 So let's go ahead and call to order the September 28 meeting of the Mobular Planning Commission. The first thing we need to do is approve the agenda. So if everyone will take a look and get a motion on that. We have a motion to approve the agenda. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. Okay. Motion by Stephanie. Oh, second. Second by John. We don't have Barb here. So we need like, you know, heavier lifting for emotions. Okay. All in favor of approving the agenda. Say aye. Aye. Can you post? Okay. Gender approved. So the next item here is for comments from the chair. The, the only thing on my mind right now is. The downtown core master plan that Mike sent around encourage everyone to take a look at that. It's loaded with ideas. Mike and I were just talking about how, I mean, the document doesn't seem to be like a binding document because it's. It has a lot of ideas and suggestions throughout and then it has some recommendations at the end. Where it's recommending some of the options over others. But it looks like, you know, it doesn't look like it's going to dictate necessarily everything that's going to happen. So anyways, but it is interesting as something that was passed by the city council. So, and it happened during our kind of dead period where we weren't meeting and late March. So, you know, I know I'm not caught up on this thing at all. So I think people should take a look. And when we get to the land use portion of the city plan, we will at least probably, you know, spend a little time looking at this thing to inform that discussion. That's all I've got. Does anybody else have any announcements or anything to share. Okay. The other thing that I have is the housing working group did meet. We did some talking about things. I put some ideas out there. Barb had put some ideas out there. And Barb is very concerned about scope. So we might not want to meet again until we have more of a scope fleshed out from the continuity and structure. Working group. But you failed at meeting. Well, yeah, I don't think I don't think there was any kind of due date for you guys anyway. So I'm not sending that to put pressure on you. I'm not sending that that we tried. We just failed, but we'll try again. Marcel and I met, but we failed and lost John. There was an email exchange and it was confusing. So sorry, John. We'll catch John up and meet again shortly. Yeah, yeah, it's no problem at all. Yeah, I don't know. I feel like I, I'm not too caught up on, on the scope. I mean, the idea is for us to get together and do some work and, you know, just extension of what we're trying to do in the planning commission, but those conversations might come up. Like I said, Barb was concerned about it. Okay. That's good. That's good update. It's good to know. And yeah, we'll look forward to hearing from you guys. Do you, do you plan to meet in the next two weeks? Yeah. Maybe. Okay. Yeah, well, we plan to meet in the next two weeks. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Good. So yeah, you can give us an update next time then. Yeah, and yeah, we probably won't have any other working group meetings in the meantime. Okay, so that sounds good. Okay. So the next item on the agenda is general business. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to discuss anything that's not on the agenda? Basically anything that doesn't have to do with potential zoning changes related to. Berry street. Sure. Andrew, if you want to unmute yourself, you're welcome to try to go and let us know what your, if you're here for the savings. Anything else. Well, I'm, I'm not 100% sure I'm in the right meeting. I was, let me pull you up. I was asked by Sean white and the friends of the new ski to be part of tonight's meeting with regards to the boat launch, but I have a feeling she may have gotten her meetings. So it's in an hour isn't on our agenda for the planning commission. That's what I thought and, and Audra was dealing with it. So I think Sean may have just had the wrong, the wrong meeting for me to attend. So, I'm just a visitor. This isn't pertain to me. It's going to say good night. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. Thanks. I thought we had someone on the phone. They gone Andrew is on the phone. Okay. There's this 802 522 number. That's him. Oh, is that Andrew that's on the phone too. Yeah, that's, that's me. I my computer doesn't do that. Okay. Okay. So I'm going to hang up. Okay. So without any other business, we will move along to. The discussion of the potential zoning changes where, you know, Mike can explain the situation for us. So Mike, I guess I had assumed that Daniel Richardson or someone would come in tonight, but. Oh, we were going in the minutes or we. Oh, I'm sorry, I did. I skipped the minutes. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, let's do the minutes first. Sorry about that. I just got it out of myself. So very well, I take a look at the minutes that Mike sent. From September 14. I guess I have a quick question. And I apologize for forgetting, but did we need to do any follow up on the banner situation. That wasn't, that was my impression. No, I think he was going to connect with the city manager's office. Okay. And then we were just getting ahead of that for like later down the road if we needed to. Yeah. I don't know. What was your opinion about it? I got the sense that he wasn't sure he just what he expected from us, but by the end of it, it became clear that we weren't directly involved. So, you know, for our information. I'll make a motion to approve. Is there was the request really for 100 plus housing units? Sorry, Marcella. Mike. It's big, right? Yeah, that's pretty, pretty much where they're at. Okay. Just make sure that's accurate. Okay. Well, we have a motion from Marcella to approve the minutes. We have a second second from Stephanie, all in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed. Okay. Minutes are approved. Now we can get on to business. And my question for Mike before he, you know, explains the whole landscape to us was, so we're not having any witnesses about this. They, so they were aware. And there was somebody who said they were going to try to make it tonight. But really a lot of this is stuff that I've worked very directly with them on. So I'm very familiar with exactly what the request is. And what the issues are. Having talked them over with the zoning administrator and some of the other folks so I'm, I'm comfortable answering the questions and handling this presentation so I guess I can just jump into a quick summary. So everybody knows, or if people don't know, you know, savings pasture out on Berry Street has been has come up from time to time as a location for potential future development. There was a large project that was proposed probably back in 2006. Like in act 250 was a very, very large proposal like 500 units or something like that. It was going to be an extensive development through there. The neighbors kind of rose up against it and formed the friends of the savings pasture and the act 250. So I don't know if it formally got appealed, but eventually things kind of settled down. Everybody agreed to mediation, trust for public lands kind of helped to moderate things and they came into a, an agreement with a development team to kind of put in 150 160 units. And have some conserved land and have a couple so it's going to meet a number of goals that was all wrapped up and completed in 2008 2009, just in time for the great recession and that deal went flat. Family the Zorzi H a family still own the farm. It's not being farmed anymore but the open land is still owned by the family, and they are still interested in selling it. Some of the owners are getting older and are really interested in moving it along at this point, either to sell it to a developer or develop it themselves. Doug Zorzi tends to be one of the, the main players he lives on lives across the street there so he's one of the main players and another gentleman Alan Goldman, who's a local developer has also taken an interest in trying to facilitate a project there so the two of them are working to work on some ideas and see what they can do. We've got the TIF, the tax increment finance which allows public infrastructure that needs to support private development. They are in the TIF district, at least the lower part of savings pasture is is in the TIF district so some of the public infrastructure needs like sewer and water and roads those are potential investment that we could put into assist that project because we're trying to keep the units affordable and to put in all the infrastructure is going to start to make the project unaffordable to folks so we want to try to do what we can. So, in similar to like the parking garage, and a couple other projects we kind of have two, two different groups going at the same time in the city. One group is working through the manager's office, and they're working on the, the, the public private partnership side of this, this deal. So, what private interests and you know how much is the city going to contribute and if the city is going to contribute what do we want. So, you know, like we can't through our zoning regulations require public access to a park. We can through the through the an agreement to go through and say hey we've got TIF. If we're going to use TIF and we're or we're going to use other public funds. We want something in return and our other thing we want in return is a public access to a park and a protection of certain features. And so that side of things is really being managed through the manager's office. My office looks at is really kind of the more nuts and bolts of the regulations, you know what can they do what are they required to do what can we do, you know to help them get through the process. And so on that front, the development team and savings has talked to us about what needs they have so they're they've they've just done some conceptual stuff they have no applications in. They're just talking in conceptual worlds right now and some of the things that have come up deal with. It's a subdivision conditional use so it's going to touch on traffic requirements and what are we going to require from them. So we're going to require a traffic study. But they don't know how this is going to play out because of the very in main intersection obviously traffic leaving a portion of that traffic is going to head down into town into the city and it's going to impact that intersection which is a failed intersection, but the city has plans to improve it. How do we, how did they navigate that process. And so there are a number of these barriers that come up and as we look deeper into the zoning we find a few others that tend to come up. That'll present barriers to make projects not be able to happen there. So what they gave us was in that memo was really one of the four big changes we had talked. I talked with Dan Richardson who's their attorney in depth about all four and his, his memo kind of outline just one which was to look at the additional use traffic requirements. And to getting into the details of that was really if we just struck that section a, a lot of the problems go away. And if you read his memo you, you can see that he really kind of laid out a case that said the performance standard is there. And therefore we really don't need a for the development review board to have every right to deny this application if they felt so. But at this point there's kind of a gray box what do you do when you've got an intersection that's a level F or level E or level D. We don't have any way of being able to assess that because the, the regulations are silent. So what do we do with these, you know, a class F intersection. What is really important is in that number two that the DRB can look at whether the traffic generated by the proposed development, whether it is unreasonable and disproportionately contributes to a reduction in level of service for the effective streets and intersections for all modes of travel. The question is, if we, if they put housing in and let's say their traffic model said it would make traffic at the very intersection go from three minutes and 30 seconds to three minutes and 40 seconds delay. It is a delay. It is making things worse. But is that, you know, unreasonable and disproportionate. It's already a failed intersection and has nothing to do with anything that they've done. At the same time, the way this is written, even a very small project if somebody else on Barry Street decided they wanted to go from a four unit to a five unit and it was a conditional use. They would have to meet this traffic requirement and theoretically would be denied because even adding one more car to that intersection would, you know, would make it worse. Because of substance, because of a little letter a, it puts them in a position where they probably, you know, could we even approve that and so what they felt was, we have all the ammunition if this if the development review board wants to deny this project, they certainly could, based on the standard that's written in point a and the conditions and one two and three. And that's all the power that they need to be able to manage traffic and to evaluate traffic and, you know, under point B it's going to be required to have a traffic study so you know that's not an issue. And the real issue is just with that little letter a. And then we get to the other three which are, which are a little bit easier to talk about but that was really their, their first one in their primary one was that they felt traffic was going to be very difficult for them to evaluate. Okay, so does anybody have questions about the first I can just take these items as they as they come here so does anyone have any questions about this. And I sent a strike out copy earlier today for anyone who may have gotten it. Yeah, I have that pulled up I thought that was a little easier to review. Gonna be, yeah, pretty much needed pulled up to review the exact language here. So, sorry. So that language into a, I'm looking at your strike out copy. That's a class one or class two streets should be maintained at a level of service of at least see, does that just mean if it, if they don't meet that it just gets denied is that what you're saying. Well that's that's that's the unspoken question is okay well what do we do if you're on a class one and two street very main intersection is class one in class two. And that intersection is currently a level F. So if you have to maintain it at a level. See for unsignalized in D for signalized so it's currently unsignalized it will become signalized under a proposal. The scoping study said they're going to put in a light there, and it'll improve that intersection. Now whether it'll improve it from an F to a D is unknown at this time it probably won't. But the question is if you if they if if the improvement to that intersection doesn't meet a D, then what there's it's silent on that specific situation. I would just say from a conceptual standpoint, I'm, I feel strongly that I wouldn't want an intersection that we already knows failed to be the reason that we don't add new housing when we know we need new housing. That doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Yeah, and Mike the background for how this subsection ended up in the zoning. I remember this came from city council, the planning commission had come up, we were at a loss, to be honest, about how to deal with traffic, we didn't understand what the stuff really meant, even after he's explained to us. So we came up with something the city council rejected it as it should have because we were clueless, but then it did this which one might argue is also clueless. So I think that's kind of the history here anyway. And Mike you can augment my statements of yeah that yeah a little bit of the history on that. The part that's being struck was the part that was inserted by our consultant that we had been working that we've been working with, and we through the planning came up with a different number one and number two. So when it got to city council, they had a different one and two, but a was, you know this A and B were still here. When it got to council they didn't like how one and two were laid out so Tom McCartle who was director at the time, said, you know what, I'm going to take a little bit of time and he came up with. This is what he wants to look at because their staff does our traffic impact analysis for us we don't in our planning department have the background on that so we anytime we have a traffic analysis we send it over to them. As in traffic engineers they take a look at it they give an evaluation they said this is what we would look at one and two. They replaced the one and they replaced the two, but they kept the a and they kept the B. Which is kind of why if you look at them as as together and I think Dan Richardson points this out that you know that the little letter a almost doesn't even talk to its requirement above it. And that's because they really were built in two different pieces and and. And that's why I'm, I'm, I'm okay and I would support striking it because I think everything we need is there and the DRB has all the information to approve or deny whether little letter a is there little a is not. I think the power is there for them to make an informed decision on whether something is unreasonable and disproportionate. And if they all change to a project results in five more cars, they easily have the ability to say, that's not unreasonable, and it's not disproportionate. But at the same time, as Tom pointed out when he was arguing for the new number two. It could be unreasonable and disproportionate if you had, say an intersection that was operating at a level a. If you proposed a project that was going to be big and was going to take it from an a to a C. Well according to little letter a that's, we would have to approve that, even though it really is making, you know, a disproportionate impact on the intersection, it could prevent future development from happening in that same area because that one project has used basically used up all of the capacity of that intersection so that project but they could also deny that project but little letter a kind of starts to muddy the waters in the sense was a little bit unnecessarily. I have one question here just for everyone to think about. The reason that Stephanie mentioned about about letting traffic in the way of things, you know, too much. I don't necessarily want this, but currently sub two says that proposed development shall not unreasonably and disproportionately contribute that is a seems to me like a really hard hurdle. I mean, I don't. It's hard to imagine something being both of those and being rejected. For instance, something could be unreasonable, but because it just contributes to something that's really out of control in a very direct way, but compared maybe with other similar uses or similar development it's not disproportionate. And it just seems like something that can. I don't know that it's, I don't know it seems like really hard for the DRB to ever even strictly enforce that change the end to an or that's probably the. Yeah, let's see that's what I'm getting as I mean if if we actually were concerned about that standard being used I think it makes sense as an or. I want to see what other people thought about it. I don't know. I mean I think the whole motion of these standards are ridiculous. Like calling art these intersections in our downtown failing. They're just these outdated metrics that you know, I think California has just outlawed them all together. And what it really is if we're banning things based on traffic impacts we're just pushing development out further that they're just going to drive into our downtown anyway right like we're just increasing the vehicle miles traveled so like when really should we be using traffic as the reason to deny a project has more to do with circulation and is there like an immediate impact that could help improve circulation like should there be a signalized intersection or roundabout as an entrance to the subdivision like is there something reasonable that an applicant can do that would make the situation better as opposed to, you know, oh we would like growth here and the parameters we've set out and all the design requirements, etc, etc. Oh and thanks for building all of that you can't build here because you're going to contribute, you know, more to our downtown which we want to be bustling like what doesn't make any sense. Yeah, I mean I advocated it for it before and for just getting rid of all of it together, getting rid of it all together, at least for our downtown and immediate area where we want development. If as a city we're going to commit to providing the infrastructure that allow for development to happen there. You know, like the we always have this straw man of of the a intersection that this mysterious development will drop it to an F like, can that, is there actually any situation we can think of where that'll happen. And, you know, maybe there is but I'm struggling to imagine it. So, if, if what's being proposed, you know, meets the applicant's need and I want to also be respectful to public works. And I, they want something objective to look at right. That's not going to mess up the system that they're managing so when when we're looking at unreasonable or or disproportionate, can we add if we're going to keep those can we at least just add a number like are they adding more than 20% vertical trips for that intersection. You know, like, if we can start quantifying these things I think applicants and probably DPW and then planning staff could review it and say, you know this number is greater than this number, you know, here's here's the next step there. So, I, that's my rent, I'm going to get up for a second I can still hear everyone I just have to go turn the oven off. John, would you be I'm not like walking out and you're not starving out. Yeah, I have some follow up questions for you though about I mean, are we talking you mentioned adding in percentages or something but could we are you are you also considering maybe dropping something like sub two so that we are only looking at one and dropping what like sub two here is the part about traffic generated unreasonable disproportionate that stuff. If you if we remove that entirely, then the other two standards that are here for traffic is one of them is one that you touched on which seems like maybe you'd be in favor of which would be reasonable measures have been taken to minimize or mitigate the amount of traffic because that is something we want them to at least consider right and then the first one is that the volume type and timing of traffic generated by the proposed wellness shall not be substantially greater than what would normally occur at nearby uses and other permitted uses in the neighborhood which for Barry Street would be a lot I would think or planned uses, you know, it says permitted. So, I mean, if you're looking at what's, if it's, if it's similar to what's permitted on Barry Street than that's seems like a lot. So, but it's like, it's, if it's similar to what's permitted. Then how, how would someone be. It's either permitted or it's not right. If it's not that it would be not permitted. Yeah, it kind of takes care of itself. Yeah. For people who want a standard to look at Right. It's a pretty easy box to check. Yeah, I think what number one is looking at is a little bit of, you know, if, let's say there's a certain amount of truck traffic that occurs. And your truck traffic is relatively in the same timeframe as these others. That's one thing, but if your truck traffic, everybody else's trucks are from nine to five and your trucks are going to be at six in the morning to eight in the morning. You know, that's one where it might be looking at that to go through and say we'll be, you know, looking at the other uses in the neighborhood, you know, the traffic generated is going to be of a different type or different, it will have a different impact on the character of the neighborhood and if it is a residential neighborhood like that early in the morning could be more disproportionate but if it's the same truck traffic on Berry Street that's going on that everybody else has going on at the same times and then it's in the same measure then it probably will meet the standard of, you know, ultimately the question is whether it will have an undue adverse effect upon the traffic in the area. And ultimately that's what we're trying to evaluate. Real quick, so I don't want to, I don't want to bog us down here. I mean, is there any interest in doing anything like going further than what Mike suggesting here to remove anything additional. Yeah, I'd be interested in removing, if I'm understanding correctly, just the whole of number two. Along with that would we would sub a become like the new sub two, or are we talking about removing that sub a here is the development review board may factor in the results of a traffic impact study when one is required, but that that's something that that's something that's linked to that language and to right now. I think we could promote that up to its own number two. Number one would be number one number two would be that one and number three would be reasonable measures have been taken to minimize or mitigate traffic on the proposed development. That's usually the one that gets thrown in for people who need to have turning lanes. You know, what can we pin to the developer to go through and say yeah we're going to do this, but you know you can mitigate your traffic impacts by putting in a turning lane. Okay. So, do we do we have a motion to or yeah let me let's do this let's do this one motion at a time for each of the items. So do we have a motion to delete sub two and a and to turn the current sub B into a sub two. Yes. Okay, so john's making that motion. Second seconded by Stephanie, all in favor of that change say I Oh, there's this. I'm sorry I just skipped a step there there's there is discussion. There's enough. There's a discussion step do we have any further discussion before we go to the vote on this. I do have a question. I mean, I'm just worried about the development review board may factor in the results of the traffic impact study I mean I'm just worried about if it's a controversial development, can that be used to, you know, kill a new development project and I don't quite. Maybe somebody else can answer that for me because I don't quite understand. It's really a weird appeal that to suggest that the DRB didn't chose not to consider or they may. It is an odd like, we can, we can clarify if we can clarify what it means by adding a lead in language that says, in applying the other two standards, comma, the development review board may factor in the results of traffic impact study, in which case we should probably move it down to swap swap it with three so that it comes to the end. So just a question I'm just sort of wondering if we even need that language so the developer review board today fact they've, I mean, if they're looking at this because it's traffic they can consider. They just already can do that I don't know. I'm not saying this eloquently at all. But I'm wondering why we even need to state that. I figured that the DRB would look at a traffic impact study in any instance right. Probably probably a fair, fair assessment if we give them the power under point B to have a traffic impact study into require one then it's not that much of a reach to go and say that they can actually use the results of it. In fact, if we if we did include it, it could be construed as limiting mean they can't look at other things. So it may end up hurting. Yeah, or they may factor in when one is required but what I mean does it ever happen that one isn't required and there is one. It's just a confusing sentence I agree. So, right because B says, sorry, he says that the developer review board may require an applicant to submit a professional prepared traffic impact study. So if they do that they're obviously going to be reviewing that. Right. To suggest that they just almost suggest that they should be looking at something else right. All right, I'll amend the motion to toss that to toss to to delete all of sub two sub a and sub B. I'll amend the updated motion. Yeah. Okay. So I'm sorry I have a quick question before we vote on this, just because I had some distractions are going on, while we were discussing this, what's the, what's in a quick brush stroke, why get rid of the core sub two. I understand getting rid of a and B but I mean maybe John could feel this way my impression is that you know as we're thinking that it's an unnecessary standard. We don't see anything there that's as relevant as one in three one in three covers what our concerns are with traffic. Yeah, I, I, you missed my rant before having to turn the, the oven off where and this is happened at the, when we originally passed it and the zoning and sensitivity council which I think are the ones who added this but we felt that the notion of the LOS and the spirit of this is sort of in the dated engineering standard and and really the notion of a failed intersection, like Barry and main in our downtown is just not a concept that makes a whole lot of sense when we're trying to encourage development and our goal is not to like have cars fly through downtown Montpelier as fast as possible. So if we're, if we're denying developments based on this it doesn't make a whole lot of sense because we're just pushing it out further and would increase the number of vehicle miles traveled anyway. At the same time, you know, we want to know, are there things that applicants can do to improve circulation for all modes of travel like putting in a signalized intersection or roundabout, but not, not create a situation where you know the last one in has to either pay for everything or nothing can ever happen again. So that sort of just to put a fine point on it. I guess my question is, does the level of service issue is that do you feel like that's taken care of in sub a and three. Do you have an answer john. You're muted. You're muted john saying I'm on a small screen here and I lost that tab so I was trying to look up what those were specifically here. The question is, does the level of service piece that's discussed in sub two does that have value and how did the DRB approaches. That's what john is saying is outdated. He's saying he's saying he doesn't think it has value that it's fair enough. Okay, so do we have any more discussion. Those in favor of suggesting that the section be amended to remove sub two and sub parts a and B. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed. Okay, so that's six oh, for that recommendation. All right, so what's, what's the next one Mike. The next one's really easy. If you flip over to the next page of what I had sent, which is looking in in the subdivision standards, three 504 also talks about traffic, except they had slightly different rules. So, when the city council adjusted. Some of the language. They adjusted it in conditional use but never reflected it in the subdivision so what I put what I what we discussed here in the office was just to come up with some language to the effect of the traffic provisions for subdivisions shall be the same as those that apply to conditional use applications in section 3303, except that the word subdivision shall be substituted for development where applicable. As we make changes to traffic requirements under one standard, it's going to be the same standard applying in both cases and not making a different analysis. This should get especially complicated if somebody was doing a subdivision for conditional use application if their traffic analysis actually could be they could actually be approved under one and not approved under the other but by making them the same it's going to it makes the most sense doesn't make any sense to have a different traffic requirement. I mean drafting wise. I guess it's fine to say the word subdivision shall be substitute for development. Think that that would be confusing in any scenario. Okay. So I think that's what I have then would be make sure people understand what that really means. Yeah, I mean because currently between the two versions, the only thing that. Well, I mean there were some differences of how the text was structured, but in a sense, most of it was identical just replacing that you know the applicant shall demonstrate that the pros development will not have an undue adverse effect upon and this one here says the proposed subdivision will not have an undue adverse effect upon. So, that's why we chose to propose it that way. Well, so I look like there's any questions about this one do we have a motion for this. We have to we have a motion to accept my suggestion and make that our suggestion, which is to delete most of section 3504 a and to delete all of it and replace it with one line that says the traffic provision of subdivision shall be the same as those that apply to conditional use applications in section 3303, except of the word subdivision shall be substituted for development were applicable. Anyone want to make that motion. I'll make the motion. Okay, Stephanie. I should get my verb it's right actually I think it's what it would anyone like to move. Take the boy out of Tennessee. Okay. Move. Motion by Stephanie seconded by Marcella all those in favor, say I, or no do we have a disc. I got to train myself do we have a discussion of the thing we just discussed. Okay. So it appears we do not so all those in favor say I, I was opposed. Okay, so 60 for that one. Thank you, Mike. What's up next. The next two. Go back to our endless conversations for anyone who is here when we did the zoning back to plain unit developments. So. And these got proposals you guys made and they were amended at the city council as well so some of these are not exactly what you guys had talked about. But in two places in our planned unit developments which are a type of subdivision. There were places where the council required that planned unit developments be used. And the tricky part of this is that the projects that are being proposed as you know as as standard subdivisions make a lot of sense. And that's how they're, they're looking in savings pasture or in other places this they're a couple, there's another project that will be impacted by these as well. Because under the applicability, in other words who needs to meet a new development new neighborhood development, they are required for developments of either 40 parcels or dwelling units. The unit somebody does 40 units. And we have a potential project separate from savings that may also have more than 40 units, and it's on a single parcel, and it's a single project of a, you know, be a large residential project. And they're automatically would be kicked into having to meet these new neighborhood development requirements which they can't meet. So, I, I didn't like the requirement for either one of these new neighbor for either one of these PUDs I think if somebody wants to take advantage of them, we have them and made them available but as soon as you start requiring them. They're impacting a number of projects that can't meet them. They're either going to take a project that could have 50 units, and they will simply go down and make them 39 units so they don't have to meet it and we're the only ones who are going to lose out on the additional housing units. I, I think if somebody wants to get any of the benefits they obviously have to meet these these requirements but my opinion has been. I would not require people to meet these especially in the cases of the savings project it really is building another city street and subdividing on that city street to create new lots and some of the requirements that are in the new neighborhood are things that they're either not, they don't want to meet or aren't going to be able to meet. So, that's just a strike point B which requires it or number two that requires it. And the same is going to be true in the next one which is conservation subdivisions. Number three requires, requires them to meet that as well. Can you elaborate on the elements of like the new neighborhood that they can't or do not want to meet. So they don't need to have any density bonuses. So they haven't yet built out what their proposal are for the for some of their proposals. So one I think got down to the open space requirement, either a quarter acre or 40% of the parcel whichever is greater shall be set aside as permanently protected open space. So, in a project such as theirs where they're there. It's 100 acre parcel, and they're going to be developing and meeting all the requirements in the lower pasture to fit all of their 100 units in the lower pasture which is what they want, and it meets all the zoning. That's required for that. And yet they're going to have to set us set aside permanently 40% for open space now they may end up doing that anyways through the public private partnership, or a portion of it. But that ends up being more of a, that ends up being a lot of land I mean 40% it's setting aside 40 acres. Without that requirement they can build everything that the lower, the area with the lower portion parcel is is would allow I believe 175 units, and they're going to be putting in 100 something they haven't come up with a final, you know it's at 125 is 140 they they haven't nailed that down yet. So they're, they're less than the density that's required under there. But because they're doing more than 40 units they're going to be required to set aside 40% of their land. As permanently protected open space. So they have a conservation commission open space. Yeah, so they had a couple requirements in in there. So I mean it's not, it's not impossible for them to meet a number of these other requirements that are in there. They already have design requirements that they have to meet. And they're already going to have street design requirements that they have to meet that are in the subdivision rules. So these are a little bit duplicative of stuff they're going to have to meet anyways. There is a requirement that development shall include the mixes of housing types both single and multi unit, no more than 75% of dwelling units may be of the same type. That might be a problem they're doing a number of larger. So multi family housing is their plan. So, because there's a limited amount of space that you can, because it has these topographic limitations, it has a certain amount that is going to be a challenge to get that they're probably end up with more single family. So they, if they do develop the upper pasture, but most of the lower pasture will be developed as multi family. More of the larger larger block units so they're I think they're going to be a few places where it's going to be a challenge. But until we see more of the details. We won't know that one. The subdivision subdivision is a much more challenging one for them to meet. Then, then the new neighborhood, but we can talk about that one after we go through this one. Mike, can you, can you describe like your understanding of the gist of what this is, what, you know, what the, the buildings are going to be like, is it going to be like, like Murray Hill condos, because like a line of condos or something I did. We don't have any plans at this point. All we've seen is a little bit of the road infrastructure, because there's a separate project next to them, and we've been trying to build a common road that goes up that would basically be across the street from Caledonia spirits there and the road that heads up and then could go into make a right hand turn and then go into savings pasture and then it follows the grade. It's, it's basically follows about an 8% grade there's a single road that would be able to head up to reach the upper pasture. And then there'd be a number of buildings that would be on the left and right of that coming down to the bottom and then there's only buildings on the, I would say the upper side of the road, because the road is down at the railroad tracks at that point. So, I think they're looking at a number of 810 12 unit buildings maybe something of that size. There's many specifics at this point and they're not there. They're still looking at whether these are senior housing are these, you know, they're they're still exploring the uses, but they've got to start to fit them into certain standards. I can maybe provide a little bit of context for some of the commissioners who maybe weren't there at the time. And some of the context for this was that there was a lot of attention placed on this property and area and the discussion was was at first fairly binary in terms of people against density and then others. Not against it and it was not very constructive and when we I think got more conversation going the concern had nothing to do with density at all and far more to do with design and as well as has access to, you know, the natural features. And there is a fairly large stream or wetland threat that through the property there. The new neighborhood part was sort of crafted with a lot of feedback on from folks in that surrounding neighborhood in terms of addressing their concerns while still trying to allow for without putting limits on on the number of households that that we could welcome. There's a lot of filial on that property. So the shift. It really shifted towards design that tried to address people's concerns. Now when it when it got sent to the city council. The zoning district did get changed or got the parcel got split and part of it got put into rural which I don't even know how that that seems like it might be problematic in terms of how are you. Do you now have to have a conservation subdivision and a new neighborhood I don't know. It may be problematic for it. And I think as as with anything when we start to get into these design standards. Sometimes it's easy for us. Another just keep tacking things on that we all support in theory but before we know it may become very difficult to actually do. And I'm not. I haven't looked at these very closely in a long time but all that to say. I would think that there might be a possibility to either improve some of these or it could be that changing the zoning district or there may be a way to address some of this. I would not be comfortable just tossing it especially without one the applicant not coming and requesting or explaining any of this and without getting any feedback or notifying I think I think folks in the surrounding area. That would be short sighted of us. Yes of course we would have to warn a public hearing but I think addressing some of these you know before it gets to a public hearing might be wise of us to do when when this is a relatively high profile or could be a controversial proposal. Thanks John. Yeah I think John John was right and I, I completely forgot about that. So when we, when we developed the planning commission, our approach to savings pastor. We came out with a proposal that says we're going to make it all residential 6000, which would allow about 400 units in the entire area. But if you're going to do a lot of units, we required you to do a few. We're going to take this bit of approach of saying we want everybody to cluster all the development at the bottom of the hill. But we're going to keep it all at a medium density and hope that people use the PUD and take advantage of it to put the development at the bottom of the hill which is going to be parent and stick approach. The proposal came in, they simply said no, we're just going to mandate that the units all go at the bottom of the hill by putting this in the riverfront district and putting the top in rural. And so that allowed for the exact same amount of units almost within like 10 or 15 units it came out pretty close 400 and something units. So they pretty much forced the PUD by the zoning rules. So doing that on like the last day. Some of these other things like requiring the PUD stayed in so now we've required everybody to be at the bottom and now we're going to require a PUD, which is kind of they're not working well together because they weren't intended to work in this way they were intended to have low density and use this as an incentive to have developers take advantage of it. So once you've required everybody to be together. Now it starts to become strange that you've got these two requirements one one for the rural part and another one for the lower part that and the question starts coming up do we have to keep 40% of the lower higher density area or you know how do these how do these work together. So you know john's right there was this was proposed to work one way. We made some changes that city council afterwards and we can go back and revisit this in whatever format we want but I think we have to keep that context in the back of our mind that it was intended to work in a different way so we may have to make some adjustments. So Mike I have a related question and that we if we were to remove density requirements citywide, which is like it's you know that's a movement that's happening. It's happening in other places. Would there be any incentive at all for anyone to put in a PUD. I think I said this when we were doing when we were talking about this initially that I've been doing this for about 20 years and people spend a lot of time working on PUD rules and I see very few pities ever done, unless they're associated with a condominium. The project will usually require the need for a PUD because they're of how they're grouping the units and making things so very rarely do I see people using them at all in the first place. But do we, I mean, should we make like relaxed dimensional standards I mean do we need, and this is I'm asking everyone that's not just Mike, but I mean, do we, do we need to make the PUDs have more incentive or I'd see, you know, John's right I agree with John again on that. It's it's all about the design really what we want is good design. And I think your idea and I, you know, Barb, and I replied to Barb and you guys on that. Should we get rid of the density question. I don't think it's a bad idea it's a conversation we had on the VPA lists serve about city of South Burlington who is looking at it. It's an interesting proposal because it really is kind of getting a little bit to form based code where, you know, right now 3035% of all housing units are occupied by a single person. But most of our units are our two two bedroom apartment units. And if somebody were to build a building, you know you could have identical size building, you know maybe a 4000 square foot footprint three stories and you can fit so many units in it. But you're limited. So you might not put any studios or single bedroom apartments in there because if I did I just have to make it a two story building because I'm not allowed to have any more units, even though really the impact on the neighborhood is negligible because of the number of bedrooms is, you know, you could have a, I'm allowed to have 10 three bedroom apartments or 10 studios. So I think really the impact of 10 three bedrooms is going to be bigger on the neighborhood than the studio so why not just regulate the bulk and massing of the building and let the developer decide how they want to based on economics and the population dynamics, how many three bedrooms should I make how many two bedrooms should I make and how many studios should I make, because I can only I only I can only get a box so big because I'm regulated by footprint I'm regulated by height, and I'm regulated by the amount of lot coverage. Why not give people the freedom to put in the number of units. I don't, I don't want to go to argument but I don't it's a policy argument for right. I think that we are going to probably have that discussion sometime. But we don't even have a discussion now the discussion being about whether or not we just want to get rid of density requirements all together so that's a that's a whole big thing. But yeah, I just to bring it back to the conversation that we're having here is, you know, if, if, if not for the density bonus, which doesn't seem like that much of an incentive I mean these guys don't need the density bonus. Yeah. They have no reason to voluntarily participate. I think and I think this whole thing just seems schizophrenic in general, like, there's a lot of, like, like, they want a PUD here. But which, which the only reason you a developer would want that is to get density bonus, but then people are really seem concerned about the density. So it seems a little bit like self, you know, contradictory. Maybe that there's, there's, you know, essentially what people want is good design, and they would like an element of this property to be to be conserved right and you can't require that conservation. But if you are offering something like a density bonus, then, and I think that's how this was crafted, then legally, they can develop their property and they don't have to conserve it. But if they are developing it to, we're allowing them to develop it more greater than they would otherwise, if they provide these amenities. So I'm not, and I'm just putting that out there that I think that might be why some of that is there and I think people might may may not have understood like that the density is really tangential but that legally we would need to offer something in order to have that additional requirement. That's why that's where the second hand comes in that's why the manager's office is going to work on a public private partnership is because they need something they can't build this project without the city. It's just not going to financially fly so we're here to to work with the TIF funding to go and bring in the sewer and water and the roads, help offset some of their costs and in exchange, we can ask for stuff. One of the things that obviously on that list is going to be some kind of park. How big it is that's that's the negotiation that happens on that side by that public access on from our side. We can protect the wetlands we can protect those natural resource natural features that are in there. There is floodplain there is. There's steep slopes, and we can go through and make sure the development does not impact those. We can look at storm water, and we can look at the design and the parking and what the screening looks like, and all of those types of aspects of the project. So that's on our side but I think that's where I think that's where our conversation has to look is at those regulations what are the rules. We want to require not only for this one. If if we did keep this, I would still like to get rid of the, you know, if my recommendation to strike number two doesn't work. I still would like to strike the dwelling units. I think the 40 dwelling units. I'm considering this almost came into effect in in the downtown when we were talking about building the transit center, which first was proposed with 40 dwelling units. We do have an exemption for urban center one which would have gotten them out anyways, but this other proposal that is being considered also has 40 dwelling units. So I'm going to go and drop it to 35 just to avoid having to meet other other requirements that don't relate because it's a, it's a, it's a pair of buildings that, you know, on a single parcel, where most of the rest of this is really looking at a neighborhood, where we're building 40 single family homes. And we're going to design this in a certain way as opposed to somebody who's in a high density residential district. You know that's a 29 unit an acre district, and they're going to build, you know, they've got enough land to go and support building more than 40 units but now they have to make it a new neighborhood even though it's a single parcel. So to kind of frame, like the situation that John brought up is that there was a lot of discussion, a lot of public input related to this particular requirement. But that's that alone is not the full context because Mike points out that the entire area was rezoned right before the final zoning subdivisions were passed. So that changed the context of this. What, what do we want to do about about that issue that the public was involved but then again it's like, it's out of context to say that we would be completely undoing what the public was expecting because that was already that you know that it was already changed by city council at the last second. I feel like it would be good to have specific reasons why we're changing this. We've had nobody attend, and the only documentation we have from the property owner relates to traffic. The planning commission is going to be the ones recommending this. And we have no real documentation as to why I don't know. Or anyone on record even asking for it. It seems tenuous. I can, I can pass that long to them and see if they want to put some specific requests together and then the next meeting. I think I think one policy reason for making this change is that for most of the discussion and the creation of these PUD sections and zoning. They weren't they weren't thought of as being used as a restrictive tool. They were meant at the opposite to be an option for people. This provision makes it a restriction instead. I think that that that would be a reason why I would be concerned with, you know, forcing PUDs on to developments. But I also agree that we should ask for more before making a change. Anybody else have any thoughts about that? Does that sound fine to leave it until we know more concretely about. I don't know why the developer might want this change. And does anybody have it. Anybody like to address what Mike raised and not make some Mike doesn't feel ignored. He did mention possibly us removing the dwelling units part of the provision but. That seems like that seems like a core thing if we're not going to change it at all. Or if we're not going to change the other part. Good Stephanie. My question was around the development of this job from what you were saying, I wasn't clear was the planning and development created specifically with savings pastor in mind. Not the only property. There's another website of town. Yeah. Okay, but specifically looking at those two big properties. And how they get developed. They would vary. They had large properties in mind. So another option would be. So, you know, creating a minimum parcel size. So it's not picking up things that this wasn't intended for. As another option, but I'm not sure that's, that's the first option for that people want to see. That would be, I think simple and at least avoid some negative unintended consequences. If it is only for one parcel, we do run the potential of spot zoning. Mike, it sounded like there were at least in the downtown, there are ways to get out of this anyway. Urban center one. Yeah, but we have a number of higher density. Presidential riverfront district presidential 1500 all are relatively high density, which is basically river station. The down street property on very street that's pretty much built at 29 units an acre for somebody who's trying to visualize what that would look like. That's the density of that project pioneer over on pioneer street the the old. The old mill building there that was restored. That's another one that's 29 units an acre. It's an apartment building kind of gives visually what what that density looks like on the ground. You know the lane shops next to me right here is like 80 units an acre. The one that some of the highest density ones are right next to Kirby there on on the river there those are. What those were 6050 60 units an acre something like that. I'm looking at an 80 unit an acre development and all I hear is crickets right now. And a couple of like chicken should be in bed but there's one chicken that seems to be running around. Yeah, I will ask them to provide some input on that and again the conservation subdivision is another one that that certainly has some other issues that administratively when the city council made changes. It's how they require subdivisions of four more parcels in 10 years. It ends up becoming very administratively difficult because if somebody were to subdivide let's say a 50 acre parcel into five parcels and sell them. In separate parcels we have to track them in house, but one other person could then go and take one of their parcels and subdivide it and therefore prevent everybody else from being able to subdivide their parcel again because of the way it's they've all been sold and now you'd want it to subdivide yours again, but you can't or the number of units because the one person over here, you know, func down a five unit building. And it just, just the way logically, it's envisioning as if one person subdivides the five keeps all five parcels and then we're going to regulate them going forward. A lot of times, even if somebody subdivided it into five parcels only sold off one that one person could use up all the development rights from all the other projects on their one parcel. And administratively just becomes crazy because of the way the conservation subdivision is written so it's another one. If there's one that really, really needs work. It's the conservation subdivision because I think it's, it's very difficult, especially when you get into the minimum 40% maximum 60% or alternatively here's here's another one you've got a 50 acre parcel. I sell five acres to john. John then turns around and subdivides, triggering the entire original subdivision of two into a conservation subdivision where 40 to 60% must be conserved. Well, who has to do that conservation. John, who owns five acres or is it me 45 acres. And wait a second here I lot subdivision so why am I now in a conservation subdivision I only made a one lot one, you know a two lot subdivision and sold one parcel. Now all of a sudden 60% of my parcel is being concerned at how fair is that and how can we legally do that but the way the conservation subdivision is written. Legally, if john does that he actually could revert all that conservation back on me and it's, it's, it's a administratively it's, it doesn't work and it's just fortunate that we don't get a lot of subdivisions in these rural areas, but it is very problematic in the way it's, the way it's set up and if you were to read through it and start to follow out some possible paths. You'd start to realize how, how tricky that one is just to track and follow and, but, but again I can, we can talk about that. So those are those requests on to the savings development team and see if they can put together some thoughts. I'm sure Dan can put together a more coherent, because therefore more familiar with what their project is we we have very little here in our office of what exactly is being proposed and I think they're not sure what they're proposing because they're not sure what rules they have to meet. So that's really a lot of this initial conversation right now is, you know, do I have to meet this or not. And we're like well right now you do. So, let's see what where this goes and what that would mean for your project but we can let them go with that. Well, I like to believe that when we do things like this. You know, we're being asked to look at something because of a property owner. But I at least tell myself that we are not just following what proper like, you know, this, we're not just following the squeaky wheel that this is just our opportunity to re examine what's working with some new information. Right. So, so I'm always fine when we want to make like a, you know, policy decision that's off of what exactly is in front of us or just to re examine the whole thing, which sounds like kind of what we're doing. I don't know with that in mind do we want to go ahead and take a look at the fourth suggestion to see if, if it's this in the same category of concern the job is mentioning before. It appears that Carolyn can hear me right now and I will tell her she did a fantastic job in the Shakespeare play last weekend. I've had fun that she can't hear you. Oh, I should have noticed. Well, you can relay that. Do we want to take a look at the fourth thing here, the conservation subdivision. Yeah, I mean I gave most of this the same summary it mostly just comes down to the requirement piece for subdivisions of four more parcels and 10 years in the rural district. And the parcels are counted as another part of the PUD. Again, a lot of these already. These were tended to be less directly associated with the savings and Crestview projects because those were already in residential 6000 residential 9,000 as we developed the rules. And then really later on that they ended up in that savings ended up in the conservation, the rural residential area for conservation so now the development in the rural will be a conservation PUD in the lower portion, depending on how we figure out how these two play with each other. In the rural districts. New neighborhoods does not apply in the rural area, but the parcel that we're talking about includes some land in rural and some land in riverfront. And the other one applies to the rural district but not to the lower pasture. So it's kind of like we've got a PUD that's required up here and a PUD that's required down here but it's a single parcel. So we're going to have to figure out how these interact. Or maybe we make it all one zoning district. That would probably complicate their project, but do we is always an option. We do we have the same concerns I mean this does seem a bit different this does this doesn't have doesn't seem like the same. It wasn't as controversial or concerning to the public. Like, do you think it has the same concerns john that we should we should wait before moving something like this or do you think we'd be okay too. I would like more reasoning or even more time to think about and go through what the implications would be because I'm not. I don't know. I think that as currently laid out or our current regulations have some problems and that they need addressing. I just don't know if just getting rid of crossing those things out. One gets them what they what they were, you know, or what we really want as a community and does it, like what are the implications one way or another, are we going to either not get the most we can out of the, you know, having units there and are we going to get an optimal design or not. Did this change proposed change come directly from the developer or they, you know, the property owners or was this one that you were more concerned with. It came up in our conversation with them, as we were trying to go through what were the possible issues that would come up. They had identified the new neighborhood requirement. We didn't get into it a lot with the specifics at the time of which ones are going to be issues. And they talked about the requirement there. You know, I pointed out that with the rural area at the top that's another required another one. Those were the only two PUDs that had requirements. There are a number of PUDs in here that are enabled but not required. These are the only two that have requirements. So, it was pointed out that this one would be another one. And this is one that he, Alan Goldman had opposed at the city council adoption. At the time it happened, at the time they put this in, he opposed that piece. And so it's not surprising that because he's a partner in, in this one that he would be opposed to it again. Okay. And, okay. So yeah, I think I'm starting to remember some details of, of Mr. Goldman coming in and having requests during the zoning of the planning commission and he apparently owns some land on the east side of town that's in west. Is it on the west side of town that's in the rural district. Probably, probably the largest landowner by acreage in the city. 600, 700 acres he might have. Okay. Okay, so this is starting to seem more like having a completely different motivation than the savings project then. Initially, yes, his concern was more about his property over at Crestview and the land heading into middle sex, but with the rezoning of savings to include rural. It now affects his other project that he's gotten involved in. So, if that's about what potential development could happen in the future on the upper part of the pasture then then this is going to start impacting that side. Okay. I'm starting to see a need for us to have more information then. I think Dan Richardson he's, as I said, he's been the attorney and he's well versed in looking at these types of things and I think he would do a better job than I am because again he's more familiar with what is being proposed and what specifically may be impacted. Okay, I have to leave a little early so I have to sign off but I think that sounds like a good plan to talk about this more later when you have more time to think about it and maybe some community or public input. So, thanks everyone. Thanks Aaron. Yeah, it looks like we're pretty much done. Getting dark. Yeah. I don't know when that happened at circuit seven now. Yeah, so the other two that were in there that were just little technical things to fix were just a couple of things that we'd found. And my zoning administrator is going to pick around to see if there were any others that we need to put in a little fix it list. So, you know that figure three 10 was talking about on the left was talking about greater than or equal to 10% and then in the written description and said just greater than 10% so it should be consistent on the left and right. And the other one is an insertion for the natural resources protection which isn't really doing. It already is a requirement in some ways. We need the river hazard rules, but if we require them to put the river hazard area on the plat, then we get a number of points in our community rating system for FEMA. And so that was just a requirement that said if you're going to do a subdivision. And you have river hazard areas, then you have to show the boundaries of and the districts and sub districts of the river hazard area on those plants. And that's not really that big of a of a requirement for people but it gives us some additional points as, as FEMA goes and makes it clear and documented for anyone who buys the land, where the flood hazard is. But we're going to look at a couple other little pieces and decide whether they make sense as quick fixes or whether or not they're, they're important we've had people periodically come in and tweak some of the language regarding fences. We've had a couple little hiccups when it comes to the table of uses, especially as it comes to housing, whether we want to make those fixes now, and we'll talk about those as staff and send you them if we decide they're worthy of doing. The descriptions in here of specific uses so if you were in section 310 or 320 it goes through some specific uses and discusses a different number of different things including like rooming and boarding houses and assisted living facilities and then if you go to the use table where it shows what uses are allowed. There isn't any rooming and boarding houses on that table so and they're allowed anywhere that it's permitted on the table except that it doesn't appear on the table anywhere so. Campgrounds are another one. It's a specific use we have all these rules describing what you need to do if you want to have a campground except campgrounds are not in the use table anywhere. So, we just have a couple of these that we might need to just go back and make sure that we've, we don't have any internal consistent inconsistencies. And we'll talk about those Meredith and myself just to go through and see if there are any little tweaks like that if we've got if we're going to adopt some amendments. We might as well clean up a few little things here and there if that makes sense but we're not looking at opening up any large policy things. We still need to fix the sign rules we know that but we don't think this is the time or the place to be opening up that can of worms. Again if anybody on the commission wants to open up a can of worms that's, you know, you guys can let me know and we'll put together a proposal to look at some other things but we were just looking, looking for specific fixes. Okay well. Any questions about the two technical changes. Well, the first one's a technical change the second one so. I guess, I don't know information seeking type change. Anybody have any questions on these. Okay. So we have a motion to to suggest the two changes that Mike has put forward. I don't know if we need motion on the two small ones, but that's up to you guys. Why, why is that Mike, you do you know it's work. I mean we're just reviewing them at this point I don't know. The some of those technical ones are not don't have as much policy. Okay. I thought we could just go and get out of the way so that so that when you come back later with some others minor ones you don't have to. Okay, included or anything. I should say recommend adoption. Oh, okay. So is Aaron Aaron is moving for that. The changes. Do we the second. Oh, second. I have a second from John. Any discussion. I mean, no discussion. Okay, those in favor of making the two small changes as Mike suggested, say I. I. Those opposed. Okay. So I think that was five oh. Any abstentions. Okay, so everyone was in favor. Okay, so, so those, so those suggestions pass. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. We can put those away for now. And then when Mike comes back with other like minor suggestions, like, yeah, we don't have to include those two. So. No, we'll have one more. I don't know how we, we missed it. With the most recent changes to the design review. Boundary up there on Tara street. Apparently when the regional planning commission put the map together. They removed five parcels. And they were only supposed to remove three. So we'll have to go back in. That'll be another correction that we'll have to get adopted. And unfortunately. For whatever reason, I didn't even. I remember checking it. But I didn't catch the fact that. They took out some extra parcels and I was working on a separate project. Opened up the natural red, the national register map. Which that boundary is supposed to follow. And realize that there are now two parcels. That are out. That should be in. So we're going to have to go through and do a correction to put those two back in. That way they live. So. I'm Dan Andrea, just. Moving herself out of the. Where Claire lives. We had so yeah, there were the five parcels on Tara street. We had. That we're taking out. And there was only supposed to be three, so. First to first two, gotta go back in. Okay. So that'll be on the fix it list. Okay. So what are we thinking about for our next. Um, do we have any more chapters line up or will we buy then Mike? I hope to have transportation. They are many times as they tell me, this is the last meeting in the last, last meeting in the last, last, last meeting. So hopefully have transportation. Okay. And I'm still trying to TPW has been kind of short staffed the past couple of weeks. So I haven't gotten a chance to meet with them on the utilities, but I'm thinking I'll get some opportunities coming up after Thursday, meet with them to work on utilities and facilities, which is mostly in draft form. And that one doesn't have to go through committees. So that should go a little bit faster. Um, and I guess the other related issue we've got to talk about is the next meeting is Columbus Day. Are we moving to a Tuesday? Are we skipping Columbus Day and meeting on the 26th next? What's our pleasure? Do you have it off? I don't think people actually celebrate Columbus Day. Yeah, I think they call it Indigenous Persons Day now, but it is, it is a holiday for the city. Uh, I think, I, I think Tuesday's fine. I don't see any reason to, um, to skip it. Uh, what, what do you guys think? If Mike has a day off, I don't want to force him to. If we go to Tuesday, we'll miss CVRPC. I'm not. Yeah, that's right. I just think you should know. I'm fine missing it. So you're, yeah, it sounds like you're in favor of a Tuesday. That's right. You just mean you have to leave at, you just mean you have to leave at seven. Okay. Yeah, Monday's off the table. I mean, uh, you know, as Mike was definitely implying, like, so yeah, so Tuesday, anybody else? Does anybody have a problem with Tuesday? The Tuesday after Indigenous Peoples Day? Yeah, I think it's okay. Okay, send out plenty of warnings. Let's do that. All right. Well, with that, I think we can adjourn a little early. So we have a motion. So moved. Bye, Stephanie. Second, bye. I'll do it. John. All in favor of adjourn, Matt. Bye. Bye. Okay. We're adjourned. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, everybody. Tell Carol that she's awesome. I will. Later. Yeah. Bye.