 This conference will now be recorded. Hello and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for Wednesday, November 4th, 2020. My name is Matt Coda, I'm the Chair of the Development Review Board with us on this Coda meeting. Meeting is Lisa Portman, Don Filbert, Jim Langen, John Wilking, Mark Bear, Brian Sullivan. Also with us is Delilah Hall, with the City of South Burlington, and Marla Kane, our Development Review Planner. This item on the agenda is additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. The staff for the Board have any changes they want to make? Matt, I would suggest moving up item number five to before number four, since we're... Okay. We'll be fast. That's right. Okay. That's a great idea. So let's move item number five, because it will be continued, but we'll have to do that formally into right after comments and questions before item number four. That's a great suggestion. Moving on to item number two, any announcements? Same announcement that I'll make on all these Coda meeting calls for those that are just joining in, having participated before. You will have an opportunity to comment either online or over the phone. Anyone who wants to participate in this meeting should sign the virtual sign-in sheet. You can do so by entering your name in the chat box or by emailing marlakeen at m-k-e-e-n-e and keen-s-brill.com. The reason to sign in that virtual sign-in sheet is to let us know that you're here because it's necessary in order to be considered a participant should you wish to obtain party status in order to appeal a decision made by the South Rowington Development Review Board. Okay. So item number three, which is comments and questions from the public not related to any of the items on the agenda tonight. Is there anyone who has either dialed in or logged in through the go-to-meeting app that has any comments not related to the agenda? I'll pause and wait to say your name if you do and I'm going to check the chat box and not seeing anyone with a public comment, not hearing anyone. I'll move right on to agenda item skipping number four, going to agenda item number five, which is preliminary final plan application SD 2035 of TPG architecture to amend the previously approved plan for a 101,838 square foot shopping center in two buildings. The amendment consists of constructing a detached 3,354 square foot financial institution with a remote drive of ATM and canopy at 570 Shelburne Road. I don't believe we have anyone here from the applicant, but I'll pause for a second. Information from Marla was that the applicant wished to continue this meeting. So if anyone is here for that, we won't be holding that today, but we do need to set a date and continue this preliminary final plan application. Marla, did you have a date in mind that would work for you and for us? I said December 1st, and that would be fine. And that worked. Okay. So that I would move that we move, excuse me, I would move that we continue preliminary final plan application SD 2035 TPG architecture for December 1st. Is there a second? I'll second. Seconded by Don, roll call, Alyssa. Aye. Aye. Jim, John, Chair votes aye, and by 7-0 vote, we have moved SD 2035 to December 1st. Okay, then going back to agenda item number four. Gender number four is the presentation by discussion with Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning regarding the LDR, Land Development Regulation Updates and Upcoming LDR updates. Paul, are you here? There you are. Hey, Matt, what do you have for us, Paul? Well, I've got sort of three rounds of amendments to talk with you about. One, you've already actually seen an application under, but we haven't had a chance to catch up with you since they were adopted, which is the inclusionary zoning updates. So I'll go through those quickly because I know you've already, you've already seen them and used them. A second set is there are some amendments that the Planning Commission is having a hearing on next week and that will then potentially go to city council. And so I wanted to give you a update on that. And then third, I wanted to talk with you for a few minutes about the big project that the Planning Commission's been working on, on the updates and revisions to the subdivision master plan and planning to development standards. I wasn't going to go into too, too much detail on that one, but I wanted to give you a flavor of it. And the commission has asked me to, as we get a little further into it, or closer to the actual language to get some feedback from board members. So I wanted to get you a little bit familiar with it now, so that you can, in a couple months time, maybe took a little more close look at it. Does that sound okay? Sure, sounds good. Great. All right, so just one second. Hopefully this works. All right, you should be seeing a cover sheet now. All right, so just again, I'm going to jump through these first ones kind of quickly, but I wrote this out so that you can see it later as well. Slide two. There we go. Inclusionary zoning. So you have seen one application with this. This was adopted by the city council in over the summer after they warned the public hearing in the spring. It applies to everywhere in the city, that's the transit overlay district, and a little bit also along Hinesburg Road. Essentially, those areas that were not subject to interim zoning. As you know, it applies to projects of more than 12 units. Homes have to be affordable in perpetuity, and you've seen the amounts of homes. As required by state law, there's a series of offsets and incentives, and you've probably already seen some of that in there if you do a larger unit, it gets to count as more than one. You get some offset units. Fundamentally though, and one sort of key thing is the total amount of development is no different than the maximum that could happen previously under the bonus structure if you did all the bonuses. And importantly, applies to all projects submitting for preliminary plat review. I think you have also spent some time with the standards themselves, but I did wanna flag a couple of things in here. I'm not gonna go through it in entire detail because you've already looked at some things around integrated into the project layout and having the same energy efficiency. One thing that's a little bit different from the bonus structure that you've seen in places like South Village and a few others is the Affordable Housing Committee and then ultimately the Planning Commission and the Council decided not to require units to have a relationship in terms of their size. So in the Affordable Housing bonus structure, they have to be a certain percentage of the size of the units. The Affordable Housing Committee landed on instead requiring that the average number of bedrooms in inclusionary units be no fewer than the average number of bedrooms in the market rate units. They felt that that was representing the objectives of affordability without sort of, you know, while addressing some of the cost issues. So that's one thing that's a little bit different from the Affordable Housing bonus structure. Paul, is there a minimum health standard for the size of a bedroom has to be? Yeah, this is not the size of a bedroom, but there is the size of a unit. So I was sort of copying some of the standards, but if you're going to be a studio, you have to be at least 450 square feet. If you're going to be a one bedroom, you have to be at least 600 square feet there. So in terms of anything, in terms of health safety codes, that would be over on the fire department, but that's the way that they got at it. They can be of some varied types and I think one sort of key thing in there is that if a neighborhood is mostly single family homes, they can be put into small multiplexes. What I didn't include in the text that you see on the screen is that that multiplex has to be designed to be having the sort of appearance of a single family home and be integrated into the area. And then this was a request, I know from you all a long time ago when you'd met with the planning commission, but to make sure that there was some standards for you to apply around concurrent occupancy. And I know you've already seen one project where you're looking at that. So hopefully that's giving you some of the tools that you were looking for there to make sure that the affordable units don't get pushed to the very end of a project. I know I ran through that quickly. Is there anything that folks had questions on the inclusionary standards? Paul, I have one question in regards to size. Because one thing about the whole concept at least to the original affordable housing zoning was that the affordable housing was supposed to have no real indicators that it's affordable over the market rate. And I know that this new inclusionary zoning does allow everything to sort of be all put into one building, which is different from the previous code, which said I had to sort of be interspersed around. But one thing in regards to the size issue, I know in other municipalities the affordable units typically can't, you know, our size to be no, no less or more, no less than 80% the size of the average market rate units so that, you know, you don't have, you know, 2,800 square foot marketing unit thing, you have a whole series of 450 or 650 square foot affordable units, which is gonna have the effect of, you know, making them stick out or stand out. And I'm just wondering if there has been discussion about doing more of a percentage of the market rate. There was a lot of discussion about that, Mark. And as I mentioned, the affordable housing committee landed on the bedrooms being the marker for it. But I do want to, you mentioned about how the units can be in a single building and that is true, but that's not the only criteria for review. Planning commission had a fairly lengthy discussion on this and ultimately that second bullet point in there where it says shall be physically integrated and compliment the overall layout scale, massing of the proposed development, they felt that this was an area that they wanted to give the board some flexibility that to require it to do the things that you're just describing there. They don't want it to stick out like a sore thumb. They wanted to imagine that there could be so many different scenarios. In city center, for instance, everything so far has been other than David Chang's buildings have been, you know, very large buildings. And so it would be appropriate to have the affordable in a single building. It may be in other places too, whereas if the context was South Village and there's a whole intermixing of singles, two, three, 12 plexes that that second bullet point that talks about overall layout scale, massing is intended to give you those tools to not say, oh, it can just go in 130 plex. Okay. We, I'm confident that the commission would love to hear feedback if it's not working well. But that's their intent was to give you the tools to do exactly that kind of pushing back if it's sticking out like a sore thumb, because that's absolutely not the intent. Right. Good. Thank you for that. I did kind of have some difficulty with the application we had. And it had to do with the point that Mark made that although you could, under the terms of these amendments, you could put all the affordable units in one building. If there were only affordable units in that building and if that building was physically separate from the other building, it seemed to me as if that was to go to the second to last bullet point, that was an indication that was perceptible and common areas that those units were the inclusionary ones. And I'm just wondering if there was any discussion of the relationship of those two points in the amendment. Yeah, Brian, that's a great question. And this was not an easy one. As you've probably seen in some of the applications that have come your way, there's the most economical way to provide affordable housing from the most prolific providers of it, Champlain Housing, Petros Cathedral Square and a few others is to group them into buildings. And so the Affordable Housing Committee and the Planning Commission, we're trying to thread a needle of, they in no way are trying to discourage or have a downward effect on housing development. And I know that that's been a big concern in Burlington historically about how the standards are written. And so they were trying to give the DRB the tools to make sure that it's well integrated without pushing completely against the market forces that might lead the economies of scale to sometimes do them in buildings. So again, that's why both of those standards are in there. If there's no other questions, I'll move on to the Affordable Housing Bonus. So this is basically the remainder. So it used to be that citywide we had the Affordable Housing Bonus. As the inclusionary grew, then the area of the Affordable Housing Bonus dropped. There were only a couple of changes in there. One was a clarification sort of to a point that Mark had raised a minute ago about affordable housing units and what size they need to be. So they need to be no less than 70% of the size of the market rate units. And there was an issue that was brought forward brought to our attention and then we had some really good dialogue with Champlain Housing Trust about the income spread between the price point of affordability and what households can earn. And the CHT had flagged this has become an issue all across the country of communities that let's say, if they say that the maximum purchase price and eligibility is 80% of median income and that the households can earn no more than 80% of income, that leaves a tiny sliver of the market that's actually able to buy it. And so the best practice that CHT recommended and that we did some research on other communities was to keep the price point at 80% but to allow households with incomes at or below 100% of median income, therefore giving a little bit of a spread for who can actually move in there to make sure that it's viable. Apparently there have been some communities where affordable housing covenants have essentially been thrown out because they've demonstrated that there's no way that people can, there's no ability to market them. So that's just a couple of technical corrections, essentially at this point to just make it a little bit more clear. So that's those two amendments, those past city council this summer as I said, and so those are fully in effect today and have been for a while. I wanted to next jump into the second category which is some amendments that are forthcoming now. There's four of them. The first two both are a tool that would allow a property along Shelburne Road and a certain port and a small portion of Williston Road to get an increased lot coverage. It would allow them to go essentially from 70% lot coverage up to 80% of lot coverage. There's been a few requests to the planning commission on it. The city council asked the commission to expedite this which is why it's coming for you now. And basically the commission settled on two options. So it would be developer's choice. They could choose to either A, provide an on-muted civic space like a programmed parklet that would be equal to 30% of the size of the increased lot coverage that they're looking to do or they could choose to purchase transferable development rights. This is the first trial of allowing TDRs to be used outside of the Southeast quadrant. The commission was, as you know, the council had a committee that was looking at how to revamp the TDR program and one of their recommendations was to find additional places to have receiving areas. So this is the first attempt at doing that. So somebody could purchase essentially, the ratio is for every, you would have to buy one TDR for each 10,000 square feet of additional lot coverage in these areas. The third one is- This is the share a lot. Bill Scherer was the person who initiated it, yeah. So I don't get the TDR purchasing. What's, if you need more lot coverage, you're also, your other option is an on-site civic space. I don't understand that. So this is sort of picking up on where the form-based code is. So most places in the city, you're either lot coverage or not lot coverage. And if you're not lot coverage, you're probably grass or stormwater or something like that. In the city center area, there's been a concerted effort to, instead of just sort of treating leftover space as grass to focus on having a smaller amount of space that's actually usable, where people would eat lunch or have a little pocket park, that kind of thing. So this would allow somebody to, let's say convert a portion of their grass area that remaining lot coverage. And instead of just having a grass that doesn't, that's not functional, turn it into something useful. Any lot coverage that is created within that civic space doesn't count towards their lot coverage. So if they have some stone or brick walk area and then a nice seating area, that doesn't count against them. So it's trying to- So you increase your impervious if you dedicate a portion of your property, not the grass, but to a place where people can gather. Exactly, yeah. So the third one here is a, and of course, Matt, just to circle back, just to close the loop on that, all the stormwater standards still have to be met. So there's nothing that lets you out of that part of it. Third one is kind of related to the first one in there. It's some cleanup of the applicable open space slash civic space types, mostly the supplies in city center. It's some adjustments now that we've had it working for three and a half years, but it also would affect this one. It's basically giving more options and more opportunities for folks to create good small spaces. And then the fourth one is really created as a result. We've been working on this with all the digitization for the last few years and we're basically ready for this when the pandemic hit, but we found that there's really not a need any longer to have paper copies of applications. And Marla keeps politely yelling at applicants to stop dropping off five copies of applications on our desk, even when we don't use them. So this would eliminate it, therefore eliminated as being a formal submission requirement, which is why some of them are doing it because they don't want to get appealed for not having submitted a paper copy. That's excellent. Yeah, we're pretty excited about that one. Any other questions on these ones? The public hearing is next Tuesday for the planning commission. And if they move it forward, then the city council would have one as well. Obviously, if anyone has any feedback, please feel free to weigh in at the hearing or to give me a ring between now and then I'm happy to talk any of it through with you. Well, I have a procedural question about that because it came up with some objection that was made pertaining to the newspaper thing that happened a couple of weeks ago. If it happens that more than three members of the Development Review Board choose to attend this planning commission meeting, does that present a problem? No, the open meeting law was changed a couple of years ago to indicate that if members of one committee are attending another committee, that it is fine as long as what they're doing is they're participating in that other committee. Okay, great, thanks. So that's fine. Obviously, if the DRB were then spin off and have a meeting of your own, then that would have to be its own thing. All right, so the last area I wanted to cover was, oh, and I've got these out of order, shoot, was the big set of regulations that the planning commission's working on. And I wanted to just give you a little introduction to it tonight. And I would be more than happy to come back to, there's a lot going on here. So I just thought I'd give you a little flavor of it. So the planning commission is in the process of basically revamping the major elements of the regulations, subdivisions, planned unit developments, master plans, and a little bit on site plans. Right now, as you know, subdivisions, master plans, and PUDs are all kind of lumped together as a single chapter. And the distinction between what's a subdivision, what's a PUD, or what's a PUD, and what's a site plan is pretty light, the distinction. And as you all well know, the criteria for what it means to be a PUD is pretty thin. The current regulations basically say as you well know that if you're a PUD, to be a PUD, you need to show that you're innovative. And if you're innovative, most parts of the regulations can be waived. And there's been lots of repercussion to that, both in terms of folks in the community, as you know better than I do, who are surprised at what an application looks like, or you wind up seeing a lot of applications that are really site plans that are looking for a small waiver of some kind. And so therefore they wind up being a PUD, or the regulations say it must be a PUD period, regardless of what's going on. So this, the proposal here, that the work of the commissioners try to pull these apart into their component elements, using subdivisions as the framework for any significant amount of development. Subdivisions become their own things, and they become the foundation for different types of PUDs that can then modify those subdivisions. A site plan is supposed to be a site plan itself, which is a building on a lot. And what would exist there would be to have its own waiver authority that is specific to a site plan. And that's enabled under state law, but for whatever reason we really haven't used it, other than in rare circumstances. So something that's intended to really just be a site plan, would able to just be a site plan in the future. A subdivision, and I'm gonna go into the standards in a second, is strictly the division of land. It also would have some limited waiver authority. And I know that's one of the pieces that the planning commission is gonna want your specific feedback about how you feel about the tools. A planned unit development, instead of just being sort of a blanket tool to wave underlying rules, is really intended in the future to be a specific intentional type form of development. And there's three different types being proposed that I'll speak about in a second. And then lastly, the master plan is intended to be more of a classic master plan than what our regulations do. Something that really lays out an overall framework for a project without necessarily committing to all the pieces of it, but having the setting parameters through the entirety of a project that both the city and the applicant would be committed to. And the big carrot for the development community in this is that they would have the, the DRP would have the ability to vest a project or components of a project in the current regulations. So if they provide sufficient information to you, then they would be guaranteed for a certain number of years that they would be able to know that these are the rules in place and that they don't, the city doesn't change the regulations, adopt interim zoning, et cetera, et cetera. So I wanted to go back to this slide here. This is sort of the first building block of the subdivision rules. There's a lot in here, but this is basically taking all of the natural resources, most of which you already currently regulate, but a couple of new ones and trying to categorize them a little better, make them clear as to what you need to do for initial identification of the resource and then what do you have to do when you're at final plat? The planning commission is proposing to basically divide them into three categories, things that are hazards, i.e. things that are sort of classically considered across the country to be very challenging places or prohibited from development. Level one resources, which are important policy-based ones where the city is saying that it does not wanna see development in these areas, generally speaking. And then level two resources, which are typically things that can be addressed with smart design. So for example, a moderately steep slope would have some engineering requirements with them to make sure that they don't have a failing slope. It's not a prohibited from development standard, it's a proceed with caution. The two pieces that are in here that are, well, two to three pieces that are proposed to be in here that were not previously are, one, the steep slope standards. The idea being that over 25% that those would be essentially no-build areas. There's not very many of them in the city, but there are a handful. There are exceptions to that for certain types of infrastructure. And then the moderately steep slopes, which again would be sort of paying attention to the design. The second one would be, and this is probably the largest one in terms of areas, habitat blocks. You may have heard a little bit about this through the other paper or other documents, but the planning commission spent a lot of time last winter after interim zoning was adopted, really going through the different resources and what are their priorities? And they got feedback from presenters and guest speakers who identified that from a wildlife perspective, the number one resource in the city are our water resources. For the most part, we were in pretty good shape already regulating those. The second most important one was forested habitat areas. And so from a litany of possible things that the city could regulate, the planning commission decided to hire Airwood Environmental to do an analysis of the city's habitat blocks. They came back last just before the pandemic hit with 25 of them, I believe, over 20 acres in size that have a reasonable function to them. The planning commission has since been working to integrate those into a regulatory form. They started with the full breadth of them and have spent some time in the last month or so to remove areas where the city has other priorities. But essentially what these would become is areas where development is not permitted with some exceptions and some ability to either relocate a forested area or to potentially buy out of it in certain circumstances. In practice, in the Southeast quadrant, this lines up almost exactly with the Natural Resource Protection District so it doesn't really change very much in the SEQ. And elsewhere, many of the largest ones not surprisingly are on property that is either publicly owned or has other hazards to it. There are some affected properties and those are the ones that the planning commission has really been focusing on as to make sure that they have economic opportunity to them still and that the city that they've really carefully thought through the competing interests of the city here and not to sway this entirely in one direction. And I'll speak about that in a second when I talk about a conservation PUD. Paul? Can I stop you there quick? Sure. It's John. Speaking with my economic development head on, I can tell you that we have not been approached in any way, shape, or form on this to discuss or consider the economic impact. And I mean, there's no question that there's an impact to taking land that is developable off the potential for the future tax rolls. And I think it's inappropriate and short-sighted to not look at all the views and you haven't, you haven't even asked your own boards or committees to look at all the views of what this impact is. I know your housing committee has come back and said, no, guys, you're making a mistake. And to which they've gotten conversation, but no remedy. I think you're way ahead of the board. I mean, ahead of the curve on trying to do this. I think it's, I think it's very short-sighted. So I would suggest that you need a lot more time on this. Okay. Thank you, John. Just let me, just to John's question, John, I'd be happy to coordinate a time to come and talk with the economic development committee. And I would be happy to invite one or more planning commissioner members to attend also so that it's not just staff talking, but it's policy makers to policy makers. Yeah, I mean, it needs more than that, Paul. That's fine. We'd be happy to have you talk to us, but then we need six months to analyze. I mean, all you've done is analyze the environmental impact and a little bit of other things. But you haven't given anybody the opportunity to really do an economic impact. I don't know what other impacts it should be, but it's short-sighted to do this on such a fast pace. Okay. Paul, this is Matt Kota. Paul, and you explain, can you provide some insight into how you think or if you do think that these changes in environmental protection standards would alter how we look at map seven in the comp plan and determine whether someone is building in a protected area or not protected area? The objective of the environmental protection standards is to, or an objective of them, is to be very clear through the land development regulations what are the regulated resources. So that there is some, it's challenging from the development perspective to determine exactly today which resources they need to be paying attention to. You mentioned map seven, I think that's a prime example of that. There are others also that refer to prior studies and things like that, but you have to sort of go through several maps. So the idea here would be that the things to be regulated are the things listed in the regulations. So where does that leave us when the next development that comes play, either someone wants to build on a land that is in that blue squiggly line that we see in map seven or someone lives next to that blue squiggly line and doesn't want it developed, where does that leave us in determining whether or not a structure can be built in that area? What staff has said to the planning commission is that as we close, as we get to the conclusion of these standards, that anything that it should be clear in all of the regulations, what are the standards that apply? And so that could mean modifying relationships to the comprehensive plan. I've also applied for the planning commission that they're gonna have to make a judgment call as to whether these resources as drafted would require an update to the comprehensive plan at the same time that would modify maps if needed. So that's something that is still pending for them to make a determination on as to whether it rises to that. But the question that you're raising we're well aware of the question and we don't want there to be any kind of gray area there. Yeah, neither do we. And on the list of items there, subdivisions, NCCD, TND, all of these have a basis you're comfortable with. I don't know that can be scientifically mapped out by an expert to determine where, for instance, the Habitat Connector begins and where it ends, where we're gonna have two consultants that could come to an agreement on what that is. That's not just a terminology that is an artful term, but it's not based in science or... Yeah, Matt, you're raising another great question. Yes, this is Jim, Paul, that's my concern with a lot of these, it's gonna be really gray. So I fully recognize that concern around the Habitat Blocks and Habitat Connectors. The way that it's been drafted thus far is that it is a mapped line similar to where the NRP is, for example, that's shown as a mapped line. It's the policy decision will have been made by the city council as to where that line is rather than it being one that is up to competing experts. That said, Paul, but that's a map, that is a map in static in time is what you're saying. This is not field mapping that is done to prove this. This seems ludicrous that this is the path we're going on. That you are going to determine on this date where the animals are going, but you don't know 10 years from now that you wouldn't do field mapping or whatever it is or the water's going. It seems like a taking to me that has serious economic consequences and doesn't follow science and that's what I'm concerned about. Well, let me finish my thoughts. So first of all, the lines were done based on the best research that Arrowwood Environmental was able to do. There is also an option for a developer to do a habitat disturbance assessment and to move the line. It's an option because of exactly what you just said, Matt, which is that something like a habitat block is not the same thing as a wetland. There is not decades and decades of court precedence in it. And so members of the development community had expressed concern about it being something that is you have to go and assess it and then somebody hires somebody else to compete against it and you wind up with years of litigation. And so the proposal to sort of address both concerns is to put the default being a line that was drawn by the city and an option for a developer to modify that and relocate a portion of the habitat or have a mitigation for a portion of it if they can demonstrate that they're keeping its functions. So then Paul, is the opposite side of that coin also true? In which a developer looks at a map and goes, oh, I'm clear to build here. And then we have an interested party that's next door that says, no, I've seen patterns of deer or coyotes will go through here. So no, we disagree with the line that the city council has chosen. The option is drafted as a developer's option if they choose to go into that. Because again, you know, the trying to create some certainty in the development community. So that's how it's drafted thus far. I have a question, this is Dawn. Is it Arrowwood or Arrowwood? Arrowwood. The document that recently was presented as part of an application off Spear Street, Marla. And you said that's not been adopted by the city yet. Is that the same study? Do you remember? Yes, it is. All right, thank you. Paul, in sort of jumping on Matt's comment about it taking, has council been spoken to? I mean, a lot of this is borderline taking and you're setting us up potentially for a whole lot of lawsuits, not the DRB, but the city. Has this been discussed from a legal standpoint? We have been looking at it from a legal standpoint, John. The council got the initial presentation from Arrowwood back in February, as well as the sort of outline proposal from the planning commission at that time. The chair of the planning commission is also scheduled to go and give a presentation to council in the first meeting in December on what they've essentially where they're proposing to deal with the forest blocks. So that's the updates that council is getting on all this. I did wanna spend just a minute because I know we're getting a little late in time, but I wanted to take a minute and just talk about the development side of this because I think we've been talking about the natural resources side. The development side of this is also really important and it's important to the takings, it's also important to just other city objectives here. So as I mentioned before, in the future there would be a couple of different kinds of PUDs. There's three that are being proposed right now. One is called the traditional neighborhood, one is called neighborhood commercial and one is called the conservation PUD. I'm gonna start with the conservation PUD because I think it's important from a takings perspective. The way that a conservation PUD would work would be that 70% of a property would need to be set aside as conservation. It's an option, it's never required. In doing so, the remaining 30% can be built on. The density applicable to the entirety of the property would be allowed to take place on the 30%. And importantly, the 70% is a number that gets worked to from both ends. So if for example, for whatever reason you have a property that has 50% natural resources from that last chart, but you still wanna be a conservation PUD for whatever reason, then you would find an additional 20% of the property that you choose to conserve in order to achieve this. By contrast, and this is where the forest blocks come back in, let's say your property is 90% covered in resources and they're not things like wetlands that you can't build on anyway, but they're let's say forest block, then you would have the ability to build on 30% of that property. So you would have the ability to remove in my example of 90% covered in forest, 20% of that forest, 20% of the land that is in forest to create a developable area. So that's one of the tools. The second tool that I want to speak about, the TND and the traditional neighborhood and the neighborhood commercial both are similar, their development oriented PUD types. And the biggest thing that I wanted to mention to you with those is they would come with them some fairly tight standards similar to the SEQ standards that you currently see around blocks and lots and open spaces and things like that. But the big change that's being proposed is that in those PUD types, the density is no longer proposed to be calculated as units per acre. It gets eliminated entirely in that PUD type and instead becomes designed based on building types. So for each building type, a single family home, a duplex, a commercial building, a row home, there would be dimensions associated with them, minimum and maximum in terms of a lot size. And you would be able to build as many units as can fit within that. There would be allocations of a certain amount. So you might not be able to be in a large traditional neighborhood. Maybe you can be 50% single family homes, 50% other things. So you'd have some allocations that wind up setting some parameters, but the amount of development that you do is not restricted by an artificial number of 40 units an acre or eight units an acre. And instead becomes based on the building types, how they function together and their relationship to adjacent development. So this is a big piece of the puzzle as to how to make back up some of those concerns that John and Matt just spoke to around loss of land. That really doesn't do it. That really doesn't do it. I mean, you're allowing somebody to take 100% of their land and use 20% of it. That's a taking. I don't care how you look at it. Well, in most cases. Even if you can try to stuff 10 pounds into a two pound bag that you're still, you're still not, you know, there is market conditions that say, you know, I'm not going to put people on eighth acre lots with a 5000 fourth of 3000 foot house. It, you're not doing it. It's not, you're not getting there. Okay. I'll just note that the planning commission has been looking at the proportion, the number and the locations of properties that are substantially covered by resources. Many of the properties are not substantially covered by these resources. So for those ones, it creates a lot of additional opportunities, but your point's taken. Paul, this is Jim. My concern in so much with or leaving aside the sort of taking aspect that I just don't know practically just having gone through you know, some of the more sort of some of our recent decisions that have involved natural resources and that are, you know, maps seven and eight of the comprehensive plan. I just, I'm not sure if this, I understand the intent here, but I don't know if it's going to make it any clearer to an applicant or a neighbor or us than it is right now. I don't know if it's going to achieve that intent. Well, yeah. I mean, if we're still allowing people to, I mean, a developer, I forget the acronym you were using there, but the last slide, you know, just come up with a habitat, you know, impact report or something. Then we as the DRV are then asked to assess that and change the line accordingly. Is that the intent of that? Yes, again, as an option for the developer. Yeah, it's just, I just, it's a, that's going to be a tough thing for the board to do. And it will result in the same sort of consternation and legal challenges I think that we have now. I don't know if it will correct that. Understood. And, you know, I'm aware that there is a push and pull on the one hand certainty avoids the legal battles, but the certainty also means that a line has been drawn somewhere and that people can't change it. And then the flip side of it is that people can propose to change the line, but that brings in uncertainty. And that's, that's the, that's the challenge. Hey, Paul, the certainty is, sorry, the certainty is where you do field mapping. If you can't do field mapping, then we need to question whether what we're doing, you know. Right. The problem is that with, with habitat areas, Matt, the, the legal framework of the subject is not as evolved as it is with wetlands and flood plains and things like that. It can be field map, but people, but professionals will disagree. Yeah. And that's, that's why, that's why I'd feel like the point be getting ahead of ourselves. That's where we get the pause button. Actually 50, you know, the legislature wrestled with this for a couple of years now in there. You know, they're, they're having trouble too, I think, for this is one of the reasons. Can I ask a side question? Sort of related. So Paul, you know, I live on the front side of Dorset Meadows and, and my neighbors found an ex, you know, an excellent way to argue the thing, but their real concern was that they didn't like what the LDR is called for in that neighborhood. They want single family homes that are similar to theirs. Imagine that sitting on, on large, large lots. And the city says, no, we want density. I get that. But the whole reason that they spent all their money on this was, was to, no, I mean, you know, I'm sure they had interest in saving, saving deer and wildlife at some level. But my next door neighbor who just bought the chunk behind me is interested in putting eight or nine units on it, right? So what, I mean, if the market and the neighborhood doesn't want what the city wants, shouldn't there be a way to discuss this, to get, get people in in front of the public? I mean, I know that, you know, I'll just use liquid measurements as an example. Wanted to get in front of the, the planning commission and couldn't do it. There's, it's, this is a little fiefdom. And it needs, it needs more open. Public input. Thanks, John. I'll relay that. That's about all I had for tonight. Unless there were any other questions. Oh, can you go quickly through. So you said there's three types of PUDs. There's a conservation PUD, traditional labor PUD and a neighborhood commercial PUD. Yeah. What does. The term neighborhood commercial is a little bit confusing to me and makes it sound like there's a residential component. Is there a commercial PUD? Is that the same as the neighborhood commercial? Yes. It's essentially the same as the neighborhood commercial. So the traditional neighborhood. Is intended to largely be the same as the neighborhood commercial. So you said there's three types of PUD. There's a concentration PUD, traditional labor PUD and a neighborhood commercial PUD. Yeah. What does the term neighborhood commercial is a little bit confusing to me and makes it sound like there's a, you know, a traditional neighborhood commercial. Is intended to largely be residential with the ability for some non-residential component. The non-residential might be something commercial or it may not be. You know, south village is an example of what would be sort of a traditional neighborhood. At a larger scale. A neighborhood commercial is typically more non-residentially oriented. But it might be the concept master plan that you saw for what Joe Larkin is doing. On Shelburne Road. That's obviously a little bit of a larger version, but there can be a residential component that probably would be at least some level of a residential component, but that's not the focus. Thank you. I think there's a lot that I just, I think that it would be good to have another conversation. About some of the things that maybe as they, as they get a little bit more developed. You know, you mentioned site plans and some of the master plans. I think what I understand, you know, from sitting there, you want a day-to-day basis is that. The PUDs are really the key to this change. And then figuring out the remaining pieces will fall out of that project. But I think it would be good to update the board on those pieces as they begin to fall out as well. Absolutely. I'm also happy to. The commission. All of their work is, you know, as with the DRB is open to the public. And then the drafts are all posted. They have been trying to make up for some lost time from the summer when they weren't meeting. To put together something that's complete so that the public can see it all together because there's so many different pieces of it that it's really hard for people to track, but we will keep folks posted on, on that. You're welcome to look at anything that's out there now, but as it comes together over the next six weeks or so, I'll be happy to share it much more broadly. Okay. Thanks Paul. Thanks Matt. Appreciate it. Thanks everyone. Thanks Paul. Thanks Paul. Okay. Agenda item number six, the minutes from October 20th. We didn't have those. Did we Marla? They were not available at the time of packet public. Okay. Okay. So then moving on to agenda number seven, which is other business. Is there any other business? Yes. So at our next meeting, which is Tuesday, November 17th. We're going to be talking to our annual organization, which means. Electing a chair, vice chair and clerk. If you'd like to nominate someone, I would encourage you to talk to them in advance. You're also welcome to nominate yourselves and I will run that portion of the meeting. So don't worry too much about it. Okay. Thank you for that Marla. Are there any other other business? Okay. Thank you. And then I will conclude the self-reliant and development review board meeting for November 4th, 2020 and see you back on November 17th. Thank you. Goodbye. Thank you. Good night everyone. This conference is no longer.