 I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. And I think that's a good question. And I wanted to, uh, October 13th meeting of the popular planning commission. First thing you have to do is approve the agenda. So if the planning commissioners could take a look at the agenda, Mike, so around. When you're ready, we'll. Take a motion to approve it. So if there's time at the end, Kirby, um, I think that's a good question. Uh, how much time do you think you need for that? Do you think we could. Squeeze it in under the comments from the chair, or do you want to wait? Uh, we could just do a quick update. I think that's fine. Marcella, do you have thoughts? That's fine with me. Um. Yeah, we can make it quick and then just send the example around. And people can let us know if they have questions. Okay. Um, we'll handle that shortly. Uh, first week to prove the agenda though. So moved. Okay. We have a motion from Stephanie to be the second. Second. Second from Aaron. Okay. All favor of approving the agenda. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. So the agenda approved. We can proceed. Uh, and then the first item on the agenda is comments from the chair. I don't have any updates or anything, but I would like to turn, uh, turn that over to Stephanie and Marcella to update us on the, uh, was it the continuity and structure working group? Um, to give us all, all the other working groups, some direction. So with that, go ahead, Stephanie and Marcella. Do you want to start with all you have the example? Or I don't know, I can go. Um, I am technically challenged tonight. So technologically challenged tonight. So I don't have the, I can't share the example, but. Um, yeah, I can start. So the, uh, the three of us met and talked about how we wanted to, um, create some structure for the different chapters going forward. Um, and we modeled it off of the, um, historic preservation chapter that we all sort of liked in terms of having, um, an aspiration and then goals under that and strategies under that. And with each strategy, we marked in that chapter, um, who was responsible, a relative cost. Um, and we thought that that was a good model to use going forward. Um, and then John had already created like a Google site for us. Um, where we have, where we can house everything. And we started to put together these, um, I guess like a template, um, like a template for each chapter. Um, so that's something that will allow us to break down the goals and strategies and aspirations for each chapter in a way that will allow us to kind of look at things in a more simple way or sort of a more visual way. Um, so that we're not duplicating goals and strategies as we are kind of as they are written out in long narrative form. Um, I think that that would be a good way for, um, the rest of the chapters going forward to look. Um, what else am I forgetting, Stephanie? We talked a little bit about like outreach materials. Yeah, we talked about doing the first initial outreach. I think we ultimately decided that little surveys might not make the most sense, but we'd like to get an idea from the public of how they would want to be engaged. Um, so I think sending like a foreboard forum post and just saying, Hey, here's our update. We haven't been drafted that yet, but I think we'll, we'll draft that and send that around for your review. Um, and then the documents Marcel was talking about. So forever ago, John created a Montpelier city plan Google drive sheet for us. There's a plan website. Um, and then a bunch of folders. Um, that we can start using so that we can be sharing with each other more easily. I think we should. John put a lot of work into that at the beginning and it sort of fell off. And then we'll have to get back to using that. Um, and then that's where we can start the examples like Marcel was talking about. Um, so that's the quick update. Any other. Any questions for us or things that you wanted us to talk about that maybe we haven't yet? Uh, I think it sounds. I think it sounds good. Thanks for following up on the outreach part. And that's going to be important. So it sounds like the next step is going to be a front course forum post. And then we'll go from there. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. And, um, John's not here to talk about it, but he had. He started to build up like a really basic survey that at some point we thought it might be a good idea to. Send out a really basic kind of like two questions survey about. That would really be more used as an interactive way to engage people and try to get people more, you know, get this on their radar. So we can share that too. When he's done with it. Okay. That sounds great. The only question I had is. Did you, did you talk about. Adding material, like what, like, like. With adding strategies within the preexisting goals be something that we consider is within the working groups. I think so. I think it's really, um, the biggest pieces that we talked about. Is going to be that in the narrowing process. So coming up with water, we have a really long list from a lot of the groups. I think a lot of it's going to be narrowing that down, talking to stakeholders and figuring out what's, what's actually the most important that's actually going to be feasible. But yeah, if there's something missing, I absolutely think that should be within the working groups per view to. Dad. Okay. Yeah. That was. That was a lot of the discussion for our first housing and working group centered around. Um, whether we should be adding strategies to further flush out these goals. Um, I thought it was appropriate, but Barb had other ideas. I mean, to the extent that. Yeah, the group feels comfortable and has the knowledge of what kind of strategy could be added. Or who to reach out to to ask. But yeah, I mean, part of the breaking things up. Um, I think it's a good way to look at it. I think it's a good way to look at it. It's a good way to look at it. So that you see that there are strategies that support each goal. That support. The overall aspiration. Okay. So we're all clear. The working groups should try if, if your chapter's not already looking like the template, then that's one thing we did. We're expected to do then this too. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Yeah. And that will also be a way John's going to set it up so that we can, each chapter has their own, but then they'll pull into one larger document where it'll show all the strategies. Um, so we can use that as a, as a mechanism to better align them at the end. All right. Okay. That sounds great. All right. Well, thanks a lot. Thanks a lot. I'm sure that the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the template. Does anyone else have any questions for Stephanie or Marcel? Okay. All right. Thanks a lot, guys. With that, we can move along. We have a lot of. Folks waiting to discuss. The savings pasture project. Hey, Yeah. Marcel. Sorry. I've got a quick, like, business thing regarding the CVRPC meetings. Yeah. First, I think I've got to duck out at 6 30 for that meeting tonight. And then I was, I keep and tell me if we should just do this offline or via email, but I need to, I need help covering those meetings until February. So, I've got some personal deadlines regarding my thesis that my master's degree that I need to, I'm trying to offload a little bit here. So I wanted to put that out to the group to get coverage for the next few months. For the CVRPC meetings. For the CVRPC meetings. Yeah. Yeah, just email me. Okay, that's because I'm the alternate. So I would be the next person who would attend if you can. Okay, great. Just email me and I'll, I'll try to get them on my calendar. Okay, thank you. To be clear though, you're, you want to take like five to six months off. Just through February. So one, two, three, four. Yeah. I mean, it sounds like if there's interest on the planning commission, we could get a replacement too because Yeah, I hate to dump all those on Mike. I feel like we could probably just pass it around for a couple months and I don't think anybody would mind, but it's legal. I wouldn't be able to vote on any items and they wouldn't count for quorum. I can count for quorum as the as an alternate. All right. All right, well, I'll talk to Mike about it. Maybe we can split them up just offloading some of them would be helpful. And, and yeah, Mike, let me know if you, if you want to follow up and we can get a replacement person so that you're not, you know, don't have all of those to go to. Okay. I hope you guys want to do it though. I'll follow along. Thanks. Okay. So before we can get to business, we have one other item which is to approve the minutes from last time. So if everyone could take a look at the minutes that Mike sent out. I didn't read them before. So I move approval of the minutes. Okay. We have a second. I'll second. Okay. The motion from second from Stephanie. All those in favor of approving the minutes from September 28. All those in favor of approving the minutes are ready. Hi. Hi. Okay. Any opposed? Okay. That's approved. With that, we can get to business. It seems like we have a number of people here to discuss the savings pastor project. First things first, really appreciate everyone taking time to try to fill us in on some things. Without you last time and we did all we could, but then we, you know, had a lot of unknowns that we wanted to go over. So with that, if everyone associated with the project would introduce themselves. Go ahead. Sure. My name is Dan Richardson. I've been retained as legal counsel for Alan Goldman. Who is one of the owners or. To be of the savings pastor lamb. And I am David White, president of Whitenberg real estate advisors. We are consultants to the city. So the city is our client on this project. I think you're on mute yourself if I'm coming through. You are good. Hi Alan Goldman and I'm partners with Doug. And thank you very much for having us. It's a pleasure to pleasure to gather through zoom. Yes. Can you hear me now. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to see as you can appreciate. Alan and I have been informally meeting with both Bill Frazier and with David. White's assistance trying to conceptualize a preliminary. Plan. For the project. We're doing with the riverfront area. We do have some. PUD requirement comments. Glad to go through those now or tell me which, how you'd like to proceed, please. Our thoughts were a couple of issues that we talked about last meeting. And Mike, are you able to help explain where we were with that? Maybe we could begin there and then, then it's the group. Mr. Zorzi or Alan or anyone has anything else to have that we can go from there. Yeah, so just to summarize what the last meeting we did make some agreement on changes to the traffic standards and 3303. We sent these to Doug and Alan and heard back that they were, they were good with those. They're more than welcome to, when, when we get to comment, if they have other concerns, they can bring them up. But my understanding that the changes we made to 3303 on the traffic and three. I think the number right 3504 that both of those changes were good. Which left us with the outstanding questions on the plan unit development requirements. And what you and I had all discussed at the last meeting was the potential of changing the ropes. They're currently as written required if you're doing more than a certain amount of development. For example, in the new neighborhoods development, it's 40 units over a 10 year period or 40 parcels or 40 dwelling units over a 10 year period. So, you know, we had talked about or I had proposed just striking the requirement, which would make the requirement go away. It sounds like in some conversations I had with Alan this afternoon that perhaps it's, it's not a matter of striking the entire specific ability. They don't mind going through it but there are some specific provisions within that if they have to go through it there's some specific provisions within the beauty that they would like to see change that they can't meet. So I think that is what Doug was going to be getting into is some of the specific pieces that are going to be tripping up their, their project that they are looking at. Just the last thing I'll say by way of introduction is, this is a larger conversation. So, we're all talking about specifically on the zoning piece there's there's a greater conversation that David white in the city are working on, which involves all of the other public private partnership type pieces that the zoning isn't going to be dealing with things like, you know, are we having tiff and what would tiff pay for and all those types of things aren't zoning. So what we're kind of focusing on here is going to be specifically what are the zoning rules that are going to trip up a project that otherwise the city would want to support but for whatever reason the rules may get in the way so we just think the rules are what we want from a policy standpoint that we're going to be achieving our city goals from a policy standpoint, while at the same time not putting so much of a barrier out there that it actually blocks the projects from happening. So, I guess with that I can turn it over to Kirby and I don't know if you want to just turn it over to Doug to start giving his comments. Okay, yeah, just to make sure that we're clear so we we already approved a couple of changes last time that you know as a matter of policy we wanted to do. And then there were a couple of other changes that Mike brought up that the planning commission wanted to find out more information before making a decision on. So those those two things were and my community to help me here to make sure I'm remembering this correctly, one of them was to remove for new neighborhood PUDs to to remove the requirement that the PUD will apply if there's 40 units or more. That's one of them right. And the other was was the other one the one under the conservation subdivision. Conservation PD. And that's related to whether four parcels are being subdivided and over 10 year period. Yes. So, so, Doug if you could tell me if those are two things that are needed. And while you're at it, a lot of our discussion last time was about, you know, a lack of clarity about what this project will be. So it's hard for us to kind of know the context so if you could help us with the context to that would help. And with that, go ahead. If we talk about context. We initially were looking at both permitted and conditional uses, and then started to immediately target traffic and the impact of traffic. We attempted to engage the city over the past few months to pursue this issue of traffic. And at this point, we are pursuing just permitted uses. So we would like to pursue affordable housing, affordable senior housing. And with that in mind, if the city desires to proceed down that road of enabling some affordable senior housing. We would like to have some concerns with section 3404. Specifically, he print to there are several shells throughout the sections. But taking each one individually. On print to see the modification of shell to should for single and multi units. And also under e print to print a eliminate that no more than 75% of the dwellings may be of the same type. I appreciate the goal of that requirement. Please appreciate that what we want to do is pursue affordable housing, do it in a larger building footprint size for obvious reasons, and to basically leave it at that. So it should would still have teeth, I believe. It would be based on facts that remain to be discussed and presented. But we are asking for that modification of shell to should if we have the same type of concerns 3404 f sub or print to 3 and 4 once again modify the shell to should we can discuss each one of those in detail if you'd like print to basically reads buildings shall define the street state through the use of uniform setbacks along a bill to line for each block. We have attempted to position the structures so that one does not look out of the building. So we want to look into each one of those buildings condominium window and look into another building. We've orientated them so that there would be significant views. If we talk about print 3 buildings shall be located to the front of the parcels and relative to street both buildings. If we turn the buildings slightly the front of the street becomes a concern in reading the requirement and specifically ask for your consideration. If we move on to 3404 g it says with sidewalks plural and street trees we would like to provide a development that could have one sidewalk instead one up each side of the street. We'd like it to have a Murray Hill type concept or approach. Maybe we can discuss some alternatives for a second sidewalk whether it be connection to pedestrian path with an alternate route but two sidewalks I'm not sure if that's the best type of design and leave it for your consideration. If we go to 3404 h current to once again same type of concern the front located to the street once again we'd like to turn the buildings that appears to be a limitation if we talk about 3404 I current to we're talking about garage doors so to speak we'd like to have underground parking where the first floor of the building would contain parking and we'd like to have direct access to the building from the road and not to go around the back of the building so to speak there for creating more impervious area and surfaces and appreciate the fact that when we look at these regulations they appear to be based on a flat topography appreciate the fact that the road is going to be a depressed elevation so to speak and the developed area is going to be sitting uphill of that so that the entrance to each structure would be above the curb cut elevation and stop that at that point if we look at 3404 I current three once again it says no parking permitted in the front of the building except driveway serving a residence please appreciate that we need to have parking out front for ADA requirements and also emergency vehicle access it would be very limited but there appears to be a conflict at that point if I can interject here a little bit these are all changes you're requesting related to the new neighborhood PUD and there's quite a few of them so a few questions related to this thing is it your objective to make this a new neighborhood PUD because one thing we discussed before was changing the new neighborhood PUDs so that maybe it doesn't apply to this project unless you would want it to be a new neighborhood PUD and another is I'm starting to see a vision like a physical vision for what you have here based on these requests so if you would describe for all of us it sounds like you do have something concrete in mind so if you would describe that for us that would help too so two parts do you want the new neighborhood PUD at this point would like to see a draft of those changes before commenting further on it if we're describing the development we would basically access Berry Street from the proposed curb cut that has been designed by the work of engineering it would proceed to a plateau of that riverfront district and there would be basically buildings along each side of the road once again road would be at a lower elevation than the building foundation I think what would be beneficial is at some point if you could have the opportunity to see the footprint design that's been drafted today that has been provided to the city manager and also to Mike I would urge Allen to give me some assistance here not to basically expand upon what is being proposed and go from there Doug if I may interrupt David White here just for a moment I do have also a copy of the plan and if you wanted and the chair and others were interested it would allow me to screen share I could screen share it and you could then walk them through that perfect thank you David if I may speak first I think that would help yes thank you Allen I didn't know if I'm recognized here I don't want to be out of order go ahead Allen I appreciate that it's hard because I know nobody can see me this is an interesting dynamic in Paradise we're all in right now so I wanted to expand a little bit on what you said and try to give a bit of the overview and then go through some of the points and then it's not going to take too long as Doug was describing it's a fantastic site and it's on a plateau so we have to come on we have to get across the Blanchard Brook put in the culvert we would love to do affordable housing procedures and we really appreciate that you're addressing some of the traffic concerns because that was really holding us up I know that Mr. White and Burke Associates would love to get more specifics but it's been hard for us because we're not really sure where the boundaries begin and end but we're doing our best and so as we start to really look at this like in the 75% I wanted to explain that a little bit this is E2 parenthesis 2a if we are to really have to change dwellings like that to achieve the number that people would like on that site or from what we've been told if you take 40% of the parcel which is still on the regs right now that leaves us with about 11 acres to try to design the projects to try to hit a really large neighborhood project then with serving affordable seniors we have to build apartment style buildings we just can't get that many units on the site and so that was one of the difficulties with that when we look at the site it's really beautiful it's not a flat piece as Doug described it's a beautiful, undulating piece of land that has pockets and it's big and there's shelves so that's why the road is not really a geometric road it is more of a biomorphic road following the contours going up the hill that's why when Doug talked about the sidewalks we were talking earlier together should it have two sidewalks that's typically an urban downtown design do we want two sidewalks, do you want to maintain them I live on Terrace Street we don't have two sidewalks on Terrace Street we don't even have a sidewalk that goes from the bottom of my hill to the top of the hill when I designed Crestview many years ago in 89 we designed a pedestrian bike path sidewalk that did not necessarily follow the road it was looking in a different direction and letting you have a more country experience not always looking over your shoulder are cars coming I was taught to ride uphill facing the cars so I would not be hit so we tried to address some of those things and that's why Doug was talking about the sidewalks we feel if you have two sidewalks going up that road one the impervious surface is increased and then the other side of the road the sidewalks go way way way up and it looks like an urban environment going up the hill and that's just not what we're trying to create in essence because land needs to stay open and it will naturally it's going to we're not going to be choosing the campus path but it will look sort of like a campus because you can't really help it it's not a flat piece of land Doug said the road at a lower elevation to keep drainage going correctly and of course you have to manage stormwater so I want to talk about that and then it's interesting buildings that face the front of the street this will be a new road honoring Doug's family so it will be Asia Drive if you folks permit the project and the buildings of course will have access and in some way face Asia Drive but the real view of the dominance is the southwestern exposure of Barrie Street enjoying what you have there and so of course we would love to take advantage of that and then that brings into question parking parking in front why we do want that or don't want that I really do get it but in some cases it just doesn't make sense so in our downtown urban one district like state and main I love it that our parking is out back in our case we don't have any of those kinds of experiences so the parking gets more no pun intended steered by the topography of the land where is it flatter where do you manage the water as Doug was saying if the parking is behind the buildings we actually have to create more impervious surface than maybe doing it towards the front where the road is coming in and then I ask you as planning commissioners as citizens you know we don't want to see certain things we are blessed with such a large site and the ridge of the hill unless you are far away you probably won't see a lot of it and so am I trying to prevent people to see the cars from the train I don't think that's it and I don't think we're worried about river street with 25,000 cars a day or maybe it's more so that's why we're thinking why is that important I understand maybe with the shawls or a downtown building that might be very important and we may change how things work but we just feel that that really fit that design of the site and again because it's not geometric it's going to be a biomorphic road it's curving it's a romantic road plan things can't always line up that way so I'm trying to go through the rest so that of course addresses the underground parking oriented towards the street we can always try to do that but really we would rather design according to the site and that's why Doug requesting a bunch of the shawls changed to shawls would really help and give you folks the chance and your judgment to decide where these things might be correct or they may not be correct so I have one clarifying question for you short please I was almost at the bottom of the list I'm sorry to interrupt I'm almost there there are so many different things to keep track of here when you talk about sidewalks Alan you mentioned sidewalks on both sides might not make sense you are thinking of doing a sidewalk on one of the sides of the road going up from Berry Street though yes it's under the PUD right now it's a requirement that you do both both sides and so we're either proposing either one sidewalk or potentially even a pedestrian path that starts to move forward away from a sidewalk having sidewalks next to roads is not always the best thing sometimes you can have a beautiful pedestrian path that serves the same or both and gives you the same advantage and when we did that at Crestview we even designed that to be a second access point for fire access that they could use a breakaway chain but there was certainly chair be at least one sidewalk absolutely or some way to get pedestrians up and down that meets ADA requirements okay I'm not reading that it says sidewalks plural but I read that to mean you know sidewalks on different streets as it being plural it says on each side of the street but that's going to be maybe something for my collator okay so do any other planning commissioners have questions about the specifics of the project and I finished the last part then it's just getting down to the 40% the 40% is I understand people are trying to protect rural land and I do appreciate that I think there's a constitutional issue with the 40% but that's another whole dialogue my dialogue would be that in the wisdom of the city and the community we have decided to make a riverfront area district with really permissive zoning and we have some neat projects coming together we have Mr. Rubilini's, the Connors, Casey's and ours and different people might face that but why they would take 40% of the riverfront development is sort of a contradiction why would you give it so much potential to be able to do something and then take 40% away and so that was also a strong concern it leaves us with just 11 acres and again it just widdles it down to a smaller parcel and it's confusing it seems to be a contradiction for what the district is trying to do thank you chair for that last part I can address it I just want to say one last thing before I forget we really appreciate what you guys and ladies are doing we're doing proactive zoning instead of reactive zoning thank you very much, this is really cool I remember some of the thought process when we were putting the zoning together and when we look at things like the 40% on here it was a give or take where if you're in a PUD you're getting extra density the rules are flexed in your favor for some things you get to put more units in potentially but then the other side of it is you keep this open space so that's I think maybe the trade off and why the 40% is justified but there is some question in my mind and I'm aiming this at Mike and the planning commissioners really about this being a requirement in some places where I don't remember the PUDs intending to be requirements in our discussion before but with that I definitely want to ask Mike's thoughts about these individual requests and how he thinks that technically it could be addressed but before that maybe if the planning commissioners have any questions for Doug or Alan do we have any questions it might be easier if we see also what Dave Dave was going to show a little bit of the site plan to help visualize the project and I don't have to share the screen with you you can just take it David okay if you'd like me to I'll have you to give me just a moment I should have also said I want to thank Mike and White and Associates as well White and Burke and Bill and all their folks they've been working with us a lot and Stephanie to help us thank you very much folks alright let me it looks good to see what you look like Dave alright so there are two plans that I will share just to orient you can everybody see this screen yes okay so this is the lower portion of the property where the cursor is the hand moving that's Berry Street and then you can see the conceptual access point fairly close to the western edge of the property and well west of where the Blanchard Brook comes through which is over here and the idea is to bring the road up and it is as was described it's following the contours of the land this is as you know a hilly site so I want I will come back to the screen but I do want to show you this one sorry down so you can see the plan there we go so this shows the first plan I showed you is just this lower left corner here the southwestern portion of the property this shows more of it and site one was shown out where the cursor is here so it's on the west side of the Brook which is coming down through here and there's where the Brook crosses and then the road is designed to follow the contours and to be able to have a reasonable grade to it and there's site one was down here which showed on the other plan and then you've got these other pads that have been identified as potential building locations with rough building footprints and if I may take the liberty of explaining and Alan or Doug please correct me if I misunderstood you but part of the challenge relative to the orientation of the building and location of parking is if you can visualize that this is going uphill that means that these edges the west and south edges if are going to be the parking would be underneath and you can't actually access the readily access that parking from the backside of the building because that's going to be probably another story above if you look at the grades here where it's increasing ten feet from this grade line to that grade line you basically have your parking that you want to be able to come bring a driveway off and directly into that and ground parking because you can't get access it from uphill because you're a whole floor above did I Alan or Doug accurately describe that perfect yes and I think what you have is that the same kind of phenomenon with each one of these buildings because of the topography basically dictates how they have to be laid out and certainly there is precisely the way you see it here but conceptually you're having to deal with the reality so that you're probably your first occupied level will be at grade I'm guessing here I've not seen architectural designs right now but just I've been through enough of course in my career been involved in planning of projects your residentially occupied level will be accessed from the uphill side and the parking from the downhill side and so it you really want your access to be able to come in pretty directly into these buildings in order for it to make sense with the parking underneath and to the extent that there's not all the parking fits underneath you then want to be able to have a contiguous exterior parking lot there may well be an entrance and need for you know I don't know how these can be laid out so I'll leave it at that I did want to ask a clarifying question if I may of Alan and Doug which is relative to the PUD are there any modifications to the zoning that are permitted by the PUD sections of the ordinance that you think are important for your project and therefore you would prefer to apply as a PUD or do you really do believe you can build your project without being a PUD? If I may Doug because the riverfront district offers such a large density we believe that there's probably much greater potential than whatever be acceptable by the community so we probably don't need a PUD in order to gain any density bonuses you know there's you can do hundreds I don't even know something like that would be acceptable So am I correct then given that that from your perspective if you're not required to apply as a PUD if those two changes are made the rest of these things are really not an issue for you because you don't want to be applying under that section of the ordinance and therefore this orientation of the building and so forth would not be need to be changed for the purposes of your project the planning commission may want to modify for other purposes but I'm just trying to clarify that you would not need these is that correct? I think so Doug how about you? I agree So the simplest thing would be under section let's say that would be 3404B sub 2 and 3405 B sub 3 Yeah I think one thing we'll want to follow up with that I mean that was my train of thought from before and I would like to ask Mike before at some point if there would be problems with zoning outside of the PUD well that would be a good thing to know So yeah my thought is as far as I know the answer is that there aren't other issues I mean we have to keep in mind at our level at the planning commission we're talking about writing the rules of the game so we shouldn't really be looking at this as approving or not approving this project and more looking at it you know from the perspective of we have some rules and these rules were written with some framework in mind and now as we start to apply these rules we realize maybe that the rules aren't achieving the goals that we want and I think that's what we really need to be making sure we're keeping in the back of our mind it's not whether we think this is a good idea for savings pastor not a good idea this is a design we want to see or not want to see they're going to have to go through to get certain waivers and approvals from the development review board they're going to have to look at some requirements for the subdivisions but really the question comes down to what rules do we want them to have to meet and that's why this conversation about what rules would have to change is important it's important so we can understand how our zoning that we write impacts developments in the real world like the parking under the garage we can't have a garage door that's flush with a building that means it makes it extremely difficult or impossible to build this to where the access comes in from the road to go under the building or to have buildings oriented to the street would mean having each one of these buildings square to the street which means the benefits of the the slope and using the slope as part of your design you wouldn't be able to do that but maybe that wasn't considered and I don't think it was considered when these rules were written they were kind of thinking about maybe a project on Berry Street where we would want those buildings to face the street and you know kind of be there but that's a flat Berry Street is flat as soon as we start trying to apply those but that's what we should keep in the back of our our mind is how we want to write the rules and just as a reminder I guess the second point was just remember back when we talked about this couple of weeks ago one issue is that you know when we wrote these rules we talked about providing density bonuses and so if people wanted the added benefit of density then you are going to have added responsibilities for design the way things kind of got shifted when they were approved by the city council is it was kind of all put into the higher density zoning district so it kind of made it where the development on this project doesn't need the density bonuses but they're still going to have to meet all the additional so they're going to have to meet the requirements they would have to meet there are design requirements they're going to have to meet there are a lot of standards in the subdivision that they're going to have to meet but these PUD rules were written above and beyond what are the regular requirements you're going to have some additional requirements to meet in order to get a density bonus but it's a density bonus they don't need so they have to meet all the requirements without really needing any of the benefits so I guess those would be the two umbrella conversations I would put out there and then we could get into the specifics if people want to get into the specifics of what Doug had laid out for changing some of these I'd like to second what you're saying Mike and just for the record our concern is with the overall policy I've asked some questions so far to try to get a clearer picture of things but yeah for the sake of the record this is to make sure that it fits within the entire zoning scheme of things and to see how this project fits into everything for us to learn but as far as any decisions we make on this it's definitely going to have to do with what's right for the city and not connected to this project and I don't think that's where our heads are at but we should articulate that so thank you for pointing that out Mike okay so I agree with everything that Mike has said I've been trying to get some more involvement from the planning commissioners though so we could if anyone has any questions to this point now that you've seen the layout now that you've heard what's in front of us so Kirby I'll I think Mike there was a point that you made that is relates to what I was thinking I'm looking at the zoning map and thinking about the everything that's within the P80 that's related to street frontage and I'm absolutely wondering about Berry Street so it was helpful to see that we're talking about a different road we're not talking about Berry Street but I think those rules make a lot of sense when you're talking about Berry Street because that's the main artery that people are driving and we're really we're talking about creating a little a small residential street off of Berry so I definitely see the point that the rules in some sense are speaking to Berry and not to that to that residential street and I think so is this are we just talking about the little corner in the zoning map it's not little but the little corner that's in riverfront so it's all within that the development the road will reach the rural lands at the top but there's no proposal at this time and they can correct me if I'm wrong but the proposal because most of what is being discussed at this point deals with the the TIF what we can do within those building new streets and utilities those can only apply to lower area and so I think even if there were something up there I think the phasing of the project would be that you'd build the lower section and if 10-15 years from now there's demand available density that could be built in the rural then I think we would be having a different conversation about that but the proposal at this time is just for the lower portion which is 15 acres is the zoning acre roughly the other thing that I'm thinking about with that split between the green is rural correct yes the rest of saving pasture it feels to me like I think we talked about this a little bit last time it feels to me like that's the piece that is being conserved on this parcel in terms of a lower density and I would to me the riverfront district should be dense we should be encouraging density so the requirement that they maintain 40% open space does seem a little strange to me within that riverfront piece when really that open space is what's in that rural savings faster behind that parcel I would encourage I would think that from my perspective anyway would be encouraging more density riverfront and not less yes as far as I recall from our previous discussions of the planning commission is I don't think we ever envision specifically that the very street in savings pasture would be a new neighborhood necessarily like it was an option but not something that we thought was definitely going to happen as Mike said before some of the requirements related to these PUDs were added later do we have any other questions about this? Mike do you have from an administrative perspective from a technical perspective do you have a preference for how this can be resolved and when I say resolved I just mean you know potential changes or proposals that we could make to make the development of savings fit in with our city plan like we all have envisioned so I guess I would say there are two there are two buckets to look at one bucket is to go through and say the zoning rules the applicability this goes back to the discussion we had two weeks ago which was that we ended up through the planning commission didn't propose the entire parcel to be low density with these incentives to get density bonuses to cluster them in the lower and to if you did the clustering then you would have to conserve 40% and that 40% would be up in the area that's now zone rural and we would be able to get the development down there that we want using incentives instead the city council kind of did both they left the POD requirements in and then also went through and changed the zoning such that there was high density in the bottom and low density at the top which is what's really kind of causing the conflict at this point so one option to do what we talked about last time which would be to basically sever the requirement that they have to go through this to put it back in the things that if you want the benefits then you have to do the additional requirements that would be one way of fixing the problem that's before us the other bucket would be to kind of follow through what Doug has proposed which are a number of going saying well if we've got to go through this we're required to go through this we're going to need adjustments to these rules the cost benefit on that is as we make changes to these rules these are going to affect other parcels that may also have the ability to use a new neighborhood POD where we might want these requirements and maybe somebody's going to come in and take advantage of the density bonuses but now they don't have to meet the additional design requirements but the spirit of it if you want to build to a higher density then it's allowed we're going to do that we actually encourage that but if you do we're going to make you meet a higher design standard and if we soften the design standards then we're going to end up with somebody who could come in later on with the idea that I'm going to get all the density bonus and I'm going to find ways of avoiding having to meet these higher design standards I don't know if there is another project that can have this but I think those would be the two buckets we can look at and there kind of costs and benefits of each one from a policy standpoint and I can give my two cents but my two cents really don't matter so much I mean yeah as you make the little tell I mean I'm I don't see requiring a PUD as great policy I haven't all along if we weren't if we were going to try to alter the PUD instead though and still have it be a requirement for certain projects then I think that there's at least there's room to put in some caveats for adjustments related to topography and things like that without actually just completely you know gutting some of these requirements because some of these requirements are obviously beneficial and so just removing them I mean when you change something from shall to should I mean you really may as well remove it I mean that's my perspective because it's only there to cause trouble basically at that point but yeah so I think there is some room to you know to adjust these I mean what are the other planning commissioners think I mean there's removal there's trying to adjust it there's do nothing can I please say something sure I was going to say I certainly believe in a PUD and I think it really makes sense in the areas that the city feels it should we just felt that the city's intent was to not have a PUD in this kind of density area called riverfront development in fact if you go into urban one two and three we are encouraging similar kind of growth a PUD is not applicable that's why we thought it made sense I do think a PUD does make sense in the less dense areas so that we can achieve what the community wants I just wanted to say that you know it just a PUD is a tough thing to do in an urban area and even though it's called rural excuse me even though it's called riverfront development it's really like sort of like urban urban four we have urban one two and three and I was just going to point that out thank you chair yeah I mean my honest thoughts about the PUDs as they're in the zoning is that the incentive to use a PUD is based off of density bonuses but I don't think that the molecular market is one in which density bonuses are all that relevant or helpful so I feel like that was a flaw and I've kind of felt uncomfortable like it was a flaw along if I'm honest when we talked about those there's just not I don't think in this market there's enough incentive to try to get that density bonus so you know I think we need to add more incentives to our PUDs if that's what we want as a city to you know and added to that there's only a few locations you can put a PUD and that's you know lockable to downtown like we really want to see so I think we need to rethink it but yeah those are my thoughts planning commissioners do we have any other thoughts on this in anything can I just clarify so the question before us is whether we want to take action on removing requirements under 3404 B2 and 3405 B3 that's sort of the question where it's want to clarify that's one possibility and the second part the 3405 though it hasn't come into this discussion very much because there's not a proposal on the table right now to develop in the rural area which is what the 3405 would apply to is that correct Mike correct that's true at this point so but at some point it does have the same some of the same issues so I think at some point we would have to have that conversation whether it's now or whether it's you know a year or two in the future there are still some issues that are there that should be addressed but specific to this project as we're looking at it today it really is the new neighborhood that is the issue at hand if I may you know I think our position would be if you're going to revisit if you're going to visit one it probably makes sense to visit two in part because if you don't it may cause future planning commissions to question why they didn't remove the second one when they did the first one and you know the reasoning I think is as you pointed out Kirby and Mike this is not a review of this specific project the specific project is highlighting issues that are general applicability and I think that both of these mandatory requirements you know the reasoning is largely the same that if somebody wants to develop in these areas and take advantage of the PUD that's one thing there should be a mixture of carrots in any PUD but forcing all development through these PUDs you know creates these limitations that are unintended for this type of development and so I think it would make sense if the planning commission is headed in that direction to you know make these PUDs not mandatory but elective then it probably makes sense to take both of them because they sort of do fit together and in a project like this while there's no rural development that's on the table right now it's clearly intended in the future that there will be some rural development so you know it's a question of do we tackle it now or do we tackle it tomorrow and so I think it would make a certain amount of sense if you're headed in that direction to just make that sort of clean sweep that way that's a question thank you Thanks Dan and Erin did that answer your questions? I have to be honest sorry it's hard to do these sweep meetings at home sometimes there's a gymnastics competition going out there but yeah I'm having so I guess the question is just an overall look at the PUD exactly we're just considering whether we want to make changes to the overall PUD and I guess yeah I mean what would be helpful for me is just to hear from other commissioners who are understanding it better like what your position is I guess would be sort of helpful for me it's 3404B is the new neighborhood what was the other section 3405B 3405B all right Erin or Marcella do either of you have anything no I'm just kind of listening right now I'm pretty agnostic frankly right now so I didn't hear Marcella but it sounded like a no yeah sorry I'm just trying to understand what like all of this was before my time all of these standards so I'm trying to just that was helpful to hear what the intent was um yeah I'm fine Chair if I may emphasize what we suggest or somebody suggesting maybe not using PUDs we're always suggesting in the riverfront district where it's a very important part in zone that you know it's been thought out that we really want to grow from that area I'm not trying to suggest like I am the steward in the land of Crestview I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be a PUD or potentially that format for a different kind of parcel um it just seems like if you're in the riverfront district it just seems like that's a pretty tough standard thank you yeah okay segue for um I don't know do the people think it would be beneficial for Mike to explain some of the you know normal zoning requirements that development on Berry Street would have to follow is that something that we want to talk about um well yeah I guess I'm a little bit confused because I thought you were saying PUDs were not required there for you sorry to be honest about my confusion but yeah it's okay there's there's yeah there's been a lot so I mean to kind of frame this there's you know PUDs sections in the zoning that have their own set of requirements and they're supposed to come with certain benefits but there is this this provision that says you know certain developments that are 40 units or more must follow these added rules and um you know a lot of them are design related and and they're you know they're more strict than our other zoning but of course we do have our own all of our other zoning that applies to that districts I will also apply to this uh so it's a lot of regulation um and it's in this situation and the way that it's written right now if people if you're building 40 units or more then you you can't opt in to get the benefits you're required to follow these rules uh so it's kind of a question is like do we does that what we want or do we think it's more in line with the uh the current city plan and where we're going with the city plan and with the other decisions we've made recently is that more in line with those things to say that uh you know we're going to relax these restrictions we're going to of course the PUD is still useful to have on the books because for a specific kind of project that wants higher density it might make sense for it to follow these rules uh or if we do think it's a good idea for 40 unit projects or more or greater to have to follow these new neighborhood PUD rules uh if we decide that that is what we want then the question is do we need to adjust then though because it's been brought to our attention now that they're uh too rigid in some places and for instance there's some places where it seems like it doesn't take topography into account at all uh so you know those are that's you know the the general framework in front of us I also take Alan's point about the specifically which districts are are included so the conservation district uh applicability is to residential 9000 and residential 24000 um the new neighborhood is riverfront mixed-use residential residential 3000 and residential 6000 and 9000 and I think another way we can look at this is is through that lens of which which zoning districts that this actually makes sense in and if we really do want density in riverfront which I think we do and maybe this is some of these rules might make a lot of sense for that but I'm not sure that all of them do I think I think part of the unspoken history here though Stephanie is that when when Stephen Patcher was discussed about being developed before people were really concerned about open space yeah I just I think that issue that Mike brought up with when the the city council decision was to put the rest of savings pastor in rural makes it those two things don't work together so so having a requirement in riverfront and that's just that little sliver doesn't make a lot of sense to me mm-hmm that's a good point so there's we're still conserving most of the rest of the parcel because it's in rural even if there would be some development that's that is allowable that could take place in the rest of the parcel okay so if we if you don't have any more questions for forever for our guests tonight then it I'm not it's it seems like the planning commission is not very decisive right now on this and might need some time to think so I'm tempted to just kind of table the discussion to a future meeting where we can talk about these things and more after people have time to think unless someone the planning commission has other thoughts if I may I do have a question for Alan and Doug that's not that's about a different zoning provision not this particular one I don't want to close out the this agenda item at least before I have an opportunity to ask them yeah go ahead um Doug and Alan you had previously mentioned to me a concern about the footprint limitation riverfront district if I recall correctly it has a maximum 5,000 square foot footprint can you explain that concern why is that an issue I'm happy to do it if we're trying to create the kind of the quality of housing that you're speaking of that just really makes us go vertical because of the site I've been designing and playing a whole life like you and I really care that would be sort of force us into pads like structures sticking out of the hill when Doug and I envision much more a larger footprint and I think there was a waiver that lets us go up to 18,000 square feet but we envision something that might be entered and take advantage of the slopes and the terraces very much in a Frank Lloyd Wright where you take advantage of the topography and not just ignore it and so that's where the footprints became kind of hard I own Northwood Village next to Goddard College each one of those buildings is a 5,000 square foot footprint I get 9 units per building it's an 8 acre campus basically and so I'm just trying not to build pads like structures on a hill we'd rather build something that's creative and is designed well and we appreciate all the comments that Mike has made and others about the difficulty of the terrain and how to get to it but we want to use our architects to really take advantage of that topography so that's why we didn't want to be so limited to just a 5,000 square foot footprint or 6,000 so if I understand what you're saying correctly and your reference to Frank Lloyd Wright part of that is you're envisioning something more horizontal and not as vertical as would be to get the density yes that would make us both a lot happier and our appreciation of downtown Mt. Taylor okay I'm assuming you feel the same way Doug exactly well stated thank you I guess I can provide some comments so there is the waiver provision that's allowed for footprints is actually unlimited and there was a very specific conversation that we had in dealing with this district itself the riverfront district when we were at the city council and the issue that had kind of brought this about was people, some residents in town were concerned that some folks were going to come in and as we had kind of matched our zoning districts to the densities that you find on the ground so we did a very good job of kind of calibrating our zoning to make sure that 90% of our neighborhoods met their own zoning requirements and that increased the zoning densities allowed in our many of our neighborhoods and the concern was that people had was that maybe somebody would come in and tear down some of these buildings and build large buildings you know make these mansions by tearing down neighboring buildings and there was a concern so they wanted to put footprint requirements in such that you know a neighborhood of 3,000 square foot homes you couldn't go in and put a 6,000 square foot home and so we had a lot of conversations of okay so we found what the 90% was for footprints looking at the assessor cards so we had a pretty good idea of what that number was but in the end we came up and had some tricky ones like riverfront what are we going to do with a place like riverfront where you have a lot of berry street properties where the footprints are smaller but you also include in that granite shed lane and stone cutters way where the buildings are much bigger bigger than what you see but they're in the same zoning district and so the decision of city council was that we shouldn't put a cap at all on it so at first we thought maybe double or triple but what city council eventually came down which is on figure 3.06 if you want to look it up at some point Alan is that's where the footprint requirement says there's no max limit to a waiver request for a footprint so you could go as big as you want what the development review board would look at is the impact of that building on the character of the neighborhood so a really large building in and amongst a lot of smaller buildings might not get approved but a larger building for example I'm not saying it would be because it's a development review board decision but these buildings are set back from the road yes Asia drive is the private drive going in there but it's really set back from berry street so a larger structure is not overwhelming the buildings on berry street or across the street from berry street across the street from savings pastor is caledonia spirits which is a much bigger building so again when you start the application that would go in in the development review board would look at the character of the area would these larger buildings that would be smaller than caledonia spirits negatively impact the character of that section of berry street I think there's plenty of room for a fairly good argument these buildings would qualify for a waiver I certainly could see good cases that could be made I can't tell you they will automatically get approved for that that wouldn't be good for me to say that but I think there are good arguments there that could be made and those would have to be addressed with the development review board to go through and say look the limits 5000 square foot we're going to be doing 15 or 17 or 18 or whatever you're coming up with to go through and say and here's our design and I think that's what you would probably bring to the development review board because I think Kirby had mentioned this there are a number of other zoning requirements PUDs aren't the only ones there are subdivision requirements they're going to have to meet major site plan and major site plan would trigger the architectural standards so even though they're not in design review they do have to meet architectural standards we're going to need to see building elevations and I think what the applicants would be doing is presenting an entire package that goes through and says here's how this works here's why a waiver is appropriate because it's not going to impact the character of the neighborhood because the character over here is different than the character on the other end of Berry Street or some of the other place so I think there are a number of good cases that could be made but the waiver could be a big it could be a 300,000 square foot you're just going to have to justify how it's not going to have an impact on the character of the neighborhood obviously the bigger the footprint the tougher the argument you have to make but that gives people a little bit of context of you know waiver is something they're going to have to go through and so you know and then within the subdivision rules as I said they'll have to do major site plan they'll probably have to do subdivision which looks at capacity of facilities the suitability of the land the traffic the configuration of the parcels the design and layout of the improvements including drainage and grade and width of roads so there's a lot of standards pedestrian and bicycle facilities landscaping parks and recreation areas the character of the neighborhood settlement patterns renewable energy and energy conservation they do have to meet some natural resource protection if there's some requirements in there so it just gives a little bit of a sense of they will have to meet standards even if they have to meet POD they still have to meet all these standards the POD was above and beyond what are in here thanks Mike okay so do we have before we table this do we have any other questions or does anyone else want to make any points for everyone to consider if I may make just one point I think by far the simplest way to approach this would be in fact to remove the requirement for POD and to go back to what in fact I see in most zoning ordinances and believe me I've read dozens and dozens if not more than that is that they are an option the applicant has the ability to choose whether to apply as a POD or not in order to get whatever those benefits are and I think simply removing the leaving the standards unless you think there's some that are not good in any way but removing the requirement that certain projects apply that way would be the cleanest thing thank you Dan okay well I think we'll end the discussion there it doesn't look like the planning commission is prepared to act right away probably wise anyway to think about this so we'll put this on one of our upcoming agendas and revisit the question and you know feel free to well I'll ask the folks involved in the call now if we put this on the agenda again would you like to be invited yes please yeah I would think that makes sense you know the other thing that I guess I would offer as well is that if the commission wanted to look at proposed language I'd be happy to work with Mike to draft things that the commission could consider that would be acceptable to my client as a possibility of exploring it obviously putting sometimes it's when the commission is ready to get to that point to actually start to mollo for the language it might help to have a couple options in front of you I think I was thinking about that and since there's this threshold question of whether we even want to keep the requirement I mean you know I'd hate to see you work on a version of it where there's a requirement but it's more flexible that seems like a lot of work if we end up you know not even going down you know not even considering that path but you know you can feel free to do that if you'd like but yeah I wouldn't I wouldn't want to make anyone have to do that that work on the front without knowing well I think you know we're in touch with Mike Miller if there's the commission mulls us over and wants to give him direction he can obviously communicate with me and Alan and Doug you know so we can obviously do that I'm just thinking the most productive use of your time and ours going forward is you know if you do want to we can certainly be available to answer questions and we can be available to to run things through but you know at some point it always helps once you start to do that if you do go down that road as you point out either tweaking some of the the intricacies versus just cutting out required language you know we can certainly help with that and that might be a good use to have those proposals if you go in that direction sure yeah feel free to do that if you'd like I mean if you don't want to do all the work of redrafting something a list of the problematic provisions I know Doug went through those already but if we had those handy for a future discussion that would probably be handy okay yeah I was just going to say this is Aaron I was just going to say we have something identifying sort of the sticking points for the parties would be really helpful in helping form our discussion forwards not necessarily draft language but just so I have a sense of when I go back and review this I know exactly where everybody is looking this would be very helpful so thanks okay well with that we'll see you all in the future sometime we really appreciate you coming in and explaining everything to us and so thank you thank you all thank you I look forward to the next meeting thank you all very much Doug and I thank you both thank you all very much bye stay safe everybody thanks okay well the next item on the agenda is to talk about the transportation plan one of our thoughts about that do we want to dive in with about 25 minutes left how are we feeling yeah I'm not sure that I can be of much use on that what 25 minutes left but I'm willing to do it if other people are game for it I would not mind punting it to next week okay yeah I'm the same but especially Barb's out here and she's on the transportation subcommittee so that's a good point and I got some by the way I got contacted by the chair of the transportation subcommittee this week some of their members might be interested in visiting us when we do discuss it so heads up on that and Hanif is actually on the line right now and he is on the transportation committee I don't know if you want to just get his thoughts or if he was just going to be a fly on the wall yeah Hanif please feel free to speak up if you have general comments otherwise we're not planning on discussing it tonight and what I was about to say was we'll make sure that everyone on your subcommittee is informed when we discuss it next time it'll I believe it will be on our agenda for two weeks from now but we'll but we'll directly let your chair know are you there Hanif? okay let me see if I can I wouldn't blame anyone for zoning out so yeah whether Hanif or somebody else we'll just have to have them get me that who's the contact people so if you're in touch with the transportation folks Kirby just let me know who should be invited and I'll make sure they're on the invitation list I'll forward you the chair and then and then we can have them tell everyone else okay Konstantinos Konstantinos Konstantinos and Hanif that makes popular actually sound diverse okay alright well with that then do we have a motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to adjourn seconded seconded seconded by Aaron all those in favor of adjournment say aye aye alright good night everyone thanks good night