Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Let's call the Wednesday March 18th6. Heat. Heat. a second. Mr. about the note.

Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Kinsky has to make a comment. Um on the minutes the uh part about under the uh commissioner's report uh said uh I gave an update on the city's cable company franchise agreements. I just wanted to add which was the point I was trying to make during that update which is and urged the city manager to ensure that all cable company requirements are met prior to extending franchise agreements including cable maintenance and shifting of cable lines when new poles are installed.

Could you read that back one more time?

Yeah. Uh so you could pro Yeah, go ahead. And urged that the city manager urged the city manager to ensure ensure urged the city manager to ensure that all cable company requirements are met prior to extending franchise agreements. comma including cable maintenance and shifting uh just cable maintenance I'm sorry including cable maintenance making it hard for you and shifting of cable lines when new poles are installed B and period. And I think you can take out the agreements uh right before the edit franchise update. Uh take out the no take out the I'm sorry, take out the word updates cable company and urged. It's probably a past tense.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kinsky, and thank you for all your work on that issue. Uh, Mr. Duncan, did you want to move the minutes without addition? Yes, exactly that. Oh, I move to adopt the minutes of the meeting as updated by Mr. Kensky. Okay. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Stevens. All in favor? I I All right. I think one abstain Oh, abstension from Miss Freedellander. Okay, that brings us to our work session. Uh and we're here to uh tonight to discuss the 258 North Washington Street site plan. Welcome.

Good evening. Um I'm Jeff Holland with the planning team. Uh tonight you're being asked to review a site plan application for 258 North Washington Street uh for the Park Washington Apartments. Uh the applicant is proposing to uh add an addition to the existing historic home that's on this site which includes a three-story building containing eight new apartments. Uh the site is within a T1 zone and neighbors uh several B1 businesses along Park Washington Court. Uh staff has received this application on February 23rd and completed their first review on March 11th which generated the letter and comments that you have in your materials which Jack is showing right now. Uh several issues have been identified includingformational and technical items uh uh related to sewer and storm water management uh requiring additional clarification and review. Uh the plans as they are currently submitted also have several inconsistencies with the city's comprehensive plan and downtown small area plan. Uh especially how it relates to how new development interacts with historic buildings. Uh last week uh the architectural advisory board met with the applicant to discuss the project. Uh this generated a negative recommendation with several suggestions on how the applicant uh may be able to improve uh the project's interactions with the existing home. Uh draft minutes from that meeting are included uh also within your materials. Uh the applicant is working within our 40-day review schedule uh which may allow an additional resubmission and oneweek staff review ahead of the April 3rd deadline in which the designated agent um is to take action on the project. Uh that timeline is shown uh within uh this at the bottom of this letter uh to the applicant. Um, one other thing that I just wanted to mention really quickly, kind of a bit of an update. Um, since we posted a lot of

the staff comments, um, there have been two kind of adjustments that I think are relevant to your interests, uh, to the staff comments, um, that we've been working through with the applicant since, um, since we gave it to them. Uh, one is on, uh, the amount of ADUs, uh, at the, uh, uh, at the new, uh, development. uh we have suggested in our comments uh that they would need uh two ADUs. Uh we uh are new to the new you know T1 zoning code and and and so uh we miscalculated and they only need the one that they are proposing. Uh and that one is at 80 uh 80% AMI. Um so that comment has uh been struck from uh the staff comments. Uh also the other one uh is on parking comments. uh the zoning uh made a uh miscalculation al as well on their required parking for the site. Uh T1 uh needs uh uh one parking space for each uh unit. Uh since there's going to be nine total units at this development, uh they would need nine parking spots. Uh I believe that um that staff had said something like 21. I think that they were using uh the wrong table at the time. So we've corrected that with the applicant. Um and they uh are all good to go on on uh required parking. Uh so uh that's it for me. Uh we do have some members I think of the uh applicant team here to make a brief presentation. I think there's a few people online as well. So thank you.

That'd be great. Thank you so much. Um we'd welcome the applicant to make their presentation now.

Sorry. Mic's hot. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the planning commission. I'm Charles Warren. I'm a principal of TAW Warren Architects. We're the architectural team uh and we're um representing the applicant here today, Ken Fendery, who I think he's in Norway on a boat, so he's apologizes for not being here. I want to thank Mr. uh Hollerin and the staff as well for uh the introduction of this project and to help us uh navigate their process uh navigate their process. Their collaboration has been um very important to us and we appreciate it. Uh so I can um are you moving the slides for me? Great. Thanks. Uh so we can go to the first slide please. Um can we scroll down a little bit more? Thank you. Uh if you could just get the full page on that would be it's pretty close. Thank you. Um I know all of you are familiar with the site. It's just like right over there. Uh but I'll start with just some context here. So this is located along North Washington Street. It's a couple doors over from the state theater. Uh it is on the edge of the downtown uh false church PA. Uh and as Mr. Hollerin mentioned is in the new T1 transition zone. Uh the existing house there is uh one of the four historic properties in that T-zone. The lot is around 9,400 square ft which is um about 216 acres which uh plays into the density that were allowed on the site. Uh the historic farmhouse sits on the south um you can move to the next slide please. Uh the historic farmhouse sits on the southwestern portion of the site uh with a significant open space to the northwest and you can see that in the uh lower right photo. Uh it's essentially

under underutilized space. It's an empty lot there, empty green space. Uh there is a significant grade change uh across the site. It's about 8 ft of vertical elevation change from the sidewalk along uh North Washington down to the parking area at the rear. Uh next slide, please. Uh so it's a pretty oddly shaped lot. It's trapezoidal in shape. Um and with the required setbacks that you can see in the dash blue lines, uh it just introduces some difficult geometries that we're navigating with the new building. Uh the new building will sit uh in that area between two historic properties uh 258 which is on our site uh and 282 uh North Washington which is uh sits to the northwest. Uh these are both gabled farmhouse style structures with 282 being a little bit more of a Victorian uh style with um more of the kind of gingerbread uh that you might see on that. There is an asphalt parking um uh area on the on the southwestern portion of the lot and that is shared with the property to the southoutheast. Uh there is a shared property line that runs right through the middle of a shared access easement to that parking. Uh so that's right along that that property line. Uh next slide please. So I just go over some just overall project goals here. As Mr. Holler mentioned, uh the project is proposing eight new additional units in addition to the existing single family residence of the farmhouse. Uh the project would include a single ADU uh uh which would meet that 10% threshold requirement and that is being offered at 80% AMI. Uh the project does propose a mix of one, two, and threebedroom units. And while this

is a small development in terms of unit count, uh it provides a divi a div a diverse mix of residences. Uh the average unit size is around 1300 square ft. Uh and this is desired by our client to offer flexible units for families of different sizes. Uh and um the potential for aging in place here. Uh the gross square footage of the building is around 9,700 square f feet uh in the new building or the addition and around 2900 in the existing house. We are proposing nine parking spaces which is the 1:1 ratio that was mentioned. Uh and there are also a couple to tandem spaces located underneath the building and those are really just uh unit amenity or owner amenity spaces. We are setting back from the existing house. Um you can see it. We're kind of zigzagging around the building there and we're only touching it with a uh small terrace that meets at grade and below. Uh and part of that was just to try to introduce some breathing room between the the two buildings and the two structures. Uh we are also proposing the new building entry on the far east corner to really just add more separation between the existing house and the new uh entry. Uh next slide, please. Uh this is a rendering uh concept view looking towards the southwest. Here you can see the entry of the new building on the left here. Uh again, we're trying to just create some separation between that uh porch entry of the existing farmhouse and the new structure to the left. Uh we are introducing a covered porch on the new building uh and lining that with a wood material to uh soften that entry to make it a little more humane. Um as you come into the building uh on the porch on the right side uh at one point we had um some of the earlier schemes that maybe you've seen and we presented to

harb earlier had proposed removing the porch that's on the left side of the uh historic structure but we've brought that back and although it wasn't um original to the building we think it helps retain some of the architectural character of the farmhouse and helps to put a little more distance between those two buildings. Uh from a massing standpoint, really tried to keep it pretty simple in terms of forms uh and really just looking at simple materials and um uh more of a modern uh aesthetic to it. Uh it is a three-story building. It's roughly 38 um feet tall. Uh next slide, please. And here you can see that porch element that we're retaining on the between the two buildings that we brought that back to help just kind of retain some of that character and to put a little more breathing space between the two buildings. And and this iteration we really looking at treating the new building real almost like a modern ex modern expression and really just trying to be distinct from the two um the two buildings. And I know we've gotten some feedback from the architectural advisory board. Uh and we haven't had a chance to react to that yet. We just got that info last week. We are working on that. Uh and we plan to have some of those iterations um within our I think we have a week or so to turn them around. So we're working on that now. Um and uh the next slide, please. And just from a material standpoint, we were looking at um a composite um panel system which is a very durable product. It's called Trespa. Uh and that's the beige color you saw on the renderings. And then the wood version of that at the entry to soften that um entry point to the building. And then fiber cement panel uh for the for the remainder of

the material. Uh next slide, please. Um I just wanted to touch base on an earlier design that we had. So this was a a version of the building that we had shown to harb back in uh 2024 in July. Uh and some of the feedback we had gotten from that presentation. And it sounded like and maybe we misinterpreted that um feedback was they wanted us to they didn't really enjoy the gabled forms and they thought they were competing with the existing structures a little too much which uh which is why we had moved away from some of these gable forms and introduced uh more of a sort of modern u aesthetic. Um but I just wanted to put that in here for some context. So we have been studying the site for for some time and um again looking for feedback from the uh from the commission tonight along these lines. Um uh but we are work actively working on um some design iterations here and we hope to have that within the the next week or so. Uh but with that, you know, I'll conclude my presentation, but I'm happy to answer any questions that uh the commission may have. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. I'm sure we'll have some questions. Who would like to begin? And yeah, Jack, if you could just leave that one up, I think that would be great. We can reference the presentation. Any takers? There's Danny.

Danny, do you want to start? Um, so I listened in to the architectural advisory board conversation last week and I think one of the uh the big points of emphasis from them was the difference in the the new the newish building, the new apartment styling versus the um historic nature of the original the the building that's currently in place. And I was wondering I know you said you got the feedback last week you're working on that but like what are you thinking from a or what is the thought process around h like is it possible to marry that? Are you thinking of marrying that? Are you still leaning towards more of a distinct style?

I think what we're excuse me I think what we're trying to do is really start to um I think there it's probably too different right now and I think what we would try to do is introduce a little more material that's more compatible like maybe a brick or something and then a little bit more siding or like a finer grain maybe not sighting but something that's a little more fine grain like sighting is. Uh, and then I think one of the main things that we're really looking at is breaking it the massing down to really read like a twotory with a one-story piece on top of it versus um, you know, a threetory read I think is is from a massing standpoint I think would help bring that more in more compatible with the two neighboring structures. I think introducing a gable form is complicated um, to get the full like to get you know usable space on that third floor. it gets it gets complicated and it gets a little fussy. Um, but that's uh that's sort of my instinct on a design that might start talking to the two buildings on either side of it.

Okay. And then where would like I don't think I quite understood where the parking would be or where the entrance and exit of the parking. Is it on broad on Washington Street? No, it's off of the um the uh parking area in the rear. So the I think park park park court I think it is leads back there and there's a there's a parking area in the back and then it's underneath the building in the back. Is that also where you're thinking like uh trash and other things would go?

Yeah, there's a there is a trash room back there and it would be um wheeled out uh we have a service a private service that will come pick it up uh so the way we can wheeled out to the to that access alley on the back. So the the basically my question was like could a truck get a truck get around and into that area or you're saying it would it would get on whenever it was picked up it would get wheeled out to the access alleyway. Yes. On the back. Yeah. It's um there's um we're looking to see if we can get a truck to turn in there. That's one of the comments we got uh from the the um the staff

and we're looking at the uh turning radius there. But there's that access there that a a a trash a trash a small trash truck can certainly get back there. It's wide enough for that. Okay. Um I may have some more questions. I think the real question is like can you like what is what would we do with the feedback from the AAB and and that concept and I'd love to see more just what direction that goes. Okay. But I'll turn it over to other commissioners to thank you ask some questions. I won't, but I want to hear a little bit. Okay. Uh, go ahead, Tim. Yes, please.

All right. Well, first of all, thank you for bringing the project. Uh, I think that there a lot of positive aspects that I see to it uh in terms of bringing more residential housing to the city and uh this kind of area is kind of been I don't want to say neglected, but there's not a whole lot that's been going on in this area. And so, I think something like this can also help to revitalize a little bit. Uh, I looked at your company's website and I was pleased to see that you featured a net zero design and also you're focusing on uh single stair for the three to six um story residential units. So those are both things that uh that I appreciate. So So it's good to see those in your website.

I'm glad somebody reads it. Um the um the original design that you submitted to the harb uh had like a distance between the uh front of the building and the uh the curb was about I don't know 10 15 ft there. Does that still apply to this uh addition as well?

Yes, it's the same it's the same setback for the street. Yeah. Uh, I think that helps because it kind of sets the um what is it? The Holtwell House. I don't know if that's the accurate way to describe to the the historic house. Uh, it sets that apart by because it's closer uh to to the street. So, uh that's good if uh if if that would be retained under under this approach. Uh I'm not an architect, but just from my perspective, I think the uh original design that you presented to Harb has some interesting aspects to it in terms of how it fits in false church.

Uh real modern design, even though it's my personal preference, there's a lot of people in the city that don't necessarily find that uh attractive. So I think some of the the gable work that you had on that original design kind of seems to to speak nicely to, you know, like the pediment that's on top of the porch there on the historic house. So, you know, that's my thought, but I figured, uh, you know, no better than the people that are spending the money to build it to decide which piece is going to be most attractive to the marketplace. So, uh, so I could probably, you know, be comfortable with either. Uh, I think staff pointed out there was a need for the three bike parking and I was just wondering where where those would go.

Right. There's I think there's three um uh short-term and three long-term spaces. We're looking at potentially putting the three long-term or short-term spaces to the left of that entry. There's a there's a bit of a pad area. I think we could put the three short-term ones there, which I think would make the most sense from an access standpoint. So, the visitors could use those. Correct. Yeah. And it'd be coming in the front door. Um the other area, we do have a space in the in the garage area below that is uh dedicated for bike parking. I see. Um would the uh garages be pre-wired for an EV charger if somebody wanted to put one in?

Probably. Yeah, we're looking to do them to do those. We've we've uh I think had pretty good success with the town homes that have gone into the city recently. They've been pre-wired for EV. Some were pre-wired for solar. I realize you're going to have a green roof, so that's that's good, too. Uh but yeah, that'd be great. And uh I assume you're probably just on as as far as the energy efficiency goes, you're just going to build to the state code or are you perhaps going to go a little bit above that? Uh it'll probably be a little bit above that. We almost always do a little more than that. I think that um you know, I don't we're we're not currently entertaining any certifications like lead or anything like that on the property, but

Right. But from an energy efficiency standpoint, that's that's okay, you know. Yeah. I think we are we we'll be a little bit better than code is what our typical designs are. Yeah. I I think it'd be great if you could feature those things. I think there are people that are attracted to that uh in the city. And so, you know, if you have those features, I think uh it could could be of some assistance. We will um we will um put in the infrastructure for solar. Uh we always run conduit now to do that. So so that it it has the option and easier to fit in later.

Good. Okay. Thank you. Um let's see. Parking we talked about uh I guess this is more for staff, but on some of the town houses that have gone on recently, we've had a step back requirement. So I assume that's not necessary by code on for these units. I'm not aware of it, but maybe that's okay. Um, as far as I understand, the um the zoning staff uh didn't mention anything about about that. Okay. I assume they would would look at that. So, yeah. Yeah.

Um, ADUs, we took care of that. I was a little confused on that whole discussion. So, glad that got clarified. Same. Uh, okay. I think that's all I had. Great.

Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Uh, Mr. Kinsky. Thanks. Actually, I I um I just want to I have a question couple questions for staff rather than um the submitter, which I appreciate the presentation. So one, this is a T-zone by development which is not requesting and the uh the submitter is not requesting any waiverss, exceptions to setbacks to height. Um they are not so and uh my understanding was I I don't remember there being ADU requirements on park but there are on Washington uh for development.

Uh yes um for the for the T1 zones there are um I don't know maybe Jack can speak more to those. I don't know that did did did we have ADU requirements on the other developments along park?

No. So from what I understand the the the applicants accessing the by ride um what was called the by ride bonus density option which so if you don't the the typical density maximum is 34 units per acre which are basically what all the recent townhouse developments have been built to. there's an option in the T1 zone to go to 40 units per acre and that triggers a uh an affordability requirement of 10% of all of the units um at 34 units per acre and so when you so the so this is the first T-zone applicant that's come in at 40 units per acre with those affordability requirements.

Got it. Oh, that's very helpful. Um and then with regard to the um any authorities for the historic architectural review board um do they have any authorities over the new building or are there authorities only for modifications to the existing building?

No. So I I think that's where some of maybe the applicants kind of confusion also came and um and among staff too uh with what HARB approved um and what they looked at and what they approved. Um so HARB uh mainly approved um the uh existence of this new development with the existing uh historic home, the fact that it can be there and that they approve of this development happening. Um their recommendation was so that nothing happens to this historic home and and and you know there was some discussion about the front um the front uh you know uh porch there being not being touched and and all these types of items. As long proved that this application can move forward so long as they do not affect the historic home. They had comments on the new development and what was being proposed like in back in 2024. Um but ultimately um the AAB is the one who is is overseeing something like the the the architecture for the new development

of the new development. Yes. So the AAB what is their authority to modify or they're just recommendations I'm assuming? Yeah. I mean, they're they're an advisory board, so you know, they

they follow along with whatever um uh you know, the the comprehensive plan or the small area plan has to say about a development like this. Um they make suggestions. Um in fact, uh our chair made a I'm the liazison to the AAB. Um our chair made a you know, a good comparison with uh some buildings in Leburg that also had new development interacting with old historic homes. Um and so we worked through that with uh with the applicant team and hopefully gave them some good ideas. Um but ultimately um yeah they their advisory um and that's that's where their authority is.

So everything that the planning commission the historical uh review board and the AAB are recommendations to the designated agent uh but the designated agent this is a byight development. So the designated agent can only take pass these suggestions on to the developer but there's no uh the as long as it's within code it is by right development. Is that right? That's true.

Okay. Um but I have I've suggested to this applicant and many other applicants in the past that I think you know um it goes a long way to try to meet these you know these groups in the middle um and try to take their suggestions to heart because I think it goes a long way with you know the public reception to absolutely and I mean there are citizens boards that have been living in the city for a long time so completely understand that they have some great suggestions and ideas. I just wanted to understand the legality of what was what the requirements were. So, and that's that's the only questions that I had. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kinsky. Uh, Mr. Ker,

I'll go ahead and I appreciate Mr. Kinsky's uh just walking through that analysis. And again, this is, I think, our third third or fourth T-zone project um that we're seeing. And and again for anyone you know remembers the debate that we had about the sort of pros and cons of byite development versus not and you know and sort of right so but exactly right staff's answer is exactly correct that that they're just recommendations and a developer could choose to completely ignore them and build whatever they want as long as it meets the requirements in the ordinance. So, um, you know, so that's why there's always a risk with the buy right in the T-zones and, you know, I think we're seeing, you know, it hasn't all been a disaster, but I think we're seeing some of the negative that can occur when we don't address certain things at that time like the relationship to historic houses and maybe treating those lots, you know, differently. We talked about that when we debated the T-zone, you know, ordinance. And um you know I think this is an this house was this lot in particular was one that everyone was aware of you know was likely to be affected by this and and now it is. Um unfortunately the you know because the the structure itself is remaining but obviously you know with historic buildings the context can be just as important as the structure itself sometimes. Um not always depending on what happened and why it's historic but in any event. So that's just a that's more commentary but I appreciate Mr. Kavinsky calling that out because that's exactly right. Um you know yeah we we can provide a lot of con a lot of recommendations and we can tell them tell the applicant a lot of our opinion but ultimately um you know they'll do what they want to do. Um but with that said I have a few technical kind of comments and questions. I won't really hit on the architecture. I mean I have my personal opinions about it. There's a lot of people who are focusing on that. Sounds like the applicant is hearing that and I'm I'm hopeful that that they will hear that and try to design something that both I understand you know they're trying to achieve something

as far as you know number of units and square footage but also you know I hope they also understand the significance of what they're doing and in some ways is I mean everything in some ways you could say is precedent setting but because this is the first T-zone project with on a lot with an historic structure you know how it's designed and you know, I think is important. It'll it'll maybe set the tone for things that might come after it. So, I I'm hopeful that they'll continue to work with with that, you know, voluntarily because it is voluntarily um to try to design something that that is the best fit to not, you know, destroy the context of of the existing structure. But getting back to some more boring stuff, um the parking. So, um I wonder if you could pull up if we could pull up the floor plan maybe to show um the parking space. I just want to be sure. I know there's just the staff to confirm there are no waiverss that are being requested as far as dimensions, columns intruding into required parking area. I saw something in the comments and it might have been from the fire folks and it was talking about that the vehicle that was used was a 2009 Ford Escape. I don't know where that came from. That's a pretty small vehicle. I don't think there are too many 2009 Ford Escapes driving around. What What was the context of that comment? Was that related to to fire equipment apparatus?

No, we have our transportation engineers that look at um Yeah. mainly it's it's meant for trucks to turn around, right? Um and so the applicant provided uh like a typical, you know, car as opposed to uh the purpose of having that sheet is to make sure trucks can turn around, not We're not saying the only cars that can fit in the parking spaces are 2009 Ford Escapes, are we? But we know it can. We know we know those can, but I mean those are relatively small vehicles. I'm saying we're not saying they're they're size. So that's the largest vehicle that can fit

in the parking spaces. I just wanted to take a look at that. I mean, it almost look like there were some tandem spots. I just wanted to make sure that I'm counting correctly the nine or you're providing I'm sorry 11 spaces I think that are shown on the sheet as as provided 11 spaces. I think nine's the minimum, right? Is that right, Steph? And they're providing 11. If you could just walk me through that. It almost look like there were tandem spots, but maybe I'm miscounting. I just couldn't quite tell the way they were labeled. Sure. Um um the way the It is a little It was a little funky. Um the nine spaces are well eight of them are aligned along the back there uh with there's a um is there a pointer or anything I can

um the Yeah. So there's eight along the back. There's one on the left side there that's uh Oh. So eight are like covered because I see like a the elevation there's like a roll down door. Yeah. Those are all covered spaces. And then the uh there is a um a van space a handicap van space that's if you see the two hatch lines you see the little hatched areas in the building right now one of the required spaces is generated by the historic house right so like one of the required Yeah and one of them is accessible from outside so one's outside okay that's what maybe that's what was confusing that's the one that probably you missed that one's hard to see so one's outside the other nine are

the other nine are inside and then there's two tandemss on the left side of the building that are um also under pro under under the under the building. Well, we can't just so staff could confirm we tandem spaces you can't I mean you can provide tandem spaces but those don't count towards parking space. Yeah, we're not counting those as our zoning in the 11. Those are that that's the those are just kind of addition amenity. So, how do we get to the 11? So, we got eight underneath the building. We got one outside the building. Nine plus two for tand plus the two tandem. They only need the nine that are all right because there's nine.

Maybe there should be a note on the sheet that just makes it clear that you're only you're only actually prov ordinance. I mean, I'm not saying how many cars could cram in on the anywhere on the site, but you're only actually providing nine spaces. The way our ordinance defines parking spaces, correct? It might be more it might be more accurate to to either put an asterisk or just indicate that, you know, 11 but parenthesis two tandem just to make that very clear that we're only providing you're you're meeting the minimum requirement. You're not exceeding it. just so it's clear and and um the elevation shows like overhead doors. Is that are you intending to actually provide overhead doors underneath? The intent right now is to just have them roll up for and so like residents would have have a a remote to

where they could program their car to open those those doors to get in and out. And the reason on this site, I mean, I know not everyone on the commission likes to talk about parking, but but again, on this site, it's very conceivable people will need to have a car. And if they don't, if they can't fit or the spaces don't work, you know, you're going to wind up putting a burden on the adjacent res, you know, commercial owners that I'm sure will try to put up all kinds of signage saying, "Don't park here. Your guests, your visitors, don't park." Like, for example, those spaces that are right across essentially what's today a common parking area. I know it's owned by a different entity. I'm sure they'll, you know, they'll be have they'll they'll be signing it up, you know, crazy to say don't park here. That's going to be an issue. I mean, unlike other, you know, even on our in our other T-zone projects where there was a lot on street parking, there's really not here. I mean, obviously you can't park on Washington. I guess you can park there's some other streets nearby potentially, but I'm just thinking of that. I'm thinking of like access for, you know, Amazon deliveries, other things. because I'm just foreseeing, you know, that there'll be some burden placed on the adjacent commercial owners, you know, in this area because it's going to be it's going to fall on them to kind of police that. But again, it is what it is. Um, all right. Yeah. I mean, I think those were my main comments. I mean, otherwise, right, are there no other site plan waiverss being requested? Correct, staff?

There is not. No. Yeah. So, so yeah, that was my main question. I'll leave the architects architecture to the architects. I hope you continue to improve that. Um, but yeah, again, just another kind of, you know, cautionary example of how letting things be purely by right implies that we got the ordinance totally correct and we probably didn't. So, you know, hopefully we can learn from this and staff can continue to think about this and maybe there are things we want to tweak um, you know, as we get more experience with the TSON sites. So, thank you, Mr. Ker. Uh, Mr. Duncan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I too will leave the architecture to the architects. Um, I think it is worthwhile, as Mr. Kraner says um as the staff reviews uh this project and others to come, I hope to be mindful of um the business of deliveries and uh housekeeping uh staff who may have their own cars and need access to the property for brief periods of time of maybe, you know, as little as a few minutes to make a delivery and as long as a couple or three hours for a housekeeping situation. Uh I know there's nothing specific to that in the instructions that we typically lay out to a prospective developer, but it is a reality that you know needs to be taken into account. And if there is some mention or consideration of overflow parking on nearby streets, just think we ought to be aware of that. living on West Street as I do. Uh now we're beginning to see uh what happens when new development goes in and how it affects the residential uh neighborhood approximate to it. Uh and things are working out by and large okay I think but it is something that we ought to take into consideration. Um, I would like to focus my comments on the the use of the units uh as it relates to affordable dwellings. Uh, first before I start in on that, let me say what Mr. Stevens said. We're glad

to glad to have this proposal. uh the T1 uh discussions were intense and of long duration and uh a lot of concerns were voiced that uh you know gargantuan projects might emanate from creation of the T1 or the T-zone uh apparatus. I think this is a good example of the sort of more modest development that we anticipated, hoped for, and hopefully we'll see more of. Uh affordable dwelling u leads me to ask the question of the eight units, which one of the bedroom makeups is going to be the affordable dwelling unit? Has that been decided?

Right now, it's a one-bedroom unit. Yeah, I I would I mean obviously you have to make this thing pencil out to get it built. Um I would um put a plug in for considering the affordable dwelling unit to be one of the two bedrooms at least. Uh threebedroom would be ideal. We have a real shortage for affordable housing for families. Everybody knows that. You know, we're spending 0.21 21 acres of precious false church city land on this development and by and large I mean almost completely I I think this is a a good submission uh but uh if we are going to make some real progress on affordable dwellings for families this is an opportunity and you only get one bullet to shoot here on this one. It's not like we can have one that's a onebedroom and one that's a two-bedroom or anything even like that. So, that would be my request to the applicant and uh and my uh suggestion to staff as uh as the designated agent considers uh his uh decision on this at the end of the game. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Uh, Miss Freedellander, do you wanna Yes. Thanks. Thanks. Um, so I wanted to say that thank you for bringing this forward. Um, it's great to see some additional units uh coming into the city as well as an affordable um dwelling unit. I I did want to express some concern um just over or actually a question really um for staff with regards to the setback. Um I know that the setbacks he's the applicant stated that it falls within the 10 foot setback

this new addition. I think it's 10 feet on the sides. Uh I think it's 20 ft on I I don't remember exactly, but I think it's 20 ft on the front and then uh 20 on the back. So if it's 20 ft on the front, the civil drawings indicate that this is 7 ft 7 foot one away from the property line on the front. So I think that the front setback is I'm sorry to interrupt. Um, I think the front back is from the center line of the street. I or the curb. I can't remember. It's not I don't think it's the property from the curb.

And I think it was 15 ft. Is that correct? From the T-zone ordinance. I thought it was 15 feet from the from the face of the curb. I'd have to look into that. Um I don't know that off the top of my head. I'm sorry.

Well, um the zoning notes um state that the front yard setback required is 20 ft and the proposed is 2 feet and meets the property as a substantial non-conforming lot I guess or the historic structure. Um, but I would think that the addition would need to meet the actual requirement of what the T-zone requires in the setback. Yeah, I'll correct my statement. It's 20 ft by right and I think 15 ft by special use permit is the front setback.

Okay. And so what are what are we actually at? I'm just curious. This is 20 foot one from the face of curb. Okay. And that's to the actual structure, not the not the porch. Okay. I I think that's right. I think we had 20 feet to that. Uh there's like a little jog there. Yeah, I think that's what that dimension string that goes out to the curb line up by the the arrow on the on the right toward up like toward the top. It goes out to the curb. Yep.

From the green air from the green area that's shown on the roof like the roof garden 20. That corner of the building right there is the closest it looks like.

Okay. I I misunderstood. I thought it was to the property line. So, um, my other questions really had to do with, um, you know, I'm glad that, uh, somebody's, uh, looking at the parking. Um, I did have some concern, too, in the garage floor plan. There are no columns in that space from front to back. And I think a column would present a little bit of a navigation difficulty. and spatially. So, right now there's a span that's like over 40 ft. So, I I would really question the how those parking spaces are are laid out um because the columns aren't aren't in there. I was surprised. I was like, I don't I don't think you have a over 40 foot span down there in the basement. Um and I don't know what sheet it's on. Um, but the the presentation is a little bit different than than the sheets that we got. And so I'm a little bit concerned that like what the intent later that somebody goes back if there's discrepancies through the documents like what document are we actually talking about what sets the intent of what's been approved. And so that's and we've saw it on some previous projects where we thought well the you know the applicant really didn't mean it or you know there was like you know there was an extra layer on and then we go and we see after the applicant moves in and every you know that there's actually curb cuts still there and it because it was on the original document and it never got cleaned up then it became part of the intent of what was improved. And so that's that's I want to be clear about what the designated agent is approving in the intent of the documents just to just to be aware of that moving

forward. Can I ask where you saw the discrepancy? Was it all within the plan sheets? It's within the plan sheets. Um well and it's it's hard because what the presentation that we saw was slightly different than what I have in my hands. So it's

okay. I I will say that the historical structure is shown totally like when you look at the elevation of the new of the proposed the historic structure on the packet that we have doesn't have shutters. It shows the gables at the front portico larger than what it looks like in the in the photographs of what's existing. And so I was concerned that maybe we're are are we actually touching the historic structure and removing those things to kind of make it look more modern? Is that part of the rendering to make it not appear as if it's so different? Um so that's that's kind of one of the things, but I saw that that was picked up in

in the presentation shows the shutters and shows that portico more downgraded in scale. And so it's those kinds of those kinds of discrepancies that I get concerned over what what was the true intention of what we were approving at the time. Um I'm I'm a the devil's in the details a lot of the I think as I think as staff we just kind of read it as being you know the historic home is technically outside the limited disturbance for this project. So, we didn't really, you know, put too much uh emphasis on how that house. But I can understand how that interpretation would be that but like later somebody looks at the drawings and says, "Oh, look. See it? We showed it with no shadows."

Sure. I understand. Yeah.

And it was approved. Um, so that's that's kind of where I'm headed, right? Um and and just to kind of get back to like this the historic nature of that structure, my initial um gut on this was that the scale of the of the um proposed addition is a little out of scale. Um and the materials are very different. Um, I think some in some ways it's it's good to kind of have that dynamic tension and kind of show how different something is from the its historical context. But at the same time, I think it's pos it's it's important to bring those proportions across into the new into the new proposed edition in order for it to have some kind of dialogue back and forth. And it you can do it through the proportions of the windows and datam lines coming across into um into the new proposed thing. And that's what I saw kind of happening in the previous the previous application that was in 2024

is I did see those datam lines coming through and being expressed in the detailing of the the addition structure. Um, and the other thing that was successful about it, um, was I thought that that one was breaking up that space a little bit more and allowing a little bit of breathing room in between. Right now, what we're seeing is it's I I really feel like it's crowding the historical structure and almost wants to like stomp on it, right? Um, and so that's and that's kind of what I was struggling with, right? Like I

you know when you see it it's really hard to explain that proportionality and how you can really develop that to

have them have a little bit more dialogue even if the materials are so different. Um and and the materials I I would actually like to see something more complimentary, right? Complimentary doesn't mean the same though, right? Uh and and I think that's what you're showing here is you're trying to say juxtapose more modern materials with more traditional. So um I think, you know, I would I would defer back to the um AAB on their on on their feedback with regards to that. Um but I would like to it I think this particular view makes it seem very chunky um rather than more broken up and delicate and kind of talking to the historic structure a little bit more. Um let's see. I did also have some questions about how um deliveries happen, how the mail gets delivered, packages, Amazon, Uber Eatats, all of that stuff. Does that happen on North Washington because that's where the entrance is and that's where the address is because that seems problematic um in people stopping because we I mean on West Morland. I've never driven by the development where OnePage Books is. I've never driven by when somebody has not double or triple parked there. And you come around that corner off of um Washington onto West Morland, West Morland, and it's a it's a total cluster because there's both buildings are getting deliveries.

Yeah. And I don't think we want that on North Washington. Just it's it's a main artery. Something like Yeah, because there's what is it? Park Washington is the is the little street that comes off of Washington. Seems like it'd be very easy to just pull in and make those deliveries from that location. That may be a comment that we want to make. I think so. But I think, you know, your average Uber Eats guy is not looking at what they're looking at what's most convenient. Yes. For them, right, then because they're trying to they get paid by however many deliveries they make, right?

So, that would be my that would be my concern. Um I'm glad that somebody talked about the trash and the trash trucks going in and out of that. Um I don't I didn't actually see how that was going to work. Um so I think that's something that um the designated agent can can really pour through. Um I did I did actually review all the comments. Um I very appreciative of our um Department of Public Works in that they are identifying the issues with the sanitary capacity post development um to make sure as well as the storm because I think the storm there was some discrepancy too with um manholes and some confusion. So, I'm I I'm I'm glad that they're on that and I trust that those comments will be addressed um appropriately for the authority that has jurisdiction over that as well. Um and that that meets code. Um and then I did like the green rooftop gardens. I thought that was great. Um, but I was a little bit concerned over the, you know, how that how that looms more over the, um, historic structure. One last question. Um, the fire marshall has deemed this to be one structure. Um, is that because of the need for like a fire partition between two structures and that's why we can be so close is if he deems it all as one.

Uh, I know that that was something that he identified pretty early on even in a pre-application process. Um, and I think that the applicant had worked directly with him. Okay. Uh, to address that. Um, this has always been um like called an addition to the existing house even though it kind of makes it look a lot smaller and dwarfs it a bit. Yeah. But it is a bit of it's an addition. Yeah. So it's an addition. Can I ask are they connected in any way? Are they physically connected? Just they are underground. Correct. Yeah, they're connected just at grade basically below grade. Um because there's a terrace. Yeah. at the terrorist one of the units.

Okay. And in addition to a historic structure is does not it it is not applicable to changing of the historic structure. So approvals required to change the historic structure. Exactly.

Um this is ultimately why it went to HARB um was because HARB needed to look at this um this proposal uh and give their blessing to move on uh to move forward to application. Um and their recommendation is simply just so that this can move forward so long as uh it does not um it does not do anything substantial to the historic home. make it make substantial changes. Gaddy, thanks. Is that why the the porch is back on? Yes,

because Okay. All right. Um and then one final thing about Sorry.

Uh the landscape plan was missing from the packet. There was a tree protection plan that had a couple of new species that were going to be planted. It was kind of unclear uh what trees were remaining. I did I did find a a little sheet a little table but um I want to make sure that the city arborist looks at this because I don't especially the root balls of the ones that the trees that are scheduled to remain would they survive during construction right and also uh postdevelopment conditions with the structure being so close to the center of that root ball. So, I just I wanted to make sure because there was no comment by the by the arborist in the list and I I I actually would like to see that.

Yeah, he he does review all of these site plans. He's part of our mailing list. Uh and he uh yeah, he commented no um uh no comment. uh he is requiring a new landscape bond, but other than that um

I would I I would I would respectfully request that we look at the um that the city arborist look at the species that are identified as new also in the placement of those if they will survive because that affects the tree canopy percentage coverage um post development and you know which trees we're saving. are they actually worth saving? Um if they're in fair or poor condition, things like that that I thought were a little bit it was hard to understand that plan. Um there was just a lot of information on it overlapping. So I think it would be really great to get some clarity on that. Um and that is all I have for now. Thank you.

Thank you Miss Freedellander. I appreciate your comments. Um, so I want to align myself with my colleagues who are expressing their appreciation for this project and the new units um, we're building here in this location. I think because these units have windows on many of them on multiple sides like the the they're going to be very livable, much more pleasant I think for their occupants than some of the other new construction that we have where you're really limited in terms of the way you can bring light and air into the unit. So, like I'm really excited about that. Um, uh, I am mindful of the guidance from our downtown small area plan that calls for every effort to be made to match the scale and incorporate architectural features of existing historic structures into new adjacent development as well as provide transition buffers between properties. So, I'm glad to hear that you're going to take a look at like breaking down the massing. Um, maybe introducing a brick or maybe even like a painted wood material. I don't know, something that kind of speaks to the original historic home. Um, I was also curious and I unlike Miss Freedellander, I'm not an architect, but the the sort of the gray block, is there a reason that that needs to be kind of on the on the right side of the building, very close to the historic home rather than on the left? I mean, if we have that, we're trying to have that square footage is that because I agree with my colleagues who said it just it feels like it's crowding the historic home. And I wonder if that that piece of the new construction in particular feels quite close and like it's competing.

Does it need to be that close or could it be shifted over to the left? We can look at that and we may be able to um and bend it a little bit.

Yeah. Or even like stepbacks. I don't know. Uh maybe on the upper stories. Just something to give that house a little more breathing room. And I know it's a balance because you want them to speak to each other and feel like they are connected. But I I think we also don't want the new construction to overwhelm the existing historic home which should feel it should remain the focal point. Uh I know that's hard with the height differential. So anything you can do to improve that um would be appreciated. I also was curious like I'm glad Miss Freedellander asked about the landscaping plan and I mean because I think you could really use landscaping to aid in the transition between the two structures and so I'd really love to see some creative ideas. Um, on that front, uh, I wanted to ask about the elevator. Like the pent pen houses, the elevator, they were on the original plan, but I don't see them here. It looks nice and clean. Are they there? Like are there ele because there's a green roof that people can access, right? Do the elevators travel all the way up?

No, the elevator just travels to the third floor and then there's and then there's stairs. Stairs. Okay, great. So that So that's why it looks much nice. the the other plan had those like pen houses on the top and so like a spiral. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think we have a couple spirals and then one just kind of straight stair. Um but it's set back kind of in the middle of the building. Great. Oh, go ahead. How how far away how far away is is the the stair tower from the front of the parapit? I don't remember offh hand. Um, but they are set back a good, you know, 15 feet or so. Okay.

It's interesting. Thanks. No, that's okay. Thank you. But we'll be we'll be mindful of that. I think uh I'm hearing what you're saying. Uh and then I guess I'm curious about the plans for the historic home. I mean, ideally this project would be kind of done at the same time, right? Like is there a restoration plan in mind for the historic home? Are we will we eventually be touching it? Like it looks like it's in okay shape, but it probably needs some work. I mean, you're going to renovate it into two two units. Is that correct? Or just a one? Uh, right now it's going to stay a single family. I'm sorry. The plan right now is for it to stay a single family house.

Single family house. Okay. So, there are no units contemplated in the historic home. Not Not at this point. Okay. But it does need some does need some love. Yeah. I mean I I guess that porch definitely needs some some work,

right? Yeah. I guess I just it it just feels a little halfbaked on that front in that there's nothing really contemplated and I understand why you're doing that because if you touch the historic home then then the project kind of needs to go through like some more extensive review with HARB. But um I don't know. I would I would personally want to know what the vision is for how that historic home would be um uh restored in the future in a way that speaks to the new development or the new uh construction. Um let's see. Do I have anything else? I think my colleagues asked about all of these other items on my list. So, thank you. Um, all right. Any other final questions, comments? And this isn't a public hearing, but I think we do want to like use this opportunity to hear from the public. So, is it okay if I open this to any public comment? Is there who would like to speak on this item?

Can you Yeah, sorry. Can you come up to the microphone? I don't know and I'm I'm just curious um what's happens in the historic house now? Like do does the family live? Sorry. Could you identify yourself for the record? Sorry. Yeah. Your name and address, please. James Lawrence, uh 111 East Broad Street, apartment 4824. Nope, that's we got your zip. Um yeah, I'm just curious. Um what is the historic home for like what can people tour it? What does it do now and what will be done thereafter?

Uh, right now it's just a private private home. There's no tours. Uh, I I believe it's a rental house at the moment and I think that's the intent. I saw them installing an HVAC today at the intent is to keep it as a single family house. It's a it's a private house to be rented out or got that is my understanding. It may be sold at some point, but I think that's that's the intent as of now that I understand it. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Do you have a question a follow on, Mr. Crosner? Selling it. I mean, you can't you're not subdividing, right? Are you subdivid You're not subdividing this lot, correct? No, it's a condo development.

Oh, it's going to be turned into a condo. So, you would you'd be able to sell the the historic home as a condo? as a condo, there'd be an underlying condo association that would own the the land. Okay. I just wasn't clear by what you Okay. These are going to these are all going to be condo units. That's my understanding. For sale condo units. Okay. Yeah. Everything is going to be condoized. Okay. And for sale. All right. Great. Okay. No other public comment. I think

just one other comment. You know, I walk by there all the time on way to the Whole Foods from where I live and uh especially in the summertime and when the vegetation gets cranked up, it's really tough to to pass on that sidewalk. So, I'm actually kind of happy to see some development occurring here. I think that will make passage for pedestrians uh along this area uh a lot better after everything is done. Yeah, good point. Uh Mr.

Just one quick thing since we've opened this up, can warms up. So, one-bedroom condo, bath, one bath, bath and a half. What what what is the price range that we're talking about here? I mean, this is something that came up on the Park Avenue units, and it may seem early to talk about it, but the community will be interested and probably we ought to set some sort of level of expectation. Yeah. You know, I I actually don't know the answer to that question. I would have to defer to my my client who's running the numbers on it. Um, I mean their market rate, so I I don't I don't know what that is here exactly. Um, because there's there's not a lot of comps for a project like this. That's right.

He's uh projecting out what that might be. But I could get that answer. Yeah, I was going to say to the designated agent again, that's the piece of information that in this project and all others going forward, it's good to have some idea from the very start so that people's expectations are realistic. You know, I think some folks think that things can sell for a little cheaper than they do here and when they go out into the market and get their assessment, they realize, oh my gosh.

Yeah. Yeah, I think it's been difficult for a client to actually dial that in because there's just not a lot of comps out there. This is a new project type and new kind of in the area and I think we've we've talked to him about it and he's like I'm he's mentioned that he's he's sort of work trying to work the numbers and using some projections on it to try to figure that out. I mean it's it's roughly in some ways comparable to Winter Hill Cherry Hill unit. you know, the two-level Cherry Hill units that are two or three B two or three bedrooms and one and a half baths and sell for, you know, 650 700 to start. I would imagine it's in that ballpark. I don't I don't I don't know off camera. Well,

they are nice units. I think there there's some sizable units that are that are pretty big. The two the two and threebedroom units are are nice size units. Yeah. Yeah. They look very livable. Okay. Thanks.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. All right. Any final thoughts? Okay. Uh I think what our deliverable here is a set of recommendations to the designated agent and I think we've agreed that we'd like to be able to capture those live um and vote on those recommendations rather than doing it after the fact. Uh so what concrete requests do we have? Um sorry Jack, can you make that a little bigger? Okay, following recommendations. Um, Jack, I think we can trust you to um uh capture the topics that were discussed after the fact. Is that okay? Uh, so what what specific recommendations um did did each of you have that you'd like to include here? I heard a few from you, Miss Freedellander. Uh, the city arborist looking at the tree species. City RS looking at the tree species, the viability of the trees post development and during construction. Um,

historic house to remain in the pre kind of the preconstruction state. I'm sorry. The you were concerned about um the historic house and the renderings of the historic house or Yes, that I was trying to come up with some words with that that it remain in the pre-construction status. I don't know if that captures what you mind. Other words, they don't change it. Yeah, like the I I Yeah, that the discrepancies in the documents. Um, can we finish?

Are not an indication of any approval of um acceptance of revisions to the historic structure. Um, I think the plans are pretty clear that there that it's not being touched, but yeah, but the elevations don't match what's what's there today there. And the the elevations and the renderings that we saw tonight also don't match. And so I think when there's a discrepancy and we've seen it happen on other projects, what ends up getting built lands in some of those discrepancies. Yeah.

That what was approved or discussed was the opposite because everybody said, "Oh, well that one was a mistake." Or, you know, there was there's always a reason. Yeah. And so I'm kind of I'm trying to make sure that we're more deliberate about what we're actually what the intent is of what's being approved. And it's hard because it's the designated agent now has to go through and look through the discrepancies and make sure which document they're actually identifying as the intended approval.

Okay. Uh I think we're probably expecting an additional uh submitt right after the you're you're planning to incorporate the AB comments. Um so there will be an additional submitt but as far as the historic home um maybe the applicant should reconcile any discrepancies between the the way the historic home is presented in the materials and the the current state of the historic home. The historic home should remain untouched. That's fine. You repeat that, sir. So, the applicant should reconcile any cons discrepancies in the way the historic home is depicted in the materials.

Okay. Does that sound right? Yeah. Minder and scrap the rest. I would I think we could scrap the rest. I can live with that. Um, another one was the scale and proportions. Um, consider um the scale and proportions to be more um respectful of the historic structure. I don't know if respectful is the right word, but I don't have one. Um, better match reverent. Yeah, reverence. Sorry. I like to say respectful.

The scale and proportions of the proposed addition uh should be respectful of the existing historic structure. Do you want to add something like consistent with the small area plan? Yeah, consistent. And we could actually say section 6-2 I think is the right one. design compatibility.

Thank you. Um something like that. Does that capture guidance I think rather than recommendations, Jack? But um yeah. Yeah. Mr. Crosner, did you have an addition? The only tangible thing I had was just noting that they're only providing nine parking spaces plus two tandem. I mean I mean depending on how you want to say that you could if you're going to keep it at 11, you should have an asterisk or some notation that indicates that two of those are tandem so that per the ordinance you're only providing nine. Indicate maybe it's even just indicate which parking spaces are tandem spaces. Well, just the table right now shows 11. And they have a table on sheet,

but that shows they have a zoning table and they show 11 spaces provided, but technically they're only providing nine. So you can if you want to mention the other ones, you just need to indicate those are not defined spaces under the ordinance. That's a longwinded way of saying it, but however you want to note that. I think you understand. I think Miss Freedellander has a suggestion on that one. I wanted to glob on to that. um to get an actual layout with the structure and the layout of those parking um spaces just to make sure that it's uh that it works.

Uh okay. Okay. So we have the two tandem parking spaces should be indicated in the materials and a parking uh what plan dimensions parking parking plan structure with the structure considerations are coordinated with the structure. Uh okay. And a parking dimension plan should be provided uh to to confirm the parking is what

I think you can say um in a a dimensioned parking plan that's coordinated with the building structure system structural system I could I think that leaves it open. Okay. and a a parking dimension plan that is coordinated with the a dimensioned parking plan. Sorry, Jack. Can you uh can you help us with these edits? Um just I know you're doing it backwards. Next time we're going to have you put your keyboard on your head, Jack. Yeah. Parking plan uh that is coordinated with the architectural and structural systems.

Sounds very official. Thank you. I know. Thank you. Okay. And then you can strike the rest. Uh coordinating with the architectural and structural system. I see you, Mr. Steven. System and structural systems. The architectural and structural systems. Okay. I was going to suggest that we uh put a comment in that we encourage the developer to pre-wire Yes. the garages for EV chargers and aim to achieve energy efficiency above code. Yeah. Can I ask is this an electric building or is it gas?

Uh right now it's all electric. It's all electric. Okay, that's good. Could you revisit that language for me, Mr. Steven? The applicant to pre-wire the garage uh

for EV chargers. for EV chargers. Uh, and sorry, Jack, just real quick, in that first one, uh, city arbor should the city arburish, I think it should consider the future viability of tree species on the site or should confirm the future viability. Is that is that your concern? Okay. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Kinsky, did you have one? Uh, got to finish this. Oh, good.

Encourage the applicant to pre-wire the garage for electric vehicle chargers and to achieve above code energy efficiency. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Kinsky. Uh, and I think this is different from the comment about scale and proportion, but do we want to make a comment that uh we encourage the applicant to revisit the original gabled design from 2024?

I don't have strong feelings about that. Do other folks want to make that recommendation? I think I think there was some discussion that the squared design did not was not as compatible with the historic structure. I I don't know does anybody I I like the mo I like the justosition personally my personal opinion of the modern with the historic structure. I think incorporating the um materials to sort of speak to that historic structure would would help in that regard. So I'm I I prefer this design personally this design to the cabled one. I think

I think we kind of start addressing that here with the scale and proportions of the proposed addition should be respectful of the existing historic structure and be compatible with the downtown small area plan guidance. um that doesn't speak to the materials kind of you want to talk a little bit more like change that

well I thought there was I thought there was some discussion here tonight about the gabled roof would be more compatible but you make a good point maybe what you're going for is the juxiposition of the square and the gabled uh design I don't I'm not an architect, but um I defer to the architect.

Yeah, I Yeah, it's it's hard. It's it's I think it's a proportion and it's bringing those datmss across to break up that mass and it's hard to dictate that it should be a gable or it should be I think it's one of those things as you develop it, you're going to know it when you see it. Yeah. Um, but I I I wouldn't want to tell you to do XYZ and then I get exactly XYZ the way you see it, but it's not the way I saw it. Right. So I I want you to kind of develop that that Okay, that's where I'm coming.

Could we add materials into this recommendation though? Could we say the scale, proportion, and materials of the proposed addition should be respectful of the existing historic structure? Because I feel like we did talk about materials. Uh, is that okay? So it would be scale, comma, proportions, add materials. That was design too though, right? And yeah, sorry. What was that, Mr. Stevens? Did she have design in in mind as well as materials? Well, that might be what I was trying to get about at as as a So you want to say the design, scale, design, proportions, and materials.

Proportions and materials. So in front of scale put the word design, space. Does that make sense? That gives the applicant the flexibility not to say X, Y, and Z. We want X, Y, and Z. Thank you. Very general, but yeah. A lot of room. Okay. Is that right there? The design scale, proportions. The design scale, proportions, and materials of the proposed edition. Yep. Yep. Okay. I'm gonna I'm gonna turn this way. Anybody over here have anything to add to the to the list of things our designated agent should consider? Should go, Mr. Pinsky. Oh, Mr. Dun.

No, here's my This is my return to the ask for ask the uh applicant to designate uh one of the multi-bedroom units as affordable. I'll give you a pass on telling us how much any of the units are going to cost if you'll give me that first one. Thank you. And I I do think it would be if if the documents don't show it now, it would be appropriate to ask for uh multib clarity on Yeah. Yeah. Just multi-bedroom. So, he mentioned there might be three bedrooms. So, that may be

it could be a two-bedroom or three as long as we don't cheap out and just do the onebedroom is my objective. And Okay, you got that, Jack? Um the other thing is to make sure the materials show with clarity where the service delivery location is for all the Ubers of the world just I mean we ask we ask for that now reliably on any special exception building and I think that's appropriate to get in the habit of just asking every developer to think about that when they start out not as an afterthought. Thanks. Thank you.

Uh Mr. Pinsky,

one of the things that was mentioned on up here special by Miss Freedellander, which I think is really important to call out here, is uh how in the review of this or with the applicant, we can figure out how to indicate to either Ubers or deliveries or others what the what the the location within the facility is to go to. Ideally, we'd set the address as the back of the building or something like that. That may not be actually possible, but some way that during this process, we can figure out how to avoid the Northwest Morland, West Street, Broad Street situation we've got with double triple parking and and deliveries happening, especially with like Uber type deliveries. Um so figuring I think adding that there is a way to be that deliveries are not deliveries um ride shares and others are are handled off the street whether that's via direction via signage via address being set whatever that is but that I don't think that's going to solve the people park there to go visit their friends problem. Uh but we'll at least fix some of the more easily identifiable problems. Mhm. So, name deliveries, ride share, and what else?

Any uh tempor I would call it temporary stopping activities. Uh okay. But anything that's not a that's not going to solve a somebody's parking to go visit a friend there scenario. That does solve the short-term less than five minute parking scenario. Temporary idling or Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think that's right. All right. Mr. Ker, anything else from you? No, I think it's all captured. Okay. Um, do we want to ask for a landscaping plan? Yes.

Yeah. Can we um so can we just say applicant should provide a landscaping plan that um uh depicts how that uh depicts how the uh new how the landscaping will support the transition between the existing historic home and the new development. Um, okay. Sorry. Uh, chair, could you finish that for me again? Like, how the landscaping will support the transition between existing building.

Sorry. How the landscaping will support the transition between the existing historic home and the new construction addition or whatever, however we're and the new development. Sure. uh and it's between the existing historic home. Okay, it's a long list for uh of recommendations. Anything anybody disagrees with or I think it's it's between the existing just change the existing and the

Thank you. very good at this, Jack. We've got our own AI guy. Okay. Uh, and then do do we all trust Jack to add the the list of topics at the top here? The planning commission discussed several topics, including I think you could reference all the things in this list, Jack, or do we want to add those now? Uh, laundry list. Uh, last time I took care of it and circulated it around. Um, I was taking notes as the discussion was happening and Okay, it is recorded. I think we do want to vote on it though tonight. So I guess if we need to to to say this is our recommendation. Is that right?

That's right. Yeah. So you're voting on um the memo which includes the recommendations as characterized and we can just stipulate that we trust you to add the topics after the fact. Okay. Correct. Okay. Any other any other final thoughts on this? If not, is there a motion to approve the uh recommendations? I move to approve the recommendations as described above. I will second. Okay. And then I think we need a roll call vote.

Okay. Mr. Pinsky, yes. Mr. Duncan, yes. Mr. Mr. Krysner, yes. Mr. Stevens, yes. Miss Freedellander, yes. Mr. Kinsky, yes. Chair Koma, yes. Thank you. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming out tonight. Thank you. All right. We may be running a little behind, but

good discussion. Uh we are on to our next work session item, which is the urban design master plan scoping. I can set this up briefly uh as we get ready. Uh part of what uh the planning staff has been doing uh is really taken off with a lot of the various items we all discussed a couple weeks months ago for this year's and next year's work program. Uh and while there were a lot of different items, uh uh we we're trying to kind of balance our portfolio with uh some shorterterm projects and also make progress on the long-term projects which we know are going to carry us over into 2027. As that happens, uh, one of the items that involves a range of topics, some streetscape, some urban design, some green standards, uh, a lot of different elements that I think frequently come up as we review site plans and special exceptions. Um, posed a very interesting question about if we are to take that work on and try to conclude it in this calendar year, what should that scope look like? Uh and before we bring that conversation to the council, um both Kurt and uh Cameron wanted to really start a conversation with some of the boards and commissions about if we had a refined scope of work and we could agree on that scope of work. Um is that something we should still try to pursue this year? Uh or should we kind of, you know, wait until maybe a larger scope present itself? Um and it kind of highlights a balancing act of staff resources, other council priorities that need to be addressed. uh and just kind of the breath of work that would be involved depending on what we want to take on. So, I'm going to let these guys jump into what the options are and we're kind of just collecting feedback uh over the next couple of weeks before we kind of decide which way to go on this.

Great. Thank you. All right, who's kicking us off? Thanks,

Matt. Um, so in kind of a quick summary, this is an effort to create a new urban design master plan by consolidating the two existing guiding documents uh into one and using the opportunity to introduce a few new relevant concepts. Um, Kurt and I are going around to different boards of commissions to introduce this topic and to receive feedback for initial scoping. Um, plane commission is the first we've met with so far, so I don't have to click. Oh, it's green screen. Thanks. So, in regards to how does this how does this effort align with city council goals um for good governance staff is being proactive in updating the comp plan guidance and eliminating confusion with competing documents. Um indirectly, this plan ties into housing economic development. Uh there's a strong correlation between good design of you know first floor of buildings, streetscapes, uh storefr and where people want to live where they choose to work, go out and spend their money, eat, shop. Um the plan advocates for the most fundamental of transportation, walking and improving pedestrian experience along our streets. Um and sustainability more than ever has become an increasing priority um for the city and an aspect missing from both previous documents. Uh so some of the new concepts we'll introduce later address sustainability. So here are the two documents I'm referring to. Um on the left we have the design guidelines. This was outsourced to a contractor by the city in 2001. Uh it is also the document tied to chapter 3 of the comprehensive plan community character and design. Uh and in these strategies and goals, it is repeatedly referred to uh to kind of

carry out some of these some of those strategies. Um pros, it goes in depth into great generalized best practices, site design, mass, scaling, complexity to form, streetscape. Uh the cons is it's way too lengthy, 113 pages, and it's also a little too prescriptive sometimes with designs of buildings and spaces. Um and on the right is what we have the current document in use which is the 2017 streetscape standards. In 2025 there was a minor uh amendment about uh sidewalk materials. Um pros this is a much more concise document kind of nuts and bolts and focuses on utilities measurements and materials. Um it's also well made for uh the view of developers and reviewing city staff. Um, and this is the document that kind of is currently in use when staff is looking at site plans. Um, cons, it lacks much of the overarching urban design goals and guidance from the 2001 standards. So, next please. So, the issue is there's a need uh for clarity. The 2017 standards supplanted the 2001 guidelines. However, much of the 2001 guidelines is missing from the current plan. Um, and that's significant because currently the comprehensive plan is referencing a document that is no longer in use. Um, practically. Um, so our solution is to combine and consolidate these two documents into one document that aligns with chapter 3 of the comp plan while strategically updating introducing a limited number of new topics. Next. Um, so just kind of reiterate, um, our goal is to give clear guidance to developers who come to city to build, city staff who are reviewing these site

plans, elected officials who are voting on these projects, and the residents who are trying to follow along with uh, consistent messaging and guidance. Next, so this is um, kind of a quick overview. I'll go column by column of on the left here we have these are some ideas of new concepts uh we're looking to introduce into this uh plan a lot of them like I said before sustainability related tree canopy bofilk design green roofs dark skies renewable energy um there's a few um kind of larger urban design topic such as block size and street types um we also had a concept for a kind of like a tear out one page or checklist for developers and reviewing staff to look at to give some clarity on what they should be looking at within the plan. Um the next column we have these are old concepts which currently exist in our plans but maybe need to be revised or expanded upon. And then for the bulk of what we have is old concepts which we're not going to try to change and simply carry over into the new plan while we consolidate. Um, and as we go through the public process, the idea is that as we meet with boards and commissions, we kind of have a discussion about, you know, are there new concepts we're not thinking of to add to this plan? Are there old concepts which should be looked at or revised beyond what we're showing? Um, but to leave um, as much as we can uh, the same because it is good guidance. it just is a lot of it is in an older document that is no longer referenced. Um and it's kind of confusing to have sources of information in two different places. Uh next, so as I said before, this is the first um group we're meeting with for this initial outreach and scoping. We plan to

go to these other boards and commissions. Um and eventually if we go to city council gets resolution uh we will be back um and have a public engagement strategy um which PC would be invited to for a public char um and some open houses and things like that. But um that's all I have for my presentation. Happy to take any questions. Great. Thank you. Uh Mr. Plinsky, do you did you want to start? I don't want to start. Oh, oh, did you start last time? Sorry, picking on you tonight. You just lean forward. Okay, Mr. Stevens is ready to go.

Did Mr. Lawrence have Did you have some some comments to make as well or for questions? Just on team Cameron tonight. I tag questions. Yeah, it's a short enough presentation tonight where Cameron just kind of took us through the whole thing. We're flipping coins and seeing who presents. Got it. All right, great. Uh could you go back to the slide that has the uh new new existing? Uh yeah, I had a question. That one's helpful. I think that's the guts of it, right?

Yeah, I had a question here about um overall um small area plans and how this how do small area plans fit into the concept of this document? like when it when it looks at like developer info and guidelines on building and things like that, like how does that fit into this?

It uh it certainly does fit and we would like to incorporate some of what's in the small area plans into this document because the last two plans have had design guidance which has kind of lapsed our current comprehensive plan guidance. So, we like to introduce some of those topics into this uh project. Um, in terms of hierarchy, the comp plan kind of ma comp plan and master plans that are connected to the comp plan sit a little higher in terms of um, I guess you say like negotiation power than small area plans when talking to developers, but um, it's certainly something we want to have consistency throughout to have these matching.

Yeah. And I know it's posted publicly like oh sorry uh I know it's posted publicly and it's on the website when I I found it before but a question like in terms of how it's communicated to developers or communicated to anybody making renovations or doing that work when and I know we're talking about the new version of this but it's not a specifically a new version of this question but when does it get given to someone who's interested in doing something renovating new construction something like that

for Um, I know for a lot of developments, I mean, currently right now, it's not in an email package. It gets sent out to a developer, but oftent times, uh, during the first round of reviews, it's, uh, heavily suggested that they go through our comprehensive plan, smaller plans to look at relevant documents that, uh, impact that area. Um but what's in the comprehensive plan um you know it's it's not it's these are kind of advisory guidance that we would like to enforce but it's a little different than city code. Um so I'm sure the developers are probably more familiar with uh the ordinances than our comprehensive plans and small area plans but we try to make that as public as possible.

Okay. And then from the like new concepts are those new concepts or are they just newly organized in the way that we're presenting it? Uh new as in they are not in either of those two previous documents. Okay. So these are new and then how are they um I guess the question is like you said you're going to come back to or be will be invited to the conversation of those things like how are we sourcing or creating these new concepts? That's why we're here tonight. We're Oh, we're giving them feedback. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were coming with suggestions. There we go. All right.

I mean, these are their suggestions, uh, the new concepts, but they want feedback on it and they want our ideas for anything else that should more of a question of like block size like is that a question of you're going to come up with a block size suggestion and or are we going to suggest what we think block size should more of my question of the items that are in green?

What's the order of operations? It would be uh I could say simultaneously what could be omitted from this list that people if no one cares about block size then we won't talk about block size. If we consistently get a certain topic repeated while we meet with different boards of commissions then perhaps that's a topic that needs to get put on this list. So um feedback either of relevance to something or something we haven't thought of yet.

So the idea would be we would discuss we we say things in green are good. We think those are right or we suggest rem removing or adding whatever and then there would be work after this meeting plus you would talk to all the boards and commissions. There would be work after this these conversations to then fill out what tree canopy should be or block size or whatever. Correct. Thank you. That was the order of operations I wasn't getting. That's it for me. All right. Thanks. Uh anybody else? Um Miss Freedellander, go ahead. So I have a question. So the intent is to kind of marry all of these together into one document, all three of these categories, right?

Yeah, that's correct. So like right now, for example, if you're a developer, you've got to read through those two plans. It's like 140 pages um comprehensive plan, small area plan. We really want to be able to hand you one kind of tear out sheet that says, "Okay, let me go through this checklist and make sure I've got everything that the city's looking for." So something that's new and tied directly um you know to the comp plan that is very direct uh for developers.

It seems like a beast of a challenge actually but but I I I'm excited to see your your um product your work product on this. I do have a question about what um the street types. What do you mean like like what level of detail are you kind of thinking about in terms of that? Is it like your main corridor versus your pedestrian thoroughare great street versus your residential? Like I don't what's what does that mean?

I think street types is in reference to right now uh we have you know the typical kind of street section of uh missing things like you know commercial alleyways, shared streets. Uh there's a diversity of kind of creativeness that could happen in some of these newer developments that maybe hasn't been asked for enough by staff or maybe just they don't believe that we'll go for it because it's a new concept and they want to stick with kind of what's uh known to work.

Um so especially as we get I think another big part of this is with block size and site layout too of updating. In the previous plans, it talks about site layout as a project. In the past, you know, in 2001, we were getting projects which are maybe a building that's like 1/8 of a total city block. But now, in the last 10 years, we've been getting projects which are the whole city block. So, how do you uh kind of effectively when it's one building taking up a block, how can we help create and carve out secondary types of streets, pedestrian ways, bicycle ways, uh things also for service vehicles? So, um kind of expanding on and reacting to newer types of design in the city.

Okay. All right. And then so block size also kind of talks about massing, right? Yeah. Like for example, the Westf falls project which um development which you know created new blocks and luckily the developers um you know know what they're doing and or informed and created walkableized blocks but also we have no nothing in our comp plan or other types of documents that specify what is a walkable block size. Yeah,

we got lucky is what you're saying. Okay, thank you. And and just to add to that, I think the other common theme that shows up here, I mean, we're using the term urban design, maybe that evolves as the process goes on, but I think biofilic design is also pretty consistent throughout all the green categories and even the ones in the middle. Um, and as you know, both Kurt and Cameron were saying, we rather much have this live in one document. We rather elevate it to something that is not just adopted by the council, but actually has some teeth. calling it a master plan really helps with that. Um, it allows us to show up with not just visuals, but expectations to those initial conversations with developers that really get us to a better pedestrian environment. Uh, perhaps learning from this first wave of projects that we've just finished getting through and what do we expect the next wave to look like? Um, and that really impacts what happens between the building and the street. So, those are probably the most critical zones. There may be other aspects of this, but highlighting that theme and kind of giving everybody a perspective of what might be in the scope and what we're not touching because it's probably still working. It's still effective and kind of carrying it forward is helping set expectations of this might actually get done in a number of months as opposed to becoming a two-year process because every single item you see on the screen has to be revisited or developed from scratch. No, I can I can appreciate that especially because we're kind of at the whim right now of whoever's setting precedent with the largest project, right? And I think we've gotten lucky on some and unlucky on others. So, I'm really appreciative of this effort. So, thank you.

Uh Mr. Stevens. Yeah, it seems like a worthwhile effort to combine these two. Um, I'm just curious whether there been any thoughts of including something that touches on a formbbased code in this as a way to maybe avoid getting too prescript prescriptive on uh, you know, as as this document does in some cases uh, because it's really things change over time and if you keep it at the formbbased code level, it seems like uh, that that might might we might have more success. Is that a thought that has occurred? to staff.

That's something that I've looked at for other jurisdictions. Uh how much some some of the form based code is very extensive. And so part of it is trying to see how much part of the reason we've also scaled it back to this much is not only is a lot of the things that are on the right are uh still good uh you know solid uh text but it's also in terms of staff resources of how much we can do in this time period. So uh it depends how aggressive and ambitious I want to get with it but that is something that has crossed my mind could be form-based light for the little city. Yeah.

Um, yeah, it occurred to me as I was going through the downtown small area plan for the uh previous item 258 um that there was an awful lot that was put in that small area plan that really was design guidelines. So I even though you may not try to tackle that in this round because it would be a fairly large effort but trying to pull out of those small area plans things that could go into this you know one document that strikes me as as being uh you know a good idea uh one specific on the new concepts where it says renewable energy if you could add right after that energy efficiency. So you'd have renewable energy, energy efficiency, and then EV charging. This that really relates back to our energy plans. And so I think it really helps if there's some um some calling out of those issues in in a document like this noted and I think that's all I had.

Thank you. Anyone down this way? Miss Oh, Mr. Kresner.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, actually, I don't have that much. But I mean I think it's yeah I think our problem now is that it's confusing. We do have this topic is addressed in a number of ways as was alluded to. We have this malaria plans um and these older documents. I mean I think most people today think of urban design mostly as the streetscape you know guidance that we have. So you know having it in one place is good. I think right you'll have to do a lot of work I think to make sure that it's clear how this is going to be used when it's done. um you know as far as how how it will work and you know with these other documents that are out there but yeah there's certainly things that we probably you know hadn't tackled before I mean like bread street hierarchy other things but I mean the other thing too it's like you know we we kind of another thing you know people mentioned block size we only have a few places in the city where that might come into play maybe Gordon Road you know but it's still important I mean for sure we should continue to look at that I think that's going to be the hard thing we we've had we've done it in dribbs and drabs because we've had old, you know, we've had these older citywide documents and then, you know, we switched to a small area plan type of planning kind of framework and we've kind of been successful with that, but now we're realizing we got these other things out there that and, you know, it's not clear how they should be used. So, this is another example of it. It's a it's definitely a good effort to try to pull this stuff together and update it so it's consistent. Um, even our streetscape stuff, right? I mean, our streetscape talks about the PA sidewalks and we're trying to get away from that. So maybe that's a way to you know so you just have to be clear to the extent that this is going to either supersede complement those other those other documents that'll be actually it's not an exciting part of this but that's a key part to the implementation of it is making sure that you know there's some there's some either probably some section at the end that explains where how this is going to be be used and how it should be used in relationship to those other documents um because I think that'll just to avoid confusion but otherwise I mean you have kind of the

typical topics that, you know, we would want to see in in a in a set of urban design guidelines. Um, but yeah, it's just we we like everything else in the city, we have like a lot of a lot of good things that have been done over time and and then it's just how we how we how they all work together. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Commendable effort. Just something that it would have been nice to have had in hand when we began the development boom, you know, 15, 20 years ago because we have, you know, sort of had to uh make it up as we go along. Some some of the developers have been very good. Uh others have needed to be dragged along and you know in the end we have what we have today which is by and large pretty good but as Miss Freellander said can always be improved in some other places. Uh two thoughts. One uh please dear God make it short. Uh, I'm trying to look at this through the eyes of the developer who's going to assign somebody to read what it is false church thinks of itself. And, you know, I mean, be very simple. Tree canopy, we're for it, you know, and don't give me 15 paragraphs on it. Just we're for it, etc. for many of the items that are on here. too. The only thing having said you should be short, the only thing that I don't see here that that that I I do feel as a person who lives here and walks around here and spends a lot of time here now that I'm retired. Uh maybe it's captured a little bit under signs and wayfinding, but trying to uh bring the heritage angle into everything that we do, whether it's, you know, the civil rights uh walk uh next to the Tener Hill building, uh the signage that has been put up over the years for various historic landmarks and buildings and places, and it's a it's kind of a hodgepodge now. And it would be uh you know there's a plaque on the founders 2 building about the history of uh sort of the evolution of false church the suburb rail. I mean I don't remember it ever

being discussed when we approved the building and it's really an interesting uh sidel lot. At any rate, for a developer to come in with something that brings out the story of the city and whatever new development is being done would be a useful thing to add in uh to give development a little uniqueness and a little false church soul. That's about I think the sum of what I would say. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Uh any did you go? Uh I didn't go but uh sounds like a worthwhile effort and I um actually would defer to the staff in terms of the hours involved if you have the hours to do that this uh and uh whether it is uh how this prioritizes with all the other projects. Seems like it could be a fairly significant time suck. Uh but it also sounds like it could be a pretty worthwhile effort. That's my only comment.

Uh I I'll let you know you're ready to answer. Um right now this in terms of staffing, it is just Kurt and I. If there's public meetings that go on, there may be some staff pulled in to help out with some public engagement. Um but uh currently we anticipate being able to work on this ourselves in addition to other tasks we have. Yeah. And I and I think part of what's happening is once the scope is finalized after we have a you know few additional conversations with various boards and commissions um we are still kind of deliberating on what is the best way to bring the right folks into the space to have multiple conversations to given everybody enough I think bandwidth and space to think through what the right solutions here are where it still makes sense to maybe leave certain items in place. Um so even with the limited scope uh and a lot of other colleagues working on other elements already shown on the work program, this will be fairly heavy lift uh likely taking us well into late 2026 uh if you know things kind of proceed the way they might.

Okay, I think I might be the last one. Um I also think this is a very great cool effort. Excited about it. Uh I have a few questions on well first like is there anything that you're leaving behind? Um when I looked at the chapter the sort of uh in the design guidelines like the table of contents is pretty specific. It includes guidelines for commercial and office buildings, guidelines for new residential buildings, guidelines for rehabil rehabilitation of historic buildings um in addition to the sort of like site elements or streetscape elements some of which you've captured here. So I guess I'm curious, are we leaving those more specific guidelines for those kinds of construction behind or are they carried over into some way in this plan or do we not know yet that yet?

Right now I think the scoping is mostly commercial and office is kind of what we're looking at. Um right now I I'm liazison to HARB. So I can say for like the historical section we've already in harb talking internally about creating our own kind of document pamphlet guide of how to come to harb and you know the the basics of design and things like that. So uh I feel like removing that part I feel confident it can be supplemented by something that harp creates. Um and the only section I feel like is only section from the 2001 document. Um there is a significant chunk that is talking about um community character and it is kind of is reiterating chapter three of the comp plan.

Um and then the uh residential section that is kind of talking about like where a driveway should be in front of a residential home or um kind of reiterating some of the setback standards we have in our code, things like that. It's in the zoning code. Yeah. or in decided in special exception potentially those projects. So those sections. Yeah.

Okay. Um a couple things like based on the discussion tonight of like concepts, new concepts that you might want to include. Uh I heard a lot about loading and delivery. So maybe we add that to the list. Uh bike facilities isn't mentioned here. I mean, even like so my like my like I would love to have a document like this that captures all of like here's what the city wants in all these areas in like a nice easy to page through super brief like very navigable format, right? That's what you want to be able to hand developers, right? So it's like we got to figure out what we're doing with with uh bikes at this location. Oh, turn to page 12 and like there's your little just summary and refers them to the bicycle master plan which is like the source of more deeper information. So, I like the idea of this being kind of like a a like a shorter guide to all of these topics and the city's vision and if there areas that we need more depth on like we have those master plans that already exist. So, referring people to those. So I think from that perspective like bike facilities is definitely something that we see that we need have a need for in our streetscape. Um uh and as new develop new development happens. So I just I would I want to have some kind of reference to it here. So I'd add that to the list. Uh shade is another thing that I think maybe we could consider um adding like how we're providing shade uh for new projects. the importance of shade and that relates to tree canopy um and maybe biophilic design and other elements here but I think it's like as a concept that could be another um one that I would add to the list and then I don't you don't have anything on like accessibility or like ADA uh so I don't I don't exactly know what that looks like uh but

universal design

universal design yeah could be another good topic to think about Um, and then, uh, like outdoor dining or just like general like ground floor activation, commercial areas, like those kinds of concepts. I don't know how that fits in, but those are other things that I think about when I think about like what do we want our streets to feel like and look like and what does the community want the public realm to be? So, I think like if we can capture that and I know it's a lot of different elements, but those are some things that come to mind and like I get why we aren't gonna want to like touch maybe some more complicated issues on this old concept. Just let's just carry them over, but we really need to look at parking. I think that our approach to that has evolved and should probably evolve further. um gateways too, like you know, I I actually didn't get a chance to look at what the advice is on gateways, but we've we've built some gateways and um I don't know. So, that would be something that I would like recommend we look at, but I understand you're trying to keep the scope small and have already added like four things to the new list. So,

no, this is good. Thank you. Can I follow on to if you something you said just triggered a thought for me and follow up to what Mr. I'll get into that a little bit like the idea of intentional art, intentional bring a reason for people to come other than placemaking. Yeah, making like something a reason to come other than um the store is good or I live here. Public art could be another concept. Um we can place we could have our own bean or something like that. That's an old concept. Oh, public art. Oh, okay. Thanks. Certainly a long list. Yeah, we we'll keep adding things because

and any and anywhere we can have like a brief summary of like here's what this thing is, here's why we think it's important and here's where you go to find the most recent guide because like we have plans for a lot of these things that exist, right? So just like if this can be a central navigation guide to like crosswalk to those other existing plans that are being updated more frequently, I think that would be really useful. And can I add that um under street furniture, similar to public art, um street furniture includes bike racks and bike infrastructure. Oh, great. But I would agree that it's it's important and maybe we'll highlight that um because I'm sure people are going to be interested and then as you said linking it to the master plan that explains it further. Yeah, it'll be a good approach.

And I I guess it wouldn't really uh touch on like on street facilities for bikes or would it? Uh the the current plans don't um but that's one of the I mean obviously captured in the master plan but Mhm. Um I don't know if there's a way to refer back to the the bicycle master plan from that section. Okay. Uh I think that was it on my list but it's a great effort. Any other last comments, ideas? Can we get some money and go out and get Jeff Speck to uh advise us?

Yeah, I've got him on speed dial. Okay. All right. Well, thank you so much. Appreciate the presentation. Hope our feedback was helpful tonight. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you.

All right. Okay. So, that brings us to our information items. We're only 20 minutes behind. Uh any commissioner reports this evening? report just well I mean it's not like an official commissioner report but and folks probably already know this but the legislative session you know concluded the governor still has 30 days to do what she's going to do but for example our the thing we were people probably already know this the thing we were pushing for to raise the cap on um on population size to allow planning commission to become a designated agent fail it died on belong party lines 8 to seven in committee um so that's kind of unfortunate um none of our direct representatives were voting on that, but um it did die party lines 8 to seven and and you know kind of without voting on the merits of it, they basically killed it. So doesn't mean it's dead for next year or you know it could be brought up again but and hopefully people continue to fight that fight but um yeah just so folks know that's that's not going to change this session.

People already maybe people already knew that but in case they didn't. And just adding to that uh about the legislative session, we were talking a little bit about SB717, which is the transit oriented housing uh overlay districts. So that was passed by the Senate, it went to the House, it was not passed by the House, but it was um continued into 2027. So that's going to be automatically reintroduced in 2027. All right. Thank you for the legislative update, Mr. Duncan.

In that same vein, uh Marcus Simon was at the chamber launch yesterday and spoke on a number of topics, but one included the um proposal that uh churches be able to develop um housing. And that my understanding was that did pass. I'm not sure what the details of it are, how it affects false church. So, I guess I would make a request to uh get us briefed on that at some point at a future meeting once they once the dust settles in Richmond. Not getting too specific, it would allow by right

churches to if it's there's an affordable component to uh develop housing on their properties. But there's more specific than that. You can read the bill, but yeah, the governor still has to sign it, but I hear that that one will likely be signed. But yeah, it would be good for us to get a briefing on that. And do you know and I'm asking you to interpret something that you didn't create, but do you know if that was an an affordable component meant one affordable unit or is it a percentage really? I don't want to speak to the specifics because it was, you know, like any piece of legislation. You can read the bill, but yeah, it's specific. There are some there's a lot of things you need to show, but it does open it up to buy, right? You know, on a on a property that has, you know, on a church property. So, um I just don't remember the details of exactly what the uh yeah, I'd have to go look at it

requirements were. But that one Yeah. did pass and I I mean I'm the I don't have any special inside line, but what I people would tell me that no more than me seem to think that you know Spamburger is going to sign that one. Yeah. I'd be curious to know what counts as church property. Like if a church bought a piece of land, is that now church property? Okay. Yeah, I'll go I'll go read the bill and get the direct information. Um Matt may bring this up in his director's report, but the Virginia Village first public engagement opportunity is Saturday morning from 10:00. Yeah. Right, Jack? Okay. Just put that on your calendar. Y

uh attended the AAB meeting last week um along with uh the city council representative Mr. Aen. And I uh one of the things that came up from the was they were reviewing the housing or the apartment condo uh building on uh Washington Street Park in Washington. Uh one of the comments from the developer was that they had not heard of the small area plan or had not been informed of the small area plan until that night. Um and said it was a multiple $10,000 every time they reapply or resubmit.

Yeah. Uh and so they were moving forward and I think they were I don't think it was a blocker but it was one of those interesting opportunity. It might be an interesting opportunity for us in terms of how we communicate information about what what are going to be requirements for the developers. Yeah. What's that what's on that checklist for what you need to think about on positive news? Uh AAB was this is the first time they've had like a full group of people in a very long time. So very excited to see them jumping in to that conversation. Uh very active in that conversation. So that's great. That's great. All right. Anybody else? No. Okay. I think that brings us to the director's report. Mr. Matusk, anything for us tonight?

Yeah, I'm mainly going to focus on the uh upcoming calendar. Um, we do have several uh public meetings scheduled for Virginia Village. Um, I think Jack was able to send that information around. Um, we have uh session this Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to noon at Oak Elementary. Uh that same conversation and format is going to be repeated the following Tuesday night at the Columbia Baptist uh I believe from 7 to 9. Um and that's really intended to kind of have help us reaffirm a lot of guidance we already captured in previous small area plans for Virginia Village. So we're not starting anything from scratch. I don't think we're really deviating that far uh from what I think the expectations are. But given where we are, that we've acquired several lots, that there's a higher emphasis on affordable housing, it just felt timely to kind of circle back and make sure we're all on the same page. Uh so we feel a lot of that feedback will be very helpful. and we're going to come back in April and do another Saturday morning, Tuesday evening session to kind of synthesize what we've heard and make sure we're all on the same page in terms of what we want to then memorialize and document in these documents and perhaps even take it further into code changes later in the year uh/summer. Um so that's going to be four meetings coming up open to the public. Um and uh we look forward to seeing uh folks have a good conversation with us uh and uh see where that takes us. But that information will come back uh to various commissions. We're kind of closely working with opportunities for joint work sessions kind of with our partners in the housing commission, economic development authority. Uh at some point we may even reach out to the urban forestry commission. And you know, there's a lot of different topics that this one little site uh kind of triggers. So, we want to make sure everybody has a voice, has a chance to

inform this um before we get into any kind of development conversations. Uh so we'll be looking at potentially something in May uh by which point those conversations have happened uh and and intentionally tried to schedule a return to this group prior to uh any kind of major updates to the council which we are anticipating for late May. So I I think uh May might be a healthfully healthy opportunity by which point staff would have had some analysis prepared and we kind of know what the next steps are. maybe some additional dates might be identified by that point. Um, so we're looking at when that best date might be and I feel like May might also be a good time to provide a potential update on where some of these bills from Richmond actually ended up uh based on when I think the governor is going to have to vote on them uh and what actually might become reality. Uh so I think having that conversation in April might be a little bit too premature. we rather just wait uh see how the veto process goes and what actually makes its way through the final cuts. Um and we'll see who else may want to join us for that conversation. Um and it may become something we just do every May since there's just so many things potentially getting out of

uh those conversations we have to start anticipating annually. Um, and I think beyond that, as you look into like early summer, we have some additional uh comp plan meetings uh on chapter 5. Uh, and I think Virginia Village will continue to come back up uh almost every month uh through July. So, um those calendar dates will fill up, but I don't know if uh March or April, I should say, there may only be one meeting I think for that month right now based on the agenda topics. Well, April 1, I think we canled previously because it's spring break. So, we just have the 15th. We're required to meet once a month, but uh

yeah, we are you have an item for that. The Oak Park sewer easement agreement. Is there any like I think that one required a slight shift. Uh and because of the the details of that shift, uh they're required to kind of revisit some of the bodies that were involved in initial approval. So, it's a very technical um Yeah, look forward to it. Uh you don't just to I'm I'm I'm here May 6th, but I'm uh I won't be here on the 20th. It's my anniversary, but Mr. Stevens can very abley lead us I think that evening. Looks like no meeting that night.

Well, not yet, but it sounds like Virginia Village is going to be coming back either the 6th or the 20th. Is that what I'm hearing? And I think at this point we're flexible. of if one of those is better for the uh the commission. I guess it depends on how how much time staff where staff is on the analysis and the feedback from the community and getting getting through all of that because the Yeah, let us reach out maybe to the housing commission and see if the six works and then we can maybe try to pin that down. All right, sounds good. That's fine. I'm here. Okay. Or the 20th with with 10. Okay. Uh All right. One other thing. May I? Yeah, go ahead.

Uh, those of you still subscribe to the Washington Post, there's a very interesting article today on the affordable housing debate in Princeton, New Jersey. Oh, yeah. You've seen it. It's Yeah. Okay. Everybody here is very well read. It's u uncanny some of the similarities. Very high income, very high educated demographic, wrestling with the issue just like we are. Anyway, it's worth a read. Thanks for the wreck. All right. Anything else uh on the director's report? Is that it?

Uh this is more like a three-month forecast, but uh I know we discussed um some additional guidance from our city attorney regarding the approval authority issue as it relates to site plans. Um staff is working with that office and our partners in zoning. uh and we believe by early June, I think we should have some framework of a proposal uh and process in place to uh probably start circulating some information on what that looks like, how it all comes together. Uh partly from a code change perspective, but also just in terms of operationalizing it uh in this still 40-day process we have to

uh continue to follow for now. So, uh a lot of different moving pieces. Uh it'll remain painful. Uh I'm not going to sugar coat it. Uh but I'm sure there's a way to do it and just be mindful of the applicants and their process and what they're going to have to go through. Yeah, especially for small smaller developers like u exactly Danny was saying. Y so that's everything for me. Thank you. Okay. And then uh I guess everybody check out the flyer in our correspondence that uh includes the dates, times, and locations for the Virginia Village community meetings. So I encourage you all to go and with that I think we are adjourned. Thanks