Welcome everyone.

I call this meeting of the City Council's land use committee to order.

It is Thursday, May 7th.

Pursuant to chapter two of the Acts of 2025, this meeting is being conducted via remote participation.

We will post an audio video recording and comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Somerville's website and local cable access government channels.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

This is roll call.

Counselor Davis.

Counselor Klingon.

Counselor Said here.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Yeah.

Counselor Ewan Camping.

Here.

With three counselors present, we have quorum.

Excellent.

And Councillor Davis has an unavoidable family responsibility.

And Counselor Klingon is at an important word for meeting.

So it's just the quorum of us.

We have two substantive items to discuss tonight.

There's some amendments to the affordable housing overlay and then a proposal related to dormers.

And before we get started, I'd like to move to recommend approval of items one, two, and three, which are just the approval of minutes previous meetings.

Can we call the role on those, please?

And on the approval of agenda items one, two, and three, counselor Davis is absent.

Counselor Klingon is absent.

Counselor Said.

Yes.

Counselor McLaughlin?

Yes.

And Counselor Young Campin.

Yes.

Three counselors in favor, those are accepted.

Excellent.

So let's uh discuss the proposed amendments to the affordable housing overlay.

So I'd like to take up item four and five.

Um item four is the planning board's recommendation for this item, which is recommending approval.

Um, and I encourage anybody interested to read that.

And then let's take up item five, and I'll read the item.

It's 260204 requesting ordainment to an amendment of section 8.1 in the zoning ordinance to provide for larger buildings, additional dimensional flexibility, and fewer use restrictions for affordable housing projects.

So, colleagues, the first thing I want to do just before we have our substantive discussion.

Um, Director Bartman provided an updated draft to this at our April 2nd meeting.

Um, and I think that's the draft that we want to be working off.

So I'm gonna move to replace the text of the item that's before us currently with the text from um April 2nd, and the clerk has that ready, and we can put that on the screen when possible.

Thank you very much.

So this is not a vote to approve the amendment.

This is just a vote to put this uh updated language before us.

Can we call the roll on that?

Yes.

And just to clarify, this is to update the attachment, not the actual text of the item itself.

The attachment is yes, I want to replace the attachment, which is the substantive language that we are considering.

And on that motion, counselor Davis is absent, counselor Klingon is absent, Counselor Saeed.

Yes.

Counselor McGoffin.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campin.

Yes.

That motion is approved.

Excellent.

So colleagues, I'm going to turn it over to Director Bartman in just a sec, but I just wanted to briefly update you on my thinking on this.

Um at the at our last land use meeting, I had talked about two potential changes that I wanted to propose.

Um, one of them we had discussed in a previous meeting the idea that um there would be an additional an increased setback for parking um in the affordable housing overlay that wasn't in the underlying districts, um, except for the MR6 district.

And counselor Davis and I had brought up that we don't want to do that.

That's like added strictness for affordable buildings that wouldn't apply to market rate buildings, which kind of is counter to the intent here.

So I worked with um our liaison um Samantha Carr to draft an amendment to do that.

But then in discussion with Director Bartman today, um, the language that we have before us actually doesn't include that additional setback.

So, director, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like I don't need to actually propose anything.

Um what we had been discussing was a was a theoretical proposal.

That's correct.

And it was represented that way in our uh well, was represented in our presentation where we were trying to show the differences between the base districts and this overlay.

Yeah.

And that's that ended up causing us to discuss the parking setbacks because it appeared in the table as if they were going to be included, but this PDF had never included parking setbacks.

And the table that everybody's looking at is the table of standards that would apply to any development using this overlay.

They would would no longer reference the base zoning district for these building dimensions.

Got it.

So the table that is before us that is now attached to this item that's on the screen, these are the standards for affordable buildings.

There's not, they don't like link to some other table, right?

That's correct.

Um so the other thing that I had raised at our previous meeting, I had had discussions with some architects from Somerville who had basically said, you know, this was inspired by mass timber, this new building technique.

Um and the idea was those projects can pencil out at eight stories, whereas a typical construction project couldn't.

So that's why you're proposing going to eight stories, all well and good, but why not nine?

Like we we think projects could also pencil better at nine.

Made sense to me.

I reached out to Director Bartman and he said, no, it's the building code.

The building code has, and we can go into the details for anyone who's interested, but you know, put simply, there's a huge increase in the cost and um uh because of the building code requirements when you get to nine stories.

So I no longer am proposing to increase this to nine stories.

I'm I'm very satisfied with keeping it at eight.

Um and you know, the the hope here is that this will allow mass timber projects to come to Somerville for for affordable housing.

Um director, is there anything else that you wanted to bring to our attention?

Uh I wanted to call attention to uh discussions we had related to the green score.

Um uh the table here doesn't reflect uh what we had presented, um, which was uh slight increase in the green score, but um we allow these buildings to not only cover one up to 100% of the lot, but their open space requirements a little bit smaller.

So as like a counter adjustment, we thought to bring in the higher green square from some of the lower um MR districts.

Um so you would increase each one of those numbers if the committee uh so chooses to uh 0.25 and 0.3.

Um so your the plants that you would include in your landscape need to earn more points.

Um, but you don't, you know, you have a smaller area where you have to put them um and your buildings allowed to be allowed to be bigger.

It doesn't mean that a building will cover 100% of the lot.

It means that uh effectively we allow you to choose up to 100% if you need if you need to cover that, you can put your open space in another place.

In that case, it'd be on the roof if if it occupied 100% of the ground level.

Um but we did discuss that in our in our meeting last time.

So I at least wanted to highlight that discrepancy.

Um other uh point that came up, we were talking about how we did not include the upper story stepback uh because it can cost units.

Uh the course of that conversation also pointed out that the side setback has the same material effect uh for buildings that happen to be uh a budding MR3.

Uh if the uh committee still wanted to, uh it could adjust that also.

Uh, but that side setback is still in here.

The upper story stepback on the front of the building is not.

Um so I wanted to call attention to that also as well.

So here we're looking at side setback first to third story, if you're a budding neighborhood resident or a lower height district is 10 feet.

Right.

And then and then uh higher than that uh increases to 2030.

Yes, yeah, yeah.

Um, and that's that would move the buildings slightly further away.

It's about equivalent of one house lot uh just for those upper stories.

But if if the goal is to maximize the uh interior space of the affordable housing buildings to get units, that has the same impact as that upper story step back did, but on the side, and only when it's a butting in MR3 or lower district.

Right.

Um I'll say that my instinct on this has always been to kind of I I think the affordable housing overlay is basically working.

I I don't think we need to do a kind of massive overhaul here.

I wanted to go up to eight stories, I want to get rid of the upper stereo stepbacks in general.

I you know, I think we could have we could talk all day about how exactly it should work if you're next to a neighborhood residence property.

I think there's probably a lot to talk about there, but my general feeling is that it's working.

What we have is okay.

Um, but I want to add a story for to allow for mass timber and these upper story stepbacks.

Um I think are basically like taking away units for no reason.

Um are there questions basically?

I I personally um am very supportive of this and and ready to move, but obviously this is a little bit complicated, and I want to make sure that everybody has time to process it.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Thank you, Chair.

Through you to uh Mr.

Bartman, uh Mr.

Bartman, what would you say to someone at the state house uh who would want to change uh state building code to allow something like this to happen?

What's the problem with the state building code and uh what would have to change in order to uh allow more height?

Oh, if we wanted to go up to nine stories, is yeah.

Um what's the building code issue that would make it more expensive?

So when mass timber is a new uh type of construction that was added to the uh building code recently, there are three categories of it.

The first one is uh up to eight stories and eighty-five feet in height total uh for residential use, can be built out of mass timber.

If you go above 89 feet or 85 feet or go to the ninth story, it triggers you into the second category of mass timber.

So you're still building mass timber, but only a certain amount of wood is then allowed to be exposed.

And so you have to cover it up with other building materials, which is where the added cost comes in.

A second way that you could add another floor is by building what every mixed-use building does um on the ground level, which is a like if it has a restaurant there, that's actually type one construction, the same thing you would see as uh uh like um the new buildings in Union Square are all type one construction.

So if you add a ground level commercial, you frequently are adding it as as type one.

That's another way to add that floor that doesn't change anything with the number of uh stories that you can have out of mass timber.

So you can still only put eight stories on top of that podium podium floor.

So you'd get a nine-story building, but not more residential and not more in mass timber.

So again, you increase your costs by going up to a ninth floor.

Now, what that doesn't mean is that there um that every site pencils out at eight stories, right?

There could there could be other factors that make a site uh more expensive.

You need to remediate the dirt, things like that that might make a nine-story building actually pencil on a on specific known sites, but generically speaking, they would run into those limitations from the building code and have to react accordingly, which would increase construction costs.

So if we're trying to aim at the thing that is the most efficient as a bonus, right?

The whole this whole overlay works as a bonus.

You can build taller than other people can.

Uh, then we should we would target the eight stories of uh mass timber uh and not above that, um, is that would be the argument.

Okay.

Well, question is is there a practical reason why why that is the case?

Any safety reason why the building code would be made that way?

Yeah, the uh uh through the chair.

The building code uses uh different maximum heights for different construction types.

So there's four construction types, um actually five construction types, and they uh they each have a number of stories and a total height that they can reach.

And many of the other types that aren't type one top off at 85 feet and different story counts.

So that's a that's a thing across the board in the international building code that regulates development across the United States.

Um if you want to build taller than that, uh then you can go into the other construction type, right?

So it's always about uh increasing the uh fire resistance of the materials in the building, right?

Like even a even a type uh five construction, which is what houses are built out of, that's still fire uh proof or safe, right?

It's uh yes, wood burns, but there's like a certain amount of fire protection built into even stuff that's built uh out of wood, right?

Our triple deckers are houses.

Um but as you go up in construction type and as you go up in each category within a specific type, it increases the fires fire resistance effectively.

Uh for instance, adding sprinklers.

Um the difference between category uh A and B of type five is that you add a sprinkler system, making it even more safe, and then you can get an additional story and go a little bit taller.

I think it's another 10 feet.

So the building code has all of this stuff related on making it even more and more and more safe as you get taller and taller and off the ground, you know, from the ground level.

Um you've also maybe heard us reference uh that there is a high rise threshold in the building code.

Uh when you cross that threshold in Massachusetts, which is it's set at 70 feet, you have to add some stuff at the ground level that helps firefighters actually fight a build a fire that might be happening higher up in the building, like right.

That's why why that 70 foot limit is triggered once you're that once you have some building that high, uh firefighters can use things like a command center room at the ground level, uh place the connector hoses, things like that.

Like the building code triggers additional standards because of needing to potentially fight a fire up in the air, right?

The whole system works that way.

And so it has these upper limit thresholds for uh number of stories and total building height, that it doesn't matter what we write in the zoning.

It they have to follow that.

Um or bump into the next construction type.

So unless somebody's already willing to spend more money by going into the next construction type.

Um we you know, we can calibrate our standards to be understand the the lower lowest price one, right?

That's what this eight stories 85 feet is based off of the simplest way to build a mass timber building and the most financially efficient because it's not in one of the other categories.

All right.

Well, so a lot more questions about building code that I'll say for another time.

Um yes, thank you.

Uh I'm very I'm satisfied, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Counselor Slay, anything you want to raise?

Yeah, no questions.

I just wanna uh thank uh the director for uh clarifying all like the setbacks and the park and increased parking setbacks, and very supportive of this.

Um yeah, very grateful for all the work you have done.

As am I, thank you.

Um okay, so just two things I want to note.

Um we have uh constituent who has pointed out that the lot width and the lot depth are defined as below 100 feet and above 100 feet, but what about if it's exactly 100 feet?

Um I think we could argue nothing is exactly 100 feet.

It will always be a little bit above or a little bit below.

Or we could amend all these to say uh greater than or equal to.

So I kind of want to channel counselor Davis, who does a lot of extremely detailed analyses of laws, and I would like to move for lot depth under side setback and rear setback.

I would like to change the lot depth greater than a hundred feet to lot depth greater than or equal to a hundred feet.

Does the clerk have those?

I am typing as we go.

So you said um, I see the director has his hand up.

Maybe he's gonna save us some time.

Uh well, I see it under the side setback one, that should be two lot widths and two depths for uh the rear setback.

Um, so there's that second one that you just added the equal to uh lot depth under fourth through eighth story, that should be lot width.

So there's a typo right there.

So while we're fixing typos, let's do that one too.

Oh, under fourth, they should say they should both say lot width.

Lot width, yep.

Okay, one moment, then let me make sure.

Okay, so we have the two, and apologies.

I'm just typing as we go, make sure this is correct for the minutes and the vote.

So two parter.

So uh counselor and camp move to amend the language in table eight, one, and six for lot depth and lot width under rear and side setback to greater than or equal to 100 feet, and under rear setback to change the first one to lot width.

So is that is that what you're trying to convey?

Apologies.

It's just I gotta write it down.

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, director.

Under side setback, we want both of them to say lot width.

Is that correct?

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

The uh last line under side setback should instead of lot depth greater than 100 feet should say lot width greater than or equal to 100 feet.

Does that make sense, Clerk?

So they can follow up.

I have a lot for the same.

And then we could do the rear setback one separately.

Yeah.

So that's just three separate amendments to this table.

Yes.

Okay.

So move to a mother language table eight, one, six for lot depth under rear and side setback to greater than or equal to a hundred feet.

And under side setback, the last line should say lot width to greater than or equal to 100 feet.

And then what was the last one, Director?

That's it.

That's it.

Okay.

All right.

So on the motion to amend the language in table 816 for lot depth under rear and side setback to greater than or equal to 100 feet and under side setback.

The last line to say lot width to greater than or equal to 100 feet.

Counselor Davis is absent.

Counselor Klingon is absent.

Counselor Said.

Yes.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campin.

Yes.

That motion is approved.

Excellent.

And on the main motion as amended.

And on the motion as amended, Counselor Davis is absent.

Counselor Klingon is absent.

Counselor Said.

Yes.

Councilor McGoffin.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campin.

Yes, but also I see Director Bartman's hand up, which worries me.

Director Bartman, go ahead.

You're muted.

Any desired change to the green score?

The current green score is status quo, right?

That's right.

Yeah, that's I that's what I want to.

Okay.

I just wanted to double check.

Thank you.

If if counselors want to increase that, as we'd, you know, so that affordable houses would have a slightly higher green score.

Speak now.

Forever hold your peace.

It's not literally forever.

All right.

That motion is approved.

Recommended to be approved.

Excellent.

Thank you all.

And that brings us to our conversation about dormers.

Chair, if I may, could I just clarify agenda item four?

You'd like to mark his work completed.

The planning board's recommendations.

Yes.

Or place on file, whatever you tell me.

Work completed is correct.

All right.

So let's take up.

Is it item?

Six.

This is item 26, 0287, 26 registered voters requesting a zoning text amendment to amend the zoning ordinance section as listed.

And this relates to dormers.

Upper story additions.

We held a public hearing on this item several weeks ago, and there was a presentation from the advocates who were calling for this.

And in their presentation, they characterized their discussions with planning staff, big picture as agreement, right?

And with they pointed out one area where the proponents of this and the planning staff differ, which is should there be a couple foot setback from the front when you're building these dormers on your top story?

Should it have to be set back from the front of the building?

I believe that planning has recommended two feet.

Is that correct, Director?

Um, and so I want to talk about that.

And then I also want to talk about one element that I think didn't really emerge in the public hearing, which is the fact that the amendment also proposes to allow any building type in NR to be three stories.

And I wanted to discuss those two things separately.

And then lastly, you know, before we finish our discussion, I want to talk about how this applies to backyard cottages, which is a whole other um ball of wax that this committee is dealing with currently on a bunch of fronts.

So let's start with this two-foot setback thing.

Um Director Bartman, do you want to introduce the kind of plannings thinking on this?

Sure.

Um, and I can share a little bit about what we did with the public uh since we last talked about this in the fall last year.

Um we actually created a version of the amendment, uh like what was submitted here, but it also included that front setback.

Uh so any side facing dormer facing your your uh neighbors to the side, it it would have to be two feet back from the front of the building.

Uh the reason we did that was to uh ask people questions about what that appears to look like from the front uh when you view the building from the front.

We included a bunch of pictures um and we broke down the regulated dimensions of a dormer into individual questions.

Did this be allowed to uh come all the way to the front of the building?

Should a dormer be allowed to go all the way above above the roof line?

Should it, you know, five or six questions all getting at the individual uh dimensions.

Um, but we included that front that front uh setback, and that's because it creates the visual illusion that a dormer is not um a full height floor uh on the third floor.

Um so uh many of our the majority of buildings in the NR zoning district are permitted as two and a half story buildings.

Um and there's been at least some feedback from the public about not wanting to lose the pitched roof visual character of uh the house or yeah, the housing in the buildings in the NR zoning district.

Um when we got feedback from the uh people that took the survey, um, I want to highlight some of the you know, uh summary of the responses.

Um, and it's that 90% of the people that responded uh were supportive of relaxing the regulations, uh, generically speaking across the board.

We did have one third of our respondents say that we weren't going far enough.

Um, and the only dimension we were still including was that that that two foot setback was from the front.

Um we did have some people who think that uh what we're allowing dormers to uh be this size uh is like a crime against uh the the you know existing care uh buildings in the neighborhood.

Um, and that our two-foot uh setback is uh they called it a token ghost roofline reference.

Um and I I so I just want to highlight that somebody from the public at least has a care has a care about what those look like and the impact a dormer has uh on the visual aspect of their neighborhood.

Um and so that's really where that two foot setback comes in, uh comes from is us uh, you know, including something related to dormers that allows them to get bigger uh but has a reference to that person's concern.

Um the thing that we can't tell you uh from our survey is that it reached a level of uh participation that is representative of the city's uh population.

So I don't know whether or not uh there's a majority of people that actually have that concern about uh dormers overwhelming the roof, or if it's actually the 90% of respondents better represent the the public interest.

Um so in that in that circumstance, we try to understand um and empathize with everybody's opinions and come up with with something that we try to have work for everybody.

And so we would still support that two-foot front setback from the front uh because it makes dormers that are the full width of the building um uh appear to not uh be a flat roofed uh full third floor when you view that building from the front.

Um I I could provide the the committee if they are concerned, have concerns with photos of what these buildings look like um with dormers of that size, uh, but that's where that dimension still comes from.

Um other than that, we are generally speaking, um, in support of uh revising the dormer standards so that uh they're easier for people to build dormers.

Um uh, but we would still include that setback.

Um counselor, I see that you have a question.

I wanted to share the presentation that the advocates gave on this, if that's all right.

Um, just briefly because I think this is very pertinent to the conversation.

Yes.

Um clerk, do you mind if I take the screen for a moment?

Go ahead.

Okay.

See if I can do this.

And is this a handout you can send to me so I can attach it to the meeting?

Absolutely.

This is an attachment that is from the April 15th meeting, and it's called land use 2026, 0414 dormer uh and three-story presentation.

So this is already been so folks can see this, right?

So this is the presentation that was given to um the public and the committee at our public hearing.

And um what I want to point out.

So they have a lot of examples of dormers in Somerville that are currently non-conforming.

The point being, what's wrong with these ones?

And I'm just gonna go through them.

Non-conforming examples.

Um I believe, and the reason I'm bringing this up is that a hundred percent of the images shown have this front setback.

So this is if you I don't know if you can see my mouse on the screen.

This here, the the dormer, the the kind of like bumped out part of the roof is set back a little bit from the front of the building, even in all these examples that are non-conforming that we're saying, why shouldn't we be able to build these?

And I I think for me, look, I'm I'm gonna be clear, I do not think that this is the end of the world, but I I tend to agree with planning's perspective on this.

Um I I think this amendment, whether or not there's two-foot front setback really is gonna help people build dormers when they need to.

And that's because of the width is not really strictly restricted to just 50%.

The amount of windows, which that's the thing that I hear about regularly from constituents, they're just forced to like put tons and tons of windows in, you know, a bathroom is kind of strange.

Um but I I do think you know, it it makes sense that these should be dormers.

I mean, that's kind of the premise of them.

Um, not just we're, you know, we're turning a house into a cube.

Um that I certainly respect that there are people in the community who think why not?

Um, but that's that's kind of my take on this.

Having just gone through this presentation, and you know, a number of people pointed this out to me that all of the examples shown that kind of register as dormers, they do have this very small setback on the front, and it did, you know.

I guess you could cynically say it's a uh, you know, it's a it's a cynical reference to a roof line, but it does something.

You know, I don't I don't pretend to understand how architecture works on the human brain, but it does do something.

Um so with that in mind, um, Counselor Saeed, please.

Uh, through you, uh chair uh to director, thank you for these images.

I was gonna request uh since uh director Bartman was roof referencing a survey that had pictures uh to just have a sense of what folks were looking at.

Um so just to confirm, director, these pictures that we see on the screen, would you say that two foot setback would look the way that this like first slide we see looks like, just for me to have a visual just to confirm.

Okay.

Through the chair, the image on the bottom right corner of it's uh kind of a gray house with on the slide that says first slide that says full width examples.

That one on the bottom right, yep, that one.

If you take a look at that downspout that's coming off of that uh dormer, right?

Look how far back, like there's obvious, like if you look below, you can see there's obviously a uh like one one to two feet set back.

Um so that one is uh full likely a full width going all the way to the back of the house, but it's slightly set back from the front.

Um you'll also notice that its roof is integrated right into the ridgeline of the of the roof of the main building.

Um when you appear when you look at that direct on from the front, uh that dormer will still appear to be slightly lower than the main roof because of the optical illusion it it creates uh because of that slight setback.

So from when you're looking at the front, that will still appear like a pitch roof house uh more than not.

When you look at the this is standing at the side, so just like you just angle yourself a little bit and you see it more, but um, you know, that's probably the most we could give and still try to retain some amount of aesthetic uh appearance for the front of the house.

Um if you were gonna make allow dormers to be that big.

Um and so the the uh amendment would only regulate uh an amount of window and then that front setback if it were included as proposed right now, it would not include the front setback and allow that dormer to come closer.

Okay, uh through the chair, uh thank you, director.

So if there was no two-foot set, if they they in the scenario where there's no two feet setback, it would look like basically a cube with almost a flat roof.

That's correct.

Yeah, the slope uh we define flat as like one to twelve.

Right, it's very, very shallow.

Yeah.

Um, you know, a lot of you know, the houses, they have that like, you know, the you know, like what we see here in the front, is it just like for the aesthetic or um for other reasons, like you know, that a lot of the houses here in our city are like that.

I'm I'm just curious.

Is it like for like the snow or um uh m through the chair, many houses in Somerville were built between 1880 and 1920 and two like pretty big swaths um as farms were were converted to house slots, and uh the the gable fronted where the triangle faces the street, that um gable fronted houses were very popular at the time uh in it as an architectural style.

So we had thousands of those go up across the city alongside triple deckers.

Those are probably the two most popular.

If you go and look around like just south of Powder House Circle to the southeast, there's a lot of buildings there with uh what's called a gambrel roof that looks more like a barn.

Uh that style roof replaced the roof you're looking at on this screen here um over time, uh, and it actually increased the ceiling height inside that that uh pitched roof.

So it was just a different style of architecture that came along later.

As you continue to move into West Somerville um towards the Arlington border, there's a lot of houses there that have uh almost a flat roof.

It's there's no attic space, right?

And it's so they're just two story houses that are kind of square.

Um and so this those are just reflecting styles of home building over the decades that have changed as Somerville continue to build out.

Um so I would say the further east you go, the more houses have that pitched roof uh orientation right towards the street, and they're that type.

The the Gambrel ones that are over in the powder house area are even bigger in their footprint.

Um so they're like larger houses all through and through.

Um but but generically that much of the city is this this house type with its pitch uh the gable fronting uh towards the street.

Yeah, for the chat.

Thank you, there director.

This is very fascinating.

I know it's not exactly what they're doing here, but uh it was it would just like it just when I make sure this is just you know, it's not like the way the houses there were the way they were built that need like a roof um like that.

It's just it's just the aesthetic.

Uh so it's not gonna affect the houses or anything.

Um yeah, I will say that these are dormers, so I think to me it makes sense to have uh the setback.

Um it still provides a lot more space and it looks like a dormer.

Because if there's no setback, I think it would just look like you know, be slightly different than triple decker, but like kind of the same style.

So um yeah, I think that's that's where I'm at.

And to your point, counselor, the triple decker is an allowable building type in this district, right?

So if someone wants to build a triple decker, they can.

That's right.

Yep.

These are building types that are different than a triple decker.

And to me, it seems like that's kind of a foundational principle of our zoning, is that we have these building types, and um, it just seems sort of odd to me to say, no, we don't really, you know.

Any of them can be a cube.

Um anyway, uh Councilor McLaughlin.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

On that issue, uh, so we're discussing also that the potential that the these zoning changes would allow a third floor by right, is that correct?

Yeah, yeah.

I think we'll we'll talk about that kind of separately.

We have a bunch to say about that, but feel free, go ahead.

Well, it it's a relation just to the dormer, because if we're allowing the third floor, why what's the difference?

Like why it sounds like we would allow a entire floor as opposed to an expansion of a rooftop.

I think that you have put your finger on why I am concerned about that part of this uh amendment.

Because basically, you know, we're saying these are all the rules about a dormer.

Uh if we were to just say you can also have a third floor, basically we're mooting everything we just said, right?

We're we're telling the public you can have a dormer, but then in fact, there's nothing regulating any, you know, you can have a third story.

You so it's it's like a kind of a it's to me, it feels a little bit like a bait and switch.

Um, if we were to uh tell people that, well, these are the specific rules, but also you can completely ignore them and just put on third story.

Um seems like well, I love when I ask a dumb question and it turns out to be a good one.

I guess um I counselor Klingon let the record show has arrived and has a question.

Um before we get to that kind of in-depth, um, if there are additional questions, comments on this two-foot setback, so we can just take these issues up separately because I want to propose a motion.

Um, Counselor Klingon.

Um I'll just yield because it's it was more I was on the point that you all were discussing around putting a third story.

I was just gonna say, and I don't think it necessarily makes it mood in the sense of like some people can't afford to put a whole other floor on, and they want to be able to utilize an attic and make it into a bedroom or so.

So I don't think it's a complete, you know, canceling out of, but um, as far as the setback uh yeah, I would I think a setback makes sense.

I'm kind of lost in the conversation on that.

Um look, I'm gonna be really honest.

I'm gonna propose that staff draft a version of this amendment that has the two foot setback.

If the council doesn't agree with that, I'm still gonna vote for this ultimately.

You know, this is not like a hill I'm gonna die on on this amendment.

My preference, the way I'm gonna vote is that I think the two-foot setback retains something of the architectural character of these buildings without sacrificing any of the value of the amendment, which is to make it much much less onerous to build a dormer, right?

Which I think is clearly supported by you know, everyone has been following this.

And I think it's really worthwhile to emphasize this is a proposal that came from a group of the public, right?

Um, this was not like cooked up by the city staff, or this is this is something came from people who have tried to build dormers on their own houses or have attended public meetings where they've seen strange fights about dormers and just thought this is crazy.

You know, let's let's let people build dormers if they want.

Um, so with that, I'd like to propose.

Um, I don't have the language, but I I talked to the director that they can get this ready for next week, um, should the committee decide we'd we'd like to vote on this tonight.

Um, that the staff draft a version of this amendment that includes a two-foot setback, two foot front setback.

Is there a discussion on that motion before we call the roll?

All right, let's call it then.

Uh, Counselor Klingon.

I was gonna say, yeah, no, I just catching up.

I I mean, I that that makes sense to me.

I mean, like you said, it then we can at least maintain uh the character and um, although you know, again, it it's a little weird yet to me to have like such a huge um dormer versus just doing a whole floor.

But I think this covers, you know, that's the max, but I think this would allow more flexibility on just dormers in general.

Like I said, situations where people don't have the funds to make a huge dormer and a whole other floor out of it, but want to be able to um I just I remember growing up in like, you know, that was where you put your bed, like some of the houses with the little dormers, the bed fits the twin uh full-size bed fits in there perfectly um on that on that third floor.

Um, but yeah, I think I think uh some setback makes sense.

Thank you, counselor.

Clerk, can we please call the role on that motion?

Apologies, Chair.

I may have missed the sentiment here, but what is the motion you're you're just asking staff to come back with a different revised and you would like that on record that you voted for it?

I can just simply put that in the minutes if staff is in agreement to bring it back.

I think we want to get the sense of the committee that they are in agreement with that.

Okay.

So on the motion.

Yeah, this uh if we're having a discussion on the motion, I will say that I agree with you.

Thank you.

So on the motion that staff draft new language to include a two-foot set for dormers.

Counselor Davis is absent.

Counselor Klingon?

Yes.

Counselor State.

Yes.

Counselor McLaughlin?

Yes.

Counselor Uncampin.

Yes.

That motion is approved.

Excellent.

Now, okay, on to the issue of the the three stories is allowed.

Um director, we had a conversation about this earlier today.

Do you want to summarize planning's response to this part of it?

Uh yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The um the real issue is that the amendment also proposes to take the uh make the detached house, the semi-detached house and the duplex three stories, um, which many of you just brought up um uh really makes the standards in the zoning ordinance for dormers moot, not that somebody can't still build a dormer.

The real thing about being able being allowed to build uh three total stories is that you can build less than that by right, and it's your choice.

And so actually building a pitched roof house when you're allowed to have three full stories is is just a decision you make.

And if you like look at these same dormer photos, anything that's not a full height story was them deciding not to build it, right?

If they were allowed to build three full stories.

So it's just think of it as less volume that they didn't decide to build.

Um, that's how uh full stories are applied to buildings today.

We don't actually force them to follow the dormer standards if they're a third, you know, three-story building or a four-story building.

Um so our our table, when we drafted the zoning ordinance back in 2019, we permitted gable dormers and shed dormers for cottages, even though they're only two stories and multiplexes, even though they're only three stories.

But in the implementation of the zoning ordinance, there's case law that says if you permit full height stories, you can't prohibit somebody from exercising that right.

It's called entitlement.

That's what a zoning ordinance does.

It entitles somebody to a certain amount of development in a certain form and manner.

Um, and if we tell somebody that you get three full stories, we can't then inhibit them from expressing those three full stories according to the code, as long as those stories meet the zoning ordinance.

Um that would be the effect of switching those buildings to three would would we don't need dormer standards because dormers are things that are projecting from half stories, and if we get rid of the half stories, uh then somebody can choose to still build this in what it ends up being a more permissive regulation for a full height third floor.

Now if this were to be passed, the remaining two building types in the NR zoning district that um sorry, the remaining uh building in the zoning district that would still have a half story is just the backyard cottage, which would make these larger dormer standards apply only to the backyard cottage.

Um and we are have all experienced some of the backyard cottage conversations that are also going on.

So we don't think that that is an intended outcome for the backyard cottage, uh at least not what we're hearing from the public.

Um so that's another argument on why we we we should either permit all of the buildings to have full stories and get rid of dormers, or we keep them at 2.5 or 1.5 and have dormers in the code.

Um, I hope that makes sense.

But the real thing is like a dormer's projecting from a half store from the pitched roof of a half story.

And if you allow somebody to have a flat roof, full stories, then you don't need the dormer standards anymore.

So, director, if if say we were to allow three stories by right on these building types, and someone went to ISD and said, here's my dormer proposal.

What would they say?

It it'd be compliant because you're allowed to build three three stories.

And if you chose to build a pitched roof instead of a flat roof, that's your choice.

You could also you could decide to build a half-width dormer, a three-quarter length dormer, a full width dormer.

It's all part of your uh larger entitlement for our full floor.

So I guess that that's what I meant when I said that this would moot the dormer standards, right?

It's literally anything you proposed.

That's up to and including a flat roof would be fine.

So there are no standards for a dormer under that.

That that's kind of what that would mean.

Correct.

Counselor Klingon.

Yeah, no, thank you for that.

That's good clarification.

I just didn't know that it whether or not if somebody wanted to build just like an old school, whatever, six-foot-wide dormer, if they would have to have certain specifications on that piece of dormer, like of any kind.

Like it they could just do whatever they want.

And I don't mean size-wise.

I mean, is there any other specifications related to you know how much window you have to have or anything like that?

Or that's that's kind of what I was getting at.

Uh, through the chair, that there would be a 15% window requirement for a dormer still.

Um, and then the two-foot setback that you all just uh voted for.

But um uh that would be the only are the dormer standards, if they're kept, would just be reduced uh to how they attach to the building, and then a 15 uh a 15% window requirement.

Okay.

Thank you.

So, colleagues, the way that I'm thinking about this is the the triple decker is an allowable building type.

That's a three-story building type allowed in this district.

Um I personally am in favor of maintaining the other building types as well, as that's pitch-roof building types.

Um to me, it it just seems a little bit across purposes for us to be talking about dormers and then basically saying also do whatever you want.

Like it seems it seems uh I don't support it, is how I feel about it.

Um I'm curious how what the will of the committee is on this.

I'm happy to make a motion to kind of prepare a version of this that doesn't include the three stories for all building types except backyard cottage.

Um but I'm I'm want to hear from colleagues as well.

Or, you know, I'm also not trying to force the issue.

You know, these are these are important decisions.

We don't need to make them tonight by any means.

Council Member Gloughlin.

Give me a chat.

Um just want to share thoughts out loud and then get Mr.

Bartman's response to it.

There's one, I don't know what the scenario would be to have a two-floor building that would add a third floor to the top.

I wonder if that's a scenario that would actually happen.

Uh also, though, one of the things with our triple decker ordinance, uh, which is just a third unit, it's not necessarily a triple decker.

Uh, people would be able to add a third unit as of right, uh, currently.

So, how does that work with a two-floor uh limit?

And so, and can't they already do this?

If if they wanted to add a third unit, can't they already do this?

Uh, through the chair, you can add it, you can add a third unit, it'd be in the basement or even in the attic still.

Like you some two-floor buildings don't yet have a half story, but still have that pitched roof.

It's just attic space.

So, like you could convert your attic, you could convert your basement, you can uh uh add a side wing or a rear edition, put a unit in there or a backyard cottage, right?

So that's where those extra units come from, um, even within a building like that.

Um related to your first question, I do believe interestingly enough that former Mayor Ballantyne uh actually added a story to her building, uh her home uh in West Somerville.

Um I could be wrong and misremembering about that if it was just a roof conversion, but I think it added a another story um to the existing building.

Um so we have seen that sometimes.

It's it's hard to actually do that to a home that's being lived in, right?

So, like most most of the time this happens when they're being rehabbed.

You wouldn't say that if she was here, I'll tell you that much.

Um so yeah, so it guess it is a plausible situation of a two-family house to add a third family house, uh, knowing that the former mayor did it, uh why is that a big deal?

Um it through the chair, it's not a big deal uh to add a unit.

Uh it's a very different situation to change all of the buildings in the NR zoning district to three full stories that doesn't equal units.

Uh you could have uh three stories and have one unit in the building.

Um so those two things aren't one for one in how they translate to one another.

Yeah.

Um and but the real thing I'm pointing out is that if we switched all the buildings to be allowed to be full stories, like two, three, four, whatever the number is, we don't need dormers any longer, and we should remove them from the code.

They're only they only exist for half story buildings.

Um so all the anywhere you see a point five for the number of floors in our code, that's a half story.

And if we take out half stories, then uh you're not building you're not building dormers off of pit half stories, right?

That's those they're only in the code because we permit buildings to be half some buildings to be two and a half stories, one and a half stories, whatever that it might be.

Trying to wrap my head around this.

It sounds like the dormer will solve the third floor problem.

I don't understand then I guess I'd be curious what the activists uh the rationale was to allow a third floor too, then.

Uh is there ever is a situation where having a third floor would be more preferable to the dormer?

And again, I I understand you so we use that one example of somebody who uh added a third unit, but that doesn't sound like that was a third floor.

So I'm I'm wondering what's a real world situation where someone has a two-floor building and they want to add a full third floor as opposed to a dormer.

I think that uh through the chair, I'd have to go look at permitting data to understand if the degree to which this happens to existing buildings.

Um I think really where we'd see that is new build stuff, would not would never have a pitched roof and a and a dormer because that would it's more uh complex construction and design um compared to a flat roof building.

Um I can think of one building on Russell Street that went from a one and a half story cottage to a three-story, three-unit house under the old zoning ordinance prior to the new one that was adopted in 2019.

Um it is effectively a cube uh with no design detail to it, right?

And then we got we would have um poor reaction from the public when we would uh you know do visual preference surveys and whatnot that showed like, oh, if we regulate buildings with it and just allow full stories, then somebody could do this.

Um half stories and dormers add a ton of architectural character to the to the city because every one of them is different and they tend to express need of the of the resident at the time.

Um but if your full allotment is to build a uh full, like although the triple decker exists, some people choose to build a house.

Um, but if every house is already also allowed to just be three stories, there they will most likely maximize that new build because that's the largest return on their investment.

Um rarer to have one change, like you're talking about.

That scenario is just way more rare because you it's really hard to stay in the home and have the floor, the ceiling ripped off and another floor, you know, and half story added to the building.

Um and so many times if that happens, it's when a rehab, like full gut rehab is happening anyway.

It's basically new construction at that point.

Um, so they're making a decision to uh like maintain the the roof but turn it into a half story and add dormers to like put a bathroom in what used to be an attic.

Um I think I think the situation where somebody would just cut off their roof and add a third floor at a single story height is even rarer.

Um in the scenarios that could play out more likely to be done by a developer than a yes yes resident.

So it sounds like the scenario would be if we added a third floor, the building would probably get torn down and rebuilt into a three-story building.

Is that that sounds like the most likely situation then?

Okay.

Um yeah, it just makes sense, I fully support uh making these dormers done as of right under the guidelines that we've uh voted on.

I I don't like attending community meetings for something like this.

I don't like the process for people making uh new construction to their own property, and it seems like the third floor issue wouldn't would be moot if we allowed the dormers to happen.

So my questions are answered.

Thank you.

Thank you, counselor.

Counselor Klingon.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through you to Director Bartman.

Um and so, and just again, I'm not a builder, I'm not so you know, a lot of these terms are new uh some degree, but where does the man side roof come in in terms of um like that's not an entire extra floor?

I I have heard of like you know, the roofs of places are getting taken off.

I don't know if anybody's I don't think everybody's living in them, but uh and they get in the mansar roof.

Um by right as well.

Yes, through the chair, the mansard style of roof was actually invented in France uh to add half stories to buildings that weren't allowed to have an additional full floor above that height.

So it's it's always throughout history looked at as a as a pitched roof, uh, even though it has a very steep slope.

Um because of its design aesthetic it to look more like a roof with dormers, you know, punching out from it.

Um, but throughout history, that's always been that it was invented and it's always been maintained as a way to add a half story.

Those stories, although their ceiling height might be what you would expect out of a full story, they tend to be smaller in actual floor area uh because of that sloping roof on the outer edge.

Um granted, it's probably the maximal version of a sloped roof that can get a uh you know anything resembling an uh a full height story in inside underneath that pitch.

Um but but it intended to be designed that way and functioning as intended.

Okay, three Ms.

So it's it's just a half story, it's not an actual full full story, but it's probably the way most developers are going to get three units into you know one property.

Uh I know there's a bunch near you know going up near me.

Um yeah, you know, I I just go I go back to 2019 and and kind of why we at first were reluctant to even have a third unit, you know, to hopefully be able to give a family the opportunity to buy a property that you know they can rent out one floor and maybe have a half a shot of of outbidding or you know, not getting outbid by a developer.

Um I just think that if as is noted, I mean you can still put a third unit into these homes, and with with dormers, I think you know, you could certainly make space for family or even three, you know, even even three three separate units.

Um yeah, I'm not sure that we need to go all the way here.

Uh you know, again, especially since we do allow triple deckers under certain circumstances.

Um yeah, just just pondering, just kind of thinking all out.

I'm gonna uh listen to more discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Counselor Said.

Um Yeah, I just wanted to say that I think um supportive of the dormers to be built by right.

Um I think it creates a lot more space for growing family for um, you know, maybe grandparents to be living in the same, you know, house.

And um with you know the two foot setback, um and yeah, in terms of like the three-story, yeah.

I think I just think it's it would yeah, like just with the door having the dormers would allow us to have a variety of built-in types.

And the fact that we have the triple decker, you know, that folks can build as an option, I think, yeah.

Like to me, there is I don't see the necessity of going, you know, three stories.

Thank you, counselor.

Councilor McLaughlin.

So I didn't unraise my hand, but uh Kaso Said brought up a point that I I'm still, I guess, kind of confused that it's like, yeah, you can build a triple decker right now, so you can build a three-family house.

So I just I'm just kind of um don't understand what this is, and maybe maybe it's because I do understand.

I think uh I'll just share my thoughts.

I think that I I feel uncontroversially in support of the dormer part of this.

And I I feel very strong public support for there should be easier to build dormers.

That's been a huge.

I think I'm not saying there's no universe in which I could be convinced that a third story should be by right.

I mean, maybe, but I just think that's a much bigger conversation.

And I I don't feel comfortable including it in this.

Now I I don't think there's been kind of meaningful public engagement on that.

I I I do feel, you know, I've been doing this long enough that I know that what we pass in zoning, people are gonna start building, you know, maybe not right away, but it'll start happening.

And I think that the public will have strong feelings about you know, every single building can be a three-story cube from now on.

Um again, on both sides of it, people will have strong feelings.

I'm not, you know, it's not that I could never be convinced, but I that to me seems like a much bigger conversation than the dormer thing, which I'm totally comfortable moving on, you know, tonight, basically.

So that's why I um would encourage us to kind of separate out that issue and consider that separately um so that we can make progress on the dormer thing, which I think is it does have a lot of public value.

Well, it's true, yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, so my confusion is I've had two triple deckers built in my neighborhood since we passed the ordinance.

So those were done as of right.

Uh so what is this about allowing or not allowing a three-floor building when we do allow it.

Um, Director Barman, do you want to kind of answer this in a technical way?

It's it's the question through the chair.

The question isn't, you know, do we not permit any three-story buildings to be built?

It was um that everything but a cottage was proposed to also have uh a third floor instead of our our houses and duplexes have two and a half stories and pitched roofs.

Um so the question wasn't can somebody build a triple decker by right on that same lot, is do we allow every house to have a flat roof, or does it still have a pitch roof with dormers?

That also includes every existing house in the city, whether or not they're compliant with our form-based code or not.

So you're allowed you'd be allowing houses that exist now that might be bigger, wider, longer than a triple decker, um, to have a flat roof third floor uh change happen to them.

Um so that's like one of the things we think about is how also the the existing buildings can be built uh or changed uh versus a new construction happening.

Um, but you could you could end up with a house, existing house that's much larger than a triple decker in its floor plate, right?

That then ends up having its third its pitched roof uh removed and a full third floor.

That's a very different building in appearance than a triple decker.

Uh and we have some of those existing.

I brought up the powder house neighborhood has larger houses than the ones we're looking at on this on these on the screen here.

Um the powder house area, right?

Those those streets there um have much larger houses.

If we had all of those convert to a full height third floor, it doesn't look like a triple decker, it doesn't look like much of Somerville.

So our code's trying to replicate Somerville, but make it easy to build.

Um and the dormer standard is really getting at keeping um some of the reference to what was built previously.

Um and those are pitched roof houses, right?

So that's that's what we're trying to do here is like be as permissive as we can um with without necessarily every building being having just three stories be permitted across the board.

The second aspect of that as a code writer is that we if we change all of the buildings to be three stories, we don't need dormers anymore.

And it's misleading to people to have that in the ordinance at that point.

Um so that's what that's the other side of that argument is we would we would propose removing them.

Um and what once you get rid of half stories from the code, there's not a whole lot differentiating our building types from one another anymore any longer.

Um so that that carries with it other implications.

I tend to agree with uh counselor you and campen that it that that's a little bit of a bigger conversation.

Um we might even be inclined as uh the you know, people that think about the format and nature of the code that we might simplify, you know, that might push us to simplify um into a different format than the building types we have, but that would be less representative of Somerville.

So, you know, we're trying we're trying to um I think accommodate the desire for larger, a larger dormer, but still uh fall within the um program that we invented for the code, uh, which was to allow, if you remember the summer vision uh objective for this was to write standards that allow people to build more of the existing Somerville.

Uh so that's where a lot of our dimensions and and building types came from from serving existing Somerville.

And director, if I can just add to the answer, I correct me if I'm wrong.

Basically, say you buy a single family house, right?

That's a it's a detached, that's the building type on the lot that you buy.

One thing you could do is you could demolish it and build a triple decor if the lot's big enough.

But if you want to just make additions onto the actual house, we're saying you can put on these dormers.

That's one thing you can do.

You can put on a porch, you can do XYZ, but you can't just turn it into a cube, right?

Right.

That's that would be that's you you'd in order to do that, you'd have to demolish it and build a new building type.

We're trying to have some amount of conservation of these existing building types.

And not kind of supercharge the financial incentives to tear every single one down and or you know, rip the roof off every single one, or um, you know, make it so that people who own these houses can make the changes they need to do and not kind of just get rid of any sort of architectural standards for the city.

Or if we do want to do that, I personally think that's a bigger conversation.

Yeah, because my final thought is it just sounds like allowing the dormer is what makes sense.

And if it doesn't make sense to me for the third floor, there's probably a reason for that.

And I think that allowing the dormer gets us what we want.

Well put.

I agree, counselor.

Counselor's eat.

Yeah, um through through the chair.

I'm only asking this because this was mentioned a few times uh by director Bartman tonight.

Uh talking about the survey.

Can you tell us a little bit like who's taking this survey?

How is it being, you know, is it like in the city newsletter where people can find it?

Um yeah.

But we uh through the chair, we put a survey uh up on Summer Voice, which is the one place where all of our projects go.

Um we ran it for a couple months.

We put it into our newsletter.

We uh advertised it in a couple other divisions newsletters.

Um, I believe we reached out to neighborhood councils and asked them to take the survey.

Um so we did we tried to reach people.

Um, you know, whether or not somebody's willing to take a survey about dormers is a whole nother another question.

Um, and like I said, we did not reach an amount of the city that makes us feel that that the results are representative at any confidence level, but they do reflect actual feedback from real residents, real community members, right?

So we shouldn't discredit them.

We just don't know that they're representative of the broader opinion.

So we need to understand that of the opinions we collected uh in general, nine, for instance, 90% said that they want to see the regulations relaxed generically speaking.

And then we asked them about specific ones.

The feedback was very high in support of relaxing the standards.

Um but like I said, we had people who thought that we shouldn't regulate dormers at all, and we had people who uh were very insulted by the idea that we were going to change the standards to allow bigger dormers, wider dormers.

Um so we wanted to use it as as just kind of a reference.

We we uh uh also that was like the very first newsletter that our department had ever sent out.

So like we were are building our uh you know readership base.

Um but we you know, it was informative of not uh far off from other feedback that we hear about dormers from people who care about dormers.

Um and like I said, uh you know the people that don't respond to a dormer survey are also potentially people who aren't worried about dormers and thus don't participate in the survey.

Um, but that's us extrapolating non-involvement, right?

So it's it's um we kind of wanted to bring this feedback, but like put a star above it because it's uh we didn't get to enough people uh or get enough convince enough people to respond to it to where we could say, oh, this is representative feedback.

Um but again, I wanted to share it because it is feedback from some of your constituents.

So yeah, thank you, Director.

I just I just wanted to ask, because it's the first time in uh land use that uh that is mentioned.

They want to make sure, you know, understand is this like part of the process, or is this just like an additional information that you provide in this committee, which it sounds like that's what it is.

Uh after all, you know, this item and all the items that come to this committee, not all, but the important ones to have a public hearing, and that's you know, the process we have at the city, and that's how people can provide feedback.

Um but yeah, also thinking about the three-story or any other, you know, zoning uh changes we're gonna make in the future.

How can people engage with it?

So this is an option.

This is another option we have.

Um and um it's great that like yeah, your department is doing newsletter and trying to get a sense of where the community is at when it comes to um yeah, things related to the zoning.

Thank you for the clarification, uh, director.

Thank you, counselor.

Well, based on what I've heard, I'm going to make a motion um similar to my last that the staff prepare a revised amendment that removes the um ability to build three stories by right on uh all of the NR building types.

Um I'm happy to wordsmit that with the clerk.

Director.

Uh if you want to reference them specifically, it's the detached house, semi-detached house, and duplex.

Uh and we we would want to retain the triple decker being three-story.

So Chair Three, can I just clarify again that you know if if staff is here in an agreement, I can include that sentiment, but it doesn't, it's it's not necessarily a motion if he's gonna create an entire new document.

Otherwise, I will need all of that again and slower to type it and capture accurately.

Certainly, I mean, I here we all I are, I think, agreeing with each other, but as a matter of principle, committees don't have to agree with one another, and people can vote however they want on this stuff.

So I I'd prefer to do it as a motion, and I'm happy to state it more clearly.

Okay, then if you could state it again for me and Dan list that more slowly, I'll type it out and read it back to you all.

Excellent.

Thank you.

So I move that staff prepare a revised amendment that removes a third story by right from the detached house, semi-detached house, and duplex building types.

You said remove a third story by right from detached house, semi-detached house, and duplex houses.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So on the motion that staff prepare a revised amendment that removes a third story by right from detached house, semi-detached house, and duplex houses.

Counselor Davis is absent.

Counselor Klingon.

Yes.

Counselor Saeed?

Yes.

Councilor McGlafflin.

Yes.

Counselor Young Campbin.

Yes.

That motion is approved.

Excellent.

Director Bartman.

Uh our last concern would be the backyard cottage and a full width dormer using all of these standards.

Um if I may be uh forward about it, that there's probably two scenarios.

You could um remove uh dormers from being permitted for backyard cottages.

Uh or um we expect a uh backyard cottage solution to uh be developed over the course of May and maybe be adopted in June.

There's a bunch of other amendments related to backyard cottages, it could be rolled into those amendments.

Uh that would be up to the committee.

Um but the tables the tables are in this ordinance, so it's uh in this section.

Right.

So colleagues, again, the issue here is if the city council were to approve these full width dormers, and they apply to backyard cottages.

I think we've heard quite a bit of feedback that already the backyard cottages we're seeing are much larger than many members of the public, and I presume many members of the city council and uh others anticipated them to be.

We would be exacerbating that considerably um right now by by approving these dormers as applied to backyard cottages.

Um as the director said, I think we're gonna be having a lot of conversations about these in the coming months.

My understanding there's a bunch of um amendments proposed by Bill White that are before the committee, and I know the administration is drafting their own amendments, and counselors, of course, are free to do so too.

My inclination here would be to remove the changes that we're making today from the backyard cottage.

Um, just not get ourselves in a situation where we forgot to close a loophole in a few months, and you know, we've made this issue even more extreme.

Um, and I'm interested to hear what colleagues have colleagues respond to that.

Counselor Say.

Um, yeah, I agree with that.

Um I think we just had one presentation um on backyard cottages, and it was just like part of like the ADU presentation, and there was uh the they have like a lot of questions there, and uh I think it totally makes sense to me if we can have this conversation in a month or two, then let's yeah, take care of backyard cottages uh all at the same time.

Um yeah, and for now remove that yeah, not include backyard cottages in the uh dormer amendment.

Other colleagues want to weigh in on this.

I'm trying to find the presentation doesn't include the the specific table.

Um Counselor McLaughlin.

I guess uh one uh council said it said makes sense to me.

First of all, uh backyard cottage, if it doesn't exist, won't need a dormer at all because it's being newly built.

And uh we're already having discussion about how many floors that should be.

So I think that's gonna get resolved with the other amendments that we're not discussing tonight.

Councillor Klingon.

Yeah, I can't care with all that.

I I think it makes sense to to wait and um deal with backyard cottages uh all at the same time.

I agree.

Director Bartman.

So uh for the clerk's sake, that would be an amendment to table three one thirteen building components to change gable dormer and shed dormer for the backyard cottage to N for no.

Sorry, I don't have the table now in front of me.

So amend to table three one thirteen building components to change gable dormer and shed dormer, shed dormer to N.

N for backyard cottages.

And if someone making that motion now, right?

You just want me to say that in the minute.

Yes, I'd like to make that motion.

Okay.

So on the motion to amend table three one thirteen, building components to change gable dormer and shed dormer to N for backyard cottages.

Counselor Davis is absent.

Counselor Klingon?

Yes.

Counselor Saint?

Yes.

Councilor McLaughlin?

Yes.

Counselor Young Campan.

Yes.

The motion is approved.

Excellent.

So procedurally here, we have we have an amendment before us, and we've passed um three motions to change it, and we don't have the actual final change language before us.

Um what's the best way to get this out of committee with the expectation that a revised draft will be on the agenda?

Um, is it to recommend approval with the understanding that we're gonna take up the amended one, or should we move it without a recommendation?

And if we move for approval, it will be on the language that is currently attached.

Right.

Yes, it maybe the cleanest thing is to um discharge without a recommendation.

Um yes if you intend on submitting a new item with this, or you could always keep it in committee and have them create a new attachment, and then when it comes back, we can just vote to change the attachment similar to what we did earlier today.

I'm not sure if there's a general preference as this is a public communication.

Um but if the administration would like to put in a new item with these amendments, you could also do that.

Well, I think procedurally we are you know ready to vote on this as a council once we have these amendments.

So I what I intend to do at our next city council meeting next Thursday is to replace the item before us with a new item that will be later on the agenda that has these changes and take a vote.

So I'd like to have them both before us next Thursday.

So I definitely want to discharge it.

Um I see our um liaison Radisi.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Sorry, I just want to clarify is the expectation that the administration would put forward the new language for the item, or are you planning to do it?

Just mentioning this because the administration does have a deadline for when to submit language for a council meeting.

Um, and we are now past that.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

Well, that contradicts what Director Bartman told me today.

So how do you explain yourself?

Because the intent the intents not to trigger a new public hearing that tends to revise the item during the legislative process that's in front of you now.

I don't know the procedures that you all have to do to do that.

But uh yeah, that whether or not it's your staff or effectively my staff making the edits for on your behalf, you know, like you just amended the item uh by vote.

Um so but I don't know, I don't understand the logistics that you need to do as a council or anything internally.

Uh but um yeah, we our intention is not to trigger a new public hearing.

Of course not.

No, director, my my question is can you or your staff get language into my hands that I can have before us on next Thursday's city council meeting to vote on?

Yes, that could happen.

And to to the um IgA I'm kind of agnostic whether that's comes in as an item on the agenda.

Um, if we're past some deadline, that's fine.

It could also just be emailed to me and I can present it on the floor, you know.

Uh through you, Mr.

Chair, to maybe the clerk.

Um, Maddie, does it make sense that um we would just provide you with that language so that uh councilor Ewan Campen has it ready to substitute and do a floor amendment for next week's meeting?

Yeah, we could recommend to approve with amendments out tonight, similar to the other item, and then you can present that at the council meeting.

That sounds good to me.

I think we're we're in agreement on what the amendments are gonna be.

We just don't have the actual text before us at the moment, right?

Um, but by next Thursday, I will have that in my hand and I can do the floor amendment.

Um speak now or forever hold your peace.

Everyone on the administration side is good with that plan.

Okay.

So then I move to recommend approval as amended.

Okay.

And on the item approved as amended, counselor Davis is absent.

Counselor Clang.

Yes.

Counselor Said.

Yes.

Councilor McLaughlin.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campen.

Yes.

That is recommended to be approved with amendments.

Excellent.

Um, thank you all very much.

Uh this is the first things we're actually moving out of committee this year.

I appreciate all the work that's gone into it and all your time.

Um there is one other item on the agenda, which is seeking an update for on the planning work that um this committee has been discussing for a couple of years now in Gilman Square.

Um, I understand the director has a brief update on the public process there.

So this is item seven on our agenda.

We'll take up this.

Sure, uh, through the chair to the committee.

Um the question was what what's the update on the Gilman Square or larger upzoning project?

Um, we are continuing to uh to uh advance that uh the research the and and uh upzoning project uh that we were doing last year, uh still behind the scenes.

Um and so uh tomorrow we'll actually be meeting with the Gilman Square uh neighborhood council uh to introduce some of the new staff that just joined uh recently uh as early as this Monday.

Um and uh uh we'll be presenting at the Ward 4 slice of the city, doing a pop-up uh open house of the four zoning maps that Samantha had developed for the for the committee last fall, uh so that people could come and find their house on the map and see what those maps mean for their own property.

Um, and we'll be following that up with uh uh hopefully a collaborative effort with the Gilman Square neighborhood council to hold another open house uh that reaches a broader audience than anybody that might come to Slice.

Um yeah, so so I I we hope to have an engagement uh in the near future uh related to those maps.

Excellent.

And it's my understanding that your department as of like this week is fully staffed.

Is that right?

For the first time in a very long time.

We have all of our senior planners have now joined the team.

We hired uh another another planner um from within.

Um, and of course, our deputy director joined us uh a little bit over a month ago.

So, yeah, we have a full staff for the for uh first time in a long time that I can remember.

Congratulations.

I'm excited for what that'll mean for the city.

Uh we we are very excited to for uh to get to work and uh and and hopefully do good things for all of you.

Yes, indeed.

All right.

Well, with no more items before the committee.

Clerk, am I missing anything before I move to adjourn?

Apologies if I'm behind the eight ball, but are you looking to mark this as work completed?

Sorry, we will keep this in committee.

Oh, sorry.

Okay, kept it in committee.

My mistake.

Then no, I'm all set for adjournment if you are.

Excellent.

Counselor Saeed moves to adjourn.

And on adjournment, Councilor Davis is absent.

Counselor Klingon.

Yes.

Counselor Sae?

Yes.

Councilor McLaughlin?

Yes.

And Councilor Ewan Campen.

Yes.

We are adjourned.

Excellent.

Thank you all very much for your work.

See you soon.