I am currently here along with Alderman Huntley and Alderman Gay.

Alderman Gay is having some technical issues, so he will be taking over the as uh his routine chair duties as soon as he has those sorted out.

Uh before we begin the agenda, uh I am going to ask for a motion to move AP 5725 to the bottom.

I'm gonna move AP fifty seven twenty-five.

I am currently here along with Alderman.

Alderman Gay is bottom tech running issues.

So can I get a motion?

Uh before we begin the agenda.

Uh I was in favor.

All right, next.

Can I get an approval to be an amendment?

Uh I am currently in chair with all I just valery.

So we're going to motion chair duty.

Your second agenda is amended.

Uh before uh I all those in favor.

All right, up first on the agenda can I give 5625 of Ms.

Janine.

Tasker to the human relations commission.

Ms.

Tasker, you can't running issues like she has been speaking of motion chair.

Tasker all those in favor.

Uh I all those in favor.

I alright.

Up first on the agenda can I get 5625 the appointment of Ms.

Janine.

Tasker to the Human Relations Commission.

Yes, running.

So move motion chairs.

Tasker.

All those in favor.

Uh I have all those in favor.

Of course.

All right.

Up first on the agenda.

Can I give fifty-six twenty-five?

Can you hear us fine?

Everything working.

Thank you.

We appreciate that very much.

Uh Alderman.

Um the last name that you called.

I'm sorry, I'm looking um on the agenda now.

We have Miss Janine Tasker for Human Relations Commission.

AP 55.

Which I do not believe she's present.

I don't see that on uh my screen.

So thank you.

We appreciate that very much.

Uh Alderman can move on to the next called.

I'm sorry, I'm looking uh which is the uh next AP.

Can you read that one from me?

I'm still getting uh register.

Looks like uh looks like you haven't properly for human relations commission.

I think she's being exasperated.

Which I do not believe she's present.

I don't see that on uh my screen.

So thank you.

Alderman.

Okay.

All right, whenever you're already awesome.

Thank you very much.

Uh uh to the general public for waiting, just fixing a quick technical issue there.

Is there a motion to uh reconvene our meeting?

So moved.

And a second.

All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

None opposed.

Thank you very much.

Uh we'll get right back into the APs.

Um starting with AP 5625.

Ms.

Tasker, I do not believe um is present with us, but uh nonetheless we'll uh move her uh her appointment uh forward to the full council.

Uh next on the agenda is AP 5725 appointments, Miss Valerie Bonham to the commission of aging.

I do not believe is present either.

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

You're right.

Thank you.

57 to the bottom.

57 to the bottom.

And 56, you have to vote on it to move it to the so I move we postpone action on 56.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

We'll come back to AP 5725.

Next on the agenda, 8058 25 appointment in Samantha Watts of the Education Commission.

Mind you, we've been off for a month to the public, so we're getting to the swing of things.

Uh Miss Uh Watts, uh, thank you for joining us tonight.

Um, are there any questions from the committee on the uh uh uh for the appointment appointee?

I'm seeing none, Miss Watts.

If you wanted to just share um uh your interest in the education commission.

Um, yes.

So um in my professional life, I've been a teacher, a substitute teacher, and I now work in the corporate training field.

Um I have experience um volunteering in the community as a volunteer tutor for the Anne Rundle County um or the Anne Rundle Literacy Council, as well as um being a youth volleyball coach.

Um, and so I'm really excited to contribute to Annapolis in this way.

Um I live in Ward 7, but I believe the position that I'm being appointed to is um at large.

That is correct.

Yeah, um and again, uh I appreciate you very much for stepping up to this commission in particular, uh just due to the importance with obviously the youth and uh trying to make a connection between the public school system and our uh city.

Um Alderman Shandemai, I see your hand.

Yes, uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Ms.

Watts, I see you work for fellow now.

Uh the disability advocacy organization.

Um so um how long have you been with them?

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

All right, welcome.

It's a fantastic organization.

I know some of the folks who have been long timers there when they were still the arc.

So uh very uh happy that they have good people like you there.

So thank you.

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

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

So that's fantastic.

Um any questions on the Huntley?

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

Uh in the 90s.

Yeah, uh that's yeah, true to that, true to that.

Um so we'll we'll make a motion to recommend this to the uh full council.

You'll come back.

Um, you don't have to if you if you do not want to, but uh this will be before the full council.

I believe uh the meeting has been moved to the 29th.

Yes.

Okay, fantastic.

Yeah, September the 29th.

Um will that be oh, sorry.

Oh no, please.

Um will that be virtual as well?

The uh full council meetings are in person, and so that'll be at the uh council chambers um right off of um uh duke.

Yeah.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

Chair, I would like to make a motion for a favorable micro recommendation uh for Ms.

Watts to join the education commission.

Second.

There's a second to that.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye opposed, none.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Watts.

We appreciate your time and look forward to uh your work on this commission.

Thank you so much.

Our uh next section uh for the agenda is legislation.

We'll get started with 01425, implementation of the Annapolis have had comprehensive plan of 2020.

Uh we've had uh pretty in-depth uh uh discussions about this legislation previously.

Um if there are further questions from uh members of the committee, I will entertain those.

I see we also have members uh from our planning department present.

Um and obviously for expertise, I would defer to them.

Any questions on 01425 or any of the amendments?

I'm seeing none.

Are we yes, making a uh final vote on this?

This has been to public hearing.

Um, and so if the uh committee is comfortable with it, I'll take a uh motion.

Well, shouldn't we do the amendments first?

Do you want to do them separately or do you want to carry it as one?

Yeah, I have an amendment.

Okay, let's do it separately, starting with um amendment one introduced by Alderman Huntley.

You want uh please explain?

Sure.

Well, so my my biggest concern with this is around the um areas uh of Doc Street.

So this is let's see, I believe this is page 10.

Um yeah, we're talking about page 10 through page 11.

Uh and if you look on page 11, you'll see where it's sort of well, the council it's the legislation I should say, is allowing these uh options to exceed the height limit if three conditions are met.

And the way the legislation is drafted is that it has to be condition one, condition two, or condition three.

I believe that was an oversight, and it's supposed to be uh condition one, condition two, and condition three all have to be met to be able to exceed those uh the height limit for those accessory structures.

So all this amendment one does is change or to and yeah, and and excuse my ignorance.

Please explain uh uh bullet point B to me, the aggregate footprint of any sub uh of any such structure shall compress uh comprise no more than 25% in the area of the roof.

I'll tell you sad at it, and then uh uh if somebody from planning and zoning, feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.

What it's saying is the that structures, which are the so we're saying certain structures here can exceed the existing height limits.

Uh that's the title, the allowable projections.

And what that B here is saying to B is just saying that those structures can't make up more than a quarter of the roof area.

So if we're talking about these four uh, you know, uh air conditioners, right?

I think that's one of the examples that's been given.

You can't put air conditioners on the entire roof.

You can only do it on up to 25%.

Okay.

Um and then uh bullet C.

Uh to me uh are we sure that the or is is not correct and that the and would be incorrect.

Uh any such structure shall be positioned on the roof to minimize to the extent possible to agree to which is viewable from all public right uh right-of-ways and shall be screened on all four sides, with such screening being an integral architecture element of the architectural element of the building and the required green.

I uh why would that be a requirement?

Is that within and I need someone from uh planning and zoning, please.

Um, or our city manager, I see is here, um, to jump in on uh bullet Calderman Gay, uh the Chris Kuby Act Planning and Zoning.

Um each of these uh three points are meant to minimize the um uh minimize the impact of any of the structures that may be located uh on the roof that projects above the the uh height limit.

Uh so C is very important.

It calls for screening, uh, which would be uh helping to uh visually obscure the extent possible.

And um this would be a standard that would be applied by the planning commission and site plan review and historic preservation commission as well to some extent, um, because uh it's a part of the the developers uh application.

And screening, I guess I'm just lost there.

What does that look like?

It what is that am I thinking of the traditional screening material or um is this you know, are they building it uh uh something to you know obviously hide the upstairs?

I'm thinking of just buildings downtown that have uh uh uh accessible rooftops and trying to think of what facilities currently have screening um around structures.

Yeah.

Um I don't know that many do.

Um it's screening could be uh the use of certain colors to camouflage to blend the um any structure into its surroundings.

It could be um an architectural feature that um blends nicely with the surrounding roof line um or that's meant to disguise um uh the structure, this housing the equipment or or other feature of the roof.

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

Uh yeah, yeah, it could be integrated into the green roof in a way as well.

Um but it you know it's it's it's meant to be broadly uh um interpreted so as to provide the the designer and the the regulatory authorities enough leeway to secure the best outcome possible.

Okay, that's fantastic.

I have um no issues, um Alderman Huntley.

My apologies for I just wanted clarity on that.

Um and curious if if possible, if at some point um we could see if other uh uh developers were required to do the same in the past.

Um obviously, if you were just fixing this language, they've probably been operating off of the four, which uh uh could explain why we haven't seen anything like that previously.

All three, all three um standards are new.

Um so this is a a new set of code.

They're not applicable to other um situations, and and there are quite a few situations where we have roof structures popping above um a height limit, or where um smaller buildings are using their rooftops for um certain activities.

But so this is a newest and a new um standard that will apply moving forward in this particular part of uh uh the C2 zone.

On page 11, Alderman, is this language blue?

I think the confusion for me there is that in the amendment the only language was I was assuming that the uh this was pre-existing text.

Uh no, so the amendment just changes the or on line 16 of page 11 to an and okay.

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

All right, I appreciate that.

Um, if there are no further questions, uh uh I I'll turn it over to uh take a vote on this.

Uh if we could also have Ms.

Jackson, can you have um Miss Router take a look at this?

I think something either in the key is off or in the amendment is off.

Uh because it says underlining in red is new matter black, but there's no reference to the blue text, which is kind of confusing there, even on the uh first reader in the explanation.

So if that could be added, that'd be helpful.

Okay.

Uh we want to take a vote on this amendment.

Yeah, uh, make a motion for a favorable recommendation.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, none opposed.

Awesome.

Thank you very much, Alderman.

Uh Huntley.

Next amendment is amendment two introduced by uh the administration.

Um any questions or concerns from the committee on this amendment?

It is a that rather bulky amendment.

Maybe it seems like the amendment uh makes the change makes it possible for that section, the the dock street section we were just talking about to happen.

So my concern is I don't like the whole section.

So I'm gonna vote no on the amendment, but uh it is I will say internally consistent in that if you want the uh changes at Doc Street, I understand why this needs to amend that this needs to occur.

I I have a quick question, and just in regards to obviously the development is taking place.

What is going to happen with the uh adequate public facilities and the requirements for the developer to in particular I'm concerned about the flow of traffic at Doc uh Street.

I've been you know trying to raise awareness about this since the beginning of the city dock project, and people are still talking about it till this weekend.

Randall and Doxry is just absolutely terrible.

Um with this and the City Doc project, obviously the traffic pattern changes, but there's been no mention of traffic lights still.

Is that something that will come up in con in in future conversations?

Uh I I don't know exactly if that would come up.

It could very well come up in future conversations.

Um but the impacts of any land use change are subject to um those types of considerations.

This is why they go through the planning commission.

Uh and uh just indicates that while this is a zoning text amendment, it creates the possibility, but it doesn't ordain anything.

Uh any um development uh that is subject to these regulations has to go through the um planning commission and historic preservation commission.

And if it's a use that's called called to be a special exception, it has to go through the Board of Appeals, which is the body that looks at potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties and neighborhoods.

So uh any land use change will go through an extensive um review process involving at least most likely three public hearings, special exception with the Board of Appeals, Planning Commission site design review, and historic preservation commission uh for historic district standards uh guide guidelines.

Um, these these things get tested in those venues.

Yeah, and I hope that at each of those stops um it is brought up or mentioned.

Uh I think obviously when you introduce amendments like this and legislation of the likes, something will be there.

Um, I don't know if it will be, you know, the uh aforementioned hotels or anything like that, but there will be some sort of development, I think that will be for the betterment of our city dock and for our downtown.

And I think that when the city is willing to lend assistance to a developer, they should be looking out for the best interest of the general public.

Um and included in that, obviously, is pedestrian safety.

And so um any five yeah, I'm sorry, my apologies.

I just want to clarify um the the intent of this bill is not to lend assistance to any particular developer, it's it's to allow for the redevelopment of properties and bring them into compliance and better adherence to the historic standards in that particular area, given the public investment in the um the park.

Uh so uh whether a developer or more developers or individual property owners uh uh seek to a change under these regulations is something we don't know.

We we're we just are setting the terms for uh overall better design uh for that section of the city, not for any particular developer.

I and I would imagine if a developer uh was seeking a zoning text amendment, this would probably have to be the one that they would most appreciate.

Uh this still uh uh keeps in place the extensive uh review process uh and and the standards that are apply uh in this particular zone.

Awesome.

And and thank you for correcting me there, Director Jacobia.

I um would hate to be in uh circuit court over so over comments on uh a meeting, and so I appreciate that very much.

Can we take a uh uh uh vote on this amendment?

Make a motion for a positive recommendation.

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

Aye opposed.

Thank you very much.

And then I uh I have a third amendment that I'm gonna not overly work, but uh I do want to suggest it that we strike.

So if you guys are looking at the line in the legislation, it would be to strike from line 16 on page 10 all the way through to line 26 on page 11.

Line 16, page 10, starting with obviously city call title 21.

Yeah.

And striking out all the way through on line, um I'm sorry, page page 11, line 26.

Page 11, line 26.

So the entire uh can you give um brief explanation and then I need to hear from uh planning.

Look, I just think uh I think there's a lot of good stuff in this bill overall, right?

I mean, the correcting the 3250 square foot rule, like that's great.

It's a lot of stuff in here is making our code simpler and more reasonable.

Um correcting these things that we know have caused all sorts of problems.

I just don't think this is that.

I think it it makes our code more complicated, actually.

Um, and I think it is I understand the arguments from a legal standpoint from the director of planning and zoning that this is about a block and it's not really about any one person, but it certainly feels unfair to me that we're saying this is only for one block, right?

If this is such a good idea, then why not do it for a broader area?

Um and then the third thing is I just think that in many ways our height limits have served us well.

Uh certainly there are exceptions to that, like with anything, but in general, our height limits have served us well, and if we're going to change them, we need a really good reason.

That I haven't been convinced it's a really good reason.

So uh three things that this is making us more complicated.

This is doesn't seem fair, and it's nibbling at the fabric of our height limits.

And in an understanding that's including amendment one, correct argumentally.

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

Yes.

Just making clear that uh that it would impact the uh previously passed amendment.

Um did you have any questions or concerns?

So one, I do think we kind of narrowed ourselves down by keeping this so narrowly focused.

Uh but some of the things to point out is that these limits would keep it in line with the height-wise with the adjoining buildings right next to it, uh, as far as the skyline goes.

The buildings right next to it are in line with the height limits now.

These would be in the exact same heights.

And if we compare this height limit to other historical cities that people compare to Annapolis, like Charleston, this is still lower, and they have also done things similar with things like the Hotel Bennett.

It anchored their renovated park and it created a wonderful community space.

I've also been to other historic cities older than Annapolis.

Uh Montreal had a similar setup where they allowed for accessory structures, rooftop dining cut up a little bit back in their old port area.

Hell, I've been to Riga, uh, a city that's medieval, and they've had places like this in their old town area, uh dating back to the 1400s.

And it didn't ruin the history, it just provided some additional flexibility.

I know the guy who owns the property is an SOB.

Um, it doesn't feel good, but making entire blocking entire land use decisions because of someone that we don't like and blocking flexibility for something that can create a good anchor for a project because there's one person we don't like doesn't seem like good land use to me.

So and and again here, just for clarity, as the director has mentioned, no project has been submitted, and so um uh the comments that myself and the Alderman have made are are based in speculation, and so we should just set that right for the record.

I do want to bring up one point though.

Um a constituent of mine had asked for this to go to the historic preservation commission, and I understand there were some issues, but I thought that there had been like a compromise potentially reached.

Um Director Kubiak, could you elaborate on that?

Like a presentation maybe brought to the HPC.

I'm not aware of that at all.

Okay.

Or any compromise or right.

Oh uh the uh this uh you want to uh respond uh the uh Office of Planning and Zoning at all to the introduced amendment amendment three to strike um uh starting on page 10 line 16 through page 11 lines 26.

Um well I I don't want to be in a position to um counter the reasoned arguments from another alderman.

Um I can ask any qu answer any questions that you might have on and gay, or if you would like me to address any particular points I can.

Um well if you would just clarify this one point from me, umendment three would effectively kill the bill.

Well, um amendment three would kill uh a major section of of 01425.

Um, because 01425 deals with many things, including planned development.

Um whether it kills the whole bill or not, I I don't know.

I mean, it depends on how consensus is maintained among those who are sponsoring and voting for it.

Um the um the proposed amendment would remove the section of this bill that uh allows certain projections to extend above the current building height.

That's what it would eliminate.

I appreciate that very much.

Uh any other questions or concerns, uh Alderman Huntley, if you might care to share any more, or you prepared for us to take a vote.

I yeah, I've said my piece on it.

Um I would potentially be uh open to making a second smaller amendment if this fails.

But uh yeah, well, let's go ahead and vote.

So I guess I made the motion to have an event amendment.

You did and and was it I I believe Alderman Shandemeyer gave you a second.

And so I will second it because not letting something get seconded is uh disrespectful.

And thank you, Alderman.

We appreciate that.

Uh so there's a second on the floor.

Let's take a vote.

All those in favor, aye.

Opposed.

There's one opposed, aye.

So there uh two to one.

The uh uh uh motion fails.

Any other uh concerns before I take a final vote on 01425 for favorable recommendation to the council?

I'm sorry, Alderman Gay.

You just said my motion failed.

Uh you and I voted for my amendment.

Uh I just voted no.

I'm sorry, I must have misheard you.

Okay, sorry.

My apologies.

I thought you when you said uh all those in favor say aye.

You must have okay, sorry.

The amendment failed.

Uh if that's what you're saying.

I was just uh I misheard you.

I thought you voted aye on it.

My apologies.

That that could have been a uh misspoke on my.

You said aye to a nay.

Um you did say aye, but you said aye after all those opposed say nay.

If we want to to the technicalities, did you intend to vote in favor?

Did you I was about to say for the yeah, for the record, it was in it was a nay.

Okay, okay.

Just yeah, just for the clarity there.

Um so do uh are did you are you introducing a second amendment or or you um I was considering suggesting uh after Otterman Chandelmeyer suggested it that we strike the provision limiting this to properties with frontage on Dock Street, but I think I would like to do some more research before suggesting that.

So I'll uh I'll do some more research on it.

And I don't want us necessarily to vote on that tonight.

I only considered it when Alderman Shannemeyer said that.

Okay, I appreciate that very much.

Uh and um again, I think with these uh legislation that we have in front of us right now, there is no real opportunity to postpone.

Um so pretty much uh these votes are final um once they get to uh out of this committee.

Let's take a final vote on 01425.

Is there a motion to assume?

Uh before we make a motion, Alderman, uh Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Uh Director Kubiak, I do think that this does need to have some presentation or something with the historic planning, historic preservation commission, at least on that one part.

Um I had let it go over August because I had believed we had come up with a potential compromise.

Um I know that there was legal issues on why it couldn't be a full hearing, but I had thought that there was a potential compromise reached on how to do that.

And uh I gotta express a little bit of frustration there because I did think that the chair uh of HBC had a very valid point of view on why they deserve to at least hear the height portion on this.

Um yeah, I was under the same impression, Alderman Chandlemyer.

Not not to just to let you know you're not crazy.

Uh I'm not truth be told now I can't remember with whom I had that conversation, but I did think we heard at one point that this was going to at least get a if not a hearing, a presentation to the historic preservation commission.

Well well, the the correct the the correct or the appropriate thing would to do is that either the sponsor uh would indicate that they'd like to have it sent to that commission, or the chair would make a request to the council to have it sent.

In any of our meetings, was there a request from the council to have it sent to the historic preservation commission?

I'm looking at the I had made I had made multiple requests.

Um but I said I there had been there had been legal concerns for the full hearing.

And I understood those, which is why I had not pushed, but I had believed we had reached a compromise on a presentation.

So um Alderman, do you have the next uh uh date for the historic preservation commission?

I'm here on the web page, the city of Annapolis's web page.

I don't know.

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

I'm a little uh well, our uh let's call this quickly.

Our city manager is present.

If uh a request uh can be made to the city manager to handle this um offline.

Um that would be uh helpful if if uh maybe CCing uh the chairman of that commission, the planning director, and the uh all the people here.

Sure.

Awesome.

Thank you very much.

Just to uh put that to rest in Alderman, whatever you get, then you know feel free to turn it over to the public and if necessary, it obviously can be presented um on the 29th.

Is that fine?

Yeah, that's cool.

But I don't want to jam this up here because we are under a under the gun and like I'm not gonna derail our whole comprehensive plan because of the.

I want to jam it up.

And with that, I will be making a motion to take a vote on 01425.

Um I will second.

Favorable recommendation.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we've got can I ask the director one other question before we have our final vote on this?

There was a second.

There was a second, but I will allow it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Director Jacobia, I uh one other concern I have with this is that uh from my looking, both mechanical penthouses and green roof are not defined in code.

Uh and I can understand why we might need a flexible definition, especially on green roofs.

You know, I've uh actually done a fair amount with them professionally, and I understand they change, uh they've evolved a lot.

But my question is, why would we not, as part of this legislation, define at least what a mechanical penthouse is and maybe what a green roof is.

Um further definitions uh are are not uh a bad thing.

Uh the um I believe the environmental um standing committee, standing matters, environmental matters standing committee is going to be addressing that particular issue on the green roof.

Uh and the rules committee received an amendment from Alderman Savage about the um uh mechanical penthouse uh definition as well.

So I I believe those definitions will be worked out in that particular committee um and brought to the rules committee as well.

Um the um the green roof uh definition is um you know to our way of thinking it's self-op it's self-evident.

It's it's the stormwater management solution to you know uh improve water quality, but uh I understand why it's relevant and and would be helpful.

So uh we fully anticipate working with the rules committee as we kind of work through those um and the environmental matters committees we work through those two topics.

Yeah, that's a a satisfactory answer.

I just I think a little bit about uh I got married at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's headquarters, which was the very first lead certified platinum building in the country, and they have this great story about when they asked for a green building.

The first person who tried to bid on it said, we'll paint it whatever color you want.

So I want to make sure we don't end up with that situation for the roof.

Fair enough.

And uh if I'm not mistaken, Alderman Huntley, uh our uh deputy director or deputy city manager of resilience, uh uh director guild has done extensive work on the green roofs, obviously based out of the legislation that we passed coming from uh the Netherlands trip.

Um and uh uh I'm pretty sure that could be used or the base of her research could be used to assist you there as well.

And we're in the middle of a second, so I'm going to call the vote.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

No.

Thank you very much.

Next item on the agenda is uh continuing with legislation.

Oh 2925, Tyler Avenue Complete Community Overlay Districts.

We had uh great public testimony uh this past week.

Uh any questions from the committee before I ask my one question seeing none.

Um, and Mr.

Leshinsky or the uh city manager would be able to uh help with this.

Can you please provide um either written or if you have it the handy now, just an update on the uh streetscape projects?

As I mentioned last night, I know um I think it's still in procurement, but am I correct in that?

Um Eric Lashinski, Chief of Comprehensive Planning.

Um good question.

I'm glad you brought it up at the city council public hearing.

Um we believe it's going to be implemented um in the next month or so.

Um we being our comprehensive planning team in planning and zoning have been coordinating with um uh Jeff Wentz, the traffic engineer in public works.

We've seen a drawing of the restriping that is being planned.

Um and some of the other features.

Um so it's it's definitely in the works, very far along.

I think he's really just trying to tee up the um the construction crew that does the work on the street.

I think he's trying to coordinate with other work that's happening in the city, so the same crew can do that work, you know, when they're doing other similar work.

Um, but um it should be it's imminent as I understand it.

So I appreciate that.

I I just think that's critically important.

Obviously, it's not directly attached to this legislation.

Um, but I I believe it is because that is um one of the promises uh that was made to the community just based out of out of some fear.

Um, secondly, if you could just respond to one uh thing I've heard last night um that obviously you've talked about me uh with, but for the benefit of the public, uh this the idea that the legislation uh, for example, if you know I live at the property next uh to the tire shop and I sell it uh I get in codes of my neighbor and we get together that there could be you know four houses, you know stories high built on on um on those properties, combining properties.

Can you just address that uh concern, please?

Yeah, absolutely.

Um so the development guidelines in the legislation that would apply to this corridor, this overlay district.

Um Tyler, we've defined the the overlay district being from Forest Drive to Bay Ridge Avenue along Tyler Avenue, and um there's a very clear line that pulls in the properties um that front that corridor.

Um the guidelines are very specific and very measured to respond to what we heard from community members.

Um I'll give you an example.

The height limit does not change from what is allowed today.

Um that's two and a half stories, 35 feet.

Um that is the maximum height limit in the R2 zoning district, which is the predominant um zoning along this corridor today.

Um that does not change.

Um, so concerns about you know tall buildings, overwhelming what's there today.

Um are somewhat unfounded, but I know people uh get concerned about those types of things.

I don't fault them for um the concern, but um we also in this legislation have pretty specific um guidelines that determine when and how you can do certain housing types, and this is also by design.

Um basically the idea is uh we wanted to more than anything else allow for a variety of housing types, many of which are not allowed uh in our current zoning.

Um the idea being that we could create uh a more um diverse community of housing of different price points and sizes for different household sizes.

I mean, that one in particular, it's hard to argue against that.

You know, a smaller single family house, but the reality is there's no real economic incentive to do that because we put a very large uh minimum lot size for uh residential development single family development.

And so we said you could do a smaller single family house.

Um we have uh square footage on that, have it right in front of me, but um basically on a smaller lot size, you know, about half of what is required today, and that was something we heard from community members.

You know, they like these sort of small ranch houses um that's in the community today.

Um, so there's some incentive now to do that.

Um a duplex is another example.

It frequently just looks are you sure?

Duplexes sounds scary.

I'm sorry, it's just like yeah, yeah, just don't count the mailboxes, and most of the time they're gonna look like single family homes, you know.

That's that's the point we tried to make.

There's um there's a number of duplexes in the neighborhood today.

Um many of them are in in an R3 zoning district, which allows for them.

The R2 zoning does not allow for them, and uh something Alderman Huntley knows about.

Um so um it it's pretty reasonable.

I think everything that is in this legislation, I would say is considered an incremental change.

It's really um it's sort of ticking up uh density in a very minor way.

Um, and it's all very contingent upon the size of the lot.

So these housing types go up to uh a fourplex, a building that has four units in it, apartment units, but you have to have a pretty sizable lot to do that, and so um a typical lot may not be able to accommodate a four-plex.

I think um the legislation has that at um let me see here to do a fourplex or a three-plex, you need 10,800 square feet.

Um you know, so not every lot is going to be able to do that.

Um the the other thing that we're creating a avenue for is um cottage court, you know.

This is a interesting housing type that we get requests from uh property owners occasionally who have a sizable lot and they want to create a cluster of small homes that have shared open space, shared parking.

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

Um, yes, that's the idea here.

Um could you also just quickly just touch on to the point where you spoke about obviously if you have large lots, um you know, the and you want you want to continue the single family building, it can be done so just on a minimum lot size.

Um, and in particular, one lot that you showed me had like three houses on it, um, and they had the shared driveway.

Um something of a similar idea, correct?

Yep.

Yeah, that's a great that's a great example that already exists on the street today.

You have um essentially three individual homes single family detached homes that share a driveway.

Now, our code is written in such a way that um they one of those is actually is vacant right now because um it the owner of the property does not live in Annapolis, they rent out one house.

There's uh another house in the back that's separately owned, and that's occupied, but that third house um can't be rented out because it's um it uh we're you're not allowed to rent it out.

Um you can't have two principal dwellings on a lot.

That's really the the crux there.

Um so it's uh it's a tricky situation that we we think this legislation would would legalize that site and um and enable that vacant house to be rented.

Um which is which is obviously all of our goal of affordable housing.

And so I I don't think I mean other than Shannon and I I don't see any concerns now.

I'm really excited for this.

I think this does uh great step in trying to address uh the lack of starter homes in the city, and uh we all know the main cause of our housing crisis here is the fact that there's just not enough homes to meet the needs and budgets of our working families.

So this really helps address that shortage of available starter homes.

Um I have some concerns about how do we still make it easier for these things to get built.

We all know there's a whole lot of layers on layers of code, but you know, how do you eat an elephant one bite at a time?

Uh I we just introduced legislation on Monday that I think is gonna help with some of the financing on these smaller scale projects to make it a little bit easier as well.

So hey, uh this is a great first step.

I'm not even going to call it a great small first step.

This is a great big first step.

So I commend our planning and zoning department on the amazing work that was done.

And are you telling me you will sign on as a co-sponsor?

Is what I'm hearing.

I'm kind of shocked, I'm not already.

So yeah, let's do it.

Uh Alderman Huntley, did you have anything?

Uh I would echo Alderman Shellmeyer's comments.

It seems phenomenal.

And just when we heard the public hearing on Monday, the I mean, overwhelming praise for the process.

It was really impressive.

It was I I can't remember the last time we have somebody had people come out and talk that way about any bill before the city council, how much they felt like their voice was so being heard on this.

So just uh not only what seems to me to be a good bill, but really kudos to the whole planning department on the process by developing it.

Exactly.

I I think Mr.

Leshinski, your crew obviously led by uh Director Jacobia.

Um planning has uh very quickly, I've always said become one of my favorite departments.

Um I think it's uh the work that you all have done and the general public speaks back about that, and and obviously we get some of that from Director Jacobia, but this is fantastic.

Um and I think obviously, like you just said, it's in line with with what we want.

You know, uh one of our uh employees, their house on uh on Tyler, their next door neighbor's house just sold for like two and some change.

One of the more most affordable uh housing sales in the in the city, this street um as some expressed is is based on affordability, and I think it'll stay that way.

I don't you don't think there is any undermined uh motives here.

And so what I'm gonna do is call a vote so we can get out of here.

Well, if I can address that one major concern that folks have had, and um please please do being it's being said as like oh, this is already affordable.

These because a lot of these are older units.

Um, but here's the thing.

What you can do right now when these older units eventually deteriorate is you can either do complete renovations interiorly and uh complete total renovations, which brings them up to a very high value.

Uh we saw this in Primrose Acres, uh, where there was a house that sold for $60,000 and is now for sale for $100,000.

Uh, because God did great work.

Uh I know the guy who bought it, he lives in my neighborhood, renovated it.

It looks great, but it's really expensive now.

Um, or you can tear it down and build a McMansion, which doesn't help anybody either.

By allowing these smaller types of builds, you allow for a smaller new starter home to happen.

So we need to allow this smaller new stock to come online as these older uh homes reach their age limit.

Absolutely.

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

Umre.

Uh so while uh he we were he uh definitely wanted to stay in this home and we were able to fix his home uh with DHCD uh grants, fixing it was a massive renovation and cost, and it costs about 300,000 to get that up to snuff.

So like total renovations on older homes cost a lot of money.

Like it's something that adds up to a cost.

Then if you can build newer homes for lower cost as well, you can kind of add to our housing stock, address our housing shortage and give people new starter homes.

Amen.

So let's take a vote.

Um I am going to recommend favorably 02925 to the full council.

Um is there a second for that?

Second.

All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Opposed hearing none.

Thank you very much, uh, Mr.

Leshinski um and director Jacobia for coming uh through this portion.

Really appreciate it.

Well, thank you.

We're happy to be here.

Yeah.

Uh the next item on the agenda is uh just general discussion.

I just uh Mr.

Chair, we have AP 5725.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes, yes, we did it amend the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.

Uh AP 5725, appointment of Miss Valerie uh Bonham to the commission of aging.

Is she present?

Okay.

Well, chair, I move we uh take no action on fifth AP 5725.

I appreciate that.

We'll I don't actually believe we have to take a vote on it at all.

We'll just let it roll over.

Yeah.

Or postpone action.

Uh Miss Jackson, let's see.

If you guys want to meet her because she's an appointment before it goes to the full council, you will need to postpone it, but you don't have to take any action in it.

No, actually we're gonna still go.

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

Uh let's postpone action.

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

Fantastic.

So there's a motion to postpone it, uh, the uh uh AP 5725 to the housing human welfare committee meeting in October.

Is there a second on that?

Second.

All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye, oppose, none.

Um that the so with the uh conclusion of that AP, that brings us to uh the end of our uh uh agenda.

Um and could have the order.

I do want to just be uh sure that we have every uh because I I uh I was positive that there were four or five uh pieces of legislation that have been sent uh to the planning commission.

Um and then needed to go to public hearing.

I feel like we're missing something, and particularly the Alderman's um R2 uh legislation.

I'm assuming we'll have all of that in October.

Um I'm sorry.

And then now did we not?

Okay, yeah.

Well, I I'll make sure I I talked to you about that.

I thought maybe we had that um requested to uh come before us.

Um and then it's right now it's only going to rules of city government.

So uh in the interest of time, if you want uh, well, I mean, people uh if you want to discuss it, my preference would be that we don't wait until the October meeting.

But uh I can understand the benefit of prior public notice that you just here.

Automation Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I think it's pretty safe to say we all support the legislation.

Um I understand us all wanting to get our fingerprints on it, but us um trying to get in front of this committee is just gonna cause a lot of delay, and we're under a time clock on it.

So I would I I I get that.

I would definitely be curious.

I I do want to propose a few amendments.

Um and I do have general concern that in the now, and you know I love I'm I'm not a not a newbie, you know, anything like that, but I just I I do have some general concern, Alderman Huntley, and I hope you would understand that.

Um in particular, just um uh the effects it may have on on some things in in Ward Six.

Um so uh I will not have it at this committee.

I will uh try to make it to one of the committees virtually uh that you're discussing it in um and ask my questions there.

Uh the only other axe that I have is uh uh can you be sure uh Ms.

Jackson at our next meeting in October uh that an invitation is extended to the members of the housing and housing and community equity development commission uh to join us here so we can say some final goodbyes.

This is our uh our partnering uh commission that works in housing uh our affordability and equity and development.

Um and uh just want to recognize them before we all head out.

Well, before I head out and the uh two aldermen uh move on to the general, and so um let's get that uh taken care of if we can.

No other concerns or questions on the agenda.

Awesome.

Can somebody make a motion for us to adjourn?

So moved.

So moved.

Second, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it to all the staff on for sticking around.

Have a good one, everybody.