 Start the meeting at 635 waiting for the voice to ask us if we accept the recording, right? Yeah, I'm glad you said that. That's I always forget. This meeting is being recorded. There you go. Continue. And I assume town meeting has us going. How do we know that? Okay. They just do. Okay. All right. First item is changes to the agenda. Any changes to the agenda? I will tell you Eric and I talked a little bit ahead of time about having a discussion tonight. Meetings going forward. We'll do that under other business or under Eric's city updates. Okay. Nothing else. So let's anyone from the public out there, Eric. There's not. We've no. So we'll move past public comment and we'll go to approval of the previous meeting minutes. I'll make the motion to approve them. Okay. I'll second that. Okay. Thank you. Are there any corrections, edits, comments to the minutes. Hearing none, all those in favor of the minutes, please, or the motion, please say aye or raise your hand. Hi. Anyone opposed. Anyone wish to abstain. Okay. Next we'll move to continued review of appendix B form based code on section 4. Oh, three. Eric. We are. Yes. We're at section 403. And as I was, I was telling Mike, as we're, everybody was starting to log on. I, I don't expect this to be a long meeting tonight. I was looking through the, the edits that I'm proposing in this section and there's not many. So it's possible that this could be a fairly quick meeting once we get through, through this last, these last couple of sections, but it's not going to be a long meeting. It's not going to be a long meeting. It's not going to be a long meeting. You know, we have, we have the full time if we want it. So. So that will leave plenty of time for Terry to, to, to give her farewell speech tonight. And our dance for her. And our dance for her. Right. The one that's been choreographed for the past. That's right. Your expectations because none of that's happening. Terry. Yeah. I'm going to go ahead and get started with that. Hopefully this is a little more tricky since I only have one monitor running right now. But I will do my best to. Get everything in order. So yeah, so we're picking up again with. Section 403. So this is the, this is where we start getting into the specific detail of each building form standard and really what's required and what is required and what's required. And the information that is, that is really particular to each of the, the four building form standards. They're, they're broken out per standard. But as, as we've talked previously with the, the information we've discussed in the rest of part four, that applies to all of the standards. This is where we're looking at just specific information for each. Of the standards. So we start with the urban general. And then we're looking at, we're looking at, we're looking at really just an introductory page, kind of what the intent is, what the idea is. Some pictures to show examples of kind of what, what it looks like in practice. Just for representation only no, no changes being proposed here. No boy. So, so we get into the first. The first section on building height. So what we're looking at is, so this talks about the height of the, of the buildings. And this is where we get into the, the part about the bonus story. So the way it's written is that the, the uppermost full story is only a bonus story. So what you see here, the four and a half stories or five and a half stories. It's really, you only get that if the uppermost story is a bonus story. So we'll have a, we'll have a review, we'll have an additional discussion on the incentives for the bonus stories, but just so that you're kind of, kind of aware of how that works with the language. So really the only, the only kind of changes I'm proposing in this section are just to remove the page number referencing for the bonus story, just because it's, it's going to change. And I think it's personally, I just prefer to cite the section rather than a, a page number to accompany it. That way it doesn't have to keep getting updated. So I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to, I'm just going to eliminate the page number citation. And then adding this language under the ground story height, more for clarification to indicate that the, the ground story has to be at least 12 feet tall, but no more than 22 feet tall for a minimum depth of 30 feet. As measure at the RBL. And this is really what this language does is, is a reference to the graphic here. But it talks about on the left side here, the maximum, the maximum height of 22 feet. So there's a minimum height as well, but talks about the maximum height. So just to really kind of spell that out in the document that it's, that's what the, the intent of it is. Has it always been 12 feet? It's always been 12. Yes. Yeah. The first floor is always, it has to be at least 12 feet regardless of the use, but no more than 22 feet. Eric, does that sentence suggest that after 30 feet from the RBL, it can be less than 12 feet or more than 22 feet? Yes. And I think that's actually, I think that's actually the case. It can, it can be less, but at least that first 30 feet of depth off the, off the RBL needs to be at least, at least those heights as described. Excuse me. What's the reason for having that minimum depth in there? I think it's really to ensure that there's usable space in that, in that ground story, regardless of what it is, if it's residential or a commercial use. I think it's the intent is that you're, you're creating a space that's going to be usable so that there's not just like a, you know, basically a closet that meets that requirement and then everything else behind it can be lower. Right. But if you, if you took out that phrase for a minimum depth of 30 feet, as measured, whatever, wouldn't that suggest the entire story needs to be, meet those requirements? It would. Yeah. And I don't know if there's a reason that it's in there as opposed to being out of there. I don't know what that would change, but it would seem like if you're talking about the ground story height, why wouldn't the whole story have to meet the minimum or maximum? I'm just thinking if there was something in the back and you wanted like a little shed off the back, maybe you wouldn't want that being 12 feet tall. I don't know. Well, you can see like the picture right above there that they have shown is like, it shows you like this sort of and, um, yeah, a spot that's, you know, taller than the back and residential. Right. Which I guess could accommodate what we were talking about before, if they have like underground parking, that gives them like a little wiggle room in the back of the building to come up a little higher. Or there's weird grading on the site. Yeah. Yeah. And, um, the only thing I'm wondering is since we may be allowing developers to go eight feet, put eight foot setbacks, does the language have to be adjusted from 30 feet from the RBL and then because if they're setback eight feet from the RBL, that's only 22 feet. That's a really good point. But they could keep, I mean, they still could do the whole height all the way. If they go past 30 feet, right? It's just a, but they wouldn't be required to with the way the language is right now because it's 30 feet from the RBL. Right. Yeah. So I see from the building facade, maybe instead. Yeah. I mean, I don't know why they wouldn't want to though. Because you know, like, um, I think developers are like, um, I don't really want to put commercial, you know, I'm just like, I'm just going to design something. It's not going to be used. Like cause I don't have like where we can't make them use it as commercial space. They'll just design it and then make it all residential. Right. Or parking behind it. Right. So it'll be a 12 foot deep space. Or 12 feet tall and 30 feet deep. And is there, I'm just trying to get this right. Is there a minimum on the depth of those 12 feet? 30 feet. 30 feet. Okay. So it has to be a 30 foot space. Has to be at least 30 feet deep. Yes. So just to be clear with this, um, the, the graphic is, it's a little confusing. Yeah. It's actually taken me a while to, to figure this out. So what this is showing is that. The first floor height has to be at least 12 feet. And the second floor height has to be at least 12 feet. Right. Regardless of what your use is going to be. The way that this is drawn as if you're looking at the building straight on. So that if you're doing a commercial space. You, you can only be 18 inches above the sidewalk, but if you're doing a residential space, you have to be at least three feet up. For that. Right. The floor has to be at least three feet above the fronting space. So the interior height has to be at least 18 inches above the sidewalk for a commercial space. But the interior height. Is, is where that, that fluctuation changes. So the interior of a commercial space. As you'll see further down in this section. The interior height needs to be at least 12 feet. But a residential for residential uses, the interior height only needs to be 8.8 feet. And the interior height needs to be at least 12 feet. So. Why does the residential have to be three feet above the sidewalk minimum? Yeah. It's really so that those uses are elevated above the, the sidewalks. So there's not potentially views into the residential units. Privacy and kind of to, to separate them a little bit from the street space. How do you deal with ADA on that? There's been a lot of very creative options. You either enter through the rear of the building or a side entrance from the building for the residential pieces. I think that's why you're allowed to have it up because. I don't know if they're. If it's the only entrance, obviously, it would need to be ADA for residential use, but the commercial uses will all be ADA accessible because they're so close to the sidewalk. So I think that's why we're allowed to do that. We've seen some projects where they, they do some ramping inside to where it's basically, the residential uses are still at gray or at the three feet up, but they, they enter flush. Do it all internally. Yeah. Behind the facade line. So. Okay. So since the picture doesn't show what I thought it does, maybe back to Mike's point. Do we gain a first story of 12 to 22 feet across, across the entire story? Is there enough reason to keep the 30 feet men? I mean, it's a good question. I don't, I guess. I don't really see a lot of situations where somebody that's building a structure. I don't know why they would want to step it down in the back after that 30 feet. Like, for example, if the building is only going to be 40 feet deep or 50 feet deep, I don't step up actually, right? Well, they could do that as well. They, that wouldn't be an issue if they stepped up. It would just be stepping down. Okay. So they would dig a basement under half of that air. I mean, or they dig lower into the ground. I don't understand, Eric. Well, so basically it would just be, so you'd have, you'd have your 12 foot high ceiling for 30 feet. And then you would basically just drop down, say four feet. So it's an eight feet. So it would be, I don't know, the first floor for 30 feet. And then you would basically just drop down, say four feet. So it's an eight foot height or a nine foot height behind that 30 foot section. You would drop the seat. You're saying you dropped the ceiling down. Correct. So could you squish another unit in there and other two apartments in there on top of each other? I mean, depending on what the first floor height is. I don't know. I think the main personally, and I don't know this for sure, but there's a lot of sections of the code. So there's a provision in the code that's the talks about clearly visible from the street space. That's actually how it's worded. And generally what that means is anything that's behind the parking setback line or kind of further back on the property is not clearly visible from the street space. So a lot of the provisions of the code don't apply. And so that parking setback is typically at 30 feet. So that's why I think this 30 foot numbers included as well. So that at least for the first 30 feet of the building, it's going to have a consistent facade. It's going to have the same, the same story height the whole way through. But then once you get past that 30 feet, if you want to start playing around with the check with architecture and changing it up, you can do that because you're, you're kind of in the back of the house. So to speak. And you're not in that visible street space area. So you can really kind of start mixing things up a bit. So then I think it makes sense to just change RBL to building facade and leave it as is. Yeah. Keep, keep the 30 foot. Yeah. I agree. Yep. Okay. I think that makes sense as well. Um, okay. Let me ask that, that three foot minimum. For, for residential. Is it at the street frontage or is that anywhere on the building? It's off the, um, the average fronting sidewalk elevation. So if, if in the case we were just looking at, if you had a commercial upfront and a residential unit behind it, for whatever reason, that unit has still has to be three feet above the, the average height of the sidewalk. It depends if it's, if it's 30 feet back, then no, it wouldn't. If it's in that back 30 feet of the, of that first floor, it wouldn't need to be. No. So it says it's just the ground straight side, which would allow that to be different in the back. Correct. So I guess we're going to get to number two and talk about the three feet above average grade. Yep. Okay. Yeah. So, so this, so basically the rest of this section, just another, removing another reference to a page number. Again, same reasons as before. And then just adding some language here more for clarity of, you know, to make sure that the, that the finished floor elevation is across the entire facade, the entire complete facade so that each complete and discreet facade has its own, has its own. Composition to make sure they all meet the standards. And then again, just to clarify a few other parts and pieces to make sure that it's, it's spelled out a bit. So it's broken out into the commercial or I guess the non residential pieces and then the residential parts under number two, not proposing any changes there other than just the changing it from residential units to residential uses. So I understand what you were talking about why the three feet above average fronting sidewalk elevation is in there. I just, I guess, I guess I'm wondering why it's distant with what we talked about last week in terms of, you know, having a minimum height or something in the, I know we have it in the alleyways or between buildings. Oh, for the windows. Yeah, for the windows. I don't know why if, I mean, if they want to put a, you know, a residential unit that's a foot or two feet above. So if they want to have a sidewalk grade and have windows, people put curtains up, right? For privacy. I'm not going to belabor this. I just kind of throw it out there. It kind of, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to me. But anyway, if everyone else is okay with it, we'll just let it fly. Mike, I think it's sort of a classic design actually. I think of brown stones and whatnot. They're, they're up a few feet that main living residential. How about Keen's crossing is, or the Cascades are those on the street elevated like that? Does anyone know? They're not elevated and they're, you know, it's kind of weird to me because you can walk by and see people doing things inside. And it, it makes you on the street a little uncomfortable and it makes people inside a little uncomfortable. I think so. Let's leave it at three feet. Yeah. I think it makes sense. I think it's nice. Didn't we review last time where windows could be placed relative to the street? And was that for non residential? It's basically for residential. It's basically for any, any. Well, let me look at the language. I think it was for any windows, but it's, it's, it's really focused on the sides of the buildings or the walls. And so, actually, Mike and I had a conversation about this earlier today. It's, it's where windows are. Where the view from the window is to an adjacent property is the way it's written basically. So that there needs to be any window that has a view of an adjacent property needs to be located. It has certain parameters for where it can be located. And that's a certain within a certain distance. Correct. Within a certain distance as well. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for the reminder. So the other part of this section of ground story height, I was reading through it earlier and I noticed there's some duplication of language in these sections. So I might try to clean it up a bit and consolidate it, but keeping everything consistent with what we've just talked about, but just to make it maybe a little more, a little more clear. So then the rest of this section. Not proposing any changes other than just to. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I wanted to highlight that the neighborhood manners is a defined word. So changing it to small caps. So the next part. I actually have a question about the street wall. Sure. Is that. Optional, right? Like. Cause. Is it more down going to allow. More of a setback. In certain parts that's not a requirement to have a street wall. So the street wall is. So we'll actually talk about that in the next section. Okay. Yeah. Hold that thought for right now. Okay. Street walls are not required. Unless is, I guess, what I'll say. Abby, who's our friend that's joining us. This is Atticus. Hi, Atticus. He's just going to bed. Good night. Hi, Atticus. Okay. So the next section here is on the elements. Really the only thing I'm adding in here is, is under the fenestration under number two. Is just to clarify that if. You're going to have a parameter for the windows, the glazing, the fenestration on each building. In the urban general, because you have the option of doing the first floor as commercial or residential, I wanted it to be clear that if you're going the commercial route, then you need to follow the fenestration requirements of the shopfront, which is basically for any commercial use. So there was some confusion in early on with the several projects about what fenestration requirements they needed to follow. Because it wasn't explicit that if you're doing it as a shopfront configuration, at least in my opinion, you should be following those standards, even if you're not in that building form standards. So that's really all this is doing is basically just saying that if you're doing it, if you're that first floor is non residential, you need to follow a different set of fenestration requirements. So Erica, I'm sorry, because you've got, we've got shopfront and we've got storefront and it's probably defined, but I don't off top my head. Yep. Um, so. The, they're the same thing. If you look at the next, if you look at the next page, it's, it's, so the building form standard is called the urban storefront, but we, we called the, the, those first floor spaces shop fronts. So, so it says unless the ground story is configured as a shopfront. Yep. Means if it's anything other than a shopfront, then it has to follow the, the urban storefront frontage requirements. So am I reading that right? I'm just actually flipping through here to find. So basically we define a shopfront as the, the ground story facade intended for marketing of merchandise or commerce uses and allowing visibility between the sidewalk and the interior space. So basically a shopfront is any type of non-residential space. Okay. So I guess I'm confused because it seems to be saying. Um, yeah, unless it's a shopfront, then you have to follow this, but the shopfront follow, does the shopfront under this category follow the same requirements as the storefront? Yes. Are they different? No. So you're saying like, why are we using two different words? Is that what you're kind of getting at? Well, it doesn't make sense to me because it's, it's saying unless the ground story is configured as a shopfront. So that means anything else, any other use of the first story has to follow the store, urban storefront frontage requirements. You follow me? So it's really saying everything has to follow the urban storefront, unless I'm misinterpreting Eric. Well, so yeah, I think, well, you might not, I mean, you're clearly reading it the way that you're reading it. So I don't want to say that you're misinterpreting it, but that was not, you can say it. That was not my intent. So the way that I intended this was to say, uh, as it's written as the ground story fenestration shall comprise between 33% and 70% of the ground story facade. Unless the ground story facade is configured at a shopfront, and then you would follow the fenestration requirements of this, of the, uh, urban storefront frontage. And that's, yeah. So, so are you saying if it's configured as a shopfront, it's going to follow the requirements of the urban storefront? That is correct. Yes. I'm not sure it's. Sentence into two sections. That the ground story fenestration, um, for residential will be 33 to 70% section. The next section of that would say for storefront, it follows the shopfront. It follows the storefront, urban storefront frontage. You know, whatever that is. The other thing I would throw in is to me, I think instead of the word, unless maybe if you say, except when. Well, I think actually. So I like Tommy's idea of breaking it into two complete. In two statements. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. That might make it easier. Um, so actually Terry, I think. Terry, to go back to your question about, uh, the wall, it was actually I, um, I misspoke it's not in this section. It was in the last section as well. So I'm going to jump back here quick. Uh, to the. Sorry about that. To the, uh, Sighting section. So under facade. So we require each building form standard requires a certain amount of the facade to be built to the required building line. In this case, 75% of the building needs to be on the building line. Uh, any amount below that. The building needs to be on the building line. Um, They need to put in a wall to make up the rest of the percentage. Oh, but if a building is, if a building is proposed that's only sit, that will only fill 70% then that last 5% needs to be a building. Oh, so if it's the entire, you're talking about a building being there and if there's not a building that it has to be a wall. Correct. Right. So as we're not talking about, um, We're not talking about having more of a setback and then requiring a wall because of that. No. Okay. Okay. Nope. And does that wall have a certain height that it has to be? It does. Yep. They all. So in this case, it would need to be at least five feet, but not more than 12. Feet tall tall. Yep. So you'd have a. Because that could be a cool landscape element of like seat wall that you could use. Well, that's not to say they can't incorporate that. But is this cheaper? Meaning. Are we going to end up with these long 12 foot walls? Potentially. On the side. Is that what you're saying to Amy? Well, no, I agree. Cause 25% of whatever is on that. RBL could just be a blank wall. Yeah. Instead of like activating it. Yeah. So Eric, let me, if the building takes up 75% of the frontage, you don't need to put up a wall. You don't need anything. Correct. Right. Oh, I see. So it's only that part. It's only that. So of the frontage, you need to occupy 75% of it with something. With a facade or a wall. Exactly. That's your project. If you're, if you're, if your structure takes up the whole 75% or more, then you're fine. You don't have to do anything else. And there's no way that wall could be solid all the way. To like have parking behind it or something. Yeah, that's correct. The wall actually. So there is another section that talks about street walls specifically. And I believe it says that any wall that's over four feet tall and needs to meet the fenestration requirements of the, the building form standard works located. Okay. Well, we're on this page. I know you said you don't like to have the page numbers in, but can we reference like a section? So under see also urban storefront. Frontage. Like in J 11. Like if you scroll just a little bit, you have the see also 402 general provision F bonus story. Like at least it directs them somewhere. So that's the, the, the, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the. Could that say like J 11 or whatever section. Or yes, or our frontage isn't. Yes, absolutely. Yep. Sorry. I meant to. There. Yeah. Yes. I will include the section reference. For that. And then can you give me a quick reminder, what fenstration is? It's basically just the openings in the building wall. So windows, doors, things of that nature. The other part, and I meant to talk about this as well for the siting requirement, so we show this diagram, which can be a little confusing. So I don't know if it makes sense to try to describe what this diagram is showing and include some text to go with it, or if, if that's worth getting into that level of detail, I, I'm not really sure. I mean, I think the other one, the other building form standards are a little easier to understand, but this one always kind of has thrown me a bit, but just wanted to get an opinion on that from folks. It wouldn't really hurt to have the text. Right. And it may make it easier for folks to understand it. Yeah, I mean, it basically says here under buildable area number one that, you know, the buildable areas delineated in the diagram above. So, because someone didn't want to write it out in text. It's quite possible. So, all right, I will, I will look at adding some language as well to totally better explain that. I think in this form based code, quite frankly, anything that can be better explained, because it's, it's, I just find it very confusing. It's difficult to navigate your way through it. Yeah, I don't disagree. Yeah. Okay. Going back to where we were. The aggressive scrolling. So yeah, I'll just break that into two into two parts and that's the only other, the only other edit for this section. So here we are with the urban store frontage or urban storefront frontage. Again, got to love that first picture top left. Yeah, it's nice. The images just depicting illustration or illustrative intent. The only thing I'm proposing to add here well one I want to get rid of these highlights I'm not sure why they're there but that was a carry over from from something. So, I'm going to get rid of the highlights but just adding in this language about ensuring that the clear height is across the entire ground story facade, not just the, the part that's being really to clarify that this isn't just for the portion of the building that's going to be configured as a storefront or a shop front, and that's going to apply to the whole that whole first floor. Otherwise, nothing else in this section to be amended. Any questions about that. Nope, makes good sense. All right, so next we're on to the townhouse small apartment building form standard similar to the other ones some some pictures showing illustrative intent, just some language about what it means. Etc. So nothing, nothing new there. Similar to the other ones just to kind of clarify that the finished floor elevation of each facade in case there's multiple facades has to be within those parameters. Can I just, Eric, can I jump in for some apps in the photographs on that you just showed us right yep. Have you ever checked to see if, if these photographs actually would be allowable what we're seeing in these and in the code stuff I mean do you, has that been confirmed. Because now I'm looking at this one there in the middle on the top with the wall is that actually something we could do someone could do. Yeah. Okay. It looks like the first floor of that is set back. So right that the, yeah. But you can do the eight foot setback as written, currently without our edits, you can set back eight feet if it's like you have a front porch or stupor. Right. Yeah, okay. But I, yeah, Sarah, I'm looking at these two because I can't, you know, the man, the Mansau East Island development that is in this is in the apartment. Yeah, it doesn't. I can't square why it doesn't look like this. It's like, what are we shooting for you know, I mean, So, yeah, there might be some language we need to look at so that the results are closer to what these pictures are showing. Well, and again, these are really just for some illustrative intent and not necessarily what we're, what we're trying to achieve. I mean, I think they're they are obviously there for a reason but it is shown the public I mean this is what the public is using as their reference. Absolutely. But I guess to that. What I mean by that is it's not necessarily that the code is written so that you're going to get these buildings. These buildings would all fit in the code, but the code isn't necessarily going to result in these as your outcome. You know, there's a lot of other things that need to be taken into consideration such as the site itself, the elevation the grade changes things of that nature that will have impacts on on how the site is actually developed and what what the ultimate product looks like so that's why I think it's, you know, yes, these are obviously examples of what what could occur but not necessarily what will occur. Or what has occurred, which is why we're all confused I think that I guess I would say that was a tricky project all around so the man so project. But anyway, so yeah, so just kind of clarifying the the ground story height question and then again just eliminating the this reference to the next page. I mean I think it's fairly obvious where that's going to be so I don't think that we need to have the language in there. The other thing. This is this is a bit of language that I struggled with a little bit is so for each building, each structure, there needs to be a gap, or at least the way it's written a gap of at least 15 feet. I mean buildings, but it's not clear as to what that what that means, whether that just a some level of separation or if it's a complete opening to the sky or what that actually is so I think the intent is to make that a complete separation so that the buildings are smaller overall, but I don't, I don't think the code was written that way to really result in that. What I'm proposing is to change it from a gap of 15 feet to a complete separation of at least 15 feet. And I don't know if that needs to be more explicit as to what that means a complete separation that it's, you know, to say that the building is not connected or what because at the same time I can see a situation where, you know, beyond that 30 foot, where not clearly visible from the street space language, you know somebody wanted to put a walkway between the two buildings for example covered walk or some sort of covered walk between the two buildings that connects them that's, you know, at the second floor or third floor. So every building is supposed to have 15 feet between it. Is that what you're saying. Well, it says a gap. Okay, we don't know what that means as a gap. Again, I don't mean to be difficult but if you look at the very front page of what we're looking at the appendix be gateway districts form based code regulations and you look at that photograph. The buildings are all built next to each other. There's no gaps. Well, this is what I keep thinking we're getting but this is not. Can you, I mean that's the do you guys know what picture I'm talking about. I don't know which one. You go back there Eric. Can you see it at all on the cover of the form based code of the very, the very front page of the book. I mean, I guess general. I don't know what that's supposed to be representing or where that's supposed to be a representation of if anywhere in the city so I can't. I mean I don't know if that's supposed to be an urban general building form standard a storefront building form standard or what they're trying to propose there so put the rationale is for the 15 feet. Is it a fire code issue or why. I think it's more just to to my guess anyway is to to provide a bit of scale so that's so that the building is themselves are smaller. Yeah because it says you can do 100 feet of building without a gap. I'm just breaking up 100 foot buildings to make sure that they're not 120 feet or 150 feet. It's like it's yeah it keeps it. It keeps the building smaller. Right. But can you build, can you build. Can another developer let's say your property owner. Can they build their building right up to the building next to it. Sharing a wall essentially. Well, I mean they couldn't share the wall but yeah they can be you know. Yeah, which is which is part of the reason why we had the discussion about the windows on the side of the buildings and where they're facing. Yeah, and the height of those so yes, presumably I mean theoretically there if you look at the next. If you look at the first frontage with it says although there's no individual setbacks. There's no there's no setbacks here so you can basically be right on the property boundary, which is why there's there's the intent to have the gap but you know it's not really it's not clearly defined what a gap actually means so that's why I'm trying to clarify what we want to see here is like a full separation between buildings and whether or not, whether or one you agree with that or and to that what I'm proposing here would achieve that so that it's more clear. I think that to you because the developer came to you and defined a gap as something other than a complete separation of buildings. Trying to think I think that may be part of it yeah. Were they trying to like have a continuous roof line or like how were they, how are they interpreting what else a gap could be, if it's not a complete separation. I think they were they were looking at it as just an area where there wasn't going to be. There was just it was just kind of a stagger in the in the in the building that did not. They didn't have anything in it. Just some open air that that set back a little ways but it wasn't clear as to what that actually meant. Was it that bad if there was a 20 foot step back in there and it was like a little courtyard and the build, I mean, I guess I wouldn't mind that if the building was continuous if I don't know. Yeah. At one point we had a conversation about, you know, the front stepping stepping back the facades of the building to break up the what it looks like on the front. I will say, I guess a couple things. I don't see a gap could still be used if it's defined. Right. The other thing is the way lots, the, lots exist today. I'm not sure how many lots there are with more than 100 feet of frontage. So you can have two developers next to each other like summer brought up with. Well, with two buildings that have no separation essentially. And so you have 200 feet of continuous basically continuous facade. So I don't know how you get around. I mean, if the intent is 100 feet is the maximum width of a single facade. I'll say building, but I don't know maybe there has to be, you know, at 100 feet there has to be a separation of five feet 10 feet whatever that number is. Well, right now it's 15 feet. The other thing I kind of, but no, wait, what I'm saying though is if you got two, two adjacent properties, there is no 15 feet. That's correct. You know, I'm saying that they would, there's the two developers are going to be building. They're not going to like build buildings that look exactly alike. And if there's a, and if one gets tore down, the other ones can still stand, right? Like all of like incremental planning is like the smaller the buildings, the more adaptable it is over time. These mega blocks like the half of the circle is like that's we're stuck with that forever, like pretty much. So having these smaller discrete buildings help us like turn over over time or just in a much easier way than having a 200 foot building with a little gap, like a little setback gap in the middle of it. Because I actually, when I read gap, I thought, oh, it said it's, and it's 15 feet wide. I'm thinking, oh, it goes all the way through to the back. It's a driveway. That's what I was. Yeah, it could be. I think with the 15 feet, it could be an access, like an access road to the building. Yeah, I just think there's, there's, there's something that has to be better defined and stated here as to what the intent is. Because if you allow 100%, well, let me ask you, if you allow 100% frontage coverage on a lot. And again, you get two adjacent lots and the developers, both developers, it could be one developer could be two want to put 200 foot wide buildings there for whatever reason, then there's no gap. There could be, there could be no gap. There's still two distinct, distinct exterior walls. There may or may not be. They might match. It's just like we, in that case, we maybe should be talking about, and I think we have talked about in the past, breaking up that 100 foot facade. So there are some different aesthetically, it looks like more than just one solid facade. Well, I mean, we have that in the, in the language we talked about earlier on, on the, the step backs, the allowing the additional relief from the required building line. In this, in this building form standard as well, we do allow for, for buildings to be set back if they're opting to put a porch in with the, with the structure as well. So that's on the next page of the, of the text. But we've had conversations about we don't want a big long, you know, facade that that's not broken up somehow. You want to break them up and I thought we had it like at 60 feet or some maximum width that a single facade could be. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Each, each facade for the, the maximum width of any one facade is 75 feet. Okay. So 70 feet if it's, if it's in the storefront, if it's in the storefront building form standard 75 feet in the others. Right. So at least we've got that where you're not going to have a hundred foot wide single looking facade. There's going to be some break in that facade. That's the intent. Yes. So let's say intent, do you mean that's what we're getting or that's what we hope to get. I mean, or just raise a. There is a, so there is a provision in that language that if actually I might be thinking about something different. So yes, that is the, that is the intent of the code. That is what we should get. Yeah, I'm thinking, I think I'm thinking about something different with the door spacing on the facades to that point. Should we make sure that the language is, is precise that this is what we're going to get. If it's, if it's not already in this section or are you talking all the way all the way through. In other words, rather than our intent is to get this. And we should get this. This is what will happen. You know what I'm saying. Yeah, that's, I mean, that's my goal with, with the, with these edits is to is to make it explicit for what we're trying to achieve. Okay. So that's part of the reason why I'm proposing this language here is just to clarify what we actually want to see with this, this gap if that's a if if we want to see it as like Amy suggested it's maybe just more of an open area where there could be a courtyard but the whole building could be 200 feet long as one continuous run, but just have a little space in it or do we want it to be a complete separation where there's no connection between the if there's multiple buildings in on a property. I think I would recommend having the complete separation which was the original intent of this section. But to your point about having like a passage between the two. Maybe that could just be additional language like the next sentence. If you have a complete separation but at least 15 feet is required between buildings. This precludes covered access or something like that. The issue that I have with this one is more to what Mike was saying is if builder number two comes in there doesn't need to be any, any gap between and this seems as though this isn't quite fair. Either you have to have 15 feet between buildings, or you don't. And they have to be separate buildings I understand that 100 feet maximum frontage per building makes complete sense. And to your point Abby to have the smaller buildings. For future modifications makes perfect sense, but the gap only applies if it's one builder. That doesn't make sense to me. But how would you, I guess. I mean if someone was able to build if you were there first you could build your building right up to the line and then the other person could only have to build 15 feet away from your building so they would lose on being able to use all their property. Exactly. So if they can build up to the line. Now you've not really got you've got two separate buildings. The gap between them is just whatever it takes to build building. If you've got builder a and builder be as if you've got builder a trying to do two of these they have to have a 15 foot gap. Or when you when they build them also just back to that whole idea about having the 15 feet and one builder. And then the next builder wants to go in and put up another building. Is there even enough room between the buildings like 15 it's 15 feet even enough room to like, right if it's on both sides of stuff that they're doing right now on main street and West Allen, or East Allen or whatever it is up there, like, would 15 feet even be enough. Well, cities traditionally build buildings right up to each other, you know, city streets and other cities. So they do figure out how to build them that close. I do think that they are very usually the buildings are different so it doesn't, you know, it doesn't feel like one continuous building. That's why I think that the having the, they may not exceed 100 feet in this type of a building makes perfect sense. Because you will get a separation by design of the buildings, but the 15 feet I don't know why it does what it buys us. And how can it be fair. What about if can we have language if we want to limit that the width of a building facade, if we could say for every 100 feet of building facade there has to be a walkthrough or something like that maybe it's 10 feet. And that would require that if I'm the first one there, and I build 100 foot wide building, I've got to leave some space between my, the edge of the building and the property line to accommodate that walkthrough. I might not make sense but I'm just throwing it out as kind of an idea how we walk around this. Two things that I would say to this point are one, in this building form standard we only require that 65% of the of the frontage be occupied by building. So there's there's less building required to be built, which may or may not help with providing some space between properties. Another thing I would say is that the building codes will have some impact on on either one how close the buildings can be or to the what what the buildings can be constructed out of so if they're going to it wouldn't necessarily prohibit them from building right on top of each other but if they do the buildings need to have a significant fire rating on that on that wall, which could be cost prohibitive to the point where the builder might just say alright I'll just move the building. Not to say that that's going to happen in every case but it is something that, you know, potentially can happen so. Did you say that there's a there's a minimum they have to build a minimum of 65% of the frontage. That's correct yeah so. So maybe, maybe could there be a maximum of like 90% or 95% and that ensures that there'll be some gap. But it doesn't mean I mean they could hug that property line and just have a gap on the other side. We don't want them necessarily to have a gap if it's a small property we don't want like 15 feet gaps every 20 feet yeah yeah so it's like really it's more about breaking up masses than just having gaps between every building. But no builder is going to do that no builders going to waste, you know buildable 15 feet yeah. Yeah, just for the sake of having that space. Unless we dictate it. Yeah, that's why throughout the 90 or 95% as a maximum that that that ensures there's some from one side of the other. I guess the other thing to keep in mind here too is where this building form standard even applies. And so it's basically the north side of East Allen Street from hoods crossing to to die on street. It's just on that north side of the street. And then there's a little pocket of it for about three lots on Matt's Bay Avenue. And then at the top end of Weaver Street where the form based code applies as well. And my guess just by looking at the the map here is that most of those properties are not more than 100 feet wide. Okay. It doesn't really matter. Right. So maybe it doesn't preclude a developer from buying and combining properties. That's correct it does not do that. But for what is out there and what's available in this building form standard is pretty limited anyway so I don't know if this is going to be an issue, not to say that it couldn't happen. Everything is possible but So that's a good point, Eric about what what how much of the city is governed by this to me then a complete separation. Just leave it and see what happens. Okay, any other thoughts on that. Are you okay with that or Amy I saw your lips move but I didn't hear anything. I said that's fine. Okay. All right. So in the next on the next page. The only change here is just under the use just to note that there are limited non residential uses that are permitted in this in this building form standard. So that is spelled out in part eight and also in our use table in article two section 2.4 the there was already non residential uses included in that use table so our regulations were not consistent internally with one another. So this is really just to clarify that it's not saying what those uses are you actually have to look at the use table to identify what those non residential uses are which we talked about previously. So this is really just to, to, to clarify that section of the regulations and also I guess just for reference so that you all can see. So this is about the setback already incorporated in this building form standard so the diagram up at the top here gives you a sense of kind of what that looks like if you're doing a stoop versus if you're doing a front porch, where if you're doing a stoop you can be forward of the required building line with the stoop. If you're doing a porch, the porch has to be between seven and nine feet. So you actually have to set the building further back. So just a more just as a point of reference there not no changes being proposed just a referential item. So you're saying this stoop can come in front of the RBL. Yes. And that's primarily because in the in this building form standard the RBL is already set back five feet, generally from the property boundary. So there's still room in front of the RBL that's still on the property, where that stoop can be built. Okay, so the next building form standard is the detached frontage again this is kind of this is really the area out on Mallets Bay Avenue kind of out past Union Street primarily is where this is located. Again, just some referential pictures for what we're we're looking at just adding in a word here for clarification for that we want that to be a 15 foot tall building at the building line. Nothing else. No other changes proposed there. And actually I think that is the only change or the only addition for this section. Everything else I think is pretty straightforward. Yeah, so that's the only change that's being proposed in that section. And that concludes part four. Nice. Great. Any questions comments or anything on part four that we've covered. Also just from kind of a procedural standpoint. What I'm going to do is go back through the document, make some updates and changes as we've discussed and kind of flag those items so that you can see that language and then do a review of everything again. So I'm going to go through all the changes and have some of the additional discussions I know there was a couple of points that we definitely wanted to go back to and look at in more detail so I can highlight the areas where those changes will take place so that we can focus just on those going as we review parts one through four again and then look at taking that forward as an amendment to a public hearing and then potential recommendation to counsel for their consideration as well so that we can get some of these changes incorporated into the regulations sooner than later. Okay. And actually I'm going to stop sharing my screen. Because I don't need to anymore. Again, any questions or comments that folks have right now. Hello, Mayor. You were hidden before. And lurking Mike. Yeah. Any questions or comments otherwise we'll move on to city updates. As Eric said we'll have another chance to go through this so. All right, so we'll move on to city updates and Eric, do you want to start. I probably the main update I would I would note is that Monday night council considered appointments and reappointments of all of our commissions so the folks that were up for appointment. We're reappointed those that were interested in being reappointed so congratulations you get two more years of serving on the planning commission. Otherwise, that's the only update that I have for this. So who was, who was sorry who was reappointed and it sounded like Terry wasn't continuing on what happens to her. Yeah, so we're going to, we'll be recruiting so the reappointments were Joe, Mike, Tommy, we're all reappointed because Terry stepped down or chose not to continue on we have a vacancy on the on the commission so Sarah being the, the more senior of the alternates was elevated to a non alternate position so Sarah is now a member of the planning commission. So senior in terms of continuous. Correct, correct sorry yeah in duration of time on the planning commission in the current iteration. So, Sarah's term has not changed. She'll still be up for reappointment next year just the transition there so we're going to be recruiting for a new member to fill that that basically that they can alternate spot as well. Do you have anyone in mind. I thought there was one guy who was really interested. I don't remember his name, he came to a couple of the meetings. I understand that there is one person right now. A gentleman I don't know who it is. I don't know if Christine or Eric want to elaborate on that. There is one applicant that is, I think he graduated from when he was in high school last year. But he has interest in planning and housing. And so, see where that goes. And is the equity director going to be involved in getting the word out to all different. There has been the like, I'm hosting I guess has been sent to several organizations to try to spread the word. Christine anything else you have for city update. Yeah, so Monday we also did the final and official approvals for the Champlain Housing Trust project and from the O'Brien Center so they'll start construction in July. On Saturday, we are having our strategy priority session at the senior center from nine to one. Monday, we are raising the pride flag in Rotary Park at 1230pm. The alert press for that just went out today. I heard from one of our state reps that the veto the governor's veto of our charter change was overturned so we are moving forward with all resident voting. Nice. How is that going to work. Like, I didn't understand the whole process. I mean the clerk's office did a bunch of work on it before we even moved it forward to town meeting day. I can't, I don't know all the details. But there's like a, there'll be like a town register in addition to the state register of voters. Oh, I actually meant like how because because the governor vetoed that right. Oh yeah, okay. So somehow overridden. Somehow if, if the House and Senate and the state legislature vote at a certain percentage, like enough of them, two third, two thirds, two thirds, then they can overturn that veto. And I think they both have to be two thirds. You know what I mean it's not that it's not the combined it's the house has to be two thirds Senate has to be two thirds. And on the news tonight the Senate was exactly two thirds 20 to 10. Wow. How many other towns. Put this on there. Here. Montpelier. So you're an uphill you're in us. Wow. They're slightly different Montpelier is only allowing residents to vote in local elections for city stuff where when new skis is local elections for both city business and school board. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, that's good. Um, I had a question just in terms of city updates. Um, can you guys speak to what's happening down at Elm Street at the warehouse. Yeah, there's a lot of activity and a lot of trucks going by my house. So does anybody know what's going on. Um, so let's see. I know that the, the, the, the notice of violation is still under appeal for the, the CBD drying operation and they are not as to my knowledge not doing any drying this year, and that they're trying to relocate out of that space. They, I think it's just a matter of trying to find, find either a space to go to or I think they're also they've also been trying to sell their dryer. So finding a buyer for it, but I don't think their intent is to, is to restart operations at that location. It looks like they're out. They don't, it doesn't even look like they're there. Yeah, they might be, I mean, they might be at this point, they might be fully out at this point. I had heard something about what was going on there but I cannot remember for the life of me what it was. When you walk by, there's just a bunch of boxes. Well, it appears to be a distribution center for like loads of repo or something. It looks like it's full of appliances. So yeah, I was just curious, how do they allow for truck traffic because it definitely is a lot through a residential community, which is a little weird. There's a truck designated truck route that goes down there. So as long as the trucks are following that route, I mean, it's an industrially zoned piece of property. So it's, I mean, that's kind of how it's been used historically so that's, I mean, it, it's is supported as an industrial property through through the truck route as well. I don't think there's this many, and did they ever have to do studies of like traffic studies of that because there's a lot of trucks coming through. I'm just, I was just curious. So Eric, the truck route, if I remember right is Malta Bay Avenue to Pine Street to West Street and then down Elm. Yeah, I believe that's correct. Yeah. And I know I've seen, I've seen 18 willers going down Union Street because they're lost. I guess I was just curious about traffic. Yeah, I guess if it's if you're seeing trucks on not on the designated truck route then that would be something to flag but otherwise I don't I don't think there was any limitations put on. It's not. They can't go on that road anyway because it's closed right now because of the because they're redoing hit cock. So even if they wanted to come down that way and violate the rule they can't right now. I guess I was just curious if there's a certain traffic load that even industrial areas are allowed to have I would think there would still be a certain thresholds. There's no limitations that I'm aware of for for those types of operations unless one is one's required based on the the use, but other than that I'm not. I'm not aware of it. It may be grandfathered because it's been industrial forever. I mean it was called the carpet factory. Oh that's what it was. Yeah. There could be so many cool uses down there. Sorry. I'd be I think you wanted to ask something. Yeah, just speaking of to new traffic thing is what's going on at your church Mike why are there so many cars parts outside the senior center. I don't know unless I don't know if they were doing something with the parking lot at the Barlow Street or what's going on because I saw it yesterday I think it was I drove by and saw those cars I'm thinking what the heck's going on. It's been all week. Is there a developer partner there Eric. Sorry, what was the question. The church on Barlow the parking lot it's been there's been tons of cars in it. Just the last part of what you asked I didn't hear the last part of what you asked. Oh, is it is a developer having their tenants parked there or do you know what where the cars are coming from. I have no idea. I, there's nothing, nothing that I'm aware of is going on there and if there would be there would have to be if, if it was being used for offsite parking then there'd have to be an agreement with now St Francis to allow that. Yeah, and I met to email my senior and ask what's going on I'll do that tomorrow. If I find anything and I'll let you know. I have something to just waving higher you know I want to. This is sort of for for the mayor. Well, everybody actually. So there's been a lot of talks that housing and the planning commission, we're going to be getting together to discuss changing certain things to make. When are we going to do that I guess Jim was talking about that last time, a little bit, and basically are. Yeah, that we were going to have to reduce parking I guess to get the kind of housing that worse that the housing commission is wanting to get to. Is there any way to the goal is to have a joint meeting in July between the two commissions and housing would bring forward their recommendations and then you all could discuss together. Okay. Okay. And we don't have a date for that yet. No. Christine when do they typically meet that you know, they do fourth Monday, the fourth Monday. Okay. So would we move our meeting to a Monday or what are they coming to Thursday or it's all TBD. I don't know Eric and Heather should look that out. Right now it's TBD. I guess. It seems like it's an important one and we should, if we can get a little heads up if something's gonna be different we probably should be aware of that, particularly in July because people may be vacationing and whatnot so. Yeah, absolutely. Sarah we will. Yes, we will make sure that everybody has a clear notification of when that is and we'll probably actually throw out some dates so that folks can weigh in first before we set an actual date for that. Okay, I will not be here the fourth Monday. I wanted to talk about our July meeting anyway under under other business so we can get into that a little bit. I did want to ask the mayor sorry go ahead Terry you had something. I just had another question for the mayor also just in terms of striping. I know I had asked a while back. I think it was around the time that they started putting up the signs for the meters down by. I don't know what is that Center Street I guess. By the peeking duck house. So I'm just curious when they're going to do the striping because the bike, like the, the one bike lane that we have in the whole city. You can't even tell that it's a bike lane and people are that's my route and people are driving in it. So I'm just curious when that's going to happen. And all the other striping with the parking spaces and all that I thought you had said may. I mean striping in May, but not in that area. It was through July, as I recall the plan. Okay, I can dig up the last update from John Rouser though and forward it along. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mayor one quick question you talked about the cht housing at the O'Brien Center. Is that a joint thing between the city and cht or are you selling them the land to put the buildings on selling them the land. You are okay. Yep. That's good. It's good. Any, anything else. I had a I heard today and I probably should have read in seven days that there's going to be a vegan creamy at the pool. Yeah. Yeah. Is that opening up? I think it's open now. Can you do you have to go into the pool to get the creamier? Can you get it outside? You can get it outside. Wow, how late does it open? Check it out. And by the way, Christine, the I don't know if I think we talked about this with Jim last time because you were here before when the pool was open, but kudos to you guys. Yeah, seriously. It's really was good and Ray copy and John Rouser and their teams did a lot of work up in right to the last minute. Yeah, I went to the opening party and he was like walking around dumping clothing like and testing it. He's like, I first off figuring it out. So yeah, it's pretty amazing. They pulled it off and with such we went by that we will buy that first Sunday and it was just the lineup line was crazy. Yeah. Are they going to have like a swim team at all? They have some lessons, but um, yeah, there used to be a when you ski swim team. So I hope that comes back. They still exist and they're using the facility. Okay, let's move on to other business. And let's talk let's start with July. Do we want to limit our meeting to just one joint meeting with the housing commission? No, I'm doing that because Amy's sitting there going like this and Amy's right in the middle of my screen. That's funny. I mean, we talked about, I'm sorry, Tommy. Well, for Mike and Eric, I guess you've been working along our plan for the year. Is there anything that is critical that we need to move forward? I think we could have a meeting at the point where we could only have the meeting with the housing commission. I think that we could have a meeting following up this meeting with a review of the form based code appendix B as Eric talked about, but I don't know if that's going to give you enough time Eric to get everything together that you need to. If we were to have the two two meetings in July right now our normal schedule is July 8 and July 22. So, I mean I could probably have something together for the July 8 meeting if we wanted to keep that and then just add a second meeting that's the joint meeting with the housing commission or just look to do one meeting in July and then bring all the updates of the form based code to you all at your request. I mean I can I can pretty much do whatever you want to do I've been kind of tracking the changes as we've talked about them over the last several meetings so I don't have a ton of work to do to get that documentation together. So I can, I'm flexible. Since we just put a lot of work into those changes and having that sooner than later in front of us because I think there's still a couple things we wanted to keep talking about, at least I think so. So well that's fresh in our mind it would be nice to kind of tackle and like wrap up that chapter so that you can move forward with the hearing. And then go to one meeting and then do the housing commission meeting separately and then go to one meeting in August. We're going to go to one meeting. Everyone okay with that idea. Keep keep the July 8 meeting on our schedule for a planning commission meeting and then look to schedule a second meeting in July as a joint meeting with the housing commission that what I'm hearing that work for everyone. And then in the July 8 specifically to wrap up all of this work that we've done. Yeah, or try to or try to wrap it up. Yeah. I'll keep my mouth shut because we're over the under. I said to Eric he said it could be a short meeting I said was he over under half an hour he said no probably an hour but anyway, remember we started five minutes late. This is like the earliest we've ever wrapped up so on other business so Terry it's your last meeting. I just want to say thank you for everything you've contributed and and done for this commission. We appreciate it. I hope you enjoyed it. How many years have you been on Terry. I think like six maybe. When I joined Tommy do you remember when you left a long time ago. It's like six years. It might be longer I don't know. You were on that when we started it back up. Or shortly thereafter I guess. Yeah I think right after that. Because I came on in 2015 when I left them the mayor position. Yeah I think it was right around that time. Yeah. But I don't remember. But seriously thank you Terry we appreciate all your input. We will miss you. You're always welcome back. Okay. We're going to be part of the public now. Exactly. Hold us to the fire. Get ready. I will come for public comment Christine. I was trying to figure out what that meant Christine. But you're still in our parking advisory group too right. So we'll be if I'm in town for the housing. Thing I probably will listen in on that just because. I would like to see bike lanes before we take. Before we do anything. Parking. So will the parking be making recommendations to the planning. Is that going to be a good. The parking study that's going on. Making recommendations or just giving us the information which then we have to interpret. So, so they're going to make recommendations on multiple aspects, whether that be regulatory changes, management changes, or similar types of information that report will go to council. And then council will determine what, what directions they might want to take and then. And then we'll be looking at that. And then we'll be looking at that. And then we'll be looking at that. Distribute out a direction to the various commissions or. Or whoever needs to do the work. So if there's regulatory changes that are being recommended and council wants us to make those changes, then we will definitely be looking at that. The, the hope is that we will be getting examples of what that regulatory language would look like. That we can use as a place to start. Okay. And then we'll be looking through that study that our parking standards are, are working for what our intended need is and, and are fine. So, you know, it may be that most of it comes down to management. And then that's more of an internal kind of day-to-day operational type of discussion and wouldn't require any regulatory changes, but that's the report. So. There was a while where we were talking about parking quite a bit. And correct. Yeah. I think we put a pin in that so that we could allow this study to get done to really get some experts into analyze and really give us some, some, some quantitative data and qualitative data to show what's actually happening on the ground so that we can make better informed decisions. So it could actually just jump over us and we won't have to make any decisions necessarily. Well, if there's any, if there's going to be any, any regulatory updates from the land use perspective, you have to be involved. Okay. Well, that won't be fun without Terry. She'll be here. Fun without Terry. She'll be here. Can't come to four meetings a month, you know, two meetings here and two meetings somewhere else. I just can't, especially the pandemic's over. No, I know. I'm just kidding. With my wife. Any other business. Six years you deserve it. Yeah. There's no other business and I would ask for a motion to adjourn and thank you everybody for coming tonight. And again, thank you, Terry. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, Eric. Seven 50 a I motion. All right. Try to get out of here before eight. Come on. I can do it. All in favor. Hi. All right. Good night, everyone. Thank you. Good night. Thank you.