Um see we do have a quorum.

Off we go.

First item on our agenda is Ten Sixteen Park Avenue venue.

Is the applicant here and wishes to be heard on this matter?

Please state your name and address uh for the record.

Good evening, members of Lords.

My name is Jenny Alcantara from Latino Tex, um, eight oh one Park Avenue.

Good afternoon.

My name is Scott Delingomas.

Um the owner of uh K Yeya Murray and ten sixteen Park Avenue.

Okay.

Uh is there anything you want to present to us at this point, or I'll just have the staff make a presentation, however, we you're more comfortable.

They can make a presentation.

Okay.

Would the staff like to make a presentation then?

With this thing.

Yep.

Thank you.

This is the ten sixteen Park Avenue application for an event venue.

I don't think that's my fault.

This is a change of change of use from previously being a dance studio and now proposed to be an event venue.

This application requires a variance from the parking standard for one off-street parking space.

Okay, here's an aerial view of the parcel.

We can see the zoning map is in the C4, future land use being highway commercial.

The floor plans are above.

Um the first one to the left is the existing, and the only difference between this and the proposed this both of these are the first floor plan existing and then proposed.

The only difference being an elevator lift.

Actually, I don't want to call it a platform lift because it's not an elevator, but um this has been um talked about with the building inspector, and it is conforming for ADA standards.

Um there are no changes proposed to the second floor because it is out of scope.

So um the second floor is to remain as it is existing.

And with the standard for one space, one parking space for every three seats that calls for twelve parking spaces.

Um that the site does allow for enough on-site parking, considering the large presence of parking in proximity to this lot.

I wanted to kind of highlight just in case there was any curiosity about the ADA um parking standards, because this this change of use is being held to comply with accessibility.

Um so with the back entrance being a lift entrance, that's how the um building complies in terms of entry.

And then in terms of parking for accessibility, only one parking space is required to be handicapped accessible, and two were actually provided, one being a car space and another being a van accessible space.

And the variance again just being for that one parking space, which I call out in the memo, seemingly um minimal in nature, considering most of the businesses around are um nine to five type businesses, and this one being primarily a weekend functioning business as well as evening functioning.

And also highlighting the waivers being requested for landscape and sidewalks would be consistent with this area.

I will note that the sidewalks are only being waived on Leyden Street because there are sidewalks on Park Ave.

Um, none of the business, none of the neighboring businesses have sidewalks on Leyden Street.

So this is not inconsistent.

Um and landscaping is being required, is being um requested to be waived.

There is no landscaping on the site, and any landscaping proposed would take away from the only parking that the site has.

Staff recognizes that the existing layout has functioned on this site and would be reasonable to accommodate um this change of use.

No changes to circulation, nothing that would affect the site itself or any abutting parcels either.

All of the proposed parking spaces are conforming in size and dimension, and also conforming in the sense that um all vehicles would be entering and exiting the parcel in a forward-facing motion.

I also made note that the applicant did receive an agreement from the abutting part property owner at 1020 park av to allow some overflow parking to park on their site if if ever necessary.

The planning staff finds that this proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan through a variety of goals and policies.

And planning staff recommends um sorry, staff recommends to the city plan commission to adopt the findings of fact and approve the preliminary plan submitted under unified development review with the following variances and waivers.

Variances being the application is granted relief from the off-street parking requirement, as well as a waiver for sidewalks and curbing.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any questions for Ms.

Valcourt at this time for my colleagues?

Sorry, sidewalks, curbing, and landscape.

Sidewalks, curving and landscape is the waiver request, right?

Yes, thank you.

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you.

Just a uh two quick questions.

The first, I you noted in your um report that there was no comment from traffic, public works or fire, I believe.

Um did they respond and there was no comment or did they not respond to your inquiry?

So I believe both were present at DPR when this went to DPR because the this application went to DPR to be waived, and um it would jurisdiction was taken.

So the comments that were provided from traffic safety were based on a plan that has been now modified.

Um, so the comments have been um addressed.

So that's why I put no comment.

I didn't mean to be misleading, but I didn't want to put um comments that have kind of been resolved.

Yes, and that's for traffic safety for fire.

I thought there were some comments, but it was only based on um which fire alarm they would need.

So that would come in building permit, anyways.

Yes, and and that would be done not as a condition of this correct.

That is for them to conform to come the building permit.

Okay, and you weren't being misleading.

I just didn't, I wasn't sure if no comment meant they didn't respond or that they responded and said I have nothing to to add.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um a couple of questions, just basically more confusion.

Um, you referred to it as a approval of a change of use.

The use they're having that they request to put at this site, it's still allowed under the zoning code in that zone, right?

It is okay.

So it's not like we're asking for it's not a change of use that would require a use variance.

No use variance.

All right, the change of use um triggered the conformance to parking, curbing, landscaping.

Okay.

You refer to this as a minor subdivision uh would a variance, which would be UDR.

The render one reason I was confused by it is the memo sort of lists it as variance findings of fact, and then it's like the development plan review.

So yes.

So this is actually if there's any typo in here, the it should not say that it's a minor subdivision nor a minor land development.

It is a DPR application that requires a variance.

A DPR application that requires a variance.

So that thing up there that says minor subdivision under unified development review is a typo.

That's a typo.

Okay.

I apologize.

All right.

So I know Mr.

Marcella is the solicitor is on the call.

Uh he's one of the green people up there.

Um, so we would do if we were to vote in favor of this, we would have actually do a motion to grant the variance, and then what would we do?

Would we then adopt this under development plan review with the waivers?

I'm just trying to understand what what exactly we do here because it's not a minor subdivision.

You're saying you see what I'm saying, solicitor.

Yes, I'm still commuted.

He's only a twice, I'm not sure what uh you can unmute yourself anytime you want, solicitor.

Can you guys hear me now?

Yeah, I can hear you, sir.

Okay.

Um the uh the the way it was presented um by the planning staff because it was a change of use and uh land development project, um, which required a waiver.

It's kind of unique um in the fact that it's not a subdivision, but I believe it's appropriate to be before you as a um UDR application.

So solicitor, we would do a motion to grant the variance like we would any UDR, and then we'd have a separate motion to grant the waivers.

Is that what we would do?

Correct, that's so correct, correct.

Okay, all right.

Um question to the applicant.

I understand that you have an agreement with a neighboring part uh neighboring business to use their parking space.

Could you tell me a little bit more about that agreement and how long it lasts?

We don't have the letter.

Let the record reflect that the applicant is presenting me a letter delicate it indicates that Matt Fournier, the owner and operator of the property located at 1020 Park Ave is granting KJ and more venue permission to use our adjacent parking lot for their business operations, guest parking.

Okay, it's basically it sounds like an indefinite permission.

Exactly.

Okay.

Um do do you is does the staff already have a copy of this letter?

They should okay.

I don't does anyone else who want to look at this letter.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any other questions from Ms.

Valcourt or the applicant before I hand it over for public comment?

Okay, anyone here present in the room like make public comment on this application?

See none, Mr.

Lemers.

Anyone online that'd like to make public comment on this application?

There is no public comment online.

Okay.

Um Ms.

Velcourt, uh your recommendation is there, it's a UDR, and it's basically two motions, which is to grant approval for the variance consistent with the findings of the staff recommendation and the second motion.

We'd grant waivers uh for curbs, sidewalks, and landscape uh under developmental plan review regulations.

Does that sound approximately accurate to you, Ms.

Valcourt?

That's correct.

Okay, with it consistent with the finding is a fact of the staff memo.

Any further questions?

Otherwise, motions would be in order.

I'll make the motion to grant the variance for one parking space based upon the staff's recommended findings.

Commissioner Coop makes the uh uh recommendation to grant the variance.

Is there a second seconded by Commissioner Mancini?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, all those opposed say nay, ayes have it.

Okay, second part is the waiver.

I'll make the motion to grant the waiver of the sidewalks curbing and landscaping.

Vice President Coop makes the motion to grant a waiver of the sidewalks curving and landscaping of the D development plan review.

Is there a second to the motion?

Seconded by Commissioner Calasante.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Ayes have it.

Congratulations, you're all site and go home now.

Okay.

Thank you, the only question I do have is about how I would I just want to make sure that we're not supposed to vote on preliminary plan.

It's a question, I guess, for Marcello, because following the variances and waivers for subdivisions would usually be the preliminary plan itself.

So I just want to make sure we don't have to do that.

You could ask Mr.

Marcello now.

You could have asked.

Go ahead, Mr.

Marcel.

No, correct for tonight.

I mean, this isn't a subdivision.

So in my opinion, you don't have to vote on a preliminary plan.

I just want to let you know that when you speak, you speak with such authority, it echoes through the room.

Mr.

Lima believes you're on two devices simultaneously, therefore creating an echo effect.

But I understood that we did not have to vote on preliminary plan tonight.

Correct.

Sorry, sorry, sorry, I'm gonna log out and log in.

So it is a preliminary plan application.

It is a preliminary plan application.

Because it goes to the city plan commission, but it's only a Corry.

It goes to the C Plan Commission instead of the DPRC because of the variance, because now it's unified.

So it is a preliminary plan review.

So is that decided tonight or a subsequent stage?

Tonight.

It is it is it is it is now been pushed to the authority of the plan commission because it's um okay unified.

Because it's unified development review.

So when we when we did that, we just we approved it as a preliminary plan.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Unless Mr.

Marcelo sees things differently.

That is at least my understanding.

It feels cleaner.

Otherwise, I think the plant commission clearly has the authority to approve it.

No, this is this is why I said it was an unusual, it's an unusual thing I'd never seen before where we're granting waivers for development plan review.

So I was confused by what we were doing.

Right.

When it went to development plan review, they identified waivers that would be necessary and took jurisdiction and sent it here.

All right.

So when we so you're saying, Mr.

Assistant Director that and director, that by approving this, we've essentially granted them preliminary plan approval.

Um you voted on sorry, I came to variance vote on variance and the waivers, so the waivers you would need to do a separate vote for the preliminary plan approval as well.

Um I'm not sure that we got proper notice.

I mean, just kind of like this is the notice that's in like the public record, right?

So it's like proposal change of use to vent requiring a variance for one parking space, and the headline subdivision land development projects.

I'm um, and then you look at the memo, it talks about DPR waivers.

Right, it's a land development project where no construction is required.

Okay.

No, and like I said, I just is a pretty technical thing.

So um any of the commissioners want to say something at this point about this preliminary plan issue.

You want a third motion, therefore, on preliminary plan approval.

So I just don't know.

Mr.

Marcel, if you want to weigh in at this point, feel free to.

It's uh it's a little, I'm a little confused about it.

Be honest with you.

I'm not sure if he's having a problem with that.

Yeah, did he just step away?

It's either double or nothing with Marcella.

Because I actually, this is a pretty unique legal issue for me.

I don't feel comfortable just saying yes without hearing from a solicitor, to be honest with you.

Yeah, I'm sorry, you're your keep weight, but you know.

Can I just ask Go ahead, Commissioner Lampier?

Um, I just want to understand.

Um, director, because this was um, even though it was a minor land development that in general would not have to come before the planning commission, because it included relief um from uh from zoning in terms of the number of cars that could park, it did have to come before us.

That's right.

Right, it's a minor land development, and typically minor land developments where no substantial construction is requested, where they're basically reusing it an existing site, which is what's proposed here.

Um, they still need to come into conformance because they're changing the use from the previous use.

So even though the building's already there, the parking's already there, they're proposing no changing to sidewalks, curbs, or landscaping.

Um, because the because their variance is required, the development plan review committee cannot grant that.

It has to go to unified development review in front of this board.

Alternatively, in the old system, it might have gone to the zoning board and then back to DPR, but we were advised that under unified development review.

This is the appropriate path.

So it's a it's it's a new path for all of us.

Okay.

Advised by council.

Okay.

And I did have a little bit of the same concern about notice.

Um, and the only reason why I say that was when I took a look at the agenda for today, it just had the name, the address of the proposal, and it said continued from and I didn't see anywhere where it said preliminary.

You know, normally on an agenda, you would put to the right preliminary plan vote taken.

And I didn't see that.

I don't know if it was on previous agenda, the previous agenda.

We can double check that.

I try to leave it.

But I didn't have success.

Have you had any success, Mr.

Lehman getting a hold of the solicitor?

Well, can you guys hear me now?

I can hear you now.

So all right, I logged out and logged back in.

All right.

Yeah, so uh, you know, I would think if if it's on the prior notice that the preliminary plan vote, um, then that's fine because we continued it.

Um, but we'd we'd have to check that because if the preliminary plan wasn't advertised, I did see the waiver advertised in the variance, but I didn't see the preliminary plan vote.

Um on tonight's agenda.

Um so we would have to see if um that was advertised back two weeks ago.

It was advertised.

So the uh Ms.

Valcourt asked the question, solicitor.

Is that it?

Was it are you suggesting it has to be advertised in a newspaper or just posted on the open meeting agenda?

No, no, no, just posted.

But it wasn't for tonight.

That preliminary plan vote wasn't posted.

But if if it was continued from if it was posted two weeks ago, then I'm good.

I'm good with it tonight, but um, I didn't see it.

Uh I don't have the agenda from two weeks ago.

May agenda or in May May second.

Yeah, uh it does it does not say preliminary plan.

Okay.

So uh the assistant director solicitor is indicating that the agenda from last week did not indicate uh a possible vote for preliminary plan.

So would your recommendation be that we continue this until the June meeting?

Correct, so that we can advertise for the preliminary plan vote.

Um the two votes tonight clearly um are good.

Um, but to finalize it for the preliminary plan vote.

Um, why don't you why don't we keep it open and continue it um to advertise for that final vote?

Advertise meaning post, correct?

Post, correct, yes, okay.

All right, so we've got advice from the solicitor that because it's not on the agenda for last week or this week for preliminary plan specifically.

My apologies to the applicant for that.

Um that the solicitors recommended that uh we should continue it to the June meeting.

Um what's the date of the June meeting?

I believe.

Um June 2nd.

So people don't want to follow council's advice, that's one option.

Another option is to follow the lawyer's advice.

I'll take the safe route make a motion to continue to June 2nd.

Commissioner Coop uh makes a motion to continue this matter till June 2nd, so it can be properly posted for preliminary plan approval.

Is there a second to Commissioner Coop's motion, seconded by Commissioner Lampier?

Any discussion?

Yes, Commissioner Lampier.

I I just want to make clear to the applicant that the two votes that we took this evening are valid and remain.

There's one last piece that we need to vote on, but because it wasn't properly noticed, we don't want to we don't want to vote on it and put you in a position that it could at some point be challenged.

So we'll continue that to the to the next meeting.

And that's the purpose of the continuance.

Okay.

Anything further from anyone else before we make the motion?

I mean, before we vote on the motion.

Seeing none, all those in favor of continuance signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those say nay.

Eyes have it.

Oh, abstain because I wasn't here during the discussion.

Okay.

Commissioner Carrero abstains.

Commissioner Carrero showed up a little while ago.

Okay.

Next on the agenda is discussion of comprehensive plan.

Amendments dealing with the housing element.

Commissioner, I'm excuse me, Director U Ashman.

Great.

So the housing element draft has been on a low simmer on the back burner for a while.

Our goal tonight is to wrestle with some of the policy options that are on the table with the goal of submitting a draft to statewide planning for review as a draft.

And you know, the housing element is arguably the most challenging comp plan element.

The state's housing 2030 plan lays out very specific goals we have to meet.

And so this time around for this comp plan, we we can't just hide behind vague uh goals of meeting housing needs in the community.

Uh, the charge we've been told to to have our plan adopted will be to show policy actions that can will result in meeting these goals.

Um, so by submitting the draft for feedback and guidance from statewide planning uh on whether the proposal policies that we have on the table would be considered um sufficient for adoption, having that feedback before we adopt the comp plan formally would help us um streamline the process.

So that's our goal tonight is to really um bring this back up into the public eye to look at what things are remaining on the table.

I know some a lot of minor tinkering has happened since our last workshop.

We got quite a bit of feedback and we've been working on as staff, but it hasn't been on a public meeting agenda.

Okay.

So tonight we're just we're gonna quickly go over what the problem is we're trying to do to solve with our housing element to talk about the production targets.

And then I want to step back a little and talk about taxes and schools and the fiscal implications of our housing plan because that's top of mind for the city right now.

Um, then we're gonna go into I'm gonna lay out in a little bit of detail all the policy options that are included in the draft, and we end by talking about trade-offs and get your feedback on what you'd like to have on the table, maybe some things you want to have taken off the table, other questions you'd like us to consider.

So we know we're in a housing shortage situation.

We know that housing prices have grown far faster than incomes, resulting in uh 46% of owner households not having sufficient income.

So they're cost burdened and a little higher for rent or income.

So we know those there's this mismatch that's developed over time.

And the the standards for approval of our comprehensive plan are pretty clear for 2030 in terms of a number we have to meet.

So for 2030, we need to show our policies will allow the approval of 1,367 new units, 205 of which have to be for guaranteed low and moderate income housing units.

Um for the the 20-year horizon and a comprehensive plan is is generally thought of as a 20-year plan.

The concrete goal we have to meet is 10% low and moderate income housing goal.

And this is a really big shift for CRANS.

I know six to 10 doesn't seem big, but especially in this environment where we're projecting very slow population growth and we're not looking at a large number of new units.

It would result in you know, 1,600 units out of 3,700 is about 43% of the units would have to be low in moderate income housing.

So that's an extraordinary challenge for us to address mathematically.

I'm gonna hand it over to Toby to talk about the costs and benefits.

Yeah, so just want to make sure that we're grounding our plan and some of the existing literature out there.

So I'm just going to run us through a little bit of what we know about the impacts of development on fiscal budgets, municipal budgets, and how we want to use that information to help uh orient ourselves.

So first, there's a study out of Massachusetts that shows that when they looked at 42 multifamily developments and found that they produced a pretty substantial net fiscal benefit to the city, uh, looking at everything from the taxes they're receiving from those developments and also considering all of the costs of new roads, utilities to those developments.

Second, uh always top of mind for us is school children.

And so we found a study out of New Hampshire that found that uh enrollment, as we know, is declining and also a household size declining, families having fewer kids.

And so the average multifamily development they found is producing only 0.16 kids, right?

So, you know, one every seven units we construct, we can expect only one kid.

And with that, I think the other important point to underline with this study is that they found that all new housing construction, regardless of single family, multifamily is net positive in terms of revenue for school districts.

Third, we can look at the low-income housing tax credit benefits.

Producing this number of deed restricted low and moderate income housing would require a pretty substantial number of low-income housing tax credits for developers to be able to produce that.

And a study out of Oklahoma found that they were getting three and some change dollars for every $1 put in to a project using low-income housing tax credits.

So there's pretty substantial economic balance that would be brought to the city.

Uh, so again, you know, we're covering already 43% of the investment in taxes alone, let alone all the other benefits, positive analysis we get from providing low and moderate income housing.

And then finally, uh a study looking nationwide showing that increasing the density of development is going to reduce costs in six out of eight categories that they looked at.

So as you have dense development, it's going to cost less per person for providing fire, streets, parks, sewer, solid waste, and water.

Uh so again, you know, there's pretty substantial elements to useful budgets for having this kind of increased density.

Um, you know, we can see there's pretty wide variety of benefits uh that come with it.

And so just in our orientation, trying to think how can we produce higher density development in areas already served by infrastructure in order to provide the highest uh fiscal benefit for cities.

Talk about this.

Sure.

I know many of us are familiar with the experience in the 80s and 90s where a large number of low density suburban developments increased operating costs for communities and required us to expand schools, and that required bonding.

So there was a fiscal impact.

But I really we've really been trying to focus our recommendations on policies that will be net positive from a fiscal stance.

And we we're aware that a lot of conditions have changed in Cranston.

First of all, our population of school children is declining, and the city is closing schools on the eastern side.

The smaller cohort of elementary school children will soon make their way to the middle school and then the high school.

Only in western Cranston does new housing have the potential to put pressure on overcrowded schools.

Um, the population that needs the housing called for in housing 2030 is already living here.

Um, so rather than being a growth agenda that will drive population growth, these housing strategies will primarily just help household formation, help like help us catch up with the demand and enable more young adults to form their own households.

And so the housing strategies we are contemplating do not involve extending miles of roads.

And the plan does not call for converting the rest of Western Cranston to subdivision.

It calls for smarter land use in already developed areas, and we understand that that has trade-offs in terms of density.

Uh so we we've developed our policy recommendations with an eye towards strengthening Cranston's tax space and encouraging new investment to give new life to already disturbed land.

And I want to reuse a couple slides that were provided through the research of housing works that we because neighborhood consistency is a theme in our policy recommendations.

This is research housing works did in this chart, they're showing you per acre the tax assessment of units of houses, whether they're in single family, two family, three family, four family, and five family, and from a tax efficiency and a city municipal service standpoint.

You know, the sweet spot is more in the two and three family range.

Um, this is a map showing where in Cranston the red bars are two through five family homes, and the height of the bar is their tax revenue per acre.

The yellow is the single family.

I show this partly because there's um I've encountered over and over again this assumption or this understanding that large lot single family pays the most in taxes, and that's not what we're finding.

I'm just gonna take these two slides out of order.

This is an example.

Um, you know, three different places you can live.

This three family home results in 53,000 dollars in revenue per acre.

The cute bungalow on an urban lot, you know, 20,000 uh dollars of revenue for the town per acre, and the single family home on 1.3 acres, very nice, also nice place to live, but the revenue per acre is actually much lower under $5,000.

So the I think it's important to step back for its assumption that two and three families cost us money.

They did in a in a different era, but they they don't today.

Um this kind of missing middle housing, the two family, three family, four family is largely not allowed in Cranston, uh, including in neighborhoods in some neighborhoods where it's a predominant housing type.

So this chart showing you that a residential land, you know, single family you could build in almost any residential land.

Um 32% of our residential land would allow two families, uh, five percent would allow three families or four families.

So, you know, the bottom line, and we we talk about this in a number of different ways, but neighborhood consistency zoning is a it's primarily about allowing these types of units in the neighborhoods.

I like to call streetcar suburbs, because that's where they where those units are common.

So we've already done a lot of work narrowing our options as we develop this housing element.

There are a lot of things that we've taken off the table already.

So I've got my little no, yes.

You know, on the on the no side, we've already taken off the table changes, substantial changes to single family areas.

We've taken off the table any increase in development in the western half of Cranston.

Um we've not proposed housing in any of our key commercial and industrial areas, but there are some very specific mixed use, uh very specific mixed use project areas that I'll show the map of later.

Um we're not proposing that the city asked act as a housing developer.

And you know, in the current budget environment, we're not putting financial incentives on the table.

But what we are what we are keeping on the table is enabling development consistent with historic patterns of neighborhoods, including lot size and number of units.

Um this big project we're calling our mixed use centers and corridor zoning project that's already underway, which is Broad Street, Rolf Square, and um Elmwood Avenue, Elmwood Avenue being the area that could could potentially accommodate the most housing.

Uh, we we have on the table the sale of some municipal property.

Uh, we're already, you know, full steam ahead in complying with state law and ADUs and adaptive reuse.

And we aim to use housing policy to increase our tax base and focus on areas with the least marginal cost for city services.

So this is the big summary chart with numbers and all the different categories of policies that are in this draft housing element.

I've I've lumped them with at the top the elements that can create low and moderate income housing.

Um, because while in the 2030 goals, we really have to focus on ways to enable more housing construction as well as low and moderate income housing over the 20 year horizon.

The biggest difficulty will be creating the the low and moderate income housing.

Um, so inclusionary zoning, we already have a draft of that's key because it enabled it would require and enable low and moderate income housing across other policy areas.

So what I've shown here in the bar here of impact of 300 would just be what we call bonus units, um additional units that could be permitted under that.

Uh the Elmwood Corridor in particular is highlighted as both a place where we could require a lot of low and moderate income housing, but we could also accommodate more.

Um I think to me, in my mind, as I've looked at the right size for these different proposals and thresholds, this is one of the tried-offs to the extent to which we can accommodate a lot of the housing we need to show we can accommodate on Elmwood Avenue, where we rezoning from commercial and industrial into a mixed use environment.

To the extent we can do that, we can keep the pressure off any changes in our neighborhoods, which we could we don't want.

There's not a lot of um support for.

And so, you know, small lots in the streetcar suburbs, ADUs, neighborhood mixed use, uh, the variety of little rezones in appendix A of our comp plan.

Those aren't going to be projects of 10 units or more.

They're mostly going to be very small.

Um, but also throwing in at the bottom, we have baseline projections.

We've included in there, you know, the 43 units of housing a year that we can expect to produce, even if we did nothing to change our policies, and a fairly substantial number of projects that are already permitted or in per permitting, and we count those in our numbers.

So there are a number of trade-offs that we need to that are inherent in some of these policy choices.

Um by far, this mixed use centers and corridors project is the the one that the potential to meet the yield the largest numbers, partly because there is open land and it's primarily doesn't allow any residential there now.

So it's it's not a residential neighborhood now, it's a mix of commercial and industrial properties.

Um it's the highest yield, but it requires the most planning and implementation effort, but also be the most visible change.

If we do that, that will not be no change.

That will be something people will say, wow, you've you've changed the rules on Elmwood Avenue.

The inclusionary zoning has a risk of chilling market rate development.

If the density bonus isn't sufficient, you know, we put for our best guess forward of what will work, but we'll have to revisit that in five years to see what actually comes out.

Independence way rezoning was identified as a place with minimal abutter impacts because it's between the highway and a shopping center.

Um but it's it's you know it doesn't have high frequency transit.

It's there are trees that would be removed.

Adaptive reuse doesn't yield a lot, but by making adaptive reuse easier, um we remove blight, but you know, it's a complex site by site process of adapting new buildings.

City-owned parcels, small number.

Uh there's a trade-off here.

I know the plan originally called for city-owned parcels to be sold for to create low and moderate income housing, but I think that there's a real trade-off between that and getting top dollar, which may be a priority today in the city's budget situation, and then I won't spend too much time on these, but um we've talked a lot about the we've talked about either neighborhood consistency zoning of streetcar suburbs or small lots that has some potential, accessory dwelling units has some potential.

Main street neighborhood use, not big numbers, but it can preserve neighborhood character, increase walkability, will generally not kick in requirements for low and moderate income housing.

And then I hope we can move forward with the number of rezones in appendix A that were already vetted and adopted in the comp.

So these are the project area maps for our mixed use centers and corridors project.

And we are working with Kittlison on some zoning drafts that are going to focus on design and streetscape requirements to improve walkability, but also allow more density.

Um, they're going to be different levels of density based on the underlying neighborhood.

Uh, in the case of Rolfe Square area, the first area, it's already and Broad Street in the middle.

Those are both have they're very vibrant neighborhoods with a lot of development.

So you're seeing a you're gonna see something that makes it a little easier to reuse old buildings, a little easier to do refill infill that's consistent with the rounding neighborhoods, but so not yielding huge numbers, whereas Elmwood Avenue, which has very little housing right now, is is where we could we could hit big numbers if we if we want to.

That's that's the biggest opportunity, but you would be looking at transit supportive densities, which started about 30 units per acre.

You could looking at individual projects with 60 units an acre easily, which is above the future land use designations ranges that we have right now by quite a bit.

There's an ordinance that we'll be talking about that uh one of the city counselors introduced for re zones on lot size minimums in the B zones that'll be on our agenda for the for recommendation in the next month.

But essentially, what we're talking about here is changing the zoning to match the neighborhoods.

So this map shows you the B zones in the northern eastern part of Cranston.

This is a lot, this is where a lot of the zoning inconsistency exists.

Every parcel that's colored red is inconsistent with the lot size requirement of the neighborhood.

So there are neighborhoods that are mostly red, they're mostly inconsistent.

The zoning doesn't match the neighborhood.

There are other areas that are shown in green where the existing development does match the zoning, and probably no zoning changes would be proposed.

So that's a doing this on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, is what's in the draft housing element, which is a little different than the proposal we'll talk about that's been proposed that that makes changes to all B zones citywide.

The inclusionary zoning law I really want this is a key part of our housing element, but I want to emphasize that it's in terms of required low and moderate income housing, it only barely keeps us from losing ground.

Um and it doesn't require that 10% of housing be low and moderate income.

If I looked at the units uh built permitted in 2025, um that require if this ordinance had been in effect, we would have hit just under 10% low and moderate income housing in the new houses built because most of the housing built in Cranston is in projects with fewer than 10 units.

Um but really importantly, so even though it doesn't get us there automatically, it includes us a framework of incentives, density bonuses, the ability to guarant waivers for specific dimensional requirements where appropriate, ability to look at project specific parking plans, and those that framework will allow us to work with affordable housing developers.

Um, because to get to these numbers, we will have to have developments that are largely low and moderate income housing developments.

So and then another thing that I think we've hinted at in our previous public discussions, but I haven't I want to make sure I put it right out there is we'd have to revise the sections of the future land use map.

Um for our sort of the process for developing these future land use density regulations, and we talk about density a lot in this city plan commission, is you know, the city was down zoned substantially in 1966 to mid-century ideals, and the the future land use map density ranges were were translated straight from those minimum lot sizes in zoning, and so the future land use map essentially creates a cap in density when we're considering variances, and and you're all familiar with that.

We talk about density a lot, but the the result is that you get fewer housing units.

We don't, um, and it's not true that our housing demand that we have no need for housing.

There's that's just not true.

So the the only way to make the math work is to allow more density in some locations.

Um, our future land use policy largely fits in our A zones.

I know for the public, it might not be the A zones are the the A6, the A8, the center and west of Cranston, but um the future land use designations for our B zones are far are below what's there today.

So it only allows it it's a it's a policy to reduce density over time, which isn't going to help us meet our goals.

And I find a great way to show this visually on the on the left here.

You have the future land use map from 1992.

That does sound like a while ago.

The orange areas, which is largely our B zones, the future land use designation was more than eight units permitted per acre.

There was no cap.

In 2010, we had to put a range and we put a cap of 10.89.

Well those ranges for the A80, the A12, the A6, those are largely in line with what's there.

And those the yellower parts of the city of Cranston.

But for the orange parts of the city of Cranston, there's no there isn't an alignment between those future land use densities and what's on the ground there today.

So just hammer home.

We calculate we need to get to 10%.

That's 43% of the new units.

They could be a number of places, but the two policies in the plan that enable us to do this are the enclosure inclusionary zoning ordinance and the mixed use centers and corridors project.

And that's really, you know, I'm sorry if I took a lot of time, but I want to make sure that I put a put a lot of this information on the table, both for the public and for the city plan commission and the rest of today is really about what else should be on the table, what should be off the table, what trade-offs are preferred.

And then just for reference, I've put on the bottom there.

Our work plan there, some of the items in the housing element that we are already working on.

Um then there are other items that I've identified as as future work in order to advance these policies or define them because the again the the housing element defines the policies you want to enact in broad terms, not at the level of an ordinance draft.

So we we're not at ordinance draft level specificity specificity on many of these policies.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see.

That's a lot of information on a PowerPoint slide.

First time I'm seeing some of this, obviously.

Um I can probably, if my commissioners want, I can just start going through it as quickly as I can.

Um I had the housing plan on the side on the um website, and so I use that as a reference.

I'm gonna skip over what I I'll skip over for now a couple of the I call editorial kind of things because that's not fundamental to the numbers.

The first problem I have, um, it's a significant problem, and it moves the move, changes the whole, it causes issues with the plan, is what is the population growth number for the future, right?

So you're estimating when I look at the housing plan element 84,901 by 2046.

Now, right now we're around 84,000.

So you're before you were projecting a bigger increase, and now it's kind of a flat line.

And we've had this discussion before publicly and privately, and I thought it was good to have this because that number drives all the goals, essentially what goals we have after 2030.

The state decided what our goals are for 2030, but after 2030, that's our discretion.

So I read things, you know.

And so WPRI had a story last month that statewide planning projected what population is going to be in the state of Rhode Island by city and town, and they projected a 5% decrease across the board in the state.

And in Rhode Island for and in Cranston, they projected for 2045, 79,944.

That's statewide planning.

Now, I recognize in the housing plan element, you say you disagree with that assessment for a variety of reasons.

What I've seen in historically is that planning boards or commissions or whatever you want to call them, they make these estimates.

There's gonna be all this population growth, there's gonna be this growth.

And I've seen this back to the 1960s reports and 1980s stuff, 70s, and they had Cranston having 100,000 people by now.

Okay, and it doesn't happen.

My personal preference, and my colleagues will we'll have a discussion and a vote at some point, is that we use the statewide planning number of what they believe is the most accurate assessment of what our population is gonna be in 2046.

Why do I use the statewide planning number?

Um, I assume that they it sounds accurate.

Number one, this is kind of their job, kind of estimate population stuff.

Number two, I don't I've read so much about the declining birth rates, about the lack of population growth in the Western world, including in the United States, and in Rhode Island in particular, that I am highly skeptical that in 20 years from now we'll be talking about 84,000 people or 85,000 people.

And so as soon as you move the number from 84,000 to 80, which is what statewide planning is using.

Um all of a sudden some of these numbers decline dramatically of our goals for after 2030.

Um we can say, hey, Cranston's gonna be a wonderful place, it's gonna have jobs, it's gonna have schools, it's gonna have this.

The Cranston economy, the Cranston society, whatever you want to call the Cranston community is inherently connected.

Am I doing something like hitting the microphone?

That's not me, by the way.

Is it you, Mr.

Lima?

We speak too close.

Okay, is this like I'm not trying to be like a rapper, like talk really close to the thing, right?

So I'm just gonna okay.

Okay, well, one to six, okay.

I'm sorry.

I got distracted.

I'll start over that sentence.

Okay.

Um the Cranston economy, the Cranston community is inherently linked to the Rhode Island economy of the Rhode Island community.

I cannot see a situation where Cranston is growing in population at a significant divergence over the next 20 years to the rest of the state.

I just don't I don't see it.

We're kind of like pretty typical of Rhode Island.

People will disagree.

Um, but so that moves my numbers.

Um once you do that, a lot of things change.

The other thing you had in the plan is on page five, you refer to a healthy vacant rate for home ownership would be between five and eight percent, while a healthy rental vacancy rate would be five to ten.

Housing 2030, page 10 refers to the healthy rate being 1.5 for home ownership and 6% for rental.

So again, I'm gonna use the housing statewide housing number, the Rhode Island Island housing number as excuse me if I get everyone confused.

I'm gonna say Rhode Island housing.

I'll just use housing 2030 plan so people know what I'm talking about.

I don't want to get you specifically.

So again, I'm we're creating this plan for basically a couple of reasons.

One, we got to figure out what we want to do here in the city.

Second, the state's telling us I want this, I want this, third, 1,360 something.

And then we have some flexibility after that.

So I prefer to use their population projection.

I'll use their what they decide is the healthy rate.

I'm not a person who's an expert on this.

I've read different things.

There are differences of opinion.

I understand that, but again, I'm just gonna use that number.

So once you do that, of course, you start changing the numbers.

So then we get to the to the numbers.

And again, I'm I'm skipping over like little words because I don't want to belabor the point.

Yeah, and I understand we have some work to do bringing the draft.

There's some inconsistencies in the draft right.

And I could certain parts are updated more recently than others, right?

And I don't want to like, I don't want to belabor it with everybody here.

I just you're looking for some feedback, what I call on big picture policies.

And so I'm just, you know, you guys will have public comment and do your thing, you know.

I'm just saying, I just looked at Rhode Island, you know, the the statewide planning numbers, the housing 2030 numbers, kind of okay, works for me.

Then you have on page 16 the how do you get to these goals?

Like you have all the little projects, right?

This is my cheat sheet.

This is easier for me to follow than the stuff up there, so you understand.

So using this, we're already at 1,623 by 2030, when we're supposed to be at 1,000, not supposed to be, we need to get to 1,367.

And that number, by the way, of 1,623 does not include meridian point phase one, which is 90 units.

When we just heard a couple of months ago, the guy wants to go do building permits this summer on situate F.

And also meridian point phase two, which is 152 units, is not included in this 1,623.

So my view is those projects should be in the 2030 column.

And the small lots, splitting oversized lots, and the main street neighborhood mixed unit, we don't need to deal with that before 2030 because we're already over 1,367, just based on all these other things we've listed.

Um we can move that maybe over after 2030, if there's still a demand for housing because of population issues.

You really think we're gonna close up shop and decline?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, I mean, I produce three kids.

All right.

And you got four, you got four.

Okay, so we're I don't want to get into the whole baby thing, okay.

But it's what you can see statistically, I don't say close up shop, but we are in a slow decline in population.

When you look at the birth rates from 1940 till now, there is 1.1 million people in the state of Rhode Island.

You take the birth rates of the last 85 years and you add it together, it's basically 1.1 million people.

That's how it comes out to.

But you look at the last 20 years since about 2000, that number is down like 10,000 in recent years.

Just do the math.

If it's 10,000 for a number of years, it's gonna be like 850,000 if it keeps going on like this.

You want you want to talk about the babies?

No.

Okay, go ahead.

Commissioner Cooper.

Okay, okay.

Which is mentioned in this, which is that our population is older.

You look at the 1940s, 50s, those folks are still around.

They're still taking up a lot of houses by 2030.

Unfortunately, a lot of them are not going to be with us anymore.

Yeah.

And there are gonna be a lot of houses for sale.

That that he points like I didn't quarrel with your person per household number.

Because I buy it.

I'm not a statistician, I haven't done all the analysis, but I've read enough to say there's less people in a house nowadays than it was 30 years ago.

And it's not three, it's now like more like two and a half and could go to 2.3.

So I got no quarrel with that because it makes sense to me.

And you're pointing out this, and I said this in my comments in housing 2030.

If you build a lot of housing, like you're talking about here, and the population doesn't grow, instead, it just gets older and passes away.

You will have a significant change in housing prices.

Now, some people want that.

I get that.

Okay.

But are we talking like there's only been two times in the history of of the United States in the last century where we had 30% declines in housing prices?

That was the Great Depression and the Great Recession.

Those were not pleasant situations.

And if you're talking about we're trying to reduce housing prices, like by 30% of affect people's home equity, it's going to be like the great shrinkage is going to be happening at that period, what I call population.

And it'll be not a pleasant situation.

So I'm being more measured about we do need to meet the housing goal of 2030.

Let's do that.

We have a pathway already, but when you when you try to project 20 years ahead of time, let's use the numbers that are out there that are most likely to be.

And I don't mean this in sort of like a partisan way.

I just a historian looking at this.

So that's my thing.

So anyway, getting to this thing back on page 16.

Like the neighborhood mixed use, main street, the small lots, split.

Sure, we're gonna have some of that stuff.

We're gonna have some splitting oversized lots because of state law.

You can put a number in there.

I just don't think it's gonna be that number of 250.

Um mixed main street, mixed use.

I'm not sure we need that right now.

Um, the work, Broad Street, Helmwood Corridor.

I'm sold on go and do something in output.

Okay, I'm sold.

Okay.

The question is basically we're gonna have is heights.

I already can tell.

Like when you're talking 30 units of uh density, 30 people density, I can okay, okay.

That's pushing the limit.

But I can kind of I've done this before, I voted for this once or twice.

When you're talking 60, you're talking Knightsville Manor stuff.

No, you're not.

I can show you some nice pictures, COD pictures from other communities nearby.

Okay, maybe it's different.

I'm just gonna keep it four stories.

Okay, what I mean by this is when I say nightsville manor stuff, and I don't mean this to you know, cause a problem with our my fellow commissioner here.

What I mean is that I did the calc, I did the calculation of like what in this city is over 50 units or approximately 50 units per acre.

The it's like Knightsville Manor is one, you know.

There's a few of them, not many.

Um some of the highest density housing in the city is triple deckers on small urban lots.

Oh, I get that.

It could be, I mean, like I said, I just looked at like a call major development.

So I mean, in terms of just in density numbers, they're they're very high, even though they're they're small.

Three units.

Right.

But like I said, we can talk about what the number is, but getting back to what it is.

Elmwood, yeah.

It's a place I as I've talked about before, underutilized, underinvested land is land that can be used for housing, assuming there's no other problems with it.

Um Broad Street work is a tough nut to crack because of the already developed in this the developed area.

It's already pretty developed.

There's a lot of neighbors there already.

Ralph Square, I would think about, I've talked about an art concept before over there.

Maybe, you know, it's a place that needs some love.

Um, but the only one I'm sold on for sure is Elmwood.

And so that's where I would focus because that I can figure out and I can see.

Um it's underutilized.

Um so when I do that kind of stuff here, I think I get to the number of 1367.

And I don't have to do these other things.

And if I reduce the population to what is actually expected by statewide planning.

I I'll speak to that later.

Yeah.

Um, I think the numbers come a lot down.

But yeah, parking.

Yeah, that's I mean, I could anyway.

You get the gist of what I'm talking about.

Um that's that's kind of where I'm at.

I can go through it page by page, but like I said, I wanted to give you the big picture of what I'm looking at.

Is there other commissioners want to have something to say to the staff at this point?

You want to do public comment first?

Anyone else have anything to say to the to the planning director at this time?

Any questions, comments?

Okay, hand it over for public comment.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Good evening.

I'm at Porn 51 Community Drive.

Um I'm very excited that we are at this point.

And um, it's great to have a robust discussion about housing plans here in Cranston.

I will remind the commissioners, as the staff knows, the comprehensive plan is a tool for statewide planning.

So despite the state plan of housing 2030, the horizon for this plan is a 20-year plan that reaches 10% low and moderate income housing in 2046 or whatever that 20-year horizon is, if it gets passed in 2027, it's 2047.

Um arguments about um the uh vacancy rate, uh healthy vacancy rate for single family is much lower than for rental.

Um, what I will say is population and households are different things.

As you've observed, we have smaller household sizes, and despite those of us who may be dead by 2030, uh, there are those of us who are living to 90, 95, and 100 plus.

The fastest growing age group in the state of Rhode Island is 65 and older.

We are one of 11 states that have more people growing over 65 than people zero to 18.

And you know, we may want to do something about that.

So in terms of uh people moving here, they do come from other places, namely Massachusetts.

About 25% of our home sales right now are people who are moving here from Massachusetts.

I've just met a woman recently who lived in Somerville, could not afford to live in Somerville anymore.

And in two weeks, having never been to Rhode Island before, decided to buy a home in our neighborhood of Cranston.

So regardless of whether Rhode Islanders are repopulating Rhode Island, we live in a region that is moved around by trains.

And so while you may not want to think about prices decreasing substantially quickly, certainly not, but we do need to build a rental stock that allows for mobility of jobs and professionals and young people moving out of their parents' homes.

And um I glad to think that Elmwood Corridor is something that meets with the commission's approval.

I hope that we can also look to those other neighborhoods that are historically denser and historically match the character of New England, Rhode Island, and our cities and towns.

So I really appreciate that we're at this point, and I look forward to uh where we go from here.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to make public comment?

Name and address.

Hi, Marcia Fowler, 35 Milton Avenue.

I really appreciate the chance to talk tonight and all the information that you shared.

And I also appreciate all the open uh forums that you've had where people can give public comments.

Um I'm a landlord, and uh for the past 25 years, I've had two between two multis and one multi, so six units down now.

We're down to now uh three units on Norwood Av.

And um talking about like the school growth with um apartments, our apartment or multi-family in on Norwood Ave over the 24 year, 25 years.

I think we've had four children, one of whom is was mine.

So that house does not add at all to school population.

We had another house on on uh Franklin Avenue off of Cranston Street, multifamily, every unit was filled with children.

So um I think it depends on the neighborhood too, in terms of which uh school growth.

Um, I think in terms of the population not increasing because of babies, what Annette said in terms of people moving in, just and edgewood has a lot of people moving in from Massachusetts because it's very easy to get to the train in Providence.

Um three houses in my just my neighbors, um, three have moved in from Massachusetts and take the train in.

So I think the population growth isn't always just with babies.

Um, and also what Annette was saying with um the elderly population, I think we need to also consider um senior housing, but not in terms of like memory care housing, but 55 and over uh on a place like Mulligan's Mulligan's Island, right?

Instead of a Costco, have uh multiple small houses for 55 and older.

We can also have like a small golf course or just something to do uh that's also entertaining for elderly, or I shouldn't even say elderly, 55 and older, because that would also help with seniors moving out of their houses and staying in Cranston.

Um in terms of affordable housing, I don't know if this is for planning or not, but um, as a landlord, I've um rented to people with um with vouchers, and I think a lot of landlords would like to, but don't understand the process and don't understand that um their apartment is still their apartment.

Somebody coming in is the one renting with the voucher, it's not uh Cranston Housing telling the landlord who they have to rent to.

So I think that that would be something really good to share with the public, either when taxes um the tax letter is sent out every year, a one piece of paper that discusses how to be a for landlords, how to rent to people with vouchers, because it's a really important thing to understand, and that would also help with um affordable people being able to afford housing.

Um, and then also it's so again I own two multi, I own two multis now, I own one multi, and I love three families.

I think they're amazing pieces of property, and I think it's one piece of property, three families.

So I think the more multis we can build, it really helps.

It's smaller land use, more people, and building up instead of out.

I think is a really um positive thing to do for the city.

And that's all.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Any further public comment here in the room.

Going once.

Going twice.

Okay.

Um any public comment online.

There's no public comment online.

Okay.

All right.

Um thank you.

The uh one thing I didn't get into that I just wanted to like as you as you talk, you know, when I think about it while they're talking.

Um I'll say I would you did a fiscal thing.

I agree with the 16 per 100.

Cranston's about 15 per 100.

So it works on the units, you know, six.

I call you call it 0.16.

I just call it 16 per 100 units.

Kids per apartment units.

Okay.

I we're I was almost talking like planner ease at one point.

Okay.

Umplanned the planner.

The um one thing you said, and I'm gonna say this, and it's kind of counterintuitive to people.

You say, like, you know, urban density costs less per capita than suburban.

And I've seen stuff like that.

But one thing I never understood is why is urban areas always have higher taxes than suburban areas.

I've always seen that in general, you know, like and and I think it's probably because they provide more services than rural areas.

You know what I'm saying?

But it's just something I always noticed, and I have to think about that some more.

But I just want to point, I saw that point you made.

Multifamily housing, sometimes it's a net positive, but sometimes it's not.

Um, I did analysis in Cranston, and uh there are some units that produce net, you know.

If you do a fiscal impact analysis, they're net positive, no question, but there's some that are not.

So I just want to make that clear that it's not all one way or another.

I'll phrase it that way.

The neighborhood character issue and how it was before bringing it back down.

I've struggled with this issue myself.

Okay.

Um generally I've gone with if it's like the existing neighborhood, I'll let it go.

Some people say, you know, you want to keep it at the flum level because there that's there's reasons for that.

There were reasons, by the way, when they did that in the 1960s when they redid everything on the zoning, and it was because you see, and I just want to say it this way.

We have lots in this city that are like 3,000 square feet long, 3,000 square feet altogether, all right?

I do.

Okay.

This is pre-model T.

We have this by the way, until what nine or 10.

We're fine, because we'll we'll close up.

If you want to intervene, no, no, no, no.

Okay, okay.

No problem.

I just want to make sure that I wasn't I'm not a problem.

Okay, all right.

Um I was in regards to that neighborhood character issue.

Some of these lots were built, like I said, pre-model T pre-car.

They don't have enough room generally for cars, and people like cars, they still drive cars.

It's like so if we're talking about going back to the like these 3,000 square foot lots in the 1890s and 1880s, I don't think that's really feasible.

Okay.

And if you tell me the whole neighborhood's 3,000 square square feet, I'm gonna have a problem with that, probably.

Not in many neighborhoods are.

I recognize that.

But if a neighborhood, I can hear the argument, director of the 6,000 to the 5,000.

You know, I can I can I can see what you're talking about there.

If the neighborhood is basically a 5,000 square foot lot area, okay, what do we do in here?

Do you know?

And we're but there was a reason.

It was it was the cars, it was the traffic.

It was the that's why it wasn't just like they sat around and said, I just want to be difficult.

No, and if I may address that, where what's I'm proposing here is a little bit of a shift in paradigm from judging whether a project works just based on the density number of the lot itself to looking whether it can manage its parking, its storm water, and have greenery and tree canopy.

So instead of using like if the lot's big enough, you're gonna be able to handle all that, and you don't have to worry about the details.

Instead, we're gonna have to you're gonna there's more design work to develop on a smaller lot.

It's it's tougher, it is tougher, but it has but I'm I'm proposing we move from and and to me the density number to can they handle those, those and like those four things.

And I'll say I'm I I'm open to that.

It's just I want to put the cart, I don't want to put the cart before the horse, which is I'm not gonna change the density number until I have the impervious surface thing figured out and other stuff figured out.

Do you understand?

Like that's that that's we have this whole cart before the horse problem, which is like we gotta we gotta do this, we gotta do this right now, and then you you you haven't there's like consequences because you move too fast.

Policy and government swings and pendulums, they go from one end to the other, and you're as soon as you're trying to you do all this on one side to fix a problem, and by doing so much, you end up creating other problems, and then it swings the other way.

I don't want to get political, like I said, but we see this in our culture in our society about different issues.

This whole housing issue is like swinging from is as a result of something that happened years ago going in one direction, and now you're saying let's go the other direction.

Fine, I can move that way to some extent.

I just don't want to create a other kind of problem that my pre that 10 years from now, people are gonna say, what were they thinking and what were they doing?

Didn't they realize that's what it is?

So that's just my two cents.

Um I just want to finish that point.

Um other commissioners have something to say to the director at this time, Commissioner Lampier.

Commissioner Lampier.

It's always best to let President Frias go first because it shortens what everyone else needs to say.

He hit on a lot of the the um issues I would mention as well, but I I want to start start with some positive things.

And um I do, I would support the Elmwood Avenue, uh, mixed use.

We we went on that walk.

I live in that area.

Um, I always drive up and down and think how underutilized in a productive way that area is.

So I I think that that is a positive.

I will say that I think we need to realize if we get to the numbers that you are looking at for that area, that um it may create a number of um students.

Some of the schools is I think you mentioned uh in eastern Cranston have been, I would say far eastern Cranston have been closed.

So we would need to think about where those students would would go.

I don't know if Parkview Middle School can accommodate, and my math may be wrong, but if I use the number that that Toby gave us of one student per seven units, um, 700 units would give us 100 new students, and if we got up to that 1400, we're talking 200 if we use that number.

And it may be in terms of um avoiding student loss rather than student growth.

So we might have 200 over the trajectory we're on now, but not more than we have now.

True.

Does that make sense?

Because we're on a declining detector.

You know, I agree.

We don't have a crystal wall.

There are all these calculations based on what people know, and it's a range, right?

I think is important, you know, to the calculation, but we don't know that.

So some of these things may work themselves out.

Some of these things may get worse.

We don't we just don't know.

Um so I I appreciate that.

I appreciate that the housing element um wants to preserve the rural character of Western Cranston.

I think it's a special area that should be protected.

Um I have some concern that the housing element puts additional burden on more older areas of the city, areas of the city that are more dense already, um, and areas of the city that, although they have the required infrastructure, may not have enough of that to support some of the levels of development.

And um I would say that sometimes I feel that when you have very few areas of open space or diversity of lot size or some open areas in a very dense area that's otherwise very dense, maybe that's even more critical to protect.

Um, and so I I have some concerns um in that regard.

I would say that um when you talk about changing the zoning to match the neighborhoods.

I'll use you know what I'm most familiar with, and which is Edgewood, but it does apply to other areas of Cranston as well.

And I would say Laurel Hill Avenue area up in the Laurelville is even more non-conforming than Edgewood.

But what those areas have, and I know you I know you characterized it as Edgewood and Northern Edgewood, which I would not characterize that way.

However, I can see the the dichotomy of the smaller lots as you move north, and I understand that, but as you move south, you see a very different plating of lots that are not postage stamp, not uniform, have different frontages, have different side yards.

They make up a very different character of a neighborhood, and I'm concerned that downsizing lots is going to take away that type of character.

I don't know if you would ever think about if you're changing zoning to match the neighborhood plating as it was long ago, if you would do the same for other areas of Cranston where there were platted long ago, bigger lots, more diverse types of lots that made those neighborhoods and areas more distinct, as you you mentioned in the plan, protecting neighborhoods that are distinct.

Can you give me an example?

Yeah.

Um I would say, first of all, if you go south of Norwood Avenue in Edgewood, you will find some houses on of I can think of one because I lived on it, a 4,000 square foot lot on Narragansett Boulevard.

But it is then surrounded by much larger lots.

That adds to the character of that neighborhood.

And if you were going to downsize all those lots and make everything the same, you lose a distinct neighborhood feel.

That's a really good point.

We don't want to make everything the same.

And and that's true in other parts of Cranston as well.

You know, Laurel Hill Avenue is another good example.

Some of the lots on Laurel Hill Avenue were quite large with very grand homes built on them because they were built a long time ago.

And then there are some smaller lots.

But what happens over time if you start dividing those up is you lose that whole character of that area.

And I'm sure that that same thing applies to other parts of Cranston.

So I would be not right now support making smaller lots by right.

I know we have to deal with state law, and we can't override that.

But anything that went beyond that or wasn't included in that, I at this point would not support.

Yeah, I'm good.

If I can follow up on that, yeah.

I feel like I have to say something because I'm not housing guy on this commission.

And by the way, I can tell you anything you want to know about Section 8 vouchers.

But there's another side of this, and I like what you just brought up because it segues into how I want to say this.

But I often think about the property owner who's trying to develop a lot that maybe doesn't want a big lot, maybe wants to divide it in half.

And it's great that there's this big house on a nice big lot, but he's decided he's done with that.

And he wants two of the lots the guy next door has.

And while we have important goals to build more housing and protect neighborhoods and all very important things, for that applicant, it comes down to his own economic interest and you know, it influences well-being.

So in any way that we can create consistency and fairness for the property owners, I think should be part of this equation.

Um I agree with, although I am very concerned about housing.

Um I agree with a lot of what President Fry has said.

I do think government is very slow to react.

And we are now charging forward to react with a problem that is almost sort of heading towards our rear view mirror.

So I do think that we have to be cautious in the way we do this.

Um I think I too, like everyone else thinks this idea of Elmwood Avenue is great, but you know, we don't have much commercial industrial land left.

So before we all, you know, before we decide it's all going to become housing, let's make sure that there are options because we will need more commercial.

I don't know about industrial, but you know, commercial uses for land.

And I'd be reluctant to go too far in dedicating all of that to housing.

We don't have that much land left.

Our proposal would be to allow full mixed use.

So the proposal would be to allow the industrial to stay, to allow the commercial to stay, to allow people to propose.

And I don't know how economically feasible it is, but I do think we should consider if there's a way to encourage redevelopment in our denser neighborhoods, urban areas, commercial areas.

Um, I know it's it's difficult, and I can't come up with a scheme for how to do it.

But I visit Northern Virginia, for example, and I go to a place that I was at two years ago, and it's completely redeveloped.

And I understand there's different scale in in places like that.

But if we could somehow encourage some redevelopment in these densely populated areas where we can give a density bonus as long as the new plan includes controls for runoff, sufficient parking, a little bit of open space, as we do as we encourage in the less developed areas where we try to control urban sprawl by promoting uh a denser area with some protected open space.

You know, can we encourage that in the in the more densely populated areas?

Say we'll give you if you can buy up this parcel, you know, we'll give you some bonus, but in return, you're gonna put aside some space, you're gonna make sure there's enough parking, you're gonna make sure there's some green space for the water to run off.

Yeah.

Anything else?

One comment, question.

I'll just um say a couple of quick things in response to Commissioner Coop.

Um I understand the fairness issue, and that bothers me.

And if you notice, I sometimes will vote for a smaller lot because within 200 feet, a majority of the people have that lot.

Okay, pre-1966.

You know, that's that's just me, but it's that's I I hear you.

If you want to consider a process to streamline that kind of thing, you can come before the commission to try to address that.

You're trying to figure out how to make the what I call the regulatory hurdles less on those kinds.

You can present something, we could talk about it.

Okay.

Umwood, uh, we're all, I think I'm hearing a lot like Elmwood seems fine.

The only thing to follow up on Commissioner Coop's point, I just prefer phases.

Okay.

I know this sounds like people want the big bang.

They want they want the big bang and it all to happen.

I'm more of like incremental is better because I know if I screw up, I can fix it the second round.

Like people don't like you know, when you're in school, you hate when your entire grades the final, you know, you know, you guys know this.

Like it's the final grades like one exam, and it all rides on that.

You want to have like a midterm, right?

You want to have like a paper in the middle of the course so that you can get up the speed.

That's the kind of way I look at it because if it all rides on you just change the whole thing at once and you didn't do it right, you can create a lots of problems.

And the last thing, and just to follow up on Commissioner Coop's point about the we're maybe it may be in the rear view mirror soon.

I'll just say this.

And I am not in a financial management world, okay, or investment banking.

But I think we're like coming, a recession is going to happen pretty soon.

And when that recession hits, it's gonna change the whole, it's gonna change the whole thing on this housing stuff.

So the yeah, I mean, even if we enact policies, the yield will definitely be impacted by the economic conditions, and that is outside our control.

Right.

It's this is but I don't think I don't think that would prevent statewide planning from approving right.

No, I get that our our plan.

I I mean I I think it would would definitely impact how soon you know how how many houses are our people want to go ahead and build because there's no part of this plan where the development isn't done by the private sector, so it has to make sense to them because whether it's has low and moderate hint income support to help that to help um meet that part of the market, or whether it's full market rate, it has to make sense for the developer.

Right.

And I've said this to in my comments to housing was macroeconomic conditions are a major reason for why housing happens or doesn't happen.

And like I said, I'll just make my case for a recession.

Is you know, when you have the price earnings ratio as high as it is compared to pet.com takes, you know what I mean on the stock market.

You've got this misguided mayhem in the Middle East going on, and you have the private credit markets having some issues.

This is all suggesting to me if the stock market goes down, we get into recession.

I have a feeling it's gonna affect the housing world in some way.

So that's my own cautionary aspect.

I want to follow up on that.

But anything else?

Anyone?

I I I triggered you, didn't I, Director?

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

I was trying to be quite are we trying to hit a home run all at once?

Because one of my famous bosses once told me the enemy of good is better.

Do we need to get a document that we could at least get submitted and reviewed that has some information?

Some of it may not be a hundred percent correct.

Yeah, but get something in there, get started, have a process, and then we can revise as we go along because it seems like we're getting into the weeds of every single identical number, right?

And it is that a prudent thing because if we keep doing that, we're never gonna get a document.

No, I hear what you're saying because I just want to make sure we submit when you're talking about major numbers, population, that drives a lot.

I mean, I'm not if we want to our I can I can kind of go with hey, we're gonna we're gonna we don't have to get everything down exactly right, but we can probably in the next 60 days because the state the state may pass new laws by the way on housing, we have to take that into account.

So to me, it's like in July, we could regroup, see where things at, and then submit something.

But I'm just saying is like what I said to you earlier was that there's a Mac, there's a significant big number is the population number.

If you change the population number, all of a sudden all the unit numbers change, housing unit numbers change.

That's why I was focusing on.

It's just when I we base everything on a projection, yeah.

I don't know how good that projection really is.

I mean, we're talking 20 years from now.

I I have I have to do the director.

I agree with you.

I'm going, I would like to just submit something to 2030, but the state has this thing, they want 20 years, right?

So I what what did I do?

I went to the state and I said, What do you say the population of Crance is going to be in 20 years?

Okay.

So I talked to them about that.

They didn't do a population forecast for Cranston.

They did a population forecast for the state.

And then assumed everybody took their identical share of it.

So I think that Cranston is better positioned than Hopkinton, Richmond.

I think we're better positioned than some other communities of the state.

Um, better access to jobs.

I'm also a little bit of an optimist, and I know that a constrained housing market depresses your economy, it depresses jobs, it keeps employers from being able to recruit and fill positions.

So I don't I I would advocate for Cranston being a little bit bullish in their housing plan in order to allow for a healthy economy.

I I just like I said, maybe it's a chicken and egg argument, but we can talk about it some more and the commissioners can get back to you about it.

I'm not an optimistic about this thing.

So I I've kind of seen this enough over the years where I think I know where this goes.

So that's just and then and you're talking about the great, like I heard public comment was accurate.

Uh by Miss Bourne, we are one of the older states.

We're one of the grayer states in the 2030s.

I have a I have a I have like neighbors who are in their 80s, they're not gonna be around in 10 years, probably.

I I understand my father's 81, my father's 81, so you know, if he's with me 10 years from now, I'm gonna be really happy.

But you know, we understand these.

I'm just saying is like odds and statistics suggest I think we're headed towards the climb.

But anyway, anything else from anyone else?

All right, is that it, Director?

Or we can um regroup and we'll see each other again in June, kind of a thing.

We'll see each other in June.

All right.

Um let's do uh let's see what this thing is here.

It's a motion to adjourn to our June 2nd meeting.

All uh motion made by Commissioner Mancini, seconded by Commissioner Lampier.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, all the supposed to say nay, eyes have it.

We'll see you in June, everybody.

Tune in.

We'll find out what our population happens between now and then.