 so it's 6 30 something 6 30 recording in progress is is it Devin from the from the tv is he ready Devin Kevin Kevin okay so if Kevin's ready we'll get started with the the meeting and are there any changes to the agenda let me get rid of this message no changes yeah yeah so so we're going to add an item I'm not sure where we'll put it but because we've rescheduled the public hearing from next week two weeks from now to December 9th we will just take a vote a motion and vote on uh rewarning that meeting just so we make sure we cover ourselves just so so you folks know that's the reference for why we're rescheduling that hearing on to the agenda for tonight and it gets me out of trouble with Sue yeah exactly um so there's no planning commission meeting on the 11th of November yeah that's right that's correct we actually got you you can come if you want Abby and have your own meeting no okay what's that not a quorum um good point uh okay public comment uh do you see anyone from the public uh in our meeting okay so then we'll go to the next item which is approval of the minutes from the last meeting can move to approve them okay motion by Sarah do I have a second I can second that okay Amy any corrections changes edits comments hearing none all those in favor of the motion please say or signify aye anyone opposed anyone want to abstain okay that passes so then we'll move to review a form-based code parts two and nine great thank you very much bring those back before you so everybody's comfortable with what's being warned for that hearing in addition I was looking at the submission requirements that we have for the form-based code and um wanted to add one additional piece of information to be incorporated with our applications that come in so I've added a couple of lines in the um under part two that I wanted to review with you all quickly as well to get feedback on that so I'm going to go ahead and share my screen here um so we can walk through this as we like to do gins or any other parts and pieces of it so um what I'm what I was proposing under the yeah sorry I'm just resizing some screens so under the administration section of um in part 203 a the application requirements I've added this new line to basically say that you know there is a I get a lot of questions for people that are making application for projects in the gateway zoning district about how they apply for the certificate of conformity so I just wanted to add in this number one here to clarify that they're just going to use the standard forms that we have for a zoning permit so it's not anything new or anything different it's just the standard standard permit application and the associated fees so um Mike can you see that okay I just saw you looking in close do you mean to make that larger my eye what can I tell you I'm old yeah I can see fine okay that's why I move back so yeah okay checklists because there's multiple there's not just one checklist big change here the I think the largest addition is item four we've had a lot of discussions and this is typically what I've done for what I do when I when we have projects in the gateway zoning district one of the conditions that gets included in almost every application is submitting a traffic impact study of some kind to evaluate what's happening with the new land the projects require the same level of the traffic impact study and so the way that I've done it currently is as a condition I always state that the applicant should coordinate with the Department of Public Works for what they actually want to see in that submission so that could range from anything from a full a full scale level of service and peak hour traffic counts with pedestrian counts as well depending on the location versus maybe just as something simple as a new turning movement turning movement study just to make sure that because we're reducing curb cuts and changing around some of the sites that ingress and egress isn't going to be impacted any more than it is currently so but I also wanted to put a little bit of guardrails on when we would require these so what I've done is basically written this in to say a new traffic a traffic impact study would be required in consultation with the Department of Public Works and basically for any projects that have non-residential use or mixed-use project and then any developments that are including 10 or more residential dwellings and the reason I chose 10 is because that's also the threshold depending on where the project is that is that or that could be the threshold for Act 250 as well so unless it's a priority housing project that's a totally different discussion but that's kind of a that's a cutoff where Act 250 would apply also if if it had 10 or more dwelling units so I just wanted to add this in as one of the required submissions so that I don't have to keep including as a condition that way the applicant knows this is something that we'll be looking for regardless of what the project is if it meets those thresholds so the traffic I'm sorry sir go ahead oh yeah I was just gonna say so the traffic study can be done by the developer themselves is that how it works so there's no so basically you can hire anybody to do it who might I'm just wondering if there's a sort of oversight to say um do we trust that traffic study necessarily if it's a developer who's paying for it I mean how do you how do you quantify so why don't we just why don't you just put it in the in here that it's required by an engineer I think that we had that discussion when we got into the waiver and then before you know we first passed it and then before we took it back we had that we were surprised that a developer came in with his own study and that was acceptable so I would be in favor of putting by an engineer or a licensed engineer or whatever the term is yeah I think that's what I'm alluding to as well Mike kind of recalling by an independent engineer yeah I can't yeah an independent clarifying yeah well I'm not sure what you mean by independent because if it's an engineer that's working on the site as long as they're qualified because a licensed engineer has certain standards they have to meet or maybe you see licensed then yeah for these studies if they're requested so let's talk about uh the 10-unit threshold I understand where you're coming from I'm just trying to envision you know like a busy street east allen street if there's a single family home that's being redeveloped with even four or five units should we require I mean at least like you said a one page some kind of a review of that so so so maybe some kind of wording that says you know we'll include 10 or more units I'm trying to think how to say it I guess what I'm trying to say is you know or as as requested by the public works department or something so that it gives the public works department you know if a project comes through with five units that's going to could potentially be a problem they can say hey we need to get some kind of traffic study does that make sense yes something like that the language a TIS will only be required for projects as followed I think sounds a little that could be read as sort of saying if it's less than 10 units then we're prohibited or the city is prohibited from asking for one so we might want more leeway then because if you think about it if you had 10 units and they were four bedrooms each that's a lot of potential I mean obviously I don't think it would ever be four unit I mean four bedrooms per unit but never know two to three yeah you know two to three it's still quite a few cars there's something like it's it's always required for 10 units or more and for less at the discretion at the discretion of the Department of Public Works right so Brennan to your point that sentence is maybe take the word only out so a TIS will be required for projects as follows and then and then add that other language of less than 10 at the DPW or something like that yeah our a TIS must be submitted with an application for a project as follows you're so you know I'll I'll Eric gets one more second so okay great great thank you for those comments so moving along I'm gonna jump down here to the definitions and we can look at these again so at our last meeting we had some some good discussion I think on the definitions and y'all provided some good comments that I hopefully incorporated in to to the updated version here so starting with the average fronting sidewalk elevation there was some language about the complete discrete facade and and other things like that so I pulled tried to pull most of that out to make it a little more clear and then this will carry over to the other the other two definitions with the average um sorry the minimum and maximum fronting you can mention my name if you want when you say that I appreciate that it seems to make sense to me and it's it's pretty clear and especially I mean the important thing is if someone has a question that you can explain it to Eric yeah it seems good yeah I think it's I think it's good good job Eric that looks like no it's okay that's good that's all I'm gonna have a conversation I don't have any concerns about the change and this is not related to the changes I just I don't quite understand the first line a line or plane indicate on the regular plane which extends vertically up from the ground story floor level so this parking line is like behind the building line right it's it's parallel to the required building line so what is what does extends vertically up so it excludes the possibility that someone puts parking on the second floor all the way out to the front the line or plane thing sort of captures that to okay but that's thank you that inspires me oh I was just gonna do another trouble question but why wouldn't why would that not be okay allowing that to extend over why does it need to be be straight up okay no you know I'm going to make things a little less uniformed but I know where we're headed any other comments or questions is project review committee that even though it's in red nothing's new there I think what I recall was there was a fair amount of back and forth about that but we decided not to really do anything and potentially address it at the hearing yeah I think that's right rewarn the public hearing for December 9th anybody I'm a non-voting member does that can I make a motion what are the rules about that is Joe Joe's not an alternate right Joe's a thanks Tommy so I will make a motion to re-notice the public hearing for December Sarah Amy or Abby want to second that it's fine I don't know why I get shy about making the motions but you know it's like I don't want the record to show you did anything that's why any any discussion about the motion hearing none all those in favor please signify or say I anyone opposed anyone want to abstain okay so we're going to re-warn it I excuse me let me phrase that Eric you're going to re-warn it for the December 9th okay perfect next I think are we going to article four the standards a couple things I want to just highlight here before we start looking at this is in particular in section 4 4.4 which is our design standards I tried to build in some some language related to the protection of historic resources within the context of where zoning can have any impacts there part of this is you know city council is still working through the the report that came out with the priorities in in relation to the priorities and policies discussion as to how to start addressing preservation more broadly in the city so whether that be a design review commission or historic preservation commission or some other body that they would stand up that still is work that needs to be done but there are some things that we can look to currently within the the framework of zoning that may aid in some of these that may aid in some of the discussions when we're viewing projects that have an impact on any historic structure mostly because well we have our national and state registered districts of properties we also have a a section in our master plan that talks about cultural and historic resources and identifies what there are so the master plan adopted was adopted in 2019 through discussions and community conversations so there is some support of those resources currently so what I tried to do was align as much as I could the ability for the land use regulations to look to the master plan or existing documents that we already have with the understanding that they may not provide as much protection as some folks want but they could help provide some level of protection or at least additional analysis for these properties so the other thing I want to highlight so we'll get to you know we'll talk about the details when we get to that section the other item I wanted to highlight and just provide a little bit of background on is the parking standards similar to the historic preservation we're in the process of doing a parking inventory analysis and management plan the draft of that plan with recommendations will be going to our advisory committee they have a meeting scheduled for November 16th so the draft of the plan will go to the advisory committee following that meeting the plan will go to council for for them to review and provide feedback and input before that's that plan is made final so there will be some recommendations and some information coming out of the that that effort that will help inform our parking discussions as well but what I what I tried to do for now is at least acknowledging where there's been some some concerns with our current standards trying to address those existing standards and build off of them so for example in our current parking regulations we allow reductions based on transportation demand management strategies but right now we don't really talk about what that is so I built in some language or I proposed some language that would address that and and talk about what we're requiring as part of that transportation demand management strategy analysis what the reductions are trip generation things of that nature to to provide some of that additional information again within the framework of the regulations that we already have in place before we start looking at larger policy discussions that would be guided by council for for how we want to address parking what we want to do with some of these these bigger issues the other part that's not reflected in this section specifically in section for 12 on parking is as we've discussed at over several meetings we've talked about potential incentives for for affordable housing or other priorities that may come from parking and and reduced numbers in parking I have drafted some language that would be specific to the form-based code section to talk about how to because that's where we're seeing most of our development and and where we may see the biggest impacts from changes to the parking standards or I should say relaxing of the parking standards so I have some language drafted that would go into the form-based code section of parking which I think is in part eight of that document which I have not included here yet so that is something that I will provide at a future date to parking in this section tonight but so just so that you're aware there are other there are other car bouts that I'm looking at or other language to to help support the community's policies and objectives for things like affordability and affordable housing through exchanges for parking so let's see what else that I want to highlight here quick are there any questions on any of that information before before you look at that I think that's a good question I was going to say I don't think there's much quite honestly that would that would prohibit that even on a natural building on the natural register can be taken down unless the community protects it I mean really the only the only way to protect historic structures or historic properties is to have local regulations as Sarah just mentioned you know there the state and national registers are are really they're really more than inventory they don't provide any protection for historic resources so in this language that we're talking about is that our local regulation that would protect any any structure I don't know if it's going to go as far as prohibiting buildings to be to be demolished because I don't think I personally I don't think the zoning regulations some sort of historic review effort so what I tried to do was work with the existing language that's already in section 4.4 and build in some additional detail I would say to something else get a developer to think twice or to take a little bit more time with how how they treat the structure a lot of what's already in 4.4 however is is kind of related to adaptive reuse of the property or or actually expansions or changes to existing structures so I also wanted to recognize that component so for example if a property is if we have a property that's listed but the owner is just proposing to put an addition on the back I want to make sure that we're we're taking that component into account as well as far as consistency with the existing design and what relationship between the the historic component and the the new component of those those structures so again I don't think the language goes as far as prohibiting anything I I'm I'm not because I don't think that the zoning regulations can really do that at this time without other without other components or design standards being developed sorry I mean I don't know if this is if we're allowed to do this but can I request that we delay this conversation um until we have Joe is that something we can do because he just is so now about the historic aspect of Winniski and I don't know if we can do that we can move on to another and bring it up the next time we can we can just skip over section 4.4 if and just review the rest of the the article is anyone else in you about that are you sharing not right now I'm not sharing I'm sharing my thoughts and opinions Abby but not not my screen if everyone's okay with skipping over that I mean we can also we can also skip over it and wait until there's you know the council has had a chance to to spend more time with it as well I mean that's okay let me I just want to throw up because I'm getting some feedback here I can hear it too that may be coming from my end of things here not sure I'm sorry you have your phone on as well could I see uh shouldn't be you're city council I'm sorry yes I so town meeting tv the camera in the room here is council chambers I am on to host the meeting but my video is off and my my mic is off and my sound is off I mean additionally we can you know we can skip over section 412 as well on parking until we have more information from the from that study and the and some direction from council also if we want to do that again I what I tried to do with section 412 similar to 4.4 with the design standards is look at what we're already having some concerns about and have already had some discussions about related to our existing regulations and tried to build in some of those components now without really getting into big policy type changes until we have a chance to really revisit those those elements part of what's reviewed in December and approved or is this oh no we're not Tommy the the only information that's going to the public hearing in December is the changes that we've made to the form-based code pieces so this is a new we're starting we're basically starting from scratch with a new section of regulations to review so my thinking on this and just my thinking is that we have talked so much about parking and that I don't see a benefit of looking at it if we're not going to make if we can't make any changes to to mitigate things right now let's wait so we have the information from the parking recommendations I guess what I would also say is we may not get to that section of this article and until after that that report is done you know it's it's a good ways in to this to this document and we're not meeting in November at all so it may be that we have that information or at least have have some additional information to work with as we get into it Christine do you have any thoughts up to you guys I we can keep looking at it for some more new information today but obviously aren't going to do any decision making until the data is in so maybe Eric I wonder if if can we do like a five or ten minute kind of quick overview just to dip our toes in it I'm trying to work within the structure of what we have currently because I know like I said there are some concerns that we've we've been discussing with the current regulations and I've just tried to add some language or amend some language that may tighten up some of those existing regulations to address those immediate concerns while we get into the the bigger policy discussions and address those more holistically watch you give us a 10 000 foot look at at those things and and we don't have to discuss them any further tonight or we can I guess if we want to do this like we've done with other sections just start at the beginning and see you know what we get through and how far we get through it and if we get to those sections we can you know tread lightly on them and just and move on um but happy to happy to approach this however you all feel is appropriate well um I know that folks don't want to leave this meeting too early I'm kind of I'm kind of torn since why don't we do why don't we do 15 minutes of beginning the discussion of article four let's see if that takes us that's not okay to everyone we don't have to like do anything I think we can just sort of yeah yeah there's a little a bit about what we're dealing with and just just to be clear you know article four gets into a lot of other other components so this is also where we talk about um you know driveways and and signs and stabilization of of property and abandonments and storm water and landscaping and lighting so there's a lot of other components to this than than parking and design standards so um you know there's definitely definitely information to discuss yeah I'm assuming that that there are probably electrical article four that you feel is fine it don't need to be revised um a lot of it yeah I mean I think I mean I believe there's some changes or some minor amendments to to almost every section some of it's just you know formatting and renumbering of of items and not any any changes to the language but um yeah so I mean the two obviously I think the two uh the two sections that are going to have the most conversation for sure are going to be four four and four twelve with I think without question how about we start at the beginning and see what we get by seven thirty okay I'm okay with that if you all are okay with that fine all right well then I am going to share my screen here again actually I am not yet I'm gonna get the document that I need first there we go okay okay so we'll we'll be starting here uh with abandonment and stabilization um this so the the change I'm proposing here is real I guess is related to section four four huh didn't realize we were starting right out with that but this is more again just to kind of clarify what the role one of the one of the comments that we've we've had in the past and one of the items that we've we've dealt with is this notion that previously um projects would be the the state would would kind of step in and take over for review of historic structures so there was still some language that I felt was was kind of putting the onus on them to help out with this which I don't think is appropriate since they're not doing it anyway and there were amendments to take that out of other uh sections so we may want to come back to this just again because it's related to section four four it may be worth just revisiting and skip over this piece right and I know just to we just got me thinking about Joe on before was so I know we went through this before Joe kind of said I hate to take anything out of the historic preservation language because there isn't anything else and so he was sensitive about even removing that from another section if I recall correctly so until we sort of tool that up again Christine you had your hand up was it to ask us to mute so um I have my note from the consultant recommendation and one of them was to create a local register I don't know exactly what that means if there's some legal speak there but I wonder if this cultural historical resources map in our city of master plan can essentially act as a local register that's that's kind of how I've envisioned it because we already have that um at least in the short term until until or if um you know we we have the resources to do a more detailed local register this is that's what I've looked to is kind of our local our local effort with identifying historic resources because it is included in the master plan is that something that can be updated with you know some of the resources that Prada identified more recently um yes uh and it I mean the the process to do that is is a little bit different because it is our master plan but I think if we're only updating the map I think the process is fairly straightforward I mean it does require some public hearings and and review and approval by the regional planning commission but I think if again if we're just doing map amendments I don't think that's a a big lift so but yes we we definitely can do that I wonder Eric if we can if we can somehow reference um you know like or unfortunately we don't have a historic preservation group or whatever um but somehow reference or you know an approved map by the city of resources I don't know how you say it but you know in case to to Christine's point in case a new map is is is put up before it has to go through the process of getting incorporated master plan maybe it's just says we're as revised and approved by the city council something I don't know I'm just trying to think of ways that it could be expedited rather than having to go through the process of revising the master plan well a way to potentially do that is if the master plan is amended the amendment addresses or I guess the amendment references a locally approved plan and is is incorporated into the master plan by reference therefore it kind of lives outside of the master plan and can be updated more frequently or as necessary that's how I've in in other communities that I've worked with when updating their their master plans that's one of the methods that are the approaches that I've taken is to try to incorporate items by reference so that when that referential document gets updated it doesn't you don't have to go in and amend the master plan it just automatically carries through and do you know I don't remember the master plan probably isn't written that way not for this section it's not no for other sections it is for example we reference in a lot of our a lot of the language we do reference the all the other plans that have been done like the transportation master plan the economic development plan the housing plan and I'm forgive me for not knowing the specific titles of all of them but they are all referenced in our current master plan as other documents to to look towards for a lot of that for a lot of the detailed policy discussion on those various aspects so it is I mean it is possible and you know to the to the extent that we may you know at a future time have a historic resources master plan of some kind that's something we could incorporate by reference in our municipal master plan to to cover that as well just like we do with the transportation master plan for example we should we can address that if and when we we get to that point where even we have a new map or we have a historic preservation committee or a design review committee or something correct yeah but again so this is another this is an example of what I was trying to language that I was trying to incorporate based on the the the documents that we already one have adopted for the city but also that kind of can be incorporated into some level of a land use regulation and zoning code where I might actually have some I may have some ability to put in some level of regulation without having to stand up all these other commissions and committees or do the additional work to really to really build in those regulations so happy to come back to this language but this was the one change under the abandonment stabilization and demolition section that I wanted to highlight um so moving through the next item is under the access roads driveways and circulation so let's apologize for the scrolling here actually let me just do this so under residential driveways the it referenced this specific section of public work standards which I don't believe exists because I don't think the standards were ever formally adopted or they they they were a draft was done and then they they were changing them and the standards changed or something uh happened so but I wanted to remove this reference to this specific section of the public work standards and just basically say that the standard and specifications that are identified by the the department of public works so that as again this is an instance where as they change their standards I don't need to we don't need to update the zoning regulations to reflect any citations or anything like that that they might change so then I'm actually proposing to take part uh sorry item three here and I I neglected to include a through d but I I'm proposing to move these to the end of this section just because they deal with um existing driveways and nonconformities so I wanted to kind of pull them out as their their own items so but a little further down the document there'll be some language on that that we can discuss okay so then okay so then again here just removing the specific reference to the public work standards and changing that and then just adding some additional labels to these there's multiple figures in here I just wanted to add some additional labels and the figures aren't showing up which I think that error message was just about but there should be a picture of some driveway widths here that have been carried over from other iterations Eric yeah in terms of as you I was talking about this I'm thinking back to the discussion um that we had concerning the property yield screenshot that on east spring street at the bottom of franking there was there was an issue about the driveway and the angle and what not yes yes is that covered under what you've changed um that actually was addressed there was an amendment done to address that I believe under section 4.9 under nonconformities let me just look ahead quick yes that was there was language added under section 4.9 which addresses nonconforming lots structures and right of way or drive and uses so um this is slightly different than in than that section should should that be referenced here since we're talking about driveways for multifamily I think what so what this section is doing that I'm proposing to move is really related to allowing for existing developed lots that are that have it like a single a single width single car with driveway to expand that driveway into the setbacks if necessary to accommodate two cars okay so it's it's it's not I don't think it's I think it's more specific to the driveway component than it is to that to that specific east spring street discussion but we can I'll make a note to to potentially cross-reference that okay and so Eric if I'm understanding what you're saying E3 is not being deleted it's just being moved that's correct I'm moving it to the end of this section because it so I'm moving it to the end of the section and also changing the language slightly because right now it it's specifically now let me just scroll back up to that so it's specifically right now references um single family homes as the only place where this would apply and I'm I'm proposing to delete that language out as well that it's so it would be it would basically read for the purposes of allowing existing developed non-conforming lots to create a driveway so that we're not limiting it just to the single family the single unit dwellings so if you have a if you have a two unit for example that only has room for one vehicle because it has a one car width of a driveway but you have the room to add width to put in another another space for a a second vehicle next to that one I want to I want to make that an option as well so I I guess what would be stopping somebody if they had the width to not I don't really understand if somebody's got a like that driveway that fits one vehicle and they've got the width to make it fit two vehicles sorry the width in this case the width being within the side yard setback and basically right up next right on the property boundary so this allows them to make the driveway in the setback area like yes property yes so right now it says driveways shall be setback a minimum of five feet from the adjoining property line unless providing shared access and then this is saying that if you have an existing dwelling you can encroach into you can go closer than five feet if you're if you're adding space to put in parking to do two side by side spaces and it's you can go right up to the property line it's not something where it's like you can go up to two feet the property so right now the way it's written the way it's written right now is it can go up to four feet um with approval from the zoning administrator and then additional it can go closer with approval from the development review board that's how the language is written now so you can go up to that property boundary with the drb's consideration okay so it's basically saying you can only go one foot further than hold unless you get drb that's correct is this fit into the discussion that we talked about having in the future about changes to the residential districts and because it would relate to setbacks as well as um frontage as well as a lot of things that we would want to consider in the residential sounds yeah i mean it definitely could it definitely could but it doesn't hurt to have it here correct yeah i think it's i think it's appropriate to keep it here because it's addressing driveways specifically um whereas some of the other setbacks are related more to the structures and and the lot coverages are related to the structures um obviously driveways wouldn't be included in lot coverage as well but um yeah i think i mean it's definitely something that we can we can think about if we have those discussions again um as you're referencing tommy so you're putting abc and d into another area um yeah so i i neglected to to move them as well but so part number three here abc and d fall under part three so i'm proposing to move the whole thing to the end of this section so um okay so yeah so the pictures aren't showing up here unfortunately which that's okay i think but no real changes there same with these there would be pictures here as well that aren't showing up um but again just adding some additional labeling same thing here another label for a picture that doesn't exist in this document right now for whatever reason uh and the same thing here so then here is where so i obviously i didn't include it here but the abc and d would would move down to this as well as a new item i and in this language i've removed the reference to the single family dwelling and so basically what i'm proposing is that any existing developed non-conforming lot can can take advantage of this so we're not allowing it so we're not limiting it to just a single unit um because i i haven't done an analysis but i would be willing to bet there's more multi unit being more than one unit uh non-conforming developments out there that could probably benefit from this then there are single unit dwellings but so eric abc and d those defined if you will when this is allowed so do you need something like subject to or provided that to introduce abc and d uh yeah i mean i could add that yeah that's a good point yeah i can bring that over or sorry add some language when i bring that over so any questions or concerns about eliminating the the fact that this is was previously or is currently only available to single unit dwellings and making it available to other other situations where we have the non-conformity that might benefit from having the ability to to add additional space um i just wanted to ask actually abby are you getting this my understanding of it is that you can you can potentially increase the width of your driveway to part two parts side by side over the over the setback so a foot over what's currently required um or would see a approval which i guess is just erics okaying it and then if you want to go up to i guess potentially right up to the property line with your driveway you can do that with your vehicle that's correct yeah so that's how i read it and and erics taking away um that this is only applicable for single family uses so that multi-family units could take advantage of this too which doesn't really breathe eric can you go back up to abc and d because i think that qualifies i mean it kind of limits but it puts some restrictions on it i think can abc and d be moved with that it's going to be okay they will be yeah i just for whatever reason i did not move them in this draft so seeing abc and d it puts it gives um the drb or the zarian administrator the ability to say no if it doesn't meet these there means it's not automatic i mean i'm just wondering are we is the point to be able to put so say you go from having two cars you know fitting on that property to four or six or i mean a maximum of two side by side but you're right it could probably park in you know it's the same household they could park in front and behind each other is that what you mean i guess that's what i mean yeah and this do we see that as an okay thing because you're i mean maybe it is i know in burlington i had a house there and we're not allowed to park side by side i mean i guess i know the space i i would look at it like this there's there you know there's a lot of there's a lot of non-conforming lots that currently exist in the city that were developed just because that's the way they are they're either you know they're they're they're narrow and they're are deep so most of them are developed with a one car width of a driveway whether it be a single unit or a multi unit or a single unit that's been converted to multi unit or whatever the case might be so right now any vehicles that are parking there are basically stacking and so the first car in has to have every car move for it to get out that's behind it so we're allowed this is allowing more parking onto each lot to get more parking it allows the potential for an additional or some space next to those single width driveways to accommodate an additional vehicle so to try to shift more parking on to the site if possible and i just think about like my neighbor had to do it because she built a detached cottage it was one of the requirements that she had to side by side parking spots you know the houses are really close together um so her driveway is within a couple feet of our house you know now but she wouldn't have been able to build that hatch she not had side-by-side sort of attached to some of our parallel buildings and all this is doing right like this was already allowed right it was just limited to single family homes and now and now like a duplex could could do this if they if that's that's all we're talking about yeah that's correct yeah that's a that's a really good point brendan is that yes this is already currently permitted for single unit only um what i'm proposing is to open it up to more than just the single unit um but also moving it to a different section of the regulations so it is already permitted for but only for the single unit dwellings and do you know um you as our administrator eric can only can only approve a one foot improvement correct more than that has to go to drb which requires a public hearing so they would take testimony from neighbors correct and so um eric any idea behind the thinking of having it be restricted to single family you mean why it's like that now yeah like why was it why was it restricted to just that single unit that i that's a good question i i don't have an answer for that okay do you think residential single residential has more land so law coverage would be i mean there's more room to put more impervious i don't know i'm just trying to think of and i'm trying to think back when we redid the zoning i don't recall why it was just something i mean do you remember do you think it's because i mean if there was multi um i guess it was multi use or whatever you could have a lot of cars maybe they just want to limit the amount of cars in that one or so i don't know because with single family you can only have so many cars where if you were you know multi family you could have a lot i might push back on that a little bit amy as a i know growing up i was living in a single unit dwelling and and my family had eight vehicles so yeah but that's not normal let me let me chime in because i grew up on mansion street and we had a single width driveway and we had usually four vehicles plus other folks and we ended up we parked on the on the grass next to the driveway but that's the other side is that that's what people will do whether you're supposed to or or not but that's an enforced permission well i was my point was that are we is it a nice way to make some additional parking which we are struggling with as long as it's not approaching that's why i asked abby you know is it all the sudden she's got a lot of traffic on the edge of her property line which is unfortunate i mean it's kind of a um but maybe it's way of getting more parking in which i guess another way to look at this is you know you have to have the space available for one so if your driveway is already built right up to the property line you're not you can't use this because it doesn't do you any good so it you know there's there's going to be limited instances i think where this is even applicable so okay and i look at a and it's you know the property owner has to demonstrate that because you need to care a lot so if it's a flat lot in the room otherwise it should be a lot right so any other questions about this or comments i think this is one of those things that that we probably should just chew on and revisit after you've had a chance to really think about it sure i do think it's i just wanted to i guess um i do think it would be good to have more parking but i also don't want to increase impervious um surfaces because i feel like a lot of it isn't getting treated either um within the residential so anyway just some thoughts to think about i agree with that me directly because i i don't have my my clock disappeared from my computer since it's starting to screen quarter till okay so is this a good place to cut off um it's it's as good as any i'll say that okay because i said 730 it's 745 so i guess the other thing that i would say to this is just you know these this is only for existing driveways anything that's newly developed is going to have to follow a different set of standards so this is only for existing driveways on non-conforming lots you know what but encroach so it's like i don't know you'd have to sort of be 10 feet from the property line and then maybe you could walk wide in your driveway six feet so you could be one extra foot within the five foot bath hungry i just feel like this maybe is not plenty of all the other requirements so i think this is i know much of this but it feels like it won't come into play very often well i i mean i can say i i've never i've never run into this i've i've never had anybody come to me and say hey i need to expand my driveway by a foot so uh you know it's i've never i've never dealt with this scenario but i'm sure there's instances where it could occur but again i mean we're talking about pre-existing non-conforming lots where the driveway is five feet from the adjacent property boundary i think that's a key non-conforming lots are probably so tight that any driveway is probably up to the proper line anyway so but yes i think mike that's a good spot that we can stop if you'd like okay let's let's stop there and move to um that's the right city updates is that next the agenda in front of me um yes city updates are next do you want to uh unshare your screen so we can see each other oh yeah that's a good idea not that he doesn't want to see you well i mean thanks mike i guess i would defer to the mayor to start if she would like with city updates sure so last monday council meeting we officially appointed an interim city manager uh her name is lindy harrison come through for this kind of experience and is like a professional intern so we have her on a temporary contract for three months and then can renew as needed but we'll have her help while we continue our search i think on monday's meeting we're gonna take a recruiting from the city to get back out there um we also at our last meeting approved the grant that you will have mike sign off on applying for uh municipal planning grant um i went to the last school board meeting um michael mays their finance director was giving a presentation on their current financial and i wanted to share about that here because i think it has connections to what we've all been talking about and that's that they're looking at some real serious funding gaps in the future um partially you know there's the expense of the capital projects expanding the school in anticipation of drawing enrollment and the state is also making some decisions with funding that are not maybe going to be in the best interest of us um so you know we're paying for this big news school when we were anticipating increasing enrollment but those are not actually happening um and so they are also thinking about how they're hearing from people that they can't find family-sized housing or like us dri is saying they can't find places to to reheld families so i just wanted you all to think about that that's when we're talking about potential changes um zoning you know there's like a light touch to maybe investigating residential zoning changes or something that if we don't increase the supply of housing in the new sea we are not going to we're not going to be able to pay for that and it's going to impact us actually if you don't actually see the increasing enrollment there's a really you want to dig around the school's website the financial presentation is that in their last meeting has been best but i am also working with school leadership you advocacy with the legislature around the education funding discussion um so hopefully we can have an impact there um and then the last thing i wanted to share was that we did last week post responses from the Vermont International Guard to the question from like September council meeting not they obviously didn't address everything that was raised um but they did address some of those questions and so those are available on the how do i learn about um that is it for me is that on the musky website yeah oh yeah and the portal for the noise monitoring system that they installed is only open to the public i looked at it for two minutes and didn't understand how it works so i think it's probably not user friendly and i do intend to spend some more time with it in the future so that when people reach out and are like how do you get to that through the city's website yeah there is uh there's that tab how do i on the front of the city website there's one under there for airport so right right now on the on the landing page of the city's website if you scroll to the bottom there is we highlight news events and things like that and right now there is a link that'll take you into it so actually i can show you i that's one of the things i was going to mention is the the the sound portal so i'm just going to share my screen here quickly as well so here is what it looks like when you go to the to the link the website link so you can see the different radii and then when you so the two stations they have right now are the one at city hall which is this one and then the one in south burlington at the school the chamberland school which is this one so one of the key things to to keep in mind if you're if you're looking at this information is you can see that right now it's 7 53 p.m but they're running at 7 43 so they're about 10 minutes behind on the reporting so just be mindful that if you're if you have this open and you hear the jets or do you hear anything go by and you look at this and the numbers don't move then it's because there there is a slight delay in when it gets reported to the website but so right now the noise outside of city hall is at 55 decibels and at the chamberland school it's at 51 decibels so they will they spike up and spike down depending on what's going on outside um throughout the day here at city hall normally with some of the activities are going on this is usually around 65 68 70 somewhere in there so give you a little context for what you're looking at but this is the this is the site and there other information will pop up on it which I believe are flight tracks for for airplanes but I'm not exactly sure what it all means or what it looks like either so like the mayor mentioned uh and you can also go back and replay a certain certain timeline of of items and you can actually comment directly through the site on this so anyway this is but this is all linked in off of our website right now through that that question and answer portion um the other that information that's being gathered the sound information I mean what what's the point I mean or is it actually going to change the patterns of the we know they're loud right nobody answered this of course so the that's a good question I think the point right now is to collect the data um they now in the specific the specific names and studies of those documents that they they put together but basically the planning that they do that led to the latest round of identification of properties in the 65 decibel range the 70 decibel range 75 decibel range um they won't like I said they won't directly use this data to say oh well it Wenuski City Hall it's this so we have to adjust all of these properties into this uh into this new decibel range but they will I think they take it as an aggregate and uh with other sound monitoring data to just kind of get a sense of what sound levels are being reported um mostly because you know there's other things going on like this is also sitting the one here at City Hall sits right next to the railroad tracks so when a train goes by it's also picking up the whistles and when sirens are going off or the construction that's going on across the street it's picking up all that noise activity as well so it's it's not going to be a direct apples to apples comparison thank you those are the I think it's just called the noise contour lines it's part of the airport yes we get every five years it's supposed to be updated every five years I don't laugh and was more than that I want I lean towards five but I am not certain I think it's supposed to be five two but I'm not sure that sounds right I feel like there's been talk of a like FY 23 update so that would kind of align but it's some interesting information so it's out there the only other thing I was going to mention under city updates um was that a couple weeks ago when we were supposed to have our meeting but we rescheduled it Abby and I were at the the northern northern New England chapter of the American Planning Association's annual conference which is basically main New Hampshire and Vermont we've had an in-person conference there was about 200 plus people that attended it was in Burlington and I think there's a lot of really great information I know Abby and I had several conversations about some of the sessions that were that were um that were held at the at that meeting so some some good information that we'll try to bring back and incorporate into our future discussions but um Abby I don't know if you wanted to add anything about your time at the conference yeah I know it was just um it was good to have it in Burlington and I did do like the walking tour of the new stuff that's going on downtown and around downtown with the great streets and other things that we've sort of looked at that model um but yeah nothing is specifically to add just good to see a lot of planners in one room anything else uh Eric that's all I had for city updates all right how about other businesses any other business and I I know Eric would talk about our next meeting which is December yeah so as I mentioned at the top of the meeting our next two our November meeting dates both fall on holidays Veterans Day and Thanksgiving Day so I believe the the plan is to cancel both of those meetings so we will take the month of November off and then we will meet again on December 9th which will be our first meeting in December and I believe I don't know if I've looked at the calendar closely enough but that may I think our second meeting in December also conflicts with the Christmas holiday yeah I think we talked about it will be the 23rd so we're talking about just doing one meeting in December yeah so so that December meeting may be our only maybe our last meeting for the year um so that will hopefully give us some time to get some of these studies wrapped up and and um some of the recommendations presented but we'll also so we'll have our public hearing on the 9th uh on the amendments that we've already discussed for the form-based code uh and potentially consider forwarding those on to council for their consideration okay anyone else have any other business just it's not business just very quickly Christine this uh information from the school finance person or that meeting that's on the city's website as well it's the school district website they have a space for the board and that has the agenda and so the last agenda the last meeting agenda had a finance presentation okay thank you can I also ask I mean if you're allowed to answer this are you surprised at this information did we see this coming is this COVID related is this it's not COVID related so there was some changes to special education funding through a legislative act a couple years ago that aligned with the recommendation to update the waiting the people waiting which is part of the education fund calculation so the special education funding changes have decreased how much resources we're getting in when you speak and updating the waiting formula was supposed to counteract that but now the task force that's dedicated to like figuring that out doesn't want to do that anymore and they're looking at a different funding mechanism for ELL which is obviously going to have a huge impact on us um so we're already losing some funding if they continue down the tracks are going we think we're going to lose even more money and the enrollment piece of things I think we're clearly not anticipated when you know folks throughout the payment for this bond vote and the school vote I don't know I feel like that's really been coming to a head no recently changes that's serious stuff actually thank you for bringing to suspect they were kind of leaning on the fact that the population the student population is going because of the new american and it had been trending that way for a number of years um so projecting out right and I think they may have continued that I don't know how you did it whatever it's unfortunate so it's also cost of housing that families can't afford is that part of it yeah it's part of it it's uh you know it's family size it's the cost of living here they're also you know over the previous presidential administration was just a massive reduction in refugee resettlement as well um there's a number a couple of factors okay thank you anything else breaded did you have something breaded or are we just waiting so there's nothing else uh I'm looking for a motion to adjourn and we'll see you on the night of december and everyone have a great halloween thanksgiving all that stuff oh yeah festival of pumpkins this weekend festival of pumpkins right i'm motion to adjourn okay is there a second second all right my big all in favor okay thanks everyone see you next time thanks mr. thanks sir thank you all have a great evening have a great day