Let's see.

Welcome to the committee I wanted this.

Today is Wednesday, February.

I'm Shelly, because I feel like if we're maybe all here, I'm not.

Um, can you please call the Chairman Pedro Escalon?

Absolutely.

Vice Chairwoman Shelley Peterson here.

Thank you very much.

Um resolution encouraging the General Assembly to pass legislation, establishment establishment bridge authority.

I do.

And if they didn't take it with the record, we already have things she'd got there.

Thank you for being here, Chief.

Sure.

Anyway.

Um, so the resolution before you is um consistent with other resolutions we provided to the council that provide support for state legislation.

Part of the mayor's agenda this year was to create this uh Crook Point Bridge Authority.

All the state legislation does is enable us to create the authority.

The idea behind this is that we would then contemplate taking the Crook Point Bridge from which is currently owned by Riot to city possession.

Um we did want to do that direct to the city, so this enables us to create an authority so that should we decide to take the bridge, it would be taken by the authority, kind of similar to the how the building authority works.

Um so this is just the first step, the process of taking the bridge, and the discussion about that would come to the council also for approval.

This is just getting us started on that process.

We do need to move quickly because the bridge is scheduled for demolition in 2026-2027.

There's six million dollars in the uh Department of Transportation STIP that's allocated to that.

If if this building isn't, if this bridge is not demolished, that money would then be invested in the cruise um site that we've been working on by India Point, and so DOT is committed to repurposing that money for the development of that cruise terminal, which would be great.

Um, but if we don't move quickly, they're just gonna use the money to take the bridge down.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I want to acknowledge uh councilwoman Ryan if you thank you very much for being here with us today.

Thank you, Chair.

Um does anybody have any questions?

Yes, okay, yeah, go ahead.

Six million dollars.

You're talking about who has the money, the State Department of Transportation.

If we don't get the bridge, we'll have that money.

You're saying that would go reallocated to somewhere.

If we don't take the bridge, that money will be used to tear down the bridge.

So we're trying to do a safety bridge?

We're gonna we would like to take the bridge into the city possession.

And what we want to do with the bridge?

Um to be determined.

There's been a in 2021 they did a design competition.

Um, you know, nothing has to be done to the bridge today.

Uh it would be for the city to work to work on in the future if we decided to take the bridge.

Again, this just enable it creates an authority, enables us to create an authority to then contemplate the taking of the bridge.

Well one, we have the one, we have the authority to this bridge.

We own the bridge, right?

No, this creates a separate group that would manage the bridge if we took the bridge, but it just enables us to create the separate group.

It doesn't actually take the bridge.

That would have to come back for further action.

And yeah, please go ahead.

If we do we have any idea how much would cost us to demolish this bridge if we if the whoever owns the bridge now would say how this visa matter, yeah, like we wouldn't intend if we took it, we wouldn't intend to demolish it.

The idea would be that we would leave it as it is and potentially do something with it in the future.

I don't see any potential use of this bridge like it's an important landmark in the city.

A lot of people, you know, find it to be an iconic um landmark associated with Providence, and for lots of folks, they believe it should be preserved.

So it you know, whether or not it is just preserved as it is, or if it before it becomes something else, I think it's to be determined, but um our existence the Department of Transportation.

Can we put in a medical flag at the top which will make it look beautiful?

I mean, we could do a lot of things with that.

I have a quick question.

Have you established who's gonna be part of the authority yet?

It provides for uh three members appointed by the mayor, approved by the council.

Those have not been identified.

Three members, yes, and they have to be residents of priority.

Council, please go ahead.

Thank you, madam chair.

So just for clarification, what's before us is creating the authority, doesn't cost us anything, it's just creating an authority.

What's before you is just a letter of support for the state legislation which creates the authority, okay?

Which doesn't cost us any money.

And the money, the six million dollars referenced by my colleague, on will be repurposed to in Providence.

So that's a win, correct?

For the cruise line area, the port area.

So that's six million dollars into our port area, which would be certainly welcome.

So no commitment of expenditure of funds if we pass this.

Correct.

But it's all uh it's six million dollars to the port, and it's an opportunity for us to decide what we want to do on to a historic landmark.

I think it's a good thing.

I like the six million.

Um if I could just make a point of observation, I think um, I certainly appreciate having the opportunity to continue engaging on this.

Um, however, I do think that we should have some sort of council representation on that particular um authority, and so I would be supportive of this if we had at least one um council opportunity by the council approval.

So all of the positions are appointed are approved for council, all three positions have to be approved by appointed by the mayor.

Correct, but you know, as with other appointments, like we'd have to work together because you don't you're not gonna approve it.

Yeah, you know, yeah.

I like the idea just speaking um on the topic.

I just like the idea of having a little bit of hot and fire partisan opportunity while the authorities kind of presenting itself.

I just think it is an opportunity for council and maybe to have a little bit of influence to how it looks, and obviously, because it comes to the council, it's a different um, it's still an opportunity for councillors to be able to engage that way and uh have some say, but I just think in that initiation of a lot of the conversation, it's just that's just my personal case.

Okay, uh Chief.

So the current legislation um in the GA, it's it's um has already been introduced, and the the car language says that it's all mayor appointed correct.

Okay, approved by the council.

Approved by the council, yeah.

I I do understand that dynamic.

Yeah, okay.

Is any way that you the the council can appoint to more people, one from the council and one from another neighborhood?

Or it's only these three members would be only three members from the neighborhood area or the whole city.

I mean, it's just three members from province.

I I will say, having sat through a lot of meetings where we try to find people who want to be in service on city boards, it's not always easy.

And so we were thinking about this.

But you know, the the work of this board is going to be very limited, and so it might be challenging to find folks that want to do this, given the like it's not a board that's gonna have tremendous impact.

Um I think I think that the questions about um changing the legislation, you know.

I guess it would require us to submit a sub A at the State House, which is you know a different conversation.

And that would be just asked you had talked about the timeline.

Um you said 2627 for takedown more on the 27th side, closer to the middle of the 26th side.

Do you have an idea?

I think the reason I'm pushing on this is that um if we don't show momentum, I think right is going to start mobilizing and we're gonna lose the opportunity.

Like the STIP is a formal document where they manage their projects.

There's a lot of um, they would really like to see us move forward on this, otherwise they're gonna scoop that money or they're they're not gonna move the money, they're gonna leave it and start working towards the definition.

Okay, I I think that's pushing for an important.

I need the opportunity for that idea.

Um, at the very least, if we're going to have council input as to who you know, gets on that.

I think it's important.

Um, and I knowing that there's an either more option where the money still stays in the in province, I think that's important too.

So I think I would move I would make a motion or I will entertain motion.

So motion to work.

A motion to pass this resolution to read this resolution as this resolution occurs in general to pass legislation to sell it on the first vote.

Second, all of the papers are aye.

Are you voted?

Thank you.

Not yet.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Can we read the next one?

Item two, an ordinance and amendment of chapter 27 of the Court of Ordinances of the City of Providence entitled the City of Providence zoning ordinance.

So 2014 as amended to change certain text in Article 5, 12, 18, and 19 regarding building design standards.

Can you swear any?

Yes, thank you.

Please raise your right hand.

The Assembly Panel Tip.

Are you that if there's someone that you're able to give you the food that we'll turn up in the truth?

Yes.

Can you please say your name and kind of put that record?

Jason Martin, principal thing.

Thank you very much for being here.

And I'm sorry, I'm prior to Restie on this.

So I'm gonna have you any more of the conversation.

But please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Um thank you for entertaining us uh tonight um for this informational session about uh this zoning amendment.

Um we thought it would be a good idea to do this in a uh less formal setting, part of the public hearing uh so that uh we can explain some of the nuances of of what we're putting forth um and and give you the opportunity to ask any questions that you might have.

So with that, we have a uh slideshow presentation um to kind of run through here.

Um and uh I just want to acknowledge that uh we also have uh Alexis Thompson here who participated in this.

Uh the three of us will be giving a presentation uh um Alexis and we also have Let Simon Um who's worked on this as well.

Okay, before you start, I think I have to go to intervene to the CPC letter.

I was saying that it's a bit one.

And we also have the presentation please display it on the screen.

So that will be at Tibet 1A.

So we can say that so much.

Okay, you can do it.

Yeah, you can do it.

Okay, okay.

Great.

I have it.

Um, next slide, please.

All right, so um uh we're gonna talk about really two two different things here.

Um a proposal for design regulations for small scale residential and uh also uh for apartments and mixed use buildings, and then and then we'll have a discussion.

Next slide.

All right, so uh again um I've already introduced uh uh Alexis and Lev, Chris, and Jason, also staff in the planning department.

Uh we're the we're the ones that are reviewing on a day-to-day basis development proposals, and we see uh the kinds of things that that come through, and while uh you see a lot of um a lot of projects that technically comply with the with the law, there are often some issues, and and we're looking to try to address those.

Next slide.

Um, so uh we talk about this in the comprehensive plan.

Uh it talks about promoting design excellence and historic preservations and appropriate land use controls, and um uh we talk about establishing uh an ad hoc committee that will um help us work on design regulations to improve the quality of uh construction in the uh city.

Next.

Okay, so we pulled together this committee.

Um, and as you can see, I think we had about 14 folks who attended uh multiple meetings.

We had several design professionals, we had developers uh large and small scale, we had a representative from the uh preservation society, and we have two neighborhood advocates uh that were with us through this entire process.

Next uh and here's the mission of that committee.

It really just um reiterates what's already in the comp plan, which is to develop new design standards uh that approve design quality without unnecessarily increasing the cost of new development or the length of time uh for projects to be approved.

Okay, so uh we met six times uh from June to October.

Um we just kind of like worked our way very systematically through uh through you know issues we asked committee members to to bring to us um uh examples of buildings that that they like but they don't like, and then we really dug in deep on you know what is it that makes something that makes something good that makes it fit in, uh, but also being very cognizant of of how much development costs and not wanting to make development so expensive that we don't get the development that we need next.

Okay, I'm gonna turn it over to Jason Martin now who's gonna run through the uh slides about small scale residential development.

Uh good evening, counselors.

Um again, thank you for having us.

So I'm gonna talk about small scale residential.

Uh so this consists of primarily two and three family housing, uh, which really accounts for the majority of housing in the city of two and three family units, really.

Uh that's what we have the most.

Um before kind of I go over what we actually agreed on.

I wanted to kind of give you a history.

I'm the preservation planner for those of you who don't know.

I staff at the Historic District Commission.

Um, and um I just want to give a brief history of kind of the evolution of two and three families in the city.

Um, and on you know, it's interesting too.

The building on the right here, as some of you may know, is on Manton Avenue.

And Manton Avenue from Glenbridge to Chalkstone is a great kind of area to show the evolution of two and three family apartments, really two family apartments in the city.

And this goes from uh the Direville Mill, which is the oldest extant mill in the city, is there tucked behind Man Avenue on the river, and then there is um duplex housing of the 19th century that was mill made for the house for the mill.

And as you kind of go down the street towards Charstone, you'll get an evolution of housing.

We really didn't um that starts then after the mill housing, we get double and triple deckers that go up until about the 1920s, the 1930s, through that phase when Providence was what many of us wish it was again, as far as the population and size and density of the city where we had over 200,000 in our population at that point.

Um after that, as you go down the street, you're gonna see an evolution now get more to and mostly two families.

These are all really didn't start getting built again until the 70s, quite honestly.

Um again, I that's because Providence actually nobody was really building anything post-war.

People were leaving the city, we were deserted, those kinds of things were happening, suburban flight, all of those types of things were happening in the city.

So there wasn't a big wave of development.

There was more than enough housing in the city at that point.

Um in some ways we're lucky because we didn't demolish a lot of it, we allowed it to still exist.

And so we came down and we had housing now there from the 70s.

You'd see housing now from the 70s, all the way through to modern day.

And most of that housing up to about 2010 is a duplex style housing, just like it was for the most part in the in the mill housing.

They were side-by-side duplexes.

In 2010, we started getting kind of a new prototype in the city, and that's kind of exemplified by these models.

These were two families that were really three stories tall in most cases, um, and they deviate from what had been the kind of traditional building type in the city by having these raised entrances, and um, you know, this became this was a reaction to the zoning ordinance.

It was a reaction to the building code, somewhat say it's a reaction to the fire code, but it's actually the building code portion of fire suppression that is causing this as well.

And why you may know people are building two families and not three families, um, but they're building the form of a three-family.

And so we've seen this in you know, planning has this um as these forms develop, we have kind of lost the architectural detail.

And so the houses that were built, the mill housing and up to the 20s were craftsmen built and were simple buildings but had detail to them.

They had you know simple detail, but they had cornerboards, they had little dental moldings, they had all the little things that those kind of houses have.

And as housing has evolved, we've lost those details.

We've lost the craftsmanship, quite frankly, and we've gotten to where developers are building kind of yep.

No, you're gonna give it uh development.

Okay, we do a quote question in the meantime.

You want to do that one thing do you have to give you an agent first?

And then we go back and question you, or we both uh uh uh if if if we may why don't why don't we have Jason give his presentation, we can ask questions and then and then Chris.

Jason's got just a couple.

Couple more, right?

Um and so as buildings go forward, we lose detail, and we get kind of these boxes, even though it's interesting, these new box buildings we were seeing before are of a triple decker size, actually, without really being triple deckers, that whole thing.

So what we've been looking at, and this is kind of a problem we have is that we developed guidelines.

We had to develop guidelines.

So let me stop for a second and just work through these slides for you.

So again, these are very new buildings, and these are again a prototype we've never seen before in province.

And quite frankly, personally, I abhor.

I just aesthetically.

It's good housing.

Housing is housing.

But aesthetically, you know, and you'll slide on the uh the right, you don't get it in this with the the original photo.

There's three of these buildings here that you can see, and it's quite quite shocking when you see them.

Um you can go to the next one, please.

So here we've got some examples of better housing.

Um, and why that housing is better is in this case you've got a smaller uh single family really um unit, two family unit um on the on the right.

The one on the left, it's got basic details, it's got corner boards, it's got trim around windows, it's got a hood over the door, it's got a porch that's at a at a of uh a normal typical level for the city.

Um the building next door is in a historic district, but again, it illustrates that these kind of details can be put on um and and made in a way that does not add a significant amount of cost.

Putting corner boards on a building, putting detail and trim around a window, it's not gonna add an absorbent amount of costs to buildings.

Um we've kind of been forced to kind of um create guidelines, the developer community reacts to our guidelines and quite honestly thinks of things we never would have thought of.

So if you go to the next slide, you'll see that the the items here in black are things that existed already, and the things in red are things that were changing.

So back in probably around 14 or so about the correct, we had to tell people that you need to put the primary entrance, the that the primary elevation will be your primary entrance.

On that elevation, you will have a door, you will have recos, you will have very basic things.

And they started doing that.

But we didn't tell them you could have a porch that's 10 feet off the ground.

So they started doing that.

So they could expose the basement level, get bigger windows in for egress, and have livable space down there.

And there's good and bad things to that, but that's what they're doing.

So what we put in this through the committee, through all this discussion, obviously with the committee, is that we have a maximum elevation of five feet above the ground for the torch.

So that should hopefully solve this problem of having these buildings that are in essence are being built on pedestal with very large pedestals as well with that.

The other thing that's happening in these buildings, they're using pressure treated pine as a finished material.

Yes.

And pressure treated pine can be a finished material, but it probably should be treated to some degree.

What we're saying is pressure-treated wood cannot be a finished material, that it should be finished somehow.

You can paint it, you can stain it, you can wrap it.

There are PVC alternates you can use, there are all kinds of solutions for that.

The other thing is these lot, these buildings we were seeing as this new prototype of were creating these vast spaces under the porches that were not being finished as well.

And so those spaces in this, if a building has those, are supposed to then be have a lattice around them, and you can I mean they store things under them anyway, you just won't see them.

It'll be a little more slightly.

Honestly, under the ordinance, these types, that type of situation should disappear a little bit too, because they won't be able to go as high at that elevation.

And if I could have the next slide, please.

Um the same thing with like again, we had to um tell people about putting in elements, having 15% of transparency on side, all those things were things that exist, and we had changed after kind of the last round of changes.

The newer things that were talked about, you know, there was a debate about vinyl siding.

You know, in the end, we had to allow vinyl siding.

Um so if we were going to allow vital sliding, we wanted it to at least replicate a traditional material look.

Um they also come in weird panels and different things.

So we stated that if you use vinyl sliding, it has to be in this form.

Also, if you're using you know, for windows, you shall have trim around those windows.

The trim shall be at least three and a half inches, so it's somewhat substantial.

You'll have a sill on the on the window.

Um you will also have corner boards at this point as well.

And I think that's the end of a resource.

Oh, more sorry.

No.

Oh no, that's it.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, so I mean, really, what we were trying to do in kind of ending this is trying to just through little changes, make these buildings have um, they have a very stark appearance, especially on the primary elevation.

And so by adding just these little bit of detail around them, it'll make them look better.

Chris deals with this much more than I do as far as helping developers try to improve design by adding the simplest of things to these buildings.

And so that's what kind of I think our hope was for this scale of building.

Thanks, Jason.

And uh before we get into questions, I just want to acknowledge Councilwoman Ryan and her uh advocacy on behalf of good design uh it led to these uh provisions in the comprehensive plan and also this um ad hoc committee uh being formed.

I also want to acknowledge that um uh city council staff did participate in the um ad hoc committee meetings throughout there was the representative at every one of those those meetings.

So I want to thank um uh the council for being a true partner in this, and we're happy to take questions at this point before we turn it over to Chris.

Do you have a question?

Yes, yes, okay.

Um so these the sign would be for an edge a hundred years.

No, they could change, you know, in our experience what happens is we implement changes, and developers and builders do their thing and decide, you know, this they address the changes, and we hope that what comes out is what we envision, but sometimes they find loopholes or ways to do things that we just didn't think of.

Like quite honestly, that prototype was never thought of as something that was going to show up based on what we had mandated, we had written before.

So the ordinance is the ordinance, it can change at the will of the council.

So, you know, something all of a sudden something goes horribly wrong, it can come back.

Um the science profession, like these committee, one, two, three, four, five, the six people here.

These people we appoint you, or they they invite them to be filed at the meeting.

Yeah, so so actually uh the the way this worked is that we um based on our experience, these are people, uh all of these people actually, the developers and professionals are people that we work with on a regular basis.

These are people who are commonly working in Providence.

Um so we brought forth a list uh that we vetted internally with with the administration.

We also vetted it with uh councilwoman Ryan, who was expressing an interest in this, and um former councilwoman Helen Anthony also had some input into this because this was a strong interest of hers.

Uh and at the end of the day, we we sent out um a request, just about everybody we asked was more than willing to uh participate.

The reason is because I don't see any Latino names with 47% of in on these CDU province, like they have different ideas too though, and they can reach in the new designs that they would propose and see what we can do a gear from that was the only reason there were some invited because everyone was invited didn't participate.

Oh, okay, that's so we did try we did we did consider that, and uh I know um I know a couple of developers uh uh I know uh Fernando Tabaras was invited, right?

And then some others that just you know for whatever reason couldn't make our schedule.

Thank you.

Did you have any other questions?

Yes, okay.

It would be okay if I just tagged in that question.

Just to add uh color to that.

There was a broader list, and the list was acceptable to the council president.

I reviewed it.

I know Helen Anthony had our colleague, Helen Anthony had some input.

It was a broad list.

A lot of people were invited, and those who didn't actually sit offer some insight that was considered invaluable.

So I do want to say that you know, I can speak to this committee that it's a solid committee, and it's uh because of this committee, I think really good product.

Right.

So just wanted to follow up on that.

Thank you.

So talking about these so these property went on you.

It is true that they changed the these barriers like five times, and they didn't look good at the end.

He can I can't, I mean, again, I didn't actually review any of the this project at all.

It was a um I don't think actually I don't even know.

I don't know.

I can I can actually speak to this a little bit.

So uh one of the one of the things that that we didn't talk so much about here is the fact that um sometimes the the plans that the builders will submit through our building permit system, uh they will have uh you know, sort of elevations of what the the different building uh facades will look like, and then they'll have a site plan that show shows where the building sits on the site, but they don't always give us the enough information so we know what it's gonna look like on the ground, and that includes the topography of the site, how killing it is.

Um and so what the what often happen is is the developers will submit a plan that makes it look as if the site is perfectly flat, and it's not, and in order to take a site that's not flat and make it conducive to development, uh they'll do things like this, they'll put in these like crazy retaining walls and and uh they'll they'll uh they'll elevate the entrances far higher above the ground than they show on the plan.

Um, and we didn't have any tools to say that even though it doesn't comply with what they submitted to us, we don't have the tools to say uh uh you're not allowed to do that.

This gives us those those tools now, including submission of accurate site plans with grading uh when necessary to show what it's gonna look like out in the field.

Thank you.

Um actually, Councillor Ray's you had this one, please.

Thank you.

Um comment and then maybe a question.

Um my question, my general question that I'd pose to both of you is are we too late?

Because there's been um a proliferation of these designs in board four.

Oh, yeah.

And I feel I I feel relieved this is happening, but worry if we're too late.

And uh, and you may have data that I'm not I don't have access to, but as we're going through this, I'm thinking about how many uh private lots that we have in province that have not been built on.

And um, and I don't know the answer to that.

So I just know this is probably not too many, and um I'm while I'm grateful for this.

I'm I'm just worried that we're we're too late.

Um, but I don't want to be Debbie Downer, so but um I'll you can answer that, but I'll if if I may just uh go to my next you want to at least as far as that part, what I would say is one of the reasons I wanted to give you that history was that there are a lot of these types out there, and you can find 80s duplexes all over the city, they're not the most attractive, they're very plain, I guess is the way to describe them.

They don't have a lot of detail or anything like that.

This will become a time, you know, eventually we're gonna go through the city and say, oh, that was built in between 2000 and 2010 or something.

Yeah, or 2000, whatever.

Well, it'll be of its time, and in the end, they probably won't, you know.

I guess the quicker we get this all past, the sooner they won't be able to do it, right?

So there's that.

And the and the thing is that that as much as it feels like you know we're built out, you know, people take down buildings, um, people subdivide, uh people find lots that that haven't been developed, people uh who have been holding on to a side yard lot for many years decide to sell.

So um it's pretty remarkable that that the developers are are very resourceful, and they find they find the lots, you know, and it's often it's often hundreds of units a year that are that are developed just through like one two and three family houses.

Yeah, they sure do, yeah.

Um the the other point to this is like for the the YMB audience out there, I think like there's this feeling that design standards would um uh hurt development.

I feel so differently about that.

I actually think I think for a very long time, long time, these designs that have been popping up, they've excuse my language have pissed off neighbors and have made people hate development.

And so I would argue the opposite point that responsible designs actually um encourage development because even when the hearts of of neighbors um the the last point is if it's possible, because I'm I'm a visual person.

If it's possible, because I'm I'm a visual person, I was wondering if we could have like a rendering of a design, a multifamily home that would incorporate these mandates side by side with the carbon day agregious design.

And that'll look great.

Just so I could see, I kind of am picking up what you what you all put in down here, but that would be great for us just to see visually see that.

Yeah.

Well, I think we did try to if you could go up a few slides.

Um good, now go up a slide, bad.

Oh yeah, so the the previous one is that with that other one.

So we're oh okay, we're just we're basing that.

We didn't have those uh so what was built there, there was no regulations to no, they didn't have to do that.

Oh the one on the right, the one on the right, the historic district commission reviewed that.

So if you're in a historic district, chances are your houses are gonna look more like that.

The one on the left is not in the historic district.

Um, but they did that uh, you know, that was done by a nonprofit housing developer, I think uh one neighborhood builders, and and you know, they cared enough to invest in a high quality design.

What did it just to say that we with with development on the less is was publicly funded.

So when it's publicly funded, aesthetics are actually looked at.

Yeah, yeah.

Um so they hired an architect and an architect who is trying to make it something that would be appropriate for the next thing.

So that's why that happens.

Where a developer might just have a draft person, he might have a house he's built 14 times, yeah.

He's just gonna build that again.

Can we can we go uh back up one slide and Chris had a comment?

I just want to make uh because sometimes you can take this form and this model, but if it's done correctly with the standards that we're proposing, you would get a better product, but with a similar, like the one on the right.

If it was if it was a grade that had a nice covered uh forge with wrapped and painted and had you know it was like a grade, you would that would be an acceptable house.

It's just what's bad about those two examples is the grain, the the staircases, yeah, the unfinished porches, um, maybe some more details like window trim, just a little bit deep beer trim to make it look so you can take that form and make it better with I think the proposed statements.

I actually have a question for you.

Um, just for more of a clarification, anything that has already been designed in this way, not good way, um, would be kind of the status quo, we would make recommendations to say, hey, add some lattice or whatever it might be that could rectify some of this because Word 14 is rampant of with all of this new development in this board.

Um, not the greatest pretty not pretty um, but uh some standards to those would be wonderful, actually.

So I was wondering if we're grandfathering all of that gets yeah, uh unfortunately, yeah.

Anything anything that's been built can be compliance uh is is allowed.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

So if we take this one from Lanton Avenue, and we're bots in the staircase and make a different design for some windows, they use can they use the same bots but without the staircase of the outside?

They would have had in I mean these guidelines, that entrance up to the second floor could not exist.

So the entrance would have to be a grade.

Now, could they have a three-story building of this height with a true first floor with portraits or whatever they want, like a triple, like an old triple decker, they could do something like that.

Usually we're gonna see this form in essence chopped to chop that bottom part here.

Yep, with stairs coming down the front, most likely, and that would be.

I mean, that grade is okay.

But the staircase would be in bot would be bought.

This isn't allowed.

Well, that would be yeah, well, so the first of all, the staircase wouldn't be as tall, and second of all, it would have it would be boxed in, it would also be painted.

Uh and the other the other thing is that um in a previous iteration of a change to the ordinance, uh, we no longer allow that kind of industrial uh uh the wall, that that that industrial scale uh retaining wall.

They would have to have either bring this bring the whole thing down so it levels the ground more or less, or if there's a wall, it would have to be a more decorative retaining wall.

Or if there's a wall, it would have to be a more definitive retaining wall.

The case is area because he has a rock in the main project.

We acknowledge that that's a that's what it is.

He went high.

There's a lot of rock.

Developers come in, they want to develop these vacant lots.

There's a reason there are vacant lots throughout the city in certain areas, man.

And I grew up in this neighborhood.

We used to have rockets.

Oh, you've got a drawing lot?

Is it has a name in it?

Is that it's ledge.

Ledge.

It's nudge.

Shale and ledge, and like you said, it's they haven't been developed because it is very challenging.

But people are getting to the point where they're looking to develop anything like an idea.

So we approval these, these designs would be done as that in one.

The ordinance would take effect in long passage.

So you've got a public hearing next week.

If you were to pass this out of the committee next week, it would probably go on the council dockets.

The not March uh February 19th, and then the first meeting and March 5th.

Uh and then so by by early March, it would be the only issue here is the front.

So it could be the same box.

Well, we'll be putting a brudge, like a beautiful oil would be an address.

Well, the you know the general the general principle here.

The general principle here is that is that uh probably the you know the most important facade of the building is the one that's that's facing the street.

And we we have we still have standards, but they're but they're lesser, lesser important standards.

Um you could have uh a deck on the back that's made with pressure treated lumber and it's untreated.

That's typical.

Right that's not, and that's not really objectionable because we you know we're not really seeing it from the front.

It's sort of that that front facade is the most important.

Thank you very much.

Oh, at least thank you, madam chair.

First of all, I'd like to say thank you again because I was calling, and I want to thank you for your question.

My colleagues' question about a way too late.

I was screaming as Bob knows.

Well, not screaming, I was speaking very loudly about the need for design standards, largely in response to what we've all witnessed.

Um, many of these boxes, these tall, I call them shoe boxes in our wards that were popping up.

Um, and yes, we all agree we need housing.

And I remember um saying we need design standards to preserve and protect the integrity of the look in the field on the scale of our neighborhoods that we all prize and protect.

And um there was some council people that said, okay, we're gonna vote for this design standards, but we don't want to delay, we don't want it to cause a delay in production.

I think we can all agree on that.

And then when I started to have conversations with some of the developers that are actually on this and designers, they were like, well, that's gonna be a really hard ask.

And I am so elated that you guys work together and came up with a package of practical um rules, if you will, that will I think address all of the issues that we've had with some of these terrible designs we've had in our neighborhood.

So I have a monthly meeting, and that one house, the big tall three-story box.

Every single meeting, there's somebody says, oh, that box, that box, is there anything that we can do, which goes to the chair's question about you know, is there anything we can do retroactively?

But you're right, it's out of the box on the horse has left the station.

We gotta be very careful about, but anyway, um, I'm very pleased with where you have arrived on on this.

Um they're practical, they're predictable, they address the common design challenges, and they're really not expensive, they're not overly burdensome.

And the developers and the designers were like, oh whoa, you gotta slow down because you know you're gonna you're gonna cause us great delay and great expense.

We didn't want to do that.

So you guys started the needle, and I really applaud your efforts here.

You made me happy, and you made them net my neighbors happy.

Um and interestingly enough, before these practices um were surfaced, some of the developers that have been active in my ward are actually doing just what this is is suggesting, and the the result looks good.

So I know Alexis is catching the permits incoming, and even though these aren't rules yet, you guys have been nudging the developers into that model.

And it's it's helped.

So I do think would I have liked that box not to have been built in my neighborhood?

Would I there's two problems that I will always remain thorns in my side in my neighborhood that I grew up in and love dearly and advocate for all the time.

Um, but I do think that we are in time, and you guys have been working toward uh this for some time now, and it's helped, and I know that this will really help a lot.

Yeah, I have to echo for your advocacy on that um Hessler, Ryan.

I think that this is a really good step forward, and I think um I have excuse me.

I have noticed a little bit of improvement and change in certain designs that are kind of coming up pretty quickly in our area.

So I agree with you, um, and I encourage and hope that you know it's well received, and we're getting um what we need for our boards to have a little bit more of that continuity that we were all looking here.

So I appreciate all of this work, it's really great.

Did you have another question?

Yes, okay.

So we have you mentioned that we have a protocol, right?

Public Karen?

Yes, we that's true.

So in the photo can we still make changes?

Absolutely.

Like they like we would have a lot of people coming in and saying, look, we like to make these changes to these houses.

So it would be the same uh design, but would you put it from the house?

Like the same body will be from front of the house because that's what's making the the property doesn't look like a house.

It's a house by the the way that they design it.

Because we have to take on consideration the foundation, the walls, or the design by inside.

If we change something on the front, everything would change inside the crop.

And that would cost a lot of money to them.

No, no, no.

We're representing, and again, you know, we did have we did have uh representation of some of the small-scale developers who were building things that look like this.

And uh, you know, if you actually go back, um, I'm sorry, go to the next slide.

Uh the guy, the guy who was building some of the stuff that looked like on the previous slide, actually is building the thing on the on the right hand side here.

So the the developers can do it.

Um I I think we just we just need to push them a little bit harder.

Um and you know, and we'd like to, and with that in mind, if if um if we may to move on to the next to the next topic, um I think you're gonna see an example about the fact that that we already have some good regulations in place for bigger buildings, but the process that that we've adopted internally is starting to change, and this will help move that along.

So we're having to go with questions on this, but but can I just ask one more question?

Um, if I so just for uh additional uh reassurance that uh the development on the right side, the design standards would force developers to begin to build that.

That's the idea that's kind of the ideal.

That's like that's that's sort of the best case scenario.

Even with the height, like we're not gonna see these like no represents the height that will be um in the new rules better.

And that's a need to be able to do that.

Let me let me let me let me address that.

So it depends on the on the zone, but in the three-family zone, you couldn't have a full three-story building.

So you can have a building that's that's the height of a in a three-family zone.

You can have a building that's the height of a tip of a typical triple backer.

Yeah.

On very small lots, though, we do limit the height to two stories, but on typical normal size lots, you can get to a three-story.

But the council is I think you were referring to the porch.

Were you referring to the entrance or the height of the building?

Or the height of the building.

The height of the building, like the height of the building.

Yeah, you could still have you could still have a three, a full three-story building.

Even it and it being two-family.

Yes, you can have a three-story two-family house.

Yes.

Okay, got it.

Going into these sessions with developers.

Are there is it anything that you had wanted to be included in here?

Well, ultimately, you backed off on.

Yeah, of course.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, you know, uh, we have if in a perfect world, we wouldn't we wouldn't allow line side.

Um, you know, vinyl siding is how it's a cheap, it's a cheap facsimile of real wood.

But um, however, we recognize that it's also often the most economical so it should be done properly.

It's what happens to houses that for older houses that when they apply the vinyl, they strip all the moldings off the corner cornices.

If you were to build it properly with vinyl, you could still add, I mean, they may not want to do that because it's may still have wood trim, but you'll have a vinyl, or maybe vinyl wrap.

So it can be like a necessary.

It is a material that people use.

It's vinyl is a necessary evil, and it may well turn out to be the lead situation of other generations, but that's that's how we deal with that's interesting.

So, yes, lead's a very bad thing.

I'm sorry, finding and they're doing vinyl shingles now that they're like so sometimes people use the front, they'll put vinyl shingles.

That's why we're allowing that.

So go ahead.

Last question.

So go back to the first assignments.

Yes.

And then we pass the second design.

We lose in the AV.

Not necessarily.

You can go to these windows?

Yeah.

Yeah.

We're not saying you can't, we're not saying you can't build a building uh that has that has three stories.

We're just we're just sort of saying you know, the the front entrance has to be a normal height above above the ground.

You can have an occupied basement.

Um you could even you could you could put an ADU, an ADU could be in the in the top floor, you know, the attic area, or it could be in an out building, or it could be in a bump out off the back of the building.

Uh so there, so there are you know, you can still do the AVs for sure, Jason.

So the house over the left is uh, I'm sorry, it's off of um it's near one neighborhood.

It's an off your street.

Yeah, in as well.

Yeah, and you're doing it.

Yeah, the part of the so in these particular cases, there is um accessibility to like a basement on these?

Sure.

Oh, okay.

Oh, right.

Yeah, he's got a full basement in the HDC one.

What's interesting about that building is it front is the back of that building looks like the front.

Yeah.

Because he made a duplex, but he put it front and back.

It faces out onto the cemetery.

Up and down.

So and but it has full basements, and there is living, you know, there is livable space in the basement.

Interesting.

And that's and that's why they these type of uh properties are setting like hard bread.

Because the basement saying, oh ID.

All right.

So I think I have to have a motion to continue on this, right?

Well, no, we had uh we wanted to talk about the large score.

There's a handful more slides for disabilities.

Oh, thank you very much.

Sorry about that.

So it is quick look today.

So um up one.

Yeah.

Oh yes.

Uh no, uh no, go down two.

Okay.

No one more.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'll start here.

We want to reverse the quarter, but that's fine.

So these are the these standards apply to apartments that makes these commercial buildings, commercial zones, C2 zones.

These are the design standards that are existing that people use to design their commercial building.

Uh facades, um require detail and visual interest to the building.

These are just some basic.

Um we want to prevent blank wall areas, large areas of blank wall.

Um trees, we talk about how they should be resets and dimension of the entryway on the street.

It should be um pedestrian, primarily uh oriented to the pedestrian.

Um fence racing windows and doors, and transparency of the windows on the ground floor and the upper levels to make sure that they're transparent and have enough glazing.

With the first floors, if it's commercial, we allow a lot more glazing on the first level of commercial use.

Roof line design is important, you know, cornices, parapets to make it more visually interesting.

Building materials, circ materials allowed on the ground floor, are not allowed.

Sorry, there's a few materials that are prohibited on these buildings, such as concrete block, T11 siding.

We allow, I think we have a vinyl zone on the first floor on the upper floors.

We look at site design, hardscape that's cohesive, and ground floor uses in some streets, main streets and C2 zones, which are any words.

You cannot have parking and residential on the street on the street front.

So these are the standards that we look at when we're looking at the design and developers look at.

So the next slide is going to the next slide will show.

So this building was designed with the existing design standards in mind.

And there are some failures with this building visually.

Yeah, well, I'm gonna get to that.

Um the building ends is okay.

Um it's it's it's recessed, the penetration is okay, but the ground floor loses it with um pedestrian um experience on the street edge of walking by this building.

Um also the building materials are an issue, and so is the roof line, but I'll get into that.

So this building, but one of the issues is we get complaints from the public about why who designed this building, why does it look like this?

Um the building's top heavy because they use that dock material on the top floor, and there's no corners, so it just reads as a heavy top heavy.

Um questionable design features like that big uh stone door with framed in black.

I don't know why they did that.

Um the materials, the materials they selected are okay, it's just where they place them.

Like they're questionable why they selected that corner to highlight one material, but where the stair top, where the stairwell is, it's it's just a they decide to do a feature wall.

Um also the way they break the materials up, it's just it's just it's a little it's unappealing.

I mean, this is if it's also subjective, but I mean, in the in the broad sense, people complain about this stuff.

Um so their integration of the materials selection could be completely, and again, the the ground floor level is not pedestrian, like friendly or inviting.

It could be questioned, you could question that, but we think it's it's not the best pedestrian pedestrian experience.

So if we go to the next slide, so this is where details matter.

So these are two examples of commercial buildings.

Um they're very different.

The one on the left is a more modern take on a um uh commercial design with apartments on the upper levels and ground floor retail, and the building on the right is a little more historic, more details, but it's still keeping all this design standards, sort of a good representation of what that should look like.

So the proportions are good again.

It's it's orientated to the pedestrian experiments.

So next slide, please.

Oh sorry, so right.

So what we're proposing is for all the development projects, um, a staff level design review is required to evaluate compliance with design standards and suggest improvements that could be made.

And then the staff person conducting the review wouldn't make a recommendation to the um CPC.

So we're getting more involved with the design of these buildings and make sure that they're following those design standards.

That's great.

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

And this is his area of expertise.

He's been doing this for decades now, working with uh buildings in downtown that are regulated by the downtown design review committee who formerly the Capital Center Commission, he's been an advisor to the I 195 commission.

This is his this is this is what he does.

And so when these projects do have to come in front of the City Plan Commission, uh they are strongly going to consider the advice of staff.

But the fact is that these buildings are going to get better through the this informal staff level process before we even come to the city planning commission.

And for those smaller projects that don't have to come to the commission, they'll have they'll still have that review.

And I think it's not so much with these buildings changing the regulations, it's changing review process that's where we're talking about.

And some buildings they are successful right out of the gate.

A lot of times that it's sometimes we get some odd buildings from commercial buildings that scratch our house.

And sometimes uh it's it's hard to sometimes we judge our success by what didn't happen.

And it's and it's uh you know, some we we we do have you know um uh I have a whole drawer full of of uh plans of buildings that never got built, um, and and work for very good reason in my opinion.

Uh and so you know we're often trying to prevent um some of the worst things from happening.

Um but uh I think that that ends our presentation.

Um we hope that uh we will swiftly advance these uh through the process and uh thank you for your consideration.

I appreciate that.

I just have a quick question on these as we are starting to see some of these larger mixed use kind of coming into our neighborhoods back in the SMAT because you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Um some of this has already started to become a little bit more of a typical standard for um communication between developer on these things that are kind of really new and up and coming in our neighborhoods with you.

Yeah, I mean we I mean we I think we've always tried, I've always tried to steer the developer in the direction to sort of with using those existing standards to try to make a better project.

Okay, but Chris hasn't always been involved in but no, no, some of the past ones with CPC have not.

That's why this is this one is coming.

I appreciate it.

Yes, right.

So the difference between that brick building and the other ones is money-wise, right?

Because you want if you would like to do a brick building like that one would cost a lot of money.

Yeah, you know, you can you can you it's clear, it's it's clear that that a brick facade is going to be more money, but we're not asking.

Yeah, we're not asking like that building.

If that came to me before on the left, I would have been able to talk about you know the use of materials where they're pretty materials, but uh the roof line, why is there just this giant stone?

I don't know what it is.

I still don't know.

Yeah, I don't know.

That's what I thought it was like, but it's like it's it's the art technology, just adding this, it's it's on the base, and for some reason they had a blank wall, and they decided to just I mean maybe they could have punched windows in there with a stairwell, maybe they didn't line up, but if they could have done something, they could have done a band of windows.

There's just so many little things you can make that building better.

Um because again, the massing and the proportions are fine, the windows they're okay.

I mean, you know, it's not yes, it's there's great buildings, but I don't see no parking like it doesn't be issue.

So in the uh in our list of of um comprehensive plan implementation tasks, uh parking is on that list, but uh we didn't come prepared to talk about parking today.

And the other can I one last the other one I don't see as uh is like the old timers mixed use properties that we have in the neighborhood?

Is any way that we can promote those to come back?

Like second floor top orders the edge and first floor commercial.

100% we we allow that, we encourage that in more places than ever.

Yeah.

Like try to get those, like and then if you see a bunch of houses, put at least one property right in the mail for a convenience store for the future.

Sure.

Yep, yeah.

Because that would be the mainstream.

And 10 years from now.

Yes.

So I can roll in my water.

And by the way, um, do I need to make a multiplication?

Okay.

I think you take a motion to some more signs.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't um second.

I have it.

Okay, we are good.

Okay, and so we are one more right now.

Can you read the find one more in hardly?

Yes, item number three, an ordinance, an amendment of chapter 27 of the ordinances of the City of Providence entitled the City of Providence zoning ordinance approved November 24th, 2014 as amended to change certain text in articles two, four, five nine, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty.

We have two ex so we have exhibit two, which is the CPC letter, and then we also have exhibit three, which is another CPC letter.

I have it.

Okay.

Great.

So let me just hand out.

Yeah.

And we also have the uh this is a this is an accompanying spreadsheet that we also go to remember.

Thank you.

That's uh just the call.

This can be also entertaining too.

Yes, I can.

So these will be at say four.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

I will entertain my number of motion to enter this as an exhibit four.

So second all those in favor.

Any opposed?

I have it.

Okay.

Please.

Okay, thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Uh I've got two other staffers here.

Alexis Thompson is our zoning official.

She sits in the Department of Inspection and Standards.

And then we also have uh planner assignment uh from the planning department, another one of our uh fantastic staff that that uh has worked hard on these amendments.

Uh I also want to acknowledge um that when it comes to these particular regulations, I'm gonna uh speak to we're gonna speak to.

I want to acknowledge um that Megan DeSanto from the law department was also uh participant in our group, uh she was instrumental in making sure that we uh followed um the state law uh as it pertains to the zoning.

Um these changes are a little bit less um uh maybe interesting, I guess, than the design standards, these are more technical in nature, and there are uh a couple of different categories that we're gonna talk about here.

Um the first is there are a couple of elements that that are related to implementation of the comp plan.

Uh next is that um I've been saying this to you for a few years now.

I think this is the fourth year running where the state of Rhode Island has changed the zoning law, and that's how we do zoning at the local level.

So there are some um changes relating to state law here, uh, and then there are a number of clarifications and corrections, some uh sort of general cleanup that we do on a regular basis, uh, some things where we have recognized that uh certain aspects of the zoning ordinance aren't working properly, or maybe we thought we were doing the right thing when we changed it based on the state law, and we realized there are some things that we should have said that we didn't say um a little bit of a cat mouse game with the developers where you know uh we think the ordinance means one thing and they find a special different meaning, and we have to kind of you know plug a hole.

Um, so there are things like that.

We're just gonna take uh the ones that we think are most important and that needs some explanation.

We're more than happy to talk about all of it, but in the interest of time, uh we're going to uh keep our presentation kind of tight.

Um I will say that uh you have a sub A in front of you uh that has a couple of additional things that that since we um uh submitted this, uh we have recognized uh we brought everything in yellow to the City Plan Commission uh at its uh meeting last month.

Um, and that's why you have a supplemental city plan commission letter here.

So I you don't need to um accept this sub A tonight.

In fact, I think you're not allowed to until you open the public hearing next Wednesday, um, but we'll include um uh speaking to the sub A language uh so you understand it.

So I'm gonna start off and then we're gonna kind of go back and forth between the three of us to explain each of these.

Um the first uh the first number one is where we uh is in the beginning of the zoning ordinance in a uh section called rules of interpretation.

Uh the zoning ordinance is long and complicated, uh, and it's a whole bunch of rules about how development has to happen, uh, but there are also rules about how the ordinance shall be interpreted.

Alexis is the official interpreter of the zoning ordinance, so this is really for her and for all the lawyers out there and all the developers out there who try to read this beast of a document to sort of give some guidance as to how it's to be done.

Um the law department has suggested this change in 200.

Um sorry, uh yes, the law department suggested both changes.

I'm so sorry, before we continue, I think we have to swear you guys I was very entertained and like ready to pay attention.

I think for your right hand, do you tell the penalty for you?

And you can say your name and title.

Alexis Thompson Zone Official.

Sorry about that.

Okay.

Uh so both of these um uh both of these uh sentences in uh uh 200 H and I uh were suggested to us by the law department to help uh clarify how the ordinance is interpreted.

H does nothing more than reiterate something that is already in the state law.

There are two kinds of regulations in zoning use and dimensional.

And the state law says if it's not about use, then it's dimensional.

That's all, and we're just reiterating that, we're not making any new law.

I is language that suggested um to say that we have captions and headings uh and subheadings throughout this document.

Uh they are there for convenience and to help us organize the ordinance, but they are not uh law, they are not enforceable.

Um this is Megan DeSanto suggested we put this in here in a document as long as it is complex as the zoning ordinance.

Um it's intended to prevent a court or other decision maker issuing uh a decision based solely on what a heading or a caption says.

This is we are assured that this is common in contracts and in laws, and and um and um I should note for the record that uh your solicitor is not in the point.

Okay, okay.

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

Addicts, yes.

This is this isn't really uh the sexy staff in the zone ordinance.

Um thank you, Bob, and thank you to all uh of you.

It's I'm not be here yet.

Um to talk about the zoning ordinance, which I talk about all day, every day, but um you know there's a lot of ingredients here uh sort of in in the boots in the round sense, like I really get a feel for this because I'm looking at permanents every single day.

So I both appreciate the time to tweak it to make it better, and also to kind of hash out people the details.

It's it's helpful discourse.

So thank you.

Um definition of addict, and uh the reason for that is um simply that in our one in our cruise road, which are two small and medium um development zones now for residential, uh we limit the zone, we need the graduate zone ordinance limits uh height of houses to three stories, which the compan has deemed appropriate as in you all have signed on to that.

What we're seeing more and more in reference to the previous conversation are these boxes that are not only three stories, but for all intents and purposes four story buttons.

And what is happening, a bit of a loophole we spoke about those holes that we tried to plug earlier, is that the way attic is defined actually allows for quite a bit of occupied space.

So what's happening is that we're seeing people say, oh no, no, it's an attic.

Which they can do based on these very specific dimensions.

And somehow they're getting on there and say it's not a story, it's just an attic.

But really, again, for all of these places is becoming that built to it.

So this is tweaking the definition of attic to tamp down a little bit.

It's not saying you can't have an attic.

You absolutely can have an attic story things we had at it, but uh we don't want it to get so out of control that we're seeing very full story buildings in the R1 and R3, where the intent is really to have three story buildings.

Uh and it's it's very easy to get three units and they in a three-story building.

Um I my background is as an architect, I I feel like I can very confidently say doable uh without stretching things to that.

Uh so that's that is the small tweak to the plain and simple addict package.

So important.

Um we're gonna so we're gonna skip down.

So again, there's other things in this list, and we're happy to speak to all of them, but I'm gonna uh kick it over to Liv to talk about something that's actually far more exciting than addicts.

Um Love Simon.

Uh I'm about to talk about item seven, but thank you uh counselors for giving me the opportunity to speak.

You know, like my colleagues, I love getting the chance to talk about uh the work that we do and uh some of the practice that we get to partake in.

Uh like Let's just said I'm going to talk about row houses.

Um it was uh an item in the comp plan that uh we would uh kind of further legalize and make much easier to build uh the row house typology in Providence, and that was implemented uh during the major comp plan zoning update of last year.

Um but we knew at the time that uh very likely once we actually encountered a couple real developers uh attempting to do some real rowhouse development, we would need to make adjustments and changes to our original proposals uh to make the row house more realistic as something uh to actually build in the city.

And uh sure enough, a year has passed, and uh we were right, there are some changes that uh we feel uh could really benefit the uh buildability of this type of house in the city.

Uh I'd say the main consideration for us when we were thinking about how to uh modify our row house standards was flexibility.

What we want to do is make it uh give developers many more chances to make something that complies and make it dimensionally a little bit easier to do so uh to be that's the to be specific about that, that would be uh lot sizes, where before we uh uh had minimum lot size, every lot size, uh every lot created via a row house subdivision had to be a specific size.

What we now say is that uh you can create a certain density of row houses in a given area, but the actual individual row house lots that are created can be variable in size.

Uh we say that the front and rear yard no longer need to have a specific amount of coverage, only the total lot needs to have one uh total coverage calculated for the entire parcel.

Um we say that uh we uh modified our front setback to make uh the parking situation a little bit more reasonable, where before we had uh variable setbacks, as with other types of residential dwellings uh in the city, what we've done now is we've set the row house setback at exactly five feet, uh which we've determined is going to uh both create the uh integral parking that we expect to see from this typology without say having a car park on the sidewalk illegally and get a pedestrian traffic.

Um other note, just uh this is one of the sessions where we had uh a sub A change, uh so you'll see it highlighted in yellow uh in the sub A that is in front of you in table four-one.

Well we wanted to clarify here that so uh these row house lots lots are very small, right?

Uh unlike the average type of uh lot in the city, these are going to be usually smaller than 2500 square feet, and frequently much smaller.

Um and so we wanted to just make it extra clear that unlike any other type of very small lot in the city on a roadhouse lot, uh, you can build to the same heights that you would be able to build to on a normal-sized parcel in that given zone.

Um that's all I have to say about row houses, so Bob, I will turn it over.

Okay, uh so next we're gonna talk about item number 12.

Uh this is gas stations.

Uh you might recall that there was a little bit of a talk.

Uh uh, I'm sorry, yes, number 10.

It's it's 12 spreads.

It's not line number 10.

Gas stations.

Um you might recall that there was some discussion, a little bit of discussion about gas stations during the comp plan process.

Um, and ultimately the language that was agreed to in the comprehensive plan was that gas stations would be uh prohibited in uh new development new gas stations would be prohibited within city limits except by special use permit if the target land is suitable for residential is unsuitable for residential development.

Okay, so essentially what that means is that if there is if there is land that is zoned for gas station, but is also zoned for residential, and it turns out that residential is not uh is not feasible on the land.

Usually it's going to be because of some environmental contamination if the property were residential wouldn't be allowed, but something like a gas station would be allowed, then the gas station would be allowed.

And in that case, it would be a special use permit uh that would go to the zoning board.

So we so we simply have um there is one zone where uh uh C3 zone we've changed gas station from permitted to by special use permit, and then we've included special use permit criteria in C2, C3, um W2 and MNU that says uh exactly that that gas stations uh shall be allowed in those zones only when the subject property is unsuitable for residential development.

So we're carrying out exactly the language that's in the comp.

Uh and we'll be happy to take questions when we're when we're done with this.

Uh the next one, uh transitional shelter.

This is also a comprehensive plan items that we are implementing in zoning uh the language directly from the comprehensive plan from H3, that's the housing chapter, says support the continued operation of emergency shelters, including by enacting land use and zoning changes that allow emergency shelters, transitional shelters, and special needs facilities of appropriate size by right in residential and mixed use areas.

So right now the uh transitional shelters are by special use permit in the R4, C2, C3, and D1 zone, uh, and we're proposing to change those to permit so they don't have to go to the zoning board.

They still have to comply with the land use regulations of 1202 uh double L, uh, but they wouldn't have to go to the zoning board.

Yes.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, but sorry, keep on.

Okay.

Uh back to Alexis uh fences.

Uh yes.

So uh yes, I have 14.

Um the this is a good example of not necessarily plugging a hole because somebody's figured out it would be something that we don't like, but uh as a tweak that will actually the intent is to help people and build that more possible.

So um we have fence regulation uh we have pretty wide reaching fence regulations, but what we found is that the particular regulation uh that relates to that front five feet of a lot where we don't want to see fences super high, we we say they need to be three feet high until you get five feet back and then they can rise to six feet.

Um really that regulation is very well suited for residential, but does not really make sense with a bunch of other uses.

Um we have other uses in the board that actually have specific fence regulations related to those uses, parking lots, outdoor floor yards.

They already have their own fence rates, but we've got this kind of sticky situation.

Um come into a couple of scenarios where people are uh needing to come to the zoning board to get relief from that regulation.

We'll try to be reasonable in this change such that you don't have to come in order for certain uses of a fence of six feet at the front lot line.

The really good example of that is community gardens.

But lots of lots are the same.

Yeah, in those areas.

We just don't always perfectly all the different uses.

So we're tweaking it based on what we've seen come before us in the last couple years.

And I think I'm going to skip a couple take it back to Bob for the second two.

Okay, item number 17 is encroachments.

This is uh a concept where we we speak to um building features that might uh hang out over the public way, the sidewalk.

Uh so uh encroachants might include cornice lines, uh it might include balconies, might include bay windows, things like that that uh that come out from the facade of a building, and so and if that building is right on the lot line, they'll encroach over the sidewalk.

That happens a lot in Providence, and sometimes some of the most beautiful decorative features are these these kinds of encroachments.

So we've always allowed for them under certain regulations, but we found that uh in a couple of cases, developers were looking for extra square footage in the building, and they were hanging the entire facade of the building out over the public way by four feet, and it results in a in a not so attractive uh result.

So, what we're doing here is clarifying that that only a certain portion, only a certain percentage of that facade is allowed to encroach.

And we did a lot of sort of um evaluation of typical buildings in Providence and how much of them encroaches, and so I think we came up with some quick rules that allow for a decent amount of encroachment, but not that sort of um you know uh sort of uh appropriation of the air rights over the over the public way that's uh proposed.

Um, next I am going to talk about parking.

This is the only time I'm gonna talk about parking officially today.

This is line item 18.

Um there were two uh two parking standards that were changing.

One is bike parking.

Uh we found with all the schools, uh the public schools that have been coming in front of the city planning commission that our requirements for bike parking for K to 12 schools are ridiculously high.

Um so we are reducing those.

Uh so a meaningful number of bike parking spaces have to be provided, uh, more than enough for anybody who's typically going to arrive to a school, uh, but not so many that that like the whole playground has to be taken up by bike class.

Um the other one relates to uh parking for colleges and universities, uh, and this is uh relating to a portion of the MOU between the payment of taxes agreements with the colleges in Providence uh that seems to right size uh the parking regulations that uh is specific in the pilot agreement that says allow for multiple users per parking space given increase in hybrid and remote employees.

Uh so we've seen that with these schools, they they uh they have uh workers who aren't always commuting um on a day-to-day basis, so we've adjusted uh those regulations accordingly.

That doesn't mean that colleges that have a lot of parking and want to have a lot of parking can't have it, um, but it gives a little bit more flexibility.

Uh so that's uh that was number 18.

Uh we're gonna move down to item number 27 uh that I will also take.

Uh this comes from the sub A.

Um 1903 B.

Uh it changes the language to reflect an update in the state law.

Uh, this is um this is the um this is nothing more than reiterating the state following talks about the authority of the zoning official that's electricist to grant what we call modifications, which are uh small variances that can be granted administratively.

The state requires us to do it, uh, so we're just making that language exactly what's from the state.

Um, and then um and then there's some other language that um again uh makes a change based on the changes in state law, and significantly adds a new category of modification called neighborhood character-based modification.

This is where the zoning official is required to look at development patterns uh within a certain distance of the property that's proposed for this modification, evaluate uh things like setback and can apply similar setback regulations to this law.

Another the idea is that you look at what's happening all around this property, and um it would be allowed on that property consist so that so that the development there is consistent with what's there.

So, again, that is including language that's directly from state law.

Next is uh item number 28.

Uh, this is language in 1904.

This is also in the sub A.

Um, and this is again just uh updating to be consistent with state law that recognizes that um with land development projects, which are larger developments, that sometimes the city plan commission reviews these projects, sometimes uh what we call the administrative officer, I or my staff review them.

So we're just updating the language to reflect that that can it can be either the city plan commission or uh another permitting authority, which includes the administrative officer.

Um I'm going to go to number 34 over in the home stretch here.

Uh Alexis is gonna talk about something we touched on in the left item.

Um, yes, so item number 34 talks about um really what this tweet does is really is just make explicit something that is I believe implicit in the language, uh which is to say that um we are allowed it it's gonna help with pushback.

We're allowed to ask and require that survey is part of a uh building from an application when necessary.

And and um that is to say um a survey is a definitive document.

When there's a regulation that is is we need to find compliance with that is related to site boundaries or areas resulting from those site boundaries.

The survey is a definitive document.

Um, and we sometimes need that sometimes it's easy, you can you can see something with airline for play, but most of the time, particularly from the construction, and often for additions, we're gonna need a survey.

We've always requested uh required it.

Uh we get a little pushback sometimes, so we're really just making the language very very clear.

So we can pull to it in the book, and somebody has to push back.

Uh so that that is that.

And um, yeah, that's actually left.

I'll put it back to you.

So I'm going to cover the last two items, numbers 37 and 38.

I'm going to take them out of order, so I will start with uh 38, which is the oversized lot subdivision.

Uh this is another one that derives directly from the state law per uh the large zoning package that passed through uh the chambers back in the June.

Every town city in Rhode Island is obligated to add the oversized law subdivision uh to their ordinances, and that's what we're doing right now.

The oversized lot subdivision is a provision that allows you to split what's called an oversized lot into multiple lots, assuming that the lots that are created via that subdivision are larger than 50% of all developed lots within a 200-foot radius.

So that is to say if you had a 6,400 square foot lot on a street that was full of uh 3200 square foot locks, and all of those 3200 square foot lots were built on, uh, you could use the oversized lot subdivision to split uh the 6400 square foot lot into two 3200 square foot lots, assuming that you could prove uh or assuming that those two lots were otherwise compliant with the zoning ordinance.

Um there are limits to this.

You can only uh use the oversight lock subdivision to create a lot uh that is 3,000 square feet or larger, uh so it limits the ultimate tinyness that these laws can be.

Uh they also are mandated to be at least 30 feet wide.

Uh so now I'll go back to item 37.

Uh we actually already had an art ordinance something fairly similar to the oversized lot subdivision.

Uh we call it the subdivision into non-conforming lots.

Uh, we use shorthand 2003 for it.

Um, this is uh a provision where if you can prove uh that a lot that exists today was once considered by the city to be multiple lots, at least one of which would be considered non-conforming by the lot area, uh, you can go back to number of lots that preceded the merger to create today's current condition.

Um the change that we're making here is to align our uh minimum lot size that you can create via the subdivision into non-conforming lots.

We're going to align that number with uh the oversized lot subdivision, so we will set that to also be 3,000 square feet uh in lot area and 30 feet in width.

Uh so the two types of subdivision will have the same minimum bounce.

Uh we're making a couple other small modifications to the 2003 uh subdivision into non-conforming lots.

Uh we are clarifying some details on how uh the proof that we want to see uh submit to show us that uh the lots truly were merged and that they're used to multiple lots in the past.

Um and uh we also want to clarify that the lots that are created via the subdivision non-conforming lots are eligible for administrative modification.

So that concludes our presentation.

Uh we'll now accept any questions uh that counselors uh may have about what we have.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that.

Um you guys have any questions?

Yeah, uh going to Alex, going to number 24.

What is a requirement by what I go on and say is a better requirement, like even an example, what kind of permit like uh a permit to build a new home.

Oh, but a new home.

Yeah, it's it's it's for new most often a certain you're talking about item 34, right?

Yeah, like the last movie for a survey.

Yes, it's so it's when it it's most often required whether new construction or a large addition that is going to be close enough to lot line that we need to have it definitively clear.

As you as I think we all know, sometimes depends on where the lot line is, and sometimes it's not, right?

Um so uh there's a need to be uh for us to be able to definitively require that document uh to be sure of compliance and to be consistent.

I think that's that's really important consistency with line design.

Can I just follow up on that?

Um it's in the process of the building permit, so that would require whoever's going to be building to do that survey.

It would at the discretion of those of us uh that are reviewing it.

Um whoever's applying for the permit, developing the lot or uh projects of a certain scope would require you to get a survey.

Okay.

Uh and I I would say that it's not an abused or overused um regulation.

I think uh I'm trying to think of an example.

If there's a really big lot, you're putting an addition in the on the back of your house.

Yeah, I was right in the middle of a big 10,000 square foot lot.

I can, as the zoning official, I can look at the map, and I can see that based on the dimensions of that addition, you're not going to be anywhere near the lot line.

Yeah, and your coverage is going to be well under the maximum.

Uh I would I would never require a survey in that in that scenario.

I think it allows for discretion.

It just really what this does is give us keep when we say, no, we need it.

There's that little pushback about the requirement of the survey.

Um that that's that's what's in my reason I ask is um in a situation where there's two business owners very, very close to each other, and one is about to start a new construction, and the typical issue of removed by fence because you're gonna have to start building, and now I don't know where my line is.

The business owner adjacent to this new build, do they have the opportunity to request a survey just to be able to say look that I really want?

To know where my boundary is, and this should be complied to when we they start their building.

Um that's an interesting scenario.

I like it's happening right now, it's not exactly what I'm asking.

The if if the if the new development is a new building, there would be a survey required.

No question, any any new building, I need a survey to be sure it's all compliance.

So in that case, the neighbor who might be curious about where that line is could utilize the fact that a survey has already been done.

Yeah.

Uh where wouldn't where I wouldn't be the one requiring it is, and we see this often, disputes between folks who learn over their fences, or one or other floor audience.

I I I don't want to be um, they can't use us.

Some sometimes the folks come to the building department and and try to get us to demand things to to manage a civil matter between folks.

This is this is not that.

Yeah, um, if if that makes sense.

No, that makes total sense.

The the reason why, and just to give further context, I think um in a situation which is where kind of all this is lying right now, is that there was a previous survey already done by owner of the non-buildable lot.

So they have something, but it's from like 1999.

Um now that all of these you know fences have been lifted and removed and stuff, that lot line is kind of questionable because pieces have been written back, and both can contest where that line is.

So the question kind of since, all right.

Well, if you've done this, then you should pay for that survey, because I have one that says this is exactly where I have it.

Yeah, so that's kind of a combination situation of the two.

Um, and I your council might speak to this, but um, you know, if there is if there are two surveys, yeah, that there's signed professionals that or a survey has to be signed by professional license surveyor.

If there's a dispute between two of those documents, that's not something that IRB.

That needs to happen um between those two voters.

Um which is I think makes the point about the the requirement for a survey, it doesn't only if what I say to folks is that this is not just for me, it's to protect you.

Yeah, when somebody pushes back and says you didn't do it, if you have the document, it and it clearly shows that it's on the stand, um, it's something that they can use to sort of defend their position.

And there's a lot of times folks think that well, I'm a certain place, it's not really, and then that causes um agitative between neighbors.

Uh um so it it's it's both it's both for the city and for the owners uh to be to be really sure where those things are.

Okay.

I appreciate the follow-up.

I'm just I was just very curious about how um how that would be conducted in a situation where there's a dispute between two entities.

Most of the time there's a dispute, I have to say uh apologies, but you you you all have to go.

Yeah, I'm I I don't want to get paid.

I can be thinking tough, but I don't want to.

Yeah, no, I get it.

Counselor, I'm sorry, I took a protection.

I'm sorry.

Number 20.

You're talking about inside the property or outside the street.

Uh we're talking about uh so uh item 20 um is a provision that is allowing RV or recreational vehicles uh in general parking in certain circumstances.

What we had was two lines they were knit that actually contradicted each other, so we're fixing that.

One said you can't do it, and the other said this is how you can do it.

Um so we are instead of again, this is one that actually adds flexibility.

We're not so we're saying we're not saying you can't do it, we're taking that line out, or and we're just clarifying um how an RB on a private property, this is not on the street, councilman.

This is on private property.

On private property, how it needs to be screened and sort of managed.

Um this is this is really I I think we have it listed as an update, but it's really a fix to a contradictory language.

Um RB and converse.

Uh those are it's it's there is a definition that includes cancer.

So a recreational vehicle definition includes a number of different things, uh, including votes.

So it's an all-encompassing um chart.

Yeah, because I have the issue like if people say that go park the RB in the street and they want to leave it there for a week, because they say then the cop comes and you would tickets and they go, Oh, is I can be there.

And the cops are noise, no way that we have an ordinance that you can be in the street.

Yeah, that's a different different departments regulate on street um parking, and and uh you cannot get an on-street parking pass for a big bar vehicle or a commercial vehicle.

So uh between DPW and the police department, but those are those built to manage.

So it's useful private property.

This is on the property anyway.

We don't want to see RVs in every driveway.

Yeah, and we also uh to be clear, there are other regulations that we're not touching that don't permit an RV to be used as a living um a dwelling unit on the site.

We have lots of ways you can get a lot of dwelling units on sites now, including ADUs, which is great.

Um, but the intent is not to have a proliferation of recreational vehicles in uh that are not screened and are lived in.

They jack it up and photo black and yeah, exactly.

So um but yeah, hopefully that answers your question.

Yeah, sure.

Number 17.

Uh the encroachment, yes.

So my sidewalk is nine feet from the water of the property into the street.

How many feet can I go in there?

So at one once you get to uh 12 feet off the ground, you're allowed to go four feet out over the sidewalk.

Oh, the sidewalk and no more, and if the sidewalk is narrower than four feet, you can't go further than the curve.

Oh, it's all the way to the core point.

Only if the sidewalk is four feet or narrower because you couldn't get that far.

So in my case, I got eight each.

Yeah, go about halfway out the sidewalk at massive.

But most of these encroachments are they're not quite four feet, they're a little bit less than that.

I mean, I was my money.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Go ahead, no, you come I don't know.

Oh, sorry, there you say do you have a question?

Um I mean again yeah, uh I am 11 uh transitional shelter.

Yes.

Did that um does that encompass sort of like an echo village design if it was on state land?

Uh so echo village is is actually unique.

Um the so first of all, state land um in general, you know, the state house, the department of administration, that falls within our uh the purview of our zoning ordinance.

The state is obligated to follow our zoning ordinance.

Um however, Echo Village happens to be on a special type of land uh that's called state highway right of way.

Um just like our city right-of-way, uh, it falls outside of the rules of the zoning ordinance.

So uh usually state highway right-of-way is the roadway and whatever embankments are adjacent to that roadway.

In this particular case, Echo Village just happens to be in the middle of a really large uh you know, corner of clover beef intersection interchange.

Uh so echo village is an outlier, it happens to be exempt from zoning.

But if if uh we're talking about what we're typically talking about with transitional shelters, is the use of an existing building for uh a shelter.

And Alexis can speak much more to the fact that uh uh you know we're often talking about um in some cases we're talking about house type structures, in other cases we're talking about uh structures that might be part of church complexes and so forth, but maybe you can speak a little more to the typical you know, even high runs like on Charles Street that that high rise being used as a transitional shelter.

It could be almost any kind of building.

Yeah, thanks well.

I think that the typology of um transitional shelter absolutely can occupy any typology that's suitable for some kind of main.

Um we've seen them take the form of houses of sort of large old mansion type or manor type houses.

There's one on um Elmwood uh that used to be a uh root home that is utilized as a transitional shelter now, and that there's a you know, there's a the definitions are they're allowed somewhat for their distinct transitional shelter is has a certain licensing and a certain way to run it relative to state um state requirements.

Uh it's also um different and it's not people aren't leases, people are not paying five a month or any other amount of time.

Uh it they tend to be more um come and go uh shelters.

The the the real change here um you know what counsel, I always got to your question about echo village.

That that is absolutely I just to answer kind of clean question, it is a transitional shelter, echo village, uh they don't have like monthly leases for those little units.

Um so potentially someone could put an echo village type development on a lot that is within the city bounds and maybe to require a zoning.

We have really clear um use standards that apply to transitional shelters.

So when there are use standards in the table, you know, you can see somebody has an S and then you go to the end and it has review standards.

If it has an S, it goes to the zoning board, and the zoning board evaluates it and they look at that list of standards, and they make sure they check all those boxes.

If it has a key, and it still has these standards, it's not that it's not that no one's checking.

I I I assure you really carefully, it's it's just that they don't have to jump in the book of the zoning board to do it.

So we're we're still making sure that all of those boxes are checked that that uh you all are implemented in the zoning ordinance.

Um this change really just uh speaks to the the new Lake Comp plan language, which says we need these, we have a problem.

I think that's where we recognize that there's a um there's more and more people going now.

We need to we need to have these uh available in more places, and so that's it's it's it's saying in it said in residential districts in a couple of different categories, so we are four as a district that used to be by special use now as high right.

Um let's see, what else?

See in the C2, C3, and D1.

Those are all places that it was allowed before.

Uh we're just following along with the clear guidance of the count plan to say now it's by right, but rest assured, there's still the solid list of things that they need to check off that we are looking at every time they're be established, whether it's changing Charles Gate Tower to a transitional shelter, changing a big old house for transitional shelter, or building a necro village type um development.

We didn't have a bracket that one, like we would if it's on a lot, and see.

Uh that's true.

That is true.

Yeah, and and I I believe that that was considered in the in the changes to the count plan before again, you know, again, some of this is the zoning ordinance is the rule book that's derived from the overarching plan that is the count plan.

So um the wisdom was stated and put into the company that we need to make this a little easier, and and we're responding to that.

Uh in the company in general, we're not putting it in, you know, we're not proposing that we've got it in every residential district.

We're I think the appropriately specific about where when they're on, but you're you're not wrong, Councilman.

Uh not having a special tree uh eliminates an alternation requirement.

I guess I guess I just uh uh I have to envision for some reason I'm trying to envision like an echo village and R4, and I'm trying to figure out where in R4 exists in my neighborhood to be honest, and can I find okay?

I'm not sure.

No, that's not that's not RP1.

Combination of R1 and uh maybe a rule R3.

Yeah, I think I don't honestly, you know, a bunch where the commercial zones I don't know that there is R4 and Word for I I only go one that's one U and I spoke enough before we have to I have to think about this some more about the the R the residential I mean it's it's pretty much yeah I don't want to make it uh difficult uh for this uh important um safety net um for residents so uh anyhow uh sorry that's I like uh blinked out a little bit but you brought up a good point because of the specific areas of our talking about did you have a final question?

Yes um so talk about the charters those so we have a mergency chart of we need these kind of permanent to do like a church the state licenses state licenses uh emergency shelters and uh temporary warming shelters that I actually I don't want temporary warming centers an important uh distinction we have there's an allowance that the the state is mandated and that that we allow providence churches to be used as warming centers they're not intended to have um sleeping facilities in them um and I I'm aware that the prior fire department uh fire marshal's office as well as the building official have to okay those sites and l and and uh uh make recommendations on the limit of the number of people that can be that that is not those warming centers are not transitional shelters this is like a permanent change of building a lot to be this use so the shelters that we are that we have in place now for example uh risk commission in France Street do they need to change the permit that they have already or uh I they shelter more than a hundred people every night I would I uh we I um I would guess that there are probably places acting as transitional shelters that are not formally established as transitional shelters they would say that people need to formally establish you know um yes uh I would I I I am a I I I have been made aware of some and I don't know of all of them and I I um I for some reason I can't place the one exactly that you're saying but um we we have done work reservation what rescue mission rescue mission on Cranson Street yeah I don't I'd have to look to see if that is probably yeah it's a shelter too at the same time yeah um I what about what about our that's a shelter too uh I think Amos House has a transitional shelter use uh the there have been some that have that have come up um where they've they've uh applied for this for to the state and then the state comes to us and says are they this and I say on paper no like let's get that straightened out and uh um and again with the increase in warming centers we're we're these are coming through the protocol now that the administration and city council together have looked on for warming shelters um they are they are getting fire and building good sign off uh those are not zoning does not um the use of like the the a big room in a church basement as a warming center is not something that zoning is concerned with um it's just if something's kind of changing to to be a shelter uh a really good example is uh is that Charlotte tower right that that was a that was in a nursing home uh it it the state took it over uh state purchase didn't want to make it into a true transitional shelter um uh and they came for the zoning board they had to show that they met all the regulations zoning would ultimately approved that special use permit um that's sort of the the recent one that came for a special use permit most of the rest of them have have already been established questions I want to thank you guys for being here and answering being so thorough about this it's um long time coming I'm sure I'm for you guys and see uh might have been the title on some of these things I'm sure it's a little bit of a good thing right um so I know we're gonna continue this um because we do have public hearing next week um so I will entertain a motion to continue so we'll second in favor all opposed the eyes have it thank you very much and now and watching I remember that I'm not sure about this one second all in favor aye opposed the guys have have a good night everybody thank you