 So I think that's it for comments from the chair. I don't really have a lot to add. So let's move on. Item four, general business comments from the public about something not on the agenda. There's no members of the public here. So we can move past this item to public hearing. Item five, there's no members of the public. But this is the public hearing on the proposed zoning regulation fixes. We'll open the hearing now officially. And what I propose we do is we keep it open. We talk through the memo you sent to us. We talk through any other issues related to the zoning. We keep it open and we continue through our agenda and then we close it before we adjourn for the evening just in case members of the public arrive later in the evening. How does that sound everybody? That's great. Okay. All right. So Mike, do you want to kick us off here? You have a consideration of council recommendation to limit development on steps. Oh, right. Kirby added this. Kirby, you attended the council meeting. First of all, thank you for doing that on our behalf. You're welcome. So how did it go and what did you learn? It went really well. Mike did a great job as always of explaining things. And it was relatively quick. The only substantive feedback really was from the new council member, Lauren, right? And she had concerns about how we apply or how we deal with now that we're going to allow building on steeper slopes, 30% or more, how will we nonetheless kind of contain that? And it's related to a lot of the conversations we had with like with parks concerns in the buildable area, even though that part of it wasn't even before City Council yet. It was just about us allowing with the engineering plan for there to be some building. But we've already had some discussions about that. And so some of what we talked about is related to her concern because she wanted to see some kind of standard or something that goes into the regs that can be applied to kind of like contain things. And what she had thrown out there was, you know, you can build on these slopes if it's not feasible to build somewhere else. It's kind of along what she was saying. But feasible for us lawyers, we know that, I mean, that can be pretty strict. You can interpret feasible very strictly to say, because almost anything's feasible, physically feasible. So I had mentioned that I thought that was a little strict and that we could maybe come up with a different standard that gets at what she, because she's getting the same things that we talked about. But we just got to figure out what the right standard or the right words are for that. Something to add. And I don't remember the section number, but if you remember, there's like 14, 15 things there. So we'd be adding one more thing that's kind of a standard to apply when they're considering to give a permit for these slopes. And again, this particular standard, since we're talking about the steepest slope, would only be applied by the DRV. It wouldn't be through the administrative permits that Mike is out, because you can't get one of those permits for this. Does everybody understand where we're at? Mike, do you have a question on this? There is the 3007, which I will mention really quickly. You'll notice a couple of highlighted pieces. So these came out of the discussion. Now that the slope rules were adjusted, permits have started to come in. And Public Works had some comments that they wanted to see inserted. And so starting at, it makes a little bit more sense as you start to see it. So in the purpose statement, they wanted to add protect development on or near slopes and to limit disturbance and clearing. Before it just said limit disturbing or clearing of slopes. And the reason why we've got to kind of adjust it a little bit is we're now allowing some development on slopes. So one of the things they're looking at is not just that the slopes are stable, but that what is going on the slopes are also safe. So they're going to be looking at foundations of buildings, not because the foundations of buildings affect the slopes, but because buildings built on steep slopes should have engineered foundations that keep them on their slopes. So maybe that wording is a little bit, it could be revisited, because protect development on or near steep slopes to me makes it sound like we're trying to keep what we have built on slopes rather than ensure safety. Yeah. And if there's better words, we kind of, this kind of came up late in the day to day. So I kind of had to put some things together. So as you go through, you'll see these. And if you've got, once you see the whole picture, if you think there's a better way to do that. So again, with applicability, it had said before just disturb or clear, but this section will now point B. So point B is applicability. This is what needs to get a permit before it was just disturb or clear land. So if your land was already cleared, but you wanted to build a house on your already cleared land, you wouldn't have to make this rule. Because you're not clearing, although somebody could argue that putting the foundation in will disturb the land. This, the idea of this is if you're, if you're building on those, you're going to need to meet these requirements a little bit farther down in E, the requirement for the hearing is not just disturb or clear. It's also develop used to say grading plan. We changed it to engineered plan because that's the way the rest of it rather than having this is talking about grading plan. And then later on, we talked about engineered plan. It's the same plan. So, you know, use one word for the same thing. And then an applicant shall not propose to develop the land in excess of the limits established in 3-9 unless the applicant submits to the development review board. Approves a plan signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the state of Vermont. The plan shall address such items as existing and proposed grades, foundations or retaining walls, drainage and swale information. A written statement from the engineer indicating that the project will not have an adverse effect upon slope stability. Those were the pieces that the engineering department downstairs wanted to see and somebody brings them an application to review those are the types of information they want. And then the design standards and age were adjusted to read that development on steep slopes shall be safe and not have an adverse, undue adverse effect on the slope stability period. Development therefore shall be designed to do it. In addition, that reflects the safe and maybe the purpose statement didn't reflect it as well as I think this captures it in the way I worded the original. So those, anything is highlighted were suggested additions for tonight. These were not in the original and these would be to reflect those concerns that the board's had in administering them. So that's just a preamble. There's also this other discussion same set of things from council about what can we do. I suggested to council there are a couple of things. So I just want to hold on, I just want to zoom out a little bit and make sure I understand what the two different buckets of concerns are that we're looking at and as pertains to steep slopes. So what we just went through are the engineering, the engineering department's requested changes to the language to ensure that they get what they need. To administer, yes. Then the other set of information or concern we're talking about is from city council to thought about what kind of standards we're going to have under restriction development on steep slopes. So beyond the engineering plan, that's not enough. We might also want to put restrictions. It's actually good to do this part first because we can talk about how these changes to 3007F, they kind of hit a lot of the same things. So we can talk about after considering that we can talk about whether we think we still need to add something. So you had some thoughts. Mike, thanks for letting me. So I want to make sure I knew which topic. So there are kind of two pieces and then those 1 to 14 on H was where Kirby was mentioning maybe we could add another piece in there that Mike would capture this idea of where other viable locations exist on a parcel. After and shall should utilize those locations first to the maximum. Greatest way of doing it but it would... Sorry, interrupt but do people want to develop on slopes when there is other... I mean I just question... I mean I understand somebody is drawn to do something with a slope when they don't have to. Or that language would change their mind, right? Yeah. Doesn't seem like it would do much. I see this clarifying that we do have a preference. I mean it's hard to look at all of these rules and not see that there's a preference to not build on steep slopes. But adding clarity is not that bad as far as I'm concerned. A preference isn't something that the DRB or anyone could really hold you to. Oh, okay. But if we put in a standard that actually puts some teeth to it saying that... I mean if you could do it in two places and you could have it in the purpose section that would kind of be the best place to articulate preferences but then having a rule that can implement that preference in some way. So what I was going about with subsection F here is that it lays out all of the different things that have to be in an engineered plan and I think we could use that as a way to show that if you're going to develop on a slope that need to meet certain things. I think that's why it has a lot more substance than just a vague, like we would prefer if you'd not. Yeah, if it's a lot more concrete, if it's there, to me then trying to put something in at number 14. That seems a little more... Yeah, I think that they might accept that as long as it's... My question about this section that the engineers want is I'm not seeing where it clearly allows them to deny a permit based on these things. Point F would be what they're expecting in the application. Point H would be where we would be denying... Those are the standards. So the engineer plan is giving us the information we need to determine compliance with H. So does such items as piece at the end of that? Is that only applicable? That sounds like a guideline recommendation. Right, that doesn't sound concrete. So the plan shall address such items as... Yes, I agree. That language should be changed. And I think the reason it was worded like that is because not all projects will have foundations and retaining walls. Not all projects will be... So maybe as applicable instead of... I mean they can... I would just say the final address... Yeah, I would too. I would get rid of such item as and when the plan can say this item is not applicable and that addresses it. I see that all the time. Let's get back to your first comment, Leslie. I think yes. And the first sentence changing protect to allow... This is in the purpose section on 30078. So is the intent to allow safe development? I use the word appropriate. Is the intent to allow appropriate development? To permit appropriate development. It gets the flexibility. I think the idea is if you comply with F and H, it's appropriate. So what was the verb? Either permit or allow, I don't think it matters. I'm going to say allow. Do you prefer to use the word allow? Just because permit tends to confuse people between... Do you need to permit? Or allowing it permit. I was wondering if it makes sense to define steep slope in that purpose statement? On a new slope slope of 30% for higher grade? Who would say steep slope as defined in C? That's what I was looking for. It might be worth defining steep slopes in the definition section. I think the only place I saw it in this section is... It's an H. It's got a part of the figures. Yeah, we should... So maybe purpose, the section is intended to allow appropriate development on or near slopes. We can just say steep slope provided that we've inserted a quick definition of steep slopes in C. Yeah, I think if it's defined in C, it will be... We need to add a bit of context. So what I would do for C is for the purpose of this section... The following definitions and then the following definitions apply. So what would you define a steep slope so it would be... steeper than or equal to 30%? 15% because 15% is where we start. So do we want to add something in 14 or in H? We could add it to sub-2 because that's the big change we're making. Where? H sub-2. That's where we said not create... We used to just say not create slopes steeper than 30% because that was sort of the policy goal. We've changed it to equal to without an engineer plan. It seems like the logical place to put it would be another sentence after that saying... qualifying some limitation on... Right. I feel like it's probably better to be standalone just so we don't muddle the issue. Very separate direct. What's the separate directive we're talking about? One is don't create... Don't build on slopes of 30% or more with an engineer plan. The second consideration is whether the applicant or the developer is considered the feasibility of developing another appropriate site so the person distinct enough that... I don't have a feeling about it. We can do a separate one. Everyone feel you have a consensus about adding something at all? Before we get into the nitty-nitty... I'm struggling to understand... I mean we've laid out the standards you need to meet so I'm struggling to understand... It sounds to me that maybe I would meet all the standards of building on steep slopes but for some reason would just like... want to put it on the steep slope. I mean is that what we're protecting against and it seems... Maybe for aesthetic reasons maybe someone would. So I guess if you're... Because I see what you mean about is this practically... Is it gonna come out in a practical way? Maybe. If somebody wants to put a deck there near the edge they're gonna put a deck that extends out and they're gonna put some footings down so they can get good views of the valley and they're gonna meet all the engineering standards and we say yeah but you've got a side yard over there that's not steep you can put your deck over there. It could be attached to the house but just... But yeah I think it just gives the developer... Or it gives the city an opportunity to sort of push back on some design and at least force the developer to articulate why... because then you know they could say well that wasn't feasible for this project. Because the project purpose is to build on a steep slope. Right and the town can decide whether or not that's really feasible. But I think it just gives a later... just gives another sort of data point to it. You may not ever come up. But if it does, having that hook available. Somebody pointed out at the council meeting that what was being proposed was something that kind of went counter to what was the purpose which was to have protect against erosion, the structures on the slope. So just because I have some other land that's not steep you'd really have to have a different reason for why... why wouldn't that be allowed? Reason for having these rules you'd have to add something in whether it's an aesthetics reason or some other reason. In a lot of ways what they've asked us to do is really tricky. I mean it's because we can try to break it down whether it makes economic sense but there's also other reasons. So it's almost like we have to come up with for what reasons could a person build on a slope when they don't need to. And officially our task was to consider what the... Well we have a couple members of the public here so I thought I was just observing. We are having an officially public hearing. So... Joe, sorry to invite... I want to invite you up so people at home can... Oh sure. Joe Castellano, Sabin Street, Montailer. I was just curious just about the 30% slope discussion and I just wanted to find out where it was going and what direction the planning commission was. See me talking about it then. Not easy. What do we want to do tonight with this? And it would give my Tina up when she comes back but I don't know if we feel like we want to try to put some language out there to think about or do we want to wait? Well I don't necessarily want to put it on a rabbit hole and we don't have to do this but I guess when sort of considering all this the thing that comes up in my mind is whether or not the commission just as a broad I said we should have a preference against developing steep slopes and if we do... I mean I think this discussion about what is really our preference here and why... Like I said, I don't know... Well, a lot of possible concerns are already addressed for instance it's already clear that it's going to cause safety issue or structure issue that it's not going to be allowed. Is that right Mike? So the other things that we could get out we could just throw something more generic out there just because the council asked us to do this we could throw in and I'm just going to put this language forward just to move us along if possible. We could put a standard in saying the way this is set up it says development shall be designed to and then add one that says avoid development on slopes deeper than 30% if financially practicable. That's at least something for the DRB to look at. So we're tying this to... If the DRB could say you need to put it elsewhere unless it would just cost too much. Because DRB... I don't know what their deliberations are like but it seems like you could do financial calculations in several different ways. Take out financially practicable and just put practicably though. It's a little better than feasible. But here's... I mean it kind of goes back to my the question is like if the reason why we prefer development away from steep slopes is safety but the question becomes what is adding another sub point under here how does that address it? It just seems to me that the concern is safety you've got somebody who's got to put a PE stamp on an engineering plan to ensure safety and I'm just going to assume that an engineer who's going to look at building a steep slope is not going to put his professional licensure on the line and build something that's unsafe and I just think that's what it takes care of itself but I guess I still don't understand what the root driver what a codifying a preference against developing on steep slopes. I don't think any of us can answer that. I think that Barb might have opinions on this other than that I don't think any one of us really feel... I don't have any aesthetic preferences to look qualified to have them and as far as requiring a PE to give us safety of it I'm just trying to keep being... I'm drawn to Ariane's perspective on this which is to be less practical. Right. If you remember the debate with Barb over a livable area and her concerns there I think if there is an obvious preference to not build on the slopes that's I think part of Barb's concerns her other part is basically that currently the steep slopes are limiting the number of units that can go in places and she likes that which most of us haven't agreed with that perspective so it doesn't get at that but it does get at the being able to throw up new units willy-nilly and some of the neighborhoods that have a lot of steep slopes. Sure but is that the commission's position? The issue is the body just right now the list seems fine I'll just say but the list seems fine right now I don't think we need to add the pieces that I think or the standards that I think are... They're going to save themselves the cost of hiring an engineer? Right. Exactly. I think that's a very good point there are significant costs and I'm sure that there are significant costs of developing on this steep slope that you just don't have on flat ground and so unless there is some sort of overriding concern that we have... Mike's experience, have you seen... What have you seen in your... For the most part the... Well we didn't have any regulations on slopes before 2017 so this was new newly added 2018 and now we're going to kind of adjust it now in 2019 and for the most part when people came in to do stuff on slopes it was usually impacting pieces of a slope full sail but markets change, times change you know I was a planner in Lamoille County for eight years Stowe spent a great deal of time but theirs was for aesthetic reasons because that was the best place to put on the ridge line and so they were attacking it for a different reason for aesthetics but here I haven't seen a lot of it except on the edges people trying to get in to put something And that's with no regulation on... No restrictions on slopes at all No restrictions and the ones that we have had you know even once the rules came into effect were relatively... So that sounds like it supports assessment but this probably just doesn't happen It's like decks, sheds, additions Yeah I mean war choices project that's on Berlin Street so that backs up to a 30% slope couldn't push that building back any farther because it was going to start to you'd have to either remove ledge or build into the 30% slope that was back there so there's a project at the bottom of the hill that would be impacted there was Sibley Street which was up top they were generally staying away from the slopes but there was going to be the impact of the structure at the top of the slope and the storm water and erosion control plants for where the water was going to get diverted to the Berry Street the college property the discussions that were going in the project had pretty much gone away at this point but the initial discussion was to have a cottage cluster maybe walkouts on the first floor and walkouts on the second floor they would build into the slope so that way you could each side would have so it's not necessarily building on the top of a hill like out here building into a slope let's do Hobbit Hold Aaron's convinced me I think it's possible we could go I do feel like I feel a little bit of an obligation since I was at our city council and I was like oh we could do that when they proposed this I feel like going back and saying we don't agree with you isn't the best I don't think it's that we don't agree that that this addition that Mike's talking about that Public Works wanted they wanted this language to be safe and not have an undue adverse effect on slopes ability that covers that covers a lot of what the feasibility standard I think would get at so maybe if we could go back and say that this change gets at meeting what we were kind of charged by the city council to try that comments from the public yeah that's what we're doing actually so comment noted and apply but yeah I think the challenge was that the planning department office didn't have the capabilities of judging the slopes and so it was sort of the the approach we've taken is to require a professional engineer plan for anything from 15 percent in greater and what we're looking at right now are I don't know if there are any more the engineer plans required over 30 percent and it's required depending on the disturbance size that's what figure three nine is so four thousand square feet of 15 percent three thousand square feet of 20 percent okay so these standards limit the disturbance that anyone can any disturbance in on slopes from 15 percent upward but to build on a slope you need an engineer plan once you're 30 percent in greater thank you because I didn't appreciate the distinction or I mean if you're doing yeah I think anyone who gets into the engineer plan requirement is going to have to meet all the engineering foundations if you're doing four thousand square feet of 15 percent that's going to boot you into the engine alright so walk us through this so in figures three oh eight and three oh nine we've got we've got some thresholds can you just I think maybe I wasn't fully appreciating all of the thresholds for kicking in the different levels of review so if you wouldn't mind the tedious exercise of walking us through it would be helpful so engineer plans originally six thousand four thousand adjusted them so now you need engineering at a much engineered plans if you're going to disturb more than four thousand square feet in that slope category three thousand square feet 20 percent so these are still going to be difficult for us to administer but we also have a bottom floor so if somebody's going to come in and disturb nine hundred square feet we know if it gets over these other requirements at eight then there's a public hearing where neighbors get notified Joe had a comment come on up yeah sorry to ask out of you but it is very helpful I have a question for Mike I know that there was a second handout that I picked up and this is based on data figure 20th 2019 is from Kirby Keaton and Barbara Connery and I know one of Barbara's concerns was just you know as we're revisiting this that some of the proposed changes were going to allow for greater density but it sounds like with the engineering plan Mike if you have an engineer out there to assess the lot they'd be able to quickly identify what part of the lot is over 30 percent so that would eliminate the concerns about density they're too slightly they're definitely related but two different ideas the issue that comes up with the buildable area is it will always apply to any application that involves changing the subdivision that's where we were having more difficulty is even small projects where somebody was coming in to go from four units to a six unit because oh you've got enough density for that we actually have to go through and calculate how much area is not buildable to decide whether you can put two more units in the carriage house that's on the property those were the issues that we were having with the buildable area because people would have to even though they're not developing on a steep slope an engineer to come in do the topographic survey to determine how much steep slopes there are even if you're not affecting any of the steep slopes you'd still have to get the engineer and that was why we said we recommended eliminating the buildable area requirement related but slightly different the policy reason behind requiring an engineered plan has been to ensure safety and that anything that is built on a slope down below or cause any sort of issue so the way that the buildable area analysis was playing out was that was also triggering a need for an engineer plan every single time there was an assessment about density so we took a hard look at that and how the other footprint requirements size scaling requirements control the how any given building will fit in the context of a neighborhood and we were satisfied as a majority not unanimously but as a majority that that would accomplish the policy goals about that the limiting density based in the buildable area was looking to do so that's how we came up with the recommendations that we have now hopefully that explains what you're asking yeah I was just a little curious because I said it seems that we have possibly two conflicting things that I just wanted some clarification they're so interrelated it's confusing so the way it's worked so far is that we get the engineered plans and because we're not engineers we send it over to the public works department who reviews the materials and they make recommendations for various things so we have had them on a project on college street require soil borings because they wanted to know about where the bedrock was whether the foundation of the proposed house would be properly fixed to the bedrock so they had to provide soil borings and public works reviewed them reviewed the proposed foundation they actually denied the foundation proposal gave them alternatives they came back with an alternative foundation proposal that was approved by public works so yes to a certain extent by the time it got to the DRV there was an application and a letter of support from or a technical review by the engineer which basically concurred that yes we have reviewed this and find that the foundation should just to be clear you're not asking about the substantive standards for reviewing a proposed development you're talking about whether the engineer plan itself is accurate I'm questioning whether I just wanted to know the DRV will have preference on these 1 through 14 so there's some things in here that aren't technical preserved distinctive natural features in general topography of the site in existing natural vegetation for three the engineers aren't going to be looking at that the DRV would certainly and if there's a comment from a neighbor that goes and says we really want to see that vegetation there maintained some of the standards can be a little bit give more room for the DRV to provide input on the way it's written for engineers is an applicant shall not propose to develop land in excess of the limit of the year 3.09 3.09 is the engineer plan required table we're just talking about unless the applicant submits and the DRV approves a plan signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the state of Vermont the plan shall address and we're getting rid of such items as which is there right now but and then it lists existing and proposed grades foundations and retaining walls drainage and soil information and a written statement from the engineer indicating that the project will not have an adverse effect on slope stability so they're really just technical pieces in nature but it sounds like staff will review that and comment the DRV if there's any concerns about the accuracy or methodology and the other thing that public works wanted was an erosion control plan but that's actually section 3.008 which also requires erosion control planes on all projects affecting slopes more than we didn't ask just you know there's also there is a separate erosion piece that would also be addressed this might be kind of silly but I'm looking three 007F engineer plans since we're looking at it the second sub point is foundations and retaining walls I'm assuming public works wants to know about the structural integrity of the foundations and retaining walls should we just add that to be clear it just seems odd the plan should address foundations and retaining walls it's not clear what specifically they were seeking to have so for points you add instructional integrity of yeah I mean I'm assuming that's what public works wants I read that as just the existence of right that's what I'm clear about do they want to just know that there are walls and foundations or that they want to know but as part of the PE plan that those foundations and retaining walls that are being developed proposed for development have structural integrity that satisfy public works it's just unclear to me what it is that they really want that's the existing proposed grades makes sense to me the drainage makes sense to me the engineer narrative makes sense to me but the foundations and retaining walls either structural integrity or existence of yeah how about for now insert the word structural details of structural details of foundations and retaining walls yeah I just I defer to you as long as the language that whoever's preparing and whoever's reviewing understands yeah just to throw that out there, foundations and retaining walls and their structural details that's quite a present sorry to keep nitpicking at this but I just want to since I've been staring at it nitpicks is where we end up what ends up happening is we adopt these things and it's the nit that we miss is 3007B that references figures report 08 should that be 3.09 308 is the hearing 308 is the hearing threshold whereas the engineer plan threshold is 309 I don't think we because we're defining steep slopes in C yeah okay that exceeds the thresholds we could put that exceed the threshold amounts specified defined in subsection 3007.8 I think it would still make sense to refer to the figure 3.09 because that outlines what the thresholds are it's a matrix between slope grade and disturbance so the notion is below 4,000 you can do it on 15% down down down tell you hit 30 and I think the original just to understand the context before we flipped the numbers 308 had the lower threshold numbers which was why that probably referenced 308 because that would have been the lowest of the thresholds now 09 so that's a good catch I have one more question which is on sub H given what we have in figure 3.09 now sub 2 not create slope steeper or equal 30% with an engineering plan it seems a little misplaced because it seems like that one can be taken out it's sort of because since figure 3.09 says that effectively it just feels like we're kind of addressing the engineering plan it seems like a very separate issue from these other components that are listed in this list we want to just reference the table in the figure I see where you're going just so you understand and maybe the 30% is also we'll see where it goes so the issue could come up with somebody having let's say a property that's 10% slope and they decide the pit can parking lot you decide you're going to go through and you're going to take this dig back so you can make your parking lot bigger so you have a 10% slope you now have a 30% slope or you now have a 100% 100% slope because you put a giant retaining wall there so we have rules that say if you're going to affect a 30% slope you're going to need to meet these rules but if you have a 10% slope out all this dirt to make a 30% slope you won't have to meet these rules the reason that rule is put in is to try to get people if you're going to make a 30% slope the way to address that is in the that is helpful so in the engineering plan section F yeah it says this the applicant shall not propose to develop land so that speaks to your I think that language speaks to that notion which is even if you have a 10% grade if develop land or create slope well I'm trying to develop land I'm trying to figure out a way to say that results in a slope of those thresholds in 3-109 my issue with sub 2 is that there is a there is a more nuanced and specific matrix in 3-09 that I think applicants should be more should be relying on as opposed to this sort of broader statement in H sub 2 that just speaks to the 30% it just seems to me this can be taken out because we have figured 3.09 I'm just trying to minimize so where I'm thinking following on your thing is maybe to take it out take number 2 out but what we may need to do is to put in point B for applicability to have to meet these rules so we're talking about land development proposed to develop on steep slopes including disturbing thresholds on this we may need a second sentence or to build in there a comment that says or the creation of that results in the slope that results in the slope of those outlined development that results in slopes that exceed the threshold 3.09 you don't have to apologize for touching it like this we're all very grateful for you touching them is everyone comfortable with the language in here now there he is I'll volunteer to write a cover letter or something along those lines for our discussion in rationale I started writing up some to address the follow up I was going to send it to everyone actually if you want to do that and then you can add to it for the other part I just didn't want to put it all on you but you anticipated it we can do it together okay so it sounds like we're going to do it by consensus but let's just have an official vote so all those in favor of recommending these amendments to section 3.007 with minor tweaks provided by public works in 3.007.f 2 I have a motion any further discussion on this any other all those in favor say aye all those opposed passes so these memos we've got I just want to make sure I understand what our process is here I know I'm saying that I'm not the one deciding on it but it looks like we've got we've got a memo from barb regarding steep slopes and buildable area we've got this memo that Mike circulated about the criterion buffers and my assumption have it that we wanted to send this with the whole packet yeah that was my thought was that when we forward if we vote to forward this to city council for consideration that we would include with it two memos let's go through right we have to write the final one I guess well let's see if we can knock off these memos so I'm going to jump ahead on the agenda a little bit to the buildable area's memo because I think that will be quick discussion does anyone have any other changes to this we've talked about this quite a lot Kirby's and Barb's memo I didn't change the date just to give you some background of what you're looking at right here I didn't change the date but this was actually for March 13th was the latest version and I don't believe that we discussed any changes since March 13th okay I just wanted to put that out there in case I had forgotten to add something no and in fact I I think we should change the date to reflect the date that we send the proposal the whole packet to the council yeah I don't well yep I assume we we just got this one so I'm not sure that we're ready to vote on the memo you circulated Mike I don't know have people had a chance to review so actually before we go there everyone's good with the memo that Barb and Kirby wrote there's a tiny little typo I just caught it's actually kind of a funny one I don't know suggested changes the density shall be based a lot I actually like that typo it's a better plant alright so this memo is deemed approved by consensus with the fix of the typo and the change of the date which for now will be April 8th our final date okay moving on I just wanted to clarify can you put everything together in word we'll have a chance to look at Mike's memo about repairing I haven't either so that's why we just take a couple minutes thanks for drafting yes why is urban core capitalized in the first page but on the second page in the last paragraph it isn't I don't really know what it is it might not be anything but I was just wondering where's the second last paragraph the end of the first sentence so it is a it should be capitalized because it's a zoning district so thanks for catching that the center the UC references UC3, UC1 that's all supposed to be urban center 1 I have some I'll start I mean the first paragraph the second sentence this one has been singled out because it directly counters an item of discussion and compromise during the council's adoption here in 2017 I thought maybe we could just get rid of and compromise and just call it a discussion if others are agreeable I just thought it might seem less like right you guys compromise for it and we're not going to go for the compromise the last page the second and last paragraph we have one example of a good project that would be denied I thought maybe we should take out the subjective adjective one example of a project that would be denied just to leave it to the individuals who judge Trumpify these things the best example the best project that would be denied exactly that's what I want to avoid I just want to be objective here's what we looked at here's why we decided this and try to they always create the new draft so how their editors helps other thoughts I think it's great the one thing I'd say is from my perspective I'm still kind of getting up to squeeze a lot of this but I felt like the last sentence and the last paragraph is a good opening sentence for the entire memo it does a very good job of contextualizing you could have it at the beginning and then have it again I just thought that was a very concise sentence it took me a little while to figure out exactly what the specific change I mean I know that it's in the rail line of the memo but that last sentence was a good job of distilling repeat up front that's a great idea just get rid of the word therefore and you've got it there's a couple more things to make out compromise I wonder if we want to say can we also use something other than directly counters because to me it's more like it involves an item of discussion start everything with fight work our way back I just think you're being overly modest very transparent any other edits or questions just think that you believe too alright do I have a motion to approve this memo with the edits we've just discussed those in favor say aye aye those opposed memo is approved before we I seek a motion to approve the zoning regulation fixes to the city council for consideration do we want to have any other feedback members of the public to have president tonight thank you for your contributions alright so do I have a motion to propose that the zoning regulation fixes do I have a motion to forward the zoning proposal to city council for consideration we've been discussing over the last year second discussion okay all those in favor say aye aye those opposed okay the motion carries so we'll forward the packet which will include the zoning changes the three memos well we have two memos do people want to review and edit that or is that something we need to approve specifically I don't think we do for process but we can so okay so what we'll do is we'll circulate something around as soon as possible I'll send my part to you and then you can circulate I'll circulate as soon as possible and then what are you thinking of sending this packet whenever it's ready yeah whenever we've got all the pieces I'll let there's going to be a time there's usually 15 or 30 days I always have to look it up in the statute every time before they can warn a hearing but they'll probably have a preliminary meeting to review things because once we warn the hearing then we're back in that knucklehead rule that as soon as it gets warned both sets of rules are in effect and when both sets of rules are in effect it becomes very difficult to do anything so well let's hold off we'll circulate something and give a deadline for getting us feedback which will probably be about a week and then if there's significant edits to incorporate then we'll recirculate and if not we'll just forward it on to Mike so what was the thing that happened at the city council that you guys just trying to remind myself of what the process was for oh for the interim rules there were a couple items we expedited for review because they were right okay I was just forgetting the landscaping and the slopes rules actually the short version of the slopes rules were approved already thank you for the reminder there's a lot to keep track of okay good then that's the end of item 5 we can move on to item 6 city plan so we're talking about this city plan we've got to continue to work with but what I wanted to provide you was an email which is now going around the first thing I would mention commissioners so what I sent to historic preservation commission so they there's actually a number of commissions and committees that are currently trying to work on some form of a work plan HPC just happened to be coming up there supposed to be tomorrow but they couldn't get a quorum but I had already prepared some stuff for them to consider and I put together a memo for Meredith to send or I tend to describe a little bit of a process that I'm going to try to replicate let's just take a minute if you want to summarize it and walk us through yeah so what I've been trying to start to work on is while John has been talking about you know the larger picture and the web stuff is the hard part is actually developing these implementation plans for everybody and so my thought is just to kind of start to jump in and work with them we had done and you now each have a copy of it too is just we had put together this implementation plan with a silly example how to make Montpelier have a city filled with butterflies rainbows and unicorns and we kind of just as a way to frame out how we're going to lay these things out and so this white paper just kind of explains that and so that was just meant to be giving them something to see how we're doing it where we're trying to get as an endpoint and so I just cleaned it up a little bit to make it a little bit more presenting with these notes and then what I started to do for them which is the other sheet was to just start to pull together planning ideas, permit ideas, program ideas, project ideas and policy ideas those five P's how we're going to implement our plans to illustrate what you mean to illustrate what we mean and to start to go through this area here's some things to start to get you thinking these are some things that the Commission does for planning how do they understand well they do national register updates they do inventories of structures they map sensitive areas for archaeological resources, they could record oral histories they could do viewshed analysis of state these are all planning ideas the question is what's on their work plan some things they've already done they just updated the national register so that's done for their other surveys that they think need to be done it's kind of putting some ideas out there for them to start to add ideas to where they want to try to go permit ideas design review in historic district if you want to implement protection of historic resources one thing you would do is have a design review which we do there's some other things, demolition rules adaptive reuse there are different permit things the programs where we are a certified local government are designated downtown so it's just this was just a way for me to start to lay out things and hopefully they'll be able to tell me yes this, know that and Mike did you know there's this because eventually what we need to do is get to the end, some thoughts on aspirations we kind of want to build that what's our goal for historic preservation why do we have a historic preservation commission there has to be a reason we're doing this this aspiration and this vision and then we're going to have our goals and then we're going to have these implementation strategies and they all should knit together the white paper tried to do these pieces together so this was really just for me just the limited amount of knowledge I have of historic preservation and trying to google other plans and look through other plans what could I come up with with possible implementation tools and some possible goals, there actually are no historic preservation goals if I had one I would have put it in there to say well our current plan is this or our current goal is this but we don't actually have one so that was just some things to start to get them to think and unfortunately I won't be meeting with them tomorrow night because the meeting got canceled but the idea is I've got this one I'm currently working on economic development and just another one of these little lists is like this what are the different ways we would implement something to try to work with Laura something that would we've already done housing we have a housing implementation plan this would give us historic preservation that would give us economic development I know energy has is your thought that these would be sort of appendices to our city plan or would they be part of it but they're going to probably be more like an appendix an appendix the thought was when we first talked about how to build the plan and John and I were kind of per satan the idea was we wanted to because we want to have a very strategic plan to kind of focus this on a strategic plan we want our plan chapters to be relatively short but what we really wanted to do is to kind of start with the end do the implementation plans and then write the chapters most people when they go to write plans will write the chapters first and then the 30 pages on how if we only want to have 2,000 words those 2,000 words are really going to be why is this our vision, why is this our aspiration and really just talk about the important things maybe we'll have a white paper that's 30 pages long that describes all the housing data and statistics and all these other pieces but we really want to get people and tell them a story on why housing is important I think we need to agree on we as in the community in the census challenging to work on us to lose sight of the big picture and I feel like we do need to have some sense of what that big picture is and of course we need our implementation piece too we should kind of come up with the big picture that we feel is our guidance based on the information that we have available now put that out to the public get feedback on that and then start developing some implementation ideas that would then go back and help us reevaluate our big picture principles I think there's going to be a lot of feedback loops in this process but I just don't want us to feel like okay, the draft of this is done because I don't know that we'll ever be there I mean we will eventually but that's kind of how I see the process unfolding actually Tina Tina, you were part of the city plan the master plan development process previously right would you mind since you're here would you mind sharing with us since we're all new what are some of the examples of how the public was involved was it through the committee process or was there various meetings things about the prior process but I haven't heard any details about what went into it so it's eliminating how well do people think that we acted on the plan during that time period how much was it used it was a rare treat to have Tina Tina Ruth was on the planning commission for many years and it's a rare treat to have her here so anyone else has any other questions about them it's hard to figure out where to start it was such a big process but it seems like coming reviewing the prior master plan reviewing the updated reports that have been done since then settling on an initial set of principles is a good starting place and what we were doing this the exercise last time with the map where John Adams had the map up on the screen and we were marking various locations in a google map I think that process oh there ought to be this or there ought to be that that helps us kind of if you think about we want to have a connector trail to U32 so what does that mean we want to promote pedestrian access that's what it means the broader goals are what's underlying some of the ideas that we were placing on that map so I think the map is helpful in that regard and I expect this to be iterative some of the the weaknesses that came out of the the previous plan was that it wasn't as strategic as it could be it did identify groups but it really didn't it was more imposed on groups oh by the way you're doing this as opposed to working this with the energy committee to ask the energy committee what is your working plan as opposed to people in the community telling the energy committee this is what your marching orders are the initial thought was we had that broad input now we really needed to do of making it more strategic and certainly we're going to adjust it and have those public input to make sure that that's still our housing goal that's still our historic so when you said that we've gotten the broader we've gotten the feedback are you talking about the prior master plan yes as our source of information there's a lot of public input that went into that and that was a huge process they had at least four six VISTAs working all at once when was that 2008 process and so the thought was that most people didn't want to go and replicate that process all over again but we did want to kind of take that and build on it to make a new thing in this case with historic it was just kind of somewhat surprising that there actually wasn't a lot in there of resources other chapters there's going to be a lot more there are goals when we talked about housing there were housing goals we kind of took the housing goals and said well they kind of got four of them and we'll take these pieces out of these to kind of make this as the but I think we still need to this wasn't meant to replace what John was talking about I think we absolutely need to go and have a couple of different things coming in as we move forward but to get the framework that people can add or remove things from you know if I work with historic resources over the next two we would have a plan that kind of lays out their work plan for the next eight years of topics they think are most important now we can take that to the public and say these are the things we think we're working on what's your thought what is your maintain, evolve, transform what does that mean what if we had various maps for various types of priorities so if we have like energy goals we have one map that we place little markers for various energy implementation strategies that we're interested in learning more about and then we take that we take that to the public get some feedback on whether this is the type of goal I mean because I think a lot of these things have been vetted already so just getting a verification that people agree that we're still on the right track and then we can we can we can we can we can we can sit on the right track and then as we started putting all those pieces together then we would have the larger public meeting this is all of the priorities that we're balancing in the city and there's gonna be some that can flip a little bit and when they can Transform Stop outfit anyone can but also have that's developed enough that people are going to want to take the time to give us feedback. And that's the challenge. Yeah, you can't just give the public a big white piece of paper and say, tell us what our plan should be. Right, right. I think there's a cohesive visioning piece, though. That's missing. So I haven't looked at the 2008 plan in a long time. I don't know what sort of overall visioning commentary is in there. But I think that's a piece that, if we just dive down into each committee, we miss that. I think that's sort of what you were getting at. We miss that overarching, what are we most concerned with? Or at least some sort of visioning statement that I might be good to get broader input on so we know all of the committees are working under that same cohesive idea. That would be helpful for me. Eloquent, you said Leslie. And I'm going to paraphrase. Tell me if I'm following what you mean. Oh, yeah, maybe more eloquent, please. I doubt it. I'm about to fall asleep. About getting some of these implementation plans, getting some information from the committees, and then use that to go have some public events, one or more, very relatively soon. But use those as the guidance to pitch and see what comes back as feedback. I think that sounds like. And there's some that you say are in pretty good shape, actually. We've got, there's more to do on the implementation plan. I think the vision is there, I think, to make their implementation plan match our structure. Right, but we don't want to charge them with changing the structure. Well, that's what I'll be. This is a little bit of what I would be doing, is kind of pulling these things together and then working with them. But I think until we get feedback, we get the green light public in mind that makes sense to waste that energy. Whoever's doing it, that's what I don't want to do. I just don't want it to be a situation where you're spending hours upon hours every week trying to work on this product. And then we send it up to the public, and you're like, well, you do it then. Nothing you would do that. But that would be the feeling that you might have, or any one of us would have. So trying to figure out how to balance this, our resources, and our need to get public. That's the challenge. It's really challenging. But maybe this could be a way. So let's see. So we have the information from the presentations we had at the Elk Committees meeting. And I think that's a great place to look at the visioning piece. You can review those materials. They're all in the Google Drive. As far as I know, I have an extra certificate. We can all review those materials and talk about interpret the overarching vision to be. Yes. I need some accountability. There were some. If you read the 2017 plan, you'll basically be getting the 2008 plan with updates. Yeah, we were advised to incorporate new reports, new information we received from reports in subsequent years after the master plan was issued. So basically technical updates. Yeah. Pretty much, yeah. Can you ask something? So Sustainable Montpelier Coalition attended a meeting about a month ago, maybe six weeks ago, and gave us a presentation of the finalists for the competition. They felt as though all of the finalists had great ideas to offer the city. So they gave us that presentation. It was really helpful. Gave us a lot of food for thought. And it synthesized some of the ideas. OK, if we're worried about parking here, the different ideas that we're seeing in all of these different finalist proposals. So it's absolutely in the mix. How exactly we're going to incorporate. But one thought I had is to invite team bridges to come give us a presentation as a way to see their thoughts on it. So thank you for the idea. Fair discussion about city plan. I think we have a reservation commission since they're not available. So we can move into item 7, which is to review the minutes. Dare I say we're on track for an on-time adjournment? Oh, that would be ideal. OK, so March 25th or 26th, because there's conflicting dates. Interesting. It'll be this 25th. That was the first edit. I don't remember what that means. Oh, because you were chairing? That was me basically outsourcing my comments to Mike. I have nothing to say. But hey, weren't there some emails, Mike? And then Mike explained. I think that the map is part of Google Docs. I think it's an extension of Google Maps. Because Docs are the document, but just in case that was anything. Yeah, that's a clarifying. So we're, oh, I see, under the city plan, this is why we need youth on this committee. You can't do it. Show maps available on Google Maps. She can tell us how useful students walk the school. I'm not quite sure if it's Google Maps, but it's not Google Docs. Yeah, it was a good one. We're going to just write, John, show the maps available through Google. Yeah. Just leave it for us. Yeah, because it's on the website. Yeah. We'll prove the minutes with the names to the date and the reference to Google Docs. Any discussion? OK, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, minutes are approved. We have a motion to adjourn. You do. Those in favor, say aye. We are adjourned. Thanks, everybody. Yeah.