 Yeah, I'm sorry, I've got things popping up on my on my screen. So it's distracting me. Alright, so call to order the meeting is called to order there any changes to tonight's agenda. Okay, hearing none. I think we'll go to public comment at this point. No public. No public. All right. All right, so move on to approval of the previous meeting minutes. I'm going to make a motion and a second from Sarah and Joe, even though you may or may not have been at the meeting. I was not at the meeting, but I see no flaws in them. Otherwise, I'll approve the minutes. So you're going to make a motion to approve. Yeah, and Joe, I'll say you're going to second that. Okay. I think technically you can't second it because your chair. Right. Okay. That's how I interpret it. Anyway, I don't know if Christine interprets it differently or not, but that's what we do a council to. Yeah. And, and technically, I can vote, but typically don't unless it's needed for a tie break. So, so, and in this case, I'll vote because we need it for a quorum to get the requisite number of votes. So hearing no changes all in favor of the motion, please say I or signify I, I, I. Okay. I think is select election of officers and I don't know if we want to do that tonight with the three of us, or if we want to wait for the full group to be here I don't know if anyone has any interest in taking over as chairperson vice chair or what's the other position secretary slash treasure. I do have a question. I'm not sure if I missed it in the minutes but did has anyone come forward to build a vacant seat created by Terry. We did have so we did have one person that was interested in multiple commissions for the city that I believe there's three different commissions that they were interested in one being the planning commission. Since we have, in my opinion, six strong members currently. The thought was to let one of the other commissions interview the person first where where they have a little bit less attendance or a little bit fewer members. So, but other than that, and there I haven't had any indication of anybody coming forward at this point. Okay, and there was somebody named by the name of our who attended one of the previous meetings I think quite an interest in the commission was that the same person or that wasn't David was it. First name. It was not the same person that attended a previous meeting. Okay. The other thing I'll throw in is, I believe we had this conversation and about trying to solicit some minority or, or folks who otherwise don't necessarily get involved. Is that politically correct? I don't know, but anyway, I had wondered that too, because I know we were going through the, the audit from the, the equity director and I was wondering if maybe there was going to be some. I mean, I'm sure there will be some, some, some reach on how to incorporate more people into the commission. Yeah. Yeah, we're sorry, go ahead. Maybe gonna say the same thing. That's part of it. I was working in like an overarching strategy about around that so I don't think there's going to be any like immediate results from that. Yeah, it might, it might take to be a kind of a slow brew kind of. Yeah, and making it, I had an exchange with her about it as well. And she's really interested in making sure like we have been supports in place to bring in somebody who maybe is like not familiar with commissions, the structure at all to begin with. So are they all really high learning curves because I feel like this one is a high learning curve. Yeah, I think this is worse than others. Yeah, worse, higher learning curve. I will say I was a little more intimidated. I had applied to a couple of commissions when I started and the DRB still intimidates me just because like the level of accountability that they have. And like the knowledge of the code. I think that they have a lot on their shoulders. I, my respect to them. Yeah, as well as commission members. So in terms of officers, I don't know if either of you are interested in any positions. Not at this point. For me. Have you great Mike. I default by default. So Eric, have you heard from from either, well from Amy, I guess would be only other. So I did reach out to Amy about her interest in continuing as vice chair and she she said she is not interested at this time I guess she's got a lot going on right now and she's still fine being a member but is going to step down from being one of the officers. Okay. So, so we really have three positions to fill I'm, I'm okay staying on. Is Amy, Amy staying on though with the, with the commission now right. That's correct. Yes. Yes. So we need someone to step up for. Well, any one of those positions I guess, but we need nominations. So I'm going to suggest we table it until our next meeting. Yeah, and hopefully we'll all be here and we can, you know, I'll talk about it and make the motions. I mean, I guess as an alternative option Mike if you're interested in the remaining chair we could, we could take care of that position presuming that no one else. You know, if Amy doesn't want to be vice chair she probably doesn't want to be the chair, and Tommy can't be an officer so unless Abby, I don't think I'm going to guess she doesn't have a strong interest or we could revisit it when she joins, and at least get have the chair nominated so that we can do that. Yeah, let's let's do that that way there'll be at least four of us here. Okay. Okay. So then I think the next item is getting into the form base code chapter four, chapter three, four, whatever it whatever it is, I don't have it in front of me. One through four, chapter three. Right. So, yeah, so I sent around a document that includes changes that we have discussed along the way basically, recent out sections one through four with those changes highlighted so we can talk about those specifically. Abby also sent out an email earlier today with some comments from her so that she can have those comments, at least, acknowledged as we go through the documents. So, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen here. We can walk through the I guess we don't need this anymore. So that we can walk through the comments, both what were shared by by Abby and that I have incorporated and talk about them as we go. So, yeah, so I'll just scroll through the document here. Actually, sorry, let me rearrange my screen a little bit first. This is a challenge doing it with just one screen when I'm used to doing it with two. Okay, so the first few pages are just basically some reorganization of numbers and lettering from ones and two so nothing new here. I'll just cruise through this unless you all want to stop me to talk about any of it until we get to the substance, the substantive items to discuss specifically. And while you're doing that, I haven't, I suggested to you that I might do something right and I haven't done it, of course. But I'm just wondering, because to me this is a very complex and difficult document to understand the form based code. And I'm wondering about, I'll throw this out how other folks might feel but about having some kind of a. I was going to say simple but I don't think it could be simple, but like a one or two pager that kind of just identifies the different using form sections and what's allowed, you know, some kind of the different requirements of the zones, if that can be done simply I know you shared with me a spreadsheet that you do for developers, a checklist type thing. I don't know if it's more or not, but I just trying to think, is there some way to simplify it so it's summarized in a couple of pages somewhere, as opposed to trying to get through all of this. Yeah, I mean, and I know that's good that's probably a pain in the butt for you to have to try to do. I can I mean I can try to put something together you know as much as much work as can be done up front so people understand what's going on I think that it makes my job easier in the long run. So, you know, it's, I think it, I don't think it would hurt to put together something like that, so I can I can try to get something together. You're saying like kind of like it's like a synopsis that would preface. Yeah, yeah, I kind of having the same feeling like it's just, you know, we were treat, we're tweaking things like you know ones are going to ease and twos are going to bees, but this sort of overview feeling, I'm still feeling like we might not be hitting. It sort of seeing it as an overview I'm agreeing with you. Yeah. Yeah, I mean to me it's like, okay well, you know, what are the what are the restrictions of the parameters in each of these different districts. And it's hard to me it's hard to go through this document and pull that out. Yeah. Yeah. And sometimes we discover just in our conversations that you know we're going on and on about something and then somebody says well what are we talking about and it's you know two blocks or something you know that. Yeah, or it's in another it's stated someplace else. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So, yeah, so the first comment here highlighted is a discussion we had about the notification to adjacent property owners. And when we discussed this previously I had some concerns about the 15 day notice and just being able to ensure that we're meeting our statutory requirements for taking action on an application since these are still technically administrative administrative applications. So, the language I was proposing here is to basically indicate that the notice to the adjacent property owners will be mailed no less than 10 days prior to the to the meeting. In one section where Abby provided a comment about whether or not this meets state statute, and I actually would say that it does because technically the statutory reference that she's citing and just statute in general would apply to public hearings. And since these meetings are not public hearings they wouldn't fall under the purview of open meeting law. It's really more of a staff meeting and so it's more of a courtesy that we're inviting the adjacent property owners to these meetings and making them aware of the, the actions that are that are happening so it's because the project review committee is not a standing committee of the city. It doesn't fall the open meeting law standards don't apply to to that group specifically. And I remember when we talked about this we had quite a long discussion about this, in terms of should it be 15 days or five days or, and we settled on 10 I think my recollection. That's where we landed with the intent to come back and revisit. Yeah, I sort of thought about it too and I was wondering if maybe we should meet in the middle of Eric. We went from 15 to 10 and it is still a notification to the public. I don't know if, if going to 12 is going to help you any in what you got to get figured out. Yeah, I mean the challenge becomes that statute requires that I take action or the zoning administrator take action on a on a zoning permit application within 30 days of receipt. So that action can either be approval denial or referral to what they could what they call the appropriate municipal panel which in our case would be the development review board. I have to take one of those actions within 30 days of receipt of a complete application. So because we have this project review committee for projects that are in the in the form based code in the gateway zoning district. We have to we have to specifically schedule a meeting and then notify the adjacent property owners per the regulations of the meeting so to fit everything within that within that 30 day window and that's 30 calendar days. So that we have to take action when, when I'm only here for 20 business days technically in any 30 day period roughly somewhere in that time frame. So, I'm working with basically 20 days as it is to from the time and application shows up here. So, 10 days to me I think is a sufficient amount of time. And the reason I say that is because one of the standards and statute is that for projects that need to go through a site plan review, which are basically any projects in our in our any way, any project that is not a single family or two unit dwelling for the most part there's some other some other projects like that but they're pretty small projects don't go through site plan review, just about anything else does and site plan review does require formal notice to adjacent property owners it does go to the development review board and statute only requires seven days notice for site plan review. So, this is giving more time than site plan review but not as much time as a formal public hearing. And I mean I think in most 10 days is I think a pretty good amount of time for people to get notified. So, I mean we could do more but I think all that does is compresses the time that I have available to to take action on these projects. So, the risk that we would run into is that I have to take action before we could even have a project review committee meeting. So then, then the adjacent property owners don't know about it. I guess it's just hard for us to judge. Absolutely. Absolutely. Your, your logic sounds very well reasoned Eric and I, it sounds like you put a lot of thought into it and I totally appreciate that I can understand where Sarah's coming from to is because I think it's sort of. I mean, the feeling is that the project review committee meeting is the only avenue that the public has for any sort of expression of their sentiment about a project in which really they don't really have any real statements. And here you're getting even less time to, you know, kind of gather the wagons to put that together. So they have, I mean the public kind of has limited participation this begin with and then it's going to be, you're taking even more away so I can kind of see that but it sounds like you have good sound reason for doing it. And I guess, I would also say that, you know, because this is an administrative approval still the property, even after action is taken the property still gets posted for the 15 day appeal period. So during that additional 15 day appeal period folks can if they, if they want to they can learn more about the projects. You know, we, we put all the information on our website and we have it available here at City Hall as well. So that people want to see more about it and learn more about it they can, and they still have the right to appeal that decision because it is an administrative decision to the Development Review Board. Okay. I'm going to add to, I think I said this when we're discussing it before and, and I hear the time crunch I know that was a big part of this, Eric, because you are only there 20 days and by the time you get the application and get all the stuff together and whatever. The thing is, when this first came up. There was no public notice. And we required. We being a council at the time required them to put in some provision for public notice so that the public would at least be able to would be able to know about it and get there and be able to give some input because originally it was going to be just a basically a closed door hearing. So any concerns with the language as it's written for the 10 days prior to the, to the meeting hearing none I'll say we're so far so good and again, we will set a public hearing on all of these changes anyway so there will be another opportunity to to look at this. Okay. So another comment Abby had another comment on this under item D basically asking about the if the project review committee has really any, any authority for approval or denial or if it's basically just making a recommendation. And if the there is any information about the project review committee itself. To her comment, I would say the project review committee is advisory strictly they provide input to me as the zoning administrator ultimately this is still an administrative approval. So they have no authority to to approve or deny it still is ultimately the zoning administrator's decision. And to her second point about the makeup of the project review committee. I actually have put in a definition in this in the in the the form base code that defines who the project review committee is and what they kind of what they do. So that's obviously not a section we've looked at so I think we've covered both of her concerns there. And that definition also talks about their, I'll use term power but their, their, their advisory and not regulatory or where the word is. Yeah, correct and actually I think so. I think my personally I have more of a fundamental objection with that system of governance with the project review committee versus how we've actually worded this but So I don't know if you can see the the screen switch for you all. Yes. So here's what I've drafted for the, for the project review committee definition if you want to see that. So that's, you know, give some sense of what their role is who they are how that all works out. Your last comment, was it about the project review committee I didn't catch the whole just to what you're saying that like I think that the addendums that have been presented here are are valid and work I just I think I have more of a problem with having a project review committee versus a design review board, just in reading like actually some of the testimony that I've gotten out of like the Burlington design review board what they put forth as far as suggestions for projects. They get real consideration rather than you have a bunch of neighbors come out here who are talking about their concerns of a project, and they may or may not get recorded. So, yeah. But does it Eric does the the RPC. Did I say that right. It's really looking at technical aspects right I mean it's it's public works it's safety it's community development. Right for the most part that's that's what they're they're looking at. Conformity with the code is under my purview still and that's where anything specific to the form based code would be identified and flagged as a condition or something that needed to be amended. Prior to technically what we try to do is get all that addressed prior to the submission of the application so that the consistency with the code is already been established. So we're looking forward. And being a formalized submission. And Joe I think that the discussion of a design review committee is something that we can take up at a later date. As part of the looking at zoning as a whole. You know just. Sure. And Christine, I forget. I guess we would recommend if we come to that conclusion, we would either we would recommend starting a design review committee to the council they would have to approve it and set it up correct. Yes, well, I'm answering for you but I. Well, I actually guess you right before she left what would it take to put a committee together. And that was pretty much the answer. So it could be individuals in the community or it could be us right it doesn't matter where it comes from but it has to go to council. Okay, so moving along. No other real issues with that text. The next item that was flagged here was in this section and actually Abby had a comment on part a here about the modifications. And her comment was an increase to I'm guessing she meant to say in the size of the dwelling units, and not the number and if that would trigger the need to review the project. I guess I hadn't really thought about the size of the units, because we don't have any specifications in the code now for the size whether that be the number of bedrooms or the actual physical square footage of a dwelling unit. So just, we look at the overall building footprint. So, I don't know if changing the size of the units would be would have an impact as much as the number of units quite frankly, but happy to hear others thoughts about that. I think that if you, let's say you have a building with 20 units in it, and they're all one bedroom units, if you want to make a couple of them two bedrooms, you're probably going to decrease the number of units. And conversely, if you're, if you're trying to make two bedroom units the one or bedroom units you might increase the number. So I would think that would kick this in. Well, I think what I was envisioning as well, rather than just then. Yeah, I guess, I don't know if there would be a change in the size of the dwellings without. Well, it would, it would be a change of the building I think if it's if there's going to be any external factors to at play aside from just rearranging what the what the footprint already looks like. So we have in the code somewhere minimum size that like a bedroom could be our living room or etc. Correct. It's in the housing code. It does talk about the minimum size for a dwelling space or sleeping space I forget how it's actually worded but in the in the municipal ordinances yes we do discuss that. My only comment would be to be sure that that if there was a change. Let's be crazy. Someone wants to create a three bedroom unit out of a one bedroom unit and they're making six by seven foot bedrooms, which can just fit a bed in it. Nothing else than the municipal code housing. Well, I mean I think that would be reviewed quite frankly that would probably be reviewed during the building permitting process that wouldn't the zoning ordinance wouldn't wouldn't get involved with that. Okay, because I guess and use component that's more of a habitability component a building component. So that would be my only concern. I think in this case if they're if they're increasing the size of a dwelling that is going to result in a change to the to the approved building footprint. I believe that would be captured under under item B here that it would be a result, it would be a change to the approved site plan, because the building footprint would be changing and therefore altering the site plan itself. I think if they're if they're working within the existing footprint of the building, and they're increasing the number of units I don't know if that's really something that we would get into other than for site plan modifications because it would it would, if they're increasing units they're going to need more parking. Well that would increasing units would fall under a right. Oh yeah sorry sorry if they're if they're sorry if they're increasing the size of the units that's not going to. And they're not changing the number of units that's and that without changing the footprint of the building I don't. Unless it gets to the point where they need more parking because the bedroom count changes or increases by that that size of the units, I don't, I don't see that as a. I don't know if it's going to be a factor I guess is my point. Maybe to her point. If they decrease the number of units, but don't change anything else through the building, then it doesn't get reviewed. That's the way that I viewed it yeah if it's if it's a decrease in the number of units because presumably it's going to have a smaller footprint or a smaller impact on the space so if a larger site was approved then presumably a smaller site would also be approved. Yeah. I think it's clear. So. And then so part C here was one that we had some discussion on which is why it's highlighted. I don't know if there was any, I don't quite frankly remember what the discussion was on this part so if. I don't know if there was any, anybody remembers or has any specific concerns with that. It's not in my notes so. So maybe this wasn't an issue at all then. And we can continue on. Okay. Then we shot was this the one that you were talking about in regards to. Like the wraparound of some buildings. I can't remember I mean it's it has been like I haven't been to the last meeting so I didn't know if that was picked up again but remember we were talking about that Eric about increasing kind of like glazed portion of the building. Oh, I are you referring to the like windows on the sides of the building. Yes, yes. Yeah so this this wouldn't have this wouldn't this wasn't related to that discussion. So. Okay, well I guess we'll move on. So again these were all pretty standard I think no real concerns with any of this previously I apologize for the scrolling if this is hard to see on the screen as it goes by. Because I get dizzy you'll know why. So the next item we had discussion on was the administrative amendments for the parking setback line. And I added this this language about corner lots to just to be able to accommodate the, the secondary side the secondary street to allow for more relief on that side to accommodate the parking just given some of the area that was was available. This is actually one that Abby had a comment on as well. And her comment was if we wanted to add any buffering such as bushes or walls etc to the border to the neighbors, if the parking is moved closer to their properties on the side streets. And I think in this case I don't think that the parking would actually be moved any closer to the neighboring properties. So having the, it would actually be moved closer to the street is what this would allow this wouldn't. This wouldn't impact any of the, the existing areas on the property or the adjacent properties it would just allow parking to be closer to the street. But the, but the neighborhood manners takes care of that buffering anyway. Correct. That's correct. Yes. And parking is already permitted in the neighborhood manners areas already. So it may allow for some additional encroachment there but it's still requiring at least 15 feet that the parking setback would be no closer than 15 feet behind the property boundary. So, it's still there's still a fairly, I think a good setback on that secondary street anyway. But I know we did have some discussion on this so I wanted to make sure we were able to revisit it if there was more to have everyone okay with that. I know we had a long discussion and it and it's not crystal clear my head but that's okay because I know we had a long discussion. Yes. I thought yeah, Abby really had a clear mind for this and I have a hard time conceptualizing myself so. So do we need to read Abby's comment again or do, do you guys feel comfortable moving on. I'm comfortable moving on. I think I think Eric addressed it. Yeah, I, yeah, me too. Okay. All right. So moving on then I think the next big item was the was the common drives and the curb cuts so unless there's something else in here I'm just going to cruise through these sections fairly quick. And now I had a note on something that I, there was a couple of items, a couple of changes that I made that I didn't intend to make so I wanted to just make sure that those were identified but I think they come in later. So, Eric actually would you stop on page 13, the one yes one. Yep. Okay going to D which is an historic structure one. Yep. So this. This means that these that a building couldn't. Did we talk about this already historically designated structure may be specified for civic use buildings, but that means somebody couldn't take a building and turn it into a restaurant or shop or something else is that what that is limiting. I really understand this is saying is that a historic structure could be designated as a civic building on the regulating plan, which then gives it some protections but also limits some of what can happen there. But it's not suggesting that it has to be a civic building on the historic structures have to be designated as civic. Okay, can we put that in there. And it already is by the wording just by saying that his historically designated structures may be specific, maybe specified by by planning Commission and City Council. So it would it would it would in essence have to be a change to the regulating plan which requires you all first as the planning Commission to to propose the change or to make the change and then go through a public hearing. And it has to be able to approve that change as well as an amendment to the regulations. So it's not it wouldn't be as simple as somebody just saying you know what, I think we should make that a civic building, and it just becomes that way it has to go through this whole process like we're doing now for any of these other amendments for that to happen. So it doesn't limit it to civic use. That's correct. Okay, that's what I was saying. I think there's only three buildings that are currently designated as civic use one is the city hall. One is the fire station and one is the is the school. Okay, so other than that everything else is just is based off the regulating plans. What is designated as civic but they don't have to be. Okay, so so can you relay what what the intent of this is. Yeah. Actually, I think the intent so I think the intent here and I don't have my code with me but there is a actually. Let me see if I can get to it quickly so I'm kind of wondering is it like is it like the idea that if a historic property became available that was in an outlying like zoning district that it could be used for a civic purpose. I think really what it has to do with is is what requirements civic buildings need to go through. Okay. So, this is the existing code for what we say for civic, something that is specifically designated as civic does not need to comply with the architectural standards or the building form standards. I think that's doing is basically saying if it's a historic structure that we want to protect or allow to maintain its existing architecture and and and form. It can be designated as a civic use and then when it redevelops, or if it redevelops with other uses that are allowed in that building form standard, it wouldn't need to go through the architectural standard review or the building form standard review. That makes perfect sense now that you that is my that is what I think that is intended for. Okay. Okay, so like yeah so it wouldn't be judged against the same yardstick as a new bill is what you're saying. Correct. Okay, that is correct. And the mayor has her hand up. Okay, so just to be clear, this existing language allows an historic structure to disregard the building form standards. It does not it's designated civic, but it does not require a civic use. So, this applies to any uses that are that are designated as civic now, or they would have to be designated as a civic use on the on the, the regulating plan. So, as an example. The stone house on East Allen Street is privately commercially use. We under this language designated as civic and then it doesn't have to conform to building form standards, even though it's not actually in reality being used in a civic way. It would be able to. Wouldn't it have to become a civic use. Isn't that the intent. I don't think so I don't, there are specific that the code allows for certain uses to only be permitted in the civic use category. But I think they ultimately still need to follow the building form standard where they're located. So for example with the school when it redeveloped or with the project they're going through now. It's a school so it's a little bit of a odd example. You know, they can continue to utilize they were basically able to to design whatever type of a school they wanted because they didn't need to comply with the architectural standards, or the building form which talks about location to the to the building line, the parking step back line things of that nature so they were able to design something that really fit that that civic nature of the of the designation. I would have to look at the code specifically to see what is all permitted under that category of civic. So the school, the school was considered historic structure then. And that's why they were allowed to know it was it was just designated as a civic use. Okay. So, in the case in the, the language that you pointed out Sarah allows for historic structures to be classified as civic to allow for this provision that's on the screen now to take effect. I read this provision as saying, it's a civic use in a building that houses a civic use on a certain site so if it's a private law office let's take the stone store right private office. It's not a civic use so I don't see how this would apply, but I think it gets into the, I think it gets into the question back to the historic structures of looking at that a little bit more closely. When we get that the input from the consultant and dealing with historic structures that we want to maintain. So how we define civic use currently in the code places of worship museums. Well, I guess what what came to mind is actually in fact, the mayor's specific reference is like when the city acquired the, I mean the city did own the old stone house for quite a long time they bought it after bison tenial and adapted it from use as a private to, I think it was offices on the first floor and it was a public museum on the second floor, but being historic structure, it would destroy the building to renovate that modern building standards. So I guess that's why I think that am I understand this correctly it's saying that these other standard wouldn't necessarily inherently applied to a historic structure being used for a civic purpose. If it's if it's officially designated as a civic use on the regulating plan. Okay. And the stone house is not. It is not right. There's only the only buildings that are currently designated as a civic use are the school city hall and the fire station, or was it probably would have been at one time though. I would think because the city did own it right. It was a public building and add a museum. Well that doesn't I mean like the O'Brien Center is not designated as a civic use, for example. What about what about the mill which has two museums in it does that then fall into this category. No. That's not it's not in the gateway so it's it's. It's not the gateway. Erica is there is there more to that definition on page the next page. I don't. Yes. There is. Yeah, so so there you go public ownership alone does not constitute civic use. I had a question, but we scroll back up for a second. Sorry. That's all right. It was about like the act of God section where it was like about it scroll up a little bit more in the definitions are you back to the. I'm not in definition sorry, we're looking at about civic use for designated historic buildings. Yeah. Yeah. What does public enemy. Oh, I think that means if somebody comes in and like, actively or a specifically tries to harm a building or a structure or does something maliciously. Okay, it's like an active vandalism like a terrorist. Yeah. Okay. I was just wondering like I didn't know if that was defined somewhere. I mean, there probably is some formal definition of that but. So this conversation has has again brought up that the idea of historic structures and historic preservation and I know we're waiting for the consultants report. But it seems like, and I think it's something we can talk about later and make a change when we discuss the historic structures but again in terms of some of the structures in the gateway. districts that are historic that may be designated historic because just because it's designated historic. As we found out with the mansion house. It doesn't protect it from from being ripped down and whatnot. And I may be going a little bit on a tangent here but I guess this just prompted me to think about. We have to deal with historic structures I think. Yeah. And that's why I kind of pulled it out of this because, you know, we're scrolling through and tweaking a lot of things and I just wanted to pull it out for the same reason just to keep us on. Having that on the forefront some. Any idea Eric or Christine, when we're going to hear from Rida or over the consultant this. So we did right. She prepared the report she prepared recommendations. At the strategy priority session the other weekend, we left to store preservation in the recommended section, not must do but recommended. And we had some discussion about this body looking into in the coming year. Because we could make in our existing regulations in the, like, more rapidly to have some local protections, because there's more, we would need more research potentially more work from the consultant to actually implement all of those recommendations she put for. So like, is there something short term we can do in our form based code and zoning that we can do more quickly than actually implementing all of what she recommended. Yeah. So, yeah, she put forward the recommendations but then like, actually putting that into action is a much larger process from what I got. Yeah. Yeah. I don't remember seeing that have we seen that. Yeah, she, she talked to us, right she presented to us. She did. She spoke to council a little bit more about what the options were those. Yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah, about recommendations. And so that the work we did on the Saturday session staff is going to bring back to us after a final review. I think at our next meeting in July. To finalize, and then in August, like Eric, Mike, and myself, we will meet to talk about what the work plan would be for the commission for this commission for the upcoming year. And then I think that's we can discuss where that fits in. Okay. Okay, so we can, we can move on then I guess from this. Everybody. Yeah, but I'm glad you flag this era. I've taken some notes because I feel like this ties right into like, is there somewhere that we could build off of. Yeah. And I think part of the problem, the part of the issue is though is that the quick fix approach was already tried with form based code, and it was found that that didn't work and then got removed. And so we were left with nothing. And so now we're kind of going back to trying to do the quick fix which it seems like we're kind of bouncing back and forth and it might not lead anywhere to what we actually want but So we have to keep the pressure on Joe. I mean, I would I would love to say that you know there was some piece of language we could include here that would actually have like a meaningful difference but I think it really is going to be something broader and it's a it's a complicated issue. As Brenna brought it. And I just I scroll down I see Abby has joined us hi Abby. Okay, so moving along. The next section where there's some significant or where we had some changes and a lot of discussion was with the common drives and curb cuts. So I'll first flag we did have some discussion in under under this part one here about the new relocated curb cuts being within 100 feet of one another or a certain distance on the same block face. So I added this additional language of the 50 feet of a block corner as well so that we don't have them stacked right on right at the corners as as well. In that regard. And I think Abby I think your comment yeah your comment comes in under common drives so yeah so I think everything else was pretty similar here to what we had previously discussed, but then the 50 feet from the block corner was a good addition. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So the common drives is where I put in a lot of new language and just kind of rearrange things a bunch as well. So, what I tried to do here was you know based on our last discussion set it up so that there was some kind of hierarchical aspects to this so that we one of the comments or one of the lines of discussion we had last time revolved around using these common drives as kind of cut through is behind the back of these properties from the way like going on the main street so what I tried to do was build in some language that would would help address that. I don't know if it if it hit the mark but to try to get to some of those questions or concerns. And I know Abby you had a comment here about actually in in this part a on on the common drives. Yeah, I was trying to get at like part of what the common drives is supposed to do is like the suburbanized development, right so it's supposed to provide more access points into different areas instead of like the traditional like main road into the parking lot and then back out into the main road to make it more like urban feel the greater points of access so I just thought it was worth discussing a little bit more if we really think these are going to be the streets I mean they're going to be like parking lot type facilities I just, I just worry that we're like trying to avoid them being cut through these but they're one, they wouldn't actually be used as a cut through bar so major accident happening on the main road then maybe, but like designing them over an assumption that they'll be used as a cut through I think is might be unfortunate to what the goal of the common drives really was which was providing like less curb cuts more access into the properties. And so Eric, I asked you for some just some images of that earlier today which you sent to me. And can you bring that up first because the page 12 That is a good question. I don't know that readily accessible for myself. Okay. All right well that's okay. So, so they're kind of some of them they weren't, they were common drive but they didn't go through they were sort of around the sides of the building. Correct. And I think the idea here is that the common drive wouldn't, there would be access on to the to the main road as well that that went into the common drive just based on the curb cut locations it may not be that every property is a curb cut which is kind of what I was trying to to get at by adding this language here to basically say common drives are going to serve the property so you there might not be a curb cut available. On the property when it redevelops based on the location of other curb cuts, but those other curb cuts would also provide access into the property so that it's not just going to be a common drive along the back of all the properties that's only accessed off the side streets there would still be the the the mid block curb cuts that access the parking areas and therefore the common drives, but may not that may not be on every property. But this might be too subjective but is there some way to incorporate language in there that would say like, and this would be to like the, the, the planners discretion but if that if it's foreseen that this common drive would in fact create a situation where you can tell you're collecting traffic that the, the planner could suggest like a one way situation or something like that that they could be at their discretion to provide mitigation to adverse effects. Does that make sense. Yeah, I mean, I, I guess it's possible to do it that way I mean I think I would, I would prefer to have something more specific in the regulations that. So if you had a block where you're going to have common drive that went out on both sides of the side streets. Right. So it makes sense. What if you did. What if you didn't allow that what if that common drive had to have a cut in the middle that didn't allow so you would have two smaller common drives. Does it see what I mean. Well so that I think was partially the, the language on the next page talking about the, the one way traffic or the, the two way situation and how wide of a block could accommodate that so that there would be some of those items incorporated. I hit the mark with that but that was kind of the intent of what I was doing was trying to, if it was an excessively long stretch of block that there would be some, some limitations or some alternatives that were incorporated. So wouldn't be just a whole street behind all those. It would need to have some sort of a chicane or a speed table or something that would kind of divert traffic or reroute it or slow it down a bit. So it would still be able to continue the whole way through but it wouldn't just be a straight shot with no, no stop signs or no breaks so that people would use it more as a cut through. Yeah, yeah I saw that language in D, which I thought was helpful you have, like if it's to a traffic you, you need limit traffic speeds with speed tables speed dips or similar methods. You can't have more than 400 feet without a stop device to control traffic. I think those speak to, you know, discouraging it is cut through but we know the more access points we give into a property. And I'm like not advocating for curb cuts but just talking about like off the main road and the side roads. It spreads out that traffic, where if you end up doing like a one way situation. And forcing traffic to constantly move into the neighborhood, you don't give that disbursement through different access points. Yeah, right. Yeah, ultimately, you know, if we look at the the language on curb cuts and how often they're permitted. On curb cut basically every every 100 feet in essence. And so, on a block of 400 feet you're presumably going to have four curb cuts or have the ability to put in roughly four curb cuts on the main road, plus then a common drive access on the back so you're going to have multiple points of ingress and egress. I did some measurements and the block between. I want to say the block between Platte Street and was it LaFountain or Spring Street. I think that block is like 360 feet long. Something that scales so there's not going to be the potential for a whole lot of development on on a block like that but it, there will be enough that they could have multiple curb cuts on the main street, and still have the ability to provide some sort of access off the back through that common drive. Do you know what the distance between spring and LaFountain is. I want to say it's around that same. I can measure it quick here I think it would be probably the longest. So I wonder. Well there's some others that are longer Mike but yes that's pretty long. Well, on the other side of the street I guess from Stevens up to Tiger is a long haul. Yeah, that's, that's a gap. That's probably the longest. There is, there is a provision for some like sanctioned cut through there I guess we discussed before the air right. Yeah, I think that's a good question. Yeah, I think that's a good question. I want to sort of throw out the idea of, could we just not allow it if it was. So it either has to be an L shaped or a U shaped, and it can't be just one straight line all the way through the back of the block. I mean, I see it impacting neighbors especially if the neighborhood manner it exists in its, like in its full capacity so basically you have properties along these main streets. So we're talking about going behind the property along the main street so it's not like going down into a neighborhood and then cutting through the middle. And then going around one of these properties and cutting into the back. So the neighbor, the neighbors that would be affected if it was used by the cut through if the neighborhood manner would pop properly insulated the neighbors from the development. I don't see like the big impact on that particular neighbor neighborhood. Well, if you're coming on the side street let's say you're going towards Main Street. And there's a common drive, and you take a left heading south. You could go all the way through that. If it went from the next from that block to the next one. Do we want to allow that to see is that. Yeah. Yeah, okay so you're saying like if you come like and you cut through the neighborhood basically, and then you use that to continue the main roads. Yeah. So that's where that chicane design and the speed tables and stuff. Joe, what were you going to say. Yeah, I added all this interesting stuff which I think puts my mind a lot more ease about it, but I was going to say like this does happen already like I see it all the time funny people for coming down. And I think we're kind of all envisioning which adds a lot of traffic to those very nice residential streets that otherwise wouldn't be there and a lot of people honestly speeding through there, just to get where we are going to say have no real association with that neighborhood. But I think all of this mitigation is really good because I don't know if I mentioned this already but I think this is in a way already in place like if you kind of picture. I'm trying to think of the name of the street Newell place and like weaver lane behind the Winooski block. Yeah, I mean that's a public street in effect serves as this function and I think it's one way. And I think it actually functions pretty well it doesn't, you know, invite people to cut through there, but it still provides, you know, good egress for the, all the businesses that are located in the Winooski block and allows a great shot it you can't go all the way through you have to come you have to make an L. Yep, exactly. And I think it's one way in certain directions I can't remember exactly. Two way to West Allen Street by the bank. I think so. And I think it's two way from Main Street over to the behind there. Yeah, behind there. You know, that's actually a really interesting point Joe, you know we already kind of have a system of these side roads in place. Not when you think about the corridors so for example weaver Street in essence serves as a side road to Main Street, you know, Leclerc up to La Fountain over to, I guess to upper Leclerc to Berlin to up to to Bellevue gets you on that side of Main Street so there's already a series of connecting side roads. So it may be that these common drives would not be considered for that type of of cut through traffic because there's already a public road that they can use to cut through on if they really need to cut through. And people are going to cut through if it saves them time. So if you put some restrictions on it, and if they're dumping out into a street that's busy like East Spring Street. You know, it's going to discourage them if they can go faster up Main Street or go wherever. And that was part of like, there was discussion of like was it mansion street and there was a proposal to make it one way at a certain point. I don't remember the exact details. But I definitely like when I'm walking around the city I watch people like ripped through those neighborhoods like trying to get to like East Allen or vice versa, like trying to get from East Allen, Barlow to Maine. And it has a real effect on those people. So I was going to say the the other thing if if there's a real concern about cut through, even with what Eric has put in here. Another way around it, people might not like it but you, you make the last, you make only exits onto the side streets they can't access from the side streets so they can't turn from let's say Leclerc La Fountain Street into a one of these alleyways and get off on Spring Street. There's a lot of time with equating city streets with what we're talking about with common drives like a successful city is this grid like structure right which encourages traffic to go in many different directions. It's like a deep concentration of traffic right versus like a cul-de-sac suburbia where everybody's forced to be on the main road because nothing gets anywhere else. I, to say that people are cutting through city on city streets to get places I mean I think that's the essential function of the roads versus like a common drive which I'm envisioning to be much narrower, like less accessible space that's clearly going through like a parking street but with speed bombs it just feels very different to me than then equating it to like a city street. Well that's that's why if the concern is that there's people are going to use it that way and people will use whatever they can, if it's going to gain them a minute in travel time right. So whether it's a city street or an alley or right but I don't think as designed these are going to gain them any time unless like I said there's a major accident and then it gives circulation which I don't think is like a terrible thing. I think we're on the same, that's what I was trying to say Abby, I think we're on the same page. I think so, yes. The other thing to keep in mind, there's going to be some areas of the city where just based on the grades or other physical attributes, common drives won't be able to connect the whole way through from one side street to another. So these, in essence will only serve a certain amount of space as they get developed just because they won't be an opportunity for them to go anywhere else. And I think we discussed the possibility they honestly may never materialize, but like it's here in case you know there's an opportunity for it. That's correct. Yeah, I think once more development starts to happen and we start to to see developments come in where they can't get a curb cut they're going to have to take access from a shared curb cut and then a some level of common drive on the rear parking areas. Interesting phrase you just said once more development starts to happen. Are we envisioning like it faster because like I feel like it's happening pretty fast already. No. I think the market's going to dictate that. Okay. So, I think it's as things fill in. It's really the term. So, so since we're speaking about this, Eric, is the 400 feet too long, because of the size of our city blocks that you've written here or you, you sort of paste that out thought that through I assume. So I, I mean to the extent that I looked at a couple of samples, I mean we don't really have that many blocks, quite frankly. Most of them are much longer than 400 feet. Okay. There's only a handful that are less than 400 feet. They're, you know, they're, they're like, for example, as Mike mentioned the block between we have a we have one block that goes on the west side of Main Street from Stephen Street up to up to to Tygan. That's an entire block which is almost a quarter mile of block which is really a long way. So, for the most part 400 feet is, is I think long enough to capture more of the, what I would call the more residential blocks like the mansion to plat, and the plat to to East spring type of situations but beyond that like when you go from East spring to La Fountain, then you're getting into that's about a 750 foot stretch on the other side of the street like the Union to Stevens is a pretty significant stretch. So there's, you know, they're that is it will will limit where I think is will accommodate the more residential areas to kind of force that flow of traffic from going into those areas and taking it away from those areas. Is there any of this stop a developer who says, I've got 350 feet. I want to put speed bumps up or some kind of slow down. I mean, could it choose to do that themselves. Absolutely. They may do that. They may do that because absolutely they could do whatever traffic control they wanted to have children in the back and it's yeah, hang or whatever. Yep, absolutely. So just to point out this is one section where I did notice that I neglected to put in the word apply here on this on the end of this so that the standards under part for you 301 D 3G apply. So that'll be an addition for the next version that you see. Maybe another example of this. I'm kind of, I don't know if any of you folks are familiar with this but from I think it's an Essex junction in South Street. There's an access point to, I think it's what like it's the, it's called Essex Pearl Street place or exit junction place there's a large shopping mall there. There's a corridor that follows behind it. And it's a very popular spot because you can go from basically Park Street in Essex pop scotch like back behind that shopping center and then being most of like you've totally avoided five corners. You're talking the old amp center. Yeah, exactly. Exactly that shopping center, and they have put in like traffic. It's easing tomming, I guess, efforts or speed bumps and like they have like, it's like a odometer speedometer kind of thing set up there. You're trying to get you to go 15 miles per hour and really only encourage people who are using the businesses there to go through there. So you yourself have you used that before. Of course he has. That's why he said it. Not specifically to cut through, because they do have these things in place I have used it when I'm using the businesses that are in the shopping center but I could see where if it didn't have that it's a prime target for just like zipping through there and like creating real public risk for like people who are using that space. Yeah, I say extension does a good job of forcing you through the five corners like you can't. I tried to get from Lincoln Street to Pearl Street. Oh yeah. It's impossible. There's a labyrinth kind of set up there. Putting in the crescent connector. So these a lot of these buildings that we're putting up our residential buildings and are there going to be back lots or these common drives that children might be playing in or I mean is we need to be stronger about the speed back there I'm just throwing that out as a That's nothing I don't think that's anything we would dictate in zoning that because it's going to be private. Right. That's what I was going to say is it's. That's going to it's going to be private land so the owners would would be the ones that would would have control over that the city can't dictate what the speeds will be on these in these drives and whatnot so but it can dictate how many speed bumps or what do you call it slow down, slowing down methods, speed tables. You can regulate how many. It can say you got to put it like like Eric put in if it's over 400 feet, you need to put in some kind of traffic calming but is that one speed table is it five. Right. I'm just, I'm just throwing it out there because if it is residential and we have children who like to be in their back space. There anything we can do to make sure. I think the market's going to dictate that the folks live in there. The private open area will be closer. Well, the private open area can't extend past the common drive so there shouldn't really be any reason for for folks to be playing back there unless they just want to play in the street. You know, I mean that's possible I guess but we always played the street when I was a football with football, whatever. We just need to get them to start build the units with more than one bedroom so we can have some industry. Yeah, but isn't there some regulation like private property can't post legal speed limits right they're like required. If they post their more advisory and they have to be like under 15. I think that's right. I mean I think there is some something about how how that connect how that's actually regulated, but I don't know the specifics. Yeah, so Sarah I don't think they're allowed to post 2530 they're not allowed to go like up that high I think they can use like red signs or like a different color sign that that's advisory that's like a below 25. I'm pretty sure that would not be enforceable by police. I think part of it is to the situation that I was describing. As far as behind the shopping center I don't remember the exact, the exact name for that complex post office square post office square yeah there's way too much parking back there. Like, as far as what's needed I can understand if there was housing above the above the storefronts that were there. But it's like way over abundant parking and so it basically makes everything like, like it could be a speedway if there wasn't anything to ease that. I think that these common drives being you know if they're wide enough that they're serviceable for you know access for public services if need be but kind of compact enough that it's not going to give you the opportunity to really abuse it. Do we specify road with like come and drive with and can we specify that in this. So I've noted that the minimum is 20 feet. And that's to accommodate basically two way traffic and also typically our, at least from our fire department they typically like to see 20 foot to get their apparatus in and be able to set them up. If they need to. Can we maximum that. I think we could. Yeah, they send. Yeah with the concern about them providing giant routes through the back of the development. I think we could I guess what I would say to that is I would be surprised if, if anybody wanted to any developers were looking to go wider than that just because they're going to need that space for parking or for other utility but I mean we can we can put a maximum in there sure I don't think that's an issue. I think you're right, I mean, they would not want to waste more space on a kind of broad roadway. So I think we could put a maximum on the side of putting a maximum, I guess just in case someone for see if all reason. Yeah, comes in and once a 40 foot common drive. Yeah. Because they're creating a street somehow that they're. Marketing to their residences. Yeah, exactly. These all go through site plan review. They, they do to the extent that. It's not, not a formal site plan review as is outlined in our regular in our regulations, but it does go through a review of the site plan from through all the project review committee so emergency services public works myself. We all look at the site itself and identify any concerns or issues with the site specifically. So in that case, it probably wouldn't hurt and I don't know if, if it's a specific width, what's 24 feet for two to lane try I mean the most you want is two way traffic right. Correct. So, I don't know if that's 24 feet or 30 feet, or if you just put in, you know, you know, not to exceed adequate width to accommodate two way traffic that may that's probably too vague but so I don't know if there's some specific width that we could put in for two way you know Well I think in our in our drive aisles for parking we I think the the minimum width we identify also is 20 feet. But I mean we could list a maximum width, if you wanted to we could do it as the that the common drive shall be no less than or no more than and I would I would say it should be no less than 20 feet and I would probably I mean, I wouldn't go any more than 30 maybe limited to 25. The more the more narrow it is the slower traffic is going to go. Yeah, yeah. Right. And I think I mean, I think 20 24 foot wide roadway. I remember when we redid the traffic lights on spring street. The lane widths were 10 feet I think or nine and a half. I think 10 or 10 and a half feet. So I mean I would think 25 certainly is the most it would be. Yeah I mean I can I could write it in as a, as shall be no less than 20 and no more than 25 if that's what people are comfortable with. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay. I think you should know more than 21. I can do that too if you'd like. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. But it does slow. I mean the more narrow it is people psychologically they're going to say this is a driveway not a street. This is right. Again, trying to add to that so. Go out and look at 20 feet. And maybe, and maybe talk to John Rouscher and see what the minimum is to allow two cars to pass because we don't want a striped street. No one enough width that two cars can pass. And if they have to slow down. Yeah. Yep. Absolutely. Okay, great. Yeah, that's true because I think on non state streets you can go down as low as a nine like I see nine feet. So with that, if we can get away even with reducing the minimum that would be ideal. And keeping it typically what the fire department likes to see for their apparatus is that's the minimum they like to see and I believe that's the minimum that we have for drive aisles in parking lots. So it's just for consistency sake. Yeah, they, they ask for 20 feet even when it's like on a low traffic like where they can take up the whole street they still ask for that. Okay. And that way they can get their out riggers out and set wherever they want them and they're not, they're not limited by, by space in any way. I think I can maybe provide like a test here a little bit too. You know that I'm even out from my line of work in a lot of like elder care facilities, or senior living facilities, and there's like, never any access point made for people moving in or moving out. And so like moving trucks never have anywhere to go. And inevitably the only open spot is like a fire line. So just keep in mind it's not just cars we're talking about it's, you know, there are going to be other service vehicles that would be using this to maybe like trash removal that would be back there or other services to the building. Yeah, and ideally that's kind of the intent here is that your, your kind of back of house services would be you would be served off of these common drive so they can avoid the main roads and again avoid those pedestrian conflicts with curb cuts and sidewalks and such. So, okay, so moving through the rest of this I think a lot of this is well a lot of the rest of this page anyways strike out, or because these, I've moved a lot of this stuff around into other areas. I wanted to point out on this next page isn't is an item that I added but I need to take back out. It's under item F here where I say that properties not including a common drive. Hang on, I might not need to take this out. I need to check on this last sentence that said can only be utilized as private open area, because we don't, we don't permit private open area to be behind a common drive. So, I realize this says we're the properties that are not including a common drive or required to incorporate the setback, but I just so I just want to clarify that that is in fact the case and make sure that I'm not creating an inconsistency with our regulations by having that last that set the second part of that sentence in there. The way I read it was, you're basically holding that space until somebody comes in and built a common drive. And that's the way that I, I was reading it's like if there's not a common drive, hopefully in the future there will be one so this is like set aside for private or public. Yeah, so that's that's why I need to, I need to check on on on the wording there to make sure again that I'm not creating an inconsistency. And so that if it is a common drive in the future that it's not private open area and so that those two aren't in conflict with with one another. So is the space you're talking about that that's in the neighborhood manners. Right. It not necessarily. It may be, but the way that the building form standards are written is that if there's no common drive, then there is a setback that's required. I can also talk about if the that the required private open area cannot be beyond the common drive. So I just want to make sure that I'm not creating a situation where we're saying you can only use an area for private open area but it's also potentially going to have a common drive in there. So, but I guess my point is that every the form based code is just for. I'm getting confused here with the downtown but isn't it just lots that front on Main Street or East Allen or mouse Bay Avenue. Yes, and so at the rear of all those lots is a neighborhood manner. I don't think all of them have it most of them do but not all. Okay, all right. So on he here Abbie had a comment about the about whether or not we have the legal, the legal ability to require these, these common drives. If we don't, if we're not getting a right away easement and I think we do through our site planning process I think we can require them to to provide a note on the plan or some sort of designation that basically says this area will be a common drive or a connection to the adjacent property in the future. I've actually, I've required that on several plans already with and the developers are more than happy to do it. So there's at least the acknowledgement that a future connection will be made across their property. So, I don't think we need a right away easement or something in that regard to get these connections to be put in and I don't know in speaking with the public works I'm not sure we would want to write away easement technically because I don't know if we want to have any liability with these from the city's perspective. Maybe as a city lawyer looked at that language because I could see a developer agreeing to it in the front hand when like it's far down the road but when it comes to the time of actually building them. Is there any legal teeth to keep them from saying, Okay, it was just a note on my plan. You know, I don't want you to do this like don't move forward with that. I've not had legal are legal counsel review this but I think in, in the context of the site plan that is the, the approved document that carries the development so if they deviate from that, then they have to amend that plan so I think, because the site plan is what gets approved I think that gives us the, that gives us the legal backing to require it, once it's on the plan. But to Abby's point, it probably wouldn't hurt though to have language in there saying requires the property owner to to convey an easement to adjacent properties for use of it, or something like that. I mean it's going to be we don't the city to do it but we want to ensure you may be right that the site plan dictates but it wouldn't hurt I wouldn't think that to have some language talking about requiring the property owner to convey easements to a butters for the common use or something like that. Yep, I can I can I can check in on that and see if we do need to put something in or what we could put into to strengthen that. So how does it work if I'm developing and I'm saying okay in the future you can use the back of my property for this common drive. Two other developers come in now there's an ability to make the connection, who pays for it like what's the construct who oversees that construction if it's not the city easement like who does that fall. Who does that cost and project management fall on. So, I would guess the property owner. What they really do is make that a condition of approval based on the regulations that a common drive is required that there is an easement or there's at least an access point identified on the adjacent property. So that the developer of the new property would be required to make that connection as a developer of the new property would pay for their property in the adjacent properties connection to that road like they would incur the full cost of that common drive. For example, the property on Main Street that's either I believe just finished construction at 211, they have a note on their plan for the, the property to the south that there's a connection point identified, if and when it develops. Because I believe they will also the properties to the south would also need to use the curb cut that's there. So they wouldn't have access off of Main Street for their property so they would need that common drive thereby the conditional a condition of approval would in essence be that they, would need to make that connection to to the 211 property in order to have access to their property for vehicles to use that that curb cut. And I think the answer to Abby's question is that each property owner is required to build what's necessary to connect into the next property. So you build on you're responsible for construction on your property. I think I think South Brompton did a lot of this, especially in the southeast quadrant they had identified rights of ways and easements for city streets, but the developer had to build them up to their property line. Yeah, so that's the case this language needs to be changed because it's basically saying, if you can. It says is if a common drive does not exist and it's not feasible to construct, just set aside part of your property for some future time, where we will need to construct a common drive. Right, it doesn't say like you build your portion now and then when other developments go up they'll build their portion. Yeah, but yeah, well, interesting, because you have a point. Yeah, you probably don't have to build it today if no one's doing it but when they put it in you have to then construct it. Yeah. Let me let me look at that language again I mean that's a really good point. Let me look at that to strengthen or to make sure that it's clear what we're intending happens there. Yeah and like who the responsible parties are right constructing that common drive. Yep. Absolutely. Okay, any other thoughts or comments on this section. No I'm just glad Abby read this so so thoroughly. And a little freaked out I was going to be late. Your comments are very much appreciated. Thank you. Absolutely. Moving along. Okay, so nothing new there so we're into part three here, or the end of part three sorry into part four. And I believe Abby you had a comment here at the bottom on the facade composition saying are we discouraging urban general from building ground story commercial because if they have to decrease their capacity by the 15 feet and whether or not that's a good idea basically. Yeah, so I just felt like this urban general they seem to be doing with the minimum commercial possible and by adding this little adding them to a it's basically saying your facade without commercial could be 75 feet but since we're going to add commercial we're making you reduce it to 60 feet. So I just wanted to make point that out and make sure that we weren't discouraging what we want, which is more like ground floor, urban site commercial retail type storefronts on the first floor. So that's an interesting point I guess what I was, what I was looking at when I added this language was more about the size of the retail space. Then the, and basically trying to create smaller spaces for these these retail or these non residential uses on the ground floor. So basically saying that if you're doing, if you're in the urban general but building it as a storefront then 60 foot is your is the most you can go to kind of create that smaller, that smaller space but it's an interesting point I guess I didn't think about that it may be limiting as well because it's a smaller space. Yeah, why that's my curiosity to is why smaller because I do think that kind of dictates. I'm I guess I'm a little bit thinking of the. I think like the storefront in front of the city lights building, which has been successful as like a tea shop and a bakery but beyond that I mean it would be really, that's a really challenging space to work within for many businesses. So I guess so just to be clear, what this is talking about is the is each what we call the complete and discrete facade so really how we're breaking up the building itself. So, for example, if it's 100 and if it's 150 foot wide building. If they're doing it just as as residential, they would have two facades. If they were doing it as if it was in the urban storefront then they'd have to have at least three facades. Okay, they, they could combine those ground story units if they wanted to to make one large space, but they would have to the architecture of each, the architecture the building would need to be in kind of three distinct forms. So kind of like for instance like misery loves company, how that's one business but they do in fact occupy like two storefront spaces right. Okay. Right, so, but it is an interesting point that if, you know, if we want to, if we want to have these kind of wider facades, even if they are as commercial in the urban general we could we could do that by just taking that language back out. Yeah, like I totally understand the intention of breaking up facades, like and it makes it feel like a little bit more interesting and varied, but there's definitely an additional cost the developer to do that. And if they're already not super eager to do commercial, and then they see they have to break up the facade and incur that cost I just think it might be counter to what we're what we're trying to get out here. You know, they might want to do some kind of like a grocery store, you know, some, some commercial space that needs to be bigger, you know, have a bigger vintage. Wouldn't that be nice to get a grocery store. Prohibit somebody in the urban general from doing a facade smaller than 75 feet. So I guess would you be comfortable then if I moved that language under item B, so that it's basically clarifying that even urban general with ground story commercial can build to the 75 feet. As long as urban storefront is defined well. It is. I don't think you need to add it to the next one because it says for all other anything that's not an urban storefront, which is defined well falls under B. Yeah, okay. Yeah. All right, yep, I can just eliminate that, that language then. Okay. Good. All right, Eric, I don't have my clock up on the computer. Are we okay on time. Well, if depends on what you mean by a time is it about 10 minutes after eight. I thought it was getting getting late. So, I'm sorry because like I said my clock for some reason isn't up on my machine. So I lost track. Is everyone okay continuing on or would people like to stop. What are you thinking in terms of time we're pretty well through. Well, I mean the changes to get to get through the rest of the regulations you mean or the rest. There's a few more sections that'll need some definitely need some discussion so I think it's probably better if we stop. If we stop because we still have a couple items on the agenda and we were going to revisit the officer positions. Okay, he's joined us. Yep. No, it's okay. All right, is ever okay if we is this good place to stop or do you want to finish something up. I think, let me just look here, quick, I think this is probably an okay place to stop I don't think it. I don't think this is any better than or worse than another spot. So, okay, age 20. To add to what you just said, Abby, I would rather have you late than not at all because you do enrich this conversation so much. Very kind of you to say I fear that I put too much out there but I do appreciate when you all put your ideas out there too. I really, I really like your way of looking at things so. Yeah, we all have different strengths and weaknesses. And that's what makes this a successful or failure if we all are able to put out our ideas. And believe me, I put out some crazy ideas in the past. So, let's, if we're done with this, we're going to have a week we started talking about the officer positions but we decided to table until you came because there's only three of us. I didn't know if you have any interest in any of the positions. What are they again like chair backup chair and like secretary chair vice chair and secretary. And anybody expressed interest in any of the above. No one has expressed an interest. Terry was the secretary. Amy was the vice chair but she has expressed that she is not interested anymore. Is that correct Eric. She's she's got a lot going on and it's just at this time is not interested in continuing as the vice chair just in case, in case the need arises for her to step up to that role. And I will continue to hold the chairmanship for someone else until someone else is ready to take it over. Thank you. Very noble if you might. Yes, I started I said okay I'll be chair for a year until I think it was Paris, or Dallas, Paris or Dallas. Palace, Palace, close halfway. And then palace moved on so whatever. So Abby what we had talked about was potentially at this point, electing the chair and holding off on the other positions until the rest of the board was here but at this point it will be only be Amy and Tommy who is not eligible for any officer positions as an alternate. And I, I made the comment that if Amy was not interested in the vice chair, then she most likely would not also be interested in the secretary spot either so it's kind of down to you for. But she's not here so. And quite frankly the secretary basically. You do the job. The secretary doesn't really do much at all. So, why doesn't the secretary take the notes. So Terry was as the secretary we were meeting in person she would take the minutes, but since we've been meeting remotely it's, it's just easier for me to do them and then. How are you able to do them and conduct the meeting. He just like remember it after the fact and write it down or pretty much. It's recorded. I mean I do record it if I need to go back but for the most part I, I try to do them first thing Friday morning so I remember what the conversation was about. And I'm able to get there pretty quick so. And then I just make things up. Yeah, I would be very, I think I've said this before I'd be very reluctant myself to accept serving as secretary because I serve as secretary for at least two other organizations. And it's just feels like they're, I think I say this oftentimes there are weeks where this planning commission meeting will fall on like a week full of meetings. And it might be the same for you guys as well but I just wouldn't. But Eric said that he's doing the work of secretary now but I just am reluctant to accept that title if it does mean I have to take minutes for another organization because it's a lot to juggle. I mean, I don't. I'm fine continuing to take notes for the meetings I do I serve as the secretary for the DRV. Well, I'm, I'm not the secretary but I do the same role for the DRV meetings as well so it's, it's just as easy for me to do them as it is for somebody else so. So do we do we just do you need somebody to serve in that title is that what it is like. We probably should there's three officer positions that we should technically have filled. Right. And at least in like the case of the Development Review Board, the secretary is who is designated to receive any appeals of either my decision or somebody else. If appeal if an appeal comes in so really that role is just basically, it comes to me and I forward it on to the secretary and say hey this came in just, you need to acknowledge receipt of it and they do. So it's really there's nothing for them to do with it it's more just to know that it was sent to them. So it's a fairly, they're all fairly easy roles to fulfill I think. So I'm happy to table this to the next meeting or like offer up. You know, if nobody wants the vice chair, his mic always attends the meetings. I would, I would offer that up. So do I take it none of you want to chair position. And if that's the case, technically someone should nominate me in second and we'll vote on it. I nominate Mike for the chair position. One second. I, I would gladly accept if my pay doubles. We can make that happen. Okay. All right. If the note other nominations all in favor say aye. Don't be so enthusiastic come on. Okay. Does anyone. Okay. Does anyone want to. Abby, I think I heard, did I hear you say you would take the. I would take the vice chair position and Joe and Amy and I guess Tommy's not eligible. Other folks aren't interested in it. So if Sarah or Joe are not interested, we know Amy's not. She's already said that if you want to nominate Abby, we can vote on that. Yeah, Sarah and Joe, do you would either of you be interested in this position? Not right now, Abby. I still feel like I'm kind of green at it all frankly. I need to, especially when I'm listening to Abby. I would nominate Abby. Promoted, you know, I just got. All right. So, so Joe made the motion and Sarah, I heard you second that. I second that. Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Abby, you're the vice chair. Okay. I'm your backup on two. RPC too. Yeah. Oh yeah. And I'm no longer chair of that board. So maybe I can start missing some meetings. Actually, let me know. I'm going to be out of town on the next week for that meeting. If you can do it, you can take my place. Otherwise, I was there. All right. Thanks for giving me a reason. Yes. And neither Joe nor Sarah wants to do this secretary position. Can we. Yeah. I would be really uncomfortable being secretary just in general as, as my skill set on that. Just the dyslexia and. It makes it really hard for me that kind of position. So I probably won't ever want to be secretary just going forward or feel comfortable doing it. Yeah. It's fair. Yeah. And Joe, you already said you don't. So let's see if we can talk Amy into it. At the next meeting. I guess I would say the only other role for the secretary is if. The chair and the vice chair are both absent from the meeting. They would be the next person in line to chair the meeting. Okay. Okay. So that's all we'll deal with tonight then and. City updates. Eric or Christine. So the only update I had while the mayor is off camera. I don't have anything specific. I don't have anything specific, other than to just note that, you know, I sent around an article on parking standards from the city of Buffalo and kind of what they've experienced. So it's a bit of a long read, but I have not gotten through it all, but thought it has some interesting information included for an example, maybe we can. Glean something out of that as we continue forward with our. Our discussions and to that point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that the secretary is still the planning commission representative on our, our parking inventory analysis and management plan. We don't have another meeting scheduled to this point. I actually have to do some work to. Code some land use data into the model or at least verify some of the land use data in the model. And then we'll be able to start, I think. Finalizing the processing of all that and moving that, that project further forward. I don't think there's any need to, to, to that, or can Terry serve as. I think Terry can continue to serve. I don't, I don't think there's any, any need to, to reappoint. Because she has been appointed already. And I think there's probably one, maybe two more steering committee or advisory committee meetings at the most. Okay. So I don't, it's, I don't, I don't see the need for it unless you all want to. Want to do that. She should finish it out. And, and speaking of parking, have we heard from the housing commission. About getting together. I'm going to cover that under other business. Okay. Sorry. No problem. Mayor. I had. Yeah, since I was planning meeting. The only thing that's happened is that strategy and party session, which we were talked about. And we are halfway through our city manager candidate interviews. Should be wrapping that up. Okay. So we're going to have a meeting for this month. And then the committee will make recommendations to the council at our August second meeting. So hopefully. The first meeting in September, we will have, you will be able to make a decision there. Great. Good candidate pool so far things are going well. Good. Okay. How about other business? Eric, you said you had some. Yeah. So two things. Okay. So right now we are tentatively looking at, or trying to schedule a joint meeting with members of the housing commission, not the full commission, but several members of the housing commission and you all for our August meeting date, August 12th is that date. We're looking at using our planning commission meeting date for that. So I would imagine we may try to do that in person if possible. But I think it's going to be easier so that we're all around the table. And I think it's going to be, and we're also looking at bringing in some, some, some members of the affordable housing community, both policy and development side to talk about. Kind of how parking impacts. The creation of not only affordable housing, but I think also some of the family style, I think it's going to be, I think it's going to be, I think it's going to be, I think it's going to be, I think it's going to be, I think it's going to be August 12th meeting, which would be our first meeting in August. So not, not to put a wrench into it, but I will be out of town on August 12th. That's okay. We've got Abby as our vice. I know I was going to say, Abby, Abby can step right in. So. If you don't want to, Abby, you better start advocating for a different date. I heard there's a co, I heard we're co hosting it. Yeah. So we'll have, yeah. So I think we're, we're still trying to figure out schedules on that. So it's, that's at least the date that we're shooting for right now. The other thing I wanted to bring up is our next meeting right now is scheduled for July 22nd. So I know Amy is all, Amy is going to be out of town for that meeting. And I think Mike, you're on out of town as well. Correct. I might be as well. So my calendar. Yeah, so I know I don't want to necessarily lose momentum on our discussion of these changes, but at the same time, I think we may be tight on a quorum anyway. So, you know, I know we had talked about looking at our meeting schedule over the summer. So that may be a good one that we, we just postpone if we want or cancel if we want to do that. But at the same time, I don't want to have too big of a gap if we're then our first meeting in August being. We're not going to have a meeting until the end of August. So I just wanted to put that out there for folks as well. You know, we will have the remote option for that meeting on the 22nd. I don't like to ask people that are out of town to join a meeting. I think that's selfish of me. So I won't, I'm not going to do it, but you're all welcome to do as you choose. So, but just with people being out of town on the 22nd, I don't. Don't know if we'll have full quorum, although with that said, because we're not making any to sit, well, I guess we might be making decisions at that meeting. I mean, we could still review the, the text. Without making any formal decisions, but we may get through everything to where we. Could start thinking about public hearings for this. So anyway. So why don't we, why don't we see between us and, and Tommy, and Amy who's available on the 22nd, see if we have a quorum. Yeah. Well, I know Amy's already said she's not. Okay. So, I mean, I, I plan to have my computer with me. So if I have internet service, which I think we do, I'm happy to. Join, but I'll let Abby run the meeting. Yeah. I mean, I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'll be a fly on the wall. I have no idea what it means. To chair yet. But yeah, sure. It'll be a good test run. It's tough. Right. Yeah. I think I'm around 22nd. I'll double check, but should work for me. If that. Yeah. Gone the weekend of the 23rd, including. Yeah. Yeah. The first time I've ever been to Maine. So it's very exciting. That's where I'm going to be. Where are you going, Joe? Portland. Oh, it will be in New York. Okay. It's all great. I love me. You guys could run the meeting from Maine. That would be good. Yeah, there you go. Okay. So I guess we've covered other business. I'm sorry, Sarah. Yeah, I just. I'm not sure how we. It sort of takes us back into what we were just talking about. I wanted to put it out as kind of a statement that we could think about. So we were talking, I think. Abby. And I think Abby brought this up last time. I don't remember exactly, but. So the development. I call it the hood house and the man. So those two. Projects that have gone up there. And there's the sort of radical. Change between the scale of what the buildings are behind it, what the houses are behind it, and these new buildings. And we were kind of wrestling around the townhouse. Small apartment. And we were just sort of looking at what those differences are. And they're kind of small, right? And I wondered if we could just have a sort of. Overall, without going into specifically through the, the form itself. But are there other transition strips. They're going to be affected by. That larger construction. Going forward and Trent, like on Mallets Bay. I don't know if we can do this, but. Have detached cottage frontage or can you do a hybrid of. Small apartment and. And detached. We don't have to discuss it now, but I just wondered if. If we might think about like a, instead of sort of tweaking a really a bigger change to. That transition area. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I just wanted to. Have everyone think about that. If we could even do it. I don't even know. Sarah, are you, are you talking about potentially changing the building form standards on some of these in some of these locations. Or. Maybe. Okay. I'd. Or. Creating a new building form standard. Maybe just for those sort of transition spaces. And the hoods project, it does feel out of scale with the sort of. The buildings behind it, you know, and. I mean, people could just agree. And I know that that's what. We have put into law. It's okay. But it just wondered, is there any other areas we might. Want to. Scale it in a different way than just having a. Really large building all of a sudden. Up against a neighborhood that. You know, or digging into like the code for that and making sure it actually the result of that. More of what we're seeing in those pictures than life. Yeah. And that's what I think we brought up, Abby, that you couldn't really tell the difference between the house, the townhouse. Small apartment and the. What's the other one. Yeah. And that was, that was part of what I was saying. I actually. I was seeing a lot of commentary and reading. Burlington's design review board findings. There was a lot of discussion about scale in relation to other. Existing structures. Yeah. And transitions, which I. Yeah. So I just would like to see if we can find a little time to. If people feel similarly. And I think some of that Sarah is what we're doing now with these amendments is, you know, as, you know, no code is going to be perfect for every situation and no code is ever going to result in that. That idyllic form that everybody wants to see that just kind of. It's just, there's never a one size fits all for any one code. So I think what you're seeing in some of these amendments that I'm proposing. Are in fact reaction to some of these developments that have come in and I'm seeing how the developers are interpreting the code and what they're actually. What's showing up versus what's really kind of the hope or the intent was going to be. And those two things not really aligning. So. And don't we have the power to change. I mean, we'd have to legally change it, but don't we sort of have the power to do that if we don't like how it's panning out. Well, yeah, which is what we're doing now going through the amendment process that we're trying to achieve. And so we're trying to make sure that we're able to change the language to either. Provide more specificity on the standards or to change the standards altogether. So that it's clear what we're what we're trying to achieve. And I think that's where I've struggled. With some of the code is that there's not enough detail in there for me to. To definitively say. It has to be this way versus this other way. I mean, maybe it might get a little bit what you were getting at too, at the very beginning of the meeting, which Abby missed, but just some sort of an overview. Feeling. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, it does. And yeah, just, just to be clear, we can recommend these changes to the city council who then has to approve them. I understand. Yeah. I'm going to throw one thing out for you to think about. I'm on this equity leadership. Committee of the regional planning commission. And we're talking about. We're starting to get into how zoning laws in the past have. Unintentionally or intentionally. Ben. We've been talking about. Prejudicial to certain groups. And just. Come up with some kind of language that, that espouses that our zoning is not intended to. To. What's the right word? I can't even think of the words now. Eliminate the ability. Be of. Or. Keep people from. Out of different areas. You know what I mean? We want to be all inclusive in our, in our zoning. We want to be all inclusive in our zoning. We want to be at some point, but. Just to give you some thought. Well, it's funny because, you know, when I was bringing up in the common ground. The back drive. Common drive. And I was talking about, you know, what about families that are living those buildings and grannies out? You know, shelling peas and the children are out in the back. And I know that in a lot of other places in the world. You know, you know, we played in the front street. Yeah. Football. Sounds that was a little bit in the back of my mind that I was thinking about is you may have communities. Where. Children don't have programs. That are the ones that we grew up in, you know, but. Yeah. You know. Yep. Okay. Any other. Other business. So I just want to go back. Am I still taking a poll for the July 22nd meeting for folks? Yes. I know Joe is out. Abby is here. Sarah is here. Mike, you may be available. So. Potentially we could have that meeting. I'll talk to Tommy to see what her schedule is. I think that's. If she's here, then that gives us potentially for. For that meeting. Okay. I'll confirm with her and then let you all know. I think if, if. Is there a sense of if we only have three that will just cancel it or do we still want to move forward? If there's only three folks. Well, let me ask you this. What about the following week? I know it's, it's one more meeting, but because if we don't have the. The meeting, it's a month until the next one. And it's probably a month and a half before we get back to this. This topic. Yeah. I know the week after that, I am out of town. We don't need you anyway. I'm perfectly okay with it. Well, all right. Let's see if we can do it. Let's, let's see if we can do it the 22nd and go from there. Joe and Joe. I'll come up to Portland with my laptop and find you. Oh, good Lord. It's a small town. Hey, Joe. Okay. Sarah knows when you ski and have a way of finding one another. Yeah. Yeah. Far field. So. All right. Seeing as it's after eight. Oh, good Lord. It's 832. Anyone care to make a motion to adjourn? I'll second that. Joe seconds. All in favor. Joe. I was going to say, I actually have a question for Eric, but if anyone wants to stay on to hear it, they're welcome to. Okay. It seems somewhat vaguely related to planning. Okay. So, so we are adjourned and folks are welcome to leave. Thank you all. And we may or may not see you in a couple of recordings stopped. Okay. Thank you all very much. I'll let you know about the. Thank you.