 All right, so this is the November 25th, 2019 meeting of the Immopulatory Planning Commission called to order, and the first thing we have to do is approve the agenda, so if everyone takes a look, you can change just the agenda. Okay. So, the agenda is approved. Deemed approved. Deemed approved. Next on the agenda is the comments from the chair. The only thing I really have to say is just a reminder of kind of where we're at in, like, planning over the next, planning on planning the next couple months. We're going to be working on this, the different chapters of the city plan, and tonight we'll find out about how long it takes us to get through one. We have two to look at, and that's really all we plan to do. Last time, the group more or less decided to wait on doing a vision statement until we've done a few chapters and until we, you know, kind of get our feet under us on this and then start thinking about a vision statement and the process for that. Also, in January, we'll be revisiting the design review stuff we've been working on because both the formal hearing will take place then. Mike, do you know exactly when? Don't have an exact date yet. Okay. So, that'll be coming up too. So, that's our next couple months right there. That's all I have to say. So, moving on from there, we have general business and comments from the public, but no members of the public are present, which then brings us to approval of the minutes from November 12, so everyone can take a look at those. Let's have a quick question about the discussion on the first thing on the second page, the lessons changed regarding cheaply built structures on the river hazard area we proposed, sheds and whatnot, or is it something else that I'm misremembering? Yeah, I think the words I used were low value structures with low value context. Okay. All right. I just want to make sure that's what I'm talking about. Yeah. Shabby. I don't know. No, it's not shabbily built. Yeah. I mean, I think it can change that. It does seem kind of better. Low value instead of cheaply built. Low value structures. We're not judging. I don't remember talking about it. Yeah, it has to do with, I mean, what we have in this specific case is somebody who is, does snow plowing, and so he just wants to put a structure over top of his sandpile so the sandpile doesn't freeze into a rock. It's like, if the river moves and eventually takes out that structure, he's out a couple hundred bucks. And so we don't see that as a big threat. It's not in the flood hazard area. It's only in the river corridor. So it's, you know, but it's outside of the river setback. But if the river in this location were to move 60 feet, it would take out his low value structure with low value content. It's below the flood plain. It's above the flood plain, actually. Really? Yeah. It's in the river corridor. It's in the river corridor where we have the meander belt. Yeah. And that's what could potentially be impacted. And currently the rules don't allow any structures, any new structures in the river corridor. Which is the floodway. Nope. That's another classification. It's another classification. So the floodway is looking at where the water comes up and where it goes to in a hundred year event. Your floodway is looking at the meander. Well, another floodway is where the majority of the water would tend to move. Yeah. It's more complicated than that. But so usually if you're starting with the river, you'd have the floodway. Then you'd have the flood plain fringe, the floodway fringe. Then there's also a concept which the state has implemented, which is the river corridor. So this is looking at the river itself moving left to right. So you may have a large berm in what happens is the river moves and undermines it and then the bank sluffs in. And so something that's out of the flood plain can end up in the river. In the river. And so they've tried to map out these river corridors. We adopted a river corridor, but only from the coming street bridge to the right fill dam. Just on that stretch there. So yeah, in not all cases, in some cases you can be in one and not the other. Usually the flood plain is inside the river corridor. The river corridor is wider, but not always. So in this case we happened to get an application for what seemed like a reasonable project and the rules would prohibit it. We figured we would amend the rules to allow this case and other cases like it in the future. So I think we have a motion. We're looking for a motion maybe. To approve the minutes as amended. Yeah, unless you, yeah, you understand. Oh, that changes. Yes. Yeah. I just had one last. Is it important because I noticed they said Dan's vote couldn't be seen in the video. And I don't care. I mean, I think they all passed three to one. And there was one on the first page, the second from the bottom. Erin made a motion that 10-4 be included, move Redstone to 7-5, and portion of three properties on the west side. So I voted against I think some of those and maybe voted for one. I don't know if that's important. I'm fine with the case because I assume they passed in all cases anyway. If we need, so do we need to change that or not? I don't know. And I don't remember which. So I'm not sure. I don't think. If we don't need it, I just couldn't be seen in the video. I don't remember if we did separate motions on it. I think we did on either side of the map, right? Like this side. We did separate votes for each individual change. I don't remember. I know there were a couple maybe that you voted against. I don't think it hurts anything to be stated like this because we think that you voted against that and still passed, like you said. Your vote only matters if it's on the camera. What? Your vote only matters if it's on the camera. I move approval. The first case scenario is someone proves that you voted against them. Watch the video. You can't see me. I move approval of the minutes. Wait a second. Has amended. Oh, yes. All those in favor of approving the minutes? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Okay. That's approved. That's amended. Now we can get to business, which is first taking a look at the historic and cultural resources chapter of the city plan. Mike is going to walk us through. Take it away. Okay. So just a little bit of a big picture. You have two here. You've got historic and housing. We've talked in the past about the implementation. That was that chapter which had the butterflies, rainbows, and unicorns. So we've got one done and two of them that we're looking at right now. I'm currently, or this month, I've met on economic development, energy, natural resources. I met with the conservation commission, transportation, and I've been working on utilities and facilities. So we have a number of them that are out being worked on. But these two are ones that have been, I met with, in this case, historic. I met with the historic preservation commission, gave them a bunch of ideas. They worked on it. They came back. We made some revisions and they made some final changes. So they looked at it a couple of times. They approved it and sent it on to you guys to start to review. The idea over time is that you'll get to review each of the chapters. You can start being able to compare them. How they relate to each other. Are there things missing? Are there things that are talked about in two chapters? Do they complement or contradict each other? So that's kind of your role at this point is to go through and start reading and reviewing them. Obviously, the example I always like to use is the public transportation. We can talk about it in energy. We can talk about it as a community service. It's a public transportation and community service service. That talked about in the transportation chapter. They're different places. We can talk about it, but we have to talk about it somewhere. So this was the first one. Again, we're focusing on the implementation strategy. So I gave them a bunch of ideas to think about for aspirations. Again, I presented to them Butterflies, Rainbows, and Unicorns theory of how we were laying things out. And then they went through and kind of put together. This one is probably the most simple and straightforward. So it's a good one to kind of start with to get used to the process. Because there's only one aspiration, three goals, and then a set of strategies for implementing those goals. So it's a fairly straightforward addition. In a couple of cases, as I read through it today, getting ready for the meeting tonight, there are a couple of little edits or things that I would do. I've got a question for them that I'm not sure where they came up with that idea. But that's a little bit of an introduction. So I don't know. Mike, should each one of these be identified as a program, project, or policy? The first goal doesn't seem to serve identify those. The goal would not. The strategy is within the goal. In some cases it's like one of them is plans or studies. So a lot of this first one, because the goal is to improve the city's understanding of its historic and cultural resources. A lot of these are ones that, you know, we should conduct surveys. I mean, I don't think we have to necessarily say this is a plan, but that's basically what it is. In this case, it would be the Historic Preservation Commission. I mean, that might be helpful to know that that's who it is, that we're not going to dump this on your office. One more thing for you to do. Well, so the idea is, and we talked about this a little bit, is that a number of these were the dark italics, the bold italics, really meant that we would eventually have that be able to be a hyperlink to where we would have a more detailed explanation of who would be doing this and what it would take. But otherwise the implementation strategy is going to be really big if we start talking about who is going to be responsible for doing what. It says conduct survey of archaeologically sensitive areas. That's one that what would probably happen in that case is the Historic Preservation Commission would apply for a CLG grant to hire a consultant to do that project. Yeah, I mean, I don't know, I think it would be helpful if we had an idea of whose ballpark is that going to fall into. And I thought that was in fact one of our goals to be able to identify who's going to be taking on these various strategies. Yeah, and there will be. The issue is a little bit of chicken and egg of how much do we build out the other pieces until we've kind of laid out what's going to be supported where we're going to go. I think yes. The answer is yes, it will be. It is discussed above the goals and strategies. There's a little bit of a description of the Historic Preservation Commission and the planning and implementation of this Historic and Cultural Resource Plan will be accomplished under the guidance of Historic Preservation Commission with staff support by the city manager funded by the city council. So they have their, they're going to be the primary people who are going to be implementing most of these when it says, you know, do a culturally sensitive areas and map resources. So they're actually going to be doing this, not city staff. I mean, with the assistance of city staff, they don't, there's only so much they can do as a volunteer staff. They have currently, they're assigned four hours of assistance. That's Meredith every month. Meredith goes to their goes to their meetings and helps them out. Right. I mean, there are a number of other people that factor into this. If there was a grant application for somebody who needed to do a facade renovation and was going through the designated downtown program, Kevin could fill out those grant applications and assist folks with that. So it's not just Meredith, but they would be the ones tasked primarily with working on this. And they certainly, when I was working with them, they were very, they found this very helpful because it really, they didn't know what they were going to be doing for the next couple of years. So for them, this actually turned out to be a good mental exercise for them for what they wanted to set up and what they wanted to try to do over the next couple of years. I finished updating the historic register and doing the design review rules. They were kind of like, all right, what's our next, what's our next thing you want to be working on? So it's a little bit of a long wish list. We have a hard time with this sort of format of breaking it up by the way it's been broken up and then to have like the goal and then the strategies under the hat. And then another goal that's like vaguely similar and then strategies under the hat. And having a lot of strategies be exactly the same. Which, you know, again, not a substantive comment. I could take this and just rearrange it, but I don't know what other people think my brain is just struggling to... What's the problem? What's the problem? Oh, it's just like too much? Yeah, we're going to end up with this massive document of a lot of redundant things. Oh, I mean, I think this is okay, the starting point. Actually, the redundancy can kind of help us feel like, well, they want to do these things. And we'll consolidate all this stuff. I think the stream might, but yeah, this is a working document. Yeah. But I take your point. It's a lot. I mean, are they actually, they're proposing all of these strategies that mission is? Yeah, I mean, we put a number of, I made a number of suggestions for them to look at. I think a couple of them could be edited. I mean, there's a lot of things that we already do. I think some of them are ones that we just have to look at of what's new. I think it would be helpful for me. So I'm also kind of struggling with how to process it because I'm visual and this is hard to see. So it would be helpful, I think, to see it maybe as a table, something that is a little bit easier to digest. But it's really, it's ultimately something I think we need to go through and figure out what those overlaps are. And I think it's important to have a distinction between things that we're already doing and things that aren't my good ideas we might want to do in the future. And those are really, I think the good ideas for the future are really the meat of it. So let's keep doing these things and have that as a separate list. But I think pulling those out is going to be helpful. And then if there are things that require funding or more staff time or more than we currently have, I think that needs to be identified as well. Yeah, and I was going to say, can we estimate, I don't know if that's part of the city plan to estimate how much money it would cost to, yeah, because I noticed the additional resources as well. Sorry. No, that's fine. So I was just going to ask everyone how they feel about going ahead and diving in and doing some of that now. You can walk through and we can try to flag things that are redundant and improvements. Yeah, the redundant I can find pretty easily because I know they're in there. And we can, as I said, we can work on how this gets restructured and how it eventually gets presented. I mean, because one of the presentation pieces is we're trying to get this to be more of a web-based. You know, if this were structured with carrots and dropdowns, then you would have the aspiration and you'd have the three goals. And if you hit on the carrot, it might drop you to what's the strategies under that goal. And then it becomes a little bit clearer. And I guess maybe that's the place to start is to start at the top of the aspiration and whether you think that makes sense. I would, in this case, I would strike the continue to and just say Montpelier will be a community that understands, appreciates, and preserves its historic and cultural resources. So that's their long-term aspiration that they want to work towards. Because people could argue, you know, to what extent we're continuing. Yes. And that's generally not language you want to have an aspiration. It's an aspiration. Yes, shouldn't it be, is a community? It's just an aspiration. I think we use more. I like to continue to take out, yeah. Yeah, we use, will be a, in a number of them, kind of looking at a future state that we were looking to achieve. Montpelier will be a community that understands. The key is that there are certain, that understands, appreciates, and preserves are the three important things. And then the goal, A, is to improve the city's understanding of historic and cultural resources. Again, are we looking to maintain it? Are we looking to evolve? Are we looking to transform? In this case, we're kind of doing a more evolve. We're looking to improve our understanding. We're looking to increase the city's appreciation for its historic and cultural resources and to continue and improve the city's protection of historic and cultural resources. So those were the three goals. They've broken it to three different goals. And then came up with strategies. How would we increase our understanding of our resources? Well, we would conduct the historic surveys. We would do more of those. I had a question on the next one to identify and develop historic context and themes. I'm not sure exactly what they were talking about there. That's one they must have added in. That doesn't need clarity. Yeah. And then so on. And so these were all meant to achieve that understanding line. So continue means that it's already happening? Continue would mean that it's already happening. Things we're already doing. Then there would be an amend or a new. So sometimes we have a program that we need to adjust. Then there's to continue to participate in the CLG program. That's something that we already do. Is it me or this seems like kind of like an underwhelming aspiration that will continue to understand our certain cultural resources? We have the biggest continuous historic district in the state. We're like the state capital. We have these incredible historic cultural resources. Shouldn't they be celebrated and recognized nationally? I don't know. That seems to be like more of a goal or aspiration rather than continuing to understand our resources. Yeah. My recommendation was to strike continue to out of that aspiration. I thought that would make it stronger, but it still doesn't celebrate as you would have for a much stronger. Appreciate it. I would not celebrate it. Basically, first we have to get a community that understands that they are special. Yeah. But I feel like that's more of a strategy, right? Like our goal isn't... I mean, maybe it's to have an enlightened population, but is that really what we're... If in 20 years from now we're at a point where like, oh, a lot of the community really understands our structure. I guess that's pretty cool. Like maybe in our schools we have programs like that. Yeah. But... We're only looking eight years down the road. So at the end of eight years, we should definitely have a community that does this. Hopefully. I like a bolder statement if you have some language to pitch. Could we say something about its cultural and historic... its historic and cultural resources, so like its descriptive noun, historic and cultural resources, so like to acknowledge the significance of them in the state or nationally as you're trying to... As you were saying. Are you saying of its significant historic... Yeah, of its significant, but that's... Yeah, that's maybe not good enough, but kind of like if we're trying to articulate that Montpelier is particularly special in some way, that would be one way we could put it in the sentence. Can we... Yeah, can we talk about like our history of building, like what are... Resources is just so generic and... What does that mean? Well, let's bring this to life a little bit so that a normal person on the street, like you explain this to them. You know what you're talking about. You're not like, why do you understand our cultural resources? Yeah. What does that mean? Yeah. And another thing I can put out there, I mean these are our first ones that we're working on. I had to kind of make a decision as to how to phrase things and we would be consistent throughout. In this case, I was kind of... I may get this wrong, using a second person instead of... So we're talking about appreciating and preserving its historic and cultural resources. It could also go and say Montpelier will be a community that understands, appreciates our historic and cultural resources. I mean, at least that makes more of a... It just... How we phrase it will be consistent throughout. I just, as I said, I did it. If you want our... Yeah, you did two of them. We've also heard celebrate as a thing to add and we've also heard reference to the state and national role of Montpelier. Yeah, like state and nationally significant historic and cultural resources, like that would just name them as something that is undisputably important and that's what we're trying to recognize and understand and appreciate and preserve. Right, and if we could be recognized as a community that does an excellent job at doing that. I feel like that's something where we can be like, hey, we were recognized like that happened. You can say yes or no. I don't know when we'll get to a point where we have to say that the community understands our cultural resources, like did we accomplish that? That's going to be tough to... We should include an assessment goal. Everyone has to be tested. I think a little bit of the understand was to get to... To answer some of the question of why we do some things. Why do we study and continue to... You know, why would we do an archeologically sensitive study? Well, it's really... The community may not... The community broadly may not understand, but the community, at least in the Historic Preservation Commission, that smaller group of people who are very interested in this would increase an understanding of our resources that we have. Can I make a suggestion here? I take your point and I think it's a very good one. But I might suggest is... I think once we get a better handle on some of the other chapters and we're able to look at this piece in conjunction with a larger set of chapters that we're looking at, we will have a better sense of how... And then we develop a visioning statement that will help guide how we frame sort of the nuts and bolts issues that are outlined in the chapter here. I mean, it sounds like what you're talking about, like what we're already getting the weeds on is how we want to frame these things and so how the language we want to use to couch the nuts and bolts issues that are outlined here. And I feel like we might be getting ahead of ourselves if we do that. Because, I mean, this isn't the city plan. This is one small component of it. And I think once we look at some more, we'll have a better sense of like, do we want to use celebrating Montpelier as sort of a unifying theme in our visioning statement and then we can apply that theme to these chapters and we can tweak the language to sort of fit that. But looking at other sections, it might just seem like maybe that's not the right word we want to use. I'm just saying, like, I feel like we might be kind of getting ahead of ourselves with how, like, specific... We're kind of getting the weeds too quick on this. Yeah, I think word-smithing things is probably... Right, exactly. I think we might want to just look at this for what this really is. It's an outline of sort of the strategies that they propose to the commission to try to achieve certain goals. And my suggestion is we take the goals as they are on their face value right now. Don't question them and sort of look at whether or not the strategies that are outlined here, how we want to, A, what's being done, B, what we can do and whether or not we can prioritize those things into the city plan and then take a look. And once we have that figured out, then we can sort of take a look at the goals. Like, I think there's certain value in the understanding goal. It's not sexy by any means. But I do think that there's value in it. I think if we sort of think about it, just as, like, do these strategies make sense to support that goal? And if those strategies make sense, I think the value of the goals sort of becomes a little more apparent as opposed to just saying, like, I don't understand anything. Which I agree is a particularly engaging term. That's just my thesis. I feel like, and maybe I'm thinking about, I'm sure we're all thinking about the process in a little bit different way, but like, to me, I'm looking at this and I want to get it to a place where the language is a little more concrete or people could look at this and understand what's really being said so that we can have a robust, or as robust as possible, whoever wants to get into this, you know, chapter participation and feedback, because I just think, yeah, some of the language is kind of like, well, what are we really talking about? And I don't know. That's anyway, just my two cents. There will be a chapter, a discussion chapter that will be before this. We've kind of done things backwards, talking about the implementation strategy first and then working back to the chapter. So there will be a more, I guess I would say, a flowery or better. We want a thousand words that really explains why historic and cultural resources are important. And maybe that's where we get more of a description, but it is important that I don't disagree with John that it is kind of a bit of a dry, a dry aspiration, but I'm hoping that there's a written part that's really meant to inspire we're not getting bogged down in graphics and all these other things, or, you know, data points. But there's a place for us to synthesize and really pack a punch. Really go and send out the message of why this is special, why this is important, why we talk about this and give people a reason. You know, this is why we, you know, spend money and spend time doing this. This is why we have an HPC that is why they're a certified local government and, you know, why we have design review rules. Well, I think that there was some substance to the wordsmithing. I think we were doing both there. And I think this is the time for it. And the appreciates, just before I lose my train on the appreciates piece, this really comes back to the reason why Cliff Street got removed from design review. And the sense was just that they don't understand the value of protecting historic resources. And that was why from the Historic Preservation Commission they felt it was important to have as one of our things, that the community understands and appreciates why historic preservation is important. And so for them, even though they're a little bit more dry, there are consequences, I guess, to having a community that doesn't. And there's a sense that we have great resources and our community doesn't fully understand and appreciate them. Well, but possibly, I mean, some financial considerations for the homeowners, I'm assuming, was also a factor. Maybe they do appreciate cultural resources, but they also appreciate their budget and they value one over the other. So I just, I mean... Actually, they identified it that they didn't understand why they were in the historic district. That was what they said. But is that why they wanted to get a house? Yes. They didn't think their resources were the best to appreciate. Right, but they didn't see the value of appreciating them. I mean, I don't want to second-guess what they do or don't appreciate or understand. Is that they did highlights and process issues that the city had in treating people inconsistently and lack of clarity and the regulations and did not want to be subject to that, which I don't think is reflected in this at all. Just to suggest that they don't understand or appreciate is sort of putting the blame on them and saying that enlightened enough to live there and be subject to that. When really, when we look at our city, our government and what we've set up in regulation, I think we have to take some ownership and responsibility in creating a system that can do this and at the same time have people not feel like they are being tricked or are not getting a fair shake or understanding of what they can do. I guess under goal A where it says improve the city's understanding I can certainly understand and appreciate that all of these strategies might improve the understanding of the HBC but I'm not sure how that translates into the public. How does this freedom and the public that understands. The three goal areas are really different pockets. The surveying, data collection information side the second one is really what they're calling appreciation. That's really the education for the community piece. So actually I think the three buckets they built for them make a lot of sense. So we need more information about these things what we need to get what sort of education we have for the community what other opportunities might be there and then the third one is really then how do we protect those resources. These are the third goal areas. Yeah I agree with that. I'm just thinking that even within each one of those buckets there's a public value there's a valued head in the public participate in that. The public should understand the resources as well as the planning the historic commission does. If you think of strategies I'm not seeing where this information that's being gathered is being spread to the public. It was meant to kind of come out more in the Section B under the community appreciating. So develop a speaker series hosting walking tours developing self-guided walking tours improve the historical cultural resources topic on the city's website identify education materials for the public. I think they're identifying the historic context for themes significant to Montpelier's historic development. I think if I understand what they meant by that that should go in B. It was the one you were going to... That's the one that I totally didn't understand. If I have a thought about what that means then I think it should go in B. Probably a B. I'll ask them and see. I think they mean like for example if a theme for example if a theme significant to Montpelier is that like when you think of Montpelier what do you think of? I'm just trying to think of something. Well it's like yeah like it's a state capital so we should be identifying and developing historic context or like stories or communications about Montpelier's history as a capital. Or if we think of it as a walkable city or with the bike path and stuff then we should be talking about what was the historical context of walkability in Montpelier. I think that's what they're talking about. Are you ready to think are important about Montpelier? What was the history of all that? How did that come to be? I think is what they're trying. So it's like creating narratives, historical narratives around things we already value. What's the history of the college up on the hill? Or the fact that we have a historic downtown at all. Yeah. Or like the there's the little thing on Taylor's Langdon street with the floods and the historic and so flood. Isn't that historical context about fires and floods? Many times another fire. Exactly. Why are all the houses built after 1880? We have a fire for that. Yes. Or floods. That's not really the gathering. It's like a communication tool. Yeah. I'm not sure we need to line them up perfectly with the goals. If you think of it as having our goals listed right away and then all the strategies and then you can have links to goal A, goal B, maybe like US or so. It's a different way of doing it. I could parenthetically go goal A, B, you know, whatever one they attach to. Maybe you'll end up in another section as well. The expectation is that like especially unified development regulations, that's your zoning regulations. That's going to plunk into chapter after chapter after chapter. It's just going to keep dropping in. That could be another way. I think this was as I said this was how they were how I worked with them if this is important, if community appreciation is important what would you do and then we would go back to go through and say well this is something you did. Being a CLG means we can do grants for outreach. We already talked about that CLG also gives you money to do grants for understanding. We'll just say it again. Obviously the same program works for both goals. It was just our way of working through. It works well for working through developing it, but for presenting it it may just make sense to have the aspiration have the three goals and then have list the strategies with links. So Mike, is part of our charge to sort of evaluate the viability of some of these proposed to use your pros, I guess. Is it our job to determine whether or not unicorns, butterflies, and rainbows are worth putting in a time plan? There certainly could be places where I mean there's one for example that on the last page amending the tax stabilization program I don't know if it makes a lot of sense for them to work that way because the last sentence isn't actually possible so we actually have to strike focus on single and two family groups that are occupied because they're actually not eligible under state law to be in the tax stabilization program. So there's an easy one. I mean there's no real policy decision for us to make. It's not really possible so we can strike that and then the question is is this really most of our tax stabilizations are going to be in the downtown or most of our historic structures so let's say page one so conduct a survey of archaeologically sensitive areas and map resources that's going to require a certain amount of resources right your office can identify particular grants that maybe they could apply for to do that sort of work but understanding full well that money from here takes money from there in most instances you know at some point you know typically the city plans just sort of say these are sort of goals that we strive for these are implementation strategies we will try to implement to further these goals without consideration of whether like what the practical viability of those implementation strategies being executed. You know what I mean like it's yeah certainly you guys should can and should look at these there may be things that come up that just from a big picture these are being developed in a silo and you guys are certainly going to be able to see economic development ones that may come out or natural resources ones that may come out that are just too far out there I could think of any number of possibilities that we could look at you know the transportation committee comes out hypothetically and says no more cars in the downtown and we just go through and say I know that's their aspiration and their goal in light of what we think is reality that's just one we're going to have to adjust and move out of because we don't think we can have economic development and housing in our downtown if we don't have parking as much as they want to maybe it's when we go back and talk to them we don't think this is a reduction that from a policy standpoint and city council is going to have the same option when it gets to them these are the wish lists of these silos right I guess that's the question and you can go through and say that you guys are asking for way too much there's no way we could you know based on this the core of the question is given that these are wish lists do we have is there some expectation that the commission is going to say sure it's a wish list but it's limited you know we have to think about it in terms of like reasonable reasonable and exterior what is reasonably plausible given the economic constraints of the city and you know what is what do we put forward as a visioning plan for the time this is my understanding and might correct me if I'm off base on anything I mean this planning commission will be making suggestions to the city council so my understanding is we can change what we want I think that along the way though that it we should be you know conscientious of the other committees and let them know what we're changing and they'll have an opportunity to go separately themselves to city council and say we really want to get rid of cars and city and planning commission took that out so I think that that would be like how we should try to work with this along the way but what I'm getting is I don't think we should be afraid to make changes and to make it around I think one question I do have right now because we're all this the whole point of this meeting tonight which is this is a really great discussion is to figure out what process works for us in going through this and I think one question that we should try to resolve right now is do we want to more or less approach this as a we want to send some feedback right now to the drafters of these chapters and think of it that way and send some sort of give give Mike some more like amorphous maybe not completely ironed out things which we've I've heard some of those suggestions tonight or on the other hand do we want to go ahead and just take some ownership and make some and do some rewrites basically which I've heard some people suggest things like that I've also heard some people tonight not want to go down that road of rewriting like that so I'm going to throw that back out to everyone else you included Mike and say like you know what approach between those two or something in between do we want to try to take with these chapters I think part of it is us figuring out exactly what we want from each group so for that your example archaeological sensitive area I want to know well is that something that's in their work plan for the next eight years is that something that they that's what they want to use their limited time for visit did they have work plan ideas and then if not is there funding that they've identified for that and what sort of timeline do they think that might happen so for some of the cars in the downtown obviously that's not going to be in the purview of the transportation committee to do but for the things that are a little bit more reasonable like archaeological sensitive areas have they thought through those things and if they present something to us and say here are the 10 surveys we want here are different funding sources and a different timeline we want to do each of those things and how we can actually implement that in eight years great and I'm not in any place to want to say okay if it's something that they can do and that is reasonable right so but without knowing that context it would be really hard to edit this down now it is just a wish list does it a wish list or can we make it a work plan and I thought one of your points too Mike was to make sure that whatever we put in this is something that will get done it may not necessarily everything gets done because things you just never know how things are going to change over the eight years but these were the things that that they wanted to work on in the next eight years I mean something it just seems like there's a lot here and the potential is to have a lot of things unfulfilled so yeah maybe yeah I guess that would be a question to ask them is this just a wish or do you have some kind of plan so one thing I'm hearing as we go through these chapters too maybe we can make a habit of creating a feedback list and a question list to send back to the committees to get further information something that we should just do that for each one yeah or maybe I think giving them a clear framework like how much of a difference will this make and then resources will mistake because there are some things that may not make much of a difference but may not take any resources and there are others that will make huge difference and also not take many resources and there are probably plenty of things that will take lots of resources that may not make much of a difference and I think those are the ones that we should be finding and probably coming from this Second impact what's the rate your impact for the factual and what's the actual feasibility of the resources so like on a scale of 1 to 10 for all of these items put a score and then you just can't get a bunch of 10s we didn't put it in the list it wasn't 10 but it could even if it was just to go through and give a priority what are the things that are the most because I know from their standpoint the things that they want to look at if I were to go and guess what they want to do most in their understanding is to go through and continue to do more to do new historic districts so our current historic district is done that's as big as they're going to let us get but there are a number of smaller historic districts that could also be made including like the Meadow the Meadow is not a historic district but it easily could be they're all of a similar age they're all built of a similar style of interacting that up in the college and College Street that's currently not in the historic district but really the college that entire area could be its own historic district I think those are the areas that HPC really wants to prioritize and then maybe the scenic pieces that we had talked about here at the last meeting was the dome do we want to have some viewshed protection for the dome in certain areas well we don't you know we have that survey from 2002 and so maybe that survey is done maybe we just go and say that survey is still valid that's the one that we should work on and we should just put that into the put that into the regulation so I think those were the areas that from an understanding standpoint and from a protection standpoint those were two areas they really wanted to work on and then the other big piece for them was to work on those outreach pieces they really wanted to get more you know on the website and have the historic preservation whether it's historic preservation or I think there's also a private organization Montpelier Heritage Group they aren't but those rules they're like we should have that group back doing more again because we need to be interacting with the public and getting the public to understand and value our historic resources again and I think there are pieces, as John pointed out there are pieces that we have gaps that need to be fixed you know we had it's better under the new process and rules that we have but I think the new design review rules will also help fix those inconsistencies that we had you know we have our goal for preservation is to use a lot of regulations but those regulations were not fairly and evenly enforced and that created a lot of unhappiness with a number of people some of whom felt we should be enforcing to the strict guidelines and others that felt that it was you know the exceptions were not being handed out on a consistent basis so we really just needed to have rules that were more consistent and fair and I think that would be helping a number of people I think some people would not be happy being in but at least a fair process would give them a better understanding and aside from knowing the level of impact and resources needed I think one thing that would be helpful at least for me is to recognize is it sort of gets a responsibility but also asking the question are there other levels of government that do this or are responsible for it in the federal government, the regional government or state government in helping us prioritize because we can be guilty sometimes of reinventing the wheel where we're like we're going to create this when there's maybe some state regulations that do exactly something very similar and I'm not seeing anything specific here and you will get some of those and those are some of the questions that have come up when I've worked with some other groups as well where people are like oh we should have a program that does this and I'm like well I think I made that comment with the energy plan or we should be doing something to have funding to assist homeowners in this and I'm like well efficiency Vermont does that I think our goal should be to connect people to them to educate people on the resources that are available rather than creating new ones now if there are if there are gaps that are in there but I think that was some of the points that we're trying to do is we don't want to be reinventing it and same with housing we will I'm responsible for trying to get 240 new housing units but I will not pound one nail I will not build one house we're here to do things that help our partners that will provide those services or provide that housing but we aren't going to provide any housing so find ways to encourage other groups that are already doing the work I think in this one the only one I think I can think of is when we were starting to talk about coordinating these outreach programs and trying to coordinate them with our partners I think there was a goal that got to that effect or a strategy that got to that effect expand partnerships with the educational institution the other thing too I mean I know from teaching architectural history that a lot of the resources that I got were from the state and from the state division of historic preservation so you know that if they could identify that they would be working with the state as well I mean I think the first strategy that was I think why it came out as their first strategy under goal B was to establish a program to coordinate, collaborate and sponsor educational events with current and potential partners Montpelier Live Division of Historic Preservation Montpelier Heritage Group Augusta Vermont, Vermont Folklife Center Vermont Humanities Council Kellogg Hubbard Library, UVM preservation program local historical societies and other similar organizations around the topic of historic and cultural resources so I think their idea was that we would have a program a person who would assist in doing some of those in this case I think a lot of that would be some of the HBC members themselves they're very well connected in these groups anyways but to have a formal program that would let them be able to say this is what we're going to do we're not doing it as much as we are coordinating, collaborating and sponsoring it is um is this is this really a report from the committee or really our implementation strategy for historic cultural resources I guess the reason I'm asking is stepping back they have a very specific maybe previewed expertise and have been focusing on elements of our mostly historic resources but are we missing our definition of what a cultural resource is is it all captured? I was going to ask, I don't know what a cultural resource is here and I would like to know that I think like art is another thing that unless or somewhere else the city plan is appropriate that something should be addressed public art? all forms, performance is there another section on cultural or is is this it? this is where it is I mean obviously a number of things can fall into there's community services, there's other places but this is I think I think the state planning goal is historic cultural and scenic together? I think that's I think it's historic cultural and scenic we're all tied together in if you look at the state land use goals for why zoning and planning that statute is one of the 12, 13 goals one of them is historic and cultural resources, the preservation and protection of them it does seem like art is a good catch because we do have an arts public art commission now and I'll see if at art it seems like there are a number of other cultural resources that we could identify beyond that I just don't know how they get captured and there are various ways we could do it we could obviously just leave this chapter as the historic resources and have a separate chapter for cultural resources if we think they net and kind of come together well we can just start to work them in, there probably won't be much well maybe there's understanding cultural resources what else is there outside of art let's think about well performance, I mean there's basically everything happens in the downtown area music, right when we think of mafia there's resources what do we value artfully significant places I mean somebody somebody might argue the religious institutions could be a cultural resource the various ones that we have right, it could become very broad I think the HPC may look at the churches and synagogues as the buildings and not necessarily the community the cultural resource that we would our farmers market yeah I know I was thinking that so are those things that would it make sense then to separate that into a different chapter arts and culture arts and culture, yeah because we can have as many chapters as we like there's no, we just have certain chapters we have to have but you can always have more chapters so can you tell us more about this public arts commission like is that how do we rely on them recently created public arts master plan yeah so it was something that started before I got here when the previous director was here we got an NEA grant or we had applied for an NEA grant we got denied we reapplied and we got funded the first year I was here to do a public art master plan and it took a couple of years to get through the process of developing that and one of the recommendations was that we should put money aside and create a public art commission and it was kind of meant to capture I think what was recognized by our outside consultant that came in and they came in from their state and they looked at it and it was remarkable how few public art and how little public art we have for being capital we have a lot of attorneys we have a lot of attorneys so we should have the statue of the attorney at the roundabout with the attorney and having previously worked in Berry City which is full of you know a lot of art from the Burns Memorial to the various pieces that were throughout the city Zipper the giant zipper they did a number of new ones after right after I left all of their bike racks were all gargoyles and so they did it they're doing a number of nice pieces over there and I think that's what when our consultant came in and took a look at Montpelier they were like you guys are the capital city and you can go take kids and go through and say alright everyone go out and find us some public art somewhere and just there really isn't any and I think that's what they were trying to do is not necessarily that we need to have a giant statue in downtown somewhere but you know there's a lot of things from a lot of other communities and so that was the goal of the public arts commission is to help to go through and sponsor the first piece of public art is supposed to be going in with the transit center so there's a it's already there the exterior one so that was supposed to be the first one where we would commission a piece of art and that we would start looking for other places and as projects come forward can we find other places where it can be incorporated into it was part of the discussion of the parking garage that ever comes forward that it's got the the skeins that are on the outside are changeable and that as you look at them at certain angles you'd be able to see certain images in the sides of the parking garage and we could change them from year to year that's part of the plan for that but are there other places and that's what the public arts commission was supposed to look at and making sure that we are not just the lost nation theater but that we are you know certainly we have a lot of art here actually but just not the public art we have the performing arts, we have theater we are things worth putting in the plan to support those things to continue to support them draw attention to them so the public art plus the existing so maybe so the thought, the opinion maybe we keep this as the historic resources we get arts and culture arts and culture is another good reason to do that because this would fit nicely with the design review regulations and there's different regulations I don't know what kind of regulations over the culture and art piece sort of a different we don't necessarily want it's not something that's regulatory you're right exactly so maybe breaking it out wouldn't be a bad cause I also want to mention the the the parades and events that are put on by the community that are art and performance art oriented that exist, I mean I think those things are worth mentioning something that we want to continue the work that the public art is doing not just the city though, but the odd species day and stuff like that right, right that's definitely part of our culture something that makes us unique I just need to, I don't have anything to do with this spot yet, but I just need to toss out that I don't see, this may be more appropriate for the culture if we're going to break that out, but I don't see a whole lot of mention of striving to understand diverse histories in our space and I don't know exactly what that would look like or if they care about that, but I think maybe we could care about that and encourage them to name that somehow, I don't exactly know how we would go about what the strategies would be, but diversity is important and it might be great to name that certainly under the archaeological sensitive areas the archaeological sensitive areas is the one thing yep, for sure Mike, do you feel like you have notes or should we go through a list of feedback to pass on like we were talking about before to go back and work with them to see maybe ask them some questions as you said the other option is we go through and we make adjustments and then kind of let them know and let them respond I figure we will do that but wait to get the feedback that we talked about first is everyone so for now we'll come up with the questions we want to ask based on what we have once we get that back we'll plan to rewrite more we'll be a little more we'll ask questions first we'll ask questions once we're more informed we'll make it our own and if you would Mike as we go through this let the other committees know that that's the approach that we're going to take and then at some point maybe after that step then post it online solicit public input that's where that comes in we're going to have to have the public input phase and I think in the past what used to happen is the planning commission would write all the chapters and then send them out to the commission in this case we just sent them to the commission we're just adding an extra step in there but at some point we've got to have an extensive amount of public input because obviously any of these are going to need the public support I also think that maybe next week we could plan to spend time writing out what we talked about about the culture and art piece with the understanding that some public art input will come from the public art commission but I don't think we're going to have any other committee that exists that's going to be able to do what we were just talking about because we can plan to write that ourselves next week we'll ask them at the same time yeah and I'm not going to assume that we'll get anything from them it's a fairly new commission whatever you like I'm getting your involvement too so should we go over brainstorm the questions we want to put it back to this work I think it's worth doing some notes exactly that's great can I ask about a bullet on the back in consultation with the historic preservation commission the planning commission will participate in act 250 and section 248 processes where historic and archeological resources may be impacting has that happened in the past no they can seek to intervene in those processes there's nothing we can do to stop it but we have the planning commission and city council have statutory standing so usually what happens is the planning commission does yeah the planning commission does so usually if it were let's say the conservation commission had a concern about a project they can sometimes actually get standing they can sometimes get standing too but a lot of times people go to the planning commission to their city council and go and say can you guys intervene on our behalf okay so this is not Adelaide field this is something that no we get very few act 250 permits so it doesn't really come up yeah I could see potentially if one were coming up I could see the elite somebody is putting yeah somebody decides they're going to put solar panels or a telecommunication tower on the side of a church spire and they're like hey hey hey you can't you know you can do it that way you can do it that way but you can't do it the way it's being proposed because it's going to have an impact on that historic resource again I don't see very many of them but in this case it's saying we will participate we want to say that we may participate by all means we're going to get called um yeah you want to change will to may this also says yeah will when the resources may be impacted so that's quite broad may participate when they will be impacted it feels like this is them telling us that we need to be in competition with them when these things come up wouldn't it is that the point of the bullet perhaps wouldn't our regulations this is a landmine this is a landmine it shouldn't be codified right I feel like we have regulations and we have our own view process there's no reason there's no reason to get involved don't these things have to communication stuff that we're exempt from reviewing these have to be in accordance with town plans anyways right doesn't the PC yeah considers it anyway it is a whole subset that well that's another piece that I'm sure that we're going to base on TPS yeah I think it would be good to be clear in this plan how it should be interpreted in any state regulatory proceedings I think that we should be clear that our highlights are how we use the municipal plan for state regulatory purposes oh I see like just covered so it's not even worth asking for feedback on this one the only piece I would say um yes I'm not a giant fan of act 250 the only exception I would have the 248 we're barred from being able to regulate in 248 and if a project came up that would have a negative impact on a historic resource this would be our only avenue for participating right although we could probably include a clause referring to our bylaws as the interpretation of the plan saying that you are bylaws that doesn't work that's gotta be a tough one that's how you get definite but by adopting the bylaws essentially as part of your doesn't look like it the PUC has been stubborn but I'll comment with this since they did I could break him with a number four years ago there was statutory change that act one there's now a path forward the DPS will walk us through what we have to put where in the town plan so that for 174 yeah but it's still I'm pretty sure it still can't be in the bylaws it has to be we're also covered by the regional plan does the energy committee take up the energy setting do we have preferred sites no not yet they didn't identify well we would have to adopt them into our there's maps that we could adopt but they did the identification maps so it sounds like there is a process that exists where we may be involved with act 250 some areas exist where that may happen it being in this plan or not being in this plan isn't really going to affect that and so all this does is possibly muddle things so we're here I'm with you we shouldn't put it in some real stuff on it so we limit it we don't want to adjust it to just go and give us the option to participate we have it in a town plan we have options to do it I don't think that we ought to affirmatively no certainly the will participate is it has to go so your thought is just to remove that altogether but you were just saying I mean I can't speak to the act 250 piece but the 248 piece we'd follow those and get to where we need to be so they'll be recovered if and when something comes down to pipeline that next strategy I mean I guess I would also section 106 review is for federally for federally funded historic preservation review for federal funding is that even possible I had some questions on that one first of all they said adopt the policy I couldn't see how this would be a policy any section 106 responses involving historic resources be provided and I had a question to the HPC or I don't see a section 106 report is a section 106 report I don't know if it needs comment from the HPC is that the kind of report they would have done for the French block yeah I don't understand they don't trust the state historic preservation office to protect their interests it seems a little and I'm not even sure what legally how they get what's the section 106 response well you have to get a I don't know if I'm saying this right but you have to get a section 106 like if you're doing a housing project that has federal funding you have to get a review from a historic preservation consultant and then the state historic preservation office reviews that letter as well so the side weather historic preservation resources it's become somewhat of a standard process so we have used section 106 reports in non-federal projects before when somebody comes up like they want to demolish historic structure and it's going through the local zoning we might request a section 106 report to be presented to the DRB just because it gives an understanding of what the resources are that are there that could be lost I mean it doesn't say what you can it just says this is what's here so you hire a historic preservation consultant to do that we would have the if somebody were to demolish there's there are a couple of places where you can have there's the option to have a section 106 report they're usually not that expensive we can ask the applicant to present that as additional technical I think the concern here might actually be that that the state might be advocating to preserve something and they might envision a scenario where city council you know on behalf of a constituent goes and says the city doesn't care about this you know let them tear it down or do whatever you like and what they're saying is the city needs to whoever's submitting this needs to consult with the HPC so they like who's ever doing the section 106 review right this is okay well that's clear to me because that's I'm not sure if that's the intention yeah because the state does a pretty good job in responding so like why would we and why would they what's the concern there and it might be that the city gets involved yeah and then the question I would come up with again goes back to start of you know a policy I mean there's no way we'd be able to enforce that even if we said ordinance I mean the only way we could we were able to loop it in before was it was part of the demolition in a zoning permit as an application requirement you have to provide us with a report so we can understand again this just seems like a preference for best practice yeah sure it seems like the HPC wants to be involved when there's an approval process involving the city if we can write maybe a or ask them for a bager or you know were broadly phrased strategy to to get them involved without specifically trying to can't do it in these ways do we want to who has questions for Mike to send back your questions were good so things that are they continue versus new tasks things that are when their work plan or when someone else's purview responsible entities for each that's the same thing it's them or somebody else identification of funding where necessary I had prioritized cost and feasibility I don't know how to frame the question but like ask like how the specific strategies that are being proposed sort of further like the other goals like how do they support goals yeah basically I guess the notion is like how does an archeologically since how does a survey of archeologically sensitive areas like what what goals does that further or is it just are we just doing a survey to do the survey and you don't have a clear understanding of what that information what that is I think that was further than understanding of the historic resources but the question is do those exist at all yeah I think yeah I believe they do there are archeologically sensitive areas we do have to go through when we get these projects I know that's part of in some cases archeology archeology is anything that's that's below ground so it doesn't necessarily mean Native American it could be archeological in the sense of their foundations from this 18th century yeah I'm not suggesting that the survey of archeologically sensitive areas is problematic for me it's just that's an example like if they can articulate with the strategy like what is this further yeah that was in their case I think they would answer that that was their strategy to improve our understanding of our historic resources we don't know where they are we don't have any way of determining whether there's a lot of them or not a lot of them are they all concentrated in one area do we have significant ones that we just don't know about and that we should be doing more to protect them before somebody built a parking lot over the first cemetery in Montpelier we should have an idea of where these things might be we don't have that already I'm surprised there's not some kind of we certainly don't have a map anywhere that we have when a project comes in for us to go through and evaluate that goes and says oh you're in an archeologically sensitive area I've worked in a number of places in Vermont and I worked for the Northwest or PC and obviously we've got Highgate and Swanton in those areas which have large Indian burial grounds and having a map of the archeologically sensitive areas was important to being able to implement their protection strategies how important that is for us out here there was a rivers map of rivers book there's actually a big book that was done in the 80s and the archeologically sensitive band does come through Montpelier what was the basis of that I don't know but it certainly was there we were certainly identified at that time as having the potential for Native American archeological resources but I've known how significant that potential was but I think that's what the study would determine is if there's stuff there that we should be conscious of as we develop maybe it's just a matter of adding a little to each bullet survey in order to have a baseline I'm not trying to make it onerous but I think just having them doing that mental exercise really what are we trying to do this might be helpful for prioritizing because I just don't know some of these for doing it for the sake of doing it is there a definition of culturally sensitive areas that's one I have a question mark for I would have to hear from them it would be nice to hear what they think just so we can make sure we're capturing it I mean we may be in this case maybe putting art and culture into a different chapter so that may go away but we'll see what they had in mind when they were talking about culturally sensitive if we do lift it into an intro we want to make sure we take what they meant with us Mike, I have a really quick question and I don't even play anything on the topic but on page 3 they talk about establishing a program to identify endangered historic buildings is it endangered to start building a term of art that I'm not aware of no it's this comes from the result of the the two rivers out at Agway there's that the homestead that is falling into disrepair and the city did a public nuisance on it so we declared that it should be torn down and now they're trying to pull together a bunch of folks so they could go through and kind of rescue that structure came up to go through from their perspective on the HPC that maybe we should be more proactive instead of reactive to these we shouldn't wait till the city declares that it's time to tear this building down before the HPC thought they should be maybe getting involved to see where they could identify historic resources that are falling into disrepair to kind of address them at an earlier stage I think the bigger question on that one I think it's a admirable idea I think it will come down to the amount of resources and I assume these would be endangered historic buildings that are not on these other surveys I mean it they might be on these other surveys we may have ones that are I can't think of any on top maybe there's one that's downtown in the historic district that's falling into disrepair that for whatever reason yeah it just seems to me like it's a little bit overlapping with the survey like if we have a survey of our important resources then when something happens to one of them yeah I think the program in this case is the program is to get involved I think the first one is to understand and you can go through and understand where these endangered buildings are but I think this one here was more of a proactive I have a program to do something about it as well to identify it beforehand and then I then do something about it do something about it like the houses on Court Street like the houses that got torn down on Court Street yeah for folks that weren't here before I believe it was in the insurance companies oh because they were expanding their parking yeah and so they wanted to take out some historic buildings and so basically it ended up being commissioned by neglect letting them kind of fall into disrepair to the point that they couldn't be rehabbed it was a long time ago it was before me but it was one of these ones that Eric Gilbertson and folks will tell you can tell you the story of parking lot parking lot but it was brand new probably while we all had to watch those buildings look horrible for years and years so I get why they didn't want to have that from a like right you know if they wanted to expand their parking lot they bought the building and then they just let it sit there then maybe nobody's paying attention so I guess you know HBC wants to I mean there's a fine line I guess I don't want it to be redundant or like heavy handed but also it's pretty obnoxious when buildings just sit there to get around the regulation and there's nothing to do about it I don't really understand it because it doesn't seem like you're endangered until you're endangered like how do you foresee the danger like the that property we're talking about unoccupied for a certain length of time and repairs not being made okay yeah I guess we sort of think about clear to say that but I'm splitting getting too into the there's gotta be some definitions section in this whole plan right and there was a certain amount of how much we put into it like I said eventually it would be nice to have these things being able to link to other things where you can expound on them at this point we just need to know that we're going to identify this or we're going to study this or we're going to do it but you know then you could link and have more details of what that means but we weren't going to go through and expand on these we kind of knew that's what we were all comfortable with and you know to put a lot of time into something that gets removed later on didn't seem to make a lot of sense but at the same time if there are things that we should in certain cases whether it's this one or whether it's housing some of them are more detailed than others and maybe some of these ones do need to have a little bit more added to them just to provide a little more you know just compiling oral histories of Montpelier residents maybe it needs to have more than just that and this one I feel like we also need some more some clearer benchmarks and metrics like if we're putting stuff for adding places to this to register how many would we have to add for us to be considered successful in checking that let's ask because there really aren't any benchmarks in this one so how do they know when they increase the appreciation is there a measure right and if it's like develop new educational programs such as blah blah blah can we say like develop at least one that you can you know think of it in terms of do we check that box percentage increase because when it came to their strategy to increase the number of sometimes become really difficult to put a benchmark to it I mean like I said community appreciation how do you really judge that I think but I do think we can put more benchmarks onto some of the strategies I think developing at least one or those types of things make a good survey the city and then but a certain point is I'm not going to go through and survey the city not you no so I mean there's a lot here that they say they're going to be doing so yeah and I feel like right asking them to at least start thinking about quantifying then they might call so perhaps that's true Mike if you think that actually adding new designer view districts is really important to them I think it's only in this one little bullet if appropriate amend the boundary of the designer district to include more or less of the city depending on the purpose of the district and the goal of the city looks like super compared to the other ones which are really heavy hands. I think there's a mix out there I think there's a mix of opinions on the planning commission on how much design review we just had the conversation of some of it I think they're caught in the same thing is I think they would like to see more design review more than just the area that it is right now it would be ironic for us to pass the city plan where we wish that there would be would add more in which we just had the opportunity to do so and decided not to some of this district sort of thing something that we didn't talk about if that's what they're interested in I think as I said I think it goes back to the initial they're the meadow just the first they want to go through and have a historic district that includes the meadow they make the meadow then their follow up would be now that we have the historic district out there we should have some design review standards out there as well I think what is their opinion and their goals that's I think where you're going to have the harder the more challenge to go through and say yeah that's their goal I don't know are we going to also support that and put that in our plan that's going to be our plan or are we going to go through and say we're all from more studies to understand and to catalog those historic resources out there but I don't know if we're ready to take the next step to then require the design review standards out there as well considering we in a number of areas currently Loomis and Liberty Street are currently in our historic district and not in our design review are we going to survey the meadow and then put them in and still leave out? It seems like something higher level considering all of these new information and how things evolve and amending our bylaws so that they make sense can catch a lot of these things as opposed to hypotheticals and vague ideas around consider that something very specific We are trying to be more specific in here and I think that is our hope is not to support and encourage but to get in but consider would probably be an okay or I guess amend our bylaws you know in the interest of the city based on new information and etc but we're going to be doing that anyway I think I'm just feeling like in the last few meetings I want from them just more just tell me what it is you want don't say it in a way that doesn't make sense and then we have to ask all these back and forth questions I just want to know what you want I want to know this doesn't tell me that that's what they want is new design or new districts whether or not we decide to keep that in is one thing I just want to know what they want and perhaps that's like the benchmark like if they can get support for two new design districts and two separate parts or historic districts then you have achieved a city that appreciates the audience I mean I think the historic preservation commission can have goals that aren't in the city plan right sure yeah I mean because this to me seems like right they're going to plan for the next design review to have their that would be beneficial for them to say it out loud like if that's what they really want then claim it yeah yeah that's true and ultimately this is the city's historic resources plan it's not historic preservation commission's plan so they're developing the plan that we're going to massage and adjust I think we should be a hundred percent of what they want we should be comfortable doing what Mike just said and that's taking the aspirations from a committee and translating them into something that works for the city and I think John had a good example earlier talking about the possibility of expanding the design review boundary that might be what they want specifically but for us it would be about talking about a process to look at the design review boundary and going along the process lines right at the macro level as opposed to making putting the cart before the horse with it but we can also decide to leave it out entirely maybe this is too heavy handed but does it make sense when Mike types up his notes for us to review them before they go to the historic preservation commission just to make sure that we feel like we all got got everything in there that we wanted to say how do we do that how do we do that without running afoul of things what if Mike if you do this in google docs and we just all add comments and that's just open and visible for anybody that way we're reviewing it and they can see where there is even if someone's comment gets answered and we're like oh ignore that I don't think we have anything to hide or are we allowed to give feedback directly to you I was going to say we could do the google docs idea as long as we were just putting our own ideas in it and not getting into conversations about it I mean it can be an open document that we all work on but it's if Stephanie's asking John questions even that's not it's a public open document you can't argue it for to be more we could do that and we could also we could assign it to someone to review Mike's questions and that could be a document that we have at the meeting later and it becomes public that way I mean I could put it in there as a word documented to the google docs and then we could just either do comments or you could do strikeouts I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I