda at the beginning of meeting. AP fifty seven twenty five, appointment of miss Valerie, Bonham to the commission of aging. Is she present?

Okay. Well, Okay. Secure, I move we, take no action on fifth AP fifty seven twenty five.

I appreciate that. Well, I don't actually believe we have to take a vote on it at all. We'll just let it roll over?

Yeah. Or postpone action.

Miss Jackson, let's see.

If you guys wanna meet her because she's an appointment before it goes to the full council, you will need to postpone it, but you don't have to take any action. Any because no. We'll still go.

Is there a desire from the committee to have her present before us, or are you just set on passing this so we can take this vote to get it up?

Let's postpone action. And if she's not here in October, we can just take no action so we can get these spots filled before the next cancel.

Fantastic. So there's a motion to postpone it, the, AP fifty seven twenty five to the Housing Human Welfare Committee meeting in October. Is there a second on that?

Second. All

those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye. Opposed, none. That with the conclusion of that AP, that brings us to, the end of our agenda And good of the order, I do want to just be sure that we have every because I I I was positive that there were four or five pieces of legislation that had been sent to the planning commission, and then you need to go to public hearing. I feel like we're missing something, and particularly the aldermen's r two legislation. I'm assuming we'll have all of that in October. I'm sorry?

Are you is this you have to request it to come to your committee and then I'll

Did we not? Okay. Yeah. Well, I'll make sure. I I talked to you about that. I thought maybe we had that, requested to, come before us. And then No. It's

right now, it's only going to rules of city government. So in the interest of time, if you want, well, I mean, people, if you want to discuss it, my preference would be that we don't wait until the October meeting. But, I can understand the benefit of prior public notice that you thought was just here.

Automation. I mean,

yeah, mister chair. I think it's pretty safe to say we all support the legislation. I understand us all wanting to get our fingerprints on it, but us trying to get in front of this committee is just gonna cause a lot of delay, and we're under a time clock on it. So I would

I I I get that. I would definitely be curious. I I I do want to propose a few amendments. And I do have general concern that and and now and you know I love I'm I'm not a not a newbie, you know, or anything like that, but I just I I do have some general concern, Alderman Hartley, and I hope you would understand that. Sure.

In in particular, just, the effects it may have on on some things in in Ward 6. And so, I will not have that at this committee. I will, try to make it to one of the committees virtually, that you're discussing it in, and ask my questions there. The only other acts that I have is, can you be sure, miss Jackson, at our next meeting in October, that an invitation is extended to the members of the housing and housing and community equity development commission to join us here so we can say some final goodbyes. This is our our partnering commission that works in housing affordability and equity and development.

And I just wanna recognize them before we all head out. Well, before I head out and the two aldermen move on to the general. And so let's get that taken care of if we can. No no other concerns or questions on the agenda? Awesome. Can somebody make a motions for us to adjourn?

So moved. So moved.

Second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you very much. I appreciate it to all the staff on for sticking around. Have a good one, everybody.

Bye.