 The agenda is posted on. In the new system and may have been missing or one other business item. All communications may have been posted correct. Yes. Minutes. The board has had a chance to review the minutes from the last meeting. And then the first item up on the agenda is. Consent agenda and that's 55 stop. Here. Okay. And you have a chance to review the staff report. Do you have any concerns with that or any of the requirements? Okay. So this was recommended or sense. If there's no one on the public here to speak. We need to be able to forward. Is there anyone. Here who was just to speak on this item, which is 55 staff prospect street. Great. Second. Any discussion. All those in favor. Next item on our agenda is 23-273 41. Street. Well, that was quite good. Very good. We have anyone else. And you find them. And sorry, there's no one. So going to speak on this matter, I'll just swear you in. You raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth. And the truth. I do. You probably won't hear it from me, but I do anyway. Okay. Yeah, I can. Good afternoon. Daniel Oaksman, I'm the architect of recruiting for this proposal. Also the owner of the project. This is Joe angle. Okay. My partner. 41 out of street currently a vacant lot. Point, one acres roughly 60 feet wide by 136 feet deep. style building, roughly 1,900 square foot building footprint, roughly 5,700 square foot built total, each one of the units roughly 1,900 square feet. They also reach out for roughly 300 square foot patio at the ground level and then 200 square foot roof deck. There's also a partially treated wood exterior staircase that's accessed in all the months. First level, two car garage, mechanical storage space, the second level kitchen, living, bedroom, powder room, and on the third level two bedrooms, bathroom, laundry, and the roof decks up on the roof. We're proposing fiber cement clovered siding throughout smaller reveal, typical, and on those bump outs on the street facing facade, a larger reveal. And as a result of the comments at the DAB, we've added a bunch of windows on Eastern and Western side facades to sort of enliven those facades of that. At the ground level, there's a small overhang in front of the entrance to the building. There'll be a recessed light fixture over the doors, unit entry doors. We are proposing a little bit of wood siding there between the entry doors and the garage doors, just where people might touch the building. We've had a bit nicer. Obviously, each unit has an entry door and garage door. The garbage will be in a trash enclosure at the eastern edge of the driveway on the uphill side. There's space for three garbage cans there. So we're proposing the garbage there and their cycling to be kept inside. Regarding the driveway, we would have loved to have done three driveways, but having three curb cuts was a non-starter with the city. So DPW would lead to a 14 foot wide curb cut, and that drive access is all three units. We settled on this scheme after trying many others, but the site simply wasn't wide enough to have the building and an access road to park at the rear. So we tried having the building oriented to the side, but then the street front would have been the side of the building. None of it really worked. So this is where we ended up. The slope is also a big factor. The one side of the driveway, the eastern side has uphill retaining, what the trash enclosure is, and the other side, the western side, has downhill retaining. So that wall actually sort of acts as a rail and to prevent falls there. So as a result of the verbiage in the ordinance and comments at the DAB, we worked with the zoning staff to come up with a scheme to break up the width of the driveway, which was in violation of the letter of the ordinance. It was too wide. So that's why we implemented these walkways with curved pavers. So now that driveway is broken up and there are distinct pedestrian and vehicle entrances to the building. The rear of the building, there's a light over the exterior door. There's a small area with hardscape pavers. There's high shadow box fencing to provide privacy between the different units. There's no fencing toward the rear yard. It's open there. That rear yard will be a shared amenity and there's also some stormwater infrastructure at the back of that. We are proposing to use our cold climate air source heat pumps for heat NAC so that we condensers on the roof that we screen with a shadow box fence out there. And just finally, bulk of the building is meant to fit into the scale of the adjacent structures. And while the overall building kind of reads it's one large mass, which is more of a sort of commercial gesture, it is broken up with these sloped roof elements referencing adjacent residential structures. So the idea was to fit it into the neighborhood but also announce itself as a new building. Make my sheets full of oil. Yeah, so sheet A100, which I believe is a third sheet. The level one, it identifies paved asphalt areas and I think it's one up. Yeah, on the right, on the top, it identifies paved asphalt areas. That is not the final plan. That is correct. We went through a bunch of different iterations. To try and get to something that the ordinance staff and the sort of needs of the project would come to. And at one point there was a strip of pavement going left to right across that page. And ultimately where we landed was the three walkways with the coats and gears. And there was kind of quarter circle blocks. Okay, yeah, that it seems like it's nice when sidewalks go, when the entries of the house go to the sidewalk and you're not having to walk on a driveway to get to the front door. And there is not to bring at least the outside ones to the sidewalk. I'm not sure that we would have been allowed to do that per the letter of the ordinance. I'd be happy to do that. I mean, absolutely. So the outside two could extend? Yeah, I understand because you're going through the driving. That made that crossing sort of nice, but at least the two outside ones going to the sidewalk with the people walking. Yes, we would. They could also edge the pavement. You would sort of skirt around. And either one would be amenable to. As I said, we would love to just have three straight shots, but that's probably different for it. And we did an application a few months ago. I think there's an appeal about parking areas in front of the house. Is there any, I guess, first off, any concerns that have been set up? I know these are cleaned up into parking garage. There's a handful of spaces in the garage, right? Two spaces for our steps. That's important. Is there really a parking requirement here anymore? No. Not a parking requirement. I guess it was not a parking requirement more about parking in front of the house. Actually parking on a pavement rather than in the garage. Yeah. As long as you have one there. Yeah, sure. There's absolutely no parking. Okay, it's already seen every time. If anybody knows on that street, both sides are covered and you can't get it going. You can see it goes through sometimes, you can never get to cross by it. Here are the address, please. Sorry, Martha. I'm happy to talk in time, but I wanted to hear what anybody thinks first. Yeah, you wouldn't mind getting ready. I'm glad to do that. What's your question? Generally, parking on the driveway leads to the garage is acceptable, as long as there's not access parking in front. So because this driveway is intended to primarily provide access to the driveways, there could be parking potentially. But they don't solely exist for parking. So you must accept that. Thanks. Can I understand a little bit more? Each unit has its own terrace up on the roof, correct? And what's in this fencing around the terrace, each terrace? Correct. Yet there's some area that's higher than the fencing. And I can't tell what that is because it shows on the side elevators, but not on the center elevators. So if you go to the, yeah, to that floor, so the floor climb on the left there, the sort of shaded areas are, will have sort of track stacking or something. There's boxes with squares in them. Those are enclosures for the mechanical equipment. So the idea is you'll be on the exterior stairs and they'll travel up to the shaded areas where the, and those will be the roof terraces. Don't the elevations per second? Okay, there. So on the left, above the railing there, there's some shaded area. What is that? The idea is to have shadow box fence to five or six feet to provide separation when you're on your, okay, deck from your neighbor. It's between some of the, I'll between the decks, but you're not, so right on top. Yeah, right up on these, down here there, right under the online fencing. You should be able to various that you see. Yeah, right on the top right there. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So can you explain that again? That's on the roof. Sorry, can we just swipe all of your comments and tell them? I opened it up too, sorry. Jane, I'm going to show you. The window is perhaps could have a bit more rhythm. I was also wondering about on the north elevation on the first floor three of those windows are smaller than the other ones. And I guess on these, unless there's some inconsistency, I was wondering if you could talk about that. Yeah, absolutely. So the idea with this project is it's a townhouse style project, which is more of a dense urban type topology. Often you're slotted in there and you only have opportunities for windows in the front and the back. So yeah, living rooms, bedrooms, all the junkies in between kitchens and bathrooms where windows don't necessarily work. So initially on the top left, for example, I only had those two windows which are connected by that trim in the middle because everything else was kind of, you know, they asked for more windows. So I sort of put them in the living room to the left and in the bedrooms to the right. Now the layouts don't lend itself to having windows in there, but I added them because, you know, that's fine. So it doesn't layout sort of symmetrically and nicely at the end, it useful. That's how it ended up. The windows on the north elevation better, better shorter than the other ones at this. So the back there on the top right, the bottom right on the first floor, sort of the ends and the middle. Oh, yeah. So the idea on the bottom right is above the garages on the second floor, that's the living room. So I made the windows as big as possible. Above them is a bedroom, they're a bit smaller. Above the doors that strip there is sort of circulation space. So that's sort of how it ended up. Yeah, that question is really good. I just want to point out one thing on the, back to the roof top terrace with the fencing or the railings, they go around and have a wire fence that probably doesn't fall within in your same way, but it's going to give you a heads up that they're, even though it mirrors the spaces between one of the wires, it's correct, probably four inches, but it's situated so that a toddler could climb that fence just like to give you a heads up on it. Maybe you want to make a lot of people know that or tell them what are all alternatives they can have if you get it somebody who doesn't have it. Yeah, that is a good point. And we'll provide it with code compliant fence and through the building permit process when they get everything safe and you know. Any other questions from the floor? It's not really a question. We don't really have a review of the plans. Not really. It is, it's nice that you have a roof deck when you have the terrace down below, but the access is really through one of the bedrooms. Yes, sort of somewhat unfortunate, I understand the challenge. I'm going to get a lot, a lot squeezed into the site. I think that seems good. I'm also not quite sure whether your gables will be out of visible or effective but going to be added to the street scheme. I know it's going to attempt. And how would you do it with colors without or with the same color? Do you have the 3D image? The board has never seen the, oh my goodness. Exciting. Yeah, hopefully it's the newest one. No, that's an old one. Yeah, so it looks very dark here, but it's going to be the same colors, attention. Everything will be the same color, all the exciting. Well, black windows, everything the same siding and three different colored entry doors. But to be honest, we haven't decided on the color. This isn't potentially the final, final post. I know there was some public comment that you wanted to come up with. So just before you speak again, you can just say your name again, where you live. And I'll also read you in and maybe once again again just to drop your comments and questions to the board and then we'll give, yeah, it's a chance to respond if they so, she was so. So if anyone else wants to speak, if you raise your right, you can square to tell the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth on their pain and the surgery. Is this where you're going to do it? That and there too, but I don't know if I'm right. It's okay. I swear. Go ahead. And so I'm Martha Segrave. My address is 8 Elm Terrace. And of significance, my backyard, my bedroom backs up to this. And first of all, I wanna thank you folks for inviting us. I would love to know where this is in the process because this is the very first that anybody on our street or our colleagues and friends on Adam Street heard about this going. And so we need to know where this is and what possible chances we have to speak about it because we were all blindsided by this. Also the summer meeting, I was on vacation. I get my neighbor had to tell me that this is gonna happen. This meeting was gonna happen. So we quickly, as much as we couldn't mobilize, I contacted this morning, tried to contact my colleagues on Adam Street to come to me who were also quite disturbed that they really had no idea that this was happening. So I'm really grateful that we were invited today. And so I wanna thank you for that, but I did feel a little kind of alongside it. So I would say zoning permit is a barrier in the process. Well, this is the decision that's here. Yeah, I mean, this is the short process. It meets the criteria in terms of what we built. Oh, yeah, I think in terms of permitting and review, is it pretty much it? Or is it staff reported the basic criteria of the zoning ordinance? Okay, so I have a number of questions and then I do have some comments. One of the questions I have is that when you were talking about the height, you mentioned that the highest point in the building, did that include the fencing and the roof deck? And how high of that would go? Please direct your question, so to the boys. Yeah, I just need to know whether or not. Sorry about that. I have never, I have done. Yeah, I know. If you just thought you're all of your entrepreneurial fields, our world, our time, but other way, we'll take all of your comments and you wanna open a public event. Fantastic. So one of the questions that I have is that height. It is a significant, it will be a major change for those of us on Ulterus in terms of light, in terms of the life of my neighbor has a view of Church Street, which will be the sphere. I don't know that that probably doesn't mean anything to anybody, but those are some of the things that have been really important to us, is for us to have the light and to have the, and to be able to sort of, it's a major change, it's a huge change. The other questions I had is just to make sure that the sidewalks, adding those additional sidewalks that you're talking about, whether that increases the light coverage to the point that that's gonna be a problem. We have a real problem with runoff on that area. So Adams, that building and this is where my neighbor's gonna be able to help us, but that was a big farmhouse. It was a huge farm. And we were actually, Ellen Teres was gonna be done for that for a long time. And also there were multiple ravines that ran, I understand this from another person that I spoke with about this lawyer, a real estate lawyer, that there were ravines that really ran through the whole area. And they got diverted or moved with project building. Every single house on our side of the own terrace as a result of the construction that occurred, I mean, the use of it as a farm has had to have their foundations redone. And that it was a major expense. In addition, there've been other things whenever something has happened that we needed to dig up the land, put in a culvert, and then we cover it because we are getting flooded again. I know that there's this stormwater area, but this is an enormous building. Nothing like this has gone into that area for many, many years. And so I have major concerns with this little stormwater area that you're, and also the construction case. And then the fact that there's not gonna be that land to absorb it, that we're gonna be really in a bad place in terms of water runoff and having it now flood us and in fact, our foundations again. So that's something that I would like to have somebody look back at the historical mapping of the rivers that have gone through the city and make sure that this is, and just be acknowledged that that is a major issue that we've all dealt with for a long time. So that's one of the things that I'm very worried about. One of the conditions of pool that we need to really stormwater with, that's not ours, it doesn't have to review it. Okay. Thank you. You know, we're kind of agreeing on these things. And so I'm just, since this is a chance for us to express the concerns that we have. What you're arguing on is that the post-construction, pre-construction, old flow of the property should be about the same. So if there's probably not, they're not, they're not fix it, but they shouldn't be. Well, you're good at it. We're not really good at it. And that's what makes us very nervous is that the last house to, I think it's the last house on the street, finally got their foundation redone. The other concerns that I have is that they mentioned specifically that there was not, I mean, I'm not sure why we have to have a deck and patios. I love it. I'm sure it would be really nice for the people, but that rooftop really is, we have already have noise issues. In fact, there've been a lot of noise violations already from the item street. We're concerned about that. They don't know about proximity. It's right across the street from Congress home. And the rooftop, we, whenever anybody is on one of the higher levels where there's just a little TV porch on the big house next to us, when they're at the bad level, the noise comes right at us. It's absolutely in our house. And so there's no screaming at all. So the other piece is that you've mentioned that there was, you mentioned that there was no, that there wasn't going to be lighting on there. I would like to see anybody who's going to have a rooftop deck who is not going to say, oh, we've got a rooftop deck. We're going to put some lights around here. I would, I would do that. But that means that that is going, that is to be considered when you're thinking about this because maybe the design is not to do that, but that's going to happen. And that is going to impact us. So I would like that to be considered. And I love that I think the idea of a rooftop deck is lovely, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate here. The side is a major difference for that whole community. This is a little street with lots of sort of old houses on it. And I understand we need housing. It just doesn't feel like it fits with that kind of area. Couple of other things, I'm sorry, I'm going on. I hope this is OK that I'm kind of going on and on at this. And I know that I'm kind of passionate about this concept of this building going in. It is huge, it's big. And the saying that when I read it, it said that visually the structure of those stairs are going to be visually bigger, but it's really not bigger. Well, it is going to be bigger with those big staircases. That's and it's going to take up the majority of that property from side to side and also just going to be big. One thing that I'm going to just mention is that we're a community in that area. I mean, this is a really new community. This building is coming into the community. The fact that only a few properties that we are aware of are notified in this meeting kind of says that doesn't acknowledge the fact that this is a city community. I mean, if you go to New York, this is something that is unique. There are those, I mean, everybody does the five sisters, everybody knows who we are, a community right there. And it needs to be any notification needs to go out to all of us in that area. I'm out on the street up to a new scavenger over to Elm Terrace, maybe in these spruce because this is going to impact all of us. And we need to at least have our voices heard. Just on that note, there are standards on which properties. I mean, on each end. So those were the standards that were followed in this case. I'm sure that it's just that I feel like there's standards and then there's just like humanity and kind of looking at what is broken. I love broken. I am like the biggest, you know, if somebody comes in, oh yeah, you want to visit the place to be. And I'm starting to lose that because I feel like we're not acknowledging the communities that we have here and the importance of those in terms of helping them to evolve as we need to maybe put in new housing because we obviously need it. I am not an anti-housing person. I am not. I understand that we need it. But I also believe in placing housing in places that make the most sense and having them fit in with the community to make sure that the community continues to look and have a feel that people want with them. This is in part with the local density, which is just the residential community density. This is not residential local density right here. And so it's, you know, these things come before us. Yeah. And when they're in compliance, you know, we're sort of somewhat hamstrung. I know that, you know, I understand what you're saying. I actually used to live next block up on Adams Street quite a number of years ago. So I'm familiar with the area. You know, I think it's ways for people to be good neighbors and ways not to work out. It's not pre-ordained by the size of the buildings. Yeah, by understanding the concerns, you know, it's a lot more for people's own. Well, I think things then that I do think in terms of your, if I understand it correctly, things I didn't want to look at, especially if you're going to be having that, the garage down below, making sure that that is not going to increase the rent off even more, that there's not going to be, that we're, and the lighting, I would love to have the top considered because I do, in terms of how high that actually really does go, because you may not include it, but if it's a rooftop, it should be included in the night. And then also the lighting that might be associated with that in the house. So those are the three things that I feel like I would like to have you all consider on this and in terms of how that will impact the land and the province. I think that the lighting that was designed for it and the most is, it takes that into consideration. You're most concerned with maybe once somebody got on the deck of the scene, you're stringing some extra lights. The lighting that was there is pretty reasonable now. There's no light that there would not be, but the things, I'm sorry, Sean, they stated no lighting. And what I wanted to say is that that's not acknowledging what will happen. And I feel like if you're going to build a roof deck, lighting is a part of that. Like you don't put a roof deck up if you're not expecting people to use it. And if they're gonna use it, they're gonna put lights up there. So I feel like it's really in, I don't feel that that's okay. I feel like that's sort of like a, oh, we can sneak that in there thing. And I don't think that that's appropriate. And you've got to acknowledge what's gonna happen. What I would say on the light and on the noise is there are ordinances in place for that. So that just because I'm giving you both what it is before us today, doesn't help changes that go against the ordinance in the future and compliance with those ordinances. Here we go. Have you tried? They're more likely to work on the violations on the street already. And they never get to the dust. Thanks for the, I mean, I'm afraid that that doesn't get me any solace. And they think it can, from a design point, I think if you do look at this, is that shocking to me? No, I don't know. But you get, I don't know who else is, I don't know, I'm sorry. Thanks. All right. Does, am I right that in terms of the high, the more eligible that you're going to be getting it, it's sort of, it seems to just... There's always this line of sight. What's that? If you can see it, you can hear it. Okay. All right, looking at it, and that we will be able to see it. There's no question we'll be able to see it. It'll be, yeah. So, those will be design things that you want to see. Thank you very much. The only, it's not even probably the question for this group, but is this related to the sale of the apartment house next door? That is not in our review. I just, it seems coincidental that the big apartment building next door was sold and now this property is available. I was curious about that. Your name and address, sir. Pardon? Your name and address? Steve on 18 on terrace. That's a TV note, I had to be proud. But I don't have any role of major concerns, but I reflect what Martha's concerned about. You know, it's all of a sudden now we're having a structure of this. We've been looking at it space for a long time, but not any real major concern at this point, but... Did you want to? It's going to be on 14 on the terrace. It's big, it's too big. And let's hope whoever this goes through, whoever comes, let's hope they don't have any friends when they drive over the car, because they ain't going to park it on that street. It's wall to wall cars, wall to wall. It's a nightingale on up and down the street. So what are you going to have when you see the fixed cars? So let's hope their friends find somewhere else to park it. They hide it. It was, we've got a similarly narrow street. So that's why we're very concerned that this is because Eleanor's husband fell in the middle of the weather one time and the emergency vehicle could not get down the street to him because of the parking. And it's, I'm not a resident parking kind of person, but that's the only time that I, that's when I started. I asked for that, but Adam's similar. There's times when you just can't get through it and they come across so it's right there. When they need the emergency vehicles go over to the front parking. Hello. How wide is that curb cut? Go down the driveway. Make sure that 80 if that's still on the 14. 14. So that's a car space. You're losing the whole car space on that slide. If you've ever tried to go up Adams Street during the day, there's parking on both sides. So this is what the street is not wide. Two cars to pass each other. So you have to, you have to yield. Who's ever coming down the street or is everyone else? Thank you for your comment. Appreciate that. We're going to get that out. We can see right here. We can get one person online. Sharon has her hand raised. So Sharon, you're now allowed to speak on this. Sharon, hand for you in. Okay, thank you so much. I looked at this and read the staff comments and one of the things that they noted was that the size of this structure was significantly increased by the stairwell in the back to access the upper deck. And so I couldn't see if there were internal stairs to get to that rooftop deck. So I had to call and ask, I spoke with Mary earlier just to find out. And she said, no, there wasn't access inside. And so it made me wonder, that's three flights up. And so only young people would really, and I'm talking maybe 50 and under, so I'm older than that. So would really be able to live there and access that debt on a regular basis. And if you were to want to have drinks or food, I don't see people climbing three flights of stairs to do that. I see that as a barrier and it makes me question why the deck is there and why the stairs have to be there. I live in Ward one and there's a little side street off of Colchester Avenue called Colarco. And there were townhouses, five of them put in that were standalone, not connected like these, but they were with the garage underneath and residents on the second floor, third floor. So just so you know, and I was a city councilor, I represented this area for a long time. And so I doorknock and initially some young couples bought those homes, but as their family grew, it was hard for a pregnant woman to go up the stairs to get to her first to the living room kitchen. And as their children were little, there was a barrier. Anyways, my point is that what happened to those units for the most part is they became investment properties with lots of young people, mainly going to school, living in them because they were the ones who were willing to climb. Now I don't, I know elevators are expensive. I'm just saying that this style of housing has some barriers. And so if we're trying to provide housing for people, I think that this has restricted access because not everybody is going to be able to go three flights. And so because of the massing, because of the issues that I've heard from the people who know this site far better than I, I wonder if indeed that rooftop deck is really that viable. I think that there have been issues pointed out that could make it really problematic for noise and light and I think access with the stairs, only external access also is another problem, especially if they get wet, it's slippery. I just see this as maybe a rethink for the developer to kind of decide, is this really the best use? Can there be a better way to provide amenities for the people that are living in these new houses? I wanted to compliment them on the fact that the roof is white, that's what you're supposed to do because if it's black, it's going to retain heat and with our climate crisis, white roofs, I guess are the way to go. So I'm trying to educate myself and learn. But speaking of climate crisis, the fact that windows are small and don't really let in that much natural light, I think you want to use natural light as much as you can as opposed to having to generate electricity or have used lights. And so I think that as we continue to provide housing, we need to be smart about this. And so I'm hoping that I'm glad windows were added because natural light is really important. It's much healthier for people than the light that we turn on with a switch. And so I just feel like I'm glad those windows were added. And my main point is really access to that roof top deck, the stairs, the massing that it adds and the viability of that. And maybe it was going to be more problematic than beneficial. So thank you very much for listening to me. Sharon, thank you for your comments. I think you missed my cue in the beginning. I just wanted to make sure that I had you sworn in. So can you just swear that the testimony you just gave was true under opinion penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Is there anyone else? No, it's the wrong one. She said, I can't find the choice. Can you talk to them. So the conversation, I'm not comfortable with that. I'm not going to ask them out the questions. Those exterior stirrers, in fact, they needed the exerting of code. So comments actually. Thanks for why they are trying not to use the interior stairs and not have the expensive of those exterior stairs. I would have loved to. There simply isn't, I'd lose a bedroom. I don't know, the same stairs you got. Yeah, you have to loop around. If you should bring up the plants again. Oh, the stairs down, you can't enter on the other side from back up. Exactly, it's so tight. I can't loop around to where the laundry is. Yeah, so every level of the proposed building accesses the exterior stairs. Ground floor, the first floor and second floor. So you could circulate all the way up to the top floor interior and just go the last level up to the roof deck. Well, I think you can increase the size of the building by two feet and get rid of all those stairs. You're trying to accommodate the laundry and it's really what you're saving. Well, if you can bring up the, it's not for us to design, it just, it does seem like it's a lot of construction. I would love to avoid that construction, believe me. Maybe one. Are these only one bedroom units? These are three bedroom unit. So the stairway would actually have to start here. So I'd need three feet. So I'd basically, I'd lose, the bedroom would be half tier and it would, I'd need this whole space and three feet to access it. So that's, there's a stair that goes down and then there'd have to be another one that went out and I'd have to circulate all the way around and back up. So we thought that the best way to do it would be with this exterior stairway. Is that things answered or not? Tell me it's a lot of exterior construction, a lot of extra expense for some of that. Maybe there's no association to it. Now, I mean, you know, it was three feet or a more space in six feet. So I'd lose that front, that street side bedroom on the second floor. It wouldn't be a space that was that I, maybe I can call it a day, but I have to use the bedroom. Yeah. It's not three feet in line, but it's your expense. Yeah, no, I would love to get rid of that expense. We could do a stair that simply went from the top floor and didn't have all the stairs below, but we thought it would be a nice identity to be able to go interior and exterior. But in regards to the comments that our neighbors made, thank you for coming. We want to be great neighbors. We want to be a part of the community. We believe in the community. We believe in Burlington. We're part of the Burlington community and understand the issues with housing and the issues with how the community is changing. And we are trying to do the right thing by Burlington with this project. And part of that is making the project ownership as opposed to rental. And part of that would be... So we're doing this as part of the framework. This is condominiums. So this will be three homes that we hope a young family or a family will purchase. So that's part of our thinking and something we're very committed to is we understand there's issues around rentals and a way to contribute to the community is potentially through ownership. Another way is we understand in this quasi-offerment environment here, parking is a huge issue. And that's why we wanted to provide garages. Get the cars off of the street because we realized that that is a... It's amenity or it's something that's insurance applied to street parking. So we very intentionally wanted to provide our street parking. In terms of it not being an appropriately sized building, I mean, there is an 11 unit rental building next to it. There's the Congress House across from it. There's a wide variety of buildings in the immediate vicinity. There are single family homes and sort of everything in between up to larger commercial multifamily buildings. So a three unit project, we thought that would be an appropriate scale. The rooftop use, we can't mandate how people will use it. We don't intend to provide a electrical up there. So they would have to string all kinds of extension cords up there. We hope owners would be more better neighbors potentially. You don't know that. Judge the size of the building. As the board said, we are following the ordinance and what's allowed. And we also want to provide as much housing as possible. Things being as they are. And in regards to the stormwater, as was stated by the board, the idea is that it's a net zero situation and this construction won't change what is happening there and potentially make it better somehow. We're all the water will be captured on the site and there'll be no other stress on the city system or on the streets or on the adjacent parts. And we're going through the whole mandate of permit process. The lighting in a quick way, this is permit condition, is that to require that any even temper lighting meets a dark, dark sky border. So which means that the lights are shielded and pointing down and aren't seen from far and all that. That would be, but I don't know if you can get away with no elements up there because you don't want that. The whole point of collecting code is not to be running a lot of extensions. So you may want to compile this up there, but I think we should say that lighting needs to be the dark sky. So the village park would, yes, there will be some. Thank you, we will almost certainly collaborate on this. And with that, we'll close the public hearing and we have one other agenda item. Thank you. Perhaps an introduction is appropriate. This is Charles Dillard from the office of city planning. We've invited him as he's nearly the architect for this overlay district. If not the architecture of this overlay district, which has been adopted by city council. So we've asked for this primer so that we would understand those applications that are now coming in when there will be messy meetings. Welcome Charles. Indeed. Would you rather share so you can scroll on your own? Okay, I'll just let me know then. Okay, that's okay. So yes, Charles Dillard, office of city planning. This, I've been in Burlington for a little over a year working at the city since March. I've been working on this since I started. This predates me, this sort of idea of the southern interracial district came from the county to the south end. And there was a request from a property owner in the area to sort of look at this a couple of years ago, actually a couple of years ago. And so this process started really with pretty firm foundation in plan BD south end. Of course, as you all know, I do that plan explicitly sort of said housing should not be part of the southern innovation district. That was 2019 and then over the course of a couple of years in Burlington, there was clearly a among many in the community realization that housing is necessary and needed all parts of the city and the mayor issued this endpoint housing plan that included looking to housing in the south end innovation district. And so that's what this is. So the key questions here are how can these sort of mostly big end or service parking lots be converted into something that is an urban district that combines what plan BD south end all for with the rest for housing. So the boundary of the district here is on the right orange dash line essentially from Howard Street in order to south of Sears Lane in the south. And then including the Lula property on the lake, but otherwise bounded by the Braille border and the barge on the west and Pine Street on the east. You'll notice there's a sort of notch house between Sears Lane where those properties fronting on Pine Street are not included in the district. I haven't been getting into why that was, whether it's later or. I guess I have like an abridged, I'll say it's a great presentation. Good, try and keep it short. But I have a whole question. Will this change the slides too or no? No, just. So the image on the left shows the SEID within the context of the existing enterprise like manufacturing districts. There was a question, the council early on about sort of how much of this district is taking up what is now the city's sort of prime industrial zoning district. So that's what this is showing. You can scroll down. So the zoning amendment is complex. It includes a land use framework and an urban framework. The land use concept, simplified, was simplified through the planning commission process primarily. Initially, there was this notion that in order to sort of promote arts and manufacturing uses that there should be this sort of two tiered framework of non-regional uses that would somehow, that would have prioritized those sort of arts and manufacturing uses. The way that it would have done that is create a sort of ratio between those uses and the other uses, like. So the example that we always gave is that the developer who wants to put 1,000 square feet of restaurant space, they would have had to a certain amount of space that was only uses. So arts and manufacturing cornered towards to that. At first it was a one to one ratio and then they got a period down to point two. So 1,000 square foot of restaurant or something like that with the part 500 square feet of office or art space. But what the planning commission recommended, scrap that and the council sort of agreed. And so the land use concept is simplified and it includes these sort of categories. So I'm going to gloss over these. So residential uses for the most part are committed. There are some you'll see later on that are not. Dormitories are committed. There was an amendment call for an amendment at state council to prohibit dormitories but that was not, did not pass. So dormitories are all these others are, the minimum IC standard is 15%. Residential uses are only permitted in new buildings or as additions to existing buildings. So there's not many existing structures and what is the SID and those structures that do exist primarily have office or sort of manufacturing to the identity of 10 tiers to sort of those uses. So the innovation center is the one building that frequently months of mine when you think about maybe converting and over manufacturing, now office building into the residential it would probably work in architectural statement to do that but that would be in the loss of much office space and it's not the intent. So that's where this comes from. These are on, you know, just all I think in this office uses are committed. So I couldn't convert the existing buildings but they couldn't add buildings. That's right. So somebody could add on to the image. You can, you can scroll through this. Well, community uses permitted and welcome. The point here really in all of these is that this district is a functional urban district everything that would rather than or an employee might need not permitted residential uses here. So single families, single detached dwellings are not permitted to places. They're not permitted at breakfast community house and all these others are not permitted. This is intended to be a sort of dense district. So that's fine. Having manufacturing and some of the uses that sort of traditionally existed in New Zealand you can not permit it because they're not insistent but people mesh well with residential uses. Lodging here is the big one that I want to speak now. Throughout the process, lodging was, I think there was a big debate about hotels and they were split on that. They recommended a version of the amendment that would have allowed hotels. Ultimately the council decided to, the ordinance committee decided to scrap hotels. There was a last minute amendment to try and get them back in with that fail. So who told you not? So we did a lot of engagement a little over a year ago. It's community workshops. I think that's virtual workshops. We went out to a more five-day and I was talking to people about the sort of reform and they used as well. But these are some of the images we shared and this sort of represents the vision where as opposed to downtown where people tend to be shoulder to shoulder and joined up and attached. This district is kind of a vision year is more a mixture of attached detachable things that allows for permeability or airflow or accessibility through the district in many different ways. So these are just sort of representative images but district strategy. So building height is maximum 85 feet and scrolling this one level gets too high in this minute. So this is the board that we use at our workshops with virtual and in first order asking people, you know, what do you like? Four story max, six story max, eight story max or a mix that would involve some sort of specific map. And then sort of green circles are like, this is my first priority, blue was second, yellow was third and red means like I don't like this idea. So you can see that a mix of building heights was sort of the clear winner in all of our communication. You can do this one. Probably, I thought about taking a slide out for you but I was actually, it's relevant to you all. So in the ordinance today, there's actually some language bill protecting views of the lake and the mountains from public spaces and streets. There was a, there was, while there was broad support of buildings in the public engagement we did the summer, we went to the planning commission. We actually did a lot of members of the public became specifically from the names of the bills sort of talking about the laws, the things used and the opportunities for many of this development. So we lean pretty heavily on this. So it does say to the extent practical I think buildings should not obstruct views from those public places. Primarily in this area, that means Calhoun there's a lot of discussion about the views of Calhoun Park and in fact that did make its way into this specific map. So this is the adopted high area map. Red areas allow eight stories, yellow six stories and blue is four. So you can see that in Calhoun, if you scroll to the next slide. So this is the sort of evolution of that map and you can see that if you're looking west from Calhoun Park and that middle map and it, you know, there would have been eight stories about that discussion that was talked about, stories, innovations that are happening to be about, it's four stories, but it's set by the whole building tall floors that whole manufacturing building. The smoke stack is even taller. I think it's about a hundred feet or so. So this is the high map, that sort of gap south of Lakeside area. That's the same Parkway right away. So buildings fronting the Parkway will be allowed up to eight stories. And then as you sort of taper down toward the Lakeside, then you're kind of to the fine street. I threw that. There were some comments about eight stories, six and eight story buildings. We can stay on that. That's like on the bike. Comments about taller buildings not being strictly conducive to community. And I think we always sort of disagreed with that. As staff and council did clearly in their vote, but this is just to show that I think tall buildings, taller buildings, eight stories, six buildings can very clearly be part of a community. It's just all this too about the district. You can, these are just some images we use. This is not representative of any development proposal or an endorsement of any development. It's just to show how tall buildings could be in the district and how they would sort of fit everything in the state context. Maximum floor plate of a building is 15,000 square feet. It's in the Miller Center across the street in the Champlain College building. It's about 4,000, 10,000. One late view over in the waterfront there is about 50,000 as well. So that gives you an idea. 194 St. Paul Street, the Houston Plain Housing Building is about 30,000 square foot. So half that size is the maximum. And the intent there is to create a smaller, collection of smaller buildings rather than large block-like buildings that not only do they not allow such as air flow, pedestrian flow through blocks, but in the interior of this building, those corridors are not quite as quality as they live. They're not really conducive much to creating such a community. You know, I think the trend generally we're seeing around the world is to try and get away and double the corridor. Like I said, not really do a lot of good. The maximum floor plate on the floor is seven and eight. This is 10,000 square feet, unless the building is constructed at Mass Timber. Initially, that was also to include, if you know of the form code and has some standards, related standards about the goal, but some other sustainability standards. And those were in there initially with the ordinance being council decided to get those most concentrated. This is not a form-based code. It's like a hybrid. It's like a form code, very light. Well, form-based code says, do these things, you're home free. Yeah. Is that this checklist? You can do, you could do, if you're asking if I could do an agent story building. I'm asking you if the applicant can just go to staff and say, if we're meeting all this, you gotta accept the voting and that's it. Will the standards be prescriptive or will there be a trigger to go and do the thing? I almost never discussed, you know, if you're out of the RV. If not a form code like the downtown. Yeah, I mean, you would see projects going. Yeah, I mean, I think I've seen form-based code since we have such a small area of it, the fridges it just doesn't seem to work. Yeah. And this is, this district is nothing but a lot of edges, you know, not a lot of middle. Yeah. And so it seems to me it's just- Yep, Oreo and no cream. So let's do it. Do you want me to do that? Yeah. No. Then pause. In my role as a mayor in the city, I'm still learning our main process. If most of this looks like it would trigger major impact. Yeah, I would. So it would, this would come in the year. Yeah. So you can. There. So for the mass timber, so that means the seven to eight foot story building, that they were made of mass timber, they could be 15,000 square feet. All the way all the way. Or they wouldn't have to step back. Yeah. So that's 15,000 feet. But so that's, that's a lot of story. It's gonna stay here. Yeah. Cool. Yeah, thanks. Well, to make the buildings, you know, a little bit more community friendly and so on, just have the block style, something more like cluster housing or each unit has its own amenity or so sort. That'd be nice to see. Yeah. You mean? Well, you kind of showed one, maybe several balconies and. Yeah. Inset areas and those types of things. Yeah. Somewhat separate from your neighborhood. Yes. Because there's not a lot of public amenity left over. It's other than going to Cal-Anne Park. Yeah, that's right. So I think later on, if we get into Spursky Building, block coverage and block perimeter things I can talk about, we'll also say that, you know, this is going to be the zoning for some decades here and then hopefully the building code will change. The Babs to allow different types of buildings in here that will be more conducive to some of that sort of earlier. You're like this, you're in the end image. It's a building block. Floor area ratio went, the base went from 2.25 to 2.5 through the council discussion. And that was mainly upon staff's recommendation in consideration of private body dedications. You'll see that the block perimeter standard is required here in just a few slides. And so that's going to require the dedication of the streets. And so that area is actually going to be taken out of the calculation for area ratio purposes. So considering that it's a large amount of dynamic taken out of the streets has a lot of modest boosts and they are very simple. That goes up to 2.75 and inclusionary zoning is included. So it will functionally be 2.75. However, the recent state home acts S100 calls for density boosts, basically density boosts. So the FAR can go up to 3.5 or an extra score and an extra record if 20% of units are, so that's that if a developer does choose to do 20% of the maximum floor area ratio, and I'm sure most of you understand floor area ratio, but many of the public do not. So this is just a sort of diagram from the Wilton Zone and Julie Cankoli about what FAR is. So this is the block perimeter. So the maximum block perimeter is 16 feet, meaning no block they can have a perimeter larger than 16 feet. This is just a depiction of how that would work. Blocks don't necessarily have to be rectal linear, but each block must sort of be insurmountable by any combination of streets and paths, public streets and paths. There you'll notice later on in the process here, we recommended a staff that we have corridors at natural areas. So in this district, that means mostly the park now should also be followed by as insert lane block legs. So I got to say that I don't know if that can't see me, but if I have this block rather than have streets encircling and on all side or combination, this as the rail corridor would count as a leg. So it'd be one, two, three, four, the rail corridor. And same with the park now, and that was again to prevent the need or the construction of perhaps unnecessary streets along the rail corridor along the park now. So the blue lines there can be multi-use, right? Yeah. As a hot car. That's right. And streets, unofficially, I think DPW is hoping to see and it's might be caught by streets in this districts have a minimum standard as of the great street standards for downtown. So it's a 66 foot right away with the big part of all streets. That's essentially the minimum standard. Pretty big scale. Yeah. It doesn't have to be exactly designed that way. I don't know if St. Paul is 66 feet, I can't measure that much for it. For any pass, the minimum is 15 feet. So that's identical to the bike path. So 11 foot paved surface for the tube but a wide shoulder on the side. So that will be the minimum. So in theory, you could see some blocks here where there's only a street on the side of paths and there's a street side. And who's gonna design it? Who's I work? Where the streets are? Where the developers who need to construct these streets to comply with the standard will. We, one option would have been to look at the official map and have staff sort of just draw streets on the official map. And I think early on, we decided against that. Often a developer and their designers are the ones looking at a site so closely that they can probably figure out where streets should better go. Is that the sort of thing that has public review for them? Public feedback? Yeah. There certainly have been project reviews that have begged for a definition of these corridors. And I'm thinking of the last review we have for the real-yard enterprise district. We're looking at organizing a corridor in a certain direction and it's begging for activation around it. Now blocks are parcels, correct? We're talking about a development area. So the parcels themselves may be irregular or a different size, but the development of the blocks is what is the lead here on the limitation. But it does also concern being a staff that it's almost like first one in, first one gets to decide where those corridors are rather than being given direction or encouragement. Yeah. And it officially encourages I think collaborative design and then in fact, the blocks, sure many of you are familiar or know about this, the blocks between Lakeside and Sears Lane are being looked at in a coordinated redevelopment on the city's website. The owners of the Hula development entity who owns 125 Lakeside, which is the north portion, just south of Lakeside Avenue, the city owns 68 Sears Lane and Shankling College. Obviously it's the property just across the street here. And the three entities that have engaged in that MOU to do some coordinated planning and development that's underway. Streets are probably one of the primary issues that have been discussed and where those streets are going to be, how they're going to look, what their fox will be, how traffic they're going to work on. I hope that might be open to the public because we certainly had some design advisory board members that were very concerned about the Wild West of not having to find circulation patterns. And if we're only talking about three players here, the city Russ Scully and Shankling College, is that really the limits and opportunity to examine where those corridors might be? So those corridors don't exist and they have to create them. While they're across creating them, they're not in the public right-of-way. So they're part of what we would be reviewing them. Because if it's a public right-of-way, we don't have any review of them. Just sort of thinking that through this. And otherwise, EPW is one of the reducing the public right-of-way, so it's sort of a, it all gets caught. We were doing the pit review and part of that was going back to right-of-way. We were thinking as we can't comment on the public right-of-way, even though it wasn't public right-of-way. Well, it was presented as a subdivision where the particles were going to be transferred to the city. We understood they were going to be coming right-of-way at that time. But it seems to me it's not. From there, there were former streets that were becoming streets. I don't know. It just seems like- Hello there. There's going to be some oversight of what those right-of-ways are. And so the, like I said, the minimum standard is the great street standards. There are DBWs actually working on some engineering standards, right now, the dual materiality. Well, that's the engineering standard. And then there's how it works in the fabric of the city. You know, that's right. There are different things that DBW are going to be looking at as a point of view of planning. Yes. Maybe not. Well, they are, I don't know if there's this coordinated development because this is part of the review, but in theory, if that was not the case, I mean, I'm not sure. But it still stands that any streets have to meet that minimum standard in terms of what they're designed. Also, you know, how they intersect with other streets and other transportation structures. If there's an alternative street design, the city engineer would have to accept it and then city council would have to adopt it. So I imagine that you all would, let's do it right, but as soon as we get to the final street. Never so, Charles. I want to spend it. Encouraging the elaborate design is great, but what we end up seeing is now the architect and there's always a bunch of constraints. Sorry, we have to do it this way instead. So for some sort of review, I think, whether we have any framework you have. Parking. So plan B2B South in itself calls for a sort of network of shared parking structures. And that was something that we've tried to incorporate into this amendment. I can scroll down. Structures are permitted. Obviously, I think, you know, most people would love for this to be a car redistricted to cars or reality for us. And so acknowledging that and acknowledging also that underground parking could be either geotechnically or financially infeasible, allowing some parking structures in the district in exceedance of the $15 square foot floor plate might be screwed out. So that's what this is up to one structure on a lot, 30,000, 60,000 square feet, 60,000 if it contains the transit use, which means bus stop or station, 30,000 square feet of no associated transit use. Scroll through. Parking structures have to be screened or wrapped. Surface parking, no more than 25, surface spaces per lot or 15% of the lots area, whichever is greater is permitted on any one lot. So this would discourage surface parking while also allowing for accessibility and some measure of surface lots for convenience. So that's, there's after that. 30,000 square feet is bigger than your block size. I've just actually, I'm just going to put perimeter. It's not a stat. It's stat. Well, it's the, that's the floor plate. It's not quite bigger than the block size. 400 by, 400 by 400, I guess. So then it's at 16,000. Well, yes. I think a parking structure of 30,000 square feet is about 125 feet by about 200,000 feet. So it would fit with the block, if the blocks are designed a certain way. This is going to, it is parking is often, you know, the wife and the dog, it's going to determine how the blocks are defined to see fit. Yeah, to make an efficient parking structure, a parking structure smaller than 30,000 square feet begins to become inefficient pretty costly. I think 60,000 is actually the, the reason we reached 60,000 because the CCRPC, Multimodal Transit Center study that it was produced last year, looked at structures of about 60,000 square foot of block plate. It's extremely inefficient, in an extremely efficient, obviously, not great urbanism, but in reality, it's probably the most efficient way to park the blocks. And the majority of this district is circus parking right now. Today, yeah. So I think that's something you also might see is that as some of these larger blocks are developed, the developers may sort of look to use the existing service parking as sort of a parking bank use that service parking as parking for their, until they sort of build out the site that was made in the structural area. 20% of any lot has to be pervious, minimum 25% of that pervious area has to be composed of T-V-W approved GSI and smart infrastructure. There's an alternative that says if all of your pervious area is composed of GSI, you can produce your pervious for 10%. Setbacks are zero, minimum, and maximum 20%. So buildings should be close to the street, but we wanted also to allow some green space or two yards between buildings. Blocked frontage, primary and secondary. So again, developers will get to decide which sort of block frontage is which. So primary frontages will have to have 80% of their, 80% of their sort of things covered by buildings and 70% on separate areas. So that's for just diagram showing. Ground floor uses are required to activate the street, but there are some ways to sort of, there is a flexibility of the ordinance you can scroll down here. 80, again, ground floor uses, the minimum depth is 25 feet for 80% of all of them and 10 feet for 20% of them. So 10 feet, you know, might be, that's like a worthless space, but actually I think other parts of the road is really creating pieces of even spaces, two feet, where maybe a kiosk or off shop is seller and maybe it's, I think it's usually, I still do. Not a thing that you might see an average response space. These are concepts that typically this board wouldn't see because these are checklists items in the farm code. So the depth of the finished area on the first base, they would never see this, this will be no. Okay. So you can scroll down here. There are ways to reduce your required ground floor uses, non-residential uses. So one is to do, if you stop here, that's the bell. You can sort of reduce on a one to one basis you're requiring ground floor, non-residential uses in your first floor, if you do an equivalent amount in a detached structure outside of the house. So I think Looney's Kiosk or these sort of shipping containers. So it's just to, you know, there's acknowledgement that there's a sort of club of vacant space all over the country, Burlington near mixtures development. This was a way to think about, well, what's a feasible way to get non-residential uses in a way that might be more flexible or more important. That would also activate the public. You can scroll through this. And so in this image, for example, that Kiosk located on the green space, is that a public space? Yeah. Yeah. But it could be in a courtyard and it's a building or... We're running out of public spaces that already exist anywhere. No, there's no public space. It would do, yeah, I think it would spill. Or just think about me, it's going to public annoyance. It's going to move out of these possibilities. These next three can reduce the amount of ground floor residential, non-residential use, but in 15% increments. So affordable commercial space, accessible, publicly accessible, moving space, and family sized units in the building. So a minimum of two and three bedrooms. Ground floor entries every six to eight. It's probably support in there. Well, that's going to be a challenge now. I was trying to anticipate. So when they move out of the space. So there's nothing on landscaping? Well, nothing super prescriptive aside from the previous area. We're talking about a great street, that's talking about trees. And the great tree standards have street trees. Yeah. But I'm just thinking about the vulnerability of the neighbor that gets created. That's not standard where he isn't doing anything. So we thought a lot about open spaces and Thanksgiving. Sensibly there aren't any specific standards to address it, but with the FAR, with the block perimeter, with the block coverage, it sort of induces the creation of a lot of open space. It's pretty tough to develop out these blocks completely in a way that gets you on to your 3.5 if they are. I think the 3.5 if they are, which will be the max, maybe we won't even see that, but in modeling the site in many different ways, we always end up with the following. I'm confused how that they are in the frontage requirements bind in a way. Because you can't actually have these stories and 80% frontage. On one side and 70% on the other. But it seems like we're saying you have to fill a lot, but you also can't fill a lot. You're doing eight stories. Am I not understanding that? Well, yeah, probably not. You're saying because of the build-out requirements for the frontage. Yeah. How do you get the added power? Yeah. Is the 80% and 70% of your total, I guess it's a little bit of fun. Diagrams for the frontage versus the diagrams for FAR. I don't understand how you can go with this. Maybe 515. Like this image, for example, they are meeting the frontage standards here. They're within the heights. The lot coverage. Definitely meeting that. That doesn't look like that. They are. You think that's more. It might be. I'm not sure, but we did. We've modeled this site. In the MOU work. Our. We have modeled it. Our consultants. Bullet teams. Modeled it. We all. Get. To 2.5. It is complex and. Probably could have included some other slides that sort of show how it works. But. It. Intentionally creates interior. It's what it does. You have to fill up certain amount of your block front edge. Your FAR. Is what it is. And so that. The space between buildings. Behind buildings. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Like looking at. The bottom right one. Yeah. That's, that's what the current. That's what this approach. So. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. But these lots, these blocks are very large. You can't do a building. Even. A quarter of the size of. It's pretty small. It's building together. But we're anticipating the current lots being broken up. Or not. Yeah. Yeah. So. The amendment works either way. I think it's subdivided into different parcels. Work. The house parcel has some building where it can be done. In a sort of plan unit development. That's an actual invention of the plan. And the development. We did the part of this memo was to allow. You. So in the SEID district. So. Yeah. So. You could probably see. The. So it was permitted uses and partner. There's no condition. Yeah. Nothing. Right. Conditional uses. So. Now hotels were going to have a bit. But they don't. So. It's just one of the things that, you know, it's like, you don't have much of a say. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know how. How does somebody works when it's just. Whether they just. Like that building today. You know, it's all of the regulations. So. I guess we'll just have to figure it out. Staff had lots of questions. Definitions for mass timber. Definitions. We define. We define. A lot of the terms for all of the terms that are new. It's district. Now. I don't think that. It's. Explicit. As our form based. Just going. Oh, it's sort of. Looks like. Talk. Talk. We didn't want to be as prescriptive as. Or based. On. Standards. Yeah. There is going to be the related MOU work will have some. Public engagement points specifically on the. Infrastructure. So streets. That's not. Scheduled yet. We'll be in the next few weeks. So what. How close is this being. To. This thing. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment. The amendment is adopted. It's. Law now. Just had. Just after she wrote what it says. We know what it's. It is very complex. If I had a. I would ordinance committee. We went by land. I think three times. Maybe we could do that for another day. So generally speaking, you mentioned sort of like form-based light, would they say we need more flexibility? Yes, so a lot of form-based light, materiality, windows, shadow building, pipes, that's what it's about. I thought that the rectum, please, but form-based code was like literally the zoning is defined by the form of the building, not use. It's not just descriptive form. Wow. I don't think there's... Our form-based code downtown is form and still use. Yeah, I don't think there's actually a form-based code anywhere that doesn't have land use, where there's underlying things. I can't do one place that has a form-based code and there were still land use rules for each district. We tried to step as far away as we could from use, but some of the need for addressing it. By trying not to include use, we included use. But under this, under these regulations, you're going to see a lot more of that detail stuff, which you don't see in the form code. I think is the basis, the bulk of the foundational stuff in form code is staff review. Either you made it or you don't. And then things that come to you are typically only those discretionary review items like alternative materials or additional height, but the bulk of it under form code is us. Not anymore. I see. Any other questions? Well, very great, Charles. This is all in the ordinance online now, so. Hey, just skip in your evening greetings. Thank you. Don't be a stranger. Yes. Yeah, all right. That is the end of our agenda. So we will adjourn to do deliberative for our one item.