Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for tonight, Monday, July 13th, 2026. Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Paul Leibowitz. I'm the chair of the Westport Planning and Zoning. And as you may know, pursuant to state law, there is no physical location for this meeting. This meeting is to be held electronically and live streamed. westportct.gov and this meeting is also shown on Westport's Optimum Government Access Channel 79 subject to availability. The public may attend and offer testimony during the meeting by using the meeting link published in the agenda prior to the meeting. And the meeting agenda is available on westportct.gov on the meeting list and calendar webpage. Your written comments may be received prior to the public meeting and sent to pnz at westportct.gov by 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting if intended to be distributed for consideration by members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Any written comments received after 12 p.m. on the day of meeting will be entered into the record, of course, but will not be distributed until the next business day. And all of our meeting materials are always available at westportct.gov on the Planning and Zoning webpage under P&Z, Pending Applications and Recent Approvals. So that dispenses with the housekeeping. Tonight, I see before me, Commissioner Bree Injeski, our secretary. I see Commissioner Michael Kammeyer, our vice chair. I also see Commissioner Mike Calise, Commissioner Craig Schiavone, and Commissioner Patricia Zuccaro. And of course, we are joined as always by Michelle Pirelli, Planning and Zoning Director. So Bree, if you don't mind, would you take us into this portion of the meeting?

Item number one on our agenda is a pre-application discussion of proposed development at 606 Riverside Avenue. Application PZ2600430 submitted by Adam J. Blank, Esquire, which seeks feedback from the Planning and Zoning Commission on proposed residential housing with a complementary mixed-use component including 165 residential units with 10% deed restricted as affordable and 283 parking spaces. The time allotted for the pre-application is 20 minutes.

Very good. And Adam, the house is yours.

Great. Thank you. Thank you all. It's good to be here again. Adam Blank, Wapsie Rosen, Land Use Counsel for Spinnaker for the project at 606 Riverside. As you recall, we were presented to you back in June, I think June 1st. At the meeting, you gave us some feedback related to the design, which we've attempted to incorporate into our current set of plans. You also asked us to come back to you with some more information on various percentages of affordability and overall unit counts and how that might impact the viability of the project. We spent some time looking into the numbers and I'll share with you some information on affordability after our architect, Celan Pather, presents some updated information on the plans. On the affordability side, I'll talk briefly on it. And then if we get into the nitty gritty, Matt Evertson, who's on the Zoom from Spinnaker, he can discuss some of the nitty gritty in the background to help explain how we arrived at our proposal. I'll just tell you, we don't have much new to report with respect to traffic. Our traffic engineers have continued to analyze existing traffic conditions and impacts, feel good about the project from a traffic and parking standpoint. Neither of the engineers were available tonight. They were on last week, but they weren't available tonight. And we intended to kind of focus on the architectural changes and the affordability proposal anyway. So you're not going to hear from them tonight. I'll also tell you that since the last time we were in front of you, we had two pre-apps with the Architectural Review Board. We have a third scheduled with them the end of this month. Those were very helpful, resulted in several design changes, which have been well received by the ARB in a sort of collaborative process. And again, Celin will walk you through those updated plans in just a moment or two. With respect to the civil engineering, we're working full speed ahead on that. The civil folks have been working with your engineering department, DPW, fire marshal's office, as well as Eversource, coordinating with them to ensure that we will meet all town and utility requirements. Again, we're not planning on having the civil folks present to you this evening, but we just wanted to let you know that we are sort of working through the various checklist items so that we hopefully have a well thought out project for you when we apply, which we hope will be in a month or so. So we also, in addition to Celan and Matt, we also have Rick Redness, the land use consultant who you all know with us. And with that introduction, let me first turn it over to Celan to talk to you about some of the design changes.

Ceilin?

You're muted, Ceilin.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

I just requested a share, please. Coming up. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Ceilin Poth. I'm a principal at Bionfield Architecture. It's good to be before you again. I'll just share my screen when I can.

And Ceylon, if you can just make sure you're speaking.

Can everyone see my screen?

Yes.

All right, great. So we have a revised presentation tonight that's similar to the one you've seen before. We've limited our slides to show the most significant provisions. These revisions are in response to meeting with you and the ARB to summarize theirs and your initial architectural feedback. I would suggest it was setbacks for you, setbacks also for the ARB, simplification of the architecture for the ARB. So we tried to address those things. So in doing so, we have increased setbacks at the upper floors, removed individual units at the uppermost floor. I'll explain that. Reduced the unit count and provided a new open space at street level. So we have 20 minutes. I'm going to flip this fairly quickly to give Matt time. But please stop me if you want any clarification or have any questions. So we've seen this. Sorry, this is the site context. We all know where we are. You've seen this. We can come back to that if we need to. and discuss what's there inside today. So the way we set this up, and this is the same presentation we gave to ARB, or similar presentation we gave to ARB. Just to make it easy, we have previous. This is what we showed you before, and I'll flip between what we have before and what we have now. So the big change here was just addressing the street edge, and it was a big move, and you'll see that in the architecture. But this is what we have now. What we've done is step back the architecture and the line of the building at the corner of Charles and Riverside. And where we had about 12 foot here up sidewalk, we now have a space that's 29 foot wide. And where we had about a 12 foot sidewalk here, we have a space that's about 47 foot deep that's a 1500 square foot space we feel it adds interest face making to that corner and you'll see that in the architecture that was the big move here the rest of the plan remains largely unchanged the edges and the townhouse tubes and so on are slightly revised but on uh give you an issue looking back and forth, but the stoops you see were slightly revised, but the concept remains largely the same, that you want to engage the street. People have direct entry into these units, and that's another way of enlivening the street by having front doors that access the street. But the big move here was this corner. So as you guys know, this is the second parking level. There's another parking level below. That's access from Charles Street. I have all the slides here. We can go back if we need to. Okay, so this is now the fifth floor. So a comment I think we just received directly from you is about the setbacks at the fifth floor. So you have four stories and what we had, these townhouse-looking elements, and you'll see at an elevation when I get to it, and the floor above that, the fifth floor, was set back five foot six from that. What it is now is almost double that. at 10 foot. So we pulled this whole edge back here. This was, coincidentally or not, a request from the ARB also. The idea was that when you, the perceived height as you're walking down Charles Street, and you'll see a section where we've shown at the request of ARB what that section looks like from the freeway all the way to the train station. That was the big move there. Probably the biggest move is up here. This is now the sixth level. And this was the previous scheme. We had a whole level of units up here with an internal corridor. And we suggested that some of this floor had lofts. It was set back about 30 foot from the face of the building. All the numbers I'm giving you for setbacks are from the face of the building. There's another 10 foot or so to the street lines. But this setback remained the same. What we did here was we lost all the residential units on this floor, about 16 units. So let's show that again because it's important. Here are all these units. Those units are now gone. These are lost spaces. They serve the units below. So they essentially become duplex units accessed from the fifth floor coming up to this. So what this did for us is we reduced the corridor at the upper floor. And because we lost a corridor, we got back some space. Even though this is the same 31 foot here, we have eight foot setbacks inside the courtyard to create some relief from light and air, poor light and air into the courtyard. And we further set back these buildings. So initially, the land of the building was here. We set back eight foot here for these lofts. 12 foot six here and here importantly also if you look at i'm sorry i'm flipping back and forth but the thing is important you see how this corner has a building all the way to the edge into the line here it's a full terrace and this entire building is set back from the corner here the concepts that the setbacks from riverside there's they stay in place the idea that riverside reads as a three and a half story building and it's set back 58 foot and 40 foot from at this level um stays in place that's largely unchanged uh but the bigger moves with the setbacks from these edges and the elimination of of uh units from from this level and what this did was created uh much larger units so the fifth level has now duplex units they're much larger mixed chains we ended up with a whole lot of large units on the fifth floor So we adjusted the floors below. We're still working on it, but our unit count now is roughly 165 units, and that's what you'll hear Matt and Adam talk about, the 165 number.

That was the biggest move. Seelan, can you just mention on the setbacks on the back corner of the building, why those were put in? I think those were in response to the ARB and why we added those.

These corners here?

No, that corner, yeah. They didn't want us up on the buildings along Riverside.

Yes. There was a comment about this reading less like a story, and they accepted our idea that when we set it back and simplified the edges, we showed them two concepts for the architecture there that it would recede, but felt that a little bit more of a setback would allow it to recede beyond the sight lines that exist from Railroad Place and Riverside. Okay. Then very quickly, just to touch on the architecture, because we set it Airbnb and it was fairly well received, They encouraged us to go back and look at buildings in Westport, and this goes back to their idea of simplification of the architecture, and we did. And what we just showed here and what we showed them was that Westport is eclectic. There's buildings that are brick and four stories and buildings that are plamid siding and old New England vernacular, and they look very comfortably next to each other, and we see this throughout town. we show them that and then we show them this and you've seen this this is that corner The architecture is moving. It's moving fast. We've adjusted it slightly even beyond this rendering. But what this shows accurately is the 1,500-square-foot courtyard on the corner that will serve the retail space. And according to Matt and Spinnaker, there's already interest in having it for people wanting that retail space in the corner. This will enhance it. This is a give-back to the street. It's... pacemaking on that corner that hopefully connects that neighborhood or that area to the Black Dock and so on. Quickly on the architecture, again, the way we presented this was before and after. So this is your before. We had a series of townhouses. We simplified that into three forms. And that was fairly well received. Here's that setback here that was five foot. Sorry, setback here that was this level, to be clear, that was five foot. And it's now 10 foot. And this is setback about 30 foot, again, from the face of the building and another 10 foot to the street. This, for the ARB, was a simplification of the facade where we had approximately eight elements here and now six. This element is one. I'll quickly go back to this. Here's that one element in the corner. That was a big change for us, even though it looks fairly similar in 2D. And that was, again, I think, very well received. Well, they said we're going to... I don't want to overplay it. They said we're going in the right direction. And then this is a section... through that entire building from 95 to the train tracks. That's it. Adam, is there anything else you wanted me to cover, or is that good?

I think that's good. If there's questions, I'll obviously get some feedback.

Yeah. Can we jump in here, or do you want to?

I was thinking we might we have three areas we want to touch on the architecture, the affordability, and then briefly that the text change or the change that zone change itself. And we're hoping we could just start and finish one discussion at a time. So maybe deal with architecture now and then we'll move to the affordability. Great. Super.

Commissioners, comments for the applicant on the architecture? It's given us about five or six different changes. Anybody want to jump in? Brie?

Yeah, in the drawing that you have up here, does this depict what you would see, or are we just not seeing what the sixth floor and fifth floor would look like from this angle? Is this everything?

We'll do comprehensive view studies at some point, and we have started them, but here's that sixth floor up. And this is a rendering. We will go to photoreal, and you will see the angle, right? But that's our sixth floor here. Yeah, we do believe that with these setbacks, it's actually this one, with these setbacks, you're standing on this corner. That building is here.

It's over 50 foot from here.

It's over 50 foot from there.

So from that angle, you won't see a lot of it?

You won't see it. We don't think you'll see it. Yeah. But we will show you in a photo reel when we're coming to the full application.

Okay. And then I think it's on slide 14. It may have been the profile one, that kind of a gray box above that. Is that what the 65th and 64th, is that where that would be?

Yes, and the reason we show it in the gray box is because it's about 50 foot back.

Okay, and you don't know what that will look like yet, or are you planning on it being just very plain facade?

No, we do. No, we do. And you'll see that in the next go-around. Okay. We do. But again, we'll also show you the sidelines from Riverside and from Railroad Place that show that you see very little of any of it if you're standing on those streets.

And so basically like this view would be if you were standing on, I guess, is that the railroad side of it? Is that what we're looking at? No, there's the train station over there. Okay, I see it.

Yeah, so here you're standing. Okay. To see, if you honestly, if you were standing on railroad, that's what you'd see reasonably. And I feel confident in saying that. If you were standing or you were in a boat in the river, you might catch some of that.

Okay. Those are my only questions that I have right now.

Great. Thank you. Other commissioners? Yeah, I can keep this slide up. Total height as compared to 95, I like this slide because it shows you 95 on the right. If you were to draw, is that, I'm assuming like that road over on the right, is that 95, the height there? Yes. Yes. Yes. Can you draw a horizontal line from 95?

Yeah. Yep. We had exact same question from Airbnb. And it's about the middle in about the middle.

Okay, so we're going over 95 for those one and a half stories over it. What's the total height of the property of of the buildings? It's about seven or the max height to say that.

It is 73 feet above average grade.

The grade doesn't really change much, does it? Or is there, when you say above average grade, it does?

Yeah, it does. Yeah, because it starts at about nine here. Right. and ends up being about 17. Oh, okay.

So are we saying 17, 26 divided by 2 is about 13? So it's 72 above, 3 above 13 feet? So, but in the corner, it's 7. If your average grade...

Are you trying to establish how far it's off of what?

Thank you. Yes, that would be helpful. So that the max height right there on that side of the building is what? 77.

It's actually lower. You see how the 77.4 goes to average grade, right? But this is, I'm going to say about five foot here. So as reading, as read from Riverside, you're actually lower than the 77. You can see that physically here. You're lower by that much.

Oh, okay.

Because the average gain is lower than Riverside, right? Because the average gain is driven down by what's in charge.

Right, okay. Right now, we're standing where? We're standing at the Black Duck, looking at the side of the building right now?

Yeah, we're standing on... You're standing on Charles Street. Here's the existing building and 21 Charles, the office building.

Oh, so I'm standing at the restaurant?

Yes. Well, the restaurant much further down, but yes, but not much further, but further down. You're standing. This is this is the empty green space. It's on 70. Greenspan. Yes.

Yes. Okay. I did sidewalk. Okay. Got it. Yeah, helpful. Um, Can you do that at the Black Duck? Do you have that?

Let's go back to... If you're standing at the Black Duck, you're looking at this.

So on the right, it goes up 77 feet. On the left, it's less because the grade comes up.

That's right. The perceived height of it is less, yes, because the street comes up.

Okay. Now, just quickly. So this is what we're looking at here. But if you go up in your slides up when we were looking at the units and whatnot. Any any of those? That's white space, right?

So looking at it. Are you breaking up for anyone else besides me?

What do you mean by white space? I don't see blue, gray, purple. I see white on the right of this structure. Yes. Not the center. It's the roof of the floor below. What's there?

Let me just walk you through this very quickly again. So here's the first floor, right? Two levels of parking.

Is the amenity... I'm talking about the amenity space, I guess is my point here. How big is that height-wise inside?

Is that just one story? Yes, one, but one and a half story. That's an important question. It's a good question. Is that the amenity space is actually higher than one story because it's got two levels of parking behind it.

Okay.

This is This is the amenity space, right? There's a level of parking here at about nine. And then there's another level of parking at 19. And then there's the concrete deck that the internal core jabs at. So there's two levels of parking behind that amenity space. So the amenity space is taller to block that parking.

Screen it. So does the amenity space inside this whole facade right here? As we're looking at this picture? It's inside the space here, yes. So there's no residential?

It's below the 14 because of flood.

Okay, but what about above it? Is there residential above it? Yeah.

That's okay. That first window is residential. That first window is residential right there.

So you've got two floors of residential, then a little setback terrace over in the corner, a third floor next to the terrace.

Yep.

Great. So where your mouse is above there, that's a terrace? That's a terrace, yes. And that goes to the corner of the building? Like this. Ah, thank you. Okay, perfect. Okay. This is very helpful. Thank you.

And I don't want to misrepresent, Fred. This is double-staging riverside. It looks like three and a half. We've built the upper, the fourth level into the roof. Could you repeat that? Thanks, Paul. There's four levels facing Riverside, but we've designed the fourth level into the roofline. Got it. So it reads as three and a half. Three and a half was an important number for us.

Is it three and a half residential and one of the amenity space?

No. Here's your three and a half. One. two, three, this is four, but we built it into the roof.

How many levels of residential is that? Three.

Three above one.

Thank you. Okay, so from an architectural standpoint, I mean, ARB, they're the ones that we're just making sure that this looks... From that outdoor space, is that supposed to be outdoor dining for the restaurant that's there?

Ideally, yeah.

I have no frame of reference here, so I'm just bringing it up. 1,500 square feet of outdoor space yields what from a table point of view?

Let me think. 2,000. Probably about 40, 40 to 50. depending on how tired it is.

So you could potentially have 40 to 50 chairs, for lack of better words? Yep. Okay.

And also depends on how, 1500, sorry, I should be clear, the 1500, probably a little less, because the 1500 includes the sidewalk, you have to leave space for the sidewalk. So you probably get, yeah, about 40 tables in there.

You can fit about four, wow, okay.

Just the size of the restaurant, right?

Right. This is a question for later. You don't have to answer it now. It's just coming to my mind as we're talking about that. When we talk about total occupancy of that restaurant, granted, it's at nighttime, so it's probably less of a concern, but still a concern that will come up is making sure that whatever the parking regs are for that restaurant you know you guys did a good job of incorporating the outdoor space into the community quote unquote community right so we just want to make sure we have enough parking so when people go to the restaurant they can park yeah we think that we don't have to talk about that but hopefully there's a symbiotic relationship with with parking times um Okay, so my other, so that's essentially the only space that the whole structure, like open space-wise, that's it, is that corner, which is not really. How big is the courtyard? Let's go back to that. Thank you. And is that a pool in the middle of the courtyard? Yep. Okay, so that's essentially blocked off for the residents. That's not public open space. That's right. Okay. So as far as public open space goes, really, we're just talking about the restaurant space. And then this is not... Go ahead.

Also, the sidewalks were slightly increased than they were before, slightly a bit wider. And that was the crux of the conversation with ARB anyway. And early meetings with stakeholders was the sidewalks needed to be curated. The sidewalks are wider than they are.

Okay. The sidewalks on Charles Street, are they... What's the elevation look like for that side of the street? I remember there was an issue there. But is that no longer... So is that just all...

So this is the lower side of Charles, right up close to the office building, right? You have your entrance to the lower garage right here. Is the office building for orientation? There's a lower garage entry, and it starts sloping up. So the concept here was to use stoops, because you can reduce stoops to nothing, to address the...

Okay, so the door comes out, and they kind of have a little landing, and then they walk down, and then they walk out onto the sidewalk.

Yep.

Okay, well done.

It's a tool we've used before on Spinnaker's projects also. And really, it's very popular because residents feel like they can just walk out their door into a restaurant, just to a shop, you know?

Selin, can you just confirm, I know you mentioned earlier that this perspective is like looking from the restaurant over, but it's not at ground level, right? Like if you were on the sidewalk on Charles, you're not going to see the upper stories, right?

That's right. Generally, that's the point behind these upper levels. We wanted to show it for clarity, but the reason that we didn't show detail is because the sight lines will prevent you from seeing these.

So if you're standing by the restaurant, in theory, you shouldn't see that? No. Obviously, as you walk backwards towards the restaurant, you might see a little bit more because the sight line opens up, but I get it.

Yeah, as you get to maybe under the bridge.

If you go to the right of this rendering, how's the height here compared to this office building on the right?

You can see it, right? The penthouse is about the same height as this building. The top of the building, excluding all the stuff that's on that, which takes it up another 20, 30 feet, but the top of the building itself is about the same height as that.

Okay. Okay. Now, we said that there were four topics that we wanted to talk about. This is just architecture. The other you said was affordability. Yep. And then what are the other two?

I think there was only one other, but the other was the text change or the, you know, the...

Okay, text change. We can do it in the... I have more questions, but we can do it in the text change. That's fine. As far as this goes, I'm good. Thank you very much. I don't really have much feedback. I think you guys did from this point of view and only this point of view. I get what you're doing and it tones it down a little bit. I don't have any further questions right now or feedback.

Thank you, Michael. Appreciate it. Craig, you had your hand up.

Yes. Going back a few slides where you see the upper story, I believe brief said it might have been 14. No, that's not what I'm looking at. Where it shows the... Okay, that's good. That's good. The white box above this, I think you mentioned that you were going to be working on this, but are you going to add fenestration up there or is it going to serve mostly as for mechanicals? Is it going to be a flat wall or?

No, fenestration fully designed.

I'm sorry, what did you say?

We have fenestration, fully designed elevations for that.

Okay, so it won't look like a large skating rink or movie theater. It will have some design elements on it. Another question. How many square feet and how many units of retail are you proposing on the ground floor? And on what street faces are they?

Just the one on the corner of Charles and Riverside.

And there's no other retail in the base of the building?

No. I think the thought was, and Matt can chime in if he wants, that there's plenty of retail in this area.

And we thought it'd be- I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I had trouble hearing it.

Matt or Adam can respond to this. I think we said that there's plenty of retail in the area already. And the idea of lighting the street for residential and residential amenity and using the really important corner to house our retail. It was a concept from the beginning.

So that's going to be one unit and you're identifying that as a restaurant?

We're not sure yet.

So then what happens to the retailers on Railroad Place? and the restaurants on Railroad Place.

Hopefully they thrive from the new housing units, right? Okay, so they're going to stay intact. They will stay retail. Well, yeah, they'll stay whatever they want to be, right? We're not going to change them as part of this project.

Okay. Are you doing any work on the expanding sidewalks on Railroad Place, or is your domain Charles and Riverside and...

Just Charles and Riverside.

Okay, great. You've gone from 175 to 165 units. Has that changed, but you said you've added loft space. Has that changed the square footage of the number, the square footage of residential? Or is it just you've put in larger units?

Have you decreased the square footage? Yeah, we've slightly decreased the square footage because this floor, as I show you, is smaller in footprint than the floor we had before. If I just flip between them quickly, see that's what we had before, that's what we have now. It's just the blue versus the rest. So yes, the square footage is slightly decreased.

Roughly what percentage?

I don't have that number, but I can have it for you the next time.

I don't need to be specific, but 5% maybe, or you don't want it?

I would be taking a guess.

Okay, next question.

If you give me until the end of this meeting, I might be able to look it up.

That would be very helpful. My next question is, you know, as you know, we're all very concerned about traffic and parking in that area. That's a reasonably large restaurant space with, I don't know what it would seat, but where are those people going to park?

So our traffic consultant isn't here, but in conversations with her about this, they will have some spaces inside here, inside the building. And obviously we're creating spaces along Charles and Riverside because there's a continuous curb cuts now. You can't have parallel space even though there's space for parallel spaces these are not spaces we're using towards our account to be clear but there will be spaces to serve the public on the street where they weren't any before there'll be some spaces inside the the garage dedicated to that restaurant and of course you know the times are symbiotic so so there'll be a lot of spaces at the train station at that time of night hopefully

Right, but from Matt Everton here with Spinnaker, just to clarify, the parking counts provided will meet the zoning regulations, but in reality or practicality, some of the patrons of that retail or restaurant will find the most convenient space, whether it's kind of in our garage or in the public right away.

Okay, so they'll meet the regs. town-wide, the town-wide bricks. Oh, okay. That's great. Let me see anything else here that I wanted to bring up about architecture. Generally, aside from the scale, I find the architecture And I think you've done a good job aside from the scale. Thank you very much.

Thank you, we'll take it.

Other commissioners? This is the chance to give them feedback.

I got a question. Go ahead. As I'm seeing this, in my mind's eye, the grade level retail will in effect have a parking garage behind it, a two level parking garage behind it. Am I correct in that assumption?

Yes. That's right.

Yes. Yes. So it would be an interior courtyard was comprised of a parking garage.

The interior courtyard for the residential is above the parking garage. It's... You don't have a sketch of that, do you? So the best way to understand this is that this is the parking garage. The roof of this parking garage is a concrete deck. flat concrete deck the size of what's shown here. And then on top of that concrete deck, you wrap units around the edges and it sends a courtyard.

So the parking garage will have above grade two levels?

Yes.

Okay. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you.

Patrice?

You're welcome.

Thank you. Just two quick questions. So it looks like the parking garage from Riverside is two-way, right? There's an in and an out. And then on Charles Street, I can't tell if that's an in and out or if that's just one versus the other.

And that's an in and out on Charles also.

So it's an in and out on Charles and an in and out on Riverside. And the one on Riverside, it looks like there's a barrier, right? You're going to have a... Or is that just not intended to be there? It's just...

There's an idea to have... We'll probably have a garage door. We haven't looked up the details of that, but it'd be secure if that's what you mean.

No, that's not what I mean. But you're intending to make it secure? Yeah.

Yes, I believe that's the intent right now.

But don't you need people who are accessing the restaurant and shopping to be able to park in this garage?

As I was saying it, I was thinking, that's why I hesitated. We have to figure that out. The intent right now is for it to be secure.

But you're intending to have in and outs on both locations?

That's right.

Okay. And then the second question I have for you is on the slide. I don't have, I guess it's 12.

It's like 12.

Yeah. So, yeah.

So this is... So the existing building is to the right. And so are you saying that the setback part of the building does not go above the existing building? And I want to call it the golf building. I mean, the slope building, but I don't know what the address is.

It's very close in height. I'm not sure the exact relationship because all of our measurements of this building are with us in a tape measure, but it's very close.

So are you going to block the cell in town? Is that around there?

No, the towers are actually even above. The towers are like here.

Okay, so that is just the actual building that you're... That's the actual building, that's right. Okay, and so you think they're basically the same size, you would guesstimate? Maybe an inch or two, not a foot?

Yeah, they're very close, but within a foot, I would say.

Within a foot of each other. Right, and I feel like if you just go over kind of perceived height with that building being hard to the street and ours building, you know, this proposed building being set back 10 feet and then further set back above...

Yeah, so I'm sure what numbers here. So that's this. No, I understand. This is about 12 foot away from the street line, which is about slightly actually a little bit further back from this building. Then this fifth level is set for 10 foot, and this upper level is set back 30 foot. from the street.

Yeah.

I mean, that's... No, no, sorry. This is... I'm sorry, Commissioner. I just want to make... When I say this is set back 10 foot, I mean it's set back 10 foot from the face of this building. And then this thing is set back 30 foot from the face of the building. There's another 12 foot to the street.

Right, because the building line is actually set 12 feet off. There's a setback of 12 foot. That's right. Yeah, I get it. You're still going to see the 77 feet, though, when you're coming off the highway or you're on the other...

When you're on the highway.

Right, like the benefit of having the setback of the buildings is for the people walking on the street, which is still nice, but...

Walking on the street and across the street, and we will show you diagrams for that. Sure, okay.

Okay. Um, and then what is the height of the, like that building? Yeah. Where your little hand is on. Cause it's kind of hard to tell. Yeah.

This four story portion.

Okay. So it's about 40 feet.

It's four stories. It's just over 40 feet.

Okay. Yeah. That's fine. Um, Okay. All right. Those are all my questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Other commissioners?

Anybody else besides me? All right. Let's dive in. First of all, my compliments to you on the front quadrant where you have the restaurant, the sidewalk, and the public space. I do like that. It's generous, 1,500 square foot. It might actually be too big. I don't know. But anyway, that being said, I do like that portion. I like the whole facade running down Riverside Avenue. I think that's a good view. If I'm standing across from it and looking at it, I believe you've done a good job there. running down the railroad place side. The amenity space, you have them split up by the drive aisle, and I'm just wondering if you are thinking of them as two different entities, and if so, what were you thinking of?

Yeah, so, yes, we are. And I think the most important thing for us was to screen the parking garage. That's why we wanted to cover both sides. And we thought that that would be appropriate for like a dog wash station where people walk to their door with their guard. It doesn't need to be connected to the main amenity. We've done that in other projects, something like that. Okay. Bike storage could go there.

Mm-hmm. Now, going down the aisle, I see you have room in there for the trash. You don't anticipate people turning around in there, correct? That loading zone?

No. No. And so that's why we have the loading zone out here on the street. We call it time loading. This is for smaller vehicles that can back up into the space.

Okay. Now, that's your trash. So does that mean at 2 o'clock in the morning, your trash vendor comes in there and does his thing?

It's all trash pickup, and Matt can speak to this more, but trash pickup for our buildings is all private, so they can decide, the owner can decide what time pickup is.

Yeah, we'll coordinate that so it's not an inconvenience for our residents upstairs and with the neighborhood.

Okay. Appreciate that. And then it does not look like if I'm standing, if you zoom out a little bit, thank you. It does not look like if I'm standing on railroad place itself that I can actually see across the existing building. So that looks like all of that is hidden. And I just wanted to confirm that if I'm standing on railroad place, looking toward the building, I can't actually see your trash units, the loading zone, et cetera. Correct? The other building is in front of it.

That is correct, Josh.

Okay. I like Craig's question to you about the sidewalk that wraps around the existing railroad place buildings. As you gentlemen probably know, that doesn't even really qualify as a sidewalk. It's pretty tight there. But I guess you really can't do anything about that. You're not going to put anything new in there. I do like the alleyway. You kept it. I appreciate that. Just tell me, though, it's not changed, correct? It is the same exact size that it is now.

That's right. I just don't plan to change that. That's an easement that goes with our property, but it's not an easement. That's part of our property, but it's not planned to change it.

When you get to the end of that, say I'm coming from railroad place and going down that alley, what am I confronted with when I reach your building?

That's a fair question. You'd be confronted with a wall here in this area, but Matt was just asking us to make sure that there's access from this space across the back of these buildings and onto this easement. So we're going to figure out the height. If you know the back of this, there's a deck back here, right? Yes. So we're going to coordinate access where there'd be steps, but being able to access from this loading zone across here to this pathway here so that there's ease of movement for the existing retailers.

Okay. And then as you know, you just did bring it up, and so I'll just take that and run with it with you. If you're standing in your building and looking towards the back of the existing buildings, are the residents staring at the back of, let's say, Tarantino's, or are they above it?

The first level is staring or facing the back of Tarantino's. But the idea is to have a really large terrace for them, plant the edges here, so they have these private terrace areas.

So how far off the ground? I'm sorry, is that terrace, the words terrace is on ground level?

No, this is above the parking deck. So how high up in the air is this? This is at elevation 31. So if I pull the sign across, that's your terrace, you see? You're standing on this terrace, got a nice fence all planted. That's the back of Tarantino here. And then once you get above that, you're out and clear. So the first floor is obstructed. The second floor has a view. Yes, and that's why the terrace. That's why the extensive terrace.

You recognize that that's probably the most ugly view there is, right? I mean, I'm not being judgmental, but staring at the back of restaurants, grease traps, and fans is not necessarily the best of... Now, we understand that.

That's why we figure we're going to have a fence here. allowed plunging on those edges. But when you walk out, it's like, it's actually just a nice, almost like a back patio for you. A screened back patio.

All right, so you're going to deal with it with fencing and vegetation?

Yeah, and the fact that these guys get a terrace and no one else does. So hopefully that adds an amenity for those units.

All right, let's continue down. Can you take me looking in from Charles? I'm sorry, not from Charles, from, ooh, yeah, all right, yeah, just hold it right there. Okay, so if I'm looking in, is it a blank wall straight up, six floors? From Franklin. From Franklin, looking across the existing buildings. That's right, from there, looking at your building. What's that view look like?

You'll see it when we come in for the full application. We're working on it right now, but it's definitely not a blank wall. And I'll show you what I mean. So the first floor... And the first floor has got two levels of garage that will adequately screen.

Hold on to that thought for a second. When you say two levels of garage, the outward facade of the two levels of garage is not a garage, correct? It's not an open structure that you can see the cars parked in there? Does it have facing on it?

Yeah, it will have openings in it. It's a designed facade, even though it's a garage, this red line. And we see it when we come in for a full application. But it is a facade facing the garage. And then to answer your question, it's not flat six stories, because you can see now at the first residential level, it's set back again with that terrace idea. And you can see the ins and outs that we're already starting to create as we're figuring out this design. And then the point we made today is that it sets back even further at the uppermost level got three tiers at least three tiers at least so not a flat facade so two terraces and then the loft structures above that's right all right um

Just for my own edification, does your building meet the existing building on the corner, or is there a walkway between them?

There's that distance. I think it's about 15, 20 feet between them.

So you could actually walk down there? You're creating an alley?

We're still deciding that. You can technically walk between them, whether it's accessible. that we're still thinking about that. But you can see right here is where you could potentially walk between them.

Okay. I wouldn't want to see that. I mean, that does not look like a place that we want to create unless there's a real reason for it. So standing on Charles and looking at your building, I like what you've done with the terraces. The garage entrance and exit is wonderful, but it does seem like a long, and I noticed that the ARB looked at the same way, a very long stretch of unbroken repetitive spaces. And I'm hoping that you'll think of a better way of breaking that up potentially. All right. Well, interestingly enough, there were two different thoughts at ARB, I should say, about that.

Two members liked it. Two members thought it should be broken up. We point out the Kemper building is actually longer than that. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you, though.

Yep, absolutely. All right, so we've gone around the building. Thank you very much. The top floor, can you show me those new lofts? Okay, so the lofts are what stick up to the sixth floor, correct? The base of the loft is at the, I'm sorry, the floor of the loft is on the top of the fifth floor, or is it even higher than that? That's correct. And that's strictly internal, correct? The loft is the second floor of the building of the room, I'm sorry, of the units on the fifth floor.

Yes, so you have the internal stair.

Okay, and so you don't enter on the sixth floor, you enter on the fifth floor and you go up inside. Why does it have to be a full floor high making this building 77?

When you say a full floor high, you mean width-wise?

Yeah, I mean, in order to... You went up a full story. The last time you were here, we all remarked about how it looked pretty high. And then now, when you've shown the illustration of it running from... 95 across to your building and the existing Charles Street building running across to your building, you're actually higher than what's there now. And I will tell you that the actual height of your neighbor, what somebody called the slope building, is kind of a sore spot. Nobody likes it. It's too high. And yet you're actually thinking about exceeding it. And so I question the wisdom there and wonder if there's an alternative.

Well, yes, here's my point on lofts. So we specifically reduced the size of this upper floor. Firstly, to answer your question, you have to get up. If you have a loft, it has to be eight foot or nine foot ceiling height, right? Just because you have to stand in the space. But there's two ways commonly of thinking about lofts. One is if it's a sloped roof and you build it into, like we did at the lower floors on Railroad Place, where you build it into a roof, right? And therefore it feels like it's not a full story. And the other way is what we did was we kept it as a flat roof because we think that it goes away more and reduces footage of the loft space, where the percentage of the loft space compared to the floor below is much lower than it was before.

But I think, Paul, another- You minimize the footprint. And I think a different way of saying what Celan's saying is if your primary concern is the sort of absolute height and you want the absolute height at the highest point lowered, the only real way to do that is to eliminate the sixth floor. You can't just lower that height by, quote, a half story because it just won't be tall enough.

The fifth floor has 10-foot ceilings, 9-foot ceilings, 8-foot ceilings.

What are those? All 9-foot ceilings and the loft, we could go down to 8-foot. We haven't gone to construction drawing level where we figure out the structure, but we can go down 8-foot ceilings and loft.

It could be a tad bit lower. Could be a tad bit lower.

I mean, we... We could play games and then, you know, do a slope roof and then say the midpoint is actually lower, but the actual real height of the peak is higher. So we felt that just do a flat roof and keep it as low as possible and keep the footprint in. A flat roof on the loft. as a way to truly reduce the impact of the upper floor.

You know, I think it might actually work. And the more I look at it, the more it looks like it may actually not necessarily be visible to basically the only people who could see this are those passing by on 95. And if that's the case, then yeah, maybe you did actually hit the mark. But again, the overall height... It's interesting to see you come in with something even higher than the two buildings next door. I like that you took the corridors out and you put the lofts in. That's excellent. I like that you doubled the setbacks. Excellent. Is there a reason why we haven't finished the design yet? Your answer to At least two commissioners was. We'll bring that back later. Just tell me you're thinking there.

Literally just time because we're working through it all now.

Okay. All right. So I think you're on the right track. I definitely want to hear about the text change and the affordable. So I'll let you go. I've gone around the building once. That's enough. Thank you. All right.

Thanks, everybody. I'll stop sharing. Thank you.

Sure, thanks. So as to affordability, you know, initially we were proposing 175 units, 10% of those units affordable at 80% of SMI. We're down to 165 total units. We've got two, let me try to share my screen. Is this going to work?

Yeah, there we go.

that come up for you? Do you see the two options up on the screen? Yes. Okay, great. So we've got two options for you tonight that we've determined are feasible with this revised density. Looking for your thoughts on the options. I'll tell you that There's a little explanation for what you're looking at. Option one, you know, the site's got some contamination and there's a possibility of obtaining a brownfield grant. If we're able to obtain the grant, then we're comfortable doing 10% of the units at 60% SMI. And we've kind of laid that out. There'd be no 80% units and no workforce, just 10% at 60% SMI. And that would give you 30 points. The other option would be if we weren't able to obtain the Brownfield grant, was 10% at 80% of SMI with 5% at 110% of area median income. And again, we've got the point total shown for you there. I think if you need more deeper into the numbers and how we got there, Matt, who's on, can kind of talk you through some of that.

Okay, commissioners, people want to chime in on this?

Sure, I can start. AMI, we don't get any points for that, right? Correct. Okay. And it's thoughtful, but like, look, big picture here, right? We have... precedent in town where we asked for 20%. This isn't that. And I personally don't want to go to 10% because it sets a precedent. And working within what we've done historically has been 20%. Now, I understand why you'd want to be 10%. I get it. And I appreciate the extra little, you know, the 5% at the AMI. But our state, win, lose, or draw, as you guys have constraints on towns, and they've got their mandates. And so we're just trying to abide by what the state mandates want, and we're trying to work within those guidelines. And that's why I think we came to 20% on projects like these. So all I'm going to say here is that I appreciate it, but I can't go with 10% because work with what we've worked on in the past with the town.

Right. So I would say, and you made a point, you know, previously, you know, we know your regulations, why you're proposing anything less. And I would say that, you know, 20% does work at a certain density. But that density, I'm not sure is kind of in line with kind of the design and architectural feedback that we're hearing from you guys and other stakeholders. So we're kind of trying to balance that. It could be even more affordable based on kind of potential density because you need the market rate units across those affordable units and there's some fixed costs that can get spread out of more units. So the kind of the larger you go, the more affordable you can afford.

I understand where you guys are coming from. Not that I don't understand it.

Next. Other commissioners.

Sure. So I don't see these necessarily as options because the brownfield grant isn't really something we would be able to choose. So you're really presenting us with something as possibilities, but we may be stuck with option number two if there is no brownfield grant, correct?

Correct.

I'm open to the idea of having more deeply affordable units as a offset for fewer units, but there's no guarantee that there would be more deeply affordable units in this scenario. But that is something that I think could be valuable if you're looking to make them deeply affordable. But it would need to actually be an option for us. Under this scenario, we might not get it. It might not be an option. It might not even be on the table. So like Michael, our rules are 20%. That's the standard. And if you want something different, I think it needs to be meaningful in terms of what the affordability is going to to bring. And right now, I don't I don't necessarily see that with this proposal.

Right. So the intent was that these two options would be kind of at the election of of the applicant subject to the availability of the brownfield grants. But if if it wasn't at our election, you know, is option one palatable? Or what would you know, as is? What would you recommend if they need to change at all?

I think I would need to I think about this a little bit more. This is the first time I'm seeing these these numbers. So I don't know if option one would necessarily get me there with the 60% 15 units, but But it's something that I personally would be, I think, open to, the more deeply affordable at the expense of, you know, the sheer percentage numbers. So that's something that I would be okay with. I don't know about the specific proposal, but just generally I'm open to that. I guess would be my feedback. Thank you. That's all I have to say on this. Someone else has comments.

Other commissioners?

I do. I have a comment. I agree with Bree and Michael. 20% is where the mind to me is. However you mix it, It would be nice if you could get 60% of SMI for some of the units, but we have to keep that precedent of 20%. We're being asked down there to trade off significant density, increased traffic, increased building mass, and a major change to Saugatuck and its identity. Going below 20% is kind of where I step off this.

Matt, is it worth you showing an analysis or do you not?

Sure, I'm happy to pull up a little bit of a kind of a yield analysis to show kind of a number of kind of options at different densities at different affordable kind of programs. If you guys care to share that.

Matt, you know, I understand those yield analyses and I understand as you pencil out your numbers and they get clear as time goes on. You know, we just still have to go to 20%. In my view, we have to do it. This is a very large project. It's the largest one that I understand units per acre that you guys have, that any of the towns surrounding us have. I understand there's difficulties and constraints in developing this, and the numbers are tough. But somehow with the affordable housing, we just need to have everyone sharpen their pencil.

And just the 20%, are we open to discussing kind of different tiers that comprise that 20%? Different tiers of income and affordability levels?

If we can get to 20%, yes.

Other commissioners. This is an important topic. Anybody want to weigh in? Oh yeah. There you go. Please.

I want to back up with Craig just said. I don't see how. We could do anything less than 20%. Especially since. It's currently in our regulations. And we've held. on numerous developers feed to the fire to get the 20%. The only way that we could take less is we would actually have to change our rigs townwide, which is like shooting yourself in the foot. I mean, the whole essence of these projects is to create affordable housing. It's not to create housing, which is unattainable for most people. So again, I support Craig's position.

Patrice?

I don't have anything new to add. I agree with everyone else.

Thank you. Okay, gentlemen, I think you're hearing a fairly verbal consensus across the board.

Yeah, and obviously Matt will take a look at the numbers. We did try to, I mean, we started with what we thought could be about 240 units And in discussions before you ever saw it with the neighborhood, scaled it back and have scaled it back further to try to come up with something that we thought would have a fair amount of support that, you know, the 20% affordable is achievable. I'm just not sure it's achievable at 165 units.

Well, and you bring up a good point. You know, we're looking for that midpoint. There has to be something that works for both. But as of yet, we have not approved anything in town with a 20% on-site affordable. Is that correct, Michelle?

Yes. I mean, the most recent applications have all been 20% affordable.

So again, 165 units with 10% is weak, and you're asking us to accept a very large residential project, which reduces commercial intensity, and so that's good. But 17 affordable units out of all of that does not seem all that generous if you ask me.

One point that was made to us as we kind of talked to folks and not necessarily part of our pitch, but it kind of resonated a little bit is that, you know, at these kind of whole unit numbers, it's still more than kind of prior application for the for more land area and all onsite for whatever that's worth.

Yeah, I'm not sure that is worth. But look, 20 to 22 affordable units was what we were hoping that you guys would come back in with. I'm surprised that you stuck at 10, so I'm trying to think of what's fair and defensible to bring it in somewhere more in line with what we were expecting.

The equivalency in terms of points, if that matters to anyone, the discounted from going from 80% of state median income to 60% of state median income, that equivalently is effectively 15 units at 80% of state median income or 15%, sorry. You have the same number of points if you went from, you know, 10% at 60 versus 15% at 80 approximately.

Could you bring that slide up again that had the points on it?

How many points would it be at 20% at 80?

I'll pull up the slide. 20% at 80 at this unit count would be.

I think it would be like 49.5. 45. Sorry.

1.5 each times 33. Right. Something like that. 1.5 times 33.

33 would be 20% of 165 times 1.5 if it was 80%.

rental would be 49.5 michelle does it matter if like there are studios ones or twos with regards to no it's rental it's just rental or ownership so it's rental it's 1.5 points yes

Rental at 80%. Rental at 80%. If it was rental at 6%.

If it was a rental one-bedroom versus a rental studio versus a rental two-bedroom, it doesn't matter. It's all 1.5%.

Yes. So 49.5% is my calculation for points at 20% if you had 165 units. It seems like that.

Okay. Okay. Is that one point in bedroom count a non-factor across the board for any type of affordable housing?

For points. For points and for units. When we're looking at the 20%, it's units. It doesn't matter how many bedrooms. We do have the floor area calculation, too. 20%. Yeah, doesn't matter.

I agree with that. There are some municipalities that try to encourage, you know, large units or small units dependent on the municipality kind of allow you to count some of those units for more than one unit. But obviously, you guys know that's not the case here.

No, that's not. I get it. That wouldn't help you. I get it.

All right, well, let's talk, let's come back to this. Let's talk about your text amendment and see what it is that you're thinking of there. Sure.

so um right so obviously the our priority for these pre-apps uh has been to try to get the architecture right um and try to get some consensus on that development plan with some support because really if you don't like our plan it doesn't matter what the reg says and if you like the plan i'm confident we can get the reg to work So we haven't gotten into the weeds on it. And to be fair, we don't intend to get too deep into the weeds on the text change tonight, but we do want to give you a sense of what we're thinking. And obviously, we'll try to finalize something based on your feedback tonight before we file. And I know there was some discussion at the last meeting about your maybe your overarching plans for the GBDSM zone. So that's our current zoning and for the neighborhood and for the long term success of Saugatuck, we do care about the underlying zoning for the entire neighborhood. But as we've said previously and reiterating for you now, For our application, we're going to be able to make it work, obviously with your support, but we're going to be able to make it work no matter what the underlying zoning is. And we're not really going to be reliant on that for our application. I think if you're, but if you are considering taking this, what's currently the GBDSM zone or the Rhone zone and moving it to the GBD or the GBDS, the GALT zoning, we do think that the GBDS is a much better fit. It's not going to work. for this development. And to be honest, we don't think it's going to create significant development projects under that reg as currently written that will require tinkering, I think, by anybody that comes in with the project. But I think it does provide a bit better of a framework. If I share my screen again. So, boy, just, there's a whole lot of differences between GBD and GBDS, but I do want to- We did a comparison, by the way, of all three zones. Okay. So, I'm going to compare just a few things, and then I'll leave it, and you guys can, I reckon, sort of meddle in your overarching decisions, but I will just point out that In the Saugatuck neighborhood, I don't think that it would be advisable to have a 30-foot front setback where all of the buildings were set that far from the street. A zero to 30-foot setback is a much better fit for that type of neighborhood. The height is a little bit bigger for Saugatuck, but it also takes into consideration the floodplain, which we think is important, which the GBD doesn't. The GBDS allows for consideration of public waterfront access and the creation of it. The GBD doesn't. Utilities in the GBDS are required to be put underground, not in the GBD. And finally, for the architectural, the Saugatuck project, ties it to Saugatuck, but also ties it to providing waterfront pedestrian access, which is not required in the GBD. So we think there's lots that we could talk about of all of the regs, but we think just in general as a framework, as a starting point, the GBDS is a bit better of a fit. And that's all I really want to talk about for your overarching look at the zoning for the neighborhood. But for our particular zoning plans for this site and what we would be looking to file, we have started working on a draft regulation that would allow for the development that we presented tonight. Exactly, we think there's two viable paths for that regulation. The sort of guts of the regulation, like the substantive part of it, doesn't really make a difference how we implement it. But we see it as you having the ability to implement it in sort of two ways. One is we can do a TOD or transit-oriented development sub-area. within whatever underlying zone we're in whether it's the gbdsm the gbds the gbd or any other one we would say within that area we are going to create a sub area that would be quite limited and i think you should hopefully see on your screen um what we've tentatively laid out as that a sub area it doesn't cover the waterfront or any waterfront parcels It's really just a couple of properties between Charles, Riverside and Railroad. It's got our piece on Franklin and then town and state owned property. So a very limited area. But within that area, which we would call the TOD subzone, you would be our regulation would apply and we would set in it very significant setbacks like what you've seen for our project, which would result in having limited height along a railroad place and having to be buried deep like we are to get the big height. Again, we want to come up with the development that you guys support, and then we'll work the exact text. But one angle is by having this TOD subzone or subarea within whatever zone we're in. And again, we would only have that apply to one acre lots or larger, which again makes it very, very limited for applicability. Obviously, if you liked it and our project worked out wonderful and you wanted to change things down the road, you could, but we wouldn't be proposing that you make it apply to lots of small lots. It would have to be at one acre or larger, nothing on the waterfront. And that gives you sort of a traditional zoning approach to dealing with this project. The second sort of option B makes no difference what our underlying zoning is. We would create, I'll call it a floating zone or a supplemental use, and it would go in that section 32, your supplemental use regulations. And so no matter what zone the property is located, we would be saying, if you're we'd come back to this area. If you're within this area, then you're allowed to do certain things, which would allow for our development. Again, it would be one acre in size or larger. It would be limited to this area, but it would be under your Section 32. And that, those, as you, I'm sure now when I, under, in your Section 32, you've Historically, I've tried to identify what I could, and I think it's right, but if I made a mistake, I apologize. You know, for 321, your supportive housing, you did that for Rotary Centennial House, which was in Saugatuck. That's the only one that fell under that. The group home for seniors, we think that's only been used once. We haven't been able to track it down. Group home for youth, Mohan House, which is closed, maybe Project Return. A Better Chance was 3213A. You had one project off the merit for the small home developments. Medical Marijuana was just Bluepoint. Adaptive Reuse was Richmondville. Special Needs Housing was 136 Riverside. It was then expanded for a project that didn't happen. So you sort of have a track record of using Section 32 to create supplemental uses that sort of float but apply to a very limited number of projects, and so we can take our project and make it work within Section 32. We don't have a strong preference on which path we take, but sort of those are the paths that we're looking at. I'm not going to go into the nitty-gritty, which we can answer questions to the extent we can, of what the actual text language will look like because it's going to look like what our project looks like. In other words, if we are changing the heights, if we're changing setbacks, it's going to require those, but we don't have that dialed in. I can't go through every line of the text now. Obviously, when we file, we'll have plenty of time for you to dissect it and us to work with you to refine it prior to any public hearing that might occur. That's my overview on the text.

Very good. Thank you. Do appreciate it. Commissioners, you want to weigh in? Opinions? They're here to hear what we think. I'll start please.

So so obviously I this commissioner understands that the text sort of is irrelevant because you're just going to make it support whatever the project is. I get that. That being said. Some metrics to think about. What density we were looking for before? To what density now as in? but is it units per acre or whatever that metric is, right? I think it should be called out when you do the text change, like, hey, you know, you had previously approved this metric, and now we're looking to go to this metric to make it very clear to the to the neighbors, call it the community, that, hey, this is not what you effectively wanted to turn down, what you did turn down, right? On parking, you said that you'll meet the text parking needs. Well, obviously you'll write what you need in. That's, and I said this before, parking's gotta not meet, Parking needs to meet where we are as a town, not where you need... I would prefer it meet where we are as a town, not what you need to maximize your density and make as many units as possible for the best efficiently engineered project. Parking is an issue in this town. And when you're bringing more people to that area where there's restaurants and whatnot, We have to be mindful of the whole town. As it is, there's a parking problem sometimes, sometimes there. And then as it gets later in the night, we know where people park. But that's not part of this, right?

Yeah, and we will, I mean, just for general numbers, so you know, the parking provided is about 285 spaces. If we... We're a solely residential project under the state statute, which will be your reg shortly. That supports 200 and about 45 units of housing. So we're about 85 units shy of what you would be allowed to with the parking that we currently provide. Now, you could always say we'd love to have more. And I get that. And I sort of appreciate that. But I do want to reflect that. we're not greedily providing as little parking as possible and as many units as possible. We think we have a sufficient amount of parking.

What's the ratio at Hiawatha? Can I ask that question? Matt may know.

The parking ratio?

Yeah. I could find that out. Off the top of my head, I don't know.

I'm not sure, Michelle, you might know, but I'll try to pull it up. Slightly different unit mix, slightly larger units more on average. Similar to your comment last time we got together when you brought up 85, I think Post Road West and we did look into that on kind of on a per bedroom basis. Our proposal is comparable to that even because they're larger units on average.

On a per bedroom basis, it's similar. It's fine to look at it per bedroom because a two-bedroom unit, three-bedroom unit is different than a one-bedroom unit, clearly. I'm willing to look through that as you're thinking about parking comps. But yeah, okay. And so I guess my point here is that to all of our commissioners in a text change, we need to think about, and we can talk about this later as well, the text amendment really is irrelevant right now in a pre-app. That's my point here. You need to shape this how you want this, commissioners, because the text will just be written to make this work. I would be mindful as a piece of feedback, though, to create this TOD district that goes over lot one of the train station and it's like, I don't want to zone state land. I wouldn't want to do that. And I'd like to hear what the other commissioners have to say about that. I'd be careful about that.

Michelle, who owns that property? Is it half-half?

I think so, right? I think it's half-half.

I'm sorry, what property?

The Borrella parking lots.

Oh, yeah, it's... Yes, it's half and half. I believe that's what we found out during the last the last application.

Does the G and the GBD SM goes across the whole thing?

I believe so. Let me pull it up.

And just you may be aware of this, but you know that the state is exempt from zoning no matter what. I know.

I know, but I don't want to give it. There's no reason to. Okay.

Anything else, Michael?

You can take on where I left off.

Let's go to the other commissioners. Craig, Brie, Patrice, Mr. Calise. The zoning.

I have a question. Echoing Michael, it just seems moot to talk about whatever text amendment that they're going to be writing for their project. It's not, it's a unique project. It's we will be right rewriting the text amendment for that area. And but I don't think it's necessary to talk about it in relationship to this project.

Okay. Anybody else? Michelle?

I just wanted to show quickly the where the GPS is. It includes the lots. So it includes this lot, which is 96 Franklin, but not the park, that Luciano Park and, and it covers the private lot. Yes. This is the outline, the light purple.

Thank you. My only feedback, guys, on that would be that's private property. If we're going to go in that direction, okay, we can talk about that. I wouldn't want to do anything else.

Okay. Other commissioners? Patrice, any comments for them on the zoning?

Not really. I'm not a huge fan of text amendments in the first place. I probably would like it to be zoned that district versus an overlay of some sort. But I think at the end of the day, it's six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. I don't think it really matters. So thank you.

Okay. Mr. Calise, anything to add? I am.

I'm here.

Go ahead. Anything to add on the zoning?

With reference to what? The discussion we just had or proposals?

Do you have any thoughts on what they're potentially proposing?

With regards to a text amendment? Yes. Right, regards to the text amendment. Michael Calise, do you have any thoughts with regards to their crafting of a text amendment as it pertains to their property?

Well, certainly it depends upon what it is they'd be proposing. I mean, as a commission, we're kind of placed in a position that we must look at anything that's presented to us with open minds. But I don't know where we're going with this. What are we looking for? Are we past the presentation that they just made and into a new venue talking about zoning? Or are we still dealing with the presentation just made?

This is still the presentation. They had three elements to the presentation. One was the architectural, which we covered. One was the affordable units, which we took a couple swipes at. And the last one is the tax amendment. So that's where we're at now is that third piece, tax amendment.

Well, certainly any text amendment has to be heard by Commission. And the Commission has to act accordingly. But any text amendment is going to be a proposed change to existing zoning. As I'm sure you're aware.

Okay, that will do as feedback then. I'm going to give you my best shot at this. So first of all, I think the TOD floating zone is a smart idea. And that allows us the leeway of making sure that the entire parcel from the waterfront all the way to the end of Charles, well, actually just a little bit beyond, is all one integrated zone and there's no little pieces chipped out, et cetera. And then you can come in with what it is that you want an exception to. But, you know, you have to recognize that that there's really the upland side and the water side, two different parcels for sure. And you said it yourself, you're not really talking about the water side. We're very interested in making sure that the water side gets zoned properly. In order to do that, it's going to require doing the entire zone all the way, the whole thing. And that is our next discussion. We're going to be looking at this... not just your acre and a half. On the other hand, you know, doing a TOD carve-out or overlay makes sense because, as you said, we may end up wanting to do that in other parts of town. It may make sense. So I think, you know, you may be on to something. The overall project... Doesn't look like it needs that much in the way of relief from an underlying zone, let's say for GBD-S. Obviously, GBD, it's going to need a lot of changes. But I think you're on to something there. So let's continue this conversation. And, of course, you'll pay attention to whatever we are working on, whether it carries out during this next meeting or goes in a subcommittee. There'll be a lot of work going on. There's a few things I want to leave you with as we wrap this up. One is height. And view space and public access are not things we discussed a lot of tonight. View corridors. And yet they are very important in this area. It is, I hate to use the word charm, but it's part of the charm of this area or the potential charm or the can be built into it. You know, the Rhone parcel is—and I'm not going to—let's not call it that anymore. Let's call it something else. The waterfront parcel, that may end up being the right place for more public— access, view space, and activation. And so I'm not as worried about the upland side, on your side, in terms of what you have out in the front, where you have the new space in front of the restaurant, et cetera. Because I believe that across the street is where we're going to pick up all the amenities that we want for our town folk. But don't take that as a license to ignore the basic tenants of that area. It is still potentially a TOD zone. So I want you to continue to think about the waterfront and continue to think about your portion of the view corridors. and your portion of public access as you bring this forward to us. I hope tonight you got some understanding of where we are. I think the only area that we disagree vehemently on is the affordable. I will say that the idea of doing 15% in a specific parcel If it has the proper offsets that are amenable to the town, then it's something that this commissioner would consider. That makes me a little bit different than the five that you heard before me, but that's only because I don't want to make the same mistakes that we made when we crafted the Roan amendment or the Sagtuk Marina, and that was come up with something that in the end was not workable, and in the end made it not feasible, and in the end made it not practical from a developer's point of view. I don't want to invite somebody to throw up their hands and say, well, I'll just do an 830G because that allows me much more leeway. It gives me the relief I want. And that's that. So there has to be a workable baseline. You know that, and we know that. And I think that we need to give that workable baseline a little bit more a little bit more thought, be a little bit more realistic to produce something that works. I'm not saying overdevelop. I'm not saying do it in a way that creates a giant building there. But for instance, we all know that offsite affordable housing should not be down there. The walkability needs to be... We need to have that as part of it. And an appropriate scale for the land. Appropriate scale. I know you have spent good money to buy a good piece of property, but still going up 77 feet... just kind of hits a nerve with me, and I'm hoping that we can find something that works a little bit closer to our original goal for Zagatuk. Gentlemen, thank you.

Thank you.

If you have anything you'd like to leave us with, this would give you a chance to redirect, if you will.

I think we... I mean, Matt has anything else to add, but we understand your feedback, understand the concern on affordability. And truthfully, we'll have to look at, see if we can find if there's a happy place that works or if there's not. And I don't know the answer to that.

Very good. Appreciate you coming in today. Thank you very much. And I appreciate it. So Brie, we have something next on the agenda. Shall we take a five minute break?

I would say yes.

All right. Well, let's make that so. Mike Felice, five minutes from 748.

That's good.

Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioners tonight. Oh, I'm sorry. So, Bree, could you read in the second item on the agenda?

Sure. Item number two on our agenda is a discussion of potential text change to Section 24C, General Business District, Sagatuck Marina, GBDSM.

Great. Super. So this comes by way of... The conversation we just had, which is what do we... Go ahead, Mike. I see your fingers are up. I'm sorry.

Do you want to finish and then I'll speak? No, I'm done. Go ahead. so based on what we just talked about and actually that last slide that was shown us i really think this should go to subcommittee and we can talk it through not just blanketly do something because it's very true that there's some aspects of the gbdsm that are pretty cool and there's others that we don't like as illustrated by that so we throw this this should go into subcommittee and we talk about it point by point and we should almost like fix the bad, take the good. But what is that? We should discuss in subcommittee so we really can just get through it. I don't think it's something that should be done right now. And we should just figure out when we're going to subcommittee to do it though. Okay, other commissioners?

Okay. I understand Michael Khaleesi's position impatience to get here and for very valid reasons. But I agree with Michael also that before we make significant changes to these zoning regulations, we should understand how they fit into the broader planning framework that's evolving. This is a really important piece of our town, and I think it's going to be one of the major legacies of this board. But we're evaluating participation in the CMDA, which is designed to help municipalities implement transit-oriented development districts We also never really looked at the TOD plan, which very much relates to what we might want to do down here. So I think it's prudent to evaluate these initiatives together with the original TOD plan before adopting piecemeal amendments. I'd like to do that soon. I have been working personally on an amendment that incorporates a lot of these, you know, the TOD Master Plan 8002. But honestly, writing a text amendment is above my pay grade. So need a lot of help. But I think it should be done immediately, soon, in a serious working committee, so that we get it right across the board.

That's it. Absolutely. I think that's exactly what Michael was saying. Other commissioners? Michael Kalise? Mr. Kalise, go ahead.

First, I want to point out to Craig that we talked about this probably six or eight weeks ago. And the assurance was that it was gonna go before committee and it never did. And my constant pushing of discussing this is finally gotten us to this point. Only to be told that we should be kicked back again to this committee, which never meets. So that said, I wanna point out to this commission a couple of things. First and foremost, we are not talking about, and I know you know this, but I wanna point it out again. We are not talking about just this space, that the current Spinnaker applicant is discussing. We are talking about an entire block of property, which comprises what most people know as the boat yard, which is above the park. We are talking about this center block, most of which Spinnaker has purchased And we're also talking about the other side of the street, the Bo Confuso property, which is now, by the way, in an estate. We're talking about the boat yard. We're talking about the Black Duck. We're talking about the building in front, which is the Italian restaurant. We're talking about a much bigger piece of land that the current applicant is working on. In addition to that, with the current zoning, at any point, somebody could walk in, could buy the Boca Pisa property and walk in with the same bunch of building ideas as Spinnaker has. We could be inundated with of multiple applications. The current zoning, which was an adept failure, I know that some members of this commission shepherded in and might still support it, but this current zoning is what's caused all of our problems. For one thing, the We make a false real estate market with the current zoning. Spinnaker paid $9 million for something that would have not gone for $9 million if we had gone back to our original zoning. So then it puts people in a position of feeling justified to make up for their money spent. and it puts pressure on the commission, which shouldn't exist. All I'm simply asking for is a clean slate. Now, at one point, one of the commissioners said, what about the unanticipated whatever? There's nothing to anticipate. We are talking about putting all of these prospects into back to GBD. It's where they were for centuries. Well, not centuries, for decades. And nothing happened. Nothing bad happened. The trouble started when the current zoning wasn't put in place. That's what's created the problem that we have here in Saugatuck now. And we can't change that, but we can certainly establish a base plate that is not new, not untried. It's an existing general business zone, which is up and down the post road on part of Riverside Avenue. It's not something new. It's something which has existed for, as I said, decades. Going back to that is a very simple solution. We file it on the website. We have a public hearing, we vote, and we decide once and for all whether we can achieve that. I'm feeling very unsettled about all of this because it's really a reluctance on the part, as I see it, it's a reluctance on the part of the commission to face up to the problem and impending problems we have that are going to be on our doorstep if we don't do something. And I beg my fellow commissioners to think seriously, to put on the agenda, no committee baloney, put on the agenda, the zone, changing the zone for all of these parcels back to general business district, so that we can work from a tried and true base. And so that we don't get hit with more land sales, which are greater than the real value. And so that we don't get hit from new ideas. I mean, what would happen if somebody suddenly bought the other side of the river and came in with a project to what Simica has? we'd really be in trouble. And it can happen. It's very likely to happen. It might be in process right now. We desperately need a commission that has the guts to make this change back to the original zoning. It's nothing off the wall. I mean, going to the hamlet was a leap and a jump well beyond what anybody would have expected. And now we're stuck with all of this. And it's very easy to take a very simple step and go back to general business district. And then we can talk to anybody. We can talk to anybody we want to. And their ideas have to be worthwhile. It's not something that they build on some existing donut, which was an in-depth failure. I mean, you saw the volume of people that came out when we were working on the Hamlet. We're going to get the same thing with Spinnaker. It's going to be here. It's going to be right on a doorstep. And it's going to be right on a doorstep from the other side of the of Riverside Avenue to the river and for the boat yard. I plead with every one of my commissioners to agree to simply put this zone change, this readaptation of an existing zone on the agenda as soon as possible, let the public speak to it, vote on it, and put it to bed. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Patrice, anything to weigh in on?

Sure, I personally don't see what the hesitation is. All we're saying here, in my opinion, is change this zoning district immediately so that no new applications can come in looking like the Hamlet and then go to subcommittee and work on it. It's already been two months since we had the subcommittee and nothing has been done. So I cannot imagine immediate means anything more than at least six months So just change the zoning district, and that allows the time that you need to research, look it over, figure out what you want, what you don't want. Let's talk about it. Let's get it done. And this way, no one can come in there with an application that actually meets the zoning regulation and looks very similar to the Hamlet. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. I'll weigh in on this. I agree that we need to rezone 100%. The concept to me of going all the way back to GBD, though, does not work. GBD rewards large swaths of parking in front of commercial buildings with a large setback, 30-foot setback. It does not have residential in it. It's not meant for today's building complexes. Nobody builds today with a huge parking lot out in front of it. That's just not how it's done. It's not smart. And it would especially not be smart down in Saugatuck. GBD has no provision, really, for residential. It's a commercial zone. And so I personally don't think we should go all the way back there because to me, it's the whole reason why this area looks the way it looks. It could never be developed and fit into the GBD zone because the GBD zone is just not viable. the parking, the FAR, the height, all of that, basically say to your average developer, you know, don't bother trying to build here. It's just not going to work. Now, we should change it. I think the GBDS is a good place to settle on and allow us to um, get the time that, uh, both, uh, commissioners are talking about in terms of, um, uh, you know, not having another big, um, entity come in. I personally am not worried about that because, um, it, it, it takes big money to do what they're doing and there's just not that much call for it right now. I, it is not a stampede of, of large, um, units coming our way. So I think the GBDS as a baseline, and I would eliminate off-site housing from it. I'd require that the 606 applicant seek targeted text and map amendments from us and allows us to go from there. Also, to To one of the commissioner's points about the slow process, this slow process is because when we call for and ask for people who can come and sit in a subcommittee, unfortunately, we don't get enough people to come. We ask and people say, no, I'm not available. So, I mean, really, if you want to do this right, you not only stick your hand up, but you got to show up.

Yeah, but, Paul, don't you think that's the constraints we're working in, right? Like, you've got to acknowledge that that's a limitation that we have because this is a volunteer board.

I don't care if it's volunteer or not. You stick your hand up during a general election and promise your constituents that you will do the hard work. The hard work is unpaid. I'm sorry. You don't get any money. But still, you've got to do the work. And in this particular case, in this particular case, I will defend GBDSM and say that the premise was right, the execution was wrong. But the premise was right. That area of Saugatuck needs a change. And... What it needs is it needs not 1975 thinking. It needs 2026 thinking. How does a builder build? How does the town interact with our buildings? We don't need a large swath of parking out in front, you know, with cars on a 30-foot setback. That area, you can't handle it. As far as the prices go, well, look. The price is going to be what the price is going to be. What they spend for it, I'm not involved with that. But it's not going down. And these guys aren't going to suddenly sell for less. And so to think that... you know, that we can close our eyes and believe. You know, you can shake your head all you want, Patricia, but the fact of the matter is that nothing went on for 60 years in this one parcel for a very good reason. They wanted a lot of money, and nobody wanted to pay it because they couldn't build there. And so it wasn't until the previous commission, where they came to us and said, we'd like to build here, and we'd like to do something about it. And Mike Calise is right. Some of these commissioners here were on that, and we made a valiant attempt. Putting your head in the sand and trying to go back to just what it was forever and saying, oh, it was good enough for us for 50 years, that's not good planning. But who's saying that? I don't think anybody's saying that. I'm sorry. When you put your hand up, okay, to volunteer, because it is a volunteer gig, and you run on the premise that you will show up and you will make decisions, then actually do it so that the rest of us can gain the wisdom from you about how this particular parcel should look. And that's why I think we should go back to GBDS. We can do it in one meeting of the two meetings of the subcommittee. We can have it done before August is over. And it doesn't have to take six months. It only takes six months if every time Michelle sends out an email that says, are you available on July 5th? Nobody answers.

And then I think the point is, is that Michael asked that we take our time to go through and Michael asked for us to put it in a subcommittee to not. But to take our time and to evaluate it and get it right. That's what I heard him say. He said he wants to get it right. And I don't think that that's wrong. I agree with him. Let's get it right. All I'm saying is, is that we should put something in place temporarily while we work to get it right. I don't, and half of what you were saying, I don't really understand, but whatever.

I think that we can get it right guys in the first subcommittee. And you might need one more to say, does this, like after we say what we want, then it gets crafted and then we see it and then we bring it. And if we can do that, it's July 13th. We can have the first subcommittee meeting in a couple, you know, within the next week or so. Let's do that. Let's go through it. And everybody, you know, comes prepared to the subcommittee meeting because I think that's really what how we can get it done is saying, OK, here's the here's the general text. I like this. I don't like this. I want this. I want that. And give the framework. And then I think we have In this day and age, I think we can get it done relatively quickly. We sure as heck know what we don't like, right? Look, the Hamlet, if we're going to reference it, the Hamlet did not pass. there was what 80 things that weren't right. And some commissioners said you're failing because you're missing these 80 things. And other commissioners says, fix these 80 things and you pass. That's the same thing. So let's take a stab at it next week and let's go from there and, and get it. Like, I don't, if we read through it, you could probably, All of us on here could read the text. If Michelle can send us the text on an email, we could read it and say, I don't like this. I don't like this. I don't like this. I like this. I like this. And then we'll have that, you know, good debate because you're definitely going to hear from this commissioner that the waterfront must be activated. Period. End of story. I'd like to hear from everybody else about loading docks and parking. Go ahead, Craig.

First of all, I want to say that, you know, Michael Khaleesi, I hear your appeal and your emotion behind this. As Patricia and as Paul said earlier, As passionate as I am about doing this right, and Michael, I do not think this is such an easy process. I spent a year and a half co-chairing a transportation-oriented district commission for... for the Saugatuck area, it's much more complex and especially . But needless to say, you guys moved my needle. I agree with Paul. Let's get something in place now just as a placeholder. But I think we really seriously need to go back and look at this district. And it's not that easy. It's not a play and plug. situation I really do believe it's going to be the legacy of this commission on what we do and just having been involved it's much more complicated if we want to take it seriously so going back to I agree with Michael Calisi I agree with Paul and Patricia let's get something in place really fast to protect ourselves, but I would want it conditioned on that we take a really serious look and pass at doing a amendment that will serve us for, you know, whatever years to come. At least pass when I'm going to be on this commission.

Can I make a motion, Paul? Go ahead. Can I make a motion to move this to subcommittee on July 27th?

I would like to say something before we move it into subcommittee. Sure. Okay. First of all, Craig, by your recent statement, you admit that creating a zoning district which fits Saugatuck is a long, complicated effort and will take a serious amount of time, which is why I point out that simply going back to the basic GBD, it gives us that time.

Can we go back to the GBDS as, go ahead, go ahead. But I, I support.

I'm going to speak to that. The GBDS sounds like a great idea because we look at the goal project and how beautifully it came out and the, and the contribution it's made to Saugatuck. But A month ago, Michelle posted the GBDS regulations and she marked up everything that she felt would not fit on the other side of the turnpike. And in itself, she made the statement that even GBDS would need a lot of work. It's not something you can just slam dunk into the next area. And Paul, you amazed me the way you beat away at GBD. First of all, you know full well that parking is not allowed in the front of a building in GBD. Further, we do have affordable housing in GBD through 32-12. So GBD is a proven zone. The real problem here is that You Paul do not want to show the leadership that's necessary to get this problem solved. You're backing away from a position of strength and a position of accomplishment. And it's very distressing as a commissioner myself to see this happen. This has been dragging on for months.

It should have been listed almost a year ago. That's not been a year, but I'm sorry to stress to you. Look, the parking for GBD is not right for Saugatuck. Okay. Period. End of story.

But what's that got to do with it?

Because the GBDS allows the right kind of parking for down there.

And that's why it works.

Shared parking concepts are permitted. Okay. The parking requirements are reduced. It was created for that area. And so why not let it tell the rest of the world? You're sandbagging everything. Something's going on. What do you mean sandbagging? We have it on the books. It's next door.

Hey, guys, I just made a motion for the 22nd of June. That's next week. I got to tell you, as a commissioner, I'm going to start to speak out publicly about this.

In fact, in the GBDS, we can take the front setback down to zero. You can't do that in the GBD. Oh, you're just picking on one thing. No, I'm picking on all of it.

Did you see that Michelle marked up GBDS?

Did you look at her comparison chart between the two? Did you look at her comparison chart between the two?

She was the one that initially suggested as a possibility just going back to GBD, which I thought was an excellent suggestion. It solves our problem immediately.

Unfortunately, not enough people support going back to GBD. Oh, baloney. How do you know?

If you don't put it on the agenda and give the public time to speak, how do you know nobody supports it?

Mike has a motion on the floor.

You're making assumptions without the public having any input. Let me remind you that public in strong numbers is going to be on your doorstep if something else goes wrong in this area.

And I take that as part of the job. That is part of the job. So, Michael, I've heard you. I don't believe you're correct. I believe the GBD is too restrictive for the Saugatuck area. That's why we have GBDS. And I see no issue whatsoever not taking this area back to GBDS. And I'd like to do it in a forum that allows the public to come in and tell us what they think. Put it on the agenda. Michael's motion is to put it in the subcommittee.

I just made the motion for June 22nd, that's next week, to bring this up. Paul, can we vote on that? Of course we can.

You mean July, right? July.

Yes, you mean July.

July 22nd.

I will second that.

All right, July 22nd. Let's put it to the floor. Let's vote on it. Mike Cleese, how do you vote? I say yes, but it's a... Patricio Zuccaro, how do you vote?

I want to see it. I don't want to go to subcommittee. This has been almost an entire year, okay? Because the last August we were, or last July, we were doing the Hamlet. In August, I had asked that we change the district. That was postponed because there was litigation. So it has been a year that we've been talking about changing this district.

So how do you vote for coming to a meeting on the 22nd next week?

No, I want to see, I want to be in front of a full board. on a regular scheduled meeting, and that's how I want to talk about it. All right.

Brie?

Yes.

Craig? I would go to subcommittee, but I think it's also important that we just do it now, but that would be conditioned on us seriously putting together a subcommittee to do the long-term text to fit

this district.

So, I mean, if we have to go to subcommittee to do this, fine, but if we could do it in an easier fashion, as Patricia recommends, I don't know if you can or can't, but I would want a GBDS, and then that's just a placeholder. It's a marker, as far as I'm concerned. Then we really set up a subcommittee and go forward with what the long-term structure would be. So, you know, I guess subcommittee or just vote on it. I don't know. I'm really concerned about the long-term text amendment.

I need a vote. Yes or no?

Yes or no? I guess yes.

Michael Kammerer? Yes. All right, and I'm going to vote yes as well. Craig, the first order of business for the subcommittee next week on the 22nd can be to change the zone to an underlying zone, one that we choose. And then you can take all the time you want to begin to craft additional portions of it. Michelle, you have something to say?

Yeah, I just wanted to say without text changes to GBDS, I don't think that the lots would be eligible for for GBDS. So I don't think that would be something we would have to incorporate a changes to minimum lot sizes in order to rezone those GBDS properties to GBDSM to GBDS. So I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that because the minimum lot size for the GBDSM is 3000 and for the GBDS, it's 40,000 and each law in the GBDSM is not 40,000. So I just wanted to make sure we were clear.

Can you go to GBDR?

Well, isn't that what we're going to do in subcommittee? Talk about what we can change it to?

Yeah.

Okay. Right.

Yeah. And then we have to come in front of this board in order to approve. Yes.

Yes. But then we'll have discussed it. Everyone will show up. And talk about it.

Yes, everyone's going to show up, Paul, in the middle of the day at noon. Yes, everyone is showing up.

You can zoom in if you like.

If I have time, yes, of course.

Okay, where are we?

We voted. I think we're making a motion now. Are we done? Secretary?

No, we already voted on that.

Yeah, there is nothing else on our agenda.

So I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

I'll second that also. Good night. Thank you. See you on the 22nd.

Excuse me, was there no public comment on that motion?

It's a work session. We normally don't have public comment in the work.

Oh, that's part of a work session. Got it. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay.