Start.

I want to do both.

Alright, a meeting of the planning and economic development committee was held Tuesday, April 21st, 2026 at 7 o'clock PM in the Aldermanic Chamber and duly noticed in two places, including the city's website in accordance with the requirements of RSA 91-A-2-2.

Can the clerk please call the role?

Alderman Sullivan.

Yeah, so I'm here on Zoom.

I'm traveling for work this week.

I'm alone in the room and I can hear everybody.

Alderman Clee.

Here Alderman Morgan is here.

Alderman Clemens.

And Alderman Tiba.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Roll call is taken with four members.

Yep.

We are also in attendance.

Uh have Sam Durfee planning manager.

Um we have our coats on because it is freezing in here.

Um on the agenda, we had Alyssa O'Mara coming from the downtown National Association.

She'll be coming in May.

Um, so uh we will not be doing that presentation.

Um public comment, we're not acting on anything tonight, so we won't have a first public comment.

Discussions and presentations.

We have uh Mr.

Durfee uh planning manager is gonna go over the code update and continue the discussion that we've been having over the last year on the recoding.

Um and I will bring up the presentation for you.

All right.

Well, thanks for having me again.

I believe this is our tenth session.

Uh this has been great.

Um tonight we are going to go through uh basically a mock development uh in an area where we have both base zoning and a redevelopment overlay.

And so we'll kind of do a comparison.

And basically the the run of this presentation is kind of gonna go kind of step by step as anyone who would want to do development kind of um evaluates what all the the the key considerations in terms of how they set up a lot, what buildings they deploy, so on and so forth.

So we kind of work from from top down.

Um and then as we get into uh the the building typologies, the density factor, we're gonna have a conversation about inclusionary zoning as that ties directly to um density in our tool there is the density factor.

Um so we chose a large site on a corridor which has um both base zoning and uh uh redevelopment overlay.

Uh so this area is just kind of can give you uh some context in terms of location, uh setting, uh and kind of what's going on around the district.

Um next slide, please.

Do you want a clicker or something?

I do.

I'm gonna be clicking that a lot tonight.

It's in your drawer, very and uh to Alderman Sullivan.

I can't see you, so if you have a question, just uh reach out.

Uh okay.

Yes, and and as I'm going along, please do stop me with questions.

Um that said, there are quite a few slides.

A lot of these will be more informational.

Uh that's why I've provided you a slide deck uh to kind of follow along.

Uh Alderman Sullivan, I'm happy to email you a copy at the end of this meeting.

Um, but basically the idea is um there's gonna be a lot of information I'm not going to necessarily dive into.

Um, but as you follow along and you see anything that catches your eye, uh please do stop me and ask questions.

And you'll email Donna the I certainly will.

Awesome.

Yep.

So uh scenario one, we're operating in the base zoning.

Uh the base zoning is commercial industrial.

Here are some very basic district standards on the left hand side, uh, and then on the right hand side you have permitted uh thoroughfare types.

Uh thoroughfare types, streets.

Uh these come into play when you're talking about a large parcel and you are introducing a new street network.

Um these the idea around regulation of thoroughfare types is really the concept of design speed, right?

So you can build a road, you can post a speed limit on it, but no one's gonna pay attention to it unless they feel safe going at that speed.

You know, if you have a wide open road, but you sign it as 25, people are gonna go 50.

So the idea is to design to the uh preferred speed.

We can get more into that uh later on.

Uh the two boxes at the bottom, um, we're gonna touch on this throughout the presentation, but some high-level points of uh you know what's still required in the base, uh, but then what's what's not and then what's included in the overlay.

Um so in the second scenario, we're gonna be looking at uh development in an overlay, the mid-rise neighborhood district group.

And again, we're going to be running these scenarios concurrently.

So we're going to stick with the topic, talk about it on both scenarios, and then go into the next one.

So, same idea, high level.

We talked about the different districts that are available in this district group and the associated block standards.

Block standards are like the highest order organizing principle under district.

You do blocks, then you go to lots, then you go to buildings, and it kind of is like a nesting doll.

And we will get more into that.

This is just again high level setting the table.

First, we begin with talking about land types and neighborhood types.

So these are important because you can follow along, you flip back to those, but the visual is going to help here.

Nashua Anywhere development is pattern based, right?

Whether it was intentional or not, development forms patterns on the ground, which can be observed, they can be then classified into districts.

But this is almost like a very high level district map, which we call land types.

But we're going to focus really on L5, and this is our intended district.

Basically, we're calling it intended because we intend for growth and redevelopment to occur in this land type.

But land types, they really do represent and are formed off of what we see on the ground and also what our long-term goals are for the city and acts as an organizing principle around districts.

So when we look at the L5 intended land type, here's a table where you see the land types across the top row and then the associated neighborhood types along the left hand column.

You can see that in L5, we have everything from edge neighborhood to major center included in that.

We'll get into this, how this breaks down into the district types.

Evening.

So in again, we're we're talking about concurrent tracks here.

So when we contemplate the the overlay here, we're identifying that okay, look, there is this overlay available.

Um, what does that mean?

If I opt into that, uh, what occurs?

Um, when you opt into the overlay, it grants access to uh greater variety of districts.

Um it offers different neighborhood types, and uh the dimensional standards associated with those are not available in the base zoning.

Uh opting into the overlay also triggers uh inclusionary zoning requirements, which we will get into.

Um there, this is the overlay map along the Amherst Street corridor.

Uh you can see our parcel highlighted in blue there.

Uh so in the the orange color, that is our mid-rise neighborhood district group.

Um but we will also note that as part of this redevelopment overlay, um, some master planning has to be done.

Uh and now this master planning, it's it's not really any different than what we would see uh in a site plan application, a site plan application of moderate size that would have you know an overall site layout plan.

It identifies some very common themes in terms of you know the layout of the site, might provide some contextual clues uh relative to what's going on around the site, and that's really what we're trying to do with this master plan uh trigger here.

One of the policy points that we should discuss is the threshold.

Right now we have it at two acres.

Um this is a almost 24-acre site, very easily triggers the threshold.

Um at such a high level of 20 plus acres, there's obviously going to be most likely an introduction of a street grid or some new thoroughfares.

That represents a significant trigger for master planning development.

Um so just something to think about as we talk about this, you know, what might be an appropriate trigger for this, but we'll go more into what actually happens uh with master plan development.

Um this also talks about some of the phasing commitments, uh, not at all a foreign concept to developments of significant size.

Oops.

So uh with the master plan, um, really what we're trying to do is assess existing conditions, look at the area context, get some context clues, um, what's going on with the neighborhood fabric, uh, what are adjacent thoroughfares and what you know what do we have for access, what are our adjacent uses.

That can help uh organize the site in terms of um you know how uses and building types intensify or or kind of lower in intensity as you approach uh you get closer to a property line.

Uh another element here is the pedestrian shed.

So the pedestrian shed is a new concept, again, much more oriented towards the organization of a lot.

Um a pedestrian shed really can represent a common destination.

It could be a civic space, like a playground or a park.

Uh it could also be something like a transit stop or some other neighborhood amenity.

Think of it as like the center of gravity in a larger area.

And these pedestrian sheds, they really are larger than a single parcel.

Uh but when established, you begin to uh create these these nodes, these these areas in which you know there's you wouldn't want to have a park right next to a park or a transit stop right next to a transit stop, right?

Because they're serving different functions.

They need to be spaced out, you know, at a reasonable distance, but then if that becomes the center of gravity, build around that and center your highest intensity districts around that and go out from there.

So again, it serves more as an organizing principle.

And when you have a lot as large as this, um, and there's also uh an element of the first to use the overlay, is the first to set a pedestrian uh shed node.

Um there's also other elements which we can discuss at a later date where we can create these uh through kind of uh our own planning exercises, you know, corridor studies to you know kind of develop a pattern that way.

Uh all McClee?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I I I'm sure you've you've explained it while you've been talking, and somehow it went in one ear and out the other.

Highest intensity district, what is the definition of that?

Uh so it's relative, right?

So if you're operating in a district group context, um, in this instance in mid-rise uh neighborhood, uh mid-rise six, so a six-story mid-rise district, that would be the most intense.

Um-rise five is obviously less intense, shorter building than mid-rise uh six.

All of our districts uh are kind of hierarchical in nature.

Um as you move up or down the table, the proceeding or the district ahead is is either going to be more intense or less intense.

May I?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um so when you're saying when you're referencing the highest intensity district around this particular thing, the pedestrian shed are you saying so that if we have large buildings, we should have something of this type of nature.

Is that what you're saying?

Right, yeah.

So your your most intense districts and therefore your most intense building typology will be clustered around this center of gravity.

Again, be it a uh common you know, space, uh transit stop, what have you, the the center of that area.

Um it may not be on this lot, it may be across the street on a different parcel.

Um, but it needs to recognize that and plan accordingly.

Again, this is an organizing principle, and you'll see it when we get to another plan that really demonstrates it.

This is all just kind of setting the table, it will come together uh in a few slides.

Uh so this now you can see we have our our lot, we've recognized this common destination, and you draw this pedestrian shed around it.

We will build on this, this will make more sense uh very, very shortly.

What is currently on that lot?

Is that the building 19 lot?

It is.

Okay.

It is thank you.

We're just trying to put a fine point on it because this could be anywhere, this just happens to be a large site that you know makes a good case study.

Gotcha.

Um so you can you know note we have a common destination.

We haven't really defined what that is yet, um, but we locate it, we center the pedestrian shed around it.

Um but it would make a fair civic space.

Um so in speaking about civic space, there are minimum requirements for civic space.

Um that is a policy point for discussion.

You know, we could say we can have a conversation around what is a good minimum.

Do we set a maximum?

Uh in this instance, we're operating with a minimum of 10% and a maximum of 20%, um, but we'll get to exactly what that comes out to in this exercise.

Um, but we also talk about the pedestrian shed being within at least 800 feet of the geographic center in terms of where that location of that civic space is because again, center of gravity, you want to have that amenity, that civic space very close uh to that uh center of gravity of that ped shed.

Um so with this we begin to create uh the bones of a of a layout plan, if you will.

Um so we decide that it is a civic space up front around that uh pedestrian shed.

Uh that does have some uh connotations to it in terms of um how that's designed and how that's programmed.

We have various standards for us, multiple civic spaces.

They can be parks, they can be commons, they can be plazas, they can be playgrounds.

Um, and we have general standards around those because you know, if you're gonna build something, it's gonna be a plaza.

Well, there's certain ways that you do that to actually make it a plaza.

And all of which would be permissible.

It's just you know, how are you gonna do it?

Um so then we start getting into the block structure.

We've defined our civic space in our that is the center of our pedestrian shed.

Now we want to build a block structure around that.

Um so we we do want to see some connectivity between uh thoroughfares and adjacent parcels, and that helps to create the uh the block structure.

Uh we do have block standards in terms of um maximum block face length, maximum perimeter.

Uh all this is to again mimic a pattern that we already see.

Uh a lot of that is in the downtown.

There's a natural um block dimension that you know when you walk it that that you're like, oh, this is a normal-sized block.

Uh, if you were to walk a long section of street with with no intersections, you know, you really are lacking intersection density, it's an entirely different feel, uh, and also has um access connotations uh for those uses and those parcels.

Um so we can get into that in another table very shortly, but I want to show how that plays out in our first scenario.

Um so in the base zoning, there are no block standards, and why is that in a commercial industrial district?

Well, in commercial industrial, we really we recognize the need to be incredibly flexible.

Um there can be a large variety of uses and needs and therefore uh designs and layouts uh for various commercial uses.

Um so we don't want to impose a block structure that would prohibit, say, a 400,000 square foot warehouse and shipping terminal, you know, whatever.

If if you have the land to build a very large building and you have a business and the operations that demand a building of that size, we don't want our regulations to get in the way of that investment in that business.

So we have very flexible zoning in the base because we recognize we want to preserve the inherent nature of commercial business and commercial industrial districts in the neighborhood or in the city rather.

Uh but if you choose to opt into the overlay, which then adds in an element of mixed use, you access residential as a use.

We want to make sure that the subsequent design is reflective of good uh urban planning principles and creates an environment that is productive both as you know value generation, but also is a pleasant place to live, new business, and will be successful from that perspective.

Um in scenario two, we begin to uh deploy those block standards, and and here's a a uh resulting block structure, if you will.

So you can see where those thoroughfares uh come in off of Amherst Street, connect to the adjacent parcels.

Uh, this is a kind of a nod to a future connection uh with uh parallel street networks.

Uh this could be a long-range planning tool that the city uses to establish networks to help alleviate some of the traffic congestion on Amherst Street.

You're making those connections and trips you need to, multiple destinations on the same side of the road without having to go back onto Amherst Street.

But the the idea with the block structure is that we begin to kind of plan for that, absent any real um corridor planning exercises that are taken on uh by the city.

So now we've set the the structure of the blocks, we can start looking at um our districts and how that then uh relates to what can be built on those blocks.

So we have a table, which we will see uh that assigns uh district minimum and maximums for the various districts available in the mid-rise neighborhood uh district group.

But in the base, it's just commercial industrial.

Um nothing too complicated there.

Um so the resulting district allocation is well, we have commercial industrial district, uh, and then we have some civic space area.

The civic space is not really gonna result in a new district.

Uh that would just mean that every time we do a site plan and we say, hey, look, the you got your civic space, we need to do a zoning map update, that is would not make any sense.

It's more just the a notation that you have two different um basically functions on this site where one is the civic space, which you know, again, it's not just necessarily a park.

Uh and I think this is important to note in this context where you may not want a true civic space in the context of a you know 400,000 square foot shipping terminal, right?

You know, a little playground with a bunch of uh 18-wheelers driving by is probably not the best idea.

Um so why have civic space in this district?

Well, the civic space not only serves as civic space, which it can, but it also it's how you meet your your green score, your landscaping standards.

It also can double as uh how you handle stormwater uh management practices.

Um so it's not that we're just saying you have to build a playground, no matter the context.

It's we want to be very intentional about how we're treating stormwater, how um we're breaking up heat island effect, you know, you you have a little bit of green element in everything you do, and even right now we have landscaping standards in industrial context as well.

Um but I just want to recognize that these serve multiple functions rather than just simply providing a uh a central gathering space.

There are true uh functions of these uh elements of a of a site as well.

Um so just from a district summary standpoint, you know, in the commercial industrial district, um, you have some very basic um standards like lot dimensions, uh setbacks, you know, how you're placing a building on the lot, uh, and then also your permitted building types being shop, general building, general building, block building, and fabrication building.

We'll get into those standards in a little bit.

Um, but this is a relatively simple collection of standards for uh you know a single district uh development uh operating under the base district.

For comparison, when we look at the overlay, just again we go back to our uh collection of districts in the district group.

Um I apologize for the very small text.

Um, but just kind of um right of center, we have our mid-rise uh neighborhood column, and that allows the uh districts of neighborhood residential, urban residential, and midrise three all the way up to mid-rise six.

Those are our and fabrication as well, those are our available districts uh within this district group.

So now we talk about how do we how do we we know what we can deploy in terms of districts, how do we organize that on our block structure?

So, as we talked about before, the higher intensity districts, so that would be that MR6 in this context, need to be organized around the common destinations that then center of gravity, uh, that central part of the ped shed.

Um, but the lower intensity districts, uh, they're kind of used as uh transitional districts, so they're closer to the uh property lines.

Um so you kind of center your high intensity, you transition outward uh uh into the the abutting properties.

Um if there is conservation land on a site, you would have your lowest intensity district associated there.

There's obviously uh a conversation to be had if your conservation land also serves as the um as the um civic space, um, but this is a note really relative to any abutting conservation land, so separate parcel, right?

Um so in that instance it would not be the center of that uh ped shed and that civic space.

Um transitions between districts should be occurring within the block and not at the thoroughfare, right?

So you don't say, here's my block and it's all MR6, now we cross the street, now we're in MR5.

You want to have the transitions within the blocks, so they're less abrupt.

So you're just you're you're stepping down a story within a block rather than you look at a street and you say, Wow, that's clearly the really intense part of the site versus oh well, everything's a lot smaller over there.

It makes everything much more gradual and fluid and it leads to a better built environment.

So how that plays out from a prequest.

Yeah, go ahead, Alderman Sullivan.

Thank you.

You kind of alluded to it there about the transitions within the blocks.

I am thinking, I'm kind of zooming out a little bit, and I'm I'm thinking about transitions between the lots where you have your base uh uh district and then the overlays on top of it.

But if you if you were to build something here, and then the lot next to it was something completely different.

What do you what do you see how that all flows together?

Yeah, no, that's that's a very good question, Alderman Sullivan.

Um, and that is why this redevelopment overlay concept gets deployed on blocks of significant size where you really can rationally have different districts with on a single site.

So this this still functions as a standalone site.

Um, even if you have commercial business or commercial industrial on either side of this, nothing is forever, right?

So, you know, if this site transitions and has this mixed-use character through the overlay, you know, the the abutting commercial business, the abutting commercial industrial may at some point change and opt into the overlay.

And if it does, it doesn't have to, but if it does, this pattern that we're establishing through this exercise is very easily connected into with these uh the block structure, the thoroughfare connections, but then it also provides guidance in terms of the districts that are established as part of the pattern in this exercise.

Does that okay?

Yeah, Alderman Clay.

Thank you.

Um I'm trying to visualize it, and I think I have it.

Um we heard um from a developer from the Elm Street, where they talked about having the large um larger buildings in the center, street through possible commercial property type thing, and then slowly building out in a smaller, so I I think of it like a pyramid type of thing where the center was the larger pieces, and as we went out to where the neighborhoods are abutting it, we kind of came down to their same level.

Is this kind of what you're talking about when you're talking about having like the high intensity of the M6 and and so on, where you want to kind of congregate those but break it out so within a block.

And I'm thinking of the Elm Street block, which we've seen developments on.

That's that's a very good um connection that you've made.

Um it's entirely context sensitive, I will say.

So that design it met that intention well, right?

It put the most intense building form in the center, but then made that transition through through lower height buildings and less intense density buildings.

Um if Elm Street Middle School was in a far more built-up where there was six-story buildings all around it, the conversation would change.

Um but that you've identified a very good correlation there.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um here you can see uh with MR6 being in the that the darker uh purple being clustered around the civic space uh and then transitioning mid-block to MR5 and then crossing the street as you get towards the the railroad and the airport to the would be south there.

Uh MR4 then transitions and is next to some civic space that runs along the rail corridor there.

So that just demonstrates the the mid-block transition of districts and how they are oriented based on uh the the civic spaces.

Uh so on kind of a paper tabulation form, um, you get to see that uh MR5 makes up approximately 50% of the district area.

Uh MR6 and MR4 each account for about a quarter.

This is a kind of a maximalist development scenario where they're utilizing uh the the highest intensity uh districts.

Now we I did allude a little bit to um minimum and maximum um usage of the various districts within the table.

Um you can't do all MR6, but you don't have to do all neighborhood residential.

What we're really looking for is a mix of districts, so it's just not uh you know homogenous across the site.

We want to see some variability because that creates visual interest and it's not just you know one giant block of all of the same.

Um this table then breaks down, you know, it takes out the thoroughfare area, it takes out the civic space, it leaves about 16 acres uh for um actual zoning using using these district groups.

Um to flip the coin there on a more minimalist approach to density, utilizing the available districts within the district group.

Um this is deploys uh neighborhood residential, uh urban residential, MR3, MR4, and a small portion of MR5 and a little bit of uh fabrication.

Um so about here, 65% of the site would be capped at about a three-story uh building height versus um 0% in the former in the previous example would be capped.

Uh that would be more of a four or five and six story height.

Um so this just again it demonstrates the flexibility within that district group, and it can be very uh sensitive uh to the context clues around it.

Um so just wanted to show the the minimalist and the maximalist approaches under the same district group, uh again, highlighting the flexibility there.

Um these sheets are basically uh summary sheets for all of the districts within the district group itself.

Um I don't see a lot of value in spending a lot of time on each of these, they're in your packets.

Uh, Alderman Johnson, I'm happy to send you one so you have this as well.

Um but these the information in these uh should be familiar.

We've seen these in different forms over some of these presentations.

Again, it's just the basic uh you know lot dimensions, the building placement standards, and then uh I think most interestingly is the permitted building types, which uh we'll be transitioning uh to shortly in this presentation.

Um so we've gone from land types, neighborhood types, um, district types, and in how we organize those districts.

Um so the next level down from there would be the lots.

And here we are.

So now we talk about how lots organize.

We have lot standards as we do right now in our current code, we would have it in the proposed code as well.

All lots must abut on a thoroughfare that provides frontage as well as access.

And we also have some interesting just some concerns about through lots, where you basically have dual frontage on uh parallel streets.

Uh, not exactly a good condition for uh a more suburban district, like say a neighborhood residential, but totally appropriate in a more urban context.

Um in the base zoning, we don't have the standards that say you can't have a giant lot because again, we want to allow incredible flexibility for very purpose-driven uh site development and design relative to business and industrial development.

So these lots can be of any size, and the resulting uh here is you could have two uh you know frontage lots up front, very attractive to say a national retailer, uh you know, that you have the high visibility, you have that quick access, uh, but then in the back, you have that large uh lot available for a significant building footprint, um, and then you still have incredible access to Amherst Street for uh for traffic volumes.

Mr.

Chairman?

Yeah, uh ultimate clean.

Thank you.

Um just a quick question, and I and I think I know the answer to this.

When you refer to um these large parcels with zero um zero feet for front um setback, and I saw one other one had zero for side setbacks and so on.

Are you talking about that these larger buildings, maybe industrial buildings would be built right up to the street?

Is that what you're considering?

So that's why they have no setback.

Yep.

Um, but you wouldn't want to do that necessarily for homes or so on for the smaller.

Correct.

Yeah, those are all uh building type and district sensitive.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think we have some examples where we can get into that with a bit more detail.

Um but then in the mid-rise overlay, you you need to have some granularity when it comes to lots because if we're talking about the development of individual buildings, which do have their own uh floor plate regulations, um, you have to break them up, you have to have transitions between buildings.

Um, and this also then reflects the uh the districts as well, right?

So we're we're kind of uh snapping these lot lines to those district boundaries.

Um so what you begin to see here is the outlines of a kind of a second tier uh road network, which we'll get into uh outside of the blocks.

Um, but there you begin to see the organization of the lots within the block structure.

And again, in scenario two, this is our our mid-rise overlay.

Um so when we talk about setbacks again, uh tied to lots.

You know, we have primary setbacks.

We basically have what we call a build to zone, uh, two foot minimum, uh, twelve foot maximum.

Um basically within those that ten feet, we want to have all of our buildings, right?

So it creates kind of a unified street wall uh and a good block face.

Um if you were to have you know, think about Main Street, right?

You know, a lot of the buildings are kind of all in the same plane.

If you had a gap where you had a building that was set back 20 feet, that would be very odd.

Um so we still have the the setback standards here.

Um then some further information.

Um we also contemplate um how these setbacks are handled uh when abutting uh rail right-of-way.

Um we also do have some uh waiver provisions because there are a number of instances when um a prescribed setback may be inappropriate and then we want to be able to have sufficient uh relief mechanisms uh to be contact sensitive and give the planning board that authority uh to to make modifications where due.

But we're very explicit in our um waiver criteria.

Uh it's not that someone should just come in and say, hey, I want a uh I want to reduce setback just because you know it's gonna allow me to get more development.

You know, point to the unique site conditions and some of the constraints and the real reasons that would justify uh such waivers.

Um just a slide with some further information on that.

And now we get into thoroughfare.

So we've established our block structure, we've um begun to organize our uh lots within those blocks.

Now it's time to lay down some streets.

Um so again, as I talked about, the the land types and the neighborhood types begin to uh inform what the appropriate thoroughfares would be and their associated uh design speeds.

And we pull these um thoroughfare standards from various uh authorities on road design, including NACTO, ITE, Ashto, uh BPW standards.

And this is a conversation that's ongoing with um Engineer Hudson and DPW.

We want to make sure that all of our thoroughfare standards respect and nod to their construction standards.

We don't want to have any conflicts.

So when mapped in the scenario one, so in the base context, right?

So you have uh Amherst Street out front, which is would be considered a highway in more uh technical terms and legislative and functional classifications, it might be a uh a minor arterial.

Um, but we're trying to use some more relatable terminologies, uh highway, whereas uh the Everett would be maybe an interstate.

Um and then you have uh lower order streets coming off of that to serve access to the internals of the site, so it goes you know from a highway to a street to a drive.

Again, these have different um speed uh design standards.

Again, you were designing these roads for specific speed uh that is reflected in um width of pavement.

Obviously, there has to be turning radii considerations uh given the context, but pavement width, how you treat the streetscape around it, those are all important context clues while people are driving.

Um but I think much more interestingly is how thoroughfares come into play uh with a more uh granular site uh created through the overlay.

Um so you still have you know the the drives coming off of Amherst Street, providing access to the site, but then you have these more lateral uh connections, these parallel street networks, and those are really going to serve as almost not nearly the same level or volume, but similar purpose as Amherst Street.

So that second one down in that lighter blue, that's actually a street where the one above it is a drive where the street is of higher order, so that would be slightly wider, uh, different uh streetscape treatments, um, more of a uh traffic volume moving thoroughfare than a drive, which is more about access, slower speeds, greater access.

Um, and then those brown lines, those are alleys.

Um now alleys can be single-way, one way, they can be two-way, um, but those are really meant to be very low speed, high level of access, low level of throughput.

Uh, and that's those are really the two things we're trying to balance is access and throughput.

All of them clear.

Uh thank you.

I'm sorry to belabor this, but um a couple of questions here.

We are talking about developing it and the and the streets and speeds and so on.

Um I know the state has a um a non-saged street is 30 miles an hour.

That's we so when we would be developing things like this.

I know we call it a street and alley and assume that there's a certain speed goes with it.

Would there be a mandatory um posting of that?

Are are you talking about these as being city streets?

Are you talking about these being streets within private streets?

I guess is what I'm I think for the purpose of discussion, let's assume that they're public streets.

So the city um uh owns and maintains them and can sign them accordingly.

So, yes, there would be standard street signage, street signs, speed limit signs, all the appropriate fixings that go along with street design.

So when we're developing this and we're building this, the assumption is going to be that um on, and I'm looking at some of these things where we would not necessarily want them to be an unposted street at a 30 mile per hour, be as you talked about these smaller streets, that would mandate that the city would have to post um a um speed limit.

Sorry, I lost my words there for a second.

Um so that would require kind of like a mandating of this city is that what you're thinking about.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

So um if if we are say, say the the drives, they have a design speed of of 25 miles an hour.

It would be a posted accordingly.

And again, the idea is to pair the uh design speed with the design of the road so that you don't have a huge disconnect between what's posted and what people actually feel comfortable driving at.

Right.

And then one other quick question.

When you were talking about, and this kind of goes back to before you were talking about the, and I think you mentioned it here, the um parallel streets.

We've had discussions about this, especially on Amherst Street where we're trying to get the traffic off, and I know it's private property, so we can't necessarily do it, but creating a street that would go in front of these properties where people could go in and go to multiple businesses and then come back out and be able to do that where they don't have to stay on Amherst Street.

Is that what you're talking about when you're talking about the lateral parallel kind of streets?

Yes, in a way.

Um I can picture the the image from the master plan, which you're referencing where there was this carriage way that was very much adjacent to Amherst Street.

Um we have explored that in some depth.

I've had conversations with uh developers who are very tuned into the demands of national level retailers and the issues that such an alignment could cause.

The proximity of a building to a high traffic corridor like Amherst Street is incredibly important, right?

You know, you talk about signage and advertising.

That that proximity is really key.

On top of that, you know, the visibility of parking is also important.

Having a carriageway, it pushes the building farther back, it pushes the parking further back.

Through this exercise and others, we've uncovered that the carriageway would actually be better served as because what is it doing?

It's providing that access, providing an option where you don't have to you know meet multiple destinations on that same side of the street.

It better functions as an actual parallel street and not so much as a as a carriageway.

The the intent of that design in the master plan, I believe is still met with this alternative.

You know, we just have sharpened our pencils a bit more and you know had more informed conversations with some of the needs and the desires of the people and the operators of those businesses and what they would really like to see in the built environment while still being able to you know achieve that vision, uh just I think in a in a higher functional uh design, if you will.

May I?

Um so for me, what I visualize is, and I'll and I'll use this property you're talking about, where the colleges next to it and what used to be Portucci's in my Hello Sco or something is the next one and so on, and there are other businesses, them having connectivity from one of their properties to the next property to the next property, so that if I were to go to one, I could then kind of cut through the other properties to maybe to get out at a better place, not having to be in lieu of carriageways.

Is that what you're talking about here?

So it's a connectivity of one person, one private property to another to another in that way.

Okay, thank you.

All right, so now that we've um laid out our block structure, our lots, our districts, our roads, this all gets tied together in what we call uh the regulating plan.

So this is the key part of the master plan.

Um this really sets the table, the structure uh for how uh buildings are developed on site.

Um it creates this image as the discussion.

Um so as you can see, you know, we're we aren't at the at the building level yet.

We're not at the um you know, the topographic grading.

We are we are really just kind of setting the stage for the development with the regulating plan.

So this is something that as part of the application for site plan review that the the planning board would adopt.

Now, this sets zoning for a parcel, right?

Um so in the official zoning map, there's an overlay through the regulating plan.

This sets the zoning for this parcel.

It doesn't necessarily mean that there's a zoning change at the at the um zoning map level, but this is this is the zoning for this parcel uh, you know, in perpetuity until you know it's changed through you know the process, right?

Um so this doesn't mean that okay, well, you have to have a uh you know a drive-thru on that front lot and needs to be oriented this way, that way.

No, that's that's the finer levels of of site plan.

This just sets up the again the stage for further development, you know, at a site-by-site, parcel by parcel uh process.

Uh so that that is the regulating plan.

That is the product of that kind of exercise, and now we can get more granular into building types unless there are any questions on this piece.

Just check in with Oliver and Sullivan.

You good, Alderman Sullivan?

I am good.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right, so moving right into um the building types.

Some of this may uh be a little bit familiar.

We've talked about many of these before.

Um this just kind of lists uh what buildings are permitted.

We'll actually see those in a um building sheet uh format, which I think is uh far more uh digestible.

Um we've also talked about you know how how buildings can be added on to.

So um the building types, the function of those sheets really creates and sets the main massing of buildings, but we have uh you know attachments, side wings, rear wings, things that can really add to the mass of buildings, uh, but doing so in a way that's uh complementary to the form of the main massing.

Um we do also regulate components and architectural details as well.

Um and we've done we've done sessions on that, um, but I'm happy to answer specific questions should uh we get to that.

But this is all to set the uh stage for exploring our building types in uh in both scenarios.

So in the uh in the base district, again, this is commercial industrial, you'd be allowed uh a block building.

Um you can have multiple uh heights on this, anywhere from one to uh five stories.

Um we do also have density factor associated with these buildings, however, residential is not a permitted use in the commercial industrial, uh, but that doesn't mean that this sort of a building can't be used in another context.

So that's why it's important for us to have density factors attached to all of our buildings, even if they are not used for uh residential in that such thing.

Should I break in here for a second?

Yeah, go ahead and all of them.

Thank you very much.

Uh I spend a lot of my day job in uh in a lot of these industrial parks, and does the city have any say over what these block buildings may or may not look like because in much of the continental United States, they just don't look great.

And um I'm wondering if uh we might be able to have the opportunity to to have an effect on that.

Thank you very much for your question, Alderman Sullivan.

This has been uh a very interesting point of discussion, uh a recurring point of discussion with um members of the commercial business, commercial industrial uh real estate realm.

Um, you know, I think it's kind of uh self-evident that they would be advocating for for no standards or reduced standards, you know, don't tell me how to build my building.

Uh but you're absolutely right, you know, they sometimes these buildings don't look great.

But think about the context, right?

So if if you're in a purely industrial park, if there's shipping terminals, there's overhead doors, there is no real destination there except for the people who are working there.

You know, perhaps in that context, the form standards aren't nearly as important, but that's not to say that you know the people who are working there should you know experience a poorly designed building.

I think there's a question of you know, what is the value of imposing some standards compared to the cost that that then imposes on you know that building and the operator?

Uh so it's it's an interesting uh needle to thread, and I'm I'm still we have not settled on on exactly how heavy-handed we should be with form standards in the commercial industrial context, specifically the commercial industrial context.

Um, you know, in commercial business, that's you know, strip development.

There's a lot of interaction with the public, it attracts people, you know, there to do business.

Um there's a much more uh a closer relationship between form and function in the commercial business and then all of the you know the mixed-use districts.

Uh commercial industrial that is a much more function-driven district, uh, more so than form.

Uh but I I hear I hear your question, Alan Sullivan.

In you know, I think that form standards still do have a place, but I guess the question is how much of a place do they have?

Yeah, I appreciate it.

I I certainly don't want to uh pardon the fun, box in a developer to uh you know to to get in the way of economic development.

But uh it's just a uh it's just a curious question I have as as uh I see different areas around the country.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I I I agree with my colleague who just answered, and I also agree with you Mr.

Durfee.

I agree we don't want to be so strict in our forcing a certain type of development that we would um push potential business out, as was mentioned about that.

But my concern would be to some extent where this um commercial industrial um somewhat about like a mixed overlay a lot.

Well, we've had at the planning board off of Amherst Street in specific where we talked about that that's a large property.

If they suddenly started building these type of things, there are homes that are on that street, that side street and so on.

So while I don't want to be prescriptive in in a true commercial, a true CI type of thing, I have concerns when they're close to these over mixed use overlay kind of type of things.

That that does concern me that we don't have some type of a standard.

Um would you be considering of doing that?

Maybe in in a true CI.

But again, then I'm and then I'm gonna kind of backtrack to some of what I've just said, is because sometimes we build this and then another property gets built, we then change it to an overlay, and we have these kind of mixed type of things.

So it's a very good question.

Um we've been very intentional with how we've designed the zoning map so that we avoid direct abutting uh commercial industrial to anything other than commercial business.

So we are actually buffering the residential and the mixed-use districts from commercial industrial with that transitional commercial business.

Um we've been very intentional with that, and in most instances that follows the natural development pattern.

Uh but then the question is in this context, say we do um you know a pretty significant uh redevelopment overlay, there's mixed use as apartment buildings, uh, but then right next door it's it's CI and the base, and they've opted to go in a fairly industrial direction.

There are buffer standards.

Um, you know, but then who comes first, who's subject to those buffer standards, um, there are ways that that all works out, but the idea is that we can strive to have both in harmony, um, but when you are um building under a fairly uh intense um mixed use environment through these overlays, there is a level of um I don't want to say disturbance or or nuisance.

It's not like you're living out on a country lane in this context, and then you're really truly disturbed by an industrial, you know, you're in a fairly built up area, there's an acceptable level of uh action that's occurring around you.

Um, but those buffer zones and the landscaping requirements and everything that goes along with that helps to mitigate that is as much as possible.

Just a follow-up follow-up.

Um discussing the scenario that I know you know which one I'm talking about.

So in that case, uh I don't know which one came first, but let's say the the in the um that business type of thing was there first, and then they built homes later.

Um my concern is if we don't have a good buffer standard, even though these homes were built later, they kind of came after the fact.

If then this property gets sold and they have the ability to build up without any kind of standard or buffer, these properties that may have been there second to the zoning of that property are now having to face the maximum pushing it to the edge.

And that's my concern is because when these people buy that, they may know, oh yeah, there's a business there, but they look at it as is, not what could be.

Does that make sense?

It does, and and we do have context uh sensitive um buffer requirements that scale with the level of disparity and intensity between abutting districts.

Okay.

Um I can get into that further unless that generally answers your question.

I I guess my just my concern, and when we're going forward in the thinking is that if people have the ability to build a residential close to this, even though it came second, um, I I just don't want those homes to devalue or they become a um a dissatisfaction with where they're living because suddenly these this other group could could build up and so on.

So again, they came second, you know, this building had been here forever and so on, but now that building is being changed as what happened in that particular scenario that we both know about.

And kind of going back to my original point on this line of questioning is we are trying to establish a situation where base districts are not inherently uh on opposite ends of the intensity spectrum right next to each other.

We're we're trying to establish some level of transition between these.

And while there certainly are instances of where that has right now that it exists where there's very clear, you know, single-family home, you know, warehouse across the street, right?

That that exists right now.

We can't fix that with this, but as they redevelop, we've created the regulatory structure where um those transitions smooth out.

Okay, thank thank you.

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you very much.

Um could you establish like a uniform kind of design with the commercial industrial that the buildings look the same but not the same, so they're in the same pattern, so then this way it's kind of more uniform.

And then if you want to look a mixed-use districts, you go down to Florida because everything down there is mixed use.

And you can go from commercial, industrial to retail and to homes, and they kind of just kind of flow into each other because they all had more of that Spanish design to it.

So if you did something like that, you would almost design like if it's a neighborhood type of with the mixed use, you'd almost have like the same theme.

And that's what they kind of have down there.

So even if you have an established um home district and you put commercial industrial, you're not gonna want them to look like steel buildings.

You're gonna want them to look more like in character with the neighborhood, like you do anytime when you add homes into a neighborhood, you want to bring the character in there.

So I think that's a good way maybe of looking at it, bringing the character into the neighborhood and making it more uniform in the area.

Like I said, if you want to see mixed-use districts, you go down to Florida because that's all it is down there.

They combined everything together, and you know, people you'll you live with it, and it's you know, people don't care really, because I guess that's where you're used to, and you just kind of go with the flow.

Thank you.

Thank you for that question.

Um I swear I didn't ask her to ask me that question because it is such a fantastic way of illustrating form-based code, right?

Yeah, it's not so much about the uses in the building, it's more about how the buildings appear and how they relate to one another.

And yes, so we have form standards for all of our building typologies, and those again are informed by existing patterns on the ground, they're informed by the built environment.

So what is being proposed is drawn from the existing character through then that that is a common thread throughout the entirety of this code.

Um obviously those form standards expand or contract based on the context, and you know, in the context of the CI, they're contracted a bit simply because you know the sensitivities in a mixed-use environment where those those form standards really do matter.

Um, where you have a very specialized function-oriented district, you can relax those form standards to a degree.

But as both you and Alderman Sullivan say, uh, it sounds like it's still desirable to have some level of form standard in that CI context.

Um, but that's just what we're trying to still find that that line.

And and we do have some, you know, from a function standpoint.

We recognize the need to have extremely to allow extremely large floor plate buildings, but you can break up the facade, even if it's a 600 foot long building, you could still have multiple facade treatments that make it almost seem like the building is its own block and you have multiple buildings.

There are ways to break that up to the extent that that's desirable in that context.

That's that question, right?

I will uh I will move on.

Um so general building, also another one uh uh building type that's permitted in this district.

Um this is again the base district fabrication building, these are all cut sheets uh from the code.

Uh small general building.

These buildings really do inherently uh offer more uh commercial opportunities.

Um more of an industrial nature, like a fabrication building.

Um you can tell by the little graphic uh below the massing diagram uh and the kind of the character of that building and and the standards associated with that.

Um the shop, I'll just note this one.

Um, kind of that that middle building and in the the massing standard you can just see kind of a box.

Uh perfect example here would be uh you know, national chain retailer or uh a drive-thru, you know, very basic, you know, 5600 square foot floor plate, um, small, but with with some uh design standards associated with it.

If it wants to do a roof, we have standards of of how to do whatever roof uh they'd like to employ.

So getting into the overlay uh building types still allows for all of the ones that we just saw, but we get to unlock higher intensity uh building types, one of which uh would be the lab building, which is the arguably one of the most intense uh buildings in the code that we're coding for.

Um, whether or not it gets used, uh, this is this is a fairly highly specialized uh building with you know glazing requirements and you know mechanical requirements associated with it and how those are screened and treated to be context sensual.

Um we may not see this deployed, but we want to have the standards for it, should it ever come to Nashua.

Uh apartment building, a very clear example of a building that would likely be deployed in the overlay.

Um we have standards around these.

These are where you start to see more you you expand those form standards.

Again, you have people, you have residence.

This is where form standards matter a lot more.

Good building design for buildings in which people live and frequent.

Um also included in here is uh you know, we have a small apartment building, there's ways to do that well.

Again, these buildings correspond to the different intensities of the districts.

We don't want to see all apartment buildings, we want to see a mix of things.

Um shop house, we do like to see some mixed use.

This is an opportunity to deploy mixed use, uh, but in a uh very you know uh familiar form, um, where you do have that commercial on the first floor and and residential on the top, and the and the form standards would reflect that uh those visual cues that you would expect when walking through uh district with these buildings.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yeah, uh, thank you.

When when talking about shop houses here, are we talking and talking about the overlay districts?

Would something like this be in a residential area?

I mean, like when I go through Ward 3 and so on, we have Janats, we have Kirklands and and so on like that.

So those are little shops and so on.

But are you saying that these would be and I remember seeing in one of your other discussions where we talked about um there might be like um a hair salon and uh a little store and and then maybe even like a townhouse kind of next to it or some apartments on.

Is that what you're talking about when you're talking about these shop houses where within themselves they they have multiple uses?

Yes, yes, they do.

Um yeah, so this this could be um adjacent to other building types like the townhouse.

Um this is um, I guess in the context of a mid-rise neighborhood, this is on the the lower end of building intensity, you know, maximum of three stories permitted.

Um you would have ground floor commercial.

Um if you didn't, this would just be a small apartment house.

Um but the idea is to provide standards around how you create a mixed use building in a context sensitive manner.

Okay, thank you.

Uh townhouses would also be included as an option.

Uh live work flux, very similar to the shop house, but connected like a townhouse.

Um, so density factor.

Now we've we've gone through um block structure, uh lot structure, thoroughfares.

We're starting to place buildings on the lot.

Um this is where we start talking about how many units can we get.

Um density factor, if if you don't remember, it's it's uh calculated by you take the gross floor area of a building and then you divide it by the density factor.

In most instances, the density factor is uh 1,125 square feet.

That does fluctuate based on the building type.

Um, but then there is also a a lower, a significantly lower uh density factor of 850 square feet, which can be achieved through either sustainable development, there's a whole bunch of standards associated with that, or providing uh uh I Z affordable units.

And and I'm gonna go through a little scenario of how this all plays out with a different um with a building.

Um so again, kind of just reiterate uh what I just said, but in text.

Um and again, I just want to highlight the fact that the um the difference between the the base and the overlay, um the base does not permit residential, the overlay does.

Um but by opting into the overlay, you know, what do you get from opting into the overlay?

You get more intense building typologies, you get the opportunity to kind of create your own zoning map, a lot more flexible regulations, but in return, you are subject to inclusionary zoning.

In the state of New Hampshire, we cannot mandate uh inclusionary zoning, so we have to incentivize it.

So instead of just a straight uh density factor uh bonus, the density bonus, that's a typical tool.

Um, we're also including the ability to craft uh zoning to access different uh building types.

So we try and sweeten that uh incentive a bit more than just a straight density bonus, which which we do have as well.

Um you just said that the state of New Hampshire does not allow inclusionary zoning anywhere or just within this type of we can't mandate it.

The the enabling legislation basically says that we have to incentivize it.

We cannot say um just flat out, oh, you're building you know a 20-unit apartment, two of those have to be uh affordable.

We do not have that authority from the state.

So when we put inclusionary zoning in and said that if you have a hundred units, ten percent of them have to be, that is no longer applicable.

We have to give them something worthwhile to do that.

We have the density bonus.

Okay.

Yep.

Okay.

Yep.

So if if they provide those affordable units, they get a bonus.

Okay.

Yep.

Um, so um now we're getting into the inclusionary zoning.

Um, what we're gonna do is a little exercise following this where we calculate density factor, and then we we show how many units that is, and then we also uh throw in inclusionary zoning.

Uh but a number of things here I think are worth uh talking about.

Um so again, I Z would be required in the redevelopment overlay, a couple of key thresholds here.

Um so from 10 to 49 units, uh 10% would be required.

Um from 50 to 99 units, 15% would be required.

Over a hundred units uh 20% would be required.

That's the same thresholds for both uh rental and and ownership housing.

Um then we talk about AMI tiers, right?

So that that percent, that 10%, 20%, and uh 15%, that is your percent set aside.

That is that is what has to be designated uh affordable.

But at what affordability level?

Um so we're introducing tiers, um, which we currently have in our system uh right now, um, but you know, we're looking we're contemplating uh our first tier, which is 80% AMI, and then a secondary uh tier, which could either be 60% AMI or 100% AMI.

Um there are important contexts relative to which overlay you're in, uh, relative to uh census tracks and demographics associated with those areas and which is appropriate.

Um but then when we look at um these overall developments, we're we're looking at um average AMI across the development.

Uh so in the instance of uh you know over 50 units, you would need to deploy uh two AMI tiers that average out to um no more than 100% AMI.

Uh 50 units to 100 units, two tiers, but it can't average out more than 80% AMI.

Over a hundred units, you would have to deploy all three tiers with a maximum average of 75% AMI.

So as you get more units, um your uh target AMI average drops a little bit, and we are including these tiers, so we're attempting to uh incentivize affordability at different price points.

So you'd have market, you'd have 100% AMI, 80% AMI, and 60% AMI.

Um we're not telling you how many units you have to have at each of those tiers, as long as the average is under 75% AMI.

Uh and then we can also we will talk about um uh buyouts associated with that.

Um other relevantly as a question.

Oh, I think actually you're gonna get to it.

That was the the question I was gonna ask about was the buyouts where we do buyouts now.

So I just heard you say so.

I'm gonna yield to that.

Thank you.

We we will get to that.

That's gonna be a fun one.

Um other item here is uh restrictive covenants, right?

So right now with uh rental units, and actually uh ownership as well, there'd be a covenant for uh 99 years, which is quite a bit of time, um makes sense for a apartment building because there will always be a landlord and you know that that will travel with whoever that that individual collecting rent and those AMI, what you're paying for rent will move with what the A how the AMI adjusts over the years.

Um but for ownership housing, um say you meet the income requirements and you qualify for an 80% AMI uh and you're deed restricted for 99 years.

Well, you can only sell the house at 80% AMI.

You don't get to ride the tide of the the real estate market.

That's where we are right now in our code, and and if there is if this board, um this committee in the board by extension finds that you know uh inclusionary zoning in the ownership form is something desirable, I think we should explore a shorter term, right?

So it is the developer who initially gets the bonus of additional units by deploying IZ.

But then by um in in the ownership context, by then attaching a 99-year covenant to that buyer, they are damaged is not the right word, but they s they their maximum return is is very much suffered from they they they cannot uh achieve uh a higher return because of that.

And in fact, you know, we've we've done some research into what this could entail.

Um it disincentivizes uh investment in property because if they know they can never sell more, like why are we gonna put in that nice countertop?

Why are we gonna redo the bathroom?

Um so if we were to say, hey, why don't we reduce that to 10 years?

That 10-year horizon um is long enough to mitigate against speculation and you know flipping of property.

Um but then you know, 10 years is significant time to invest in your property, but then at the end of 10 years, you know, great, you're in a home, you then now have the opportunity to sell it at market rate and you know potentially get a windfall, something to consider.

Hold on, please.

Um okay, so then I understand what you're saying, and I agree with it.

I don't want to do that, but um when there's um HUD homes, they have these limitations that are part are you know are part of this restricted covenants, and so I mean that they can't sell it greater than a certain percentage actually over what they purchased is for within that AMI.

Um so when we have this now, are we working much like what a HUD property would do where they're limited to what they can sell it for?

Uh yes, yeah.

If if you're under a 99-year, and and to be frank, there is only one project in the city that is developing affordable for sale units, and we are working through the affordability covenants right now, you know, even this week.

Um but yes.

Um I think maybe maybe for like an individual home that's one home on that street, I would agree with you can keep it to 10 years, but if you're looking at a a larger plot, I think what it does is incentivizes um someone who could come in as it kind of becomes their starter home.

So I think that's what HUD's thinking is they keep it, it doesn't mean that they in the HUD you have to meet an income requirement and so on.

But what something like this would do is it would incentivize um well, I do understand what you're saying that the builder got the bonus and so on, but that um requirement on that property would incentivize maybe someone who's younger, less income and so on to be able to come in to buy that.

So while I do agree with you with the 10 years maybe for an individual home on a street they may have gotten that but they this we wouldn't have done that because it wouldn't have met this density but in a larger community I still I think I'd like to keep it a little bit longer thinking that the first person that bought it is still getting a lower price on it.

If they suddenly get to reap the benefit of a market rate that goes up we're now which is kind of the problem that we're in right now houses are going up and it's basically what the market can bear.

We're not creating any this would continue to have an affordable housing so I I mean I'm just throwing that out as a as a comment.

Yeah there's two things I'd like to respond to sure thank you.

I'll start with I I liked your use of the term starter home right so the idea when you buy a starter home it's something affordable you'll eventually grow out of it and you need you need something bigger the concern with a long term restriction you know a big part of the starter home is like yes I'm in the housing market I have I have a major asset that is going to you know gain value I'm going to gain equity your equity is severely capped with this restriction.

So that starter home may be a forever home because they cannot build enough equity to then buy the home that they really need you know to meet their family size.

The other part of your comment um you know the the potential loss of an affordable unit right threat so allowing this 10 year transition into a market rate unit.

Right now our I would not call our ownership IZ ordinance incredibly successful.

We've had one project despite multiple projects that actually do produce affordable style or sorry uh ownership condo or you know some other style of development like that.

I think that is a product of our ordinance not being particularly well calibrated to the market our uh incentives not being sweet enough and I just think it's a matter of the ordinance not being utilized.

So to counter the uh concern about affordable housing disappearing and not being uh recreated uh yes that original unit may be then sold at market rate but the idea is that our ordinance is so in tune with the market that the incentive is there for developers to actually continue to create affordable housing by exercising uh the redevelopment overlays and building under that and getting those density bonuses so that there is a uh a pipeline of affordable housing that continues to be built um so yes while some may fall off more is being added to the system because our ordinance is just it's higher functioning ultimately um I I don't disagree with that because you're the expert I'm not but my concern is do we actually have um the that pipeline meaning that are there more developments in the pipeline that would because I know we have limited space and so on um and so on I mean when I think of Nashville I don't think of us having a lot of huge space I know Elm Street the Building 19 and and so on and so on.

So I look at that my fear is that if we age out the um or time out this affordable housing is there enough in the pipeline to keep replenishing that is my concern.

So while I your first comment that you made I really I appreciate that because you're right I don't want a starter home to become a forever home but could we even incentivize that that not necessarily that they have to stay within a particular AMI but that there still has to be a they can't sell it for full market value.

Can we work something out to to that to me 10 years is um truthfully when I came to Nashville my my husband and I we bought in Cannongate and we're gonna stay here five years and go back to Massachusetts well the market fell out and we ended up staying here and we absolutely loved it.

So we that's when we went from trying to buy a condo to so on you know and we and we moved on that way my concern is that we're just going to um I don't want to create a starter home into a um forever home but I also don't want that there isn't enough in the pipeline to be able to to do that and and so on.

Did that make sense?

I'm a little cold here so my brain is no no no problem.

And I think that the redevelopment overlay is an incredible tool to do that.

Um, where it leverages building types, it leverages market forces and and we have very flexible zoning to create more land.

You know, think about the turnover of big box retail, right?

It's dying out.

You have these large parcels that then are prime for redevelopment.

The depreciation schedule of the building has run its full course, the develop the owner is ready for a change and recognizes the the housing market demand.

Um that fluctuates all the time, but you know, we're positioning from a regulatory perspective significant opportunity.

So we would create pipeline through regulatory incentives, and I'm very pleased to have a number of developers in the audience this evening listening to this code.

I know, I'm waiting to talk to them.

Yes.

And to your other comment about um what I heard was tear jump, right?

So after 10 years, maybe you bought in at 80% AMI, well, you could sell at 100% AMI.

Sure, I think that that could be uh a compromise.

I think we just need to kind of play those numbers out.

But I we we have discussed that as an option.

So maybe after 10 years you do one jump after 20 years or 15 years, whatever it was that you feel would be working with developers and so on.

Um I I want to incentivize developers, but I don't want to hurt the people who buy it, but at the same time, I don't want to shoot us in the foot and no longer kind of be in the situation we're now where we don't have enough affordable housing.

So that's just my comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So now we're gonna go through a little bit of an example, and I I apologize for small text.

Uh please do feel free to follow along in your packets.

Um so the idea here, um, I'm starting about part way down, but basically setting the stage, uh, the general building is the building that we're operating under.

Um we're going to assume uh the the maximum size of the building, so general buildings have a maximum floor plate of uh 30,000 square feet.

That means 30,000 square feet per floor.

Let's assume in our uh hypothetical scenario that this is a five-story general building, so you're working with uh 150,000 square feet.

Uh base density factor would be uh 1,125 square feet.

Um so that equates to 133 units across a 150,000 square foot uh general building.

If you're providing IZ units, which the requirement there uh would be 20% of 133, uh that's 27 units at 75% AMI, uh that density factor drops down to 850 square feet, which results in 176 units.

So by providing 27 affordable units at uh 75% AMI, um the developer receives the ability to create 43 additional units.

So this calculation, um, the larger the building, so after you you exceed 100 units, um the the percent set aside does not keep going up.

You've reached 20 percent.

That 20% applies at 100, that 20% applies at 300.

Obviously, that calculation gets a lot better for the developer if it's a 300 unit building.

Um because again, that percentage doesn't scale.

Uh so that's just a interesting nuance to note.

Um so that is I'm attempting there just to describe how the relationship between uh density factor, uh the uh building dimensional standards, so maximum floor plate uh tied together, and then how uh inclusionary zoning can modify that density factor um so it really creates more opportunity within that same building massing just a quick question.

And this would apply whether it's rental and and correct rental or property owner.

So if I were to apply this to the new properties that are being built on um the veterans parkway, something like that.

So obviously they're bigger than that.

They did a buyout on one grouping of properties and they did I Z in another grouping of properties.

Yes.

They have large amounts of properties.

Can can you talk to the the buyout?

I guess that's where I'm confused.

If this is not a requirement, how do we're jumping ahead?

I'm sorry.

I I just saw it on the bottom of the page there.

No, we will get there.

I'll wait till you get to it.

No, and I will also just say that um so opting into the overlay uh mandates I Z.

Um if a developer wants to get that 80 uh 850 density factor, they can still, even outside of an overlay, utilize uh the same calculation.

Say they're building uh townhouses or a small 12 unit apartment building or a couple of them, they could still take this same approach.

Um even LITEC projects would still apply under this.

Um so uh low-income housing tax credit projects almost all of the units are affordable, so they inherently get that 850 uh density bonus.

Um so on to the next one.

This is just kind of uh reiterate this a little bit differently, and in how this can be achieved.

Um so the developer builds the housing on site, that is option one.

We're also contemplating a off-site development uh potential.

Um there may be reasons why building on site is not ideal.

Uh that could be a product of land values.

Um, you know, of course, at the end of the day, this is an economic math problem.

Um so but to have that as an option, we don't know the appetite for it, but I think just providing flexibility and options is a good thing, and this has been um utilized successfully in other jurisdictions.

Um but then question about that.

Um the off state development, there's some rules around that, right?

Yeah, it has to be so within a certain amount of space from the original and is that correct?

Yes.

Yes, yeah, it can't be on the other side of the city.

Um that's the or another city.

Or in another city.

Yeah, that would that would be really interesting.

Cross-jurisdictional IZ obligations, that sounds uh legally dubious.

Um then so the third option there, uh if that was the extent of your question, um, the developer pays a buyout fee.

Um so inclusion rezoning is a very uh fraught issue.

Uh there's a lot of math that goes along with it, uh, a lot of market analysis that goes along with it to ensure that we get these numbers accurate.

Um so our primary consultant on this project has been the principal group, but we did subcontracts uh with RKG associates.

They did our 2020 housing study.

Uh so Kyle Talente has been very involved with this, specific to uh this uh element of the code, the IZ, uh, and then also incorporating density factor, which is um kind of a it's not a new idea, but it's um slightly novel compared to your your standard density uh units per acre calculation.

Um so he uh he has a nice little quote here um because it really needs to set a price point in this buyout, and we're getting into the buyout now, um, where it's an incentive and it's not creating an infeasibility that you know effectively neutralizes the program.

So that's why dialing in these numbers is so important because if they're if they're too low, everyone's gonna buy out, we're not gonna get affordable housing, and we're gonna get money into the um revolving loan fund, but it's not going to be enough money to build the housing that we otherwise would have gotten through a well-calibrated IZ.

So but we also don't want to kill development, so it's it's a very important needle to thread.

Um so we there are two approaches here uh to how how we set this fee.

Um we explored two ways.

Um the construction cost basis, um, what does it cost to build a unit?

Um, you know, that is hard and soft costs of land.

Um we would update that annually uh using the engineering news record building cost index, uh it's just industry standard index.

Um but then we also looked at the value gap analysis.

Um what is the rental income from providing a 80% AMI versus the uh rental income from a market rate uh and then what is that gap?

Um, and that gap is the subsidy, right?

That the developer would then pay.

And you know, you can apply a multiplier to that to get uh a little more meat on the bone, you can get that um a little bit closer.

But the next slide provides a table with some true numbers.

So we looked at this, um, and it's important to note that obviously construction cost and and rental income changes with uh unit typology, right?

So studios are inherently cheaper than three bedrooms.

Um so when you look at the value gap analysis, um these numbers are quite a bit lower than what cost of construction is.

Um you know, we provided two uh visuals with cost of construction at 50% of what it costs to build a unit and then fifty and a hundred and ten percent.

Um some of the inputs that we considered in this, um, as I mentioned, the hard and soft costs.

We're also assuming a 15% developer fee.

So it really does try and capture as much of the equation as we possibly can.

Um but as you can see, the construction cost basis fees are uh at 110%, are two to three times higher than that of the uh value gap.

Um through some further analysis and conversations, uh we don't believe that any developer would actually utilize a buyout at that level.

Um we recognize that there are developers who who just simply do not want to do affordable housing.

Uh maybe it's from a management standpoint, they're just not set up to handle vouchers or or whatever it may be.

Um, but we're also staggering the buyouts where um we uh we're allowing for payment uh in lieu of the buyout of like partial units, so say your calculation runs out and it's okay, we have to provide you know 23 and 0.7 units, right?

No, you buy out of that 0.7.

Um, but we also want to allow, you know, maybe there's a a an ability to provide some affordable housing, maybe that makes their numbers work, but they can't provide all 23 units, right?

So um at you know, half 50% of that, you know, the buyout multiplier might be 1.5, um, but at you know a hundred percent, it might be two or slightly more, so that there is a little bit of a premium if you're going to be buying out of the entire uh uh obligation, but to be using the cost of construction um methodology, the resulting buyout and then the cost that would be paid, we believe would be simply too high, and we would not see that.

Um so there's a couple of ways to visualize the impacts of that.

Um the reasons why we are leaning more towards uh the value gap approach is that the fees actually would reflect the national market.

So the inputs again are our rental income that requires some market research and is reflective of exactly what you know rents are across the Nashville market, uh, between the market rate and the affordable uh units.

And the hope is that using the value gap approach, uh developers would actually use the buyout.

But again, we don't want to make it so enticing that all they do is use the buyout.

We want to mix, right?

You know, there are instances where we do want to receive funds into the the housing fund so that we can deploy them to assist other projects, but we would like to see them utilized in a more um you know natural occurring, you know, internally subsidizing development of uh affordable units rather than the lie tech projects where you just get in a big affordable building.

We would love to see the integration of affordability through this program.

So again, dialing in those numbers.

Um we would basically update this fee schedule.

Um we look at it yearly.

If there's a big swing in interest rates, which is one of the inputs, you know, anything like that big change in in building materials, you know, something like that may necessitate a change uh to this.

Um big change in in rental market numbers.

Um those are things that we would monitor monitor annually and then update as as needed.

Um so it would be a moving target.

Um I think the idea there is that um the planning board would be the one with the authority to do this.

This is not a an ordinance amendment.

This is kind of just a regularly occurring updated uh fee schedule, we'd always report out to the aldermen in doing this, but at least that way it allows for some um not flexibility, but so it's the ability to react quickly uh to changing market conditions.

Um may I ask a question?

Okay.

Um with the current structure we have now, I I feel like I keep hearing more in lieu of payments for or buy out or whatever you want to reference it to.

Um is that and my feeling was the more I see this, the the less I feel our current program is working.

Is is that true or is it just something I've just seen here and there?

Um so for context, and I'll brought this slide back up because it shows what the buyout numbers are.

Um across the board right now, if you want to buy out of a uh rental unit, it is $37,500.

And as you can see in the value gap, um that's not even it's it's fairly close to studio um, but it we are underpricing that right now.

Okay.

Um and then for ownership we call it uh it's it's a hundred thousand dollars to buy out.

Um our value gap analysis uh here, it does change based on uh rental and ownership.

The cost of construction does not, because whether the unit is being rented or owned, it still is if it's the same unit, the ownership or the or the rental aspect of it doesn't change what it costs to build it.

Um so by adapting the value gap approach to the uh ownership and then the the income um structure, uh it's more reflective of the costs associated that that delta between market rate and um you know like what that subsidy is the market rate to um affordable.

Okay, um so based on what you just said the 37.5 for for rental and 100k for ownership and so on, um we would actually based on this scenario that you've given here, this example you're giving here, we'd actually be increasing the buyout, making it less appetizing for someone to do it, but not throwing throwing the baby with the bath water out.

It they still have the opportunity, still can make money off of it if they do the buyout versus doing this.

Correct.

And we're trying to adjust the uh density bonus uh accordingly as well.

You know, right?

It's it's there are two levers we can pull.

It's the cost of the buyout, but then it's also the reward on the other side, and we are very closely monitoring market.

We're trying to get this model very tight so that when the developer comes to this point in the process where it's like, okay, I have to provide affordable housing.

Let me run the numbers on building it, providing it, and managing it versus the buyout.

It's our goal that those numbers are very, very close.

So that it's really personal preference, management structure preference, um, and that way we get both.

That's the idea.

We don't want one path to be chosen all the time, every single time.

Okay.

Which is I and I know I don't necessarily have the expertise on it, which is what I feel like is happening now is we're getting more buyouts than we're getting inclusionary zoning uh properties and so on.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Um to put a finer point on that, we've had um outside of master development agreements, so Mohawk aside, right?

Um, we have had one ownership project and one rental project.

Uh all the others, all the other affordable housing is coming in through some form of uh low-income housing tax credit subsidy.

Okay, thanks.

So I think that is indicative of our IZ ordinance not functioning.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Sir we were on the uh some reasons for why we're not pursuing uh construction costs, and I think these are just important things to reflect on.

Um it's not recommended because um it reflects the cost of building the unit, not what it costs to make one affordable.

Um and we believe that that fee can uh overprice certain unit types and it underprices others.

So we're tying these fees um to um AMIs associated with a given household size.

So that means we need to assign uh a household size to each unit type, right?

So like a studio is like one, we try and average and we say that a uh a one bedroom is one point five, because it may be one person, it may be two people living together, and so on and so forth.

Um but with with that scaling and and with the very kind of um straightforward approach with cost of construction, the model breaks down a little bit.

Uh and and we find that that it it does, it would result in certain, it would it would break the um unit, the bedroom count mix in development patterns, and so we would not see I think with the one that really breaks down as two bedrooms, like we just wouldn't see two bedrooms built, um, which is unfortunate.

Um we also found that uh at 110% of cost of construction, um, it's it's very high, um, and we don't believe it would be uh utilized.

And even if you cut that in half, um it gets closer to what the value gap is.

Uh, but again, there's still some discrepancies around the unit type.

Um, it's it's just not a direct measurement.

Um from a like a complexity in the administration standpoint, both are somewhat complex.

Um we're working with I RKG to develop basically a spreadsheet and kind of an operating manual of how you know here's staff, you know, here are the keys to the uh the zoning ordinance, here's how you drive the car, right?

Uh so that's that's um we have to do it either way.

Um we just want to have to do it, right?

You know, we want to be able and have the opportunities to administer this, and which would be uh proof of um success.

Um we we would delegate the the fee updates to the planning board.

Um, you know, we would prepare the analysis as staff and say, here's why we're recommending what changes we're recommending, uh, and then the board would adopt that um and we would report back to um this uh committee or or to the board of Alderman via communication as to what the updates are.

Um so what that would mean for um revenue coming into the housing revolving uh fund, um here's an example uh with 50 50 units, uh five units uh IZ units required, but the developer only buys out of two because that's that's one of the options, right?

You you don't have to, it's not an all or nothing buyout.

Um so under value gap, um, these are two uh one-bedroom apartments, the resulting buyout uh would be uh 216,000, uh, but cost of construction would be 456,000.

Um, and so you know, we're assuming likelihood uh of the use of that, you know, paired with the density bonus, you know, you're essentially buying that bonus by not providing the affordable housing.

And the return there can be factored, and we've I did attach some of those um a number of tables that we provided and materials in advance of this meeting.

You can see how those break down a little bit further in greater detail.

But again, this is just to illustrate that um the result of this disparity in um approaches and what the costs are.

The result is okay, um, you know, maybe we get uh revenue of 217 versus you know the revenue of 200 or uh 456, but in reality with that 456 K number uh that's so high that we would expect the developer would build on site and not buy out, and therefore there would be no revenue coming into the fund.

So, you know, taking a little less revenue.

Um but again, we want to make sure that that number, those two numbers of either the cost of providing and the cost of the buyout are very close, so that we are getting both.

Um we kind of assumed uh some questions.

Um but the idea is that you know we're not trying to give the developers too easy uh of a time, but we also don't want to kill development.

Um, but we also need to we need to capture some revenue and be able to achieve our affordable housing goals, whether that's delivery of units through the development process or uh deployment of funds through the revolving uh loan uh fund that we have set up.

Um so I'll I'll let you uh read those.

Um but this this is the end of the IZ portion.

Um we have a couple of site standard slides that really just get into um you know green score and how that's calculated.

Um this this was one of the the key points I wanted to illustrate with with IZ and the two different approaches that we've been exploring.

Yeah, and thank you.

Uh Mr.

Durfee, you said a couple of minutes ago it I I didn't make a note or whatever, but I'm wondering if you could repeat what you said a couple of minutes ago about what our current situation is in Nashua.

I with the affordability and the new developments.

Can you repeat what you said, please?

Uh sure, yeah.

So we've had two developments come through that were approved and have utilized our current IZ uh code uh again outside of any master development agreement, and that was one ownership uh project uh that was uh 80 some odd unit uh condominium development resulting in nine affordable units at 180%.

What three at 100 and six at 80% AMI, uh, and the other was uh I believe a 20-unit apartment building with two uh 80% AMI rental units.

Um and again, those in the associated buyouts, if that was your question, uh is 37500 for rental and a hundred thousand for ownership.

Can I ask for follow-up, please?

Yeah, would you characterize that as successful?

No.

No.

Okay.

I also want to uh identify another flaw in our code where um what good is a density bonus if there are no density maximums in a district.

We have many, many, many instances where we have say a general industrial or a park industrial or some inherently not residential district as the base, but then we have a mixed-use overlay which allows uh multifamily housing, but not subject to any density regulations.

And those areas um there's there's very attractive regulatory flexibility within our overlays.

Uh it makes it uh an ideal place to do multifamily development.

They are inherently not subject to IZ because there's no reason for them to opt in because they don't need the density bonus because they're not running up against uh density maximums.

Um Alderman Solomon, I think I think that is actually really the structural reason as to why our IZ ordinance is not being successful, because where we are seeing multifamily development is in districts where simply there is there lacks any incentive to provide it because there is no density maximum.

Mr.

Chairman.

Okay, thank you.

Uh thank you.

Um I know I've asked this question before, and I um when we're talking about building in downtown, and I often hear they they there is no IZ requirement because of the density of the properties within in that.

Will this change at all?

Um, so this will start to include those areas.

Because density is tied to building type.

All of the building types have density factors.

Okay.

And may I make just a statement?

Um when we first talked about I Z here in the horseshoe and so on.

Their concern was that people are just going to buy out and we're not going to have any affordable housing, which seems to have come to fruition.

But we also had learned at that time, and it was and it was spoken.

So for those that are listening, I'm just making this comment.

So I think that's kind of where we've gone from this.

We've kind of had a lesson learned, and then moving forward with to be able to really make it work within the city.

Is that kind of where this code is trying to go?

Sure, I think that's a fair representation.

And I think we've tightened up the model.

We've incorporated more uh inputs to get a better representation of what the buyouts are, uh what the um percent set aside, what the target AMIs.

I I think just the model is more reflective of the current market, uh, but then we're also building in the ability to um modify and update that based on market forces.

So it's it's kind of a living IZ document, if you will, not to you know use a uh a term that's probably used too much.

That's okay.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Um so we had talked a little bit about um green score in some past presentations.

Uh this is just kind of an uh an enhanced way of looking at landscaping.

Um and I want to just add this on to the end of IZ because outside of the overlays, right?

You can unlock this more advantageous density factor by providing affordable units.

We want to provide another way, and that is through uh sustainable development.

So we have basically two green scores, um, one that's required and one that's uh you know ideal, where if you achieve the ideal, uh you would be able to uh utilize that more advantageous density factor.

So you can achieve density bonuses through the provision of affordable uh housing, which has been an articulated goal in the master plan.

Uh alternatively, you can achieve more density uh through uh sustainable development, which results in more green space, uh more intentionally programmed green space, higher performing green space in terms of stormwater management, uh it really comes down to very intentional site design.

Uh so this is uh an approach that we're trying to deploy to um meet as many of the community goals that we've heard, you know, both through the master plan process but as well as feedback we've heard throughout the public engagement with this code.

Um so just another way uh to to do that, and just as a reminder of what green score is, it's we're basically assigning values and multipliers to different uh landscape elements.

Uh that's our very convoluted uh formula for calculating green score.

I can break that down for you if if you feel uh so inclined to understand that.

Um it's uh we we have landscaping standards now.

Um I've taken a number of landscape plans and tested it against this green score, and and they they're very, very close.

You know, it's not like we're gonna be asking for a whole lot more than what we already do.

Um just some more intentionality, and frankly, this can stack with a lot of other functions in terms of site design.

Uh so I believe that this is represents a a more calibrated and more intentional step and approach to landscaping uh that can also then pay dividends for the developer in terms of uh a return on density uh through more intentional site design.

Um Mr.

Durfee, can you explain a little bit about HB 428 and why you have to go sustainability of landscaping as opposed to building?

Yeah, so uh that bill uh it pulled our ability to um leverage building code standards uh in these regulations.

Um so we had initially contemplated requiring um like lead certifiable buildings um as part of achieving this uh sustainable development uh density bonus.

Uh we can no longer do that.

Um quite frankly, that makes our review a heck of a lot easier.

Uh and um so while while we've we've you know essentially lost the tool that may have been available to us through this bill, um, you know, the result is that you know, hopefully we'll just get higher performing site design um rather than higher performing buildings, but you know, included in this is you know um photovoltaics, um, you know, how you're treating your roof, is it a is there solar on your roof?

Is it a white roof?

Is it a green roof?

Um talk about EV readiness, you know, things like that.

All of these uh elements come into play there uh and then that don't fall into that uh the protections of that bill.

Great, thank you.

Um so one final slide.

So I just want to quote sorry before you go on.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um thank you.

Included in this is you know um photovoltaics um you know how you're treating your roof is it uh is there solar on your roof is it a white roof is it a green roof um talk about EV readiness you know things like that all of these uh elements come into play there uh and then that don't fall into that uh the protections of that bill great thank you um so one final slide sorry just one question before you go on yeah go ahead um thank you I I know you know uh you probably aren't prepared for this but that was so my first question is that was a real math equation that you put up on that on that slide yes and I'm happy to break it down for you if you like to demonstrate my comprehensive understanding of it we're gonna do that at quarter nine on a Tuesday night um however uh I would like to see not tonight but maybe by way of a follow-up um just some real dollars and cents against against what that looks like and then you add in the density bonus and really because if you're incentivizing a developer to have an environmentally friendly building I'd like to see what the upside is for them in order to do that and how this would um facilitate that very good I'd be happy to do that we have one prepared from a former example where we analyze the landscape plan of something that's been approved and built um that is just the base green score we can put something together that exemplifies uh the what would be needed to achieve uh the sustainable uh development density factor I appreciate that excellent question thank you um so the final slide here um is really just a list uh of what would be required in a submission before the planning board uh nothing all that surprising you know we talk about certified survey um the site plan itself um including you know what we had uh uh identified you know standard erosion control plans infrastructure plans um you know the street plans you know showing where the thoroughfares are obviously they would need to relate to our thoroughfare standards um but it would appear as a roadway on a site plan um the landscaping plan would need tabulations relative to the green score um lighting plans all standard stuff traffic impact analysis uh you know PE stamping of the plans and uh obviously an ownership statement saying yes I own the property and yes this can uh occur um you know and aside from that is if you're you know utilizing IZ show us your calculations of how you reach uh you know the bonus uh via you know the units you're providing if you're providing a buyout um show us how that breaks down from a unit uh breakdown the bedroom count perspective um so this is by no means a comprehensive list but you know with these 11 criteria um you know very reflective of what we currently ask for uh and and largely captures everything that would be needed as part of uh a submission under the redevelopment overlay ultimately just just a quick question um a lot of this seems as you you stated what they're already doing um this does not create any kind of excessive hardship or anything else like that for developers or no no so the idea is that the overlays opt in right so um they are voluntarily subjecting themselves to this uh outrageously convoluted approach to uh incentivizing development uh no and I hope that it it doesn't you know while it is new and and different and there's a lot to it I hope that you know through the exercise of the overlays and as we see more plans you know it it's not perceived as incredibly complicated the idea is that it is opt-in um we're trying to make the incentives uh sweet enough so that people do do it um but no it would not result in any hardship because it's not something that we're imposing on them it's totally voluntary perfect thank you um well that's all I had for this one I have a whole nother slide deck if you want to keep going that's that's all I had anyone have any other questions for Mr.

Jerfey um all right well thank you appreciate it um what that my guess my next question is what's next what what are we going to discuss next month uh well we could dive into any of the previous topics I think um if there's anything you've heard from this that you felt like we haven't hit on enough please let me know I'd really be looking from you at you all for for guidance on what you'd like to cover next anything that you feel like there's a big gap um or if you feel like there you you don't know what you don't know if there's some unknown unknowns um please call me and we can have a conversation about that thank you we we still need to make some like recommendations on you had those three documents you sent us that last one had a ton of things that you gotta kind of tighten up a little bit yeah that was the policy point document and that's what this other slide deck is um where where we just hit those uh very specifically um the idea was that this presentation tonight um gives you some background information you see it function and then we can come back and say okay you saw that you saw how it all works um where we draw the line okay yeah that sounds good I'm good thank you okay yeah thank you very much thank you my pleasure um communications petitions none unfinished business none new business resolutions none business ordinances tabled in committee none general discussion public comment they all just left um remarks by the alderman no um I just want to say thank you

Yeah, that sounds good.

I'm good.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

My pleasure.

Um communications.

None petitions.

None.

Unfinished business.

None.

New business resolutions.

None.

Business ordinances.

None.

Table in committee.

None.

General discussion.

I don't see any hands.

Public comment, they all just left.

No.

Um remarks by the alderman.

No.

Um, I just want to say thank you, Mr.

Durfee, for uh going through that.

Um and reminder, tomorrow night we have two meetings.

First one is uh the uh special board of aldermen to go over the uh warming center, or or I should say resource center.

Surprised you didn't have an example tonight of the resource center in there.

That was intentional.

I I know.

Um so I I assume even if it's this cold in here tomorrow, the the heat will be turned up because we'll have a lot of people in here, I'm I'm sure.

So at 825, Mr.

Cummings, uh Director Cummings sent a message that they turn up the heat, but it's not fast enough.

No, that's fine.

So um uh if people are interested, please come out and speak to that.

And then after we're uh after that meeting, depending on how long that goes, is the infrastructure meeting, and they'll be discussing, I believe, the repealing of the camping ban.

So um that's all I got.

Thank you, everyone.

Um I'm looking for an adjournment, Alderin Klee.

Uh yes, I'd like to make a motion for adjournment, please.

Uh and by roll call.

By roll call, yes.

Uh Alderman Sullivan.

Yes, please.

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan, yes.

And Alderman Thibault.

Yes.

All right.

The meeting is uh declared closed at 852.

Thank you.