All right.

All right.

I see John on there.

So John, you hear us.

I gotcha.

All right.

We're live.

All right, we're gonna start the uh meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee July 21st, 2026.

Um I'm just gonna read it.

A meeting of the planning and economic development committee was held Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 at 7 p.m.

in the Aldermanic Chamber and duly noted in two places, including the city's website in accordance with requirements of RSA 91-A-2.

Uh the roll call, uh roll call, please.

Uh at Alderman at large, Amber Morgan here.

Um Alderman Clee is not here.

Alderman Sullivan.

I am here attending on Zoom because I'm traveling and I can hear you and I'm alone in the room.

Alderman at large Clemens is not here.

Alderman Tebow?

Here and Alderman Greg here.

Thank you.

I'm also in attendance.

Also in attendance is Sam Durfee.

I assume Matt Sullivan's not coming.

He's listed on the sheet here.

Okay, I'll cross them out.

Um thank you, Alderman Greg, for stepping in and making our quorum.

Of course.

I appreciate that.

Uh all right, so we do have quorums.

So the first step is the public hearing.

Um so uh we're gonna start the public hearing, incorporating uh O-20.

Uh, do you want to read the uh please?

Sorry.

Um incorporating or O-26-019, incorporating the environmental health department subdivision review fee with the other subdivision plan review fees.

Thank you.

And do we have anyone here to speak to it?

Are you here to speak to it at all?

Or I can't.

I mean, I know you put in the legislation, so yeah, if you want to just give a brief overview of what it is.

Uh for the record, Sam Durfee, planning manager.

Uh so this ordinance uh incorporates uh a plan review fee on behalf of uh environmental health department.

Uh any time that a plan comes before the planning board, uh it's not just the planning department that reviews uh there are multiple departments across the city that invest staff time uh this uh fee is to cover some of that staff time on the environmental health department side of things.

And for the people at home, what is that fee?

Great, thank you.

Umdermen.

I see uh Alderman Sullivan has his hand up.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh just ballpark.

How much does this be?

You know, the current fee of 40 dollars to the new fee of 50 dollars.

How much percentage-wise does it cover the the the staff time that you mentioned in your comments?

Thanks.

I couldn't give uh I wouldn't venture to offer a percentage, uh though it is a very good deal for the applicant.

I was afraid you were gonna say that.

Okay, anybody else?

Um uh Alderman Morgan.

If I could add a little bit of context to it, um and you can please correct me if I am if I'm wrong.

The health department does not know the last time that this fee was raised, going back at least 20 years.

That's my understanding, yes.

So to raise it from 40 to 50 to me, seems pretty it makes sense.

I don't know anything else that has that is that low of rate of inflation over the course of 20 years.

That's all I had to say.

Okay.

Any other clarifying questions before we go to the public hearing?

All right, uh I will call test meet testimony in favor.

I see no one.

Uh testimony in opposition, I also see no one.

Testimony in favor again, there is no one, and testimony in up testimony in opposition, there's no one.

The public hearing on 0-26-019 uh was declared closed at 7 05 p.m.

And we will start the regular meeting at 7 05 p.m.

So first, any public comment.

I see none.

Communications.

Uh oh, wait, sorry.

Bottom.

Communication from Sand Durfee, AICP planning manager referral from the Board of Alderman on ordinance 0-26-019 incorporating the environmental health department subdivision review fee with the other subdivision plan review fees.

There being no objection, I will accept the communication and place it on file.

Petitions.

None.

And finished business.

None.

Business resolutions.

None.

New business ordinances.

O 26-019 incorporating the environmental health department subdivision review fee with the other subdivision plan review fees.

And do I have a motion?

I can do it.

I would like to make a motion to recommend approval and passage of O 26-019.

Final passage, but that's good.

Alright.

Any questions or comments about that one?

I see there is none.

We uh will you call the roll?

Oh, you have to probably say roll call too.

By roll call.

So if you could call the roll, please.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

Alderman Greg, yes.

Alderman Morgan is a yes, and Alderman Tebow.

Yes.

That motion passes.

Table in committee.

None.

I'm gonna stop there.

Actually, I skipped over the presentation, I think.

No.

All right, your presentation is not on here, but we will accept that you will be doing a presentation, Mr.

Durfee.

Sorry about that.

Um I swear to God, I saw it on the I did see it on the Don and sent out.

It's on there too.

Yes, yeah, it says parking availability management.

Cool.

All right.

I will uh bring up uh Alliance Solomon we won't see you for a while, but if you have a question, just just knock or something.

Um you have the uh clicker?

I do not.

Okay, I think I think it's in numbers.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good evening.

It's all you for the record, get away.

Sam Durfee, planning manager.

Thank you for having me back to talk about recode.

Like, is this the end of it?

You could say that.

I think that we have sufficiently covered the big areas of the code.

Um kind of jump into the punchline where my final question of the evening is going to be is there anything else you'd like to discuss?

Okay, I'll wait for that one.

Just go right into the parking stuff.

That'd be great.

Well, you can think about that as we go through that.

Okay, thank you.

Very good.

Um, so yeah, we'll uh just jump right in.

So we're here really tonight to talk about parking mobility.

Um we actually spoke about this back in August of last year.

However, we have put a little bit finer point on some of the key elements of uh what we're proposing to be really the parking ordinance of this.

And we have a lot of uh traditional metrics, you know, parking minimums, parking maximums, number of spaces per dwelling unit, number of spaces per X thousand square feet of commercial space, those sorts of things.

Those still exist in the code.

Um we are modifying some of those metrics to reflect observed trends.

Really the focus of this evening is going to be discussing how parking relief is going to change.

Um currently, a uh site plan applicant can come before the planning board and ask for a waiver.

Sometimes they come with a robust uh narrative uh explaining their observations of the market if it's a rental uh development uh or you know what they've observed in terms of space demand for restaurants, so on and so forth.

There's uh ITE uh which is this industry standard for parking projections, all of these things usually are wrapped into these sorts of requests.

Um but at the end of the day, it's really uh an applicant demonstrating, hey.

Look, we don't we don't need as many spaces as your ordinance requires us to have.

Um so one could draw the conclusion that our ordinance in some cases is requiring too many spaces.

Um parking itself, just asphalt car stores is not a very productive use of land.

Um, and you know, it's also there's stormwater implications, it's impervious surface that in stormwater runoff that needs to be managed.

There's costs associated uh with excess parking creation.

And while we don't necessarily want to be in a situation where we are underproducing parking and then putting a strain on uh city parking assets, um we also don't want to be in a situation where uh there's too much parking and it is an unproductive uh use of land in that regard.

So uh we really lean on the market to tell us what they need, um, but we also want to make sure that when parking relief is requested, there is not going to be a result where they say that they don't need as much, but then there are no steps to make sure that there's actually that we want to make sure that there's mitigation, there's demand management associated with that relief request.

Uh so that's really going to be the focus of this evening's conversation where we're moving away from just the basic ask, but more an ask paired with demonstrated demand management of parking and how we're actually reducing trips, we're reducing the need for parking uh in actual measurable ways.

Just to kind of cue that up.

Um, to kind of just summarize some of the things that I just spoke about, um, you know, we have limited land in the city, we want to make it as productive as possible.

Um, minimums are not always well tailored.

We want some flexibility, um, and parking is not the most enjoyable land use to be around.

Um, you know, for many reasons, uh, buildings are far more interesting and productive.

Uh, and uh, yeah, making in some flexibility, but in a way that also ensures that uh there is some management with that uh kind of protects all parties.

Uh so a kind of again a little bit more of a summary, um some of our conventional things with parking ratios, we still have those.

Again, we're augmenting those to make sure that they're reflective of today's trends and market.

Um the planning board is the authority uh for parking relief uh now and into the future.

Uh it really does assume that uh SOV single occupancy vehicles is the norm for how people get around.

Um we, while we do have a fantastic uh bus transit system, single occupancy vehicles still is the predominant means of transportation in the city.

And that assumption is baked into our parking requirements as they currently are.

Uh, and that is the thing that we're trying to chip away at in utilize these demand management strategies to begin changing that and creating uh incentives for not only developers but also the users, you know, be they employees in a in a building or residents.

We can get into that with some specificity.

Uh but again, in the new code, um, we're looking at uh calibrated requirements and creating a mobility management manual.

So this is basically a menu of things, uh ways that in which you can manage your demand, and that's really what we're gonna be talking about.

Um with that, there's two ways of reducing parking.

One of which is uh through parking relief, this is the demand management with the menu of options, which will be on the following slide.

Uh the other is uh payment in lieu.

Now we do have city assets that offer parking.

Um we are working with uh Director Hannem in economic development and the parking department.

Uh actually I spoke with her just today about scheduling some time to really dive into this article, uh, and I'm hoping that they will be partners as we finalize this mobility management manual, uh basically to make sure that they're comfortable with uh the amount of relief granted by certain menu options, if you will, that we're not uh giving too much relief for say uh bicycle parking or uh bus passes, we want to make sure that uh in their their experiences and knowledge are incorporated into uh these relief mechanisms.

But so, right, the the payment in lieu creates another alternative, and ideally this is priced at a rate that is higher than the current cost of construction of parking, be that surface or garage, those numbers are still being calibrated as we're doing market tests, but we are building off of the parking study that was completed, I believe, just in 23.

So we have some pretty fresh data, uh, which is uh really backstopping this effort, which is fantastic.

Uh and again, as always, please stop me with any questions you may have.

I think it is it's important to note um this relief, both pathways are voluntary.

Uh this is not uh a requirement that they do this, but should they be seeking relief, we're providing these these options.

Um again, just to really drive it home, it's it's an earned relief.

It's not just granted because they say they don't need it.

They have to do these uh management strategies in order to earn that relief.

This is grandfathered in, right?

It's uh anybody that already has a space.

It's only for building something, right?

Right.

So if something changes, um, be it a you know you have a a current use that then evolves into a more intense use from a parking demand standpoint, the new parking regulations would apply.

Right?

So anytime there's a change, you're you're facing the regulations as they are that day, and ideally, you know, the new code gets adopted, and this this is a new parking environment that everyone would be subject to.

Thank you.

Um so in terms of relief and how it's reviewed and how it's granted.

Um what we're proposing, and this I'm hoping for a little bit of feedback and some reaction to in a situation where there is no site plan application, that's a key thing because the the planning board is not involved.

We're proposing to empower the administrative officer, which that's me functionally, um, to be able to waive a certain amount of parking, provided that they submit a mobility management plan and we review it at the staff level, and uh again, there is no site plan.

So this could be a change of use, right?

We we see a lot of change of use go through the admin review process, and one of the the key things that we look at, okay.

Well, what is the what is the parking requirements for use A?

It is changing to use B.

What is if any change in parking requirements?

And if they need relief, it could be as little as 10%.

Right now, they would have to go to the planning board.

And this, for an example, it could be a change from a veterinarian clinic to a restaurant.

That change of use has some significant parking differences.

Um we could administratively handle that change rather than kicking it to the planning board and drawing out a process, adding cost to that development.

What about sorry?

What about something smaller?

Oh.

Did you go first?

I'm sorry.

Oh, it's not.

Oh, sorry, sorry, all the reward said the wrong thing.

Um something smaller, like let's say barbershop to retail.

Like downtown, for example.

What would that look?

That would fall under this.

Yeah, if there is a delta and they they result in a needed increase in parking, they have to provide, but they're able to say, hey, look, we're gonna do XYZ out of this mobility management manual.

We can administratively say, okay, yep, all that checks out, and here's your permit.

So um change of use.

I just want to be clear on change of use.

So what if you're keeping uh if you've got a vape shop and you want to make it bigger?

Is that considered change of use?

Not a change of use, but that would have parking implications because it's usually based on square footage.

Okay, so it's not just changing it from you know X to X uh retail to be doctor's office, because in that case, you you're changing the footprint because you're changing the use, so you get less people coming in to that place or maybe more, depending.

Um but this is because you're changing the footprint, that would also count.

Well, and I think there's you know potential hair splitting here, right?

So they're expanding it.

Well, what does that mean?

Is it a building addition or are they taking over some adjacent space?

Well, that that space is changing, so that's a change of use, but if they're building on, that could potentially be a site plan if it meets the threshold, otherwise it's an administrative review.

Um the answer is it depends.

Okay, but that's fine.

That makes more sense, though.

Okay.

So uh that is new.

We right now, as a department don't have any administrative leeway on parking.

Because the mechanism right now is just a straight like request to reduce.

There's no prove to me that you don't need this in because you're gonna do X, Y, and Z out of the manual.

That doesn't exist.

So because of that, the the process right now kind of makes sense.

It's not very you know progressive or or well thought out, it's just it's it's what we have.

Um, but because we're creating this, you know, and there's clear ways to earn relief, we believe that can be to a degree administered uh from a staff level.

But then obviously, when we get into bigger reductions, or if it's already associated with a site plan, it's already going to be going to the planning board.

Um, so this this top row, it really looks at these smaller cases.

Um, but it potentially clears a hurdle of that going to the planning board for these smaller cases, so it's easier for smaller businesses to get up and running.

Time is money, it's not so much the cost of going to the planning board, it is the time lost going through that process that we're trying to fix with this.

The I don't I don't see it in front of me, but the mobility management plan.

Could you please just define what that means?

Yes, I believe it is on the next slide.

Okay, jump the gun.

He's always ahead.

Alderman Sullivan.

No, he's a good one.

Alderman Sullivan functions as Alderman Segway.

It's been fantastic.

Um, right, we'll we'll talk kind of uh in tandem here about the mobile uh mobility management manual and the mobility management plan.

The mobility management plan is something that is submitted by an applicant that is required uh on a number of instances anytime they're asking for relief, um, but also whenever there's a master plan development.

The manual is something that we're proposing be uh owned, maintained, and updated by the planning board.

This is also a policy decision.

I I would like some reflection on from you all.

Um that is important because if it is in the planning board's hands, they have control over changing things, adding new menu items rather than going through an ordinance change, which as you know can be a drawn-out process.

It's allows the planning board to be more responsive to the market on a quicker turnaround.

Um just we'll put a pin in that and we can go back to it.

But to finish the point on the mobility uh management manual, it is this list of options.

I believe on a following slide, we actually have some of these listed out to give you an example of what they are.

Um but basically it allows um an applicant to come forth and say, okay, I can do X, Y, and Z, it's gonna earn me so much relief.

Okay, that's gonna drop my parking count down, you know, 20 spaces or something like that.

And they are able to say, if they're limited on space, they know they can only fit 40 spaces, ordinance says they need 60.

Okay, well, I can get 20 spaces worth of relief doing X, Y, and Z.

And they're able to craft that, and then we review that, and there is ongoing monitoring associated with that.

Uh and basically, because that is an incentive, we're actually given a lot of latitude under state enabling legislation of how we administer that.

And uh I have a couple of slides later on of how we get into those specifics of what those menu items are and how they can be administered.

So Alderman Sullivan, that may not fully answer your question, but I think as we get further into the slide deck, uh there'll be some more details that help out with that.

I have a few.

Alderman Morgan.

Thank you.

Um trying to put it gently.

Um, prepared to do it all yourself if the planning board is not able to keep up with it or whatever that may be.

In terms of updating the manual.

Um we will be doing it all ourselves in terms of we see a new management tool, and we've been requested to include it in the manual.

We would draft it, we would bring it to the planning board to approve through the approval authority.

Um they can also propose new items to include.

We'd be the ones it essentially is kind of like writing ordinance, but it's not ordinance in the formal sense.

Yes, but we would be drafting it.

And and because of our depth of knowledge of the code, we want to make sure that it plays nicely with all the other sections.

So there's a lot to a lot of strings to make sure that they are all woven together well.

I I like it in the sense that it's going to be guided by by you by your department.

Um but it becomes a two-way street, and instead of having to go round and round, it uh if all of a sudden, I don't know, helicopters are a thing that rent share, ride share helicopters on your roof, and they want to say that takes away a hundred parking spaces, you could do that without us having to deliberate for 18 hours on whether or not we think helicopters should be on roofs.

Um that was the craziest idea I could come up with.

My other one would be zip line, but um but I do I do like it.

Um I had another question, but I don't remember what it was.

Um you answered it.

If we get to uh aerial unmanned drone taxis, I might want that to come back to the uh board of Alderman.

I think there's gonna be a lot to that.

All the little pieces you got you can take care of.

Far outside we'll handle how those are parked.

Yes.

Uh but the administration of them going between buildings that I think that falls outside of land use.

Okay.

We might need air use code.

Got it.

Okay, good.

Uh okay.

So uh who creates the mobility management plan?

This is applicant driven.

So any project seeking parking relief or parking elimination, again, through the use of the mobility management manual options or payment and lieu.

But then also master plan development again, the master plan development that gets into the reader metal and overlays, and actually we do tie back to our concept plan that we've talked about a number of times through some of these sessions.

That's that through line that we'll be uh coming back to fairly often.

Um just to kind of give that as a as a piece of context.

Um so what the plan has to contain uh really the goal here is to reduce the number of trips made by single occupancy vehicles uh and and the use of those as the primary means of transportation.

That is the overall goal.

We are pulling that directly from the master plan.

Um and so rather than telling and mandating that this is a thing, this is our way of incentivizing voluntary adherence to that vision, if you will.

Um so we need to know who, what, when, where, and how all of these programs will be utilized, administered, uh, maintained, and reported on, because this is an ongoing site plan compliance issue now.

Uh if it is relief, then the site plan, if it if the relief is not functioning in the way that it was originally proposed to function, is technically a site plan violation, and we can enforce on that.

Uh right, because we want to make sure that these are actually working.

And if it is not working, well, then they either need to build more parking or make these measures function as originally intended.

Um I want I want to be sorry, I'll stop.

Uh can I assume that this is gonna be a really dumb question?

Can I assume that uh developers are never gonna want to go the other way and go over a maximum or go as many as they can, or we do not care if they want to go more parking?

We do.

We do care.

Uh, and we do have maximums in the code.

We have maximums right now on a lot of our of our uses.

Anybody ever want to go?

We have we have actually fielded requests, and I think those are usually fringe cases uh where they're really unique, say a charitable gaming entity.

Um there are uses that they are few and far between in the city, and we may not have really good examples of what their parking utilization rates actually are.

Um, and then we had perhaps arbitrarily set a maximum that is not reflective of what the demand actually is for that given use.

Um the mechanism is still the same, you know, relief before the planning board.

Yeah.

Um but they're gonna want to pack as many people in as they can because they're obviously that's their profit margin, I guess.

But there's you know, there's natural market incentives where parking is expensive to build.

So why would they want to overbuild and then also have to treat all that extra stormwater from the impervious surface?

So that's its own little check.

Um but we do also we want to have maximums uh, but also maximums that are not too onerous and too limiting.

Um if they want to go more, they will bring that to the planning board and then they would decide.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh, I got a question, please.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you.

On the uh first point there, the plan must contain why would a commitment to reduce SOV use fall on the applicant?

Without I would think that that would be in coordination with the city because unless that place of business is either walkable or on a major bus route.

Why would it fall upon the applicant to try to reduce that?

I mean, they are in business to do business.

So just can you walk me through that a little?

Sure.

And I think it would be helpful to think of this more in a residential context.

So think of an apartment building.

I think that's gonna be a little bit easier uh to conceptualize.

Uh but the commitment to reduce these trips and the parking of those vehicles is part and parcel of the relief that they're seeking in the first place.

Um so it does fall on the applicant if they are seeking relief and they say, you know, code requires 60 spaces, we only have space for 40, so we need 20 spaces of relief.

They have to demonstrate that they are producing demand management strategies that equate to a 20-trip reduction uh overall, so that they aren't, you know, then taking that relief, say thank you very much, I don't have to build these 20 spaces, and then not committing to that reduction, and then their operations results in that those 20 spaces spilling out onto the street or buying permits in city assets where you know those may need to be earmarked for for other users.

Does that help to answer that?

It does, and I just want to make sure I heard you correctly.

Basically, what you're saying is that it falls upon the applicant because the applicant is the one that is requesting uh fewer parking spaces than are required.

Exactly.

This is voluntary.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And also I can see this working for a business like that, maybe thought at one point they would need a lot of parking spot, but they could get that relief if maybe they um change to a work from home model, or they um you know change to more of an online situation, so that would also provide them that relief where they're not having to pay for that large parking spot, and maybe we're not taking up space that's needed, correct?

Exactly.

Yeah.

So these these next two slides.

I follow up on something older than Solomon said.

So say there's a apartment and apartment complex, and it's like you said, not on a bus path, not anywhere near where you can get it, and they want to reduce by 20 spaces.

Offering bus is not going to be one of the things they would be able to provide.

That means they could offer it, but if the if it's not near anywhere, that's kind of like not an appropriate offer.

So at that point, if there's nothing, can they is there other things besides just the bus ride sharing that they can offer to get those 20 spaces?

Is that what this is, or you know, you went to the next one?

Thank you.

Pulling it all in the same way.

Go ahead.

No, no, it's perfect.

It's and I I should have probably led with these because it's so understanding the examples and the mechanisms is crucial to seeing how this actually plays out.

Um, but you just highlighted the importance of the review of the plan, right?

So say their plan is, yeah, we're gonna offer bus passes, and uh the site is way, way away from any bus ride.

Well, clearly you're not gonna do that, so you have to do another strategy, and that's that's part of the review of that plan.

Um, so for example, um, take a commercial tenant, um, think of an employer.

I think that's that's a good user here.

So something that is going to have regular trips around shifts, office hours, that's the context here.

Uh so having one employee be a transportation coordinator, I'm not saying that is a mandated staff position.

The transportation coordinator would really be the city's point of contact.

This is someone who, you know, because they have sought relief and have been granted relief, someone needs to be the point person to be able to, you know, inform the other employees, you know, talk about what options there are for uh mitigating parking trips, and then you know, be the reporter uh for the annual mandated reporting uh to the city to ensure that the mobility management plan is being complied with.

Um other elements here is the distribution of information around uh you know transportation options, uh preferential carpool parking, uh, commuter tax benefits.

This is something that actually falls under the federal tax code, uh, not a city tax relief.

I want to be clear.

Uh guaranteed ride home, annual mobility meeting, these are all things and strategies that have been utilized elsewhere.

This are this is part of a very standard uh transportation demand management strategy uh kind of playbook uh that we're pulling from for hotels, shuttle service uh is kind of obvious.

Uh, same with charitable gaming would be another good example there.

Um commercial parking uses uh that can also include uh carboning, van pooling, so think of like a park and ride, you know, how you how you would get there.

Um and then for residential, this can be this actually I think offers a lot of options.

Um, so yeah, the ride sharing, um, you know, preferential parking spaces for uh vehicle share, uh long and short-term bicycle parking, uh, and again, distributed information, bus passes come in here as applicable, uh, obviously location driven.

Um, but here are just some examples, and uh here's a little bit more on some of those uh specifically.

And these are just you know, six examples of something that's going to be uh far more robust and something that's going to be in development uh and in consultation with economic development in the parking department.

Um we'll also be speaking with NRPC, they have a regional mobility manager.

Uh this is very much uh in that wheelhouse.

So when they're putting together the mobility management plan, um they look at these options, you know, it can be the car share, the bike share, um parking uh cash out for employees.

That that ties back to something uh that was mentioned in an earlier slide.

The unbundling of parking and unit rental cost.

So say you are renting an apartment, right now it's pretty common to just okay, you get your apartment, you pay your lease, so it comes with a parking space.

If you're seeking relief, there will be the requirement that the leases unbundle the unit and the parking space.

So clearly that it's it's so that it is clear to the renter, here's how much your parking is going to cost you, and it is an add-on presented to them by the landlord.

Um again, this is this is really I I had some pause when reviewing this, and it's like, well wow, like we're gonna be reviewing lease agreements.

You know, what is the statutory enabling legislation for that?

But again, this is an opt-in.

If they there's a there's a little carrot and stick here, right?

Um so when all it is is just they have to demonstrate that they're doing this, that earns them so much relief, and then annual report out.

We want to know, you know, are tenants electing to forego the parking simply because they're being made aware of what that costs.

Uh so yeah, that's that's a very it it pushes the the opt-in question to the end user, uh, which will be very interesting.

I would love to see you know, five years from now, projects that have utilize this and what that data shows.

I think it'll be very interesting.

Um so this mobility of sorry.

Can in speak thinking of data for thinking when we're five, ten years on the road and looking back at this, is there a mechanism where we could, if we provide this relief, that we could ask for annual reporting from them?

Oh, yes, that's that's very much a part of this.

Yeah, that is part of the the relief requirements that you to earn the relief you do.

There are um annual reporting requirements.

Yeah, and that will be crafted based around the content of their mobility management plan.

So you utilize strategy A, that has its own reporting requirements, and basically their selected menu of options will then create what their report looks like every year.

Could I uh could I just chime in for a second?

Yeah, uh just to thank you.

Just to flip around Alderwoman Morgan's question.

What if the opposite happened and the applicant underestimated the amount of parking and they needed more parking?

Then what would happen?

They would either need to build it, so come back for a site plan amendment.

If that's not an option, we have off-site parking provisions in the code.

We do now.

Um we will continue to have those.

We like that.

Um, there are shared parking options.

Um, you know, time of use parking between, say, a bank and an apartment building are completely opposite.

It's it's a natural synergy.

Um we would hate to see a lot of parking spaces empty for 12 hours of the day.

So utilizing off-site and shared parking agreements is a way to get around that.

You know, parking is a is it's funny.

Some can say it's an asset, others can say it's an obligation because you have to maintain it, right?

And so if you actually it's an asset because it can produce revenue, um, but the more it is utilized, the more value it creates.

Um, so by having those shared uh agreements, but then also the off-site provisions is a is our way through regulation of incentivizing that.

Thank you, appreciate it.

Okay, yeah.

Could they also not lease two apartments because now they have two less spaces, now they're losing revenue, not being able to rent those places, right?

That could be bad on them if they miscalculated how many they need, right?

Theoretically.

Um, you're gonna get different people in all the time, and someone might take up on the bat bus pass, and the new person that goes into there will be like, I'm not taking the bus, I need a space.

Now you don't have that space, right?

So it could backfire on them.

I'm assuming that most apartments are going to try to get at least one space per unit, I would think, generally, unless they're really trying to cut the corners.

But no, you're you're right.

And and so we uh, as you may be aware, the state passed legislation where no municipalities can require more than a one-to-one ratio.

Um we prior to that, we had like a one-five ratio for multifamily, I believe that's what it was.

Um we have seen this is always a question we ask.

Any you know, pre-application meeting, we have a developer like, oh, what's your target uh parking ratio?

Uh more out of interest than anything else now because no one's going sub one-to-one.

Um just really curious what what the market is is driving.

And really it's driven by um bedroom counts, right?

For obvious reasons, how many people are actually in this development?

Uh it changes with, you know, if it's a market rate development, is it a uh subsidized uh light development?

You know, there are all these things that come in and influence how many spaces are actually needed.

Um so that's its own, you know, kind of very interesting niche in the in the parking uh ratio arena.

Um, but yeah, it a lot of it does end up with just the market, right?

And so what they're looking for.

Well, pretty soon we're gonna be parking on the street, right?

Everywhere.

No comment.

Okay.

We won't because no uh drones, right?

We're all gonna be flying around taxes.

Right.

It's the planning jetbacks.

The Jetsons can be jet bags.

There we go.

Permitted use everywhere.

Um, and so how it grows, um new strategies can be added to the plan uh as reviewed and approved by as reviewed by staff and approved by the planning board.

And I'm curious, uh, thoughts on couching that authority with the planning board versus going through the board of Alderman.

Anyone?

I already spoke on my thoughts on that.

Yeah.

Alderman Greg, do you have any thoughts?

Um I no, I mean I I I think it makes sense, but um, I think that idea makes sense.

I'm okay with it too.

I mean, yeah.

Better than creative ones.

I mean, how many new light things are gonna come out?

I mean, we don't know.

And hey, if if it if it becomes an issue, can always take that authority away.

We get train.

Yeah.

You're working on that every day.

I mean, I would think we would want that with the subject matter experts, right?

Exactly.

I mean, that's what we want.

That's what the planning board is there for, so yeah, I'm okay with it.

Let the record reflect.

Thank you very much.

Um, tying this back to the case study that we've utilized a number of times here.

Um, this is uh part of a redevelopment overlay up off of Amherst Street.

Um, you've seen this building before.

Um, but now let's talk about it in the context of units, spaces, um, incentives, and it all rolls together.

Um you will see this again in a more complete form.

Um this is something that Russ, uh our consultant and I have been talking about.

We really want to use this redevelopment plan as kind of a capstone and eventually, and getting back to if you want me to come back and talk about something else at a later date, we want to be able to walk you through a full, like probably the most complicated redevelopment we could ever think of, so you can see the various parts of the code playing together.

Um so we're just kind of dropping little bits here and there, but hopefully this these images become familiar.

Would that be for the full board at that point?

Okay, yeah.

We we'll probably run it through here first, and then you know, I think because it it could get pretty weedy.

Um you guys would have a leg up because you've seen a lot of the elements in depth.

But uh, yeah, so just a little teaser uh for that at a future meeting.

Uh so standard build, 163 units, one-to-one parking ratio.

Uh the text in bold at the bottom to provide 163 spaces on a surface lot uh that requires about 53,000 square feet of parking lot.

Um so the building is on, as this is drawn out, uh 27,000 lot square foot lot.

Um so basically that means that the parking lot is actually double the size of the building.

Um so I think that's just an important uh uh juxtaposition to be aware of.

Um so in the sustainable development, which is what we talked about at our last session, you know, they're providing um improved site design uh and landscaping and and how the site handles stormwater, all those menu of options uh to achieve uh a score of 12 uh through those menu options.

That's how they get a improved density bonus uh and the result is 178 units, and through a mobility management plan, that one-to-one ratio drops to a zero to eight ratio, uh so that's 50 spaces provided in a first floor garage.

You know, as you can see, the front of that building, that side of the building that is wrapped in commercial space.

Um, so this is drawn to reflect that, and so from the this is the pretty front, and uh this is would be the back for those.

And this is would be the back for those.

So while on the right hand side, you just kind of see that open tan land, you know, that that could be other buildings in further development.

Whereas on the picture on the left hand side, it's it's all parking.

I really missed an opportunity to plug a kind of a funny meme from the planning circles of uh new urbanist design, where it's kind of like a mullet, you know, you got the storefront and the good stuff up front, but in the back is uh the parking.

So sorry, we have a little fun us zoning wants.

Um so this helps to try and demonstrate the opportunity that's lost uh with parking, you know, when that could be buildings, that could be open space, that could be so many greater things than parking.

We recognize that parking is a necessary part of living in an environment that does not have really robust transit options.

Um and so rather than saying, yes, you can build, you can build the right-hand picture, uh, you know, don't worry about that ratio.

We know that there is demand for parking, but the idea is to craft options and strategies that can be utilized when appropriate to meaningfully reduce the parking demand.

That is really what's driving the change in this chapter, and in the is the key difference between how we regulate parking now uh versus what our intentions are with the new code.

Uh all of thank you.

So with talking about the parking and you know, lowering the number of spots and kind of incentivizing that.

Part of that would be our transit, our public transit.

Is the city prepared to make that a little bit more robust so that that is you know, because we've talked about some certain things on Amherst, but there's not really the bus, you know, uh transport out there.

So I think that's something then that the city has to look at how we're investing in that to take on to actually add that.

Yeah, so I mean there is a route that goes out on Amherst Street and even um beyond Nashville's borders.

Um but there's a real question there, right?

You know, how much capacity is actually on that route.

And say through our redevelopment overlays on that corridor, we see massive residential development, and if we could only be so lucky, there would be a real conversation around, you know, okay, everyone is utilizing this parking relief mechanism, and everyone is buying bus passes, and now is the bus route just totally clogged because everyone's using it.

I mean, what a fantastic problem to have.

Um, but then right.

The question is then we are seeing massive increases in ridership.

What is the next strategic investment to make?

Um I can't wait for that conversation.

That would be really, really fantastic.

That would be just an incredible example of success through this program.

Uh it's also a major culture change.

Um, and if we get to that point, then that would be a huge marker of success for this code and this mechanism.

I agree.

One day.

Um, so uh this is not a new concept here uh where minimums are zero.

We have them right now where we are in the downtown.

Um we have a project that built 45 apartments with no parking, that is 249 Main, which has been a great addition to the downtown.

Now these three districts, urban core, urban mill, and urban core station area, uh, all except urban mill are achieved only through uh redevelopment overlays.

So that voluntary opt-in up zoning, there's all of those strings attached to that as inclusionary zoning, that is um performance standards for sites.

Um there's there's a lot that's already tied to these.

Um, but then this is reflective of conditions that exist today, and we're also looking to the future, potential stations, if only we are planning for the future here.

Um now we also recognize while parking minimums may be zero in these areas, a savvy developer who's investing tens of millions of dollars is not going to not provide parking for their 150 units.

Um, it creates an option that really should be partnered with a dose of reality and what transportation options are there.

Um but this is very uh future looking.

And this these three districts do not represent a significant amount of area.

Um so I want to just be be clear about that.

Those two 49 Main Street do for parking, do they go to uh a lot, or does just everybody that's there doesn't have uh car or would better question for Director Hanum, but I believe they do hold some parking permits in the Maple Street lot.

Do they go to uh a lot, or does just everybody that's there doesn't have uh car, or would better question for Director Hanum, but I believe they do hold some parking permits in the Maple Street lot.

Okay, so that's what would the option would be if someone went to a place like that and didn't have parking in it, they could then get one in a lot that's not too far away.

What this does, so if if we if we go zero in a couple of districts, you know, it really then leans on uh the private parking market, which we would love to see become more robust, right?

You know, land is an asset, and if someone wants to utilize some uh underutilized land as off site parking, satellite parking for a development, you know, while that then may feeds future development in the future with those revenues.

That's an option that we would like to tap and and be utilized uh more than it currently is today because we don't really have the regulatory incentive right now for that to happen while it we allow it.

We haven't really driven it, uh which I think that this scheme begins to um so again kind of pulling on the future looking uh aspects, and this begins to tie back.

This is where you can see some of the elements of the code starting to overlay and bleed into each other.

Um we talk about site design and building placement and block dimensions, all with the idea of that nothing is permanent in the way that we position buildings on a new uh redevelopment.

The parking field could eventually turn into a building, right, without any impact to the building that was already developed.

We see this happening already, um, but with this, you know, that that happens with long-term landowning families often who do you know gradual redevelopment over time.

Um they do look towards the future.

Um that's not everyone though, and that's okay.

Different models, that's fine.

Um, but now we're kind of baking that into our site standards and how we design for it so that you know someone else does come along, buys the property, there's a redevelopment opportunity just based on how the site is laid out.

Uh so looking from today to adoption.

You know, we've we just had a little conversation about parking.

Um over the rest of the summer and going into September, the mobility management manual will be finalized.

We'll come back.

We'll run through that with you guys.

Um in September, most likely in and around September, we're gonna be very close to being done with the code.

We are contemplating uh a number of open houses in kind of office hours with anyone who wants to come.

We will be sending targeted invites to our frequent flyers, if you will, people who have been engaged in this process through its entirety, people who sit at home and watch these recordings, uh, people who have a very keen interest in how land use is regulated in the city.

We want to get their feedback uh in a number of sessions which we have already done like this.

Um we're gonna keep doing those, you know, focus groups, if you will.

Uh and legal review is continuing uh going well, and then hopefully uh sometime in late fall we'll be submitting as legislation.

The goal is we are adopted before year end.

We are contemplating having a delayed effective date for just a number of reasons, but I would love to see we go effective uh you know come 2027.

And so that is looking ahead.

Right?

That's all I have.

Happy to take questions.

Did you want to ask uh the question you were gonna ask at the end about anything else you want to see or what would you like to see next?

I can see all of its old in case it is because I don't there it is.

Um anybody have any questions or anything they want to see uh going forward in these meetings that we may want to discuss more or haven't discussed maybe um I would I would offer that maybe we could see you would mention office hours, maybe a roadshow or something like that.

I'd I'd love to see maybe just a recap of comments you've gotten, just an overall uh uh feeling uh feedback that you got from both the public from maybe developers that that sat in on it, uh etc.

I just really would be eager to see what that looks like.

Sure.

Thanks.

I'm just ready for adoption.

Let's go.

No, I I I that's a good point too to hear more from what the developers and from what the public say now that it's just about you know fully baked, and and we've gone through all these sessions for almost two years now, or a year and a half or whatnot.

So I um you know I'm looking forward to to seeing your case study all mapped out fully with all the concepts we've discussed here, and I'm curious what the rest of the board thinks too, because obviously it's just been a small group, and you know, we we got Alderman Greg tonight.

We've had Alderman Kelly come in, Alderwoman Kelly come in once or twice, and obviously you know the rest of our committee, uh Alderman Clemens and Alderman Clee have been here, but I'd like to see what some of the others who haven't uh come in and ask questions before what their thoughts are on it.

So looking forward to that piece and see what they think about it, especially people like uh Alderman O'Brien on infrastructure and Alderman Dowd, who does a lot of building and things like that in the city.

Um like to hear their thoughts on it too.

So looking forward to that.

Would it be something to bring?

Oh, sorry.

No, go ahead.

Alderman Greg.

Would it be something to bring before infrastructure to talk about in there?

Or would that be or would you just do like the full board?

Yeah, happy to do however the president of the board sees fit.

Um I mean, I think I welcome referrals to just go to the full board.

Yeah, any any and all committees would be great.

Um I think you are taking by the planning board again, right?

Or or is that all by us?

Do you take it through zoning too?

Or we're actually so um oh uh good opportunity to mention uh Carter Falk is retiring, end of the month.

I know uh come by Friday the 31st, uh noon to two o'clock, third floor auditorium.

We'll meet I was bummed to hear that doing a little get together.

July 31st.

Yes, yeah, end of the month.

Um, yes.

Uh so as part of our uh or my uh appearance before the zoning board in his absence, we'll be doing some sessions.

We've just been waiting for a lighter agenda.

I've said before that our zoning board agendas are heavier than our planning board agendas, and I think we have 12 cases coming uh at our next meeting.

It's yeah, it's been growing, it seems.

Yeah, um, so it's just finding the right time.

Well, yeah, the uh yeah, because obviously zoning will have their opinion on it, and so we'll planning board.

Um I know you've already brought it to them once.

I know you've had conversations with some of the members, you know, outside of just the boards because I'm trying to talk through some of the concepts, but and we and we have a number of things that we still need to go back to the planning board with.

We received some directions, some things that they want to comment on, um, you know, around thresholds for review, uh, what our approval criteria are, things like that that they're subject matter experts on things that they deal with on a case-by-case basis.

Um, so yeah, we'll be coming back to them for some specific items.

Um, and I think in terms of coming back here, um, we have a few things that I've kind of left hanging simply because we're still working on them.

Some of the I'll say more difficult items were really testing the market, so inclusionary zoning being one of those, uh making sure that our bio numbers and our density bonuses are accurate.

Um, and then I think you know what we've just gone over and in a more detailed uh mobility management manual will be another item.

Um so I'll be in contact um Mr.

Chair uh for you know next month, yeah, and we can see you know if we have anything.

Um I don't know if we'll be ready with enough to really fill a meeting in terms of you know finalized updates.

Um, but who knows?

We maybe or a man cover something that we really need some policy guidance on.

So okay, great.

Sounds good.

Any final questions comments from Mr.

Durf.

Thank you, Sam.

Thank you.

Mr.

Durfee, appreciate it.

Um all right, uh general discussion.

I had a little I had one thing.

Yeah, go ahead.

Uh I did look up uh just going back to the ordinance.

I did look up the environmental health department as six employees, and uh total budget is five hundred and thirty thousand dollars forty-four cents.

So that that just goes back to my earlier uh question about the application fees covering the cost.

I can't imagine it does.

Um so I just figured I'd I'd do a little digging while we were listening.

So I was half paying attention.

Thank you, Alderman Sullivan.

Anybody else got discussion?

Um public comment.

There is nobody there.

Remarks by Alderman.

Anybody have remarks?

I had a remark.

Yeah, go ahead.

I just wanted to say thank you to Alderwoman Greg for showing up tonight so we could have this meeting.

Um obviously, Alder Woman Morgan and and Alderman Tebow.

Obviously, we couldn't have done it without you, also, but I know she's not on this committee, but I just wanted to give her a special thank you for doing that.

Yeah, absolutely, 100%.

Thanks.

I appreciate it.

The um I just wanted to say, and I know this might may have affected you because it was near your house.

We had that fire last night off Orange Street and uh horrible, um horrible fire.

It just seems like lately we've had so many more fires than we had my first few years here on the board.

And uh our fire department does a great job, but they you know some they can't save everyone no matter how good a job they do, and it was unfortunate to result in a couple of fatalities.

First person I thought was Alderman Morgan, because I know she lives right there, and I was like, oh boy, uh I check on Facebook to make sure she was okay and she you know her and her husband had reported uh seeing that fire.

So um those people and their families uh awful.

So um Alderman Morgan.

With that, I will um add, yes.

Um there's a house directly across the street from us.

We could feel the heat from the fire um across the street and through our house into our bedroom.

Um I called the chief this morning after everything was kind of safe, and um to extend my my gratitude in their efforts to save all of the surrounding buildings and trees.

There's not a lot of trees in our neighborhood.

Um there was one that started to catch on fire, they were able to get it out really quickly.

Um but the thing that really stood out to me the most was how calm they were.

And that is our tax dollars at work.

I got to see it firsthand watching them respond with absolute calm and certainty, made sure we stayed calm.

Um I think if they were running around like crazy, we would have been really nervous.

And just to exude that confidence, it made me know that we have the absolute best responders around.

I found out today and learned we are one of the only, we are the only in the state that has four um firemen or women per vehicle.

Manchester is three.

Everyone else in the state has one, two, or three.

We're the only ones, which is why we have faster response times, we have faster um, I don't know what the technical term would, but putting out the fire time, whatever that under control time, and um so my gratitude to our current board of aldermen and past boards of aldermen that have ensured that our citizens will be able to get that professionalism and um thanks to Nashville Fire.

We are glad you were safe.

Alderwoman Greg.

Yeah, Alderman Greg, sorry.

And uh that's good.

Um, and to piggyback on that, there was actually somebody that commented today that has um vast experience with the different um uh well I guess towns and cities with their emergency management and said that basically Nashua is the best that the way that we hand have handled, they've seen all the bigger incidents and just a real kudos to really the entire emergency management system that it is top-notch, and that's something we can all really really be proud of.

Yeah, and we pay them for insurance, and sometimes they have to actually do you know do the work because it does happen, but the insurance is why we pay them because we we need them at times and they're incredible.

Um they do an amazing job.

So thank you again, National Fire.

Um can I get a motion uh by I'll give it to Alderman Morgan.

Um I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

Uh by roll call.

By roll call.

Uh then call on myself, Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Uh Alderman Greg.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes, please.

Yeah, Alderman T Bow.

Yes.

And we adjourned at 8 04.

Thank you, everybody.

Have a good night.