City Council - Regular Meeting

connection.

Sorry. Let's see. Welcome to the committee ones. Today is Wednesday, February 4th. Um, thank you everybody for being here. Hi, Jelly because I feel like for Pedro Esanol Pedro Esanol, um, can you please call [laughter] Chairman Pedro Espanol absent, Vice Chairwoman Shelley Peterson here. Councilwoman Mary Kay Harris is absent. Councilman Oscar Vgas here. And Council Justin Roy present. We have three present, two absent.

Thank you very much. Um we'll get started right away. Thank you everybody for being here. Um if you could read into if you could read um sir please. Thank you. Item number one resolution encouraging the general assembly to pass legislation establishing a crook point bridge authority.

Who do we have to speak on that day? Yes. on the penalty of the testimony you're supposed to give to the truth. Double the truth. I do. Can you say your name and title for the record? Thank you for being here, Chief. Take it away. Um, so the resolution before you is um consistent with other resolutions we provided to the council that provide support for state legislation. Part of the mayor's agenda this year was to create this uh Croak Point bridge authority. All the state legislation does is enable us to create the authority. The idea behind this is that we would then contemplate taking the crook the crook point bridge from which is currently owned by Ryok to city possession. Um we didn't want to do that direct to the city. So this enables us to create an authority so that should we decide to take the bridge it would be taken by the authority kind of similar to the how the building authority works. Um, so this is just the first step. The process of taking the bridge and the discussion about that would come to the council also for approval. This is just getting us started on that process. We do need to move quickly because the bridge is scheduled for demolition in 2026 2027. There's $6 million in the uh Department of Transportation STP that's allocated to that. If if this building isn't if this bridge is not demolished, that money would then be invested in the cruise um site that we've been working on um by India Point. And so DOT is committed to repurposing that money for the development of that cruise terminal, which would be great. Um but if we don't move quickly, they're just going to use the money to take the bridge down.

Okay. Thank you. Um I want to acknowledge uh Councilwoman Ryan is here. Thank you very much for being here today. Thank you, J. Um, do the nudity have any questions? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. The $6 million you're talking about, who has the money? The state department of transportation. If we don't get the bridge, what happens to that money? You're saying that we'll go reallocate it to somewhere. If we don't take the bridge, that money will be used to tear down the bridge. So, we're trying to do a safety bridge. We're going to we would like to take the bridge into the city possession. And what are we going to do with the bridge?

Um to be determined. There's been a in 2021 they did a design competition. Um you know, nothing has to be done to the bridge today. Uh it would be for the city to work to work on in the future if we decided to take the bridge. Again, this just enable it creates an authority enables us to create an authority to then contemplate the taking of the bridge. But one we have the can I sorry one we have the authority to on this bridge we own the bridge right

no this creates a separate group that would manage the bridge if we took the bridge but it just enables us to create the separate group it doesn't actually take the bridge that would have to come back for further action

yeah if we do we have any idea how much will cost us to demolish this bridge if we if the whoever owns the bridge now would say you can have this piece it's a matter like

we wouldn't int if we took it we wouldn't intend to demolish it the idea would be that we would leave it as it is and potentially do something with it in the future uh I don't see any potential use of this bridge It's an important landmark in the city. A lot of people, you know, find it to be an iconic um landmark associated with Providence. And for lots of folks, they believe it should be preserved. So it, you know, whether or not it is just preserved as it is or if it be or it becomes something else, I think is to be determined. But um the Department of Transportation,

can we put an American flag at the top? So make it look beautiful. I mean we could do a lot of things with that. I have a quick question. Have you established who's going to be a part of the authority yet? It provides for three members appointed by the mayor approved by the council. Those have not been identified. Three members. Yes. and they have to be residence correct. Please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, just for clarification, what's before us is creating the authority. Doesn't cost us anything. It's just creating an authority.

What's before you is just a letter of support for the state legislation which creates the authority. Okay. which doesn't cost us any money and the money the $6 million referenced by my colleague on will be repurposed to in Providence. So that's a win correct for the cruise line area, the port area. So that's $6 million into our port area, which would be certainly welcome. Exactly. So no commitment of expenditure of funds if we pass this.

Correct. But it's all uh it's $6 million to the port and it's an opportunity for us to decide what we want to do um to a historic landmark.

I think it's a good thing. I like the 6 million. Um, if I could just make a point of observation, I think, um, I certainly appreciate having that opportunity to continue engaging on this. Um, however, I do think that we should have some sort of council representation on that particular um, authority. And so I would be supportive of this if we had at least one um, council opportunity, but council. So all of the positions are appoint are approved

through council. All three positions have to be approved by appointed by the mayor. Correct. But you know as with other appointments like we'd have to work together because you don't you're not going to approve it if you know.

Yeah. [laughter] I like the idea just speaking um on the topic. I just like the idea of having a little bit of bipartisan opportunity while the authority is kind of presenting itself. I just think it it is an opportunity for council and mayor to have a little bit of referral as to how it looks and obviously because it comes to the council it's a different um it's still an opportunity for counselors to be able to engage that way and uh have some say but I just think in that initiation of a lot of of the conversation just that's just my personal opinion u chief so we covered legislation um in the GA it's it's um has already been introduced and the the car linguage says that it's all mayor appointed correct

okay by the council approved by the council yeah I do understand that dynamic and is any way that you that the council can appoint two more people one from the council and one from another neighborhood or it's only these three members will be only three members members from the neighborhood area or or the whole city.

I mean, it's just three members from Providence. I I will say having sat through a lot of meetings where we try to find people who want to be in service on city boards, it's not always easy. And so, we were thinking about this that, you know, the imp the work of this board is going to be very limited. And so it might be challenging to find folks that want to do this given the like it's not a board that's going to have tremendous impact. Um I think I think that the questions about um changing the legislation. You know I guess it would require us to submit a sub a at the state house which is you know a different conversation. And if I could just ask, you had talked about the timeline. Um, you said 26 27 for take down more on the 27th side, closer to the middle of the 26. Do you have an idea?

I think the reason I'm pushing on this is that um, if we don't show momentum, I think Ride Out is going to start mobilizing um, and we're going to lose the opportunity. Like the STIP is a formal document where they manage their projects. There's a lot of um they would really like to see us move forward on this. Otherwise, they're going to scoop that money or they're they're not going to move the money. They're going to leave it and start working towards the definition. Okay.

I I think that's pushing the door. I think the opportunity for that idea. [clears throat] Um at the very least, if we're going to have counsel as to who, you know, gets on that, I think it's important. Um, and I knowing that there's an either or option where the money still stays in the skin in progress. I think that's important too. So I think I would move I would make a motion or I will entertain a motion.

So motion motion to pass this to this resolution. Pass this resolution encouraging general assembly to pass legislation. Second favor. Thank you. Not yet. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Peace. Item number two, an ordinance an amendment of chapter 27 of the code of ordinances of the city of province entitled the city of province zoning ordinance approved November 24th, 2014 as amended to change certain text in article 5, 12, 18, and 19 regarding building design standards. Yes. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you saw on the penalty for your testimony you're able to give the truth that hope nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Can you please state your name and title for the record?

Chris Robert, deputy planning director. Jason Martin, principal planning. Thank you very much for being here and I'm sorry I'm very rusty on this so I'm going to have you more than but please [clears throat] go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Um uh thank you for entertaining us uh tonight um for thisformational session about uh this zoning amendment. Um, we thought it would be a good idea to do this in a a less formal setting prior to the public hearing uh so that uh we can explain some of the nuances of of what we're putting forth um and and give you the opportunity to to ask any questions that you might have. So with that, we have a slideshow presentation um to kind of run through here. Um and uh I just want to acknowledge that uh we also have uh Alexis Thompson here who participated in this. Uh the three of us will be giving the presentation. Uh but Alexis and we also have Le Simon um who worked on this as well.

Before you start, I think I have to make a motion to enter the exhibit. on C on the CPC letter. I'll send it exhibit one and we also have the presentation that is displayed on the screen. So that will be exhibit 1 A so much you can do it. Yeah, great. I love it. Um

okay, [clears throat] next slide, please. All right. So, um uh we're going to talk about really two two different things here. Um [clears throat] a proposal for design regulations for small scale residential and uh also uh for apartments and mixed use buildings and then and then we'll have a discussion. Next slide. All right. So, uh, again, um, I've already introduced, uh, Alexis and Lev, Chris and Jason, also staff in the planning department. Uh, we're the we're the ones that are reviewing on a day-to-day basis development proposals, and we see uh, the kinds of things that that come through. And while you see a lot of um a lot of projects that technically comply with the with the law there there are often some issues and and we're looking to try to address those. Next slide. Um so uh we talk about this in the comprehensive plan. Uh it talks about promoting design excellence and historic preservation through appropriate land use controls. And um uh we talk about establishing an ad hoc committee that will um help us work on design regulations to improve the quality of of uh construction in the uh city. Next. Okay. So we pulled together this committee um and as you can see I think we had about 14 folks who attended uh multiple meetings. We had several design professionals. We had developers uh large and small scale. We had a representative from the uh preservation society and we had two neighborhood advocates uh that were with us through this entire process. Next uh and here was the mission of that committee. It really just um reiterates what's already

in the comp plan, which is to to develop new design standards uh that improve design quality without unnecessarily increasing the cost of new development or the length of time uh for projects to be approved. Okay. So, uh we met six times uh from June to October. Um and you know we just kind of like worked our way very systematically through uh through you know issues. We asked committee members to to bring to us um uh examples of buildings that that they like buildings they don't like. And then we really dug in deep on you know what is it that makes something that makes something good that makes it fit in. uh but also being very cognizant of of how much development costs and not wanting to make development so expensive that we don't get the development that that we need next. Okay, I'm going to turn it over to Jason Martin now who's going to run through the uh slides about smallcale residential development. Uh good evening counselors. Uh again, thank you for having us. So I'm going to talk about smallcale residential. Uh so this consists of primarily two and three family housing uh which really accounts for the the majority of housing in the city or two and three family units really. Uh that's what we have the most of. Um and so um before kind of I go over what we actually agreed on, I wanted to kind of give you a history. I'm the preservation planner. For those of you who don't know, I stepped historic district commission. Um and um I just want to give a brief history of kind of the evolution of two and three families in the city. Um, and on, you know, it's interesting, too, the building on the right here, as some of you may know, is on Manton Avenue. And Manton Avenue from Glen Ridge to Chalkstone is a great kind

of area to show the evolution of two and three family apartments, really two family apartments, um, in the city. And this goes from uh, the Dyerville Mill, which is the oldest extent mill in the city, is there tucked behind Man Avenue on the river. And then there is um duplex housing of the 19th century that was mil made for the h uh for the mill. And as you kind of go down the street towards Charstone, you'll get an evolution of housing. We really didn't um that starts then after the mill housing, we get double and triple deckers that go up until about the 1920s, the 1930s. through that phase where Providence was what many of us wish it was again as far as the population and size and density of the city where we had over 200,000 in our population at that point. Um after that as you go down the street you're going to see an evolution now get more two and mostly two families. These are all really didn't start getting built again until the 70s quite honestly. Um again I that's because Providence actually nobody was really building anything post war. People were leaving the city. we were deserted. Those kinds of things were happening. Suburban flight, all of those types of things were happening in the city. So, there wasn't a big wave of development. There was more than enough housing in the city at that point. Um, in some ways, we're lucky because we didn't demolish a lot of it. A lot of it still exists. And so, we came down and we housing down there from the 70s. You can see housing now from the 70s all the way through to modern day. And most of that housing up to about 2010 is a duplex style housing just like it was for the most part in the in the mill housing. They were sidebyside duplexes. In 2010, we started getting kind of a new prototype in the city and that's kind of exemplified by these models. These were two families that were really three stories tall in most cases. Um and they deviate from what had been the kind

of traditional building type in the city by having these raised entrances and um you know this became this was a reaction to the zoning ordinance. It was a reaction to the building code. Some would say it's reaction to the fire code but it's actually the building code portion of fire suppression that is causing this as well and why you may know people are building two families and not three families. um but they're building the form of a three family. And so we've seen this and you know planning has this um as these forms develop we have kind of lost the architectural detail and so the houses that were built in the mill housing and up to the 20s were craftsman built and were simple buildings but had detail to them. They had, you know, simple detail, but they had corner boards. They had little dental moldings. They had all the little things that those kind of houses have. And as housing has evolved, we've lost those details. We've lost the craftsmanship, quite frankly, and we've gotten to where developers are building kind of Yep. No, you're good. You're good. Oh, okay. [clears throat] Uh develop There's counselor. Can we do question in the meantime? You want to do that one thing? Do you want to give presentation first and then we go back and question you or we go?

If if we may, why don't why don't we have Jason give his presentation. We can ask questions and then and then Chris Jason's got just a couple more. Right. Um and so as buildings go forward, we lose detail and we get kind of these boxes. Even though it's interesting these new buildings we were seeing before are of a triple decker size actually without really being triple deckers that whole thing. So what we've been looking at and this is kind of a problem we have is that we developed guidelines. We had to develop guidelines. Um so let me stop for a second and just walk through these slides for you. So again, these are very new buildings and these are again a prototype we've never seen before in Province. And quite frankly, personally, I adore it. I just aesthetically it it's good housing. Housing is housing, but aesthetically, you know, and you'll slide on the uh the right, you don't get it in this, but the the original photo, there's three of these buildings here that you can see, and it's quite quite shocking when you see them. Um you can go to the next slide, please. So, here we've got some examples of better housing. Um, and why that housing is better is in this case you've got a smaller uh single family really um unit, two family unit um on the on the right. The one on the left, it's got basic details. It's got cornerboards. It's got trim around windows. It's got a hood over the door. It's got a porch that's at a at a a normal typical level for the city. um the building that starts in a historic district, but again it illustrates that um these kind of details can be put on um and and made in a way that does not add a significant amount of cost. Putting corner boards on a building, putting detail and trim

around a window, it's not going to add a amount of cost to buildings. Um so we've kind of been forced to kind of um create guidelines. The developer community reacts to our guidelines and quite honestly things are things we never would have thought of. So if you go to the next slide you'll see that the the items here in black are things that existed already and the things in red are things that were changing. [laughter]

So back in probably around 14 or so, Bob, if you correct me, we had to tell people that you need to put the primary entrance, the the primary elevation will be your primary entrance. On that elevation, you will have a door, you will have windows, you will have very basic things. And they started doing that, but we didn't tell them you could have a porch that's 10 ft off the ground. [laughter] So they started doing that so they could expose the basement level, get bigger windows in for egress and have livable space down there. And there's good and bad things to that, but that's what they're doing. So what we put in this through the committee through all this discussion obviously with the committee is that we have a maximum elevation of 5 ft above the ground for the porch. So that should hopefully solve this problem of having these these buildings that are in essence are being built on pedestal with very large pedestals as well. The other thing that's happening in these buildings is they're using pressuret treated pine as as a finish material.

Yes. And pressuret treated pine can be a finished material but it probably should be treated to some degree. What we're saying is pressuret treated wood cannot be a finished material that it should be finished somehow. You can paint it, you can stain it, you can wrap it. There are PVC alternates you can use. There are all kinds of solutions for that. The other thing is these these buildings we were seeing as this new prototype, we're creating these vast spaces under the porches that were not being finished as well. That's right.

And so those spaces in this if a building has those are supposed to then be have a lattice around them and you can I mean they store things under them anyway. You just won't see them. It'll be a little unsightly. Honestly, under the ordinance, these types that type of situation should disappear a little bit too because they won't be able to go as high um at that elevation. And if I could have the next slide, please. Um the same thing with like again we had to um tell people about putting in elements having 15% transparency on side. All those things were things that exist and we had changed after kind of the last round of changes. The newer things that were talked about, you know, there was a debate about vinyl siding. you know, in the end, we had to allow vital siding. Um, and so if we were going to allow vital siding, we wanted it to at least replicate a traditional material look. Um, they also come in weird panels and different things. So, we [clears throat] stated that if you use vinyl siding, it has to be in this form. Also, if you're using, you know, for windows, you shall have trim around those windows. The trim shall be at least 3 and 1/2 in. So, it's somewhat substantial. You'll have a sill on the on the window. Um, you'll also have corner boards at this point um as well. And I think that's the end of at least Oh, Mar. So, so I mean really what we were trying to do in in kind of ending this is trying to just through little changes make these buildings have um they have a very stark appearance especially on the primary elevation. And so by adding just these little bit of detail around them, it'll make them look better. Um Chris deals with this much more than I do um as far as helping developers try to improve design by adding the simplest of things to these buildings. And so that's what kind of I think our hope was for this

scale of building.

Thanks Jason. And uh before we get into questions I just want to acknowledge um Councilwoman Ryan uh and and her advocacy on behalf of of Good Design. uh it led to these uh provisions in the comprehensive plan and also this um ad hoc committee uh being formed. I also want to acknowledge that um uh city council staff did participate in in the um ad hoc committee meetings throughout there was there was representative at every one of those those meetings. So, I want to thank um uh the council for being a true partner in this and we're happy to take questions at this point before we turn it over to Chris.

Yes. Yes.

U so these design will be for an edge of 100 years. No, they could ch you know in our experience what happens is we implement changes and developers and builders do their thing and decide you know this they address the changes and we hope that what comes out is what we envisioned but sometimes they find loopholes or ways to do things that we just didn't think of like quite honestly that prototype was never thought of as something that was going to show up based on what we had mandate we had written before. So the ordinance is the ordinance. It can change at the will of the council. So you know [clears throat] something all of a sudden something goes horribly wrong can come back.

Um okay does the sign profession like this committee one two three four five the six people here these people we appoint you or they they invite them to be part of the committee.

Yeah. So, so actually uh the way this worked is that we um based on our experience, these are people uh all of the people actually the developers and professionals [clears throat] are people that we work with on a regular basis. These are people who are commonly working in Providence. Um so we brought forth a list uh that we vetted internally with with the administration. We also vetted it with Councilwoman Ryan who was was expressing an interest in this and um former Councilwoman Helen Anthony also had some some input [clears throat] into this cuz this was a a strong interest of hers. Uh and at the end of the day we we sent out um a request. Just about everybody we asked was more than willing to to uh participate.

Right. Yeah. The reason is because I don't see any Latino names with 47% Latino in this city of Providence. Like they have different ideas too though and they can pitch in the new designs that they would [clears throat] propose and see if we can do a difference. That's was the only reason there were some invited. They just everyone who was invited didn't participate. Okay. So, we did try we did we did consider that and uh I know um I know a couple of developers uh uh I know Fernando Kar was invited right

and some others that just you know for whatever reason couldn't make our schedule. Thank you. Did you have any other questions? Yes. Go ahead.

If would it be okay if I just tag on to that question just to add u u color to that. There was a broader list and the list was acceptable to the council president. I reviewed it. I know Helen Anthony had our colleague Helen Anthony had some input. It was a broad list. A lot of people were invited and those who didn't actually sit did offer some insight that was considered invaluable. So I do want to say that you know I can speak to this committee that uh it's a solid committee and it's uh because of this committee I think really good product. Great. So just wanted to follow up on that.

Thank you. So talking about these so this property meant to have you it is true that they changed the this battery like five times and didn't look good at the end. you intend to I can't I mean again I didn't actually review any of the this project at all. It was a um I don't think actually I don't even know I

I can I can actually speak to this a little bit. So, uh, one of the one of the things that that we didn't talk so much about here is the fact that, um, sometimes the the plans that that builders will submit through our building permit system, uh, they will have, uh, you know, sort of elevations of what the the the different building uh, facades will look like, and then they'll have a site plan that show shows where the building sits on the site, but they don't always give us the enough information so we know what it's going to look like on the ground. And that includes the topography of the site, how hilly it is. Um, and and so what what would often happen is is the developers will submit a plan that makes it look as if the site is perfectly flat and it's not. And in order to take a site that's not flat and make it conducive to development, uh they'll do things like this. They'll put in these like crazy retaining walls and and uh they'll they'll uh they'll elevate the entrances far higher above the ground than they show on the plan. Um, and we didn't have any tools to say that even though it doesn't comply with what they submitted to us, we don't have the tools to say, uh, uh, you're not allowed to do that. This gives us those those tools now, including submission of accurate site plans with grading uh, when necessary to show what it's going to look like out in the field. Thank you. [clears throat] Um actually council ro you have this please. Oh thank you. um a comment and then maybe a question. Um

my question, my general question that I pose to both of you is are we too late? Because there's been um a proliferation of these designs in W 4.

And I feel I I feel relieved this is happening, but I worry if we're too late. And uh and you might have data that I'm I don't have access to, but as we're going through this, I'm thinking about how many uh v private lots that we have in Providence that have not been built on. And um and I don't know the answer to that. So I just know there's probably not too many. And um I'm while I'm grateful for this, I'm I'm just worried that we're too late. Um but I don't want to be Debbie Downer. So, but um I'll you can answer that, but I'll if if I may just uh go to my next you want to

at least as part of that part. What I would say is one of the reasons I wanted to give you that history was that there were a lot of these types out there and you can find 80s duplexes all over the city. They're not the most attractive. They're very plain, I guess, is the way to describe them. They don't have a lot of detail or anything like that. this will become a time, you know, eventually we're going to go through the city and say, "Oh, that was built in between 2000 and 2010 or something or 20 whatever." Well, it'll be of its time and in the end they probably won't, you know, I guess the quicker we get this all passed, the sooner they won't be able to do it any

and the and the thing is that that as much as it feels like, you know, we're built out, you know, people take down buildings. Um, people subdivide. Uh, people find lots that that haven't been developed. people uh who have been holding on to a a sideyard lot for many years decide to sell. So, um it's pretty remarkable that that the developers are are very resourceful and they find they find the lots, you know, and it's often it's often hundreds of units a year that are that are developed just just through like one, two, and three family houses.

They sure do. Yeah. Sure.

Um the the the other point to this is like for the the Yimi audience out there, I think like there's there's this feeling that design standards would um u hurt development. I feel so differently about that. I actually think I think for a very long time long time these designs that have been popping up, they've excuse my language have pissed off neighbors and have made people hate development. And so I would argue the opposite point that responsible designs actually um encourage development because they win the hearts of of neighbors. Um the last point is if it's possible because I'm I'm a visual person. I was wondering if we could have like a rendering of a a design a multif family home that would incorporate these mandates side by side with the current day egregious design just so I could see I kind of am picking up what you what you all putting down here but that would be great for us just to see visually see that.

Yeah. Well, I think we did try to if you maybe go up a few slides. Um, right. So, you know, good. Now, go up a slide. Bad. [laughter] Oh, yeah. So, the the the previous one is that would that So, we're Oh, okay. We're just We're basing that. We didn't have those. Uh, so what was built there? There was no regulations to

No, they didn't have to do that. The one on the right. The one on the right, the one on the right, the historic district commission reviewed that. So, so if you're in a historic district, chances are your house is going to look more like that. The one on the left is not in a historic district. Um, but they did that uh, you know, that was done by a nonprofit housing developer. I think one neighborhood builders and and you know, they cared enough to to invest in a high quality design. Yeah,

just to say that with with with development on the less is was publicly funded. So when it's publicly funded, aesthetics are actually looked at. Um so they hired an architect and an architect who was trying to make it something that would be appropriate for the neighborhood. So that's why that happens where a developer might just have a draft person. He might he might have a house he's built 14 times and he's just going to build that again. Can we can we go uh back back up one slide and Chris had a comment to make?

I just want to make a comment because sometimes you can [clears throat] take this form and this model but if it's done correctly with the standards that we're proposing, you would get a better product but with a similar like the one on the right if it was if it was a grade. It had a nice covered porch with it [clears throat] was wrapped and painted and it had you know it was that great. you would that would be an acceptable house. It's just what's bad about those two examples is this the grain the the staircases

the unfinished porches. Um maybe some more details like window trim just a little bit deepier trim to make it look so you can take that form and make it better with I think this the proposed standard type.

I actually have a question for you. Um, and just for more of a clarification, anything that has already been designed in this way, this not good way, um, would be kind of the status quo. We wouldn't make recommendations to say, "Hey, add some or whatever it might be that could rectify some of this because 14 is rampant with all of this new development in this war. Um, not the greatest, not pretty. Um but substandards would be wonderful actually. So I was wondering if we're grandfathering all of that. Yeah. Unfortunately, yeah. Anything anything that's been built and in compliance

uh is is allowed. Got it.

Thank you. So if we take this one from Menon Avenue and we b in the staircase and make a different design for some windows and use can they use the same box but without the staircase at the outside they would have and I mean these guidelines that entrance up to the second floor could not exist. So, the entrance would have to be a great. Now, could they have a three-story building of this height with a true first floor with porches or whatever they want? Like a triple like an old triple decker. They could do something like that. Usually, we're going to see this form in essence chopped. Just chop that bottom part.

Chop here. Yep. With stairs coming down the front most likely. And that would be I mean that a great it's okay would pretty much be without a truck but the staircase would be in but would be boxed. This isn't allowed.

Well that well so first of all the staircase wouldn't be as tall and second of all it would have it would be boxed in. It would also be painted. Uh [laughter] and the other the other thing is that um in a previous iteration of a change to the ordinance uh we no longer allow that kind of industrial uh uh the wall that that that industrial scale uh retaining wall. They would have to have either bring this bring the whole thing down so it was level with the ground more or less or if there's a wall it would have to be a more decorative retaining wall. The case in this particular area is because he has a rock in the middle. He's going to break the rock.

We acknowledge we acknowled that that's it, right? That's it. That's what it is. Couldn't break. Couldn't break the rock underneath. So, he went high. There's a lot of rock developers come in, they want to develop these vacant lots. There's a reason there are vacant lots throughout the city. Certain areas, man. And I grew up in this neighborhood. I used to have rock is has a name in it is it's ledge ledge. It's ledge

shale and ledge and like you said it's they haven't been developed because it is very challenging but people are getting to a point where they're looking to develop anything. So if if we approve all these these designs will be done starting when uh the ordinance would take effect upon passage. So you've got a public hearing next week. Mhm. If you were to pass this out of committee next week, it would probably go on the the council dockets for the March February 19th and then the first meeting in March 5th in March 5th.

Uh and then you know so by by early March it would be the the so the only sorry the only issue here is the front. So it could be the same box but with different approach like a beautiful wedding with different the you know the the general the general principle here

the general principle here is that is that uh probably the you know the most important facade of a building is the one that's that's facing the street and we we have we still have standards but they're but they're less lesser lesser important standards. Um, you could have a a deck on the back that's made with pressures treated lumber and it's untreated. That's typical. That's not that's not and that's not really objectionable because, you know, we're not really seeing it from the front. It's sort of that that front facade. Thank you very much. Oh, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I'd like to say thank you again because I was calling and I want to thank you for your question, my colleagues question about are we too late? I was screaming as Bob knows. Well, not screaming. I was speaking very loudly about the need for design standards largely in response to what we've all witnessed u many of these boxes these tall I call them shoe boxes um in our wards that were popping up. Um, and yes, we all agree we need housing. And I remember um saying we need design standards to preserve and protect the integrity, the look and the feel and the scale of our neighborhoods that we all prize and protect. And um there was some council people that said, "Okay, we're going to vote for this design standards, but we don't want to delay. We don't want it to cause a delay in production." I think we can all agree on that. And then when I started to have conversations with some of the developers that are actually on this and designers, they were like, well, that's going to be a really hard ask. And I am so elated that you guys worked together and came up with a package of practical um rules, if you will, that will, I think, address all of the issues that we've had with some of these terrible designs we've had in our neighborhood. So I have a monthly meeting and that one house the big tall threetory box the every single meeting there's somebody says oh that box that box is there anything that we can do which goes to the chair's question about you know is there anything we can do retroactively but you're right it's out of the box [laughter] the horse has left the station we got to be very careful about but anyway um I'm

very pleased with where you have arrived on on this. Um, they're practical, they're predictable, they address common design challenges, and they're really not expensive. They're not overly burdensome. And the developers and the designers were like, "Oh, wo, you got to slow down because, you know, you're going to you're going to cause us great delay and great expense." We didn't want to do that. So you guys threaded the needle and I really applaud your efforts here and you made me happy and you made the my neighbors happy. Um and interestingly enough before these practices um [clears throat] were surfaced, some of the developers that have been active in my ward are actually doing just what this is is suggesting and the the result looks good. So, I know Alexis is catching the permits incoming and even though these aren't rules yet, you guys have been nudging the developers [clears throat] into that

model and it's it's helped. So, I do think would I have liked that box not to have been built in my neighborhood? what I there's two problems I I will always remain thorns in my side in my neighborhood um that I grew up in and love dearly and advocate for all the time. Um but I do think that we are in time and you guys have been working toward um this for some time now and it's helped and I know that this will really a lot.

Yeah, I have to echo thank you for your advocacy on that counselor Ryan. I think that this is a really good step forward and I think um I have excuse me I have noticed a little bit of improvement and change in certain designs that are kind of coming up pretty quickly in our area. So I agree with you um and I encourage and hope that um you know it's wellreceived and we're getting um what we need for our boards to have a little bit more of that continuity that we were all looking here. So I appreciate all of this work. It's been great. Did you have another question? Go ahead. So we have you mentioned that we have a public hearing, right? Public hearing. Yes, we

that's so in the public we still make changes. Absolutely.

Like like they like we will have a lot of people coming in and saying look we like to make these changes to this house. So it will be the same [clears throat] same uh design but with different front the house like like the same box but different front of the house because that's what's making the the property doesn't look like a house. It is a house but the the way that they design it because we have to take consideration the foundation, the walls, all that design that inside. If we change something on the front, everything will change inside the property and that will cost a lot of money to them. No, no, no,

no. We we're we're representing and and again, you know, we did have we did have uh representation of some of the small scale developers who are building things that that look like this. And and you know, if you actually go back um I'm sorry, go to the next slide. Uh the guy the guy who was building some of the stuff that looked like on the previous slide actually is building the thing on the on the right hand side here. So the the developers can do it. Um and you know I I I think we just we just need to push them a little bit harder. Okay. Um and you know and we'd like to and with that in mind if if um if we [clears throat] may to move on to the next to the next topic um I think you're going to see an example about the fact that that we already have some good regulations in place for bigger buildings but the process that that we've adopted internally is starting to change and this will help move that along. So, we're happy to get your questions on this, but but can I just ask one one more

last question? Last question. Um well if I so just for uh additional uh reassurance that the the development on the right side that these design standards would force developers to begin to build that that the that's kind of the ideal that's like that's that's sort of the best case scenario even at the height like we're not going to see these like that's that represents the height that will be um in the room that is better

and that's what Let me let me let me address that. So So it depends on the on the zone, but in the three family zone, you can have a full threestory building. So So you can have a building that's that's the height of a in a three family zone, you can have a building that's the height of a t of a typical triple decker. Yeah. On very small lots though, we do limit the height to to two stories. But on typical normal size lots, you can get to a threetory. But but counselor, I think you were referring to the porch. Were you referring to the entrance or the height of the height of the building? The height of the building.

The height of the building. Yeah, you could still have you could still have a three a full threetory building even in it being two family. Yes, you could have a threetory, two family house. Yes. Okay. Got it. The the the last uh question I have is for preservate from a preservation uh this perspective going into these sessions with developers. Are there is there anything that you had wanted to be included in in here but ultimately you backed off on? Yeah, of course.

Yeah. I mean, you know, uh we have in a perfect world, we wouldn't we wouldn't allow siding. Um, you know, vinyl siding isn't is why it's a cheap it's a cheap faximile of of real wood, but um, however, we recognize that it's also the often the most economical. So, it should be done properly. It can work.

It's what happens to houses that and for older houses that when they apply the vinyl, they strip all the moldings off corner cornes. If you were to build it properly with vinyl, you could still add I mean they may not want to do that because it's may still have wood trim, but you'll have a vinyl or maybe vinyl wrapped. So it could it is a material people use. It's vinyl is a necessary evil and it may well turn out to be the lead situation of other generations, but that's how we kneel. That's interesting. So yes, lead's a very bad thing in that I'm sorry, but

and they're doing vinyl shingles now that look like So sometimes people use the front, they'll put vinyl shingles. That's why we're on that. So okay, go ahead, please. Last question. Last question. Official last question on this one. So you have a good point. Going back to the first science. Yes. And then we pass to the second. We're losing that ADU. Not necessarily. You can see these windows. Yeah.

Yeah. We're not saying you can't we're not saying you can't build a building uh that has that has three stories. We're just we're just sort of saying um you know the the the front entrance has to be a normal height above above the ground. You can have an occupied basement. Um, you could even you could you could put an ADU. An ADU could be in the in the top floor, you know, the attic area or it could be in an out building or it could be in a bump out off the back of the building. Uh, so there so there are, you know, you can still do the 80s for sure. Jesus. So,

the house over on the left is I'm sorry. It's off of um it's it's near one neighborhood. It's in Audrey Street. Audrey Street, which is right right near as well. Yeah. Near Street. Yeah. Um so, in these particular cases, there is um accessibility to like a basement on these. Sure. Oh, okay. Yeah, he's got a full basement in the HDC1. What what's interesting about that building is it front is the back of that building looks like the front of it. Yeah.

Because he made a duplex, but he put it front and back and it faces out onto the cemetery behind it. So, and but it has full basement and there is living, you know, there's liable space in the basement. Interesting. And that's and that's why the these type of uh properties are selling like hot bread because on the basement people see more idea. All right. So I think I have to have a motion to continue on this. Right. Well, we had we wanted to talk about the large scale. There's a handful more slides for

Thank you very much. Sorry about that. So, um, up one. Yeah. Yes. Uh, no. Uh, no. Go down two. Okay. No [clears throat] more.

Okay. I'll I'll start here. We wanted to reverse this order, but that's fine. So, these are the these standards apply to apartments and mixed use buildings, commercial zones, C2 zones. These are the design standards that are existing that people use to design their commercial buildings. Uh facades um requires detail and visual interest to the building. These are just some basic things. Um we want to prevent blank wall areas large areas of blank wall. Um the second building entries we talk about how they should be recessed and the dimension of of the entryway on the street. that should be um pedestrian friendly and oriented to the pedestrian. Um fence raation windows and doors and transparency of the windows on the ground floor and the upper levels to make sure that they're transparent and have enough glazing um for for the first floors. If it's commercial, we allow a lot more um glazing on the first floor. Um [clears throat] with roof uh roof line design is important. You know, corners, parapits to make it more visually interesting. Building materials, certain materials allowed on the ground floor um are not allowed. I'm sorry. There's a few materials that are prohibited on um for these buildings such as concrete block um T11 siding. Um, we allow I think we allow vinyl on the first floor on the upper floors. Um, building percentages of how much a building costs on the street and setbacks. Um, block how much of the building should be on the street edge. Um, multi-tenant retail centers. We look at site design. Um, hardcape that's cohesive. Uh, and ground floor uses in some in some streets. uh main streets

and C2 zone between words you cannot um have parking and residential on the street on the street front. So these are the standards that we look at when we're looking at design and and developers look at. So the next slide is

the next slide will show. So this building was designed with the existing design standards in mind and there are some failures with this building visually. Um I'll just start off with the masking and proportions of the building are okay. Okay. Um the facade there's a large area of blank wall on that on that street. You can see that large um trim. Yeah. Well,

I'm going to get to that. Um the building entrance is okay. Um it's it's it's recess administration's okay, but the ground floor loses it with um pedestrian um experience on the street edge walking by this building. Um the also the building materials are an issue and so is the roof line, but I'll get into that. So this building, one of the issues is we get complaints from the public about why who designed this building, why does it look like this? Um, the building's topheavy because they use that dark material on the top floor and there's no corners. So, it just reads as a heavy top heavy. Um, there's questionable design features like that big uh stone door was framed in black. I don't know why they did that. Um, also the the materials the materials they selected are okay. It's just where they place them. like they've it's questionable why they selected that corner to highlight more material than where the stair where the stairwell is it's it's just a they decided to do a feature wall. Um and also the way they break the material up it's just it's just it's a little it's unappealing. I mean this is it it's also subjective but I mean in in the broad sense people complain about this stuff. Um

yeah.

So if their integration of materials selection could be completely and again the the ground floor level is not pedestrian like friendly or inviting. It could be questioned. You could question that but we think it's it's not the best pedestrian desert experience. So if we go to the next slide. So this is where details matter. So these are two examples of commercial buildings. Um they're very different. The one on the left is a more modern take on a um newer commercial design, but the apartments on the upper left is a ground floor retail. And the building on the right is a little more historic, more details, but it's still keeping all those design standards sort of a good representation of what that should look like. So um the performances are good again it's it's orient orientated to the pedestrian experience. So next I'm sorry. Right. So what we're proposing is for all development projects um a staff level design review is required to evaluate compliance with design standards and suggest improvements that could be made and and then the staff person conducting the review would make a recommendation to to the um CPC. So we're getting more involved with the design of these buildings and making sure that they're following those design standards. That's great. [clears throat]

And I'll just add that that Chris is the guy that that has already started doing this.

Um, and and this is his area of expertise. He's been doing this for decades now. Uh, working with buildings in downtown that are regulated by the downtown design review committee and formerly the Capital Center Commission. He's been an adviser to the I195 commission. This is his this is this is what he does. Um and so when these projects do have to come in front of the city plan commission, uh they are strongly going to consider the the advice of staff. But the fact is that um these buildings are going to get better through the this this informal staff level process before they even come to the city plan commission. And for those smaller projects that don't have to come to the to the commission, [clears throat] they'll have they'll still have that review. And I think um it's not so much with with these buildings changing the regulations, it's changing the review process that was talking about and some buildings they are successful right out of the gate. A lot of times that it's it's sometimes we get some odd buildings, some commercial buildings that we scratch ourselves

and sometimes uh it's it's hard to sometimes we judge our our success by what didn't happen and and it's and it's uh you know we we we do have you know um uh I have a whole drawer full of of uh plans of buildings that never got built. um and and for for very good reason in my opinion. Uh and so you know we're often trying to prevent um some of the worst things from happening. Um but uh I think that that ends our presentation. Um you know uh we hope that uh we will slowly advance these uh through the process and uh we thank you for your consideration.

I appreciate that. I just have a quick question on these. As we are starting to see some of these larger mixed use kind of coming into our neighborhoods, you smile because you know exactly what I'm talking about. Um some of this has already started to become a little more of a typical standard for um communication between developer um these things that are kind of really new and up and coming in our neighborhoods with you. Yeah, I mean we I mean we I think we've always tried I've always tried to steer the develop in in a direction to sort of with using those existing standards to try and make a better project. Okay.

But Chris hasn't always been involved but now some of the past ones with CPCI have not that's why this is this one is coming. I appreciate it. Did you have a question? The so [clears throat] the difference between the brick building and the other ones is it's moneywise, right? Because you want if you like to do a brick building like that one will cost a lot of money. Yeah. You know, you can you can [laughter] it's clear it's it's clear that that that a brick facade is going to be [clears throat] more money, but we're not asking.

Yeah. We're not ask like that building if that came to me before on the left I would have been able to talk about you know the use of materials where they're putting materials the the the roof line why is there this giant stone I don't know what it is I still don't know it's a design feature I mean there has to be a water feature I don't that's what I thought it was

but it's it's the art techn just adding this it's it's on the And for some reason they had a blank wall and they decided to just maybe they could have punched windows in there stairwell. Maybe they didn't line up. But they could have done something. They could have done abandoned windows. There's just so many little things you can make that building better. Um because again the masking and the proportions were fine. The windows they're okay. I mean you know it's Yes. There's great buildings, but I don't see no parking like

that's that's a big issue. So So in the in our list of of um comprehensive plan implementation tasks, uh parking is on that list, but uh we didn't come prepared to talk about parking today. And the other and the only one the other one I don't see is like the oldtimers mixeduse properties that we have in the neighborhood. Is any way that we can promote those to come back like second floor, top third floor residential and first floor commercial?

100%. We we allow that. We encourage that in more places than ever. Yeah. like like try to get those like if you see a bunch of houses, put at least one property right in the middle of a convenience store for the future. Sure. Yep. Because that will be the convenience stores and 10 years from now. Yes. So I can go with my walker [laughter] and buy some grocer. Um do I need to make emergency? Yes. I motion

um um sorry all in favor

I have it. Okay, we are good. Okay. And so we have one more, right? Thank you so much. Can you read the final one?

Yes. Item number three, an ordinance in amendment of chapter 27 of the ordinances of the city of province entitled the city of province zoning ordinance approved November 24th, 2014 as amended to change certain text in articles 2 4 5 9 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 and 20. We have two. So we have exhibit two which is a CPC letter and then we also have exhibit three which is another CPC letter and I will entertain a motion to enter the exhibit. So to

thank all in favor I have it. Okay. Great. Um, so let me just hand out. Yeah.

And and we also have a this is a this is an accompanying spreadsheet that we also This can be also enter.

So we will be at four. Do we need to do another motion for it? Yes. Okay. I will enter a motion to enter this as an exhibit four. So move second. All those in favor? And we oppose. I have it. Okay. Please.

Okay. Thank you very much, M chair, members of the committee. I've got two other staffers here. Alexis Thompson is our zoning official. She sits in the department of inspection and standards. And then we also have planner Simon uh from the planning department. another one of our uh fantastic staff um that that uh has worked hard on on these amendments. Uh I also want to acknowledge um that when it comes to these particular regulations I'm going to uh speak to were going to speak to I want to acknowledge um that Megan Danto from the law department was also uh a participant in in our group. uh she was instrumental in making sure that we uh followed um the state law uh as it pertains to zoning. Um these changes are a little bit less um uh maybe interesting I guess than than the design standards. These are more technical in nature and there are a couple of different categories that we're going to talk about here. Um the first is there are a couple of elements that that are related to implementation of the comp plan. Uh next is that um I've been saying this to you for a few years now. I think this is the fourth year running where the state of Rhode Island has changed the zoning law and that's how we do zoning at the local level. So there are some um changes relating to state law here. Uh and then there are a number of clarifications and corrections. Some uh sort of general cleanup that we do on a regular basis. Uh some things where we have recognized that uh certain aspects of the zoning ordinance weren't working properly or maybe we thought we were doing the right thing when we changed it based on a state law and we realized there were some things

that we should have said that we didn't say. um little bit of a cat and mouse game with the developers where you know uh we think the ordinance means one thing and they find a special different meaning and we have to kind of you know plug a hole. Um so there are things like that. So so what we're going to do is uh we're not going to run through every single one of these uh 30 some odd changes. We're just going to take uh the ones that we think are most important um and that need some explanation. We're more than happy to talk about all of it, but in the interest of time uh we're going to keep our presentation kind of tight. Um I will say that uh you have a sub a in front of you uh that has a couple of additional things that that since we um uh submitted this uh we have recognized uh we brought everything in yellow to the city planning commission uh at its uh meeting last month. Um, and that's why you have a supplemental city plan commission letter here. So, uh, you don't need to, um, accept this sub a tonight. In fact, I think you're not allowed to until you open the public hearing next Wednesday. Um, but we'll include um, uh, speaking to the the sub a language so you understand it. So, I'm going to start off and then we're going to kind of go back and forth between the three of us to explain each of these. Um so the first uh the first number one is where we uh is in the beginning of the zoning ordinance in a a section called rules of interpretation. Uh zoning ordinance is long and complicated. Uh and it's a whole bunch of rules about how development has to happen. Uh but there are also rules about how the ordinance shall be interpreted. Alexis is the official interpreter of the zoning ordinance. So this is really for her and for all the lawyers out there

and all the developers out there who are trying to read this beast of a document to sort of give some guidance as to how it's to be done. Um, the law department has suggested this change in 200. Um, I'm sorry. The law Yes, the law department has suggested both changes. I'm so sorry. Before we continue, I think we have to swear to you guys. Apologize. I was very entertained like ready to pay attention. Your right hand. Will you tell the prayer that the designate you're about to give the whole state your name and title? Sure. Alexis Thompson official website. Thank you. Sorry about that.

Okay. Uh [clears throat] so both of these um uh both of these sentences in uh 200H and I uh were suggested to us by the law department to help uh clarify how the ordinance is interpreted. H does nothing more than reiterate something that is already in state law. There were two kinds of regulations in zoning, use and dimensional. And the the state law says if it's not about use, then it's dimensional. That's all. And we're just reiterating that. We're not making any new law. I is language that was suggested um to say that we have captions and headings uh and subheadings throughout this document. uh they are there for convenience and to help us organize the ordinance but they are not uh the law they are not enforcable um and uh the this is Megan Danto suggested we put this in here in a document as long and as complex as the zoning ordinance um it's intended to prevent a court or other decision maker um issuing a decision based solely on what a heading or a caption says. This is we are assured that this is common in contracts and and in laws and and I I should note for the record that your solicitor is is not [laughter]

okay. I'm going to turn this over now to Alexis to talk about addicts.

Addicts. Yes. This is this is a really u the sexy step in the in the zone ordinance. Um thank you Bob and thank you to all um of you. It's I'm glad to be here to um to talk about the zoning ordinance which I talk about all day every day but um you know there's a lot of nitty-gritty in here uh this sort of in the boots and the round sense like I I really get a feel for this because I'm looking at comments every single day. So, um, I both appreciate the time to tweak it to make it better and also to kind of hash out these little details. It's it's it's helpful this course. So, thank you. Um so addicts we're doing uh this is a this is a small tweak to the definition of attic and uh the reason for that is um simply that in our one and our three zones which are two small and medium development zones now for residential uh we limit the zoning we the grant read the zoning ordinance limits height of houses to three stories

which the comp plan has deemed appropriate as and you all have signed on to that. Um, what we're seeing more and more in reference to the previous conversation are these boxes that are not only true stories but for all intents and purposes for story buildings.

Um, and what what is happening a bit of a loophole we spoke about those holes that we're trying to plug earlier um is that the the way attic is defined actually allows for quite a bit of occup. So what's happening is that we're seeing people say, "Oh, no, no, it's an attic." Uh, which they can do based on these very specific dimensions. Um, and and somehow they they they're getting on there and saying, "It's not a story, it's just an addict." But really, again, for all intents purposes, it is becoming that story. So, this is tweaking the definition of attic to tamp down a little bit. It's not saying you can't have an attic. You absolutely can have an attic. You can store things near attic, but uh we don't want it to get so out of control. We're seeing literally very very dual story buildings in the R1 and R3 where the intent is really to have three story buildings. Uh and it's it's very easy to get three units and an AU in a threetory building. Um I I my background is as an architect I I feel like I can very often say it's doable without stretching things to that extra money. Uh so that's that is the small tweak to the plain and simple addition point.

Um and we're going to so we're going to skip down. So again there's other things in this list and we're happy to speak to all of them but I'm going to kick it over to live to talk about something that's actually far more exciting than that.

Yeah. Hello Simon. Uh I'm about to talk about item 7, but thank you counselors [clears throat] for giving me the opportunity to speak. you know, like my colleagues, I love getting the chance to talk about uh the work that we do and uh [clears throat] some of the the practice that we get to partake in. Uh like Alexa said, I'm going to talk about rowouses. Um so, it was an item in the comp plan that uh we would uh kind of further legalize and make much easier to build uh the rowhouse technology in Providence. And that was implemented uh during the major comp plan zoning update of last year. Um, but we knew at the time that uh very likely once we actually encountered a couple real developers uh attempting to do some real rowhouse development, we would need to make adjustments and changes to our original proposals uh to make the rowhouse more realistic as something uh to actually build in the city. And sure enough, a year has passed and uh we were right. And there are obviously changes that uh we feel uh could really benefit the buildability of this type of house in the city. Uh I'd say the main consideration for us when we were thinking of how to uh modify our roadhouse standards was flexibility. What we want to do is make it uh give developers many more chances to make something that complies um and make it dimensionally a little bit easier to do so. uh to make that spec to be specific about that that would be uh lot sizes where before we uh have minimum lot size. Every lot size uh every lot created in the rowhouse subdivision had to be a specific size. What we now say is that uh you can create a certain density of rowouses in a given area but the actual individual rowhouse lots that are created can be

variable in size. uh we say that the front and rear yard no longer need to have a specific amount of coverage. Only the total lot needs to have one uh total coverage calculated for the entire parcel. Um we say that uh [clears throat] we modified our front setback to make uh the parking situation a little bit more reasonable where before we had uh variable setbacks as with other types of residential dwellings. uh in the city. What we've done now is we've set the rowhouse set back at exactly 5 ft uh which we've determined is going to uh both create the integral parking that we expect to see from this typology without say having a car park on the the sidewalk illegally and and hit pedestrian traffic. Um one other note just uh this is one of the sessions where we had a sub a change. Uh so you'll see it highlighted in yellow uh in the sub a that is in front of you um in table 4-1. Uh we wanted to clarify here that so these row house lots lots are very small right uh unlike the average type of uh lot in city. These are going to be usually smaller than 2500 square ft and frequently much smaller. Um, and so he wanted to just make it extra clear that unlike any other type of very small lot in the city on a rowhouse lot, uh, you can build to the same heights that you would be able to build to on a normalsized parcel in that given zone. Um, that's all I have to say about rowouses. So, Bob, I will turn it over. Okay. Uh, so next we're going to talk about item number 12. Uh, this is gas stations. Uh you might recall that there was a little bit of talk uh I'm sorry yes number 10 it's it's

following my spreadsheet it's not line number 10 gas stations um you might recall that there was some discussion a little bit of discussion about gas stations during the comp plan process um and ultimately the language that was agreed to in the comprehensive plan was that gas stations would be prohibited in new develop new gas stations would be prohibited within in city limits except by special use permit if the target land is suitable for residential is unsuitable for residential development. Okay. So essentially what that means is that if there is if there is land that is zoned for gas station but is also zoned for residential. And it turns out that residential is not uh is not feasible on the land. Usually it's going to be because of some environmental contamination of the property where residential wouldn't be allowed but something like a gas station would be allowed then the gas station would be allowed and in that case it would be a special use permit uh that would go to the zoning board. So we so we simply have um there is one zone um where uh the C3 zone we've changed gas station from permitted to by special use permit and then we've included special use permit criteria in C2, C3 um W2 and MNU that says uh exactly that that gas stations uh shall be allowed in those zones only when the subject property is unsuitable for residential development. So, we're carrying out exactly the language that's in the compound. Okay. Uh and we'll be happy to take questions when we're when we're done with this. Uh the next one, uh transitional shelter. This is also a

comprehensive plan item that that we are implementing in zoning. Uh the the language directly from the comprehensive plan from H3, that's the housing chapter, says support the continued operation of emergency shelters, including by enacting land use and zoning changes that allow emergency shelters, transitional shelters, and special needs facilities of appropriate size by right in residential and mixed use areas. So um uh [clears throat] right now um the uh transitional shelters are by special use permit in the R4 C2, C3 and D1 zone. Uh and we're proposing to change those to permitted so they don't have to go to the zoning board. They still have to comply with the land use regulations of 122 Ult.

Yes.

Okay. Uh back to Alexis offenses. Uh yes. So

yes, I have a 14. Thank you. Um the this is a good example of not necessarily plugging a hole because somebody's figured out a way to do something that we don't like but uh as a tweak that will actually the intent is to help people and and and be a little bit more flexible. So um we have fence regulation uh we have pretty wide reaching fence regulations but what we found is that the particular regulation uh that relates to that front 5 ft of a lot where we don't want to see fences super high. We we say they need to be 3 ft high until you get 5 ft back and then they can rise to 6 ft. um that they're really that that regulation is is very well suited for residential but does not really make sense with a bunch of other uses. Um and we have other uses in the ordinance that actually have specific fence regulations related to those uses. Parking lots, outdoor storage, they already have their own fence rights, but we've got this kind of sticky situation. Um and really we come into um a couple of scenarios where people are uh needing to come to the zoning board to get relief from that regulation. And we're trying to be reasonable uh in with this change such that you don't have to come in zoning board for certain uses of a fence site of 6 ft at the front lot. A really good example of that is community gardens. We don't we don't want to see all these community gardens, but lots and lots of say that they're needing to come to the zoning zoning board just to get a fence at six feet high because they they want to prevent dumping over to the community garden or theft of uh the produce that's being thrown in those areas. So that's just that's a kind of a very clear example of [clears throat] where we've got these bread and they just don't always perfectly fit all the different uses. So we're tweaking it based on what we've seen come for us in the last couple years. Um, and I think I'm going to skip a couple kick it back to Bob for

17.

Okay. Item number 17 is encroachments. This is a a concept where we we speak to um building features that might uh hang out over the public way, the sidewalk. Uh so encroachments might include cornice lines. Uh it might include balconies, might include bay windows, things like that that that uh that come out from the facade of a building and and if if that building is right on the lot line, they'll encroach over the sidewalk. That happens a lot in Providence and sometimes some of the most beautiful decorative features are are these these kinds of encroachments. So, we've always allowed for them um under certain regulations, but we found that uh in a couple of cases, developers were looking for extra square footage in the building, and they were hanging the entire facade of the building out over the public way by 4 ft and it results in a in a not so attractive uh result. So what we're doing here is clarifying that that only a certain portion only a certain percentage of that facade is allowed to encroach and we did a lot of sort of um evaluation of typical buildings in Providence and how much of them encroaches and so I think we came up with some good rules that allow for for a decent amount of encroachment but not that sort of um [clears throat] you know I sort of appropriation of of the air right over the over the public way that some proposed. Um, okay. Next, I am going to talk about parking. This is the only time I'm going to talk about parking officially today. This is blind 918. Um, there are two uh two parking standards that were changing. One is bike parking. Uh we found with all the schools uh public schools that have been coming in front

of the city plan commission that our our requirements for bike parking for K to2 schools are ridiculously high. Um uh so we're reducing those uh so a meaningful number of bike parking spaces have to be provided uh more than enough for anybody who's typically going to ride to to a school. uh but not so many that that like the whole playground has to be taken up by bike racks. Um the other one relates to uh parking for colleges and universities. Uh and this is uh relating to um a portion of theou between the um the payment of taxes agreements with the colleges in Providence uh that seeks to rightsize uh the parking regulations um that uh is specific in the pilot agreement. It says allow for multiple users per parking space given increase in hybrid and remote employees. Uh so we've seen that with these schools they they uh they [clears throat] have uh workers who aren't always commuting um on a day-to-day basis. So so we've adjusted uh those regulations accordingly. That doesn't mean that colleges that have a lot of parking and want to have a lot of parking can't have it. Um but it gives a little bit more flexibility. Uh so that's uh that was number 18. Uh we're going to move down to item number 27. Uh that I will also take uh this comes from the sub. Um 1903b. Uh it it changes the language to

reflect an update in the state law. Uh this is um this is the um this is nothing more than than reiterating the state law talks about the authority of the zoning official that's Alexis to grant what we call modifications which are uh small variances that can be granted administratively. Uh the state requires us to do it. Uh so we're just making that language exactly what's from the state. Um and then um and then uh there's some other language that um again uh makes a change based on the changes in state law and significantly adds a new category of modification called neighborhood character-based modification. This is where um the zoning official is required to look at development patterns uh within a certain distance of a of a property that's proposed for for this modification, evaluate uh things like setback and can apply similar setback regulations to to this lot. another the the idea is that you look at what's happening all around this property and um it would it would be allowed on that property consist so that so that the development there is consistent with what's there. So again that is including language that's directly from state law. [clears throat] Next is uh item number 28. Uh this is language in 1904. This is also in the subday. Um, and this is again just uh

updating to be consistent with state law uh that recognizes that um with land development projects which are larger developments that sometimes the city plan commission reviews these projects, sometimes uh what we call the administrative officer, I or my staff review them. So, we're just updating the language to reflect that that can it can be either the city planning commission or uh another permitting authority which includes the administrative officer. Um, okay. I'm going to go to number 34. We're in the home stretch here. Uh, Alexis is going to talk about um something we touched on in the last [clears throat]

um Yes. So item number 34 talks about um really what this page does is is really is just make explicit something that is I believe implicit in the language which is to say that um we are allowed if it's going to help with push back. We're allowed to ask and require that a survey is part of a a building permit application when necessary. and and um that is to say um a survey is a definitive document when when there's a regulation that is is you need to find compliance with that is related to site boundaries or areas resulting from those site boundaries. The survey is a definitive document um and and we sometimes need that. Sometimes it's easy. You can you can see something with airlines for a plane. But most of the time, particularly for new construction, often for additions, we're going to need a survey. We've always required it. Uh we get a little push back sometimes. So we're really just making the language very very clear so we can cultivate the book when somebody has to push back. Uh so that that is that. And um yeah, that's I'll take it back to you. So, I'm going to cover the last two items, numbers 37 and 38. I'm going to take them out of order, so I will start with uh 38, which is the oversized lot subdivision. Uh this is another one that derives directly from the state law. Um, per uh the large zoning package that passed through uh the chambers back in June, every town and city in Rhode Island is obligated to add the oversized lot subdivision uh to their [clears throat] ordinances. And that's what we're doing right now. Oversized lot subdivision is a provision that allows you to split what's called an oversized lot into multiple lots assuming that the lots that are created via that subdivision

are larger than 50% of all developed lots within a 200 ft radius. So, that is to say, if you had a 6,400 ft lot on a street that was full of uh 3200 ft lots and all of those 3200 ft lots were built on, uh you could use the oversized lot subdivision to split uh the 6,400 ft lot into two 3200 ft lots, assuming that you could prove uh or assuming that those [clears throat] two lots were otherwise compliant with the zoning ordinance. Um there are limits to this. You can only uh use the oversight lot subdivision to create a lot uh that is 3,000 square ft or larger. Uh so it limits the ultimate uh tininess that these lots can be. Uh they also are mandated to be at least 30 ft wide. Uh so now I'll go back to item 37. Uh we actually already had in our ordinance something fairly similar to the oversized lot subdivision. uh we call it the subdivision into non-conforming lots. Uh we use shorthand 2003D for it. Um and this is uh a provision [clears throat] where if you can prove uh that a lot that exists today was once considered by the city to be multiple lots at least one of which would be considered non-conforming by lot area. uh you can [clears throat] go back to the number of lots that preceded the merger to create today's current condition. Um the change that we're making here is to align our minimum lot size that you can create via the subdivision into non-conforming lots. We're going to align that number with uh the oversized lot subdivision. So we will set that to also be 3,000 square ft uh in lot area and 30 ft in width. Uh so the two types of subdivision will have the same minimum balance. Uh we're

making a couple other small modifications to the 2003D uh subdivision into non-conforming lots. Uh we are clarifying some details on how uh the proof that we want to see uh applicants submit to show us that the last truly were merged and that they're used to multiple lots in the past. Um and uh we also want to clarify that the lots that are created via the subdivision of [clears throat] non-conforming lots are eligible for administrative modification. So that concludes our presentation. Uh we'll now accept any questions uh that counselors uh may have about

Thank you [clears throat] very much. I appreciate that. Um you guys have any questions? Yeah. Uh going to Alexis going to number 24 what is the requirements if I want to go and says a building permit like give me an example what kind of permit like a a permit to build a new home. Oh permit to build a new home. Yeah, it's it's for new most often a certain you're talking about item 34, right? 34. Yeah. Like you ask me for a survey.

Yes. It's so it's when it it's most often required when there's new construction or a large addition that is going to be close enough to lot line that we need to have it definitively clear. As you as I think we all know sometimes fence is where the lot line is and sometimes it's not. Right. Right. So, so, uh, there there there's a need to be, uh, for us to be able to definitively require that document, uh, to be sure of compliance, um, and to be consistent. I think that's that's really important, consistency and applying those orders.

Council, can I just follow up on that? Um, with regard in it's in the process of the building permit, so that would require whoever's going to be building to do that survey. It would at the discretion of those of us uh that are reviewing it. Um the whoever is applying for the permit, developing the lot or projects of a certain scope would require you to get a survey. Uh and I I would say that um it's not an abused or overused um regulation. I think uh I'm trying to think of an example. If there's a really big lot, you're putting an addition in the on the back of your house and your house is right, you know, a big 10,000 foot lot, I can as the zoning official, I can look at the map and I can see that based on the dimensions of that addition, you're not going to be anywhere near the lot and your coverage is going to be well under the maximums. Uh I would I would never require a survey in that in that scenario. I think um it it allows for discretion. it just really what this does is give us teeth when we say no we need it there there's been a little push back about the requirement of a survey um so that that's that's what the reason why the reason I ask is um in a situation where there's two business owners very very close to each other and one is about to start a new construction and the typical issue of you removed my fence because you're going to start building and now I don't know where my line Is the business owner adjacent to this new build? Do they have the opportunity to request a survey just to be able to say, "Listen, I really want to know where my boundary is and this should be complied to when they start their building."

Um, that's an interesting scenario. I It's happening right now, which is why I'm asking. I I was guessing the if if the if the new development is a new building, there would be a survey required. No question. Any any new take new building, I need a survey to be sure compliance. So in that case, the neighbor who might be curious about where that line is could utilize the fact that the survey has already been done. Yeah.

Uh where one where where I wouldn't be the one inquiring is and we see this often disputes between folks who want to know where their offense is or one law is. I I I don't want to be um they can't use us. Some sometimes the folks come and go to the department and and try to get us to demand things to to manage a civil matter between folks. This is this is not that. Um if that makes sense.

No, that makes total sense. the the reason why and just to give further context I think um in a situation which is where kind of all this is lying right now is that there was a previous survey already done by owner of the [clears throat] non field lot so they have something but it's from like 1999 um now that all of these you know fences have been lifted removed and stuff that lot line is kind of questionable because the piece has been to write it at and [clears throat] both can contest where that line is. So the question kind of sense and says, "All right, well, if you've done this, then you should pay for that survey cuz I have one that says this is exactly where I have it."

And that's kind of a combination of the two. Um and your council [clears throat] might speak to this but um you know if there is if there are two surveys that there's signed professionals that a survey has to be signed to stand by a professional licensed surveyor [clears throat] if there's a dispute between two of those documents that's not something that I ar that that needs to happen um between those two owners um uh which is I think makes the point about the the requirement for a survey. It doesn't all what I say to folks is that this is not just for me. It's to protect you. Yeah.

When when somebody pushes back and says you didn't do it, if you have the document and it clearly shows and it's signed the stand, [clears throat] um it's something that they can use to sort of defend their position. And there's a lot of times that folks think that a law is a certain place, but it's not really. And then that causes um agit between neighbors. Uh um [clears throat] so it it's it's both it's both for the city and for the owners uh to be to be really sure where those things are.

I appreciate the follow I was just very curious about how um how that would be conducted in a situation where there's a dispute between two entities. Most of the time when there's a dispute, I have to say [laughter] uh apologies, but you you all have to go fight this out another arena. Got it. Yeah, I I don't want to get I can tell you. Yeah. No, I get it. Council, I'm sorry to

That's right. Number 20. Talking are you parking that you're talking about inside the property or outside the street? Uh we're talking about uh so item 20 um is a provision that is allowing RV or recreational vehicles uh in general parking in certain circumstances. What we had was two lines the ordinance that actually contradicted each other. So we fixing that one said you can't do it and the other said this is how you can do it. So we're instead of again this is one that actually adds flexibility. We're not so we're saying we're not saying you can't do it. We're taking that line out and we're and we're just clarifying um how an RV on private property. This is not on the street, Councilman. This is on private property, how it needs to be screened and sort of managed. Um uh so this is this is really I I think we have it listed as an update, but it's really a fix to a contradictory language. usual uh RV and campers.

Uh those are it's it's there is a definition that includes campers. So a recreational vehicle definition includes a number of different things uh including boats. Boats. So it's an all-encompassing um term. Yeah. Because I had the issue like the people say go park the RV in the street and they want to leave it there for a week because they say then the cop comes and give a ticket and they go oh is I can be there and the cop said no is no way that we have an ordinance that you can be at the street.

Yeah that that's a different different departments regulate on street um parking and and you cannot get an on street parking pass for a vehicle or a commercial vehicle. So, uh, between DPW and the police department that those those folks manage. So, this is for private property. This is on the property.

We don't want to see RVs in every driveway. And we also, to be clear, there are other regulations that we're not touching that don't permit an RV to be used as a living um, a dwelling unit on site. We have lots of ways you can get lots of units on sites now, including ADUs, which is great. Um, but the intent is not to have a proliferation of recreational vehicles in uh that are not screened and on they jack it up and put a block in here. Yeah, exactly. So, but yeah, hopefully that answers your question. Sure. [clears throat]

Number 17, the B the encroachment. Yes. So, my sidewalk is 9 ft from the wall of the the property [clears throat] to into the street. How many ft can I go in the air? So, at once you get to uh 12 ft off the ground, you're allowed to go 4 ft out over the sidewalk. Over the sidewalk and no more. And if the sidewalk is narrower than 4 ft, you can't go further than the curb. Oh, it's all the way to the curve only. Only if the sidewalk is 4T or narrower couldn't get that far. So in my case, I got 8 ft.

Yeah, you go about halfway out the sidewalk at at maximum. But most of these encroachments are they're not quite 4 ft. They're a little bit less than that. That was my money to do. Yeah. Go ahead. Thank you. No, go ahead. Oh, sorry. Do you have a question? Um, I mean, yeah, I do. Uh, is item 11 U transitional [clears throat] shelter? Yes.

Did that um does that encompass sort of like a Echo Village design if it was on state land? Uh so Echo Village is is actually unique. Um the so so first of all state land um in general you know the state house the department of administration that falls within our uh the purview of our zoning ordinance. The state is obligated to follow our zoning ordinance. [clears throat] Um however, Echo Village happens to be on a special type of land uh that's called state highway right of way. Um and just like our city right of way uh it falls outside of the rules of the zoning ordinance. So uh usually state highway right ofway is the roadway and whatever embankments that are adjacent to that roadway. In this particular case, Echo Village just happens to be in the middle of a really large uh you know quarter of a clover leaf intersection interchange. Uh so Echo Village is an outlier. It happens to be exempt from zoning. But if if uh we're talking what we're typically talking about with transitional shelters is the use of an existing building for uh a shelter. And Alexis can speak much more to the fact that that uh you know we're often talking about um in some cases we're talking about house type structures. In other cases we're talking about uh structures that might be part of church complexes. and so forth. But maybe you can speak a little more to the the typical, you know, even highrise like on Charles Street that

that high-rise is being used as a transitional shelter. It can be almost any kind of building.

Yeah. Thanks, Bob. I think that the typology of um transitional shelter absolutely can occupy any typology that's suitable for someone. Um it's it it we've seen them take the form of of houses of sort of large old mansion type or manor type houses. There's one on um on Elmwood uh that used to be a a group home that is realized as a transitional shelter now. And there's a you know there's a those definitions are they're overlap some but they are distinct. transitional shelter is is has a certain licensing and a certain way to run it relative to state um state requirements. Uh it's also um different in that it's not people aren't they're not leases, people are not paying by the month or or any other amount of time. Uh it they tend to be more um come and go uh shelters. the the the real change here. Um, you know what, Kelvin, I want to get back to you with a question about Echo Village. That that is absolutely ju just to answer the kind of clean question, it is a transitional shelter. Echo Village, they don't they don't have like monthly leases for those little units. Um, so potentially someone could put an Echo Village type development on a lot that is within the city bounds and and we need to require zoning. We have really clear um U standards that apply to transitional shelters. So when there's U standards in in a table, you know, you can see something has an S and you go to the end and it has no U standards. If it has an S, it goes to the zoning board and the zoning board evaluates it and they look at that list of standards and they make sure they check all those boxes. If it has a P and it still has these

standards, it's not that it's not that no one's checking. I I I assure you really carefully. It's it's just that they don't have to jump in there to do it. So, we're we're still making sure that all of those boxes are checked that that you all agree with here. The other one is um this change really just uh speaks to the new light comp plan language which says we need these we have a problem. I think that's where we recognize that there there's a um there's more and more people out and we need to we need to have these available in more places. And so that's it's it's it's saying in I think it said in residential districts in a couple different categories. So R4 is a district that it used to be by special use. Now it's by right. Um let's see what else. C same as C2, C3 and B1. So those are all places that it was allowed before. We're just following along with the clear guidance of the comp plan to say now it's by right. But rest assured, there's still the solid list of things that they need to check off that we are looking at every time they be established. Whether it's changing Charles Gate Tower to a transitional shelter, changing a big old house to a transitional shelter, or building a necro village type um development. We didn't have a bracket, but [clears throat] we would all honestly just follow up on that. The only difference is that switching from a buy from special use to buy right there there wouldn't be like a um a man m man a mandate on um notification to neighbors right uh that's true that is true yeah and and I I believe that that was considered in the in the changes to the comp plan before you know again some of this is

the zon limits is the the rule book that's derived from the overarching plan that is a compliment. And so um the wisdom was was stated and put into [clears throat] the content that we needed to make this a little easier and and we're responding to that uh in the conference in general. We're not putting it in, you know, we're not proposing that we've done it in every residential district. were I think being [laughter] appropriately specific about where where you're not wrong council not having a special uh eliminates I guess I guess I just I have to envision for [snorts] some reason I'm trying to envision like a echo village in R4 and I'm trying to figure out where R4 exists in my neighborhood to be honest and

honest. No, that's not that's not R2. That's that's R1 R1 combination of R1 and maybe a little R3. Yeah, I don't honestly, you know, a bunch of commercial zones, I don't know that there is R4 in four.

I I only know of one and it's one unit. Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. I have to I have to think about this some more about the the art the residential. I mean it's it's pretty much Yeah. I don't want to make it uh difficult uh for this uh important [laughter] um safety net um for president. So uh anyhow sorry I like um blended out a little bit.

But you brought up a good point because of the specific areas that heard talking about. Did you have a final question? Yes. Um so talking about the shelters, so we have emergency shelter. Do we need this kind of permit to do like a church,

the state licenses, state licenses, uh emergency shelters? in temporary warming shelters actually I don't want temporary warming center the important um distinction we have there's an allowance that the state has mandated and that that we allow providence churches to be used as warming centers they're not intended to have um sleeping facilities in them um and I I'm aware that the fire fire department fire marshall's office as well as the building official will have to okay those sites and li and and and uh make recommendations on limit the number of people that can be housed that that is not those women centers are not transitional shelters. This is like a permanent change of building or lot to be this used. Yeah. So the shelters that we are that we have in place now for example uh race commission in Branson Street they need to change the permit that they have already or

um I they shelter more than 100 people every night. I I we I would guess that there are probably places acting as transitional shelters that are not formally established as transitional shelters. They I would say that people need to formally establish, you know, um Yes. [laughter] uh I I I I am a [clears throat] I I I have been made aware of some and I don't know of all of them and I I um for some reason I can't place the one exactly that you're saying but um we have done work rescue mission what

rescue mission rescue mission on the street yeah I don't I have to look to see if that is wrong it's a church yeah it's a shorter too the same yeah what about what about Amos House. That's a shelter, too. Uh I think Amos House has a transitional shelter use. The there have been some that have that have come up um where they they've applied for this for to the state and then the state comes to us and says, "Are they this?" And I say on paper, no, like let's get that straightened out. Okay.

And uh um and again with the increase in warming centers, we're we're these are coming through. There's a protocol now that the administration and city council together have worked on for warming shelters. Um they are they are getting fire and building code sign off. Uh those are not zoning does not um the use of like a big room in a church basement as a warming center is not something that zoning is concerned with. Um, it's just something that's constantly changing to to be a shelter. A really good example is a is that Charles Tower, right? That that was a that was a a nursing home. Um, it it the state took it over state purch uh and they came before the zoning board. They made sure that they met all the regulations. Zoning board ultimately approved that special use permit. Um we know the recent one that came for a special program. Most [clears throat] of the rest of them have have already been established. [laughter] Any more questions? I want to thank you guys for being here and answering being so thorough. It's um long time coming I'm sure for you guys and seeing the light of the tunnel on some of these things. I'm sure it's a little bit of a

good good thing. Um, so I know we're going to continue this um because we do have public hearing next week. Um, so I will entertain a motion to continue. So move second in favor. All opposed. The eyes have it. Thank you very much. And now [laughter] I remember that. I'm not sure about this one. [laughter] Second. All in favor? I oppose. You guys have a good night everybody. [clears throat] Thank you.