 We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order and I'll take a motion for an approval of the agenda. So moved. Thanks. From John. We have a second. I'll second. All right. Second from Brian, all in favor of the agenda as described, I'll say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Ioden have any comments I think people probably saw from Kirby a note. There are a couple things to you could follow up directly with him but if there's anything that we need to talk about specifically, Ari on there was a note in there about a bridge article. I remember the conversation. I don't really remember the exact all of the things that we're going to be involved in that article. But do you have, do you need any help, Ari on with anything on that? yeah. I think we were going to write or try to write an article about the suggested zoning changes in the CNU report. Is that right? And not all of them, just the one about more density, I think. Yeah, that does ring a bell. Yeah. So it's, it's on my to do list and I'm, I'm happy to, you know, I was really just offering to start the process. I think whatever I write will likely need a lot of editing, but just to get the ball rolling. I haven't done it yet, but I can do it this week. Okay, great. Yeah, I think we could take two, two approaches that one is I also know we're going to be doing our zoning. We're going to be, and we'll be discussing that a little bit later on. We were talking about having a zoning meeting. Yeah, to have some outreach on before we go to public hearing to say, Hey, here are the changes we're going to be suggesting and try to get some public input and public support for some of those changes. So that also could be another way to tie those two together to say, you know, the CNU report was talking about this and we're, we've got a couple of options and here's what we're suggesting, but we want to hear from you. Okay, great. Great. So when we get to that place in the agenda, maybe we, if we're able to put dates on the calendar, then that would give us an idea of when we need to have some drafts done because. Obviously, we'd like that to hit the bridge before, you know, with enough notice that people can read it, take a look at it and then know that there's an engagement meeting coming up. So we'll focus on that a little bit longer. And then the other note was, Hi, Maria. The other note was just about having somebody to come in and talk about housing and I vaguely remember the conversation, but I don't, I don't really remember exactly what that was to do. But if there are things Maria that you were going to, you can just go back directly a curvy on that. Okay, let's take a look and see if there's any members of the public. Okay, seeing none, I guess we'll move on to the first agenda item. So, Mike, what's the best way to go through these storyboards you want to share your screen and just pull some things up. Yeah, let me grab that real quick. There. So there was a couple of options, trying to remember, I wasn't here for the meeting you guys kind of went through these. It looks like transportation, you guys actually started. Maybe that's the one. Yeah, I remember going through a couple of and Kirby had marked them up a little bit and we had a discussion. And then I think the way we left it was that if people wanted to do any more editing they could jump on between meetings and do that. Yeah, because you guys, we have some problems. I just did did housing and I forwarded that on to se group so they could start building out that that web page. And Kirby said you guys and halfway done through, I think it was transportation so this is kind of where things were at the nut sure how you guys went through usually Kirby has done a pretty complete review of these. Maria, you got a comment and do you remember how far we got was that from our meeting that night that we you had put that in there about the walking and biking I just don't remember. No, I don't think we even got to transportation that night. Okay, so this is housing. Oh just just housing. Okay, because he had he had mentioned in an email I'd asked him where we got to and he said we got through housing and half of the next one. Okay, I didn't see comments and any of the other ones except for this one so. No, I put the comments in before the meeting. Okay. Yes, I mean we can go through these. If everyone remembers last time, the, the boxes are kind of cutting out the major sections that they work on so the introduction is just that opening paragraph. Can we go into the planning context which are the maps. Yes, I mean my issue with the first sense, I think it's been amended now before it didn't include walking and biking. I just went straight to driving finding parking. So I thought, you know, walking and biking should be explicitly stated, but it still doesn't say anything about transit which is surprising to me. So, I think that could be included. Like, people do take transit. That's a critical part of a transportation network. It's something we want to. Oh, I was just gonna say it's something we want to work on now is that something you want me to just work in afterwards. It looks like it looks like Kirby has the comment there that includes public transportation. His alternative is that for a different. No, you're right planning context. Okay. Well, it looks like, yeah, it looks like it was attached to the second sentence here the decisions we make as a city. He wanted to change that to this plan moves the city forward to environmental sustainability and improved quality of life by sporting walking biking public transportation and personal vehicles as a viable form of transportation. Yeah, that sounds good. I like that. Any other comments on that top part. Comment about the walking biking dichotomy. I think right now it's. Kirby's rewrite. I like that phrasing a lot. Oh, it solves it better. Yeah. Yeah, because it was, I mean, the sense as is this kind of like creating this. You know, either or thing between sustainable transportation and non sustainable transportation, which I thought was unnecessary. Nope, I agree. All right, so planning context is where we get into the maps. Mike, you just continue I got to get a pair of reading glasses. Okay. So it looks like they see group kind of pulled out that the city of Montpelier has made continuous improvements to transportation system in recent years these improvements have expanded car free transportation options in the city. So they're, they're trying to outline which maps to use. So it looks like they're going to try to get a major one that just kind of highlights the network, highlighting the transit center. The SIBO and AB shared use path, which is actually the technical name of the bike path. So let's take out the, the non car statement in that first sentence and it would still be accurate. I think just saying expanded transportation options in the city is accurate. I think that's good and anyone else have any thoughts on that. Sounds good. So they're talking about the, the next set they get kind of get into complete streets. We actually have what's called the street typology map, which is probably a second map we would put in there so they're they kind of want to have a, you know, as you're going through the maps the first one looks like it's kind of showing the complete network, you know where the major roads the bike networks bike lanes transit stops parking garages in Montpelier. No parking garages. But the complete streets we do have a complete streets street typology plan, which we can put in there. And then it looks like they're trying to emphasize some of the improvements in the future. Maybe. So as it's right now it says in the future our transportation system. Must do better to address must do better to transition to electric vehicles. I think the city like support the transition to electric vehicles. You know what the city itself isn't. I don't know. Unless you're talking about transit and city vehicles, I think they're really supporting a transition to electric vehicles. Better. Yeah, I see where what you're seeing. I'm talking about the transportation system and really the transition to electric vehicles isn't about the transportation system per se. Unless they're talking about like city run transit and city vehicles. But I don't think that's what they're talking about. This was pulling from the chapters that we had written before really we're trying to get at, you know, there are a lot of things we do well. And some of the things that we're still lacking in one is addressing the stormwater so most of the stormwater that runs off of our streets goes into storm drains untreated into the rivers and so we need to do a better job with that. And the other piece, big piece is we need to start working on preparing for that transition to electric vehicles. So that means more charging stations and those types of things but I think that sentence is that sentence does need to have some rewarding to kind of get at that point. And I'll point this out for some of the newer folks. The transportation committee when when I was working with them on coming up with the transportation plan there was a really big dichotomy between two groups. There was one group which was Montpelier needs to be transitioning us to electric vehicles and moving forward in that, in that way. You know we're still all going to have cars but they're going to be electric cars and it's going to be better for the environment. The other group was in 15 years there aren't going to be any more cars and we have to start preparing for a world that doesn't have cars. And that was, you know, a serious debate that was going on within that committee of, you know, we're only going to have public transportation, and it's not going to be private vehicles so really was a came down to a really big vote at the end. We kind of decide we can't we can't go for both what's our vision and the winning vision was, we're going to be working on transitioning to electric vehicles. And so that kind of changes the dynamics that means, you know, do we or don't we support. And this was at the same time as us building the parking garage do we or don't we support building the parking garage. And so the group was no we're not going to have cars. And the other part was, yes, and that parking garage should be fully built out so that way it could accommodate electric vehicles which it was it was going to have 50 electric charging stations in it. When it was built. Of course it didn't happen but that's different story. The background of where that that piece came in and why this actually is an important piece to have in there is the fact that our plan is to transition to electric vehicles. So, well, of course I'm curious what that vote was, like what what proportion of people are imagining that there aren't going to be private cars. It was closer than you'd think I mean it was a significant group there's you know it's many members of like sustainable Montpelier, you know we need to be it's e bikes and electric scooters and we need more bike lanes and if we didn't have car lanes we could have more bike lanes and more people would be able to bike and I advised them I didn't think that was going to have, you know, I was like into your plan you guys can make the recommendation it'll eventually go to the planning commission. But my thought was I don't think that really has legs to stand on once it gets beyond this committee, and a couple of folks agreed as much as they would. I would like to see a world where we didn't have everybody driving around in personal vehicles they simply felt the reality is that's what's going to happen, and we should prepare for it. Okay, so I think in that sense just saying supporting the transition to electric vehicles would be to me more accurate. That's what the city can do the city can't enforce, you know, I'm just curious what the transportation system is going to do to solve the problem address the problems caused by storm water is there going to be some kind of tax or something that's going to be used to treatment or like what was the vision of that, what that would look like it does tie into this to this. The city is creating a storm water utility now they're in the process of doing that so they can start managing the storm water that comes off of the streets in the parking lots. So there is, there is actually a process to go through. It also has a lot to do with how we build and reconstruct our streets. So actually Taylor Street with a demonstration project. The water, rather than the trees being simply just, you know, tree cells. They're actually tied into the storm water system. So it actually is where the special soil and the water filtered through the soil. Rather than sending the storm water to a great. It sends the storm water to the tree well, and the water soaks into the tree well and goes down at the bottom of the tree well is the collection system. So the trees get to soak up as much of the rainwater as it can. Along the way, and some of that will still get into, you know, and the soils that are in there also capture some of the pollutants. Along the way as well so it's actually a different system for treating the storm water in the downtown area, you know, because it's really hard in the downtown where do you where would you filter all this water well, it gets filtered in these tree wells, where the water flows into the vineyard soil and those roots that can actually go under the sidewalk. And then there was actual discussions of having pervious pavement and there is some pervious pavement on Taylor Street so there are a number of demonstrations. Along Taylor Street when they rebuilt it to look at different treatments including pervious pavement on the sidewalks so that way the tree roots could be under those sidewalks, as well as a number of other ways of treating storm water runoff. You know, in a heavy rain some of it's still going to go down the storm drains, but the hope is that we capture more of it, treat more of it so that way it reduces and does gets more phosphorus loading. Okay, Mike fair enough that's a lot of detail it sounds like DPW has a role. Right. That's what we're saying. Yeah, there's a big process to it and there are lots of things that we're trying to do better. Awesome. Great. Thank you. So synergies. This is looking at the comparisons to other plans. This month here in general transportation sector is 40% of all carbon emissions I believe that's a general 40%. I don't know if we've got a specific amount but Vermont, it's 40%. So maybe that sentence could just be in Vermont, the transportation sector contributes 40%. I just had a comment at the end of that paragraph. You know going back to like complete streets. So making that not just making other forms of transport desirable, but making them safe and desirable. I think biking is currently desirable but it's not as safe as it could be. It's actually a big finding of the transportation committee was that that was their big thing was safe and safe and desirable and biking and pedestrian should be treated on equal footing as automobiles. You know a lot of times we have all the transportation funding goes to building roads and then we have alternative transportation and so they really wanted to not see biking and pedestrian as alternative. But as transportation modes. And I think this just ties to the to the main aspiration of the transportation chapter, which just goes to the fact that the goal the aspiration is that trans that owning a car is not a requirement to live in Montpelier. You know we're not requiring. We're requiring everyone to get rid of your cars, but you don't have to have a car to live in Montpelier, and that opens up a lot of possibilities for people who can't afford cars, people who have disabilities and can't drive so that that was their primary goal. You don't need a car but you have to have a parking space. You do have to have a parking space, unless you're in the downtown. We're working on that john. And this is just that this is, I mean, things have changed a lot since that research was done right like the a lot of the state employees don't come in every day like what are the needs in the downtown I you know it's probably very different than when you guys looked at this a couple years ago. Any other looks like Maria had some comments there. I thought the sentence was kind of jumbled. It does kind of. I mean there's just like the sentence makes it seem as though like single use zoning districts require more parking spaces that's it's really because of the way that they're constructed that people want parking spaces, they don't. The single use the key with the single use zoning districts is that you're basically required to have to drive to move between right working in home so you have to have because they're single you said you have to there's very little opportunity to walk and drive between them because they're usually separated by so much distance and usually the parking spaces then move everybody even farther apart. I mean I would, but I do think it's worded funny. I so I kind of try to rewrite it. I mean, if there was good enough transit, it wouldn't require driving between like, these are all decisions that we're making here. So I kind of try to rewrite it to rephrase that the need for more parking spaces, and that it requires driving it doesn't require driving. Other decisions that we're making make it driving the more desirable than any other form of transportation so you know like there's I'm going to raise rewarding. Everybody else. All right, I'll make that change. I'll put that on the list. I agree you can delete the talent. So this comment also goes back to like this age old conflict between like. You know if we get rid of parking downtown then you know small businesses won't have any will use their customers. And so this idea of like that parking is required for patrons is, I think in accurate, especially in a town like Montpelier where a lot of people just walk to our downtown which is kind of the point of having a walkable downtown. So usually I can pull out why we wrote something I'm trying to figure out why that was written that way. Well I think there is this like assumption that like, well parking is required for customers, like we need to have parking in front of this storefront, or else we will lose customers. You know. Yeah there's yeah. For Montpelier the big reason we need parking is the fact that we've got 6,000 more jobs than we have workers. So, but yes. And then this. Yeah, I agree. This should be rewarded whatever whatever gets changed this this doesn't make a ton of sense. And does that sentence really add anything. I mean, of course you're going to need truck deliveries I mean is that really adding any information can we just delete the whole sentence. What is softened it up just to add in some and require some parking for patrons. Well I mean the tone of it, you know it is crucial to ensure that our transportation system accommodates these needs. You know it is setting it up as like. This is crucial this is needed and necessary for our account like our economic strength as a city. And I. It's like, compared to like a lot of the other language in this section, it is very strongly worded, you know, you know, requiring parking. So I think we could say that we would like to ensure the transportation system accommodates industrial and commercial developments, or, you know, and their needs, you know, kind of like balance it out a little bit with the needs of pedestrians and people living in the city. What if we just took out the and require parking for patrons. And the transportation system. It is critical to our industrial and commercial develop developments that they have the truck truck traffic crucial or transportation accommodates these needs we could just remove the parking part of it. Yeah, I think just putting. It's really straight to additionally it's crucial to ensure that our transportation system accommodates our industrial and commercial developments and their transportation needs like I don't think that it needs these. I don't know. It's a little clunky. Do you have to leave the comma. So basically delete the blue and leave additionally it is crucial to ensure transportation companies that's from needs. Good. Good to me. Maria is that good. Yeah. Because I mean, that's what transportation is it's like balancing all of these different needs in one place. So it looks like there was a comment from Kirby on that, but it looks like we've kind of captured that. Not sure what I was what if it was like rewritten already. What this was referring to. Yeah. All right, so then we've got the goals and aspirations. We have just one aspiration and a handful of 12345 goals. You had a question on the appearance of the appearance of the mountainous transportation amenities for non vehicular travelers. I feel like there's a history here. Yeah. So a lot of a lot of our streets scapes and everything really got dumbed down with the automobile because people drive so fast that you don't get to appreciate the details of buildings and you know, no sense putting out flower boxes along the side of a highway. So a lot of a lot of our transportation system, if we're going to start to shift towards more bike and pedestrian and like the transportation committee likes to point out everybody is a pedestrian at some point. You know, even if you're just driving your car to the parking lot you're going to walk from the parking lot to the building you're eventually a pedestrian and to have that streetscape and those transportation infrastructure be more attractive and not be, you know, just just another bridge and just another sidewalk. So that's that's what that was trying to get at is to try to engage and get more art involved to get things more animated, I guess. And so that that's why we actually have a transportation of transportation infrastructure committee and a complete streets committee and I think complete streets is the one that is trying to look at those types of things. So, you know, the painting on he me lot and the different artwork that's been going in that's all goes to making a better transportation system. Okay. Are these is the goal language locked in. It's from the whole from the implementation plan so these are what's in the implementation plan. I just like your phrasing better. I feel like I always said I always say this in meetings, but I would say like improve my pillar streetscape, you know, like you kind of nailed it when you were describing it. I was like, I was ugly, like I didn't understand what the point of it was, but like those two why you know why why do we spend a little bit more on you know granite curbs as opposed to concrete curbs and it's just little little things that go in. But we can we will we will get another stab at the goals and the strategies. And when we do we'll have to come back and touch on them here. So we have the implementation publicly owned, which means we can do a lot through city policies. Okay, so it looks like Kirby made a word switch in there which is fine. That's pretty much what was in in there just grabs up what were the various strategies we had. So yeah, I will add in the who's involved I'm also going to have to add in those two committees said we've got transportation infrastructure committee and a complete streets committee, which was an improvement. I got here we used to have four transportation committees. And that was get a bite committee a pedestrian committee, the transportation committee in the parking committee, and they all worked separately. So it's nice to have that down to two. All right well that looks good right everybody so everybody having. Yeah, so Mike I think we look at the next one. All right, if you guys still want to jump in and do one more I will. I think we got time for one more. Is it marked up like that or do we need to do some more homework. That one has one comment from Kirby let me see if the other one has anything. Yeah I'm not seeing as many comments on those I don't know if we want to hold off. The people want to have a couple weeks to review that. That's the only, that's the only comment there's some stuff in here from Kirby but other than that one. Looks like it really hasn't had a lot of review. What are folks saying. So I reviewed it, but I just I don't know natural resources as well as I know transportation. Like that's, you know, so it's. It's harder to pick things if it's not your wheelhouse. Yeah, so general. That game. I said, let's let's go and it's not very long. Let's just take a look at it. Okay, so generally for folks who aren't familiar with this natural resources is it was developed with the conservation commission. So usually when we're talking natural resources, it can go everything from, you know, geology and soils to water resources and natural communities. So it's a wide range of topics that it kind of can get into it can get into air quality and stuff like that but most of the focus was in Montpelier has kind of been around the natural community side. And a lot of the plant the conservation commission did a lot of work on mapping all the natural communities and identifying rare, rare species rare communities. And then they also did a lot with vernal pools and wetlands so there's you'll kind of see there they'll probably be a lot of that in here. We did you know what you guys we did talk about this last time. And I just look back at the minutes we did it says we did talk about it. So there were not a lot of comments on this section is what the minutes say. Okay. I also remember us getting stuck on that that paragraph that's cheated. Yeah. And then, at some point Kirby is like let's fold our 10 I just hit the wall so I don't know if I was doing. That was during this or not we hit some wall. Yeah this language looks very different than anything I would have written so either you guys are Kirby changed it or. SE group took a few liberties because this is not the way I usually write things. I think it was SE group. Over water quality and land conservation are critical priorities for the community. Yeah, I think this is where Kirby got stuck right here. So I think the one thing we were trying to do in developing the natural resources plan was to try to start to work, although they're both in the same department. We have a conservation commission, and we have a parks commission. And so one of the things we were trying to do was to help get them to start thinking about, you know, identifying in the conservation commission areas that should be conserved or preserved. And then trying to work with the parks commission about making sure that these areas get either easements or the city prioritizes those and purchasing into future parks. And they do have a natural resources inventory. And that's what it references here. And that's just telling you about, and these things need protection. So this is a little bit of the conservation commission starting to talk about what needs protection so that way we can start working in the implementation later on about talking about working with the parks to get those areas protected resources. So we've got a number of things we do need to map with there are a lot of things I mean this. This chapter could have a lot this is where the maps go in the planning context there could be a lot of maps that go in here. And I'll have to work with SC group and identifying which ones to narrow it down to I know we'd have the natural communities maps. I know we have to have the forest block map because that's a requirement under state law now to show how our forest blocks connect outside to these other areas and we have some actually large forest blocks because especially as you are looking at the western side, they tend to connect into large forest blocks that are in middle sex so we'll have to get those mapped. So going back to that first paragraph that we were all kind of like tossing around last time. I still don't necessarily understand the point of the, the loveliness of most popular rights aren't tied directly to the land and water I don't know that that's that needs to be said. What if we just, what if it was just today very little of my pillar is managed forest land or farmland period. Water quality and thoughtful land conservation are critically are critical priorities for the community like I don't think it needs to go into like, even though we don't rely on the land for our jobs, we still care about water quality, like I don't think that needs. That's how it currently reads to me, which I think is kind of like creating a weird. Just to care about water quality even if our jobs aren't tied to the land. I agree I like that I don't know what other other folks think. Yeah, as much as possible. All right, so what was it again, Maria, you had a period after farmland period. So what was the next meeting everything up to water quality. All right, so. Oh, today very little of Montpelier is managed forest land or farmland. Got it, period. So what was the next. Oh, just take that out to the period. I think so I'm not sure whether to keep the however, and they're not. It's common. How about water quality and thoughtful land conservation remain critical priorities for the community. I like that. Still care and land conservation remain. Yeah, critical. Yeah, pick out the R. And take out the however to Brian or keep it in. I don't know that. I would take a big sentence. I mean, you could just, you could take, you could just make that one sentence. But and put a button. So however, talk about and go to John's comments and make it a very efficient. I don't see that being a but that's my. Like, even though it's not managed forest land, we can still care about water quality. It's not like a. Oh, yeah, it could just be an end could be an end. Are other people seeing what I'm seeing. I think it could be an end. I'm just, I'm remembering now curvy was going to talk about compact downtown, but we still care about the natural, whatever, but I think this is straightforward, simple. Oh, that's like, we have. You just do that just that's that's good. You can just discover the however, or but do you think that's okay. Kirby had this whole thesis that like, Montpelier decided to be a dense city in order to preserve the farmland and forest land elsewhere in Vermont. Yeah, that is actually one of our key features now that I see where this where he was going with this. I'm trying to think about how to word it. It's used word we don't want to use Montpelier again, I just write it. Then we can adjust it. It's not going to be right. Yeah, how to get that all the fit into coherent sentence. I'd have to play with stuff for a little while usually sit there with a yellow pad and blast it over but I think that's that's where he was trying to go and he's in his right that's that is one of our key features that we always talk about. For example, Act 250 talks about protection of ag soils, and we expressly say in our zoning and in our planning we don't protect ag soils and Montpelier. It's not what we do. If we if, you know, if we can if we can accommodate more growth, this is where it should be because that's this is the most walkable most bikeable area in if that means building on some ag soils that's okay because what we want to do is to accommodate the growth so that in some ways places like East Montpelier and Berrytown and Middlesex can have places that can remain agriculture and rural. How about saying something like by preserving its density or preserving its compact city development. What can help support or can help protect the rural countryside, something like that. You know, I think it actually is the more than we talk about I think it's a pretty important idea what you just said might right like that's the whole thesis behind all of our density discussions so you get high I mean Kirby might want to stab at it Maria can put in what she just said maybe just tell Kirby that we left it there from the take a look at unless you really want to get this to him right away and like. We've got transportation we've moved one forward to SC group I was just trying to think what if up top here because I'm trying to put together a coherent paragraph. So if we were talking about you know today very little is managed forest land. Forest farm and forest land. I'm thinking while at the same time water quality and thoughtful in conservation remain critical priorities for the community. How about moving the sentence that you just wrote up into between those between farmland and water quality. I think maybe to explain why Montpelier has very little managed forest land is that kind of where you're what you're thinking. Well that's not what I was I was thinking but I was just trying to go and get the context going. While at the same time water quality land country and marine priorities. I you know I think what Maria says actually pretty good if we move that to the front because we're not really talking about. Density or really talking about natural resources right so if you move that to the front and then it. Then it flows this to be the first sentence. It may still need some word tweaking but it's there. I think you might be able to put a semi colon after growth. And get rid of today. Well doesn't SC group kind of like take some liberties you know that it's like we get wordsmith a whole bunch but they they tend to have a little bit of license right. Yeah they're trying to take they're trying to get out of taking license because they they did a bunch of that and then kind of got some pushback. So that's why they wanted the words as much of the words to kind of be here so that way they could feel comfortable knowing there they can go forward with it. Yeah if you want I can try to work on that a little bit more till my brain clicks into. Because really what we're trying to say is. I think it's pretty good Mike we just take a look at it again next time. No you want to fool around a little bit. And we'll just put that in for now and that's pretty close to what we had approved before when we talked about the synergies. Yeah they had a lot of goals. Everybody good without. And we can we can bring it back up for. Oh there's another paragraph sorry. Talks about the conservation commission in the parks commission so that's good. So we'll look at it again next time so you know if you got a couple weeks if you want to look at it some more that'll be in there. Okay Mike so I think you're are you the one going to provide a summary on S 100 that looks like the state that they the legislature did a bunch of stuff we're already talking about. Yeah so this is the home act I just want to give everyone an update I did put something in the weekly report on Friday but I wanted to just go and address it with you guys when I put it on the agenda I hadn't finished reviewing it. And it turns out. So S 100 is the home act it has a lot of changes, but at the end of the day the changes that go into effect on June 30th or July 1 whichever date it is. We already meet all those standards so we already have all those requirements met. That part is is good. The next piece. The second half of the or the rest of the bill goes into effect on December. 2024 so 18 months from now. So we still have to go through and do a bunch of reviews of what will go into effect next year but occasionally. We've had a lot of calls in the planning department well maybe half dozen calls at the planning department from people who said hey the home act is in effect what can I do now. And that is whatever the you could do in the past which is actually a lot there's a lot of we have a lot of development potential. You know, so if people have ideas we're trying to encourage them to come in but most of what was in the the bill for July 1 was. You had to allow duplexes. You have to allow single family dwellings which we already do. We put that in and you have to allow up to four units depending on how you read the new rules which whatever but it doesn't doesn't really matter because you have to allow up to quad flexes anywhere you have sewer and water. We already do that. And we also allow them all is permitted uses as quad flexes everywhere so we already meet the rule. What was written was really bad and I won't go into that. But regardless, we meet the rule anyway so I'm not too worried about that. So that's the big update so if somebody does it for some reason knows you're on the planning commission and wants to know what we're doing the answer is we don't have to do anything at this time to meet the rules. So that's interesting. I read it. I that wasn't the way I interpret it but I'd love to chat about the quad flex because we talked about that as a as a change that we were proposing with this next revision. So if you went into like what's our smallest start. I know there's no density requirements in the downtown but what is it 1500 is that the small slot size outside of downtown. Yes. You know our 1500 you can you can put a quad in there already. No. So, according to our attorneys, the interpretation is you have to allow them in those areas but it doesn't exempt them from density requirements. So what we're talking about for our zoning update one of our four options, which maybe, you know, it may be more than one that we pick, we're going to kind of that all a cart discussion one is not having any density requirement if you're within the design district. So if you're in design review you don't have to meet density requirements. Another one was. If you're in a conforming law, you can have a duplex, regardless of the density and we talked about making that for units, regardless of density. The state law does not say regardless of density. So the state law just says if you're in the area with sewer and water you have to allow it, but it doesn't. That's that's the legal opinion because it doesn't say regardless of density. There's going to be legal challenges on that one. Yeah, actually, actually it's worded a lot worse than that. So it's, there's a lot of questions about that one but yeah. Any questions for Mike on the legislation. Well, I'm just curious what are the things that we'll have to work on for December 2024. I guess that the, it will impact for our conversations whether we put it in this year's zoning amendments or whether we wait till next year for the zoning amendments is going to involve town, the town hill neighborhood. Remember, well, most of you weren't there john will remember it. Kirby would remember it we did. The, the town hill neighborhood pushed back really hard on the zoning changes. And so they ended up being zoned residential 24,000, which is a little more than a half an acre. Didn't meet the 90% rule didn't do anything we just from a political reason had to just go and say, There, there you go, you guys are that's what city council basically ended up doing the new s 100. One of the provisions going into effect next fall or next winter in December is everybody with sewer and water with any area that actually says district they're going to probably go through and fix that with both sewer and water, must allow five units per acre. So they're setting that as the minimum density. So basically, all of our other zoning districts res 9000 on down all meet that requirement already. What's in actually res nine I've got to go and look at that maybe, or so we might have to lower that one a little bit so we may have some discussion of having to lower res nine a little bit. And some of our discussions that we're having if we say, as Gabe was mentioning, if you've got a confirming single family lot you can have four units well that meets that five units an acre requirement. So we just have to go through and see how to meet it with res nine but res 24 is going to have a lot of discussion. How does that end up coming into compliance. Maybe just they get forced into it. It may be something where we've got to make a proposal that says, we're going to rezone these guys res 8500 because that's what it has to be. And I'd have to grab my calculator to see exactly what five units an acre. It's going to be right around in that area, because 43 560 divided by five is going to be somewhere in there 8000 and change. So, any other questions that will be a question. I saw it look like there are a lot of compliance and reporting requirements I I didn't read those sections very closely I don't know if that does that fall on the city is that more staff time and staff work or no. Mostly state those are state reports, rather than make decisions this this legislative session was all about reports. So, you know, the Department of Housing and Community Development will have a lot of reports to write. Okay, if nothing else for Mike on this anything else. Thanks Mike for the overview so Mike if you I know that we had. So we've got the stuff from the the ARP and new urbanism report and then you had some other provisions and other things that we're going to be recommended. Are we able to put dates on a calendar so then we can walk that back and talk about the public engagement or we stole too far out. I think it'd be helpful if we start to put some dates down to think about when we want to do it because it'll, it'll. I think if we don't put some start thinking about some dates we're going to start. I think that is going to keep rolling and I know we've got two sets of stuff we want where we've been talking about one is this out, you know, start to have a public meeting before we go to public hearings on the zoning. And then we've also talked about starting to have those public meetings on the city plan storyboards. So my thought that's true. My thought was I do want to start, and I've been pushing se group to say that we would want to start to have those meetings. You know, by the end of, I, you know, I said, I said publicly July I wanted to start having me so if we can get in by the end of July for those that would be good. Maybe if we were thinking about a public meeting on the zoning in the first meeting of July, and then the zoning for the second meeting of July, neither one of these is a public hearing these are just public meetings we're going to warn them we've got a new public information officer will she spend here. Evelyn has been working for us for a year part time she's goes full time in July. She's going to help me roll this stuff out but I'm going to need more time to get ready for the city plan stuff. These are these are the outreach meetings not the hearings. These are not the hearings I just last time we did zoning changes. One of the things people kind of beat us up on was well you never came and asked us what we thought for you just put these things to public hearing so we're like okay. So I thought what we would do, because we might not have every line in the strike out ready to go. I'm working with my staff I've got all those technical changes done those I've got a strike out copy that's all done. Within my, within my, my office, we are trying to nail down some final language for demolition. We want to fix the demolition clauses we've had a number of people who've said it's too easy to demolish buildings in the Montpelier, and therefore people are going to demolish buildings and build these big boxes with flat roofs. So I figure if we help come up with new demolition rules that may help debate that argument. We also need to update our stormwater rules that's just a technical thing that our TPW crew and us are working on. And we also need to do some work on some sign rules so within my office we're working on some of those technical pieces but we don't have to go to the public to talk about those what we want to get from the public is what are all the things that we're working on from a housing standpoint, what do you guys, what, what do you the public think is this, which ones because we were talking about all a car we got a bunch of things we could do the no density in the design that's an option. Everyone who's got a single family home can put in a quadplex regardless of density that's a second option. I've talked about maybe doubling, maybe double the density so you know you may be in res 6000 but you can have one unit per 3000 we already do that for single family homes. But this would allow triplexes and quadplexes to incrementally come in obviously you wouldn't you would either do the thing Gabe talked about the four units, or you double the density you probably wouldn't do both, but we'll see which which one kind of comes out as a better option or more palatable option. The idea being, if we can't get rid of density, we can move density to the point where it becomes more irrelevant. It really doesn't become a barrier but it's still there so people who are worried about density was still there there's still a density limit but it's just not out there but we've got a couple of proposals we remember we're going to make these changes to the use table so like multi family split into two groups so there's five to 14 and 15 and up so that way we've got more things there we're going to make some changes to congregate living so that way we don't discriminate against congregate living as much as we do now. Right now it's a single line will break it into three or four lines spending on the size so that way. So we've got a bunch of things we can talk about with housing and density related issues, and it'll also give a platform for the public to talk about, you know we're not doing enough or maybe we should do this or have we considered that it'll give them an opportunity to talk before we finalize the plan and go to public hearings in, well wouldn't be till August obviously we've got another meeting in July. Okay, so if we did that we're looking at July 10 would be the public meeting. So, I'm trying to remember the bridge publication schedule. Does anybody know when that one issue that goes everywhere what they that's a Wednesday right. I want to get one out in the hallway which I could grab which has a date on it we could add two weeks to it to see where that is just seems like if we want to get a letter out, encouraging people to come out and look at some of these ideas. Then, you know we're coming up on probably wanting to have that out. Yeah let me grab I can see what what the date was on that one. I said you'd have time to work on that letter the draw an initial draft this week. Does anyone have a, or maybe it's in the notes I haven't looked at the just thinking about the suite of housing options. I didn't take good notes on that last time but anyway I can get us started. But if anyone has good notes, they can send them my way. One is labeled June 7 to 27. So they looks like it's a three week edition. So, I think we would have to start letting them know early that we want to put something in then they would probably need it in. If I got my. So July, I say it would be in the July 5 issue. And then we'd have the hearing would be the next Monday. I mean, what are the other ways we can we can get that out right and I mean what are the other ways the city tends to communicate on issues like that. Yeah well we like I said we've got a new public information officer so we have the website we've got front porch forum. We've got Facebook. So they do a much better job now than in the past of having a coordinated public outreach. Mike could you send to area on I can't remember which meeting we had we had a meeting where we talked about the CNU piece and then you also went through some of the the menu of items. You know we're probably not going to include every single thing but at least to give some examples she's going to write the first draft of the bridge article. You know and then we can at least have like okay here are some things that we're we're thinking about we'll love some public input on. I mean which minutes kind of capture that I remember there was one week where we really they were pretty good it was pretty detailed. Yeah I'll try to track that down. Okay so if if so then I guess if we get that. And we have that shared somewhere we could all look at that on the 26th of June right just be comfortable with what's going out and then we'd want to get it in the hands of the bridge pretty quickly and I imagine. I know that the city will say exactly the same thing as the planning commission but I imagine it would be pretty close when you think Mike. Yeah well whatever you guys put together they will they'll put it out in your name if they want if you guys are wanting to put something out they'll say the planning commission has wants you to know this. That sounds like a good plan we'll get a first draft and then we'll have time and take a look at on the 26th. Okay Mike is there anything else on that that we need to talk about I mean I like the idea of the public information sessions I do think. You know like I don't really know what that looks like so I think we'll need some coaching and should we bring in the public information officer to talk about how that what that might look like. Usually I think what I would be envisioning for this zoning one is, and it may be we may be thinking about having this as an in person meeting will probably have a zoom option for people as well. So I mean if you if you can't make it, but it's sometimes helpful to have this more in person but it's, it's a new world now so I don't, I'm not sure exactly how it would work but there certainly would be a public comment. But usually what happens is, I would kick things off with a quick PowerPoint and explanation of what we're doing and, you know, then laying out. What we're trying to get from them you know we want to hear from you on on on whatever's up but these are the things we're thinking about doing. We think these are the next steps. And we want to know what you think about our ideas. We're going to be putting together a draft and we're going to be bringing zoning amendments to go to public hearing in August or early September and we really want to know before we put pen to paper. What do you guys think, and that's pretty much, and then we just leave it open and we hear from them. Yeah, and for folks who haven't gone through this before a lot of times, it's a lot of just sitting and listening and taking notes. We sometimes ask comments but we've tried not to get into discussions or debates with people it's really about giving people the floor and and hearing what they have to say and and thanking them for their comments and thanking them for their input because it's really important. But we do try to kind of keep a little bit out of the even when we give our public hearing on it. We may explain why we did something but we we try to avoid kind of arguing with the public. We try to, you know, these are their opportunity to provide input. What do you think it looks like two weeks later for the city plan because that's a little bit more like people almost need to really reviewed it before they show up right. Yeah, and that one, you know, I'll be really under the gun to make sure we're ready for that one. And hopefully we don't have to push it to August but if we have to, you know, I'm going to try to set things up to get there. It really will absolutely be in person, and we might be moving it to a different location I don't know how many people are going to show up so you know, sometimes we would do these at the senior center where we've got a little bit more room. We used to do them upstairs I've had some of these upstairs and lost nation theater that's a little tougher space to get out of lost nation theater. So we may talk about venue, but the idea is, again, giving a presentation, giving a kick off of what's the big process to those to the city plan that we've been working on since 2018. We're going to try to give them the broad definition of what we've been doing and what we're working on, and then start to narrow it down to, we have five chapters that were, or four chapters whatever it is that we're, we want to start getting input on. This is just public meetings these aren't public hearings. We can buy a different station setup with five different computers and people can just rotate from one to another, and we can show what the storyboard looks like. And then beside it this is my vision of what it would look like beside it we've got, you know, an easel or something that has a print out of the implementation strategies so people understand we've got the storyboard, then we have our goals and strategies and this is what the goals and strategies look like. We want to hear from people, you know, sometimes we'll set them up. This sounds like a big production from the planning staff right that's what that sounds like. Yeah, but you guys are the ears. Yeah, you guys are the ears. Okay, yeah, I just wanted to know what what we needed to do so it sounds like you guys have both of those things and we're just going to be on hand to listen to you know get feedback and be prepared for adjustments. Yeah, you guys are going to have to hear what public has to say and then start to make decisions of. We bit off too much we've been up more than we could chew on that proposal maybe we should back it off which we, you know we had we did that with design review we heard from the public we pulled that back. Different places we've had to in some places we've gotten pushed from the public that said. I don't think you guys are doing enough and I think that that's another option so we hear from the public and eventually we're going to come up with a with a proposal that will put into a public hearing. But that will be much farther for the city plan that's much farther down the road. This first one is five of the chapters and then hopefully by September or October we have the other five or six chapters. And then we're ready to go at the end of the year to start having the actual public hearings because the public has seen all 11 chapters at that point. And we've reviewed their public comments and we say, I think we feel comfortable going to public hearing let's go to public hearing and start the process. I think we should include that in this this letter the date of July 24 or is it just too early that we should do a second communication if we're going to do it then. Yeah, I wouldn't confuse the zoning update with the city plan update. I would stick to the one which is we're doing the zoning revisions and So does that make sense to everybody will look at the letter for next week and with the eye towards the 10th of July and then we'll follow Mike's guidance as to whether we're ready for the city plan that the following meeting or not. So any questions for Mike or if you guys have a comment about the, I'm not sure how you typically like word this, but I'd like the idea of calling it like a zoning listening session, you know to get across that we are here to listen to what the community wants, as opposed to, you know, us presenting our lofty ideas to them, and then having pushed back, probably immediately, you know, but if it sprays as like we're here to listen like this is what we thought. What do you think you know I think maybe it sets off a different tone. That's great. That's great Maria thank you. Yeah I do I think that would be helpful and I think the fact that we have all been talking about this as kind of an a la carte we haven't decided what our final thing is and I think that's a good time for us to go to the public and say hey we haven't made a decision. But we've done this in 2018 and 19 and 20 and we've heard from the public. What do you guys think if we did this. Or we could do it this way or we could do it this way we really haven't you know what would you guys like us to follow up on and hopefully we get some some amount of input. Are there any lessons learned Mike from how you guys have done the engagements on the Elks Club property that you know in terms of getting the word out getting better feedback getting better participation or a lot of that is the result of Evelyn Evelyn bringing Evelyn on part time and most of her part time work was organizing those community outreach sessions. So she's she's a tremendous tremendous asset. Because she's got all the connections to all the different outlets for getting this information out, and she also monitors it so she keeps an eye out, which I don't have the time or don't and don't do is you know, actually reading the front porch forum posts. And when people come up and make a comment then she's like oh I've got to respond to that person to make sure they understand this or I'll have to have Mike or Meredith come back with a reply so we can make sure that this comment that was put on Facebook will have a good response to We got the right team members or you said tell us. Yeah, in the past it used to just be you know every department up to themselves and you know I'm not on the Facebook and front porch forum so I'm not connecting with with folks at that level. So they try to her job is really to hit as many people and in many places as we can. So that way, as best we can, not have people say I didn't know if I knew about it I would have said something but I didn't know about it. Right. Very good any other comments for for Mike or thoughts about the engagement. Okay if somebody wanted to move to approve the minutes from our last meeting I would take that motion. I'll just look at it if you haven't looked at them yet. I did just look at them so I will move to approve the minutes. Is there a second to Ariane's motion. I'll second it. We got a second. Marie look like you're still re still reading. Yeah, let's give you a minute. Oh, sorry. John are you good so all in favor of approving the minutes. Hi. Hi. Any opposed. Okay, thank you. I'll take a motion to adjourn unless there's some other comments or questions that Mike has or for Mike or anyone else. We have a second. I'll second. All right, the meeting is adjourned. Thanks everybody.