 So I think probably everyone knows this, but Kirby had to duck out this afternoon. So he asked me to run the meeting. So I said, yes, I apologize in advance. I haven't really done a ton of prep on this because I wasn't expecting to do anything with the meeting really. But it's pretty straightforward. So I don't think we'll have a big problem with it. Does everybody have the agenda in front of them? Okay. This is called the order for the October 26, 2020. Pill your planning commission meeting first order business is approval of the agenda. Everybody take a look. Any comments? I have a motion for approval. Move to approve. Thanks motion by Barb seconded by Marcella all those in favor. Hi. Hi. All right, jump the gun there opposed. Densions improved. Next is comments from the chair. I don't have any. So next is general business. Is there anybody from the public that's on this zoom call that would like to speak about something that is not on the agenda. Hearing none, we will move on. Next is to consider the minutes of our last meeting from October 13. Does everybody have a copy of those minutes in front of them. Give a minute for people to look over them really quickly. And we'll discuss if we need to. So Aaron is Ariane on. I'm just eating so I'm going to leave my video. Oh, okay. All right. All right. Okay. I did look at the minutes and I move approval of them. I looked at them earlier. So I just have a question. I wasn't there. Can I just add or do you want to discuss them? Sure. Sure. Under the section on the potential zoning changes. The commissioners were not ready to decide tonight. We're not ready to decide what. Do you care if that lists the two options that were under discussion? Or do you think that fully describes. The conversation, the discussion as it went on. I don't think there was. Part of the thing was the list of the sections that are troublesome. To the development plan would be provided to the commissioners. That would be helpful. That sentence. I think that was part of the reason why we weren't ready. Cause things were sort of written in. Multiple places. And we didn't have like a thing to decide on. Yeah, I think there was just, there was just a lot of the table. And I don't think, I think it does capture sort of the. Feeling of the commission. Yeah, I don't think it would be. Airbnb. Yeah. Didn't want to decide it was more like things were. Not ready. So we have a motion from Arian to approve to have a second. Yes. Second. Thanks, Marcella. All those in favor of approval. Say hi. Hi. Opposed. Abstentions. Minutes are approved. Now we're getting into the substantive part of the today's discussion, which is a first off is a discussion of the potential zoning changes as requested by the savings pasture. Development team. I think as Marcella alluded to, there was a number of sort of outstanding questions that we had, that we had not quite settled on any sort of. Didn't have any real action items, I think in front of us at the time. So if it's okay with you, Mike, I think you might be the best to sort of bring us up to speed where we are and what next steps might be. If that's all right with you. If it's not, let me know. Yeah, no, that's fine. So the thought today was, you know, we'd heard a lot. At the last meeting. From. From the development team about what areas might be problems. And then we kind of had a long discussion. Went a little bit into the history of the PUDs and what we had intended and what city council had done. And in the end. We kind of left it open to go through and say, let's wait till this meeting to have a more detailed discussion amongst the planning commissioners. About what we wanted, what direction, what questions we still had, what direction we wanted to go. And really it in, you know, big box terms, we kind of had. Three or four options. One is just to leave everything as it is. Another one was to. Change the PUD language. To help out in the areas that Doug had identified as problem areas. The third option would be to kind of remove the requirement. Change that applicability line to remove the requirement that they have to go through a PUD and make it optional. And then fourth is to come up with some other suggestion that, that might come through there. So there really kind of these four boxes we could move towards. Planning staff can't sit down and start drafting something. For our public hearing until we kind of have a, have an idea of which direction the commission would like to go. On, on the overall idea. So, you know, the, the idea today wasn't really to really get into, you know, to have a, another presentation from the members of the, excuse me. Of the, of the development team, but rather to have us kind of talk about it and see what our questions are and where we're at. So I guess I could kind of leave that there and see. What people are thinking and what they want. We do have a couple of people. We do have Dan Richardson and we do have Ellen Goldman. And I thought I saw Doug was here as well. Yep. So we do have a couple of members. If there are questions for the development team, they are here to, to be able to answer those questions. But I guess it's really to kind of start getting the thoughts of where the commission is at. Right. And before we kind of get into that discussion, and I don't want to put Dan on the spot too much, but Dan, I think I remember at the last meeting, you had offered to maybe have some proposed language or, or something for us. And I don't know if that had ever happened. I was just checking to see if we had anything to offer the commissioners at the meeting before we have this discussion. If not, that's totally fine. I just wanted to try. No, I don't, I don't have proposed language in part because I, I understood and I apologize if I misunderstood, but that the chair was sort of cold on that idea, at least at this juncture that he wanted the commission to have a discussion about it. He'd be happy, you know, I, but that said, I'm happy to draft proposed language. If that will help move it forward. Obviously it wouldn't be tonight. Thank you. I just wanted to check with you. It was a little unclear of me from my part. Yesterday's meeting our last. Two weeks ago. Where that had landed, but that's totally fine. So. Yeah, so I think, you know, I don't have. You know, unfortunately, you know, at the last meeting, I was fairly. Agnostic in terms of, you know, weighing the option. And so I don't know that I'm the best person to sort of check off a discussion on this. So if Mike or anybody else would like to sort of. You know, I'm sorry, I couldn't make the meeting last time. I inadvertently scheduled another zoom meeting that I had to actually host last time. On Tuesday. But he did go through the video and. And now through the minutes. And they're just a couple of things that, you know, regarding the new neighborhood PUD, I think that. That it was. Drafted and John, you can help me with this because you were part of that. Comment team that worked with Brandy on this. That the idea was to help to direct development for larger projects. Potentially like savings pasture. But. Part of that kind of as, as Mike pointed out last time, part of that kind of got. Derailed, I guess we would say by some of the changes made to the zoning districts. In that area. By city council during the public hearing. So. I don't think it's going to be a significant change is to. The new neighborhood PUD because of its ramifications down the line. But I do think that. So I think that the cleanest way for us to approach this and the way that might. Cause the least. Delays. In terms of the process of the zoning process. And the new neighborhood PUDs. 34, four B two. So that it removes it as a requirement, but still leaves it as a recommendation to use the new neighborhood PUDs for projects over 40 units. So in nutshell, that's sort of what I took away from. The meeting. Video from last time. John, do you have anything to add? Yes. I don't think I have anything to add to that. I don't want to make the last meeting either. But. I think that summary in terms of. Changes made by city council, maybe created. Some issues for the. The PUD. And really the intent of it. It was an attempt to bring together. The various stakeholders and. Get to the. Get to the essence of what the real concerns were. Around, which were really around. Design and. Access to certain parts as opposed to. The. This idea of it wasn't helpful just to. You know, have this, this number, this density number thrown out, you know, 100, 208,000. None of that really meant anything. So to get some kind of assurances around what. This development would look like. And that would be the best attempt at it. That being. Those items identified in the. The PUD and that a certain. A certain percentage. Would be set aside for. This was a large development. A certain percentage would be set aside for. Recreation or access. And then. A couple of the. Issues that kind of came up with that or the disc conversations in a box where. The, the. The PUDs were kind of designed as a balance between. If, if. If we wanted to have increased densities. Then. A developer would have to meet higher design standards. They would have to meet higher densities. They've got to have higher design standards. And what we have here is a project that does not have to have higher design, does not need any density bonuses. But because they're going to be doing more than 40 units, they're going to have to meet those higher design standards. And so, so they have all the. All the sticks and don't need any of the carrots. So that was one of the questions that came up. And I think that's one of the questions that were in there. Would not in the opinion of the developers. You know, create the best. Design. For example, orienting a requirement to orient towards the road would mean orienting towards the. The private road, which would eventually be a public road, but that Asia drive would. Be running. And they would have to have a better product. If they didn't have to orient to the street, because they could orient to Barry street. That's a little bit farther down some, and they had a number of little examples like that, where there are some things that subtly. How you could, if they were going to have parking under the building, there's a requirement that the garage doors be set back to the building. And they would have a better product. If they didn't have to orient to the street, because they could orient to Barry street, that's a little bit farther down some. The garage doors be set back eight feet. And so they end up with this weird situation of how they. Integrate that into a building where they're building into the landscape. And so they had a few of these examples that they went through. From the PUD standpoint. Just, just to get you up to speed as to where, where some of the conversations were. About the. The, the PUD. And where that those were hanging, hanging them up on their projects. I think that's helpful. Yeah, I found that really helpful, Mike. I was really struggling to kind of understand what some of the issues were. To be honest. But I think, I think I'm in favor of what. Farms suggested, which is removing the requirement, but making it a recommendation. I guess my question is. Are there other reasons people would do PUDs then, or I'm not well versed enough in the zoning to quite understand that. Well, part of the intention was always to be able to allow them to have higher densities. So that density bonus seemed to be. A reason to do it. An incentive for, as John said, for good design. On the part of any particular proposed development. I suppose that, you know, that's why I would say, I don't think we should remove this section entirely, but leave it as a recommendation rather than as a requirement. Yeah. And that was. A little bit at the end of the meeting. Last, last time we had a little bit of discussion of one of the. Things to watch for. If we were to. To let's say, say weaken some of the requirements because. You know, they don't get all the. They don't get any of the carrot. They don't need any of the carrot. So let's just take away some of the sticks and keep some of them. Was that the bonuses are still there. And there may be other. Partials and other properties in the city that may want to do a new neighborhood development. And if we remove some of the sticks, they may get the benefits without having to meet the sticks because we took them away. And so we really felt that if you're going to have densities that are higher than the surrounding neighborhood. That you meet that higher level of. Design. And, and that was in. And, you know, in 2016 and 17, when we were really going through these PUDs a lot. We were kind of pulling, pushing and pulling amongst ourselves and, and with the consultant when she was on board about these, because it is. You know, in the big picture. How do we set our zoning densities was one piece. And, you know, one, one theory goes, you set the densities a little bit lower, you know, less density. And then you put in these incentives, which would go through and say, if you want to build more, then you've got to build to these higher design standards. You know, another theory just goes and says, well, let's just put build in those higher design. Requirements right in at the start. And set your densities where they are. And we kind of, you know, pushed and pulled among ourselves to go and decide how to weigh this out. And we ended up with our, our, you know, pretty much setting the densities to match what's on the ground today. That's our 90% rule that we talked a lot about. And then have these PUDs. If you wanted to have something. You know, that would be a lot more complicated than what the surrounding neighborhoods have for whatever reason. And some of the requirements in the PUDs are things like, well, I want to have a higher density, but it's going to be senior housing. It's like, okay, well, if you're going to do senior housing. And you meet a higher design standard, then you could have a higher density. And that was the intent of Sabin's pasture. We had actually zoned it all residential 6,000, which is, you know, about seven units an acre. And then we had, you know, the project they're proposing now would not be possible. So they would have to do a new neighborhood. PUD in order to get the benefit of the. The increased density. But the city council later on went through and rezoned. Sabin's pasture to have a high density area at the bottom and a low density area at the top, which kind of. And we had also built into the subdivision standards and built into the design standards, a bunch of architectural requirements, and a bunch of other, you know, requirements that everybody has to meet anyways. And so the question starts to come up. You know, which is where we're at right now of. Do we still require this PUD? Because they don't, they don't need the benefits. But there may be other, as we said, other, other neighborhoods where somebody has a piece of land that they want to build. And it may be, it's probably going to be a much smaller. This is unique parcel being as big as it is. There's only two of them out there that are really, you know, maybe three that could support a large development, but we may get somebody who's got a much smaller piece of land, maybe two acres. And would like to increase something from 18 to 24 units, you know, something like that. They may decide, I'd rather have the 24 units. I'm going to do a PUD that has these higher standards. In any, in any case, or whatever we do, I think it would be good. If we do keep this optional or not, maybe just to take stock and clear out some of the things that are either especially problematic or that, you know, we can do without. Sometimes I get, or I feel like, you know, theoretically we can add a lot of these things and we know they're good design elements like, you know, grid streets and orienting things, but ever you've tried to build anything in Montpelier, you know, the topography is such that like having a perfect grid and having it quickly oriented is, is not necessarily a luxury that, that we have in our landscape here. So there's probably too much stuff in here, or yeah, regardless of whether this becomes required or not, let's take the opportunity to, to make it better if we do have some feedback that's, that's helpful there. Well, John, you and I are going to continue to argue about this probably forever, but I think we went over these very carefully when this section was put in place. And in fact, I think that most of these for almost every site could at least be accommodated, most of the requirements that we put in. And there were reasons that we did it because, you know, if we're trying to maintain the character of our, of our traditional neighborhoods, then we want to create new neighborhoods that have some element, some of the important elements of traditional neighborhoods as well. And that's really what the new neighborhood PUD provided. And over and above whatever the requirements are for subdivisions and site plan and everything else. So, I mean, I did go back and look over the whole section today. And I still think that, you know, we provided some carrots and some sticks. I mean, one of the other carrots, I think wasn't it Mike that they could actually even increase the footprint up to 18,000 square feet as part of the dense, so-called density bonus. So there were other carrots in there as well, but it doesn't seem that the sticks, the aspect are very onerous and actually could be accommodated. So, I mean, the whole intent here, at least when I thought that we were working on it, was to basically keep this, you know, any new proposed development in sort of accordance with the traditional patterns that we've established in the city. Yeah. And I don't disagree. And I haven't gone through these and don't have anything, you know, the street layout just came to mind, but I didn't have anything specific in mind. And it may be that, you know, that we did spend a good amount of time on this, so maybe that they're okay, but if there is an opportunity to improve or that we do get feedback and that we all think, like, oh, yeah, maybe that would help improve this, that we act on that. But I didn't have anything specific in mind. And in this case, I don't think we want to necessarily string this group, these people along, you know, with the idea, because that's a process that could take a long time, that if we could provide some kind of a simpler relief that we still felt comfortable about, that we, by making it optional as opposed to required, then to me, that makes sense because they can move forward. And then if we chose to revisit the PUD, we could move forward with that too, but they wouldn't be reliant upon it. Sure, but if they have feedback on how we can improve things, you know, we should welcome that. Well, I mean, again, and, you know, I don't want to go into designing their project for them, but I don't think that there is any of the requirements that could not be met with care in terms of how it was placed. So, and it may be that there is some difficulty when you have a project like this defining what is the street. And I think that came up several times at the meeting last week was, I mean, our last time was, is the new Asia drive the street or is very street the street. And though actually that's the kind of thing that, that maybe we could more clearly define. And that would help. I think this project, this property ended up being a little bit trickier. We did talk about the new neighborhood, you know, potentially applying to this as when we first talked about it, as they've moved forward in their design, they really have basically identified a single place, excuse me, that the road could fit. So as you said, there really can't be a street grid because the hill is a little bit more than is, is more than eight or 10%. So they're kind of forced into this one location for the road, which means if they want to fit a certain number of units, because they're, you know, we've always talked about having a majority of the development in the lower part of the pasture. We don't get the advantage of say looking at this in the same way that a college street or something else might fit in. With a number of single family or two family or four family homes tucked up tight against a small public street. It just isn't going to necessarily fit out that way because we could do it, but we would get substantially less. Number of dwelling units. And so what has been proposed is, you know, if we're looking for, you know, say more units, more affordable units, then what we would need to do is to group them together. So it's going to be a little less of a quote, traditional new neighborhood development just because we, we can't, we don't, we can't build more road. You know, normally what you do is build out more road. You'd make a number of small lots. You'd put them in on a grid and we would mix, you know, one to four unit housing plus. Larger, you know, maybe up to 12 unit houses. In, in, in along the main artery, but as it turns out, it just, the parcel doesn't lend itself to that. So it ends up looking more like having fewer, eight to 10 larger structures that could house. You know, more, more units per structure. And that'll be a little less traditional neighborhood, but it's what is going to fit on this, this parcel because of the topography and because of the flood plain and the wetlands and the, and the challenges that are there. It kind of has to fit into this other box that isn't traditional neighborhood. Mike, did, did they indicate how many total. Units that they were talking about, or just that it was over 40. I don't have an exact number, but it would be more than 40. In the past, we've talked about, I feel like maybe John said this, or maybe Kirby, I can't remember, but we, in another thing we were talking about when you just recommend something, it's as good as not really being there. So I, do you see us running into a problem. Switching this to these two recommendations rather than requirements? Is there still a reason for it to be there as a recommendation? Or is it, is it the, the incentives that you get? It's a recommendation and you get the incentives. Or if you don't do it, you don't get the incentives. Is that my understanding? Yeah, I think the proposal is, is not to make the requirements in the PUD optional, but to make the PUD optional. Once you're in, then you're going to have carrots and sticks. You have to have the requirements. But right now, if you are in the city and you're in a certain zoning district. And a parcel of a certain size, there's I think three, three things. And if you're, if you meet those three things, then you have to do a new neighborhood PUD. So the one option is let's take that requirement piece out. And then just go and say, if, if you want to take advantage of these density bonuses, then you would have to meet these other requirements that are in you. Thank you. Okay. Anything else. Do we need to make a call tonight? Are we? Were we going to get, I don't know. I missed Kirby saying he didn't want the stuff written down. So I'm. What do we do? Well, there's, it would be helpful if we could make a decision because I still have to go through and put together a formal proposal. If we are going to warn a public hearing, then I've got to warn everybody at the state and regional planning commission and all the abutting communities, but we're going to make a call tonight. We're going to make a call tonight. I'm going to send this to everybody at the state and regional planning commission and all the abutting communities. Plus I'm going to have to send this to everybody who's in this, in this neighborhood as well. Certainly city council is going to expect that we reach out to them to go and say, this is the proposal. Here's a copy of the strikeout proposal. And we'll have a really big zoom meeting. To get public comment on what they think of these. Units and what they think of these changes. So. It would be good if, especially if it's a fairly straightforward, you know, let's just remove the requirement, then that becomes a fairly easy. Process for me to move forward on. And again. The planning commission can change its mind based on public input, based on just thinking about it more. public hearing so we can start the ball rolling. Um, and then from that point. We'll make decisions and move it up to city council or, or it dies in the public hearing, but that's, that's a little bit of where we're at. So in an effort to move this along, um, Aaron, if you don't object. Um, I could make an emotion to, um, I think it would be helpful. Um, I would suggest that we move forward. With changing the requirement for a PUD. For the new neighborhood PUD to a recommendation. Find new objection for me. Um, but I think. And I, I know you, you cited to the specific section in. Oh yeah. Regs. I think it'd be helpful if we had that. Um, section three, four, zero, four B subsection two. To remove the requirement for a new neighbor P neighborhood PUD. We could determine whether that was just for the river front district or if it was for all the districts listed. That's the only question left in my mind. Do we make a blanket, uh, a blanket for the river front district? River front Western gateway makes use residential, residential. 3,000, 6,000, 9,000 and 24,000. Right. I mean, maybe, maybe at this point in order to keep this, this narrow as possible. And given the obvious constraints of the river front district. That we make this for river front only. I feel like that's a good idea. Western gateway. That's what's, yeah, that one feels. Big. Yeah. Can I make a quick suggestion here? Do we have some clarity? Do we feel good about what. Barb's motion is right now. We do. I'm looking for a second and then we can discuss the motion. Can I amend it first, Aaron? Sure. Cause I don't, I know it, you know, as we got into it, I wasn't clear. I'm not sure if that's a good idea. I'm not sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Amending section three, four, zero, four B two. To remove the requirement for a new neighborhood PUD for the river front district. Only. Okay. Now. Do we have a second to that motion? I almost second. Okay. Seconded by Marcella. The motion's on the floor. Open for discussion. So I have a question. So the applicability right now reads allowed in river front, et cetera. And then it's required for parcel for over 40 parcels. Or for process that is 10 acres or larger. That's not located in the center. So I'm. Is it still allowed in, in river front? It's just not. Riverfront doesn't have to meet this sub bullet too. Yeah, I think it. Do you see what I'm getting up? Yeah. It sounds like we could add. Later in that sentence, you know, and is not located in the urban center one. Riverfront or entirely in the rural district. And then it would just leave it optional for river front. And then it would just leave it optional for river front. Urban center one and rural districts. So what I'm confused by urban center one even being in that part too, because it's not allowed. It's not in the allowed list. Not even allowed in, in urban center. Oops. That might have been one of those edits that never happened. I'm in favor of making it optional, but I feel like. Unless I'm missing something. I would want to make it optional for all districts. I don't know. We're responding to a particular. Development. And I thought the way we were talking about the. PUD. I don't know. It didn't seem to make sense for other reasons. I guess. I do have a concern about kind of shaping zoning based on particular. Developments that are coming up. Not that this doesn't sound like a great development. It just seems. It's not. It's not. Not necessarily this development of it. It's the district itself. That river front is a, is a tough district. With its proximity, obviously to the river and setback requirements and things like that. That give it a lot more constraints. Then some, maybe some of the other districts do. Yeah. And the other way of getting at that would be to go through and. You know, you can say, well, unless the topography doesn't allow you to do that or. Yeah, but again, I'd even argue about that one. So. Yeah. I mean, I agree. I don't like the idea of making it. Making. You know, a change just for one. Project. Right. I think the concern though is that the. I think it would be hard to meet these requirements within those constraints. But. I just, I keep getting that just keeps popping up. Popping up in my head. Excuse me. Because it's such a, if that makes it so challenging for this to work specifically within this river front district, but it's only one. So that's part of the reason that this is even an issue based on the open space requirements. For the PUD, which. So you, you can't have both of those things within this parcel. It doesn't. I mean, you, you could. I think it would be hard to meet these requirements within those constraints. But I think it would be hard to meet these requirements within the river front district, but it's only relevant to this parcel. Is it only relevant to this parcel? Mike, can you think of any other. Parcels in the river front district. That this would. Impact. Because of how number two is worded. There are other projects that could get. Caught up in it. So. Yeah, so. I think I've pointed out the dwelling units is. Is a problem as well because. Somebody could take. You know, one of the granite sheds or another parcel that's at least two acres in size. I guess it's going to be 10 acres in size. So, yeah. Is there. Yeah. I don't know if there is another parcel. There might be. Is there even another parcel that's 10 acres in size? Yes. It wouldn't necessarily be in riverfront, but you can have a couple of the rural parcels, what's called Stonewall Meadows, which is off of up behind Berlin Street. There's the rest of the property. Anything else in the riverfront that might be 10 acres or more. Because the ones you mentioned, I think could benefit from this. But they're not in the riverfront district. So it sounds like it comes down to this parcel is the only 10-acre or larger parcel in the riverfront district that this could even pertain to. Is that right? How many acres is this parcel again? I think they identified 11, right? It's 11. 11 acres for- Looking at the map, it looks much larger than everything else in riverfront. But yeah, it is the biggest. It is the biggest. Is the entire parcel in riverfront, Mike? No. That's part of the problem too. It's part of it's in riverfront and part of it is in rural. 15 acres of it is in the higher density riverfront, and then the other 85 are in rural, which becomes an issue which we haven't talked as much about, but it is also the issue is that the other part, which is not being proposed for development at this time, has a required conservation subdivision that has to be up top. That has become a challenge because there's no real discussion of how these two PUDs are going to actually interact with each other. So staff recommendation has been to strike the requirement in both of those. They make them both optional. But the parcel that's associated with this particular project is how many acres? 100. Oh, it's 100 acres. I misheard last time. But the riverfront piece is only a small portion of that, 100 acres is all of Savings Pasture. No, not all of Savings Pasture, but all of this part. It's not the entire parcel is approximately, I mean we're talking ballpark numbers, around 100 acres is the entire property. 15 acres is in the lower portion, which is riverfront. 85 are in the rural district, which includes the top of the pasture, and where the slate quarry was and out towards all the forested area on its way out towards the golf course. So they're not proposing to separate this parcel from the rural parcel up above? There will be a subdivision at some point. I would assume there's going to be a subdivision because there's going to be eight to 10 buildings there. I would assume they're going to subdivide and put those buildings onto separate parcels, but I guess they could make it a large condominium project, but they'll probably be some subdivisions in there. I guess, I don't really hear a compelling reason why I, I mean I understand that this parcel is different. I guess I'm not personally like hearing a compelling reason why it has to be required for other districts, but if other people do it with me, it's not like a hill I'm going to die on, I'll vote for changing it just for the riverfront. It does seem as if this is a pretty unique parcel in the city as we've always identified and certainly difficult to build on. Honestly though, we'd probably get that same complaint from the Western Gateway too, steep also. I don't think there are any easy places to build. Parts potentially easier to build because of other, they're really hemmed in here, but to keep it out of really steep slopes. But anyway, I mean, I guess I just go back to the original intent of the PUD in the first place was to try and direct the development in larger parcels that still remain in the city to towards creating new neighborhoods. This one is certainly difficult and it wasn't originally our intention to treat it this way, but it changes that happened as a result of the public process, ended up putting it into riverfront. I guess I'm hesitant to make it apply to all of the other ones without looking at each one of them individually at each one of those particular of districts and determining whether or not we thought it was a good option. In terms of narrowing this down and keeping it as minimal as possible, I guess that's why I'm proposing just doing it in the riverfront district. Any further discussion? All right. Barb, would you be so kind as to make your motion one more time so we're all clear about what it is? I guess the procedural question I was going to ask is, is this a recommendation to staff that we're making so that they know what to draft going forward or are you thinking of something else? I think it has to be a recommendation to staff, right, Mike? Yeah. I mean, at this point, it's just the recommendation for how we draft it. Why don't you read back to me what you have? What I would think the proposal is to amend 3404B number two and to fix two things at once, removing Urban Center one and replacing it with riverfront. So therefore, this PUDs would be, this PUD would be required for any development of 40 parcels or dwelling units or more in a 10-year period on a parcel that is 10 acres or more in size and is not located in the riverfront or entirely in the rural district. You can take rural out too. It's not allowed in rural. Yeah, that's true. All right. So there we go. Should we invite any public comment? I know we have people here, representatives and before voting on things, if anyone has stuff to say or add. We just have project, people associated with the project, right? Alan, Dan, Doug. The rural, you may want to keep the rural, there's discussion in part one about if you're partially in a rural district. And so it was a distinction between entirely or partially in a rural district. Sorry, that bulldoze, whatever you guys were just talking about, I was confused. But yeah, number two makes it required for any parcel entirely in the rural district and the conservation subdivision one later on is also required in the rural district. So we would actually have two of them required. But that wouldn't pertain to projects that are located, yeah, to projects that are located in both districts. All right. So what you're saying, Mike, trying to get this clear, Erin, is that B2 should read for any parcel that is 10 acres or larger and is not located in the riverfront or entirely in the rural district. Is that correct? Yeah, although now I'm looking back at part one and I'm still confused what is or isn't allowed in rural because it's not listed as allowed in the first sentence. And then it says, if the proposed new development includes land in the rural district, so does that mean it has to be partially within one of those other districts but include land in the rural district? In which case it would never be entirely in the rural district? I'm just, that's all very consistent. Oh, that's true. How many times can we conflict with our own? Mike, why was that piece, if you remember, the additional piece about the rural district included in section one? I think it was to reflect that we did have a couple of parcels. For the most part, we tried to put parcels entirely in one zoning district. And every once in a while, we have a parcel that is just so big that it crosses into two districts. And we wanted to be able to have some discussion of that. So I think that's where that one kind of came from. So actually, does that mean, I guess, so this is an example of that. This is an example of a property in riverfront that includes the rural district. So it looks like it not only, sorry, I'm thinking a lot as I'm talking. I have the same question though, Stephanie. Yeah, so it looks like it's only counting, sorry, you go ahead. I can, so let me explain this. So number one is just allowing something to happen. So this property does have land in riverfront and it does have land in rural. So let's say just for argument's sake that the Savings Pasture Group wanted to put 400 housing units in the lower pasture. They're only allowed to do 350. So they need the extra density, which is from the rural parts. So they could pull their extra 50 units out of the rural. They can't do a new neighborhood in the rural, but they can steal the density from the rural and bring it into this other riverfront district. And that's what that provision in number one would say, okay, if you wanna do that, this is the applicability, if you wanna have that, well, now you have to meet all the requirements for the dimensional use site, street design, all through that list. Now you've got an extra set of requirements if you wanna transfer density from rural into the riverfront. Okay. In this case, they're not, but that's where number one would come in as an option to that. Makes sense. So my follow-up question to that is then, so one of the issues we were running into that we talked about last time was that the planned unit development requires a certain percentage of open space. Well, couldn't this requirement also say if you're adjacent to something in the rural that contains that open space that that could count in the same way that you're using the density from that property? Do you see what I'm getting at? Instead of, so instead of taking it out, we can say you can count that space because it's part of this property towards that requirement, which sort of fixes the issue of city council taking it out and putting it in rural, which is what caused that issue in the first place and made the two not get along. Is anyone tracking with what I'm suggesting? I'm missing it. No. Um. Sorry. Yeah. Mike, can I just back up real quick? I understand what you're saying with respect to sub one, but I, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how that solves the inclusion of the rural district language and sub two. And I think I'm missing something, but I, I don't know. I think that's also still a problem. Yeah. Yeah. I think that can be removed. Entirely in the rural can be removed. I think occasionally drafters try to go through and explain something and by explaining it, they actually confuse it, you know? So if it's entirely in rural, then it doesn't count. Well, it didn't count anyway. So why are we talking about it? Well, I just thought I would tell you that if it's entirely in rural, then it's not required. But by mentioning it, I think it makes it a problem. So it really should be struck because it's not relevant. The entirely in the rural district section of two. Yeah. Okay. So hypothetically speaking, and I'm not trying to derail this discussion. I just want to make sure that we're moving in the right direction. Let's assume that we make the change to sub two to replace urban center one with Riverside district and strike the or entirely in the rural district language. If that, if everybody's on board with that, my question is, does there need to be any sort of change to sub one to capture the discussion that Mike had just a minute ago to sort of clarify kind of the role of rural in this applicability. Because if we're here and look right now, we might as well do it, but I'm not sure. I think it's good. I think number one is okay. I just, I think that the two options you have before you, the motion on the table is just to apply the requirement or just to exclude from the requirement riverfront district. And then the other option would be, which is not on the table right now would be just to strike number two all together. Can I ask a general planning question about that? Yep. As I'm learning still, I mean, so part of me, I mean, I think my first feeling is like we should just be very narrow about this because this is a unique property and for all the reasons we've talked about, but then is that just perpetuating the same sort of problem that spot zoning perpetuates? By any of the assumption that every property is unique. Yeah. But- This is the only property in riverfront district that actually meets all of our criteria in terms of being, you know, anyway, I won't go through all the criteria, but so it does seem as if we are addressing it only to this project, but in fact, this is the only project that qualifies. So if we leave it as a requirement, then this is the only project potentially in riverfront that it would affect. Correct, Mike? Yes. So it's spot zoning in and of its, you know, in the other direction. It's a spot zoning requirement as opposed to a, I'm glad you brought this up though, Marcel. I think, you know, there's a lot to look at here. Well, in that case though, sorry. Oh, I was just, I'm not the attorney, but I probably wouldn't have considered it spot zoning, but go ahead. Well, if that's truly the case, that this is the only property in riverfront that this is applicable to, then we would, I think it would be easier just to remove riverfront from number one. I think, so there's nothing over 10 acres other than this. Is there any opportunity within riverfront for 40 dwelling units that's not this property? Yeah. Okay, so then it's not just applicable to this. No, but this is the only one that's 10 acres or larger. Right, but it's either 40 units or 10 acres or larger. So there could still be properties that in riverfront where this is. Yeah, like the one next to it and one of the sheds, granite sheds. Is that an ore? I think it's, I thought I always read that as ant. It is an ant, I believe. It is 40 parcels or more. The only thing that does start to come up that is a little bit of jogging my memory is the parcel that is right next to it, which is part of that same field. It's the land that used to be owned by VCFA is larger than 10 acres, but the portion that is in riverfront is not 10 acres, but the parcel itself has some, it's got three zoning districts as it goes up. The lower portion is in, not a parcel. Riverfront. Is in riverfront. And if they were to locate more than 40 units, they would be put into the, they would also be put into this. But I think if we were making the change that Barb suggests, that would fix it for both of these parcels. So that's one question. Getting back to Stephanie's question about what allowed in riverfront, the allowed in riverfront, any parcel, which is at least two acres in size, has this as an option. So there may be other parcels that may want to be a new neighborhood, but is as small as a two or three acre parcel. And if they wanna get the density bonuses, then they would have to meet those requirements down below. And some of them may not be applicable because a three acre parcel may not be building any roads, but they may trigger getting into it for other reasons, but they'll have to meet these higher site design requirements. So I would probably leave riverfront in one because there is a lower threshold that's allowed and a higher threshold that says, if it's a big parcel, then you must do this. Got it. No, that makes sense. Thank you. And I guess the only, I guess I would call it just a thought to entertaining these every district that comes up is whether or not somebody would, let's say we've got a parcel that's 12 acres in size in a residential 9,000 district. And they're looking at a project and they decide, we were gonna do 60 units, but we're gonna have to do a new neighborhood because we're an exact same discussion we're having right now about Savings Pastor, they would be having because they've got a 12 acre parcel, they wanna do 60 units, we've got two options. We could make this a 39 unit property and move forward on our project or we can do the 60 unit, but we've gotta wait for a zoning change and that's gonna add another three months to our process. And we've gotta go through and convince the planning commission. The question is, what does the developer do? Do we end up losing development potential in order to avoid an administrative process by making it a requirement? When did it become a 15 acre parcel? Oh, this is. You just said that it's a 15 acre parcel. No, he's doing a what if, this is a imaginary. Yeah, I was doing a what if because we've just fixed this, if we hypothetically just do the riverfront, add the riverfront in there and make that exemption. And as Barb was saying, we should look at these on a case by case basis and decide whether to remove that district on a case by case basis. And what I said was, well, what if there's a 15 acre parcel in residential 9,000 neighborhood and somebody comes in and is looking at a project and then decides, you know what? It's just not worth going through a zoning change in order to do the 60 units. I'll just do 39 units and avoid this hassle altogether. It's, I mean, most of these are highly unlikely, but again, it's another- Why wouldn't they just use a new neighborhood PUD in that case? I mean, they wouldn't have to ask for a zoning change. If it was, had a lot of steep slopes and most of the land wasn't developable or if, you know, for whatever reason, like I said, it really comes down to, I don't expect there to be a lot where this is going to apply, but anytime I see a limit, I always, you know, when I look at Act 250, you know, they'll have a limit that'll say, you know, up to 40 units. And I will guarantee you there are a number of projects that get done at 39 just to avoid going through Act 250. And if you bump that up to 75 units for an affordable project, you'll see people coming in at 74 just to avoid Act 250. So anytime I see thresholds in here that go and say 40 units or 40 dwelling units, again, we're talking about dwelling units, not even talking about a subdivision. You want to put in a senior housing project with 60 units, you know, might be easier just to go through and make it a smaller project at 39 units to avoid the added hassle that it's going to take to do this. And I guess like I want to know, and it's still very unclear to me, like what is this added hassle? Like how did this become Act 250? And can we like annotate the new neighborhoods to get a clear understanding? Like where's the heartburn coming from? And can we adjust those? And I think that that should happen regardless of whether or not this is required or not. But like it's still, it's still, I don't have a firm grasp on what's not, I won't say possible, but what's not, you know, what would this project not be, not want to make? Is it, you know, half of these, all of them, some of them? It was a whole list. There was a list and I think, I thought at one point we'd ask for to see that list and that would still be helpful if we can see what the list is for this project, of exactly what those pieces are for that larger. I think that's really important. Yeah, that might be a lot of work for them to do. I mean, if it was all the time. They already had the list, I thought. I can go review it in the documents that we have in the minutes. There's really nothing there. No, you have to watch the video and Alan Goldman and maybe Doug as well went through it piece by piece. But rather than getting into the guts of that particular PUD, at least in this case, it seems as if we could table that for a later discussion, John, and just handle this one now by determining that because of the way that the zoning is written right now, this could pertain to this particular project only in the riverfront district. And so perhaps what we should do instead is to exclude it, to modify it in such a way that to remove the requirement for no neighborhood PUDs for riverfront, but still allow it because there are other properties that might want it. So if you want me to give you one example, John, just real quick. So point E number two. So that's talking about uses says the development shall include a mix of housing types, including both single unit and multi-unit structures and no more than 75% of the dwelling units may be of the same type. So in this example for Saban's pasture, that would mean they would have to be making 25%, at least 25% of the units would have to be single family units. And that just wasn't gonna be logically making a lot of sense for the project that they were proposing. And I think so I think that's just one of the examples of the types of rules that they were talking about. Well, if you're gonna say we shall do this and we have to put in 25% single family units, then that's gonna make this project much, much worse than it's not as good a project as we could do if we were maximizing our development on the lower part of the pasture. And he went through a number of these shall have a... That one was probably the most significant. I think the other ones had a lot to do with particular design that could have been accommodated, but in terms of the mix of housing types, that one was pretty significant. Yeah, shall have a defined streetscape of uniform setbacks with build two lines on each block. And we talked a little bit about how the buildings are not, going up a hill at that angle, it doesn't necessarily make for them the best, they felt the best design shall be located to the front of the parcel in relation to the street, both functionally and visibly. Yeah, so they just had a bunch of them that were kind of in there. They felt sidewalks would be required on both sides of the street and they wanted just sidewalks on one side of the street, a couple of those types of requirements. And access to parking as well, having parking on the lower, visible from the lower side of the site. So there were, in that case, there were a lot of requirements in the new neighborhood PUD that were specific to that project that they felt they couldn't meet. So it makes me reluctant to make big changes to the new neighborhood PUD in accordance with the problems expressed by one particular project, if there's another way to handle this. So I think we can still vote on what you've proposed today and that might still make the most sense. I still wanna see that list and I think it's gonna be helpful for the future conversation on what these rules should really be, that's a more in-depth conversation, but I still, I don't think that means we shouldn't make the simple fix today and then have the public hearing on it next time. But I think before we do that, it's helpful to have a full sense of exactly what the issues were. And I don't think it would be hard for them to pull together. They were reading it off of a list. So I think they already have it. So I'm confused, Stephanie, are you saying that you think we should go ahead and vote to exclude riverfront from the requirement? Yes, although that vote means we have another meeting to talk about this, it's a public hearing. Right. So I think voting, I'm comfortable voting on that today. Yes, but I don't think it's worth going back and taking a more detailed look at these regulations and especially with the line of thinking that Mike was taking, which is sort of a disincentive for density when this is really supposed to be the opposite of that to some degree. And I think it's, I wasn't around when these were drafted, but I think it's worth having that larger conversation. But if we go ahead and say, propose that the riverfront district be removed from the requirement, then this particular development team has no reason to propose the list of changes. So I think they already have the list. They already have it, right? I don't think it's a lift. I think they already have it. Yeah, but that list is specific to their particular design. And it's, you know. I understand that. Yeah, but I think that's, that list tells us what some of the issues are with it. Yeah, I don't expect them to do an analysis of how this is going to impact any project in the entire city. I think that would be our job to do. If they have a list of how this impacts their project, then that would be helpful for us to have as just information going forward. But just a list without any suggestion of modified language, right? We don't want to get, we don't want to pay the attorneys that much money. No, I'm definitely not looking for anything new. I'm looking for what they already have because they were, what they were talking about at the last meeting. Okay. It sounds like we may be at a point where we can vote on the motion going once, going twice. If anybody has anything else I want to say. Can we just ask, make sure that Mike rereads the motion now so that we're clear? Absolutely. That sounds very good. So my proposal is just to take 3404 B2 and replace urban center one with riverfront and strike or entirely in the rural district. So number two would read required for any development of either 40 parcels or dwelling units or more in a 10 year period on a parcel that is 10 acres or larger and that is not located in the riverfront district. Good by me. Marcella. Yeah. Okay. Unless there is any other discussion. All those in there, what's that? Any comments from the project team since they're here? Yes, that's it. No, no, there's no comment. You can go ahead and vote. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor of making their recommendation as stated by Mike, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? It's approved unanimously. Okay. Thanks everybody. Thanks, Dan. Thanks, Doug. Thanks, Alan. I appreciate your time. We will speak with you again, I'm sure. So. I'm sure we will. Thank you very much all of you for your thoughtful discussion. You're very welcome. And with that, I'm sorry I need to go look at my agenda again really quickly. I think next is revisiting or providing an update to the transportation plan. We have done sort of a preliminary review of it, but it looks like there's been some updates. I know we have Hanif is here from the Transportation Committee, but I think probably the best thing you do to set the table, Mike, again, you're probably the best position to do that at this point. And then obviously I like to invite Hanif to provide any insight that he might have and then we can have a discussion. So what you have, what I sent, which has some comments on it from me was what the Transportation Committee had approved. And then I tried to give you a little bit to give you some context into some of the conversations we've had and some of the, some reasons why this looks a little different than some of the other projects. So what you see in italics below the goals was really where they had gotten, they had worked on it for a long time and really kind of jockied around with a lot of options and things. And it took a while to kind of hammer this down into shape but where they got to from strategy standpoint was to, and you'll notice the first one, maintain sidewalks and crosswalks and excellent condition, including snow clearing in winter. So that was their, basically their strategy, but it didn't fit our model of what a strategy was. So I went through and added strategies to kind of flesh that out and then they approved those afterwards. So this kind of helps hopefully to give you a little bit of a sense of why things look a little different. I wanted to leave them in. So you guys had the context of what they were trying to do, whether we keep it or not is going to be up to you, but that's really a little bit of the thought. Again, this was a, they took a much, not much different, slightly different approach to how they did things. Some of the, we've generally been pretty clear about, maintain, evolve, transform or continue. Amen, new, we really kind of were very plain and kind of hit those words exactly. They tended to go a little bit more implied, rather than being explicit about their goals. Try to think of some of the examples that they had in here. Public transit will be more convenient and available, as opposed to a lot of times we were talking about, you know, improve the convenience and availability of public transit. So they tended to just kind of word things a little bit different, but I think it's all there and I think that was good. And so I think, I'm just trying to read some of my notes real quick. So they divided them up a little bit differently. Again, I put a number of notes in there to try to help give you guys some information of what I was thinking. You and I, we had had a conversation about the fact that they had framed some of theirs as like walking in Montpelier will be safer and that was kind of meant sidewalks and those pieces. And we had a little bit of discussion about kind of the equity issue and whether walking was the right word that we should be doing. And if we could come up with word smithing. But I think their intent of what they want and their priorities of what they think is all here. And I think we just might have a little bit of work to massage these to get them into a final form that's consistent with the others. But I guess I'll leave it there and see if you guys have questions. Thanks Mike, I appreciate it. I just, unless anybody objects, I think maybe since we have Hanif here, I think it might be helpful to, or it might be sort of welcome to help sort of couch this. And I see we have another member here today. Hi. And... Hi. Very happy member. Yes. I just wanted to say I want to maybe give Hanif an opportunity to provide some comments to us before we start asking questions. I just wanted to say Hanif, thanks for doing this. It looks like obviously there's a lot of moving parts to this plan. Looks like a lot of good work went into it. So that's very nice. And luckily, you won't have to compete with the small child now that they're off the camera. But I just wanted to give you an opportunity to make some comments if you'd like, Hanif, before we start. Hi, can you hear me all right? Sure can. Sure can. Great. Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity. And thanks to Mike, I think he's given a pretty good representation of the process that the committee and the subcommittee went through. I think we have, as a committee, reached a point of fatigue and really very clear that we would not want to give a lot more comments or shape things any further without really understanding what the planning commission sees in the draft that we've presented. And also, you're in a much better position to see not just the issue that Mike was raising as the format and the differences of the way that we've approached aspiration, goal, and strategy, but also how this relates and cross references with the other chapters of the city plan. And particularly the energy chapter, given that transportation is actually has a huge impact on emissions and should relate very closely to energy. And also a lot of the work and a lot of the goals that we're outlining relate to the built environments and housing and land use. And so there is this sort of interconnection which you have much better overview and understanding of relationships. So as a committee, we've kind of hit the wall, really, with trying to refine the plan. And I think we're really very keen to hear back and have feedback back from the planning commission. And so I would really say we welcome your viewpoint of how are we starting from the top with the aspirations and the goals. And not so much the strategies that Mike has put in that would make these more implementable and realizable because we are assuming that those are fairly dynamic and will be reviewed. And if this is actually an eight year, five or eight year plan then presumably strategies are going to be evolving and responding to changing situations. So really the goals and what Mike was saying, we were calling strategies but actually are worded more as sub-goals or kind of arching over a cluster of strategies that Mike has put in as implementable actions that the city can take. So we've kind of stopped at those sub-goals that are arching over the strategies. And we then proceeded to look at prioritization. And again, I think we would like as a committee to go back before a process of public engagement to really be or have more inputs on the prioritization. But really after having your feedback and having a sense of what will be the final look and content coming back from the planning commission when you've actually had your discussions and put things together. But I hope we will have that opportunity to indicate some more priority I think Mike has already put in initially as a preliminary some of the priorities that we came up with in a very quick and dirty sort of vote voting sort of process. And that voting process was also included a consultation with another city committee, the complete streets committee who have obviously a mandate and a lot of interest and a lot of overlap with the content of the transportation chapter. So there has been some liaison and some consultations which I think you as a planning commission you should be aware of. And a very limited engagement of complete streets committee with the voting process. And that's partly why I'm saying we would really welcome back an opportunity to put in some more input on the prioritization. And I think that the prioritization as sort of highlighted Mike has put in under the strategies is actually more from my understanding of the process and my reflections on the process, the prioritization has been actually much more effectively done at the level of our sub goals what he called our sort of our tempted strategies. So that's really where particularly with complete streets where the voting on priorities was done. And I think my own opinion, so I'm just speaking individually is that putting priorities on, we have a hundred or more strategies there is not really very, very effectual. And that really the goals or the sub goals prioritization is a much better place if you are as a planning commission interested to know from the committees and from the public engagement what are the perceived priorities? I think it's more at a higher level than the individual strategies, the implementable strategies. That was a very long, I'm taking opportunity that was a very long answer. I'll stop there, but I'm happy to expand or clarify. That's very helpful. I appreciate you giving us insight into how the committee arrived at what we have in front of us. Again, I wanna thank you and the other committee members for doing what is clearly about a heavy lift. And I can only say that I think most of our commissioners can appreciate the fatigue that can set in with something like this. So again, thank you very much. And I think to your point about providing additional input and prioritization going forward, I think the discussions that we've had here at the commission, we all envision there being multiple points of further input. And we're gonna welcome that going forward. We will certainly work with your committee and all the other committees to help sort of shape this, refine this, synthesize these different chapters in a way where we can come up with a truly comprehensive document that speaks to the sort of interdependent nature of a lot of these subsections. So again, thank you very much. And with that, I guess I would just sort of open it up to the group for any observations, questions. And I think if we have any fear and he can answer any of the questions we have, I think that'd be helpful. So I'll just sort of turn it over to the group. I'm just going through the document right now and sort of taking it all in. So kind of open the floor. Go ahead, Barb. Yeah, thanks for doing that, honey. If I think that really helped us get a better sense of the overall approach on this. And it does seem that there are some of your aspirations or your sub-goals even are similar. So perhaps it won't end up being quite as many strategies as you indicated. But one of the questions that came up for me as I went through this is if you had to put it into one or two sentences, what would you say was the overall intention? What does your group want to accomplish as a result of putting together this plan? I can probably jump in on that too. Yeah, go ahead, Mike, if you'd like. Because I think you have been at all our meetings and you could represent the chair in this instance. Yeah, I think the big picture is really captured in aspiration A. And I think there was some challenge. I mean, unlike some of the committees that we've had work on things, the historic and the housing and the energy, I think the transportation committee was a little bit more divided among where they're coming from and where they're approaching this. There's, but they were all pretty consistently interested in making it easy to live and work in Montpelier without a car or without owning a car. And I think that was the big thing. There was pretty uniformly accepted there. Where things started to divide among the group was there's a group, a small group that perhaps would want to have no cars in the downtown and really kind of go in that direction of aggressively moving in that direction while the other group was a little more pragmatic of saying with 9,000 workers and 4,000 people work and drive to work in town that we have to address cars. We have to address it to a certain extent. So I think that was a little bit of the push and pull but it was pretty uniform that we wanted to, it shouldn't be a requirement to own a car if you want to live and work in Montpelier. That doesn't mean you have to not have a car but at the same time it shouldn't be a requirement. You should be able to find places to live where you can access public transportation, access shared mobility, microtransit, other places that would go and say, look, I can live here and not own a car and I can get everything that I need. And I think that was their overall vision was to meet that objective and to kind of build around that model. And that's where I would probably say it was the biggest piece. Can I add to that? Yeah. Or maybe qualify. I'm not sure if I entirely agree with Mike when he says there was a polarization and there was that view of not having cars in Montpelier. I think everybody's been pretty pragmatic and I think the difference is that it comes from around the level of investment in transportation infrastructure. And we've had I think a hundred years of heavy investment in highways and really accommodating the car including right downtown. So I think it's the committee is, I think Mike is very right that the committee overall, the balance of the members' feelings is it's time to rebalance. And it's really, I mean, I think that is the term that's the, you know, a fairest term to describe it. It's time to rebalance and particularly to think about the CIP, you know, capital improvement plans and recognize that very small, you know, in terms of per capita spending, very small amounts being shifted to pedestrian and bike infrastructure can make a huge impact. And I would put forward from the many meetings that we've had that safety, you know, the goal that keeps coming up and the word that keeps coming up, it's safety is really key. I think the issue is that walkers, you know, don't have sidewalks that are safe, particularly in the winter, that bikes, you know, are really, I mean, bikers are really not using the roads because they don't feel safe. You know, children are not going to school on bikes because parents are not feeling good about that because we don't have the appropriate infrastructure. And, you know, it's a recognition that we are progressive in a lot of ways here in Montpelier, but we are behind in those terms with that infrastructure. And I think that the COVID-19 and these last past six to eight months have actually reinforced that as people are having to be out more, they've become much more aware of the environment. And so I would like to put that forward slightly different, you know, slightly different perspective than Mike. I think Mike has actually, you know, put it very concisely. And I'm just trying to give you a bit more textured viewpoint. And I don't know whether I can share, I don't know how to share a screen here. Should be on the bottom with the green. Share content. Is that working? Yes. So, you know, in our prioritization process, you can look at, in terms of the numbers of votes, you can rank things, you know, by goals. So I don't know if you can see the column A, the goal A2 had the most votes. So that's biking in Montpelier will be safer and easier. So at the level of goals, you know, that was the top. Then the next one is walking in Montpelier will be safer, easier and more attractive. Then the third one is Montpelier's transportation system will contribute to a vital and lively community. Next is the system will support efficient movement of people and goods in a sustainable manner. And then moving around Montpelier will be safe for people using any mode of transportation. I think that gives you a little bit more textured, you know, sense of where the committee is at. Now, whether this actually reflects the perspective and the consensus in the public here in Montpelier or not, you know, we have yet to see. But I think that's a pretty clear message about that I'm trying to get across, which is it's about getting around, not necessarily with a car. Mike, thank you, you put that very clearly, but that's the essence of it. It's being able to get around and it's being able to get around if you live here in Montpelier, but also the people that come to work here and play here, you know, our visitors and our leaf peepers or whoever will come into town should have some options. And they should have places to either satellite park and have shuttles or some other means, you know, bike paths, shared use paths, perhaps shared mobility and so on. So that's a sort of holistic view that I would like to try to convey that the aspirations, you know, that underpin the aspirations that you see, the aspirations A, B and C. I'll stop there. How do I get back to that? Would you be willing to share that document with us? Because actually my question to you and you just answered it was, was I was curious to see sort of, we can assign different priority levels within the document to the strategies that are outlined, but I was curious if there were certain areas in here that, you know, really got a lot of traction with the Transportation Committee and this document really spells out what those priorities are. And I think that'd be helpful to the rest of us as we take a closer, a deeper dive with the document to really get a sense of kind of how to weight the Transportation Committee's sort of thinking and prioritization within the document that we have in front of us. Are you seeing this alternate shared view? Yes. So that's a longer list than if you'll see in the column A here that this is going down to strategies that Mike has helped us with, you know, the implementable parts. So there are several ways of presenting, you know, presenting information to you in this sort of prioritized format, but also in this kind of slightly more concise and screen capturing way, because I think you have a nine page document laid out in a narrative form, which can be a bit tiresome for you, I think when you have so much to look at and so many chapters and so on. So I think if you're actually requesting us to share with you some alternate formats, then we could give you this kind of thing, you know, like a spreadsheet type of thing, which shows the whole nine pages just set out in columns like this and then also ranked in terms of a very provisional, very sensitive, quick and dirty sort of prioritization, but it could continue to be refined with more participation of members and other committees and public. So that will be my proposal. If you are requesting for that, then we would present you something in this more friendly, user-friendly format. Yeah, that would be great from my perspective, because like I said, I think it does a good job of sort of putting some granular context, you know, putting some granular detail in terms of the committee's thinking in producing a document. And I think that'll, like I said, that context would really helpful as we really dig into this document. So I would be grateful if you'd be willing to share that with us. Yeah, you'd be most welcome. Yeah. I think the other, if I can make another comment, I'm just very interested in the planning commission and the new processes for the city plan, which actually Mike has given us a lot of his time to get us deeper in to the process and understanding more that this is actually a slightly new process. And I'm coming from a kind of sustainable development background outside of Vermont and in like low resource countries and doing a lot of work in the health sector with planning. And I have some reflections on this process, which I've mentioned to Mike, and that is, you know, whereas the city plan could be seen as something as just, what are we going to do as a city? And that is sort of the shape I'm still seeing even in this new format. The background that I have would say that it should really be a much more comprehensive and more collaborative type of plan. So Mike will often say to us, but that's not the city's responsibility. You know, so let's have a strategy that the city can actually implement. But my own, I'm very resistant to that because my own experience has been cities will really thrive when they're co-creating and working with partners and collaborators, be they a private sector or NGOs or, you know, community-based initiatives. So I was really, I'm really aspiring to see a plan that actually has a whole bunch of strategies that the city might not be leading, but would actually endorse. So rather than saying this is not really something we can do and given budget deficits and an increasingly kind of, you know, difficult fiscal environment, surely this is the time to open up and say we have these goals and what we're looking for is people to come in and lead or mobilize resources or whatever in order to reach those goals and not, and for the city to back off and not feel like it has to do everything that's in the city plan. Because as soon as you've endorsed as a planning commission and as a council, city council, as soon as you've endorsed the city plan, it really empowers a lot of your, you know, your partners here, very keen and active, highly motivated partners to come in, to actually come in and feel like this is a plan we can contribute to and we can, you know, this is something we can actually do. And I know from my own background that as soon as you have a holistic plan like that, you can go to whoever, whichever funder and say, this is in the city plan and we are able to do this. Can we, can we, you know, can we, can you throw in some resources for us to do this? So that's my own, my very personal angle. It's not the transportation committee. It's a very personal angle, but I'm just taking advantage of this opportunity and my involvement in the planning process to put that to use a planning commission. That's appreciated. So we have about five minutes left before we adjourn. So I just want to make sure that if anybody has any specific questions they want to raise right now, now's the time to do it because time is running out, so. As we go through this process, Aaron, we'll be able to address further questions to the transportation committee. Right? So even if we don't have specific questions now, we may be developing them as we go through this more line by line. Certainly, yeah. I mean, I think that's the, you know, one of the advantages of having the working group is to do that deep dive, sort of gather some more pointed questions to make sure that we're understanding, you know, their priorities and figuring out ways to synthesize those with the other things that we're doing with the city plan. So. Yeah. So I think having Hanif here and also the further information that he has will certainly help us in the task force. Subcommittee, whatever we're calling it. Yeah. Anything else from anybody at this point? We just sort of, okay. Well, I think this is a good introduction to the transportation subsection. And I'm sure, Hanif, like you heard, we have a subcommittee that's sort of a working group that is dedicated to looking at this specifically. And we're going to obviously be taking a close look at it and developing some, probably some follow-up questions. So the process is ongoing. And with that, unless there's anything else anybody would like to discuss, do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Motion by Bar, seconded by Stephanie. All those in favor. Thank you, Hanif. Thank you. Sorry, sorry. No. Hi. Hi. That was my fault. I cut off the process. I'm sorry. I don't think we have any dissenters anyway, Erin. Right. Well, you gotta, you know, we just gotta dot the I's and cross the T's. So all those in favor of adjournment. Hi. Hi. Any opposed? Any abstentions? We are adjourned. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.