 Okay, great. We can go ahead and start the meeting Are there any changes or additions to the agenda? I have none Seeing none we can open up public comment This is a time reserved for comments and questions on topics not on the agenda Time for public comment is included by default in each of the agenda items All right, do we have anybody from the public? Yeah, there's no members of the public here in the room I will mention you're muted or we can't hear you. Oh I can I can yeah, can you hear me abby? Hmm, but Brendan you can Sarah you can Joe can you hear me I can hear you and Ruth it looks like you can hear me as well I don't clear. Oh, can you not hear me? We can hear you It might have something to do. I know I see abby has a headset. I don't know if that somehow is Making a difference I'm putting it on my computer audio. Was it me that just couldn't hear you guys or can we hear Eric? Can you hear me now? Yes, okay, so then I think it was just you Okay, sorry no problem So there's nobody here in the room for public comment I will mention though that Connor is in the room with me. So he is he is here I did for I did receive comments about 530 today that I forwarded around to you all via email If you haven't looked at them, that's fine The comments I think are more related to other legislative items through Act 47 Then more so I think than what we're talking about tonight But still comments are there from from a member of the public from Michael Arnold So you should you'll have those in your inbox and If you don't already so otherwise, there's no public comment Great. Thanks, Eric Let's move on to approving the meeting minutes. Did anybody have any edits or changes to the meeting minutes? I'm with anybody like to make a motion and to approve the meeting minutes I'll second The meeting minutes have been approved from our junior meeting Yeah, we should vote All right Everybody in favor say aye. All right. I Anybody oppose Anybody want to abstain Connor's abstaining Okay, I think now the meeting minutes can be approved. Right. That's correct. Thank you Okay Moving on to item 5 continued discussion on the uludr section 4.4 design review And over to Eric. Yes. So we are here to continue discussion on design review specifically included with the agenda packet were The drafts was was the draft text or is the draft text that's been updated since our last meeting to include the changes That we discussed at the last meeting but for tonight's meeting I wanted to focus on the actual district boundaries where this text will actually apply So I included a map in with the agenda packet It I included two versions of it one with an aerial background one without for us to review This is really just a place to start. I think I tried to to the best of that I could Identify district boundaries that kind of matched up with what the intent of the design review Text is so that we can have some continuity between the two What I'll do is share my screen here so that you all can see The big map and we can zoom in and zoom out as necessary. So you're not trying to look at the The smaller versions that you all had or that were included in the agenda. So Give me one second here to get all my stuff reconfigured But so this is yeah, here's the design review boundaries some draft boundaries as presented identified three areas from some of the discussions. I've had with my colleagues because this is Technically an overlay. It's it's considered similar to a zoning district But it just it basically applies additional regulations to the areas that are identified So all the base zoning would still apply where these locations are But there would be this additional design review component. So I tried to group it Where there are a Denser a denser grouping of some of our historic resources that have been identified So you'll notice there's the the area kind of around just north of downtown on Including East Allen Street in the yellow part of East Spring Street While there's not a lot of historic resources in the mansion Platt Street area. It seems like that's Kind of an important location just because of the nature of the buildings that are there So I wanted to include those and then some of the the buildings across the street on the cross main street as well for one area a Second area kind of on the southwestern end of town along canal Street including the mills and a lot of the downtown buildings and Branching out over to this little pocket of resources. It's actually it is a actually historic district as well It's I believe the Henry Leclerc workers housing district so Wanted to include that and then the third area which I'm a little Not sure kind of meets the the standards is really St. Francis St. Francis Xavier and the Our Lady of Providence Building across the street and the reason I have a little bit of pause about this is because it only includes two properties So it could be because this is akin to a zoning It could be construed as spot zoning in this location, which is not permitted So that's why I have a little bit of pause with this particular area Having said that because of the size of it the amount of land area that's included It's it's it's kind of a gray area. So it's possible that it may it may be okay. So I wanted to That's just a quick overview of the three Areas that I've identified But really what I wanted to do tonight was to get input from you all to see what you think about these if they're too big too small if they should be contiguous or Separated as they are and Yeah, kind of figure out the mapping component now that we have the text component And we can refer back to the text if we need to I've got those documents as well in front of me so I'll pause there and Let you all offer input Yeah Eric is there a reason why Like the the Champlain Mill If I'm wrong unless I'm wrong the Champlain Mill is not covered by this, right? That's correct. So that is in our downtown core zoning district Which already has a design review component because of the Act 250 permit that's there So any properties in our downtown core and actually let me just turn on the zoning here. Hopefully this won't be Super washed out, but so this area in red is our downtown core zoning district Any property that's located in this red area has to go through an Act 250 permitting process as part of that process The city council actually has to approve the designs of any any properties that are There any projects that are there because the city has to be a co-applicant On that Act 250 amendment Additionally through the Act 250 review process. There is a review of historic Historic resources is included with that along with the a myriad of other of other elements But because there's a separate design review process for the downtown core That's why none of those properties were included with these districts. It's just the red. We're talking about that's correct Yes, that's not just this area in red One okay. Yeah, which is why the the property is just north of that Yep, are included and the properties to the west are included. Okay, good. Yeah, okay I'd say one thing just to go back. Well, I don't mean to move the subject if you were so I talk about that but The Weaver Street Even though right now there's only two buildings on there I mean in the future that lot could be sold and We would probably want to have some kind of Design review in that area that was to happen. I think which is there sorry is there a particular Property you were referring to Sarah. Yeah, just the whole the whole one in blue All right. Oh, thank Francis. What the same Francis? Yes So I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood your comment Well, you were saying you were worried about that spot That that piece in blue because it only has two buildings on it Well, there's only two properties is is my concern But if the building was if the that property was to be sold it could be highly developed, right? Potentially. Yeah, there is potential. I guess also having said that the just to look at the aerial I mean a large portion of this is obviously the cemetery. Yeah, so yeah, that's right. That's not gonna get redeveloped I don't imagine but so probably somewhere on this Southern end there could be but it does include the school the rectory the church building itself So there are several structures there again. I think given the size of the property an argument could be made that it Could be included but it's it's just something I Want a flag because it's it's it is there's since there's only two actual properties in that district That could be construed as a spot zone, but Yeah, but I mean who owns the cemetery It's part of the st. Francis Xavier property. It's all one property here Yeah, but it is a cemetery considered anything else I any kind of public land or any kind of public You know I'm saying It's I mean it's private property. So it's Yeah, it falls within that realm, but you can't just go in there dig those all up and put big buildings in there I mean, there's some regulations to the cemetery. I believe I Believe there are I don't know offhand But I imagine that the folks that bought the plots would have something to say about that Yeah, the exhuming of the bodies, but I don't I don't know the regulations around cemeteries Yeah, I'm just meaning that that that might help to Make a better argument to say why not Rope that whole that whole piece of land in there in this I I Don't want to yeah, I know I don't want to speak in in finalities, but I would be surprised if If the bodies were exhumed for redevelopment Eric correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know that st. Francis Parish owns The convent what was the formerly the convent property the one on West Spring Street. Yeah, I think that's right. I don't think they own that So it's not necessarily one continuous parcel here either that we're talking about. Oh, that's right It's not it's not just it's there's two parcels, but it's it's it's limited It's limited. There's a limited number of parcels in this in this one boundary area. Yes, but there are two individual parcels Well, and if it's a close call me we can Put that out this regulation and then if they want to like sue to stop that they They can do that. I guess, you know, I don't want to do anything. That's clearly illegal But I also think if it could go either way and we think it's a good policy, then I don't see what's wrong with with doing that Yeah, and I guess the point of me bringing that up is I intend to get an interpretation on that from our from our From the city's council. There are legal counsel before before moving this forward to any type of hearing I but I wanted to get some input from you all first about the the boundaries in general to see if there's If you have any concerns, I like that boundary Around that the blue I get you. Yeah, I think that's good. So I would say let's see what we can do with that. I just My I Guess Observation about how these are drawn. I guess I don't quite I Don't quite understand the function of carrying it over so much onto Weaver Street and yet having that jog in the top the north left corner Because if you're kind of looking at like a district I mean to have like it that review stop mid block there doesn't quite make sense to me as far as like Kind of streetscape and cohesion Are you you're referring to this area, Joe? Yeah. Yeah, I'm saying that like to me having having so much extend over on to Weaver Street Doesn't quite make as much sense. I do I realize that there is a historic structure in there I believe that a historic preservation professional might believe that even though The parcels fronting Main Street and West Spring here The Northwest corner here, that's that's not included. So right in here. Yes Even though those are not state Historic register listed properties if somebody was looking at a Potential historic district those buildings would be probably considered in part of a district So if I'm so you're if I'm understanding what you're saying you would like to see this yellow boundary Extended at least through these first couple of properties up to eat up to West Spring Street But then also potentially taking these out from Weaver Street Well, I guess that's what I'm saying is I see less need of covering Weaver Street and more as far as design review for You know Again, because we're not just looking at historic structures. We're looking at kind of right cohesion and buildings are Interrelating to one another and so I see more sense in including that jog those three parcels in this district rather than Weaver Street so basically kind of bringing it in along this line and I will make that look like an actual line here in a second Unless unless just for for coherence As far as I understand I don't think that the form-based code district extends that far into Weaver Street as what's being covered over That's right. It only goes to the railroad tracks. Okay So you're suggesting that jog but then eliminating Basically behind Levines down through here Yeah, does that does that make sense to folks? Why do you want to eliminate that piece that Eric's highlighted? I guess I'm I'm just kind of thinking that as far as if you're swearing the district I would think it's more important to have those three on Main Street included rather because you're You're feeling like it's one or the other if you are you're being asked to choose one or the other Would you go if that was in the table? Well, I guess I'm saying though that just kind of making more of a Sort of a click a Clear district I guess I Don't know if that logic. I mean people can feel free to disagree with me I'm trying to I'm trying to look at my phone on street scene to see what what is actually on that street But I'm just thinking that having In the having the design review stop in the middle of a block doesn't isn't good design practice to me Well that by eliminating the one you just suggested there you're sort of doing the same thing though, right? Well, I would I don't I know that that is a historic structure, but I don't know that that necessarily needs to be included either So then we could actually Do it like this instead? Do it like that instead? Yeah Because I mean I get I guess what I'm saying is if you're doing a chunk of Weaver Street, I mean There's some beautiful neighborhoods further north of Weaver Street that we're not including that have this work structures that are not documented So I'm just saying it as though if we're kind of building it around this core cluster I think extending over into Weaver Street doesn't make as much sense How do others feel about that? I'm not thinking that granularly yet I Have some sort of bigger picture questions Eric am I right that So like this yellow district for example part of it's on Main Street, which is gateway Yep, so give up if a parcel is part of the gateway Like this doesn't apply right you just need to meet form-based code so it would apply for Demolition and for properties that fall below So in the gateway zoning district there are there's a provision that non-conforming structures can Can make changes and amendments up to a certain percentage before they need to be brought into full conformance with the gateway zoning district requirements So this would apply The design review would apply to the properties that fall kind of below that threshold for full compliance with the gateway or Properties in the gateway that would be proposing demolition Otherwise the rest of the changes would not apply For design review. That's that's how it's currently drafted Well the part about the non-conforming properties is already included in the existing language We would be adding in the language that properties in the gateway would only be subject to demolition Yeah, okay, so any it's enough for me to understand so any any Any demolition even if it's in the gateway would still have to go through This design that's correct. If it's if it's in a design review district. Yes Okay I Don't want to keep ass if somebody else has a no go ahead I'm sort of jumping around to you so that the the the Southwest district if you will and I guess how many like Have we been seeing a lot of Housing projects down there like posed or Or redeveloped or like have you seen a lot of activity down there Eric? So there's currently a Project that's in design for I believe it's This property here to a 205 West Allen Street is the property which I think is this last one So there is a plan unit development that went They had a preliminary plan before the development review board in june, I believe There is a I believe it's this building 130 west canal street that is Currently under some redevelopment to convert some of the office space that was in there to residential space We've got Millhouse condos are on this property. Actually, let me just bring the aerial back up That would be helpful. Yeah So we've got the millhouse condos here. We've got the woolen mill on on this basically larger piece This is the center point school and then this is the other mill which I never remember the name of Further west where the regional planning commission and some other offices are located Um, and then this is 150 west canal street, which is the old four quarters location and is now Um, I well it's still a four quarters location, but vermont sailing center southern smoke I think there's a woodworking shop in there as well so I would say There's some levels of development redevelopment kind of in some of these locations, but it's We haven't seen a lot. I think with that in mind. However with some of the changes to state law It does open up some of these properties to some additional development potential Now whether or not that happens is obviously up to the property owners, but Um There is the there is some some potential for that Eric does the the PUD on west allen there does that include removal of the existing structure? It does not actually that was one of the things that we uh, we worked with the applicants on was to Uh, to preserve the existing building as it is. I think there's a a garage in the back that's um In fairly rough shape that they're proposing to take down, but the building that's there now would stay Right and I think that's kind of Isn't that kind of like the aim here with um, some of the historic buildings is how to redevelop the parcel while still I mean, it's a pretty substantial brick house and as you say as part of a historic district um I think that's kind of the goal um, I I get this this feels a little weird to me. I guess as far as how this is delineated Yeah, I guess that it ties an existing Historic district to another, you know cluster of historic buildings, but it feels like a weird Yeah That that's kind of my thought this In maybe I'm so this sort of north This this northwest part here with like the few Houses is you said that's like an existing Historic district Eric It's if it's not a district It's all the properties with the dots And I guess I should have mentioned that at first the properties with the dots are all currently on the state register It's a really cool Couple of you know block in there. It's really neat. Yeah, and I I believe I'd have to look but I believe it is a district I don't know if it's a formally designated district, but it's four It's it's referred to as the the henry leclerc workers housing so what's happening on the south side of west allen from From where we have the district drawn now Going east these properties in here. Yeah, what's all that? There's kind of a mix. Um I know like consolidated communications has one of their facilities in here. There's some Um, there's obviously a parking lot. Oops. I'm gonna zoom in a little bit more. So Yeah, it's it's mostly residential Some larger buildings some smaller but So would it be problematic to include that that strip as well just so that this connects I keep pointing at the screen like you can see me, but that just connects Um You bring that line up. I think we could let me Sorry, this lags a bit when the aerials are on Yeah So you're suggesting basically just drawing instead of going on west canal bringing it straight across west allen street Well, this is kind of the issue is like again The problem was that We have talked about how relying on the antiquated state historic register Uh is problematic And here we're kind of building a district around the state historic register what they have listed And I think it's it's pointing us in the right direction But there are probably if you were going that route You know the neighboring buildings would probably be considered eligible today as well You would be kind of looking more at that street rather than just those clusters Because again, we're not stopping things from happening there. We're just Taking a second look as to how the street ends up looking Right, right and it would and again just to to reiterate it would only apply for any of the covered actions that are are included. So right So general maintenance or or interior work Would not be would not apply nothing interior would be covered by any of this. Yeah. Yeah So Sarah what you're suggesting though is basically just bringing this straight across Yeah Because I think too. I think that could be a really lovely street actually and if it connected More from the center of town Yeah, and I think if i'm correct in how i'm looking at this What got listed from the state historic register are all the um They were brick dwellings that were Francis claire had a brickyard in winewski and he financed a lot of the building of homes for mill workers But there's a lot of other buildings that are around it that are not necessarily of his construction that would be 19th century mill worker housing as well like wood frame tenement buildings and so forth So it's I mean there's kind of this cluster in the middle of it, but Looking more at that street It just seems kind of weird that one house Would be in the district and then the one next to it is not Yeah Yeah, does that make any sense? Yes, it does it does to me. Yeah, well I think In eric correct me if i'm wrong. I think you're trying to be careful about not being overly inclusive though, right? I mean, I think I think part of it is I mean I'll be honest for me this I see this design of your district as sort of an it's It's like an existing way for us to relatively quickly Add a layer of view to protect Certain buildings that we think are important, right? So like for me, this is a vehicle to like Create more protection for the mills down on like the south side Of west canal street, which I like absolutely have no Like we should protect those like I don't I don't dispute that I think When we start but you know if we start talking about like Trying to make sure the neighborhood is cohesive and we're getting into more residential areas. I'm I'm a little bit more cautious about about that so You know to the extent that eric picked These properties in the northwest corner because they're on the existing historic register and then there's Sort of a chunk just east of there. That's not included that I'm not as Concerned about it. That's sort of where I'm at at this point I I guess this is also where it falls into we're not working off from our own inventory Um, that's right We're working off the pre-existing relatively old document. Yeah Like as I said in the 20th century if A preservation specialist was looking at when you ski they'd probably say like a lot of upper weaver street Like that's definitely a historic district, but None of yet none of those buildings are on the state historic register um, I I guess I feel a little weird about building it around this but um Well on the other hand Because they were on a previous state historic register There'd be no reason to believe that they wouldn't be on an updated one. So why not include those? I think we are include. I think we are including funds that are on the existing register I think what we're discussing Is maybe including some more that that aren't And I think it's important to point out too that there's Because we've had no regulation And still kind of don't have any regulation We don't know what the condition of these buildings are currently From these these these buildings that were listed Uh In the register, I mean, we obviously know what some of them are Like the winewski block is still as it was but we don't know if the Or at least I don't know if what Was used to list these buildings In the first place is still A part of the building now and is still is still contributing to to the building. So I think there's a place to start. This is a this is a Using the the existing register. I think is is a good starting place Again as part of this process, I think Once we figure out what the boundaries look like My intent is to do direct outreach to all the property owners to say hey This is happening or we're proposing this for your property And at that point they can come in and say I mean Nothing about my my property is is meets any of the standards that you're trying to protect or preserve or Anything or great. This sounds fantastic. Thank you very much. So I don't intend to enact this without allowing the the property owners to provide some input on On the direction we're going but As a place to start I think it's important to To use the resources we have at hand and and you're right joe to your point I mean right now the the the state historic register for wenewski is almost historic In a couple years it will be right, right It's yeah, well, because that's what I'm kind of getting at is that Well, what are you looking at then you're looking at a street of historic buildings and how How the streetscape is is not just the buildings themselves because it is a design district not just a historic district that's what I thought this was also about It's not just about historic. It's about the general feeling of the streets and the neighborhoods, right? I'm not part of what this Because we don't have like In the corridors we with the form-based code. It's very clear what the building material can be and what they Feel like but in these areas There's nothing correct. I I guess I would also feel that I don't know if this makes any sense, but That's a less threatened area as far as historic structures, so like kind of Emphasizing priority on that That little section rather than like I said weaver street or I mean, I guess it again This kind of points out where us the city having its own inventory would be a lot more useful because I find it a little bit Hard to believe that Like hickok street. There's only one historic building in that whole neighborhood Um on the register. This is kind of exposing the gaps here like that there's blocks and blocks of of Century plus old buildings in that neighborhood and yet there's only one on that map Yeah But it's the only one that actually has been Probably documented. Yeah. I think it's probably chicks market or something like that. Yeah, it is. Yeah Findings from the vhb study, you know, it was gateway specific, but by the findings of the buildings that they documented as historic Incorporated onto this map or can maybe or does it not? I guess it still does matter even though it's gateway because of what you described earlier eric, but Yeah, um, I don't I'd have to look to see if we have a gis layer of that of that information I know they did an arc map Uh an online map for it So I but I don't know if that was ever shared as a as a shape file with the city or any type of geo database So I'll have to look back at that to see Yeah, because it was a relatively recently commissioned study by the city to look at historic structures um, so it feels a little bit Maybe even a little bit more relevant than the state historic registry Because at least I know it's not the whole city, but at least we got You know some part of the city looked at more recently um And the other thing I was thinking about your comment Joe and I was just kind of looking at weaver to see what you were proposing I'm taking out and you sort of mentioned maybe like upper like, um Some houses on upper weaver would be more appropriate for a historic For protection and I could see that when I was sort of like looking at um Google she view but I wonder like if the issue and it and I I'm kind of asked me a question like With your knowledge of the historic buildings on weaver street are the ones that you would be recommending We're in historic district near the blue line that we have around the st. Francis property um, it would be I would Again, I'm not a professional, but I know that basically between west spring and stevens um Many of those I think could be I think many of them are seers kit houses That were built around 1925. It was the same developer built all of them. So like if you kind of look up that street it has sort of a It has a distinct pattern about it. Um, that is is pre-adjusting there And it gives those will be 100 years old Yeah If that area was included in the blue line Then you would get a wrap like you would get away from that only having two parcels in the historic district Yeah, that's that's just what I was going to say abby. It would at least partially solve though We're targeting st. Stephens. Yeah, because again, it's a pretty special row of architecture up along there And it certainly creates a Well, and I I really want st. Francis cover like I think that's like really Really essential, right? It's like it's like the So if we if we if we need to kind of pull in some other houses to do that I would be in favor Of doing that in this in this I think they're worthy of it. I think it's more than just pulling them in I think they are definitely worthy of I agree. Yeah Okay any other thoughts at this point Just a question Eric. Um The maps confuse me. I will tell you that right off, but What about the rba building? Is that included here or is that outside? It is not it is just outside. Um, it's basically it's Uh, this building right here I mean that is such a special building Yeah, and that's what's kind of the irony here is that that's not included in our district I know that was francis la claire's actual house But the other mill worker houses that he built are are included Yeah Yeah, this property here is the rba property I would really like to see that property included By extending some boundary if we could I don't know what's adjacent to it though My mind isn't showing me what's there Yeah But I think you're right tommy is that like that is the kind of building where if there was a design review board Yeah, and that demolition was proposed for that. I think people could there's many reasons people could point to why it should be retained Even though again, it has it has undergone a number of alterations Let me ask a different question here, and I'm not sure I want to ask this question, but I'm going to anyway if By chance and I I don't know if this is even a possibility, but if there was a possibility that we could Have the design review apply Only to the buildings that are currently listed In the state register and I know the state doesn't like us to use their Their register for this But if there was a way that we could do that Apply it to those properties where these buildings are located Would that be any more or less Interesting for you all It'd be more interesting for me I like the structure that provides So that way we're not bringing in Random properties to this process and again, I don't know if it's possible to even do that Um, I'm just I'm curious Before I do any research on that. I'm curious what your thoughts are And it sounds like Connor's in support of that. I'm just I'm just I'm just wary of like the ad hoc nature of some of the other you know Properties, so I like some type of structure I would that be different from what? From now, Eric, what would yeah? Well, so right now there's no protection so It would be in essence We would do a design review district that it was pretty much the whole city, but only applied to properties That were listed I I think I would be in favor of that. Yeah, I do I am very wary that I suspect that dhp and Montpelier will not like that but um It it would I think work for me again I think I've tried to illustrate here a number of times of how antiquated that document is in us Kind of leaning on that is it's a good place to start But it's a dangerous place to be and I think the way that I would try to As an approach that I would try to use is that if we could in essence adopt the state's Register as the city's register In some form or fashion, so we're we're kind of cross referencing that which we already kind of do with our with our With the city's With the city's master plan with our cultural and historic resources map. We already are in essence identifying these these resources as being Specific to the city. So um, there may be an opportunity to tie it in that way so that it's not specific to the state's List and that we're not referencing the state list, but it's We're using that data to create our own Yes, I mean I could say that Would work could we add some properties to that as well? I mean for instance st. Stevens was not on that list Well, so the way that I would look at it is if there's a building on the property then the whole property is there So it's it's a property based because some of these some of the covered actions are more property based than just Structural based so for example construction of a new building Would apply to to the property itself. So we would basically flag the properties rather than Than the actual buildings themselves and eric if we took These state the state register and then made it the windows key register or whatever then Those property owners couldn't de-list it on this on the state level and it affects when you squeeze oversight of it yeah Sorry, can you repeat that? I just want to make sure I understand I guess what I what idea is happening to the state historic Registry buildings when it when the landowner wants to redevelop but they just go to the state and get it de-listed um Would that still be able to happen if we were relying on the state registry? Well, so I think what we would do is in essence create a local register so that They could do whatever they want with the state, but it would still the they would still need to comply with the local Yeah, quote unquote local regulation. So so eric would it be fair? Would it be like? We're adopting as our local register All the building all the properties that are on the state register as of date x period right and so then If something gets removed from the state register after that date Okay, it's off the state register, but it's still on our local register Does that does that make any sense? That's that's what I that's the way that I would envision it if it's if it's even possible That's that's the thing. I don't know if we can even create a local register without having um without having established a certified local government or achieved that that designation and have a local historic Preservation commission and some of the other requirements that are there. So I don't even know if we can do this but As a way to not have to kind of just draw these ad hoc boundaries that may be an option To to really start to protect the buildings that have already been identified. Yeah, and it and it's Yeah, well I don't think that what's what's sorry to interrupt sarah. I think I don't think that these What is being drawn here is entirely ad hoc? Um, just to be an understanding of that. Um, I I guess From my standpoint I will so like the west side of uh main street there Um Right by the bridge our downtown kind of core that would all all those parcels would be Governed by the the downtown association, right? So these are outside the design. Uh, sorry. These are outside the downtown core Right interesting. Okay. These are in our central business district Okay, I have to say I do like except, you know, I you put the black line up there that I was suggesting Um, I could actually get rid of that just because I was addressing what joe was saying, but I actually like that green That boundary to me It says a lot about wanouski, you know, it's got so much of the the mill but also residential and then also commercial I think that's a pretty nicely drawn district honestly Okay, that's Um, which isn't following what eric is suggesting in this other way But we I guess we're talking about both things because we don't even know if we can I guess I was just asking it if we really needed to be focusing on that if there was Going to be another body that is already reviewing design there Right, but there but I think eric you just said that it isn't there. That's right. It is not. He just said yeah So that's looping it. Okay. So this actually makes more sense now that I understand that. Yeah, yeah Um, are those buildings that are on main street? Do those dots Indicate that they're already on the historic registry Yes, any any of the dots is a is a structure that is currently listed in the state's register So if if we took that suggestion that eric made Those properties would already be Yeah considered important Correct, which is good. Yeah, and I like that. I do too I I guess my feeling is what kind of makes it feel ad hoc is The jut out into west allen street to me. It's either like include the street or don't include it at all Do yeah, I I guess I I'm gonna argue a little bit the other way joe. I just think those buildings are so really Neat and special. Oh, sorry. Wait, are we talking about this here a little green jog west out. Yeah west allen that Okay I just have such a You know a feeling about the history when you walk down that block About the lives of people living there, you know, these little brick buildings that were built for I don't know. That's just my opinion. That's a personal. I would be If what eric just proposed is feasible. Yeah, I'd be in favor of that. Yeah, I think we could somehow adopt Yeah, we listed state register buildings and give those review Um, I think the problem is is that for instance with st Stevens there was vagary about whether in fact it was listed or not And so I guess when we're working off somebody else's Research that's where it becomes challenging Right and again, I think what I would look to do is take Any of the properties where these buildings are located and have the whole property Be included so even if there's additional buildings that may not be listed The property itself is what we're going to be regulating. So changes are made to the property Or any structures that are on the property. That's where the the design review would kick in so that New construction as well would have to fit in with what's with what's there to to the extent possible That that sounds fairly reasonable eric. I think I like it too Yeah, I'm wondering if can you zoom out? Ferman and eric would be then be including some properties that Would not otherwise be included Are there other properties that Are not so many? Yeah, there's not a lot, but there are there are a handful thrown around now for example This property out on east allen street doesn't exist anymore. Um, so Some of these properties aren't there are some of these buildings aren't there, but um So obviously we would not include those but there's the ones that are we would try to include Again, if we can do it if not, then we're obviously be looking at at some level of a of a of a district and an actual boundary to to include properties Uh other properties that are not currently if we're going to do that then the idea of including some of that weaver street Makes good sense. I think I would agree with that and right now I think that if we look at where the dots are everywhere we've drawn the lines The properties are within those for the most part. So that would seem like the easiest way to judge this if it's possible And again, it wouldn't prevent you from removing the building It's just more that you're kind of getting the opportunity for a closer inspection to say, you know, that's right Just, you know, a professional could say, well, this is of exceeding cultural value and whatever is replacing it doesn't justify its removal I like that idea if it's possible Yeah, I I agree and I think With that said Erica, I actually overall I'm pretty Pretty happy with what you've proposed Here, I think like for me Maybe the yellow district extends a little farther east than I might think is really necessary and I want to be I think the green district I want to be careful because there's I think there's a lot of really important buildings down there but I also get the sense that it might be More attractive for development and I don't want to stop all of that either So I would want to be careful down there, but but I think I think this is pretty good. I think you've you've managed to get most of the Listed buildings in here without without drawing in too many other ones, so I think you've done a good job and if if I want you to run down the idea you've proposed But if not, this is actually a pretty good Approximation of that I think I agree Brendan just to allay some of your concerns about the yellow district extending too far east Just to explain there that corner parcel is the the the courtyard apartments. Yeah. Yeah, which is actually on the national historic register The former it was the former porter screen factory complex So there is good reason for including that So I I think Eric has done a good job here With with how this is laid out. I was just my concern about stopping mid block on main street there that didn't quite make sense to me, but Yeah, no, and I I I mean I walk, you know, I live up on the found street so I did this loop down to spring street and then back up franklin street a lot and You know, I'm sort of talking about like maybe between franklin and russell street I don't know if you need to include that like I'm talking about really like Fine tooth comb is what I meant with like that and You know the the apartment building near time. I know what building that is and I didn't know it was on the national register What was it before Joe? Porter screen factory The screen factory. Yeah, it was the largest manufacturer of um screen Window screens storm doors storm windows in the world at one time Well, so brendan, are you suggesting potentially like shaving off this This northern section here along east spring Not the whole thing I don't think yeah, like maybe down more closer to like franklin and russell I don't know. Um No, I agree with that actually Yeah, that was my thought um Maybe taking these three properties out. Yeah. Yeah, something like the historic property there It's a very large 1920s bungalow. That's um, it's a multi-family um Oh, is that the it's the red building. It's like the red. I think it is. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's right Yeah, that's a cool building but Yeah, cool That parcel is pretty developed as it stands. I was gonna say I think it's also fairly fairly well cut up. Yeah, it is Yeah, it's actually. Yeah, so that's that's right now. There's two buildings there. Um Well as of the the grand list data that i'm looking at it's there's eight There's eight dwellings on that property in two different buildings. So it's been pretty well cut up Yeah, and then the one across the street is it's an apartment building. I think it used to be a bank It's like a relatively small apartment building now. I I can picture it. Yeah, that one actually um Shoot that I think they actually did some extensive renovation to maintain the historic Yeah, yeah, no from the outside. It still has the yeah sort of look to it. Thanks Yeah Yeah, and I think yeah once you sort of get Well, I don't know anyway that that was sort of my initial Reaction, but I I think you know I think this is pretty good. Uh, I appreciate what you've done here Thank you so But generally So what I'll do is spend some time figuring out if we can Somehow locally adopt the state's Register As our own Yeah, if not then we have some districts that we can work with So does the state I think state register also have districts on it though right like the The housing in the green section the the little mill housing. I think it does so that's a district But I believe the buildings are also listed Okay, or they're referenced within the district as making up that district Yeah, I don't I can't remember exactly I can look it up here. I can't remember exactly how they're listed I think that those those buildings are listed as like A cluster of historic buildings with a historic theme But I don't think an actual district was ever listed there because there's no boundaries for it But I like there are some other I think I've seen a boundary for that though somewhere you have okay I think I have maybe maybe I'm just making that up Well, there is there is one on like in a weird place on the claire lane Um the claire avenue. Yeah, there's like a strange historic district And it was because I think somebody got it listed as a district so that they could there was financing available for the rehabilitation of the buildings So would we be able to keep that? If we're going to adopt well, so I mean right now there's no actual buildings. It's just this little street Okay off of north uh north street That so that wouldn't really be a reason to do I mean I I can look to see if there's a district there I'm pretty sure there is Yeah, they're not yeah, they were they were subsequently added after the um so like the The what what's the word for it the survey for the state historic register listings was done in 1979 I think they weren't actually adopted until like 1990 Early 90s maybe 94 that's gonna say it was I think it was thing was 92 But some yeah somewhere much much later Yeah, and so I think and that was that was like there was something there was a have been a few little Things that have been added since then because somebody was able to make the case that they should be added and um because they By and large people are trying to get them delisted not added Right Maybe that's what I'm thinking of is the leclerc avenue district and just conflating it with the the leclerc workers housing, but I I could be wrong. Um, I'm not having my um hard copy of uh the register in front of me we can uh We can figure that out at some point. So um, all right any other comments or questions about these boundaries folks generally Okay with them Do we feel like you know, I always get Sort of like parking, you know Would a professional come in and agree with with these boundary decisions um from historic Eyes as opposed to us just having personal opinions about it. I mean i'm just sort of throwing that out as a I think we're okay. Joe do you Well, I mean eric has framed these around Properties that were listed by a historic preservation professional Yeah, and we're kind of building the district around the higher concentrations of that. So I don't think that anything here is Unfounded as far as Yeah, that's what I'm kind of getting at. Let's let's feel like we're founded in something Yeah, I mean, I think you're kind of trying to create A A parameter for including these higher concentrations Okay all right, well, I will do some more research and Uh report back on what I find or and or refine these boundaries a little bit more based on this conversation And the notes that I've just made on this map. So um Yeah, hopefully that'll that'll get us in a in a good direction for our next meeting Um, the other thing I wanted to show sorry anything else on this So you we can like take this map and walk around the streets ourselves, right? You sent us this map Yeah, so that's in our package, right? Yeah. Yep. Yep. They were included in the agenda. So Obviously without the additions yes and subtractions, but yes the maps are included Uh in the packet right and we take a picture of the screen so I can see the Addition Eric. Um, though when you see historic resources inventory that was done in february of 2021 Um, I just want to confirm what kind of file you would need to have an overlay on That works on this map. Is it just a gis shape file? Yeah to seal properties or Yep. Yep. That's all I would need and like I said, I may have it I just I would just have to look to see if that was included with the the reports and everything else that we got Hey, but again, as you mentioned that's only gonna apply to the gateways. So it's It's not going to be as comprehensive I'll just provide a little additional information Yeah um Okay So what I wanted to do next is just uh Go through the actual text as well just as kind of a refresher here for y'all Um about what we're talking about so There was one one item as I was looking at this I wasn't I wanted to potentially Clarify or make sure that it's clear to folks what we're talking about. Um, and it's really related to uh item one for the demolition and I'm not sure if it's clear what we're actually talking about here. So There's Right now as it's written it's demolition of a building or structure in whole or in part Except as exempted under a different section, which basically talks about any specific issues, um, you know Natural disaster things like that You know those are okay to demolish without a permit um I didn't know if we wanted to to change this or add language that talks about that it's You know, if you're if you're doing some level of demolition that's That doesn't allow the building or structure to be used anymore or something like that or if this is clear enough as it's written I guess what i'm thinking of is if somebody comes in and says well, i'm going to take the back of this building off and rebuild it That I think would fall under the in part language in here, but just wanted to Just wanted to make sure that it's clear that like if somebody If there's a if there's an existing addition that is for example, not contributing or was put on poorly and somebody wants to tear that off Should that does that qualify as demolition as well well Wouldn't that Demolition in part Would that come under for exterior remodeling related to the overall height or exterior dimensions? It could as well right so I guess what i'm wondering is if If with a historic structure for example, if an addition has been added that Was not contributing or is just Really altered the the the historic character of the building If a new owner comes in or somebody comes in wants to to take that out and return it back to its original character Do we care For design review purposes I mean i'm inclined to say yes because we want to know what they're doing with it With that space so but I just want to that was something that I've been thinking about and whether or not That is something we want to send through this process also I I think you do I think I'm I'm just thinking of In burlington like Just south of the wanewski bridge There's a large that now the neighborhood that's now called the old east end that's kind of they've developed the persona of that neighborhood um and there's I think it's called the boardroom that that brick building. Oh, yeah Um, it's actually literally right across the river here. Right, right. It's one of the oldest structures actually in that neighborhood and the property owner Within the past few years The problem with that building was When the new wanewski bridge was built in 1928 It raised the road the road bed level like one story up on that building. So there was a submerged floor And it created real structural issues and so the Like I think there was like bowing walls and so forth because like this brick that wasn't meant to be kind of subterranean was now You know under a road bed and so there was some review of I mean there was a he basically added a story to the historic building like cut it in the middle and lifted it up And so there was some scrutiny given to how like that was going to be affected Because you've really materially altered a historic structure, but He was able the the developer was able to give the reasoning why why they were doing this and it actually did make sense Came up nicely too. Yeah Yeah Well, and I I think something that granular would To me that that's to be sort of dealt with through the actual design review process, you know, like I would kind of think that that's We would say okay, that's covered and then so go present it to the The design review board or or whatever um, and I would think eric the Hypo you pose Where somebody there's a new addition that is sort of Not historic and they want to just take that out To return or return it to its historic um use I would think that that that would just get approved like that would be you know Go before the board and they would probably approve it or recommend it for approval. I guess is technically what would what would happen, right? Right. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that that type of a situation one we You were okay with it still going through this process, which I think it should but two that It's it's clear that those types of of actions are going to be swept into into these regulations and I think it is I just wanted to make sure that that I wasn't you know because I sit with these documents a lot and And and are working on them all the time It's I I sometimes get lost in them and and they make sense to me, but I don't know that they make sense to to everybody else So tommy, you're you're always good at figuring those out. Does this make sense to you? So I just want to make sure that it does make sense. Yeah tommy Yeah, you're always good at figuring out that does this one make Sense to you what eric is making sure he I think it makes sense. Okay Okay, good. Good. Excellent. So I think from the text perspective I don't think anything else has really changed since the last time we reviewed this Um, previously I had proposed striking five and six. Those are back in I think the biggest change is actually just referring to it as the design review advisory commission per sarah's recommendation So that has been updated But everything else in in the text is basically still the same So I don't think I have anything new to review text wise with you all so um Yeah, okay, I think I think that might cover this section Wow So right, so I'll do some more research and hopefully be able to report back at our next meeting to see what What that has revealed If not, like I said, we have a good basis for some boundaries that we can work from and And go from there. So Great. Thank you very much. That was a good discussion Oh eric is that everything you wanted to cover under the item five? Yeah, I mean, I think that is everything For item five. I mean basically design review. I think is fairly straightforward. It's it's text and it's the map and We've spent the last several meetings Getting through the text and now I think we're in a good place with the map Generally to to get some more some more information and then I can report back and we can go from there. So unless you all have anything else on design review, that's That I think covers it for me You mean we've actually covered an agenda Okay Abby what an efficient meeting you run There's still city updates to get through so another business. Yes, let's move on to city updates, then Uh, I will uh defer to the mayor for city updates first Not much big happening at council. You know, we only Met meet once in august and we had the one meeting in july um The reminder that will do public hearing on the last set of changes You all worked on on september 5th That's going to be a discussion only item. Um, so we can get that public input before we vote We are likely to have A public hearing in september october on the updates that Fair chief audi and the housing commission worked on to the housing quality enforcement ordinance aka public building registry And Basically all the other commissions are work planning and we've been doing kind of administrative processes. So Nothing nothing large to update you all on The only updates that I have is uh are We have two projects that the regional planning commission are working on on the city's behalf with they're basically managing some consultants on the city's behalf for Some transportation related projects one is a walk bike master plan That is progressing we for the internal team just got a Draft list of projects that we're working through before we Present those out to our advisory committee and then take those out more formally publicly There is a survey open off of the you can get the links and and all the information on the rpcs website They have a project page for that So a lot of good resources there to see what we've been doing and what's what's to come There is still more outreach that we're that we're planning for I think a little later in the year once once the summer kind of slows down for that project there's the other project that's going on is the La Fountain street dion street study scoping study there. I believe there is a public meeting on that next thursday Don't quote me on that though But there is also they have a project page on the regional planning commission's website also that will have more information On on that item But those are really the only two things that I had for for city updates Okay, anybody have any questions for Eric or the mayor Eric how's the um You're a consideration of act 47 and have me to rewrite our residential zoning districts going um Yeah, it's so I'm I've got a lot of thoughts Um, I think it's going to be those will be some interesting discussions for for you all to have For me to have with you all I should say Um, I don't think as I've mentioned in the past. I don't think the Impacts will be big. I think the changes will be big though for what the actual regulatory document looks like after I think in a lot of cases and I think I mentioned this previously For example, we may end up with one residential zoning district at the end of it all because Because they've kind of congealed so much with what's now required or what the state is requiring It may not make sense to have three separate residential zoning districts anymore So that could be a big change, but not necessarily a big impact Beyond what is It may be a big impact what the state is Is is uh is leading the way on that so um, maybe beneficial to us really It could be it could be as well. Yeah, so what I'm what I'd like to do. Hopefully is um Get through the set of amendments that are before council currently and then Take whatever form that uh of that document that they may or may not adopt And then use that kind of as the basis because It's going to include a lot of references as well that might need to be updated too So I don't uh, I'd like to kind of bring it all forward as one rather than as piecemeal. So But more to come That's definitely the next thing on my on my list of of information to bring back to you all Yeah, thank you. Yep. It's a it's a big job So Yes, it is. Yeah I had I had a question. I don't know which category it's in but I'll just ask anyway. Um The three buildings that burned last winter That are still on main street in there. Yeah on main street. Um, Are they just going to stay vacant and half burned? Are they going to be So I I believe the property owner is doing some of their due diligence and working with insurance companies To to to get to a point where they can demolish those buildings But I'm I'm pretty sure that's the intent is to demolish and then redevelop that that whole corner Yeah, that's true for the the properties on um An east allen that got that are we're on fire as well I think that's in a similar in a similar situation. Yeah, I think there's some insurance or some other property Issues being sorted out with those. I don't know all the details of them But that's that's my understanding as well. Well, it is kind of a curious situation. I know that the The stevens and main street property there was I believe An investigation for arson and that was partly why it's It might be evidence that it's still as it is However on east allen street, I do I think sarah raises a good question is like How how long are these? We have any control over saying can we we need to their health, you know health and safety issues to so Yeah, I mean absolutely. I mean we monitor we monitor those daily for the most part through our Our building code folks and our our health officers to make sure that they're they're not a hazard And to make sure that they're structurally okay to be able to stand and make sure they're boarded up So that people aren't in there that are going to potentially Create a hazard or injure themselves or create more damage. So You know, it's it is a challenge It always is with property issues because there are so many processes that need to be followed That they oftentimes are seen as going very slow because Or that nothing's happening, but there is a lot of work being done to get to a point where The buildings can either be completely torn down or to figure out what needs to happen next But yeah, the city is definitely Definitely paying attention and are In contact with the property owners regularly yeah and I mean of course it's At least except in rare cases. It's not in the property. There's interest to just sit on a burned out building I I would I would think but I don't know From some personal experience insurance companies can be an impediment to Making anything happen in these in these situations, so Yeah, I just wondered if the city itself would have any way to pressure the insurance companies to keep that moving forward quickly But maybe not we're doing all we can I'll say that Connor was that the building you were going to ask about as well? Yeah, okay Yeah Okay There's nothing else we can move on to other business So other business, um, I I don't know if we're still in our One meeting a month period I'm not sure what what if we set boundaries for when we would how long that would last for Is that I'm assuming august is still our one meeting month for us Yeah Okay, yeah, so then our next meeting our next meeting won't be until september 14th So hopefully that'll give me enough time to get through what I need to get through and have some good information to bring back to you all so Please mark your calendars for that um With anybody I think we're on an enjoyment. Would anybody like to make a motion to join the meeting? Oh second favor AI or hold your hand up Do I have to do like opposed or I don't have to do that for this one. Do I I mean I think Are you staining that part of this friend? I think because it was a unanimous vote. I think we're okay Okay, great. Have a great night everybody. Thank you all very much. Thanks for the rest of you Good night. See you in september