Environmental Matters Committee - Regular Meeting

Are present from the rules committee. And, Alderman Savage, would you like to take role for the environmental matters committee? I can't hear you.

You could prove your agenda first.

Okay. I was doing a roll call first as it says on my agenda. So would you please, Alderman Savage, take role for your committee?

I'm being told that we have to do it separately.

Okay. Alright. Then I have, done roll call for the rules and city government committee, and I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So move. Our committee.

Second.

Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Thank you. Alderman Savvy?

Alright. Now I'm gonna call I call to order the October 3 meeting for environmental matters. And for the record, all the members are present?

Or at least audio. Yeah. That's visual.

That means I'm present.

That's right. Is there a motion to approve the environmental matters agenda?

So move. Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Can

we make a special announcement that because there's people here that I think are here for the 03:00 rules committee, and I is one of them. I don't want them to sit through this, which is o fourteen only, when you're coming at the end of the agenda for the 03:00 meeting for the market house lease. So we don't wanna abuse your time.

Thank you, Alderman Arnett, for making that announcement, and, you're absolutely correct. So anyone that's here strictly for rules and the agenda as it's been presented, that meeting starts at three. So we will be, addressing only o 1425, the annual comprehensive plan for 2040 in this meeting at 01:00. Alderman Schandelmeier?

Thank you, madam chair. Point of order question. So I doubt we'll be this efficient, but, hypothetically, if we knock out o 14 in fifteen minutes, we'll be be taking a break. That got audible laughter from Alderman Savage. Will we be taking a break all the way until 03:00 for the formal rules and city government meeting, or will we just roll into that? Normally, just trying to figure this out here. Well,

I would I would yield to the city attorney, but I think because the rules of city government committee meeting has been announced publicly for 03:00 that we may have to stick to that schedule.

Okay. Thank you. They're also just point of information. We have to give the staff twenty minutes to make the technology transfer for broadcast. Sorry. There needs to be a twenty minute gap between meetings so the studio can make the transfer.

Of course. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So we're on to, legislation.

Madam chair, sorry. I have one other thing I need to do for environmental matters. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes from 09:11?

Move to approve. Second.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye.

Motion

carries. Thank you. Sorry. Back to you.

Okay. Then we're on to our legislative agenda, and we're discussing o 1425, the implementation of Annapolis ahead comprehensive plan 2040. Now this committee has already addressed, and there are, I believe, six amendments, three of which we have already addressed in a previous meeting. Amendment one, which carried favorably, amendment two, which carried favorably, and amendment three, no action was taken. So that takes us to amendment four. And, Alderman Arnett, that would be your amendment. So would you

Thank you, madam chair.

Alright. So this amendment is focusing on 20 pages on that. It's it's focusing on twenty one twenty four zero one o purposes subsection a, and it's reorganizing and embellishing what is proposed in the current legislation. And the the reason that I think this is important to do is, the way in the current legislation is is written, the, purposes are promoting the supply of affordable housing. I don't think that is the primary purpose or it is one of the purposes, but not the primary purpose for the legislation.

And and then what I do is to go in after the reordering is expand on some of the sections from what's in the current legislation. So the promoting and installation and use of infrastructure such as sidewalks, trails, bikeways, transit, and and I'm adding here active transportation, parks, neighborhood services such as, but not limited to, day care, health care, shopping, dining, entertainment. And then it goes on. I'm assuming everyone has read it. But the purpose there is to make the legislation consistent with what appears elsewhere in the legislation that says that comprehensive plan in addition to plan development is considering community benefits.

And these are some of the community benefits that we would like consider I would certainly like considered when we're looking at new development or redevelopment. So that's the purpose of the legislation. I'm certainly open to any questions. But I would hope both committees would recommend favorable.

Alderman, may I ask a question? It seems you have deleted the new language that began on page I guess it's page one of your amendment and replaced it with the new language on page two. Can you tell me, what the difference is?

Well, I thought I had just tried to do that. The differences are it's the reorganizing of the the, six items and adding a seven, and it is embellishing or rewording within each of the items things that add more detail in terms of community services and and, again, things like day care, health care, mentioning those specifically dining and entertainment. So on page one is the new proposed language. That's not the old one.

I'm looking at the amendment as presented, and it is what is in blue that you're proposing. Am I correct? What is in red is what has a strike through.

That's correct. I don't have anything in blue.

That's correct.

So that's why I asked you to reiterate Oh. Oh, let's see.

Oh, yes. So, yes, you're referring to a change in, item five where it currently reads to promote the the design and that was taken out and the word development was put in. And I'm proposing to put the word design, which I think is more comprehensive than development. So it's to promote design that takes into account the natural characteristics of the site and the placement of structure. I'm actually proposing a return to the original language as opposed to the red language that strikes, design and puts in development.

Well, thank you for clarifying that. My question had to do with the number six, however, and the items subsets of number six. But, clearly, you've you've stated in more detail, the specifics in those items and adding a six item under number So

it's a reorganization of the items under six subsections a through f to put promoting a mix of land use types within development projects mixed use as the first priority and and supporting the comprehensive plan as the first priority. And then I moved up promoting an installation and use of infrastructure such as sidewalks, trails, bikeways, and transit, meaning active transportation parts, neighborhood services such as but not limited to, etcetera, and then promoting the supply of of affordable housing, especially multifamily. And it it mentions the missing middle, which is all consistent with what's in the comp plan that can be developed. And then promoting physical connections to the area of waterways. I think that's a very important thing.

And promoting and linking open spaces for environment and then fostering improvements to the environment, which is new, but it's something Alderman Savage and I have been working on and agree that when we're doing these developments we need to also take into account the environment. We'll get into some discussion about things like that later on in rules when we talk about duplexes and expanding the non impervious space. But this is and we did talk about this at rules and I did coordinate it with the director and the director of current planning I mean, long term planning. I I'd certainly welcome any input from them about their comfort level on this reorganization and embellishment.

Well, let me ask. Is mister, Jakubiak or mister Lashinsky in, council chambers? And I see mister Jakubiak.

Madam chair, we're both here. Chris Jakubiak speaking now, And

Eric Lisinski, chief of comprehensive planning.

We think these, this amendment is is nicely worded and, consistent with the intent of the ordinance, as drafted, and we have nothing more to add. It's it's fine. It's a reordering of priorities and congratulations. It's it's well stated.

K. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there is there other discussion further discussion from Alderman Savage?

Thank you, madam chair. Yeah. I don't I'm good with this. I think it meets the original intent and expands upon it. I'm fully support what you're proposing.

Alderman Schadenheimer? Thank

you, madam chair. My only question was does changing design or development back to design have any significant impacts or is

None whatsoever.

Not at all. Yep.

Then I would entertain a motion.

So move for a favorable recommendation on behalf of rules.

Second.

Okay. Further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. We

don't do we need to do it for environment?

So I would, make a motion for favorable recommendation of amendment or an environmental matter.

Do have

a second?

Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Motion

carries. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Amendment five. Savage amendment. Lengthy amendment.

Okay. Can I give an introduction? See. So amendment five is the it is lengthy. What started this was a, we're actually the planning commission findings and recommendations.

They recommended to adjust the language for green roof, as well as the definition for that and accessory structures. And while I was at that, I had to add some language regarding rooftop dining specific rooftop dining allowances as well as tweaks to the pipe limit bump that is being, proposed. So to take this so, madam chair, that's general overview. I don't know how do you wanna do want me to go through this in sections, or did you wanna hear from staff? Well, actually, guess we should might be best just to go through in sections, and then we get staff and committee input on the various sections.

I I would really like to hear the responses to the planning commission. Can is it easy to pull out those things and address their questions first? Or everything embedded in all of your amendment?

It's all embedded in this amendment. Do you you want me to read the planning commission recommendations on this?

I think we have it attached. Do we not? Yes. We do.

We do. But if if you look at the amendment, the first section so let's see. I'm gonna have the best way to do this. If you go down to page six your amendment. Of the amendment.

Because this this is, I think, the best way to look at it. It'll show you the changes as it looks in the legislation. Page six would be this first section green roof standards in the historic district. And, again, this is the one of the the first specific area of improvement that planning commission recommended we look at. And so, again, in purposes just to provide more of a definition and some standards, makes it clear that this section only applies to green roofs proposed in the historic district.

Letter c, design performance standards, includes things dealing with just staying at the it needs to be designed for storm water retention and attenuation as well as thermal performance, structural waterproofing details, reversibility as far as being able to remove it without damage to the historic fabric, Visibility and placement to make it clear that it should not be placed above the roofline, from public right of ways. That's a number four. And, also, it says unless explicitly approved by as compatible by the historic preservation commission. Number five details some of the drainage and irrigation requirements. And then seven is maintenance, which makes it clear that, you know, we need to make sure that these don't become unmaintained and covered with weeds and or dying plants, and we need to make sure they're maintained, especially in historic district, and then requires that inspector I'm sorry.

That staff inspects I'm sorry. The property owner inspects its facilities. And d, just list some ideas for some middles.

Alderman, I interrupt you? Was there no six under letter c.

Oh, good catch. Yeah. Seven should be number six. I think that's because I deleted number six.

Wait. What page are we in now?

This will page seven. You'll see a number five and a number six. I'm sorry. Number five and a number seven. Number seven should be number six. Cynthia, could you make note? Thank you. So that's beta net just clarifies an f that the green roofs can qualify for the stormwater management credit program. So that's basically quick quick run through. If there's specific questions about it or if you want to hear from staff. Madam

Chair, could I ask a couple of context questions before? I do want to hear from staff, but I wanted to ask a couple of questions to set some context. Please. Thank you. So this is rooftop, I mean rooftop

Green roofs.

Green roofs. That's what I was searching for.

Only

for structures in this area on Dock Street. I actually think it's pretty good rules for rooftop structures everywhere, but I need I'm worried that there are parts other where elsewhere in the code for green roofs and wanna make sure that this is consistent with or not overriding or is distinctly different from what how things are treated. And the same kind of context question in the city code in title twenty one sixty four five forty general standards for restaurants two subsection b has a whole section on rooftop dining which is generic to the city.

Do one thing at a time. So,

okay. Well, this was just a set context. So I don't know. What is this?

It's a screen.

Sorry. It's screen. Computer's acting weird. Sorry. So that was sort of

Go ahead.

The context I wanted to set is there are things in here that seem to be clearly defined as specific to the Dock Street area that parallel or may parallel broader definitions throughout the city. So that just setting that as a context when staff make their comments.

Well, then I'd like to ask mister Dikubiak and mister Leshinsky for your reaction to this section on green roofs and particularly as it relates to the historic district.

Well, the planning commission recommended they a definition of green roofs, and, in fact, some public comment centered on that question too. And this does an incredible job describing what a green roof is and what the requirements are and what the standards staff would apply, in allowing green roofs are. Even the HPC would review projects, and look at the green roof that would be proposed, and have some standards to apply, in considering whether they're consistent with the HPC standards. So this is, this section of, the amendment is, very well put together and and I think would be very workable, for us. Eric, do you have anything to add?

Not at all. I concur the comment.

Well, it's

technically sound and spot on. I think any jurisdiction would be, envious to have standards like this for for their, for their downtown, for green roofs.

Okay. My question was gonna be if it's doable, and I think you just said that it is doable for your staff.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Going on, Alderman Savage, do you wanna address the next section? Or Yes.

The that's yeah. Unless there are any other questions on that. Alright. The next section would be on page eight, and, you'll see a new section called rooftop accessory structure design guidelines. And there's three different sections within that, a, and c.

A, just details the materials and finishes. And so that just clarifies that accessory structures to make sure that they match or or complement adjacent roof materials. Again, more of a visual I'm trying to establish some visual standardness there. Number two speaks to some of the guardrails or screenings that may be installed and just states they have to complement and integrate with building architecture. B is visibility, minimization.

Make sure that any equipment enclosures, planters, things related to the dining are designed to reduce perceived bulk and maintain historic roofline. Again, just trying to respond to some of the concerns we've heard from the public about, you know, preserving historic character. C, prohibitive features. Makes it clear that no proper accessory structure should be shall include space for dining and bar use or other habitable uses. And, again, because I think the intention, I believe, is to allow rooftop dining, but we wanna make sure that there aren't rooftop.

I think the original at least the intention is not to allow rooftop bar use, and I really wanna make sure we don't allow rooftop habitable spaces. You know, I think I think the architect or no. One of the property owners, I think, stated that they wanted to add rooftop rooms in his testimony to the planning commission, and that kinda was a flag in my head that, oh, we need we should I wanted to make sure we clearly prohibit that because that's not anybody's intention, I believe. And so yeah. That's so that's that's the intention of that section. Any any questions on that?

Well, may I ask you skipped a a section on applications, submittals that came prior to the section. Starts on the bottom of page seven, goes over to top of page eight.

Oh, that that's related to okay. Yeah. That's related to the green roof. And but I do see we need to have another edit there, Cynthia, that f should be on page eight, the f should be an e. Again, it's I think because I deleted one of those. But, yeah, so that's related to the last section, madam chair.

Okay. Questions? I see Alderman Arnett.

Yes. Thank you, madam chair. So I'm having a little bit of difficulty in going back to the original legislation, which, is in part talking about, things that can happen. It's talking about the comprehensive plan and plan development. Then it's talking about, things that can happen on top of roofs in a specific section of the downtown area, the Dock Street section.

And it seems like it's presuming the legislation is presuming that there's going to be a green roof and presuming there's going to be dining. There are buildings that can go in on Dock Street that could be infill buildings that aren't necessarily, restaurants or hotels. They could be all kinds of buildings. So I'm I'm finding that we're kind of in two different worlds here with this legislation. But that's one comment, and I would certainly entertain the views of the planning staff.

And the other general comment is it feels to me like these rooftop rules why they are pertaining to Dock Street only, pretty good rules for all rooftop greenery or rooftop structures throughout the city. Now I know we can't do that at this late date, but it would be more comfortable for me if we made these more generic. That would be my question about clarification.

Are you referring to the amendment or the general legislation?

Well, I'm actually referring to both. The general legislation, as I said, has three parts. The plan development, the rooftop on Dock Street, and the thirty two fifty rule which is fortunately back in the back and nobody's paying a lot of attention to it because I love the rewrite. But on this section specifically, we seem to be jumping from a more generic redevelopment of buildings, any building within Dock Street to presumptions about what the redevelopment would be or maybe we're presuming if the redevelopment on Dock Street in any building would include a green roof or would include rooftop dining, these would be the rules obtained. And I just want to make I want to see if I'm thinking about this correctly and make sure that that's how the staff

I mean, that sounds like a big picture question.

I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you said, ultimate savage. You you questioned something.

Well, I'm just I under

I'm trying to stay focused because we have a lot of stuff in the amendment to get through. This sounds like a big picture question on the ordinance, not necessarily germane to this.

Well, I think it is because this would now become part of the or Let let's see what maybe the staff understands my question.

We have to

May I ask

You have a question?

Mr. Sloshinski to, weigh in on this section?

Sure. We're happy to. Deputy in charge of sustainability has a question, real quick. Thank

you, director. Jackie Gyle, director deputy city manager for resilience and sustainability. Back on page four under number two and then small numeral two where it says the roof shall be a green living roof for those properties between Dock Street and

Craig Street.

Wait. Back up. What do you page four of what?

Page four of your amendment.

Alright. I wanna

And then it's two and then small numeral two where it says the roof shall be a green living roof, green roof. There's no option not to be a green roof here. It's a shall. First of all, they may not want to have a green roof, but this is saying shall, so if that's your intent, then that's your intent. But then it goes on to number three where it says if it's used for dining during dining guardrails, etcetera.

Wait. Hold on a sec. You're losing me because I wanna stick to I know. But I wanna I stick to the if you're looking at the amendment

What's that?

You've gone forward. He hasn't gotten to that section.

Oh, I think he had.

I wanna stick to page We're

on we're on

page Yeah. I wanna stick to page six or later because those Oh,

six or later? Well, I just saw this as contradictory because you're saying

I know I know. Hold on. I I wanna hear you, but I'm just saying I wanna, for the sake of maintaining order, I wanna get focused on six or later because six is where it shows how the ordinate how the changes look in the ordinance is written.

So that do have something back there too.

Well, wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Excuse me. Alderman Savage, I I have to disagree with you. Miss Giles is pointing out something that may impact not only what we're talking about right now, but going forward. Okay? So we can rectify

I understand.

Well, I wanna hear I'm

not don't misunderstand me. I I wanna hear this. I'm just trying to stick to the right section in the legislation so we're not jumping all back and forth.

I'm sorry that we didn't call on her when we were in the previous section dealing with the green roofs because her her comments are pertinent. Okay? So we're gonna have to go back and address that. So instead of

I agree. Jump back. I'm not arguing with you on that. I I I I'm just trying to make sure we're all on the same page as far as where to look in legislation. So if you have a suggestion, please just point it out as far as page six or later.

Okay. I have one on page eight Okay.

So page eight?

Yep. Page eight. Section twenty one point five six point one one five rooftop dining area design standards under c.

On the bottom, that that we're not at that section yet.

Okay. Because you said six and later.

I know, but we're we're on section one zero five. Point page eight, section twenty one five six one zero five or earlier. You have something on an earlier section

But it's something that Alderman Arnett already brought up.

Oh, not I know, but this is a lot to get through. We

I need

to I wanna make sure we

Yep.

So I you know, I I I'm Nope. Very concerned because we're having an opportunity to fix things going forward, and we're not wanting to address them for whatever reason. We'll come back to it. Well, but we're gonna run out of time before we can get to them. And maybe I hope that's not the intent. So okay. Go ahead. We're on we're on page eight.

That is not the intent.

And and point of order, I had asked for comment from the city staff to my generic question, and I'd really like to hear it. I'll be happy to go back to these other points but

Look, if

we got our professionals here. I wanna hear not

arguing that. Let's hear from the professionals. I'm just saying, are there any other comments from anybody in this on staff or the on sections on page six, the sections twenty one five six one nine five, Green Roof Standard? Anything else in that section before we move on to the next?

I think miss Giles' comments were were appropriate for green roofs.

But is it in this section o nine five?

I I understand. I can read that to mister Jakubiak, would you like to respond or mister Lashinsky?

Yes. Alderman Arnett focused on section twenty one fifty six one zero five, rooftop accessory structure design standards, and he was asking really about how this fits into the context of the original ordinance. When the original ordinance is drafted, in drafting it and the sponsors, I believe, were agnostic about what type of accessory structures would be there. We can't tell. We don't know.

We can't project our own interest in this regard. It may be a what's been called a mechanical penthouse, a way a way of clustering the HVAC units. It may be a shade structure over tables for people to sit outside or a place for tools to be maintained that are used for irrigating in a green roofs. It doesn't matter from our perspective as long as there is some protection involved. And so we placed some conditions on what those structures would look like to try to minimize the effect.

This section that has been proposed by Alderman Savage improves upon that. It actually says, irrespective of the type of structure, that the cladding on the structure should match and complement the roof. That it should in other words, it'll be easier to make sure it blends in nicely, that the guardrail should meet certain standards, and that visualization ought

to

be minimized, etcetera. So, we we like this. We add some context. It makes our job in advising the planning commission easier. And, we I have one concern, though.

And share Eric and I share this, and so I'll speak for both of us here, is it says no covered accessory structure in in item e under prohibited features. No covered accessory structure shall include space for dining, bar use, or other habitable uses. Fair enough. But, I think there's a distinction to be made between covered and enclosed. And, certainly, if you were allowing outdoor dining, and it's clearly that's what this ordinance amendment does, typically, some type of shade structure over outdoor tables is is just necessary.

So we would suggest if you keep vitamin c that you change cover to enclosed.

Alderman Arnett? Yeah. So, I think this really I think this is a good catch, and it raises an interesting question, because it's relevant to the outdoor dining that's going on elsewhere. So no covered structure. That sounds to me like it would include a tent.

It also could include a pergola, which is parcel coverage. And all of those things are really sticking up above the ridgeline and are certainly potentially visible from various points of view. So when I read this, I like the idea of no covered accessory structure, which would include pants. It could include umbrella. It could include. So I guess we really need was that your intent that it would not be pants or umbrellas or pergola as covering?

Well, think those would be think those would be I fine. Mean, I'm

my main seems to lose them.

Yeah. I I mean, I'm good with the change proposed by staff. I'm also opening a new piece. Again, my primary purpose is just to prohibit habitable uses. If it needs to be narrowed down just to that, I'm also fine with

So we know enclosed accessory structure

shall What

are you thinking? What are you what's your thinking about habitable? What what do you mean by habitable? Do you mean livable? Yeah. Okay. But, if it's

Basically, don't want any hotel rooms on the roof.

Right. Of course. I'm getting at it. But if it's a, an enclosed, space that allows for diners to be on the rooftop during the winter, you know, these temporary structures. Again, they wouldn't project more than a certain number of

feet above the roofline. But Yeah. That gets tricky, though, because then he'd potentially be running afoul of some of the other aesthetic requirements. Right?

Remember these structures, their protections in the code about where they're set within the the roof frames so they're not as visible. They're capped at a certain height. They can only take up a small percentage of the or 25% of the entire rooftop service.

I mean, I would I would I guess I would yeah.

So am I hearing that there would be acceptance of changing the term cover to enclosed no enclosed accessory structure?

Yes. And I think we might want to strike the poor dining.

Yeah, that would because again, to me, one of my angst is this is supposed to be generic legislation that allows redevelopment in this particular area. And it should not in legislation be presuming any particular kind of use like dining, bars, other habitable spaces like hotel rooms. So when we get into this, I think we're switching from general rules about redevelopment in a particular area to codifying specific types of development. And that's where, to me, there needs to be an if somehow. If there's going to be green roof, if there's going to be rooftop dining, if there's going to be a bar or or what a wedding ceremony.

That's that's where I am having concerns that I admit. It's it's beyond just legislation. It's thinking about the legality of what we're doing.

And then the the council might consider striking item c altogether, and allowing the the standards to stand on their own and it this will go through the approval process. You're not calling out any specific use. I a the use of a rooftop depends on the principal use because these are accessory. They have to be accessory and secondary incidental to the primary use. So I I think the city is protected without having this particular provision in place, provided the other standards are in place, like the they could only project a certain, number of vertical feet above the existing roofline.

They have to be set back in, and and the current proposal, I think, is 10 feet in for dining platforms. But, and then the visualization, minimization, and the cladding, and all those other types of structures.

Like, my one concern with that, though, again, is how do we ensure what because I wanna include in this as a clear prohibition on allowing habitable rooms, hotel rooms on a roof. That is what the art the owner one of the owners of one of the properties said they wanted to put on there, and I wanna make sure a 100% we're not gonna allow that. So if that's somewhere else in the code, so be it, but I need to know where it is if it is elsewhere in the code. If it's not, I wanna make sure something gets in here. That's why so that's my first question.

What what what may I ask the sponsor why not just change it to no inhabitable uses?

Sorry. We had a truck go by. What did you say?

I said, why wouldn't you change accept the language change to simply say no inhabitable uses?

That's fine with

me. Well, that's fine too, but the this section says rooftop accessory structures. It's clearly about what's accessory to the main use. If it if it's a hotel on any one of those properties, hotel rooms on the top or the or the roof is not accessory. It's part and parcel of the use and wouldn't be allowed. These are only accessory uses. And remember the Point. I see the is the accessory structures appertonce appertonces, excuse me, and, and related structures. Yeah. That's that's what this whole section is grappling with.

Okay. So director Jakubiak, does that mean you're comfortable with keeping c in and all of its verbiage except changing covered to enclosed?

Well, I'm comfortable with that. I mean, I'm just trying to respond to where the council's discussions are going. But We all are. Yeah. Right. But but back to that's the original point that, I made.

Do I need to make a motion to change the word covered to enclosed? Would that be for the sponsor? Would that be a comfortable amendment? Yes. So I move that on page eight under twenty one fifty six zero one o rooftop accessory structures c that the word covered after no be changed to enclosed accessory structure.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion. I clearly heard mister Jacobiak say that c was not needed. So I'm not sure why we're insisting upon keeping it in if it's not needed, if it's addressed elsewhere.

May I address that? I I think because Alderman Savage is a concern. If it is a hotel, that a restaurant not be developed on top of the hotel. I I mean, certainly could have outdoor dining, but not a restaurant. Right. Am am I right about that? Yeah. So this adds more protection and advances that the goal of ensuring that anything that goes there is truly accessory and secondary incidental. If there's a shade structure that allows people to sit out and have dining in the food service comes up through the elevator, that's one thing. That's a lot different than having a restaurant on the the Top Floor. So by keeping it in, you've prevented that possibility.

Okay. Alright. Because, you know, we're not voting on these separately, but I'll take a vote on the amendment for, letter c twenty one point five six point one zero five c to change the term from covered to what are we changing it Enclosed. Enclosed. All in favor, please say aye. Aye.

A motion for environmental matters, so move.

I second it. Sheila, will you second it? I can't hear.

Those in favor, please say aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

All right.

Any other comments on that section 105? Hearing none. The next one to go through is bottom of page eight, section twenty one dot five six dot one fifteen, rooftop dining area design standards. And, I know alderman that's gonna have I'm on this one. But let me just say, the intent here is not to, supersede the other rooftop dining legislation or requirements.

This is just to have further clarity, particular unique to the the historic district in this part of the the part of Dock Street that'd be impacted. Right. And so oh, shoot. Alderman Shanley, had one other angle correction somewhere.

Yes, sir. On section 21 dot 56 dot one one five subsection b height and enclosure. I caught a technical issue. The sentence as written says guardrails and parapets serving dining areas may extend 42 inches above the roof surface. I am assuming the intention was to write guardrails and parapets serving dining areas may not extend 42 inches above the roof surface. Is that a correct assumption on my part? I believe so.

I think this is permissive. It may extend up to 42 inches, but no higher. I guess that's what you're saying.

Okay. So saying may not extend would be the correct length.

May not may not exceed 42 inches perhaps.

Or May not exceed. May not exceed.

Okay. So that would be

Is that a word choice?

So I would like to change it as written to guardrails and parapets serving dining areas may not exceed 42 inches above the roof surface.

Second. Further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Motion from environmental matters. So

moved. Second. All

those favor, please say aye. Aye. Thank you. So the other

So, mister chair, you had brought up the rooftop here and the rooftop in the rest of the code. And so my question and concern is if I'm someone thinking about developing in Annapolis and I'm thinking about rooftop and I go to the city code and I search on rooftop, I'm now gonna find rooftop dining defined in two different places. And I'm presuming that the rooftop dining standards in twenty one sixty four five forty are generic and these are in a specific area, namely the dock feed area, are in addition and specific to any kind of rooftop dining that could be proposed on the Dock Street. I guess I'm I'm really

Is that

a stand.

I think

that's how we would consider them, to be, and it might be worthwhile adding

the

a statement that says that it might be under applicability. The section applies to all roof to top donning areas at properties on Dock Street between Craig Street and Eastern Eastern most terminus at Dock Street and shall be in addition to those standards set forth in twenty one sixty four five forty?

I I think that could avoid confusion in the future, so I would make the motion to add shall be in addition to twenty one sixty four five forty subsection a, subsection two, subsection d.

Is there a second? I'll second that for the sake of the committee. Further discussion?

I apologize, madam chair. I had seconded it, I had my mic off. So I apologize for you. That not going through.

All in favor, please say

aye. Aye. Aye.

Is there a motion from environmental matters?

So moved from environmental matters. Second.

All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Carries, thank you.

Are we gonna go back to Jackie's question?

Yeah. The other so just to point out was gonna do is are there any other questions on this section? It also states, indeed, that certificate of approval must be must include findings that the dining installation preserves sight lines and historic roof lines. Yeah. And then some other further setback requirements and see. I'm lost.

Any other way now?

The same section, just Okay. Going over C and D, page nine eight and nine. Any other questions on that? Comments? Okay. Yes, sir. Oh.

This is a question for staff. Do we have, like, formal definition of preserved sight lines, or is that up to the discretion of planning commission, HPC, and board appeals.

Yes. It is a it's a discretionary standard. Thank you.

So moving on, the next change would be page 10, which I believe is what the deputy city manager was section you had a comment on. So this is addition this is a substitute text for so if you look on page nine, this is number two that deals with this this is the original, an original legislation proposes this is where the proposal to extend 10 feet above beyond 10 feet beyond applicable allowed height limit as well as the five foot overrun for elevator shaft. I'm proposing a rewrite which changes that a bit. As you'll see on page 10, what it basically does is states that it reduces that 10 to seven. However, it does allow up to 10.

If they demonstrate, you'll see the one, two, and three in parentheses. If they do demonstrate that extra height is necessary and minimal, that the visual impacts are reduced through greater setbacks, and three, that all other overlay standards such as green roofs, sort of requirements are satisfied. This still allows up to 10, but kinda sets the new baseline at seven. It's just a minor kind of reduction. And that applies to mechanical penthouses and states in there that those penthouses shall have a green living roof.

I think that's what the deputy city manager was referring to. And then has a couple of requirements for, those properties, which states that in b, talking about the aggregate footprint. And then in oh, I think we need to fix the lettering. On page 11, you'll see e and f should be c and d. But for the sake of discussion, e refers to setback, and f refers to certificate of approval from HPC.

I'm sure there are questions on this section.

I do, Mr. Chair. Alderman

actually, I'd like to ask Director Jakubiak to respond to, the items, the three items that have to be demonstrated in order. Well, the limitation of seven feet unless they can meet those three those three areas. Well, first,

the the way the ordinance was drafted originally, this section dealt with all types of accessory dwellings or I'm sorry, accessory structures, not just mechanical penthouses. And it encompass elevators and other structures. So it was all encompassing and it set a height limit. So all these standards would apply irrespective of the type of accessory structure. And and I think we need to grapple with that because minimizing the visual effect of all those types of structures is important.

That's and I won't offer a recommendation just yet, but this that's one issue. The other is that Roman numeral two here implies that a green roof would be placed on top of the mechanical penthouse, which effectively extends the height, the visual height of the mechanical penthouse some distance because there's gonna be planting. Currently, the green roof standards apply just to the roof proper, not to the structures on top of it. And it may be that they're allowed but not required to be addressed. So I I would actually suggest the council reconsider Roman numeral two.

But the last thing on the issue of height, we think 10 feet provides more flexibility for good design. It doesn't none of the standards in a code are given. If something says, you can have up to 10 feet, that doesn't mean 10 foot is guaranteed. The planning commission or the board of appeals or HBC still has this the discretion to have it less than 10 feet if these other criteria are not met. And for that reason we're comfortable with keeping it at 10 feet and we also would suggest dealing with the issue of the elevator in this this language.

We wanted to ensure that if elevator access were provided that the proper design of the elevator could fit, and that typically involves an additional five feet for an override if the elevator actually goes up to the rooftop, and that's why the current language adds an additional five feet if an elevator is, installed. So the for the those reasons, we would ask the council to consider going back to a language that encompasses all the types of accessory structures and to allow 10 feet to be the the, maximum allowed with an additional five feet should an elevator be installed be approved to be installed.

So, mister Jakubiak, you're saying going back to page nine, what is currently in red is the original language that you would prefer to be kept. Number two b two with little a b c? Is that what I'm

Yes. In in essence. Yes.

Alderman Arnett. Thank you, madam chair. So I have a few few questions about this. I have no clear idea of where 10 and additional five come from and certainly no idea where seven feet comes from. I did do ask some questions specific to elevators and there there's no way you could get an elevator in seven feet.

I specifically asked, well, what if it was a hydraulic elevator that's pushed up from below and would that be able to be accommodated in seven feet? And the answer was no. And I only got two answers so I'm certainly not exhausted. But I also was told that hydraulic elevators don't tend to be used anymore. And in this location, that hydraulic elevator would have to go below ground.

And we know from recent experience on city dock, going one foot below ground, not very viable. And so the hydraulic elevator is probably not a likely possibility. So I don't think seven feet would make sense at least as it has to do with elevators. Not even clear to me that seven feet would make sense in terms of stairwells. It might make sense in terms of HVAC.

But I think what I just heard the director say is the staff is recommending the original language eliminate it to no more than 10 feet with the ability with justification to go higher than that by as much as five feet. That's 15 feet above the ridge height. And I think that's going to be very hard to not be visible. Certainly coming down Main Street, 15 feet above the ridge height would be pretty visible. And even standing on the Dock Street before the building unless these structures are pushed to the rear of the building and there's nothing here that requires that.

I think it could even be very visible just standing in front of the building back to maybe 100 feet or something like that. So I think that there's some considerations. I asked questions early on about cultural landscape study which is a study that really talks about the view shed and this is clearly something that would be imposing itself into the historical view shed. So I do have some concerns on both these sets of numbers and what they're allowing, but even more concerns trying to figure out where they're coming from. Where did seven feet come from?

Well, it's I'm hearing a lot of different questions. I mean, are because I are you asking about the seven feet or the 10 feet? Because I don't think I think we need just fish on both of them. But I agree. The the the one of the the first pertinent question would be if the committees think that they may wanna explore going down to seven. If not, they could just stick with the 10 original. But I guess to start off, the staff have any background you could provide on the 10 feet and the five feet?

The we have two architects in our office, as it turns out, and, consulted with one. She confirmed your analysis of the, hydraulic elevators and their usefulness now, and in this application. But certainly, 10 foot is necessary for the elevator to function above the floor of the the roof, and five foot is the typical override. Just generally understood, that's what you need to to make the elevator work. 10 foot is also a ceiling height that allows for the various things that go into making a space work like sprinklers, code requirements for HVAC, for ceiling fan, for these other elements that make any type of structure where that people sit under, functional.

So that's why it's 10. In practice, it may be nine as a result of applying the standards. But remember, you you may not remember, but we did a cross section analysis of of a building theoretical on on that block. And you have to move all the way out to Eagle Alley before you could see that 15 foot just because of the way the space is. And, in the in that point, you only see the kind of a small part of it.

So, you know, assuming that you comply with the standards where you you set back the these accessory structures. You don't place them right on the roofline or right next to the the cornice, of course. They're they're set back. So seven feet may actually work out well for a a mechanical room, but maybe it doesn't. Maybe there's necessary a clearance that's necessary to work on the appliances that are housed there.

We don't know. But if we see a proposal and they're showing 10 feet and there's no justification based on the way it's designed for it to be 10 foot, our natural inclination would be say, no. The the max is 10, but we're only allowing seven or six, wherever the case may be, because of what you're actually proposing there. This is intended to allow for flexibility to be applied in getting the best design possible.

So thank you for that answer and it actually enriches. I hadn't thought about things like fire and other things. I guess my personal inclination is to, in this regard, stick with the original legislation. And as you pointed out, that sets a maximum. It gives the flexibility in case there's some justification going over.

But it doesn't mean that you necessarily get the maximum. Any project that would come would have to go before the planning staff and also HPC. And we know that HPC is very sensitive to structures exceeding building heights. So I think what we're doing is setting the general parameters of what are maximums, what are flexibilities, but that doesn't mean that's what you get. And and, by the way, in terms of the view from the front of the building, I understand that, but that's not gonna be the only view.

There's gonna be quite a view of this coming down Main Street and that's one of our really important views in the city. It's not only coming down Main Street, it's also on the water looking up Main Street. So I'm sure HPC and planning staff are gonna be very thorough in their analysis of any particular application about those particular you shed all the way around.

I'm gonna just I can respond as the sponsor of this. I I well, I'm curious what the rest of the committee if the rest of the committees feel that they should go back to the original ten ten slash five feet because that could be so I guess bottom that's one question. But the other question would be some of the things that I would propose to still carry over from the amendment would be some of the things in parentheses, the one, two, and three, to state to still put something in there as far as if they get because you did the director did say it's it's still even as written up to 10, but to still require some additional oversight, so to speak, or demonstration that'd be required in those as far as providing justification to staff that extra height is needed, that the visual impacts are reduced, and that the, you know, sort of just requirements are satisfied, that kind of thing. I would I would still like to see those included. So I

Alderman Schandelmeier?

Thank you, madam chair.

I like the one, two, and three that you have included. I believe that it gives some extra discretion towards approving bodies on redevelopment on this for folks' records. That is extra height is necessary and minimal, one. Two is visual impacts are reduced through greater setbacks, appropriate screening material, or colors. And number three, all over lease overlay standards including green roofs, coverage limits, maintenance, and historic district requirements are satisfied.

I think having those separate from what we originally we were previously discussing still makes a whole lot of sense. So I don't know how you wanna play that with amending your amendment, but I do think your instinct to keep those in is worthwhile.

I I would ask, Mr. Jakubiak to respond. How comfortable are you with those items being included, or do you feel they are already part of your purview in making the approvals?

I like that they're in. I think it it puts the onus on the applicant to clearly need the 10 feet and demonstrate it, and that allows the decision makers to make a judgment based on imbalance competing interest, but really make a judgment. Is that 10 foot necessary? Why can't it be eight? Because if it's or seven. If it's seven, it means this corner of the building is not never seen. Well and let's that's good. So I'm I'm I'm pleased with the the way this may be shaping out, the standards in place while establishing, the flexibility that, on on Alderman Shandenmeyer referred

to.

So Alderman Shandenmeyer, where would it go going back to the original language in red on pages nine and ten? Kinda get us to a motion here.

That is a wonderful question, madam chair. And as soon as I figure that out, I will get back to

Maybe a new lowercase d?

Yeah.

I'm looking at miss Reuter.

One d or two d?

Under b, two d is what you're saying? On Oh, yeah. What nine.

Well, yeah, under I think it would be under two and then make the new, sorry, a new letter d after

b two d is what you're saying?

That's correct. Believe. Yeah. Miss Reuter, does that make sense?

And and what would the wording be?

The basis it would say the applicant must demonstrate that and then it would list one, two, and three that Alderman Shandermeyer read out. But the one, two, and three from my amendment. So if I madam chair, if I may so I believe the I believe the motion would be to unstrike the numbers two and three, first of all. Right? And then in the original legislation, and then add in a new two d, which would read the applicant must demonstrate that.

Must demonstrate what?

It would read I'm sorry. In order to it would read in in order to achieve the 10 different

stop you for a moment. Yeah. Let's go back to what we're keeping. If we're looking on page nine and we're gonna unstrike what is in red and we're going to add from page 10 and this is where we really miss the line numbers. I don't know how we got to a point where there's no line numbers. But we're gonna add what's under two little a little one. We're gonna add one two three in parentheses.

No. I don't think

so. Alderman Chandemeyer? I

Thank you, madam chair. What if we just add those three things after on page 11 after line 21. So we have the a, b's, and c's on from lines 13 through line 21. What if we just add extra height as necessary and minimal, visual impacts are reduced through greater setbacks, appropriate screenings, materials, or colors, All other overlay standards including green roofs, coverage limits, maintenance, and historic districts requirements are satisfied. Why don't we add those three underneath subsection lowercase c as a lowercase e, lowercase e, lowercase f?

Oh, yeah.

Would that probably be the easiest, simplest, and most efficient way to do it?

It may be, but you've lost me. I'm sorry. So on page my page 11 doesn't seem to have you again, please.

So if you look at page 11 on the original legislation o fourteen twenty five first reader, you will see starting on line 13 page 11 on o 14 o 25 as written. Starting from line 13 going all the way down to line 21, you'll see lowercase a, roof is green, green, etcetera, lowercase b, aggregate footprint of any set structures, etcetera, lowercase c, any set structure shall be positioned on the roof to minimize, etcetera. So what I think may be the simplest way to incorporate what we were just discussing is after that lowercase c, add lowercase d from the savage amendment. The extra height is necessary and minimal. Lowercase e, visual impacts are reduced through greater setbacks appropriate screening materials or colors, and lowercase f, all other overlay standards including green roofs, coverage limits, maintenance, and historic district requirements are satisfied.

And So we're not

striking anything. We're just adding those three things under section two on page 11.

With a new d, sub d.

With a new sub d.

The applicant must demonstrate that and then the one, two, and three from the savage I like I I would second that.

I think that gets what we were just discussing still into with those additional standards still into the legislation. We don't have to deal with weird crossing and referencing, etcetera. We can just chop it in there.

I'm good with that. Miss Reuter, is that

May I may I Clarification?

Yes.

So I I was following in the amendment. So on page 10 in the amendment, Ms. Reuter, please follow along and help me to see where that goes. We are going to eliminate all of what's in blue on pages ten and eleven. Is that correct?

Not yet.

And then we're going to add one, two, and three that Alderman Shandermey just highlighted.

I know.

Someplace else in the original document.

This is right.

In the original first draft. Page I'm sorry. I lost the page that you mentioned, Alderman Gentleman.

Yes, madam chair. I actually believe what you just said is correct.

Yes. I do.

So we would be deleting everything from the savage amendment in blue or savage amendment five in blue on page 10 and the top of page 11 before title 21 planning and zoning. And what we would do instead is take and what we would do is add on o fourteen twenty five under after subsection c, lowercase c. We would add extra height is necessary and minimal. Visual impacts are reduced through greater setback setbacks, appropriate screening materials or colors, and subs and then all other overlay standards including green roofs, coverage limits, maintenance, and historic districts requirements are satisfied.

Okay. So that is your motion, and I believe it was seconded by Alderman.

I seconded it. Yes.

Okay. Miss Jackson, do you have that?

Yes.

Okay. Yes, Thank you, ma'am. So I will entertain a motion to support that amendment from Alderman Chandelmeier. Where is motion? I'm just calling the question. I'm sorry. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay.

Is there a motion

from environmental matters?

Same motion from rules. I mean, environmental matters. Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries. Now this still leaves. I do have one other question.

We have one more amendment, Alderman Savage. Number six?

Yeah. You're right. I I but I I have a question. I still have a question for staff about one of the things I was was adding was in the blue on page 11, the f, which we just strip we were it's it was been it was just stricken, but in any case, it says certificate of approval and historic district findings are required. Is that already required anyway? Because it's all in

the Yes.

It would be. Alright. So moving on, madam chair, the last part of this amendment is on page the bottom of page eleven and twelve. And these are the definitions for accessory structure rooftop, elevator override, green roof, mechanical penthouse, and rooftop dining area. So were there any questions, concerns from staff for the committee on this on these definitions?

Well, I let me ask. Amendment six is is about 15 pages. So you're going straight to page 11, you said?

No. We're not on page we're not on amendment six. We're on amendment five.

Still on five.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we had, dispatched with five. We have not? No. Oh, okay. You're right. We only okay.

So the bottom of page eleven and two and top of 12 on amendment five are the actual definitions that still need to get added. Are there any any comments from staff on this, please? I think I incorporated the changes you had previously.

No comments.

No concerns?

Then I wouldn't for rules, I would make a motion that we, recommend approval of the additional, terms as in the savage amendment number five. Accessory drilling, elevator override, green roof, and a penthouse, and rooftop.

So your motion is to give a favorable recommendation to amendment five as amended by the rules committee.

And as pertaining to inserting terms.

Right now, I think the most entire amendment has changed.

We just make some changes to that amendment.

And that would include

That would include the definitions unless there's a motion to remove them.

Okay. Yes.

Alright. Okay.

So that's

Oh, could I get a second? I I thought we already voted on it, but can we get a second on amendment five as amended by the rules committee?

Second.

Okay. Further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Alright. Okay. Now we're off to six. Correct?

Hold on. I'm getting a chair. Is there a motion from environmental matters? Yes.

Move that we recommend favorably on amendment five with the changes made

in the joint

matter is good.

Is there a second?

Second then.

Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion

carries. Thank you. Alright. So amendment six, similarly, I would like to start on page, let's see, page eight is where you can see the changes as they would appear in the legislation. But, actually sorry.

Before we do that, go if if you could sorry. Go back to page one, and there's a bit of an amendment summary just to give an overview. These are the transit oriented development amendments. I I I think I I stated last meeting as far as my rationale. You know, just in in a quick summary, you know, I I've I've certainly been won over on the importance of adding density and housing in the city, but I am still very adamant about ensuring that we mitigate that growth with addressing the infrastructure impacts that we often hear about from our constituents as far as especially pertains to traffic and road impacts.

And so in an effort to try to get some more synergy with comprehensive plan, I'm trying to get those concerns of mine and my constituents addressed in this. I know there's a lot in here. I think it's unfortunate. It's just part of the unfortunate situation we're in where it's end of the term. We have a lot we wanna try to get through.

Normally, I think we would be able to spend time to have this go back to the planning commission, etcetera, etcetera, but we simply don't have that time. So I know this may not be perfect. And I think even the director said before, don't let or I think the department may have said before, don't let, you know, perfect the enemy of the good. And I I I do agree, and I also think that I would ask for the same treatment on this amendment. I would like to get some structure set up for transit oriented development, and, happy to absolutely happy to work on tweaking this if it needs to get further tweaked with the new term, but it would give, I think, my constituent side a lot of comfort if we could get a nice framework set up to start off with.

So on the so on to that end, just to read the summary on page one, it does add this amendment. I would add a new purpose similar in the same section of the adalton Arnett, and we can get into that that he tweaked. The same thing is it would lower the baseline for the density increase. And, the rationale behind lowering the baseline density increases to, basically, even then raise the ceiling even higher to create an incentive for transit oriented development. And so, again, the the baseline gets lowered, but the high end actually gets raised even more than what was proposed to act as an incentive.

The idea being they'll if they can add more density, they can make more money on it and hopefully contribute more towards transit. The third thing is allowing parking reductions as long as there's a transit to the demand management plan because, know, again, I think we've heard even from Alderman Chandermeier quite a bit. We got us started on this as far as looking to reduce parking requirements. And I think if we have transit, we don't need quite as much parking. So that opens up, I think, a lot more options for us.

The fourth thing would be requiring community benefit agreements, and this is a mechanism certainly get into more detail about, but it's something I've learned about from Portland, something they include in their development projects. Fifth item there is establishing tax incremental financing districts. This actually, I've learned we we did this on Park Place to help pay for the garage. And, you know, what I'm seeking to do is just create some framework for that in the code because I don't believe we have any kind of framework currently governing those kind of mechanisms. And then the last thing is just adding some definition.

So that's the general purpose. And with that, I'm gonna jump up to page eight. Eight and nine. Nine has the first item. So unless I hear otherwise from madam chair, the the first change proposed in this amendment, again, top of page nine is a new addition to speak more towards the purpose of planned developments. It would add an item, I would say.

Altman, may

I Yes.

I'm change it. You? I'm I'm looking at the amendment, and it seems you have significant changes starting on page two of the amendment, page seven of the legislation. Am I reading the wrong document, or or are you skipping over? What's it? Conditional density bonus, residential planning development, mix plan development

I'm just I'm just skipping to the section that details how the changes look in the ordinance.

Starting on page eight.

Starting on page eight. You should this I

I see changes on every page and to the ordinance that start with page two, really. So I'm not clear on why we're skipping all of those changes. And I see page eight where you have, your text in red.

Yeah.

And I address the other, changes that are proposed.

I'm just going through it like we did with the last amendment through the how it would look in the ordinance itself so people can understand and see the full context

So in the legislation. Madam chair.

I I think people will understand if they see the changes. I'm not clear on why we don't wanna make that clear. Alderman Arnett? So page eight has already been changed with Arnett Amendment four.

So I think you can ignore this page eight. And the first change from Savage Amendment six shows up on page nine, which is the new purpose number seven, which is is related to improving transportation.

I'm on page 10, which has You're with.

K. But we we have an amendment on page nine at the top.

I see that.

Which I would like to, make a motion that we give a favorable recommendation to adding this item seven that is showing here on page nine of this legislation. But I would then like to hear staff comment if it's second. Well,

the whole amendment I'd like to try to do what we did with the last amendment and just go through each section of proposed changes and see if staff or the committee have comments, then the actual motions would be changes to the amendment.

K.

Well, I think there's been a proposal to deal with the first one, and I would rather take them one at a time like we did with the last one because we voted on them individually. And then we voted on them as a whole. So on page nine, there was a motion made, though it wasn't seconded.

Second.

Okay. So open for discussion on page nine.

It it's we don't need a motion unless you're gonna change what's in the amendment. So let's just first have a discussion about You're right. Hear from staff as far as do you have any concerns Altum. This number seven.

I'm sorry. I would prefer, as we did in the past, to address them and take a position on each one.

But that

that is

what I'm trying

to do. It's exactly what I'm trying to do. What we did last time. I go over what's amend in the amendment, and then we hear from staff and the committee, and then there's a motion if there needs to be a motion. But first, we need to hear from staff and the committee about this particular change.

Alderman, we will have a motion, and then it will be open for discussion.

Madam chair, that is not what we did with the last amendment.

Mister chair, when you get to environmental matters, please feel free to do it that way.

I'm just I'm just saying that is not what we did with the last amendment that we just went through. I'm trying to do the same thing which you just said you want us to do is the same thing. That is what I'm trying

to do here. So as

I did before, I read through all the changes one by one, and we heard from staff. I would like to hear from staff before any kind of motion is made.

Alderman, there is a motion on the floor to give a favorable recommendation, and it has been seconded.

Why are you making a motion before we even heard from staff? You

do not have the floor. I'm sorry. Okay? The motion is to give a favorable recommendation. It's been moved and seconded. Now I am opening the floor for the rules committee for discussion.

Okay. Point of information that is procedurally incorrect.

Well, that's fine. Alderman Shandelweiler?

Withdraw the motion? Yes. Why are we So

I guess now that the motion is on the floor and we're in discussion stage, let's hear from staff.

Sorry to disappoint. We have We nothing to think this is It is a great statement, and, it's in spirit with the way the ordinance is drafted now. Number seven, that is. Yep.

Thank you, mister, Bekubiak. Is there further discussion? Alderman Schandelmeier.

Thank you, madam chair. I had a quick question during the, incremental financing and affordable housing conditions section. So currently, percentage of below market below market housing provide an

Can we about that? We have let's take a vote on the previous one before we move on to the next one. All in favor of the First Amendment on page nine, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Okay. Now going on to page 10. Oh, the general?

We're not on page 10 yet.

You are not. Our committee is.

But don't you wanna know there's a change a proposed change on page nine in blue that still needs to get discussed? But if you wanna go to 10 and jump over that.

Well, Alderman Schandelmeyer was speaking to what was on page 10. We can come back to page nine.

I was actually on page three. Really?

Oh my god. Am I right?

I'm taking it in order.

Yeah. Alright. Fine. Page

I think it's easier to work with, for me at least showing the changes to the legislation than that really starts on page nine. But I certainly will honor the aldermen's wish to go back to page three.

Go page three. I'm just

happy to be here.

Gentlemen, the sooner we get this done, the sooner we'll be through.

Almost out of time.

Alright. So I guess, if I can move on to page the the one questions that I have around here, I think all the issues around developer contributions and trans developer contributions in towards transit funding and tax incremental financing. I think those are all very good steps. Plan developments tend to be done all at once. That does cause a bit of disruption.

So I think these take a lot of great steps towards administering it. I guess the two questions that I have both tend to be around the under the tax incremental financing portions, which there is one on page 11 and another on page three. We'll go to page 11 because that's where we yep. So that's, I guess, in the general direction Page that we're

three is the thing.

Yeah. Page three is the one. Affordable housing conditions. The percentage of below market rate housing provided on the property should be at least 25% of the total units. Is that to qualify for tax incremental financing, or is that intended to be for all planned developments by your intention for this amendment?

So I wanna provide more explanation, and it's I'm trying to go in order of the changes. So because I wanna help people understand the amendment like we did the last one, and so people understand why things are where they are. You look at the legislation. Let's see. There are two changes proposed to the the density increases, right, on page nine and page 10.

Page nine increases the dense so the legislation proposes underlying legislation proposes to increase the maximum number of dwelling units for residential plan developments up from, I believe, the current 100% up to a 150. Right? Looking at staff. Alright. So I'm proposing to change that to a 125%, which is reducing that increase.

Right? Yep. Following up. With me? I am following up.

Page top of page 10, the other density change

Wait.

Wait. Wait. You were on page I'm trying to make this you were on page nine of the original. No. It's not.

What what page is that on? We are on page nine. What page? 21.4 point 2.4 o five o.

Okay.

Bulk and density standards. B, new one identity. Right.

Sorry. Again, I'm trying with this amendment, I'm trying to reduce the increase for a new baseline. And so you'll see I'm proposing to strike maximum allowable density standards and just keeping it named density standards. Because I wanna set the new baseline, the new density standards to be the reduced increases, which would be the 105 honey 125% instead of the 150. And then on page 10, the other change that staff proposes in the ordinance is, basically reducing you see that 850?

That is an effort and staff, please correct me if I'm wrong, but that is an effort to allow for more density in special mixed plan development project. What I'm proposing to do is and and staff explained to me that that, I believe, doubles essentially doubles the I think you said double the the amount of density currently allowed in special mixed use. Right? And so what I'm trying to do by increasing it to 1,400 is to basically half that for the base. Right?

Does that make sense? Yes. So to that point, staff have any comments on Those particular changes for the base and I and it's connected to all the machinimaers point as far as. With the next section in C. Is where I offer the conditional which page 10. Has additional density bonus tied to high value transit improvements. Those conditional density bonuses I'm making even higher because I want those to be the incentives. But so the first question has to do with the baseline on page page nine.

Okay. So that is to qualify for density standards not to qualify for a planned development.

The current draft increases the allowable density within two types of plan developments. Within the residential plan development, it can increase to a 125% of the allowable density, which means, for instance, in a r a 150. Excuse me. So in a r one zone, you're capped at six units per acre. With with the way the code is the amendment is drafted, you'll go to the potential for nine units per acre.

Ottoman Savage is suggesting essentially, seven and a half units per acre as because that's that's that's what the math works out to. So if it's 1125% increase to six, that leads to 7.5 units per acre. So and, for the special mixed use districts, which currently in the proposed ordinance are allowed to bump up to a higher density if they meet certain location criteria. For instance, they're specifically located with frontage on some of these major roadways and show up as express mixed use planned areas within the comprehensive plan. So we've got a linkage between the comp plan and, the added density.

If they match up with a comp plan, a developer can propose higher density. And that, what this this amendment does, though, is to simply say, irrespective of where a planned mixed use development is is allowed, its density can go a little higher than what current code allows but substantially lower than what Jakubiak and Mashinsky are suggesting. So, for instance, a special mix plant development under the current draft could go to 50 units per acre. Actually, the math works out to 51, but it's 50 units per acre. It's currently 25 units per acre.

That's what things are now. Alderman Savage would have the number set at 31 units per acre. Let's let's go to the math real quick. So, again, we would suggest if if these special mixed use areas meet our criteria and are located in areas embraced by the comprehensive plan, we would give more flexibility to the market to deliver housing in those areas. So we would suggest that essentially a doubling of allowable density up to 50%.

And this particular amendment on amendment six is suggesting that that number be capped at essentially 31 units per acre. So that's the new baseline. And what Alderman Savage will tell you is that the proposal is that if these projects qualify as being supportive of or consistent with high value transit improvements and meet these other community benefit and tax increment of finding financing requirements, the density can go up even higher, actually higher than what our initial recommendation was.

So that is a you get this you get more if you provide that 25% number. It's not a you must always do the 25%. It's a bonus

That's right.

To provide more affordable housing.

Yeah. If if they want the extra density bonus beyond what even staff is proposing, then, yeah, if they want that, then they would have to do a number of things. One would be point 5% affordable housing. The other stuff would be a TIF would have to put placed on the property. That's more of a city mechanism. And then they would have to come to a signed community benefit agreement with staff that, committing to. We could be based whenever we negotiate.

Okay. That is the right way to do it. Right. Where I was coming from is my concern is sometimes if you come in some people come in well intentioned, we're going, we must increase the amount of affordable housing they must build, but then it's too high for them to turn a profit. So nothing gets built in a higher percentage of zero is still zero. So but by providing these extra bonuses like you've done, I think you've written a piece of legislation that will really encourage additional construction and get us there. So thank you for answering that.

Yeah, and thank you for allowing me to provide that in context.

And Mr. Chair, we jump over on page ten three this dividing the development area by 1,400 as opposed to eight fifty, which seems to me would decrease the number of units. By making that number go from eight fifty to 1,400, it seems like the number of development units

would be. Maybe staff can help you explain this one.

For every 850 square feet of space, you can do one yacht dwelling unit. And what that's what we're suggesting. What

That's what you're suggesting with eight fifty.

Right? But it's either so we we're originally suggesting eight fifty. Right?

Yeah.

Yeah. So eight one and what you were suggesting is 1,400 that it'd be kept so you need a lot more land area to get another unit.

Okay. That's how we're just wanna make sure I was clear. So that would this

A lower density.

Would reduce the number of units on a particular

part. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. And yeah. And again, that's with the idea of saving that 850 to be the incentive for those who developments that meet the other requirements. I'm certainly open to changing that working 100. I I think you alluded to in your written comments to me that you may wanna see that change. I'm happy to, but if that's the wrong way to accomplish my goal with this.

Well, you haven't asked what we thought about this so much, but I'm happy to help the council understand it and then spend as much time as possible.

Right.

Because we see the value of where you're headed, but we do think that the way the ordinance is the or amendment is drafted now needs some improvement. And, and I I know the perfect and good, comparison is relevant. I think we have something that is maybe closer to perfect, but still not ideal. And I know and we shared it with you the other day, and I sense refined that and brought copies with me. I wanted to get to the essence of this.

So this is a very complicated set of standards, and it does, as a matter of fact, add cost to delivering housing, which is fundamentally the issue of affordability. I mean so and it gets complicated. We don't have all the answers yet. But if you if this set gets I'm I'm afraid that this has not been vetted with people in the building industry that know the nuts and bolts of delivering affordable housing. And if it were, based on what we know and our experience actually meeting with developers as they're considering properties in the city, my concern is the reaction would be what what's the point of making the investment, upfront?

That's why the way we've drafted it is to be more embracing of the comprehensive plans focused on housing and supply and production of housing with the protections in terms of location and these other standards. And then and I can go through some details and and and the sort of terminology, but I think big picture, what we've asked for is willingness in the cap part of the council to embrace Alderman Savage's concepts in in terms of a framework for moving forward rather than the nuts and bolts, the details, And which we're we're trying to be diplomatic and supportive of of the alderman savage because we really care about the direction you're headed. We're supported, and the planning commission does too. And it couldn't grapple with these complexities in its hearing as well. But we're here to support the council either way you wanna go, but it's it's complicated.

Well, may I address the rules committee?

Yes.

We are coming up on timeline here. You have heard from staff about the complexities, especially of this amendment. I can speak from personal experience trying to bring in affordable housing to the city and the obstacles that were in the way of the success. And so further obstacles are a concern to me. You know, the whole discussion about tying transit to affordable housing.

And we all agree that transit is extremely important, but I really believe we're putting the cart before the horse. And so I would propose that we consider not addressing amendment six and that we pass this on to the full council with the amendments that we have addressed and give Alderman Savage an opportunity to bring this back to a new council who will have, that he can embrace with his vision. Not that it's not a bad vision, but it's one that we may not be able to accomplish or codify right now as we're about to leave this council. So that's what I propose for the rules committee. I'd be interested in what my colleagues have to say.

Alderman Arnett, Alderman Shanenmeier? Alderman Arnett, your hand is Thank up

you, madam chair. So I like the first two changes we've gone through so far, but I have to And I like the sense of this very complicated remainder, but first of all, I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. But I take to heart what the staff said. In fact, I was kinda chilled hearing that this may actually discourage development. I certainly don't want to do anything to do that.

So I guess my question to the amendment sponsor is, is this something since you will be back that we can, pick up again in the next term? There's gonna be further amendments to the zoning code to implement the comprehensive plan. And, I think that there's gonna need more time. And I'm afraid that it would delay passage of the overall ordinance if we get bogged down in the details of this. So I do like the first two changes, but I'm sympathetic to the chair's recommendation that we not consider amendments.

Alderman Shandenmeyer?

There are a lot of moving parts to this, but I believe this was one of your essentials to support the comprehensive plan as a whole you had mentioned. What I might recommend is we take no action on six, and the sponsor can kinda try to work out maybe something a little more streamlined before final voting on the legislation as a whole. Because I do know there's a lot of good in this and there's a lot of important things to Alderman Savage as part of amendment six. And I do think he's come up with some very creative ways to find funding for not just our transportation sector but also to encourage some creative types of developments that we see in the city. So I don't want to vote this down.

I understand why we may want to see a little bit more work on it on our end. So what my recommendation would be is us take no action for now on amendment six and Alderman Savage can work with planning and zoning a little bit more to help something a little more streamlined?

Thank you, Alderman Schandelmeyer. I think that was exactly my recommendation to the committee, and I will entertain a motion to take no action from the rules committee on amendment six.

So moved. Second.

Okay. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

I will take, entertain a motion now to give a favorable or not favorable recommendation to o fourteen twenty five as amended by the rules committee.

Did you say unfavorable?

I said favorable, and then I said or unfavorable. Whatever is your pleasure. I'm sure it's favorable.

What was the? Yes. We we have something from Seth.

I

And I'm sorry. And I I do apologize to miss Guile because I wanted to go back to her comments, and I we didn't. But is it mister Jakubiak that wants to comment?

Thank you. Just very briefly before you recommend presumably approval or favorable recommendation for the ordinance in its entirety, I wanted to, mention that the the foundational purpose of this set of amendments is to mitigate some obstacles that have slowed down, prevented redevelopment of obsolete properties or underutilized or outmoded properties. That comes right from the comprehensive plan. It's expressly documented in the plan with a a goal and a direction statement. These this amendment encompasses various subject areas within the city's growth and development framework.

The focus on the, City Dock area and Dock Street has been the subject of discussion about whether it's spot zoning. It is clearly not spot zoning. In fact, it's a valid use of the zoning ordinance to target specific parts of a jurisdiction if there's a clear public purpose. Sections within a zoning classification can be addressed to address with co language and standards that address their unique standards and the the the conditions that those properties find themselves with within. That is not beyond, the authority of the municipalities.

Quite consistent. And the public purposes related to the code are, as I mentioned before, primarily to facilitate a redevelopment where obstacles prevent it. But in the case of, the city dock area, it's also to bring about economic vitality and redevelopment on properties that are relatively underperforming adjacent to a major investment in a public park. And if I have to remind the the the council members, once the public park resilience project is implemented, the existing buildings there will be set about four feet below the surface of the park. What is waterfront for these properties now will not be waterfront looking out the front door.

You'll be looking at a park. You'll be stepping down onto a surface to head into the front of these buildings. That's an adverse impact of a public improvement. This set of standards helps mitigate that impact by allowing multiple opportunities to use property more efficiently. And why in this area?

Not generally. Because this area is at the very peninsula, the edge of the city. There's no private property within the city behind this property. It's just the United States Naval Academy and a huge building, the biggest building in our area, the Fieldhouse, which is which is the backdrop to this. So these small projections above the established regulatory height aren't as as adverse as anywhere else in the city.

They're they're they could fit in, perfectly well against that big building that's set before there. So there there are unique aspects of this this collection of properties. There are seven properties in all, not just one. There are multiple property owners, not just one. There's a public interest, as I've expressed here that's tied to our comprehensive plan.

And it's important for us to always keep that in mind that the zoning authority that a municipality has isn't only about drawing district boundaries and saying what's allowed there is is not allowed there, and and it's about identifying what specifically is presenting itself, challenging issues, and and development. You might remember the transit or the the form based code. Form based code is about specific changes that reflect the public's interest without regard to the general, districting, that the city has. So this is a technique that is provided for and recommended within our within our zoning ordinance. And I just wanted to share that with the the council members and also get it on the record too to give you the assurance that, this type of zoning approach is valid and useful and helpful to advance the public interest.

Thank you, mister, Jakubiak. Alderman Channenmeyer?

Thank you, madam chair. So I do wanna touch on one portion of legislation as amended as a whole or as original written however we wanna touch it. So both Alderman Huntley and I had requested a couple times for a presentation of some kind get made to HBC. I spoke with the chair again earlier this week. He said that had not happened.

Without commenting up or down on these portions, because I do think there are some potential benefits, I do think allowing them to hear it out, especially with the additional amendments that we just put in today, is very beneficial. And I am asking, begging one more time. I understand they can't give an up or down vote, but to just give them a little presentation. Really asking. That is all.

For them to give a quick presentation to HPC. That's all I'm asking.

The staff to present to HP on Oh.

Especially just with what we got it as amended. I do think it's really good, but I think HPC needs to just hear their speech and have their say. That's all. Thank you.

Before it goes to city council.

A lot of time.

Not a lot of time left, but I was pushing for this earlier in the year.

No. I think you're right in But doing that. But

I'm not gonna kill the whole legislation over this, but I've said my piece on this a couple times, including at the housing and human welfare meeting.

K. Thank you, and I trust that staff will make every effort to make that happen, Alderman. So is I think did we take a motion to approve or no. We have don't have a motion. I'll entertain a motion.

Make a motion to approve as recommended.

With the five amendments.

As amended by the rules committee.

Right. Yes. As amended by the rules Okay.

It's been second. Further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Okay.

Thank you very much. Alderman Savage, are you gonna entertain a motion for environmental matters?

No. I'm not. There's more discussion still for environmental matters. There's no time deadline for miss Jackson. So, yeah, I wanna go back to amendment six for environmental matters.

So we have meeting on Thursday. So is that when you're gonna take that up?

Sorry?

I said are we planning to take that up at environmental matters on?

No. We're doing it right now at the joint in the joint meeting.

What time is it there? Isn't it 03:00?

They were no. We're not talk we're talking at o fourteen at today's environmental matters. So going back to amendment six, I Alderman Arnett, you know, I think people were suggest so I tried to give a good summary of this, and I just wanna go back because I don't like the idea of waiting until the next council. In particular, Alderman Net, we've had plenty of discussions over the years. We've worked together about impacts of growth and density.

I'm trying to provide a way forward. I we both have talked about how it's Mhmm. Irresponsible planning to call allow for growth without addressing any of the impacts, particularly infrastructure impacts. And that's what I think this underlying ordinance does. I'm trying to fix that, trying to respond to my constituent concerns, trying to have closer adherence to the comprehensive plan, which calls for these things. Like, I because what I don't understand is why

We passed down the