[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER]
I'VE GOT SIX O'CLOCK, SO WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.SO DO WE HAVE ANY NOTED PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE FOR, UH, THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
DO WE HAVE THE MOTION TO APPROVE, TO AGENDA? NO, THE LAST WEEK.
COMMISSIONER LA COMMISSIONER MINORS.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27TH MINUTES? I MOTION SECOND.UH, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION CHAIR VOTE ON THAT APPROVAL EVIDENCE? YEAH.
YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION AND THEN YOU HAVE VOTE.
SO, UH, HAVING NO DISCUSSION? UH, ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS.
[2. Discussion and possible action on recommendations to the proposed Downtown Density Bonus Phase I Urban Design Standards. ]
DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM.WE ARE HAVING A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PHASE ONE URBAN DESIGNS STANDARDS.
IS THERE A MOTION ON TAPE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT, THAT, UH, FOR THE DESIGN COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND THE ALTERNATIVE DRAFT AND OF THE BENEFITS TO BONUS FOR DESIGN STANDARDS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
UM, YEAH, I GUESS IT'S THE WHOLE MOTION.
UM, MAY I REQUEST A, THE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY OF THE MOTION THAT THE ALTERNATE DRAFT IS THE, UM, PURPOSE DESIGN GUIDELINE FOR GROUP ALTERNATE? UH, THE MOTION WOULD, MY INTENTION WITH THE MOTION WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BE NOW NO LONGER WORKING GROUP ALTERNATIVE DRAFT DRAFT THAT WOULD BE ADOPTED AS THE DESIGN ADMISSIONS WORKING DRAFT.
ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER HOWARD? UM, I HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UM, UH, AT THE, AT THE VERY BEGINNING.
UM, THIS IS GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT, I THINK, UM, TO, WITH OUR AMENDMENTS, BUT I WANTED TO, UM, I WANTED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE ISSUE, UH, UM, ABOUT FRONT END DESIGNATION AND PRIMARY, UH, SORRY.
PRINCIPAL STREET, UH, DESIGNATION.
IS THIS MEETING, UH, CONCERNING THE
UH, CURRENTLY, THE, THE STAFF DRAFT RELIES ON THE SUB CHAPTER, E DEFINITION OF PRINCIPAL STREET TO APPLY, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, PRINCIPAL STREET VERSUS SIDE STREET STANDARDS.
UM, AND THE CHALLENGE OF THIS IS PRINCIPAL STREET.
UH, I HAVEN'T HAVE THE DEFINITION PULLED UP, BUT GENERALLY, IT, UH, IT RELIES ON TRANSPORTATION SORT OF HIERARCHY.
UM, AND THEN, UM, IT DOES, YOU KNOW, IT DEALS WITH, ACTUALLY, IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT A TRANSPORTATION HIERARCHY.
IT'S, IT STARTS WITH, UH, COURT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, AND THEN URBAN STREETS GENERALLY AFTER THAT IN THE HIERARCHY.
AND SO THERE'S NOT A LOT OF, UH, FINESSE THERE.
[00:05:01]
I THINK A LOT OF TIMES WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THE PRINCIPAL STREET IS BEING DETERMINED AS THE, THE HIGHEST LEVEL STREET IN THE TRANSPORTATION HIERARCHY.UM, AND THAT ACTUALLY DOES NOT ALIGN TO THE PEDESTRIAN, UH, PRIORITY STREET, UM, IN WHICH, UH, WHICH IS THE STREET THAT WE ACTUALLY WANT THE HIGHER LEVEL STANDARDS ON.
UM, AND SO I KNOW, UH, STAFF AND, UH, AND THEIR DRAFT NAME NODS TO THIS IN REFERRING TO EAST, WEST STREETS AND NORTH SOUTH STREETS.
THIS IS OKAY FOR KIND OF THE, UH, THE, THE SURVEY BLOCKS OF DOWNTOWN.
UH, BUT THAT'S NOT ALL OF DOWNTOWN.
WE HAVE RAIN STREET, WE HAVE, UH, KIND OF A NATURAL EDGE IN SOME CASES.
WE'VE GOT ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT CONDITIONS THAT AREN'T OUR 300 BY 3,300 GRID.
UM, AND ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT EXPANDING THIS OUTSIDE OF, UH, THAT GRID AND THE DOWNTOWN, I THINK THAT IT WOULD, IT IS, UM, IT'S CRITICAL FOR US TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF PRINCIPAL STREET AND NOT DEFINE IT AS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF STREET IN THE HIERARCHY, BUT SOMETHING THAT'S ACTUALLY INFORMED BY THE SMALL, THE SMALL AREA PLANNING THAT WAS DONE ON DOWNTOWN VERY, VERY LONG TIME AGO.
THE BRICK STREET'S MASTER PLAN PRIMARILY, UM, BUT I THINK THERE'S ALSO ROOM FOR NUANCE.
UM, I, UH, TO THAT EFFECT, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO BE PROVIDED AFTER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, UM, UH, WHICH ENDS IN CURRENTLY APPLY UNDER 25 2 DASH 5 86.
FOLLOWING THAT, IF WE WOULD HAVE A HEADER THAT READ FRONTAGE DESIGNATIONS WITH THE TEXT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS FRONTAGE DESIGNATIONS ARE DETERMINED BASED ON THE STREET OR TRAIL THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE LOT LINE.
AND THEN, UH, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF, UH, BULLETS.
FIRST BEING PRIMARY STREET, ALL STREETS IDENTIFIED AS MAIN STREETS ARE PRIMARY STREETS.
A SITE HAS MULTIPLE PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGES WHERE IT, IT IS ADJACENT TO MORE THAN ONE MAIN STREET, WHERE A SITE DOES NOT ABUT MAIN STREET.
THE PRIMARY STREET IS THE STREET WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY C UH, STREET PRIORITIES.
BELOW A SITE HAS ONLY ONE PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE, UH, WHERE IT IS NOT ADJACENT TO MULTIPLE MAIN STREETS.
THE NEXT, UH, HEADING WOULD BE SIDE STREET.
SIDE STREETS ARE ALL, ARE ALL OTHER STREETS AND LISTED TRAILS, EXCLUDING ALLEYS NOT DEFINED AS PRIMARY STREETS.
AND THEN, UH, THE LAST, UH, BULLET HEADING IN THE STREET.
PRIORITIES, UH, STREET PRIORITIES ARE BASED ON GREEN STREETS, UH, SORRY, GREAT STREETS, MASTER PLAN, STREET TYPOLOGIES AND MAIN STREETS AND TRAILS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS OVER BOUNDARY STREET PRIORITIES ARE AS FOLLOWS, FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST.
UM, AND THE FIRST HIGHEST CATEGORY IS MAIN STREETS.
UM, AND WITHIN THAT CATEGORY, THAT STARTS WITH PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY STREETS FROM GREAT STREETS, UM, WHICH I BELIEVE CURRENTLY INCLUDES ONLY SECOND STREET, UM, CONGRESS AVENUE, WHICH IS EXCLUDED FROM GREAT STREETS, SO IT'S IN MAIN STREET.
UH, ALSO A VERY IMPORTANT STREET IN DOWNTOWN.
BUT, UH, I'LL HAVE TO READ BETWEEN MYSELF.
SOME TEXTS CAN BE THE INCON CONFIRMABLE LANGUAGE.
WE'LL GET THAT CLAIM CLEANED UP, UH, RED RIVER STREET, RAINY STREET, AND SIXTH STREET.
UM, AFTER THE MAIN STREETS, UH, CATEGORY, WE HAVE BICYCLE AND LOCAL ACCESS STREETS, UH, FROM GREAT STREETS, AND THEN WE HAVE RAPID TRANSIT STREETS FROM GREAT STREETS.
WE HAVE THEN FOLLOWING THAT, WE HAVE MIXED MODE STREET FROM GREAT STREETS.
UH, FOLLOWING THAT WE HAVE WALLER CREEK TRAIL, UH, COMMA WATERLOO GREEN BELT.
UM, FOLLOWING THAT WE HAVE SHOAL CREEK TRAIL, SHOAL CREEK GREEN BELT, FOLLOWING THAT PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE FROM GREAT STREET SLASH UH, BUTLER HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL FOLLOWING THAT COMMUTER STREET FROM GREAT STREETS AND FOLLOWING THAT COMMUTER BOULEVARD FROM GREAT STREETS.
YES, MR. YOUR HONOR, UH, ONE SMALL NOTE JUST TO, FOR CONSISTENCY, THE VERY FIRST, UH, SENTENCE THROUGH REFERENCE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, WE SHOULD SAY DOWNTOWN BONUS PROGRAM.
REFERENCES DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM SAYING WE SHOULD SAY DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
JUST TO BE CONSISTENT WHERE IT'S MENTIONED IN OTHER PLACES.
UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS?
[00:10:09]
I HAVE A COUPLE DISCUSSION ITEMS, UH, BUT NOT AMENDMENTS, JUST FOR, JUST FOR CONVERSATION.UM, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IS THAT WE HAVE A LEGAL CONSTRAINT AROUND OUR, UH, OR DESIGN STANDARDS.
AND SO SOME OF OUR DRAFT STANDARDS AT ARE AT RISK.
UM, AND THE CONSTRAINT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT ALL OF THE URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS MUST APPLY TO ALL ELIGIBLE SITES.
UM, AND SO, UM, TO THAT, IN FACT, I THINK, UH, OUR NUMBER SIX OF THE ENHANCED IS AT RISK.
UM, I ALSO THINK NUMBER 16, CONTINUITY OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS AND PRESERVE HISTORIC BUILDING FACADES ARE BOTH AT RISK DUE TO THAT INTERPRETATION.
UM, AND TO THAT EFFECT, AS WELL AS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE CERTAINLY WILL BE EDITORIAL ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS, UM, AS WELL AS JUST KIND OF CLARIFYING INTENT, UH, BEHIND THIS AND, YOU KNOW, UH, AND, AND KIND OF THE INTENT BEHIND THESE, THESE STANDARDS IN THIS DRAFT, AS IT COMES FROM THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE GUIDELINES, UM, I, I THINK WE, WE MAY WANT TO BE ABLE, UH, WE MAY, MAY WANT TO EMPOWER, UH, THE WORKING GROUP OR SOME MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP TO CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION TO AND REPRESENT THE DESIGN COMMISSION AND THAT CONVERSATION WITH MINING COMMISSION.
ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT? JUST FOR CLARITY? UM, I'M CURIOUS, IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH YOU ARE, YOU ARE SAYING YOU'RE OUTLINING THE ITEMS HERE THAT ARE AT RISK, BASED OFF THE DESCRIPTION OF THESE GUIDELINES APPLIED TO AS MANY BLOCKS AS POSSIBLE.
AND LET'S CONTINUE TO EXPLORE THAT WITH THE WORKING GROUP.
YOU, YOU FEEL WE NEED TO INCLUDE IN THAT CONVERSATION ON THE STAFF SIDES, THE STAFF SIDE, OR EXTERNAL VOICES, UM, WHO WOULD HAVE A GREATER IMPACT, LET'S SAY, THAN THIS GROUP ON WHERE WE CAN EITHER BOLSTER OR, UM, AMPLIFY THE REASONING WHY THIS SHOULD APPLY, UH, OR, OR SHOULD BE KEPT IN REGARDLESS OF APPLICATION ACROSS ALL LAWS? WHO WOULD THAT PERSON BE? IT'S, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS, UM, THIS IS BASED ON, UH, CITY OF BOSTON'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT, UM, INTERPRETATION.
AND SO I THINK BECAUSE ONCE WE ADOPT THE, ADOPT THIS AND MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE ARE KIND OF, WE ARE KIND OF, UH, LETTING IT, UH, SET SAIL AND, UM, THIS, UH, THIS EFFORT THAT WE PUT PUT, UH, TOGETHER WILL NOW WILL THEN BECOME KIND OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE AMENDMENTS BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL.
AND SO I THINK THAT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY WANT TO ENGAGE A NUMBER OF, UH, FOLKS, BUT I DEFINITELY THINK THAT TO GET, THEY SHOULD ENGAGE THE, THE LAW DEPARTMENT TO GET, UM, CLARITY ON SOME OF THESE CONSTRAINTS AND UNDERSTAND 'EM A LITTLE BETTER.
UM, UH, BUT YEAH, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT OUR ROLE WILL BE IN THAT, SO I'M JUST, IT'D BE HELPFUL TO HAVE SOME, SOMEONE IN THE, AT THE TABLE TO HELP KIND EXPLAIN THAT.
BUT YEAH, I, I DON'T KNOW THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT, UH, FOLKS, I, YOU KNOW, I'VE WORKED WITH A COUPLE FOLKS FROM THE LAW DEPARTMENT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE THE, THE RIGHT PEOPLE.
JUST, JUST AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT QUESTION HERE, THE TIMEFRAME, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND IT'S GOING COURSE RELATE TO AT THIS MONTH, DOES THAT MEAN THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ONE MORE WORKING GROUP SESSION, PERHAPS IN COLLABORATION WITH THE PLANNING TEAM? I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S GONNA BE WORKING REALLY QUICKLY, AND SO WHILE WE CAN MEET, WE MIGHT NOT, WE'LL, WE MAY WANT TO MEET IN ORDER TO KIND OF DISCUSS SOME OF THESE ITEMS. AND IF WE WERE TO DO THAT IN A WAY THAT'S GONNA INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONVERSATION, WE'LL PROBABLY WANT TO
[00:15:01]
DO THAT VERY SOON.I'M SORRY TO BE THAT GUY, BUT, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING THIS CORRECTLY, I BELIEVE THERE'S, THERE'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT WE HAVE VOTED ON, AND OUR DISCUSSIONS MOVED AWAY FROM THAT.
UM, I WONDER IF WE COULD CALL THE QUESTION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE DESIGN COMMISSION, UH, RECOMMEND THE ALTERNATIVE DROP TO THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS TO THE WA COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
UM, WE HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
I GUESS IT WOULD REALLY JUST BE AT A VERBALIZED MOTION BY, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD TO INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF FRONTAGE DESIGNATIONS AFTER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS DOCUMENT THAT WAS ISSUED AS BACKUP.
UH, THE FINAL SENTENCE OF THAT ENDS IN 2 5 2 5 8 6, WHICH RES THE CODE SECTION.
UM, THE PARAGRAPH WHICH HOWARD, UH, WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS AGAIN TITLED FRONTED FRONTAGE DESIGNATIONS, UH, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH THE, UH, DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS FRONTAGE DESIGNATIONS ARE DETERMINED BASED ON THE STREET OR TRAIL THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE LOT LINE.
IT INCLUDES A DESCRIPTION OF PRIMARY STREET ALL STREETS IDENTIFIED AS MAIN STREETS, OUR PRIMARY STREETS.
A SITE HAS, UH, MULTIPLE PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGES, WHERE IT'S ADJACENT TO MORE THAN ONE MAIN STREET.
SECOND BULLET, WHERE A SITE DOES NOT ABUT A MAIN STREET.
THE PRIMARY STREET IS THE STREET WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY C STREET PRIORITIES.
BELOW A SITE HAS ONLY ONE PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE, WHERE IT IS NOT ADJACENT TO MULTIPLE MAIN STREETS.
SECOND BULLET POINT, SIDE STREETS.
SIDE STREETS ARE DEFINED AS ALL OTHER STREETS AND LISTED TRAILS, EXCLUDING ALLEYS NOT DESIGNATED AS PRIMARY STREETS.
THIRD BULLET STREET PRIORITIES.
UM, THE DEFINITION IS THAT THESE ARE BASED ON GREAT STREETS, MASTER PLAN, STREET TYPOLOGIES, AND MAIN STREETS AND TRAILS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM, BOUNDARY STREET PRIORITIES ARE AS FOLLOWS, FROM HIGHEST, LOWEST.
ONE IS MAIN STREETS ONE, A PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY STREET AS FOUND IN GRADE STREETS ONE B, CONGRESS AVENUE, ONE C, RED RIVER STREET, 1D, RAINY STREET, ONE E, SIXTH STREET, TWO, BICYCLE AND LOCAL ACCESS STREET.
AS FOUND IN GRADE STREETS THREE, RAPID TRANSIT STREET AS FOUND IN GREAT STREETS, FOUR MIXED MODE STREET AS FOUND IN GREAT STREETS, FIVE WALLER CREEK TRAIL, UH, WALLER WATERLOO, GREEN WHITE, SIX SHOAL CREEK TRAIL, UH, SHOAL CREEK GREEN BELT SEVEN PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE AS FOUND IN GREAT STREETS SLASH BUTLER, HY AND BIKE TRAIL.
EIGHT COMMUTER STREET AS FOUND IN GREAT STREETS AND NINE COMMUTER BOULEVARD, AS FOUND IN GREAT STREETS, UM, THAT INCORPORATED COMMISSIONER CARROLL'S FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE ITEM.
SO IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, SAY AYE.
P ORDER THE MOTION BEING THE, THE, THE ADDITION.
THE ADDITION OF THE PARAGRAPH.
ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT,
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION OR ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS? COMMISSIONER TRO CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE AN AMENDMENT, UH, ITEM THREE, ACTIVE USES, UH, TO ADD APPLAUSE.
C UH, TO READ WHAT AN AVERAGE OF ONE INDEPENDENT GROUND FLOOR TENANT SPACE DESIGNED FOR PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED USE IS PROVIDED FOR EVERY 60 FEET OF PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE WALKABLE MAIN STREET FRONTAGE, ENHANCED STANDARD, THE REQUIRED STREET FACING AND THE NEAR BUILDING FRONTAGE MAY BE REDUCED BY UP TO 60 ABOVE BY UP TO 60% BEDROOM REDUCED TWO 60%.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
I, UH, I WANT TO EXPLAIN MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER, THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO INCENTIVIZE THAT PROJECTS HAVE, UM, WHEN POSSIBLE A LARGER NUMBER OF SMALLER USES BECOMING THE STREETSCAPE VERSUS A SINGLE ONE, ONE USE.
UH, SO THE IDEA OF REDUCING, UH, THE REQUIRED DEMEANOR, UH,
[00:20:01]
BUILDING FOOT FRONTAGE WOULD BE TO INCENTIVIZE, UH, PROJECTS THAT CAN ALLOW TO HAVE A, A SMALLER, A LARGER NUMBER OF SMALLER USES ALONG THE STREET SCAPE, UH, ALONG ALONG THE PRIMARY STREET SCAPE IS IMPORTANT FOR US.SO THE, UH, INTENT OF THIS IS BOTH TO ENCOURAGE SMALLER TENANT SPACES OR LARGER NUMBER OF TENANT SPACES, AND ALSO TO ENCOURAGE THEM BEING FOCUSED ON THE PRIMARY STREET.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE SIDE? I LIKE THAT.
I THINK IT, IT IS REALLY NICE, UH, SORT OF ADDITION, IT PROVIDES RELIEF, UH, WHILE ALSO, UH, ENCOURAGING THE USE OF THE, UH, WALKABLE MAIN STREET FRONTAGE, WHICH I THINK IS ONE OF THE STANDARDS OF IT IS KIND OF THE GREATEST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK AS FAR AS URBAN DESIGN IMPACT.
UM, AND SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY KINDA A, IT'S A GOOD MOVE, UM, TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, FLEXIBILITY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GONNA CALL FOR A VOTE ON INCLUDING, UM, WHAT WOULD, UH, BE AN AMENDMENT TO ITEM THREE CLAUSE ADDING CLAUSE C, WHERE AN AVERAGE OF ONE INDEPENDENT GROUND FLOOR TENANT SPACE DESIGNED FOR PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED USE IS PROVIDED FOR EVERY 60 FEET OF PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE LOCK FULL MAIN STREET FRONTAGE ENHANCED STANDARD, THE REQUIRED STREET FACING LINER BUILDING FRONTAGE MAY BE REDUCED TO 60%.
ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.
PUT IN ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT.
COMMISSIONER WHI CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT ON, UM, UH, ENHANCED STANDARDS.
UH, ITEMS THREE AND FOUR EYES ON THE STREET AND ENHANCED SIZE ON THE STREET.
UH, IT WOULD BE THE SAME TEXT ADDITION TO BOTH, UH, SUBSECTION B, UM, WHICH CURRENTLY READ WITHIN THIS PORTION OF THE STREET FACING FACADE, AT LEAST 50% OF THE FACADE AREA MUST BE COMPOSED IN THE TRANSPARENT WINDOW AREA.
UM, THIS IS RELATED TO THE SECOND FLOOR, UM, BUT THE, UH, LANGUAGE WOULD BE CHANGED, UH, TO WITHIN THIS PORTION OF THE STREET FACING, YOU SAW AT LEAST 50% OF THE FACADE AREA MUST BE COMPOSED OF TRANSPARENT WINDOW AREA OR OUTDOOR PORSCHE AREA.
UM, A OCEAN WOULD BE TO, UH, PROVIDE THAT LANGUAGE OR OUTDOOR PORCH AREA.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE SECOND? I MAY.
THE, THE INTENT OF THIS, UM, ADDITION TO, TO MY COLLEAGUES IS TO, UM, ALLOW FOR THE FLEXIBILITY OF SECOND STORY PIECES TO NOT JUST BE ENCLOSED SPACES FACING THE STREET, BUT ALSO TO BE OUTDOOR PORCH SPACES, WELL FACING THE STREET.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION RELATED AT THE SITE? OKAY, WE'RE YES.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE CHANGED AGAIN.
UM, I, I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT, YOU KNOW, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE FLEXIBILITY THAT PROVIDE STILL DOES REQUIRE THE LANGUAGE STILL DOES REQUIRE, UM, UH, REGULARLY INHABITED COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL USE ON THAT SECOND FLOOR, SO IT'S NOT JUST A PARKING GARAGE PORCH.
UM, SO I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT, UH, NOTE.
UM, UH, AND SO I, I HOPE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT THIS, THAT PORCH DOES IS PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ALL, YOU DON'T HAVE A, YOU DON'T HAVE AS MUCH, UH, WINDOW AS WE'RE ASKING FOR, BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BETTER, THE WINDOW, OF COURSE, WE LOVE THAT, UH, FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT.
SO THAT'S SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME COMMENTARY BEHIND THAT, UH, THAT I, I FELT LIKE I, WHY I SUPPORTED IT.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION RELATED TO THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA CALL FOR AN VOTE TO, UM, INCLUDE UNDER THE ENHANCED STANDARDS ITEM THREE, EYES ON THE STREET, ITEM THREE B, UM, TO ADD IN FOUR OUTDOOR PORCH AREA AFTER THE, UM, SENTENCE COMPOSED OF TRANSPARENT WINDOW AREA AND ALSO UNDER THE ENHANCED STANDARDS.
ITEM FOUR, ENHANCED EYES ON THE STREET FOR THE, UM, ADDING THE SAME LANGUAGE, UM, SIMILAR, THE FOUR B IS WRITTEN THE SAME AS, UM, THREE, SO I'M NOT IN THERE AS WELL.
UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS? ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT
[00:25:04]
QUESTIONS? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THREE AND FOUR AND KIND OF WHAT THE INTENT IS THERE? QUESTION HOW, HOWEVER, UH, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.UH, SO THE PURPOSE HERE WAS, UM, WE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CHALLENGES WITH ACTIVATING, UH, THE SECOND STORY.
UM, AND A LOT OF TIMES WE GET GARAGES AND THEY GO, YOU KNOW, SECOND STORY TO 6, 7, 8, AND SOMETIMES MORE, UH, AND HOW IT'S SO CRITICAL TO HAVE THOSE UPPER STORIES WITH EYES ON THE STREETS AND MAINTAIN SORT OF THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH, UM, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY NEIGHBORS LOOKING OUT FOR EACH OTHER IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT.
UM, UH, AND SO WE BROKE THIS INTO TWO, UH, THE WORK GROUP BROKE THIS INTO TWO, UH, TO TWO ESSENTIALLY ALLOW, UM, THE KIND OF A, A LOWER LEVEL, UH, ENHANCED STANDARD AND, UH, AND A DOUBLE DIPPING WITH THAT AND, AND ENHANCED, ENHANCED STANDARD SO THAT, UM, IT WOULD, SO ESSENTIALLY THE FIRST ONE IS FOCUSED ON THE PRIMARY STREET ONLY 60% OF THE PRIMARY STREET.
UM, THE SECOND ONE IS, UH, SORRY, 60% OF THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY, SO IT'S STILL 60%, BUT INSTEAD OF IT ONLY BEING ON THE, YOU KNOW, THE PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE, THAT 60% IS EXPANDED TO THE SIDE STREET FRONTAGE IN THE CASE OF THE CORNER LOT.
UM, SO THAT GIVES US, YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY WE EYES ON THE STREET ON THE PRIMARY STREET, BUT ALSO THE SIDE STREET, WE FELT LIKE, YOU KNOW, UH, BREAKING THAT, IT, IT IS A, IT'S A DIFFICULT THING TO ACHIEVE, AND IF YOU CAN ACHIEVE IT, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN ACHIEVE IT ON, ON THE PRIMARY STREET, YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S A ENHANCED STANDARD THAT WE, WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD GET POINTS FOR.
IF YOU CAN PROVIDE, UH, PROVIDE ON THE PRIMARY AND THE STREET AND THE SIDE STREET, YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY TWO STANDARDS FOR THAT.
ANY OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT? ALL RIGHT, YES.
MAY ANY DISCUSSION IN JULY? UM, I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S A NUMBER OF MINOR WORDING AND, UH, TYPOGRAPHICAL, UM, ITEMS. THERE'S A RANDOM QUESTION MARK.
UH, ITEM SIX IN THE DRAFT, UM, TITLE.
UH, I WOULD, I A MOTION TO AMEND ANYTHING FROM TYPOGRAPHICAL, BUT I, I WILL MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS, THIS LANGUAGE, UH, IF APPROVED WOULD BE MOVED FORWARD INTO LANGUAGE DRAFTED BY CITY STAFF.
UH, AND I WILL JUST GENERALLY STIPULATE THAT SOME OF THERE MAY BE SOME CHANGES TO TY OR THAT.
COMMISSIONER HOWARD, YOU ARE LISTED, I CHECK YOU ARE LISTED AS COMMISSIONER HOWARD, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA REPORT.
UM, UH, JUST ADDING TO THAT, I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT KIND OF SPEAKS TO THE SECOND POINT THAT I MADE ABOUT POSSIBLY HAVING SORT OF REPRESENTATION, UH, SOME SORT OF REPRESENTATIVE OR REPRESENTATIVES FROM THIS, FROM THIS, UH, COMMISSION TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HELP WITH THOSE EDITORIAL AND INTENT BASED SORT OF REVISIONS MOVING FORWARD AND JUST FIELDING QUESTIONS THAT, THAT PLANNING COMMISSION ARE SO THAT, UH, THAT IS IN SUPPORT OF THAT, I WOULD SAY.
ANY OTHER ADDITIONS, SUBTRACTION, MODIFICATIONS TO THE DOCUMENT? OKAY.
WELL, SINCE COMMISSIONER HOWARD USURP HIS ORIGINAL MOTION BY PROVIDING CHANGES TO THE DRAFT, I THINK WE NEED TO CALL FOR A MOTION FOR AN ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT WITH THE CHANGES VOTED ON DURING THE MEETING.
SO TO THE MOTION, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE BY COMMISSIONER HOWARD TO RECOMMEND THAT THE DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE ALTERNATIVE DRAFT AS AMENDED DURING THIS MEETING OF THE DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
IT WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON ITEM? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.
[00:30:02]
DO WE HAVE, UH, THE[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY IS ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AT UPCOMING MEETINGS? UM, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY FUTURE ITEMS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO CHECK? ALL RIGHT.CHAIR, I'M NOT SURE HOW TO INTRODUCE, UM, THIS IS AN ITEM, BUT, UM, I, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE, UM, COMMISSIONER HOWARD'S, UM, COMMENTS ABOUT, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, COMING FROM THIS BODY TO ENGAGE EITHER THIS BODY OR WORKING GROUP WITH THIS BODY IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS.
UM, SO I WOULD OFFER THAT AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION, ALTHOUGH
UM, CAN I, UH, SPEAK TO THAT? SO, UM, I THINK WE NEED TO CHECK THE CALENDAR, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION.
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS, IS HEARING THIS, IT IS GIVING US A, A DATE WAS THE 12TH, EXCUSE ME, SHERIFF, AND MM-HMM
THE 12TH OF MAY 12TH, AND WE MEET NEXT.
UM, ONE THING THAT WON'T QUITE WORK.
UM, PERHAPS IT'S, PERHAPS IT'S ENOUGH.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S JUST, UM, MAYBE IT'S, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, WE'VE, YOU KNOW, UH, PERHAPS WE, WE'VE, UH, ARRIVED AT A, A CASUAL CONSENSUS OR CLOSE TO CONSENSUS THAT WE'RE GENERALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THIS.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NEED A, A MOTION.
WE'LL JUST CONTINUE TO KEEP, KEEP THE, THE, THE COMMUNICATION LOOP STAND THAT WE HAVE.
AND, UM, WHOEVER DOES ATTEND THOSE MEETINGS, UM, UH, WILL JUST REPORT BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP AND REPORT BACK TO THE BROADER DESIGN CHAIRMAN.
GIVEN THE SCHEDULE, I WILL WITHDRAW MY REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THE AGENDA ITEM THAT, UH, THAT SOMEONE FROM THE, UH, URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINE WORKING GROUP UPDATE THE DESIGN COMMISSION ON THE, ON COLLABORATION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION, WORKING GROUP, OR PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD WITH A MOTION TO THAT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINE WORKING GROUP WILL UPDATE THE DESIGN COMMISSION ABOUT ONGOING COORDINATION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN DENSITY BONUS STANDARDS DOCUMENT AND PROCESS.
WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GILLIS.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS HEARING? NONE, UH, ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, CHAIR, I MAY, YES.
IF THE COMMISSION WISHES TO FORWARD A CLEAN FINAL VERSION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DO WE NEED THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE THAT INTO BACK? YEAH, WE CAN SEND THAT OUT BY TOMORROW.
SO THE QUESTION IS SO FORWARDING, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCESS WILL WORK AND WHETHER THERE IS A FEEDBACK LOOP.
SO WE'LL FORWARD, THE UPDATED DRAFT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WHAT DO WE EXPECT? DO WE EXPECT THE RESPONSE? DO WE EXPECT THE DRAFT TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE NEW STANDARDS THAT THE STATE WILL BE ESTABLISHING, OR IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE EXPECT HIM AS A, AS A RESPONSE? UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, I DON'T HAVE CLEAR, UM, UH, A CLEAR SENSE OF EXPECTATIONS ON WHAT THEY'LL, UH, ON HOW THEY'LL RESPOND.
UM, THEY, UH, THEY, THEY WILL RECEIVE A RECOMMENDATION, UM, AND BASED ON OUR, OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR WORKING GROUP, THEY WERE VERY, UM, ENTHUSIASTIC
[00:35:01]
AND SUPPORTIVE OF OUR, THE EFFORT THAT WE WERE DOING.AND SO I THINK THEY'LL BE RECEPTIVE TO IT.
UH, GENERALLY I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS LIKELY, YOU KNOW, MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THOSE, UH, BEFORE, UM, RECOMMENDING SOMETHING TO COUNCIL.
UH, I DON'T THINK WE'LL HAVE A FORMAL SORT OF RESPONSE FROM 'EM, BUT I THINK THAT AS LONG AS ONE OF US OR A COUPLE OF US CAN GET IN THE ROOM AND CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION THAT WE ALREADY STARTED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKING GROUP, UH, WE SHOULD GO AND REPORT BACK ON, ON, UH, WHAT WE, WHAT WE CAN EXPECT, UM, OR AT LEAST WHAT WE, UH, WHAT WE CAN EXPECT, UH, BASED ON THAT, THE TIME OF THAT CONVERSATION.
BUT SO DO, WOULD WE HAVE A VISIBILITY ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL? YES, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE PUBLISHED, JUST LIKE THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE PUBLISHED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTS THEIR, THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL, THAT WOULD BE PUBLISHED.
AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE, WE'LL DEFINITELY BE, BE LOOKING AT THAT.
UH, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE NO OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, WE WILL BE THE UR LEAVE, 6:36 PM.