 We'll get the meeting going and any changes to the agenda. I'm assuming not. We have any public out there for public comment. Mario Matthews is on the line with when you ski partnership for prevention. I don't know Mario if there's anything you wanted to say you can raise your hand or use the chat otherwise. We can recognize you later in the meeting if you're here for something specific. There and there's a hand. So. Okay, you can unmute yourself. Hi. Can you hear me? Yeah. Great. Mario Matthews you she her pronouns. I'm actually not here for anything specific, but didn't want to wait to introduce myself and just be listening into you all without you knowing who I am. I'm a policy and grants manager at when you ski partnership for prevention, generally interested in things related to substance use disorder prevention. So, hoping to be able to meet you all on a different setting, but forward to hearing about the work plan. Thanks. Marielle if you want to add anything during the meeting just raise your hand and Eric will recognize you because I can't see. I probably could if I knew how to use the computer but we'll do. Thank you. Okay. All right. No other public out there. There is not. Abby's got something in the chat here so she's going to switch computers. It looks like she's having challenges with her camera. We will hang on for a second. Yep. Yeah. It's funny you say that Mike. Last weekend this week my law firm did our annual client seminar it's sort of like an annual update on employment law issues and it's part of that I had to host wage an hour jeopardy. So those. So you can hum the theme song for us. Or not. I've been saying for a while. I used to watch the news and now I watched jeopardy. I watched a couple of celebrity jeopardy shows. The question seemed just so easy. Yeah. Have you ever seen the Saturday live skits about those. Well they don't want to embarrass anybody. To look stupid right. Right. Okay it looks like Abby's back with us. Is I'm not sure if she can if she's fully joined in yet and can hear or see us yet since she's off video and off Mike. Ah there we go. Okay. So Abby we're ready to adjourn sorry you missed the whole meeting. Okay so we'll pick up on item four which is approval of the previous meeting minutes, looking for a motion and a second motion to be approved minutes with any corrections or edits. Slim group last time. Limited. I should say. I'll move. Yeah. Yeah. We have a second for that. It's got to be Connor. It doesn't have to be, but if Connor would since he was there. I read the sound. I see a finger up from Connor so he's second. Yeah. All right. Sorry Joe. Nothing, nothing important. Anyone have any questions or edits or comments about the minutes. I'm done. All those in favor please say I or raise your hand. I anyone oppose anyone wish to abstain. Never know what the protocol is for abstaining. Like is that the most appropriate thing to do if you're not there. So there's nothing. Oh, sorry, go ahead. Well, no, I was just going to say, so technically. They're the minutes are simply reflection of the business that occurred at the meeting. So you can, even if you weren't at the meeting, you can still vote on the minutes. There's no reason for somebody to abstain just because they weren't at the meeting. It's really more, it's more of a choice. So it's, you can choose to abstain, but if you think that what's represented accurately or somewhat accurately describes the business of the previous meeting. Then there's nothing that prohibits you from voting on the minutes, even if you did not attend. And I will just add, if you want to abstain, there's nothing wrong with it. So don't feel bad about abstaining. So any abstentions. Okay. Thank you. We move on to approval of the draft FY 2023 work plan. Okay, so at our last meeting. So let me back up a couple steps here. We did present several months ago, it's probably been quite a few months ago now a draft work plan. We didn't take any action on that because there was going to be a meeting of the. The council liaisons for each commission and the chairs of each commission to talk about any type of issues or items that they may that each commission wanted to discuss over the year that there might be some joint interest so That meeting occurred prior to our last meeting. The work plan was updated briefly or lightly to reflect some of the discussions and the changes based off of the joint meeting. The draft work plan that's in your packet was presented at our last meeting but since there was only three members in attendance. We decided to hold off on approval of it until this meeting when more of you would be here to, to have any, any, any additional discussion, or additional input or questions. A lot of what's in here is fairly consistent with what we've done over the last several years, just kind of shifting things around a little bit I should also note that these are in no particular order of hierarchy so item one does not necessarily mean that's the first thing we're going to be working on it's more just a list of the various work plan items that we have so. Eric, let me let me interrupt you for a second just wonder if everyone has that in front of them or if they'd like Eric, just put it up on the screen for us. I mean, I have it but I feel like it's usually helpful to share. Yeah, I agree. Let me go ahead and share here. My screens reconfigured one moment please. Okay. Okay, yep, so. So yeah, so here's our draft work plan. We've done evaluating incentives for development priorities here we're looking at. We had a lot of these items on the list previously but now we're adding in. I believe we added in parking reform and energy efficiency and sound mitigation into that list. We've done work on affordable housing on multi bedroom units. We are working on historic preservation, multimodal transportation is still forthcoming. So basically similar to what we've seen in the past for development incentives. Item two is updates on parking now that we have the parking study completed there. So that's given us some more information on what we may look at for updates to parking, either management, either the, the, yes management of those spaces, the quantity of required parking on street off street things of that nature so we'll get into some of those hopefully we'll get into some of those discussions tonight with the review of article four, which does now include information on parking so we've included the review of protection for historic resources. This is kind of taking a bit of a different shift. At the last meeting, I presented some new information so I'll do some refreshing free for those of you that weren't at that meeting tonight. Just to kind of get us all up to speed on where things are what needs to be done what has been done what could be done related to historic resource protection. And then just general zoning updates, looking at things like racial equity protection and natural resources incentives for childcare options. All things that we've heard are are important for the community and put potentially either lacking or needed. So we're just general updates for what that, how to address those components and others to that's not obviously an exhaustive list, or only the only items we would work on. And I believe that is it. So, again, fairly, fairly basic but yes, Mike. I'm sorry to interrupt you said racial equity. I'm not sure was it the last meeting we introduced the fact that we have a equity, whatever you call it. Yes. Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. Yeah, I meant to bring that up so the, the commission on equity and belonging that the that's been formed by the city council. They have the members of that commission are. I don't want to say a sign but they've selected ambassadors to attend all the other commission meetings so the, the commission on inclusion and belonging will meet. They will meet as a group on even numbered months, and on odd numbered months, their members will attend the other meetings so our representative is Bruce Wilson so at our first meeting in November. He will, he will be in attendance with us. Their role is kind of really going to be up to the individual commission. However, with our commission we have some, some limitations because of our statutory this, because we are a statutory entity, or you all are a statutory entity for the planning commission. So, some commissions may allow their ambassadors to vote. Others may not and just be advisory in our case. The ambassador won't won't be able to vote because statute specifically outlines who is eligible to vote on the planning commission. And specifically statute says that in order to vote on the planning commission you have to be an appointed planning commissioner by the elected body. So, because Bruce will just be basically a liaison and ambassador, he will he will not be able to vote. However, having said that the mayor and I met with him yesterday just to talk through some of what the planning commission is working on and what, what, what's to be expected. And we, we did encourage him just like with our alternate members to participate actively and, and openly with all of our discussions so you know more to come on that one Bruce actually is able to attend a meeting with us I believe they're actually meeting right now tonight as well their commission so. But again, they'll they'll only be joining us in the in the odd numbered months. So, if we have more than one meeting a month. Yeah, that's a good question. I'm not exactly sure how some of that's going to work out logistically. I know we did talk about that with Bruce a little bit and I know Mike and I have talked about that a little bit as well so kind of what's going to happen is still being figured out. I think because it's so new the their commission the commission on inclusion and belonging is still kind of figuring out what their roles are going to be as well in their own commission structure so I think I don't know if this this may have. It may be a learning curve for everybody. So anyway there's a little bit about that's a little bit about the liaison role or the ambassador role, but also any questions about the work plan for from anyone. Anyone have anything on their mind that they didn't see in the work plan that they want to talk about. Mike this Tommy just a question for the group. When we're looking at this work plan. Most of the things I see in there are become interwoven with whatever we're working on. I can't sort and parcel some of the stuff you, it just is. But having said that, does the group feel that there's a priority of what we want to accomplish. First, we're most critically. Good question. Anyone have any thoughts. Can you just jump in quick. I mean I think the historic preservation piece and some of the parking, we are working on currently with our review of article four. So, I mean I don't know if that necessarily makes them a priority but that those are two items that we're already engaging with right now. I anticipate that we will, if we continue working through article four I anticipate that there will be some, some movement on on addressing those two items for whatever that's worth. Yeah, I think we should stay in that track. That sounds reasonable. It seems like we're kind of close to coming to some resolution on that. Yeah, and parking to we've discussed that for many years. Okay. So, we're looking to approve this work plan right. Ideally yes that's there being approval of the work plan and again I should also just mention, you know this is really more of just a guidance document it's not, if we don't accomplish something that's fine it's more just to give us some general direction of how to accomplish our master plan goals which is why those are also identified in the work plan document. So at any time, if something should come up that's not on this work plan that is identified as a priority, we have the option of, of taking that on. That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve this or Eric do we just need a consensus. Either way I think it's fine. All right. Well let me just ask is everyone okay with this work plan as as presented. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Let's just leave it at that then it's a consensus of approval. Okay, sounds great sense. Yeah. All right. Before we leave this any other comments everyone's good with where we're at. Okay. Let's move to continue discussion on article four. All right. So I'm going to start sharing my screen again. Just a different screen this time so. Okay, we're picking up again on our discussion of article four which is our general use regulations. So at the last meeting I provided some information on a different approach to addressing historic resources. So I'll go over that information when we when we get to that section section 4.4 in the regulations, or in this draft. And I just wanted to note that there are some other sections that were also amended based off of the discussions we had at the last meeting so the first one being section for one item C. I added in some additional language on the slide and the goals of the goals and objectives in the master plan to talk about historic preservation and just making sure that that's in the forefront here so I know Mike this was something Mike and Sarah you guys both were interested in having this language. And I just beefed up a bit so I don't know if what I've drafted here meets that or if it's if it still needs work, but that is one of the first items that has changed since the last time the full group discussed this. It looked okay to me as I read it. Since it's just kind of an intro. Yeah. Yeah, and there's more in again in section 4.4 as well there's some additional language there also. I'll just do that. Okay, and I'll just keep rolling through. As we've done in the past. Unless there's any questions, please stop me if you have any questions. And Marielle I'd also say to you if you have anything you want to add just use the raise hand. And we'll recognize you. So, let's see moving through on page two here. What has changed at the bottom of page two under residential driveways that's still the same language that you've seen previously. Similarly this item three that is that's stricken stricken that has the strike out is moved to a different section so we're not eliminating it but just moving it that's why it's shown in the strike out. No change here from previous versions. Eric. Yes. I'm going to stop you and I, I don't know if we, I can't remember talking about this before and I guess I went over. I'm just the access driveway whips. I'm on multi family and non residential driveways. Got it. You've got that those figures. Yeah, oh yeah sorry. They, and I think you have either other figures for maybe residential driveways as well. I guess this is it. Yes, it seemed when I looked at this earlier. Kind of confusing. Because what's the, it says too narrow but is it like one lane. That's why it's too narrow. You've got additional with you've got 25 foot maximum what's the minimum. You know I mean I didn't know right when I read I'm thinking, shouldn't there be a minimum maximum with. That's a good question. Yeah, these are all figures that have just been carried through so I'm not exactly sure where they're where they've originated from but I can. Add in some language that talks about minimums and maximums and then reference these these images or other images. Yeah, and I go back to when I was on the council we had a discussion about the turning lane on the corner of East spring and main street on East spring street and complaints that one was 10 feet one was nine feet six inches that's too narrow. And what's the requirement. So, I could, I could see where someone might come in and say hey I only need eight feet per lane. Well, that may or may not work. But I would think we get some kind of standard in there. I mean the only thing I would say is that under item one here we just referenced the standards of public works for the widths. They should be constructed to their standards, which would include the width of the driveway as well. Okay, so so I'm not familiar with those standards are so if those, if those have minimum widths and whatnot, then we're fine. Yeah, I believe they do. I believe I think I want to say the minimum driveway with this 20 feet. So, I would just in these table in these figures maybe if you can throw that in. Yep. I'll check with public works to see what they have is their minimum maximum and then see what I can do about adding that data into the figures. All right. Yeah, and particularly because this middle figure has this 25, which I mean if that's the maximum width in those standards that's fine but I don't want there to be like a in inconsistency right. Yeah, that's a good point. Yep. Okay. Anything else on that. All right, great. So moving along again just some headings to to relate to what the figures are nothing change no new changes here. No new changes here so this is where the previous section was moved to. So now we're talking about encroachment of existing driveways that that. I as new language to the section not new to you all as we've reviewed this previously, and 123 and four is all what was was in the previous section that's been moved here. So nothing new there as well. Okay, moving along under for three nothing here has changed for a conversion or change of use that's all still the same as it was previously. And then we get into section 44. So this is where some of the bigger changes have occurred for those of you that weren't at the last meeting. So Connor and Sarah and Mike, this should be somewhat of a refresher for you all but for those of you that were not here. I did, I did some research on why we have this section on design review statute is pretty clear that in order to have any type of design review standards whether they be design review architectural review historic review. There needs to be some sort of district that's associated with that, whether that be a design review district historic review district, whatever the case might be there needs to be a district that associates to the to the standards. I was able to determine. And to the best of my ability and I'm pretty sure this is what the case was prior to the full revamp of the of the land use regulations that incorporated the form based code and made it a unified land use and development regulations previously there was a zoning ordinance and a subdivision When we had that previous zoning ordinance, we did have design review districts there was I think at least two design review districts. And so these standards were fairly consistent with the previous the 2014 version of the language. So what it seems to have happened is the design review language came forward in section four four, but the districts went away. So there was nowhere for these standards to apply. So in some of my discussions with the state with the division of historic preservation and just review statute in order for us to have any type of local historic protection. We need to have some sort of historic district. It doesn't necessarily need to be called a historic district but it needs to be. There needs to be some sort of area where the standards will apply so we would need to both create the area for the standards to apply and create the standards that would apply to that area. Along with that, for if we're looking at it from a historic perspective. I believe we would need to do updated surveys and inventories of the properties that are in that area to make sure that it's if in the case of historic preservation, that it still meets the criteria to be listed. As we've talked in the past, most of the pretty much all the surveys we have on file for any of our historic properties that are listed either in the state or national register are all from 1979. So, some of those properties don't exist some have been changed new properties may have have met the threshold of 50 years now to be eligible. In order to, I guess that's all a long way of saying for us to put in some sort of design review or protection for historic resources that would that would either prevent or limit demolition of buildings would it requires a lot more work than than just to put some language into the regulations. So with that in mind, what we talked about at the last meeting and what I've tried to do is instead of looking at ways to regulate these properties look at incentives that might help save them while we work to figure out the resources necessary to establish some historic historic protections or design review districts or whatever whatever we whatever direction we might go in. Look at an incentive based approach to help provide incentives to the development community or property owners that that may prevent them or give them a second thought about whether or not they raise a building or try to reuse it to the extent that they can. So that's why that's why the language is written in here the way it is now that it's kind of a shift from protection from demolition or alteration and more than incentive. As a way to try to protect and encourage the buildings either be reused or saved in some other manner. So, Eric. Yeah. As you're talking I, I'm thinking and I guess it went right over my head, if we've talked about it before but excuse me in the previous zoning regulations in 2014 you said we had to design review districts. I think there were two there was at least one. I know that. Okay, so my recollection and I believe Tommy was chairman of the planning commission when we redid the zoning, and she can chime in if I recollect incorrectly. We were relying on the fact that we had written into the zoning regs that historic structures would have to get approval of Vermont division of historic preservation or whatever before they could be torn down if they're on historic register. I suspect that's why those design review districts got dropped. I don't know if it was I can't recall if it was intentional or unintentional. I'm just wondering if how hard it would be just to basically say whoops. That was an oversight we want to put those back in. Do steps you outline. I think we would. Yeah, because it's been because they don't technically they don't exist anymore. The districts don't exist I think we have to basically start over and recreate the districts and do the survey work to make sure that the properties are still still eligible or still contributing and then figure out what those design review criteria are going to be as well as figuring out who is going to be responsible for that review. That would be a new historic historic resources commission, whether that be some sort of design review commission or design review board. That's still, that would all need to be figured out as well. I saw Brendan shaking his head when you were saying that in agreement, I don't know if he was or not but. I don't know anything about it but it was just my my instinct is like well they're gone so you got to, we'd have to go through it said my instinct is just we'd have to go through the formalities to create them again. I guess that was all my interjection here would be that when you see is a relatively small city, like what a little more than a mile. Why can't over. Yeah, why can't why can't the city be considered a district. I mean it could. We could consider the entire city as a district but again that would, in order to establish that and to establish design review criteria, whatever that looks like, we would need to figure out who's going to do the review what the city is against if it's historic, if it's some sort of historic review, then we need to do a full inventory of all the properties in the city that may be contributing in order to determine if they meet the standards of review. So, so I mean there's definitely a lot of work that would need to be done. And something that Sarah and I have talked about is that, you know, the city could pursue certified local government status which would open up some funding to be that would provide some of that survey work and some of that other work, provide funding for those efforts, but in order to even get to that step, the city needs to establish some sort of preservation commission or other body that is going to be responsible for this work, and there are guidelines and the review criteria. And right now, it's not, it hasn't been identified as a priority for council. Having said that it is still on the council's policy and priority strategy list. So it just hasn't risen to, to their to a high priority for them, but it is still there so they are aware of it it is something that they, we basically talk about it every year when we're going to review those. They're in, they're in lies the issue. It seems like this will never be prioritized. Like, this should have been done like 20 years ago. Yeah, well, so this is, this is where Eric and I have talked a couple times about this. And yes, I mean, what's, what's happened in the past it's it's not going to be that easy to correct it. It's complicated to do with the state is going to be complicated to do with the city. And at this point it feels like the incentive ideas, maybe all we have to to get something going really quickly. And the incentive, the mayor, like the incentive stuff I think city council can get behind it. It's hopefully it will just make some creative ideas for some of the architecture in the city. And again it's, we're talking about. Well, first line there, you know adaptive reuse. I think it's, I just, I'm going to, let me, let me interject. I would agree that like it's something and it's, it's a step in the right direction but it doesn't really seem to accomplish what you know our master plan indicates. Yeah, but we're going to need more manpower. Basically, to, to work with with the mayor and whatnot and say this is really a high priority in the city and it just doesn't feel we're going to get very far with that this point. Let me throw two things out one, Eric. Can you can you maybe get an opinion from our city attorney about just to confirm that those districts are gone we can't just reinstitute him. Yeah, sure, I can do that. Yeah, and I say that only because if he says, no they can there's, they can still be instituted pretty easily well. That in conjunction with the incentive language is a better step than where we are now. The other thing I want to throw out is, I think if we as a commission feel that this is a priority. Let's move on it, we can take it to the council, tell them this is, we feel this is a priority and it's in our work plan. I'm happy to do that if that's you know, if we get to that point that's the feeling of this commission. You know I would agree with me and having worked on this for a long time. It's been something we really wanted to do from the very beginning of changing all of our regulations and see that we're still at a place where we can't move doesn't seem where we want to be. I agree completely that these incentives are great and that we should implement those I've read them and they seem all reasonable. But as Mike says it and everybody else says it's a stop gap that doesn't really solve our problems so I would be strongly in favor of moving this forward to the council to say we want we feel. There's enough historic integrity that we want to preserve that we need this support in order to do so. And to the effect that Brendan was talking about last last meeting I attended it really would apply to a small number of structures, right, of superior significance. Yeah, yeah, this is the work that British did and showed us not too long ago. Yeah. I want to ask a very basic like question. So what what if tomorrow the owner of the Winooski block said, I want to knock this thing down. What, Eric what would stand in their way, like what what is what is there for protection of like a worst case scenario like that right now. There's many. From a local perspective, there's not much, at least from a local regulatory perspective, we have very limited protections in place. I think the major pushback would be coming from either the state or the federal side, and just community outreach and community grassroots type. That's that's not sure that's exactly right. That's not necessarily effective. Yeah, it's not protected basically. Yeah so from the perspective of any local protection there's there's really limited avenues that we have available in what could the state do even wash their hands. Sorry, I'm being won't they won't help us because they say it has to come from the city, the state won't help us. So they'll have they'll have an advisory council vote on it. And even if they vote to keep it on a state historic register, the developer can have an agreement with DHP to say you know what will take steps to mitigate adverse effect of the loss of building so they could put a plaque up on the new building and basically hire a consultant that would document it you'd have a file with the state that said what used to be there, but you'd still lose that cultural resource. So even even the national register, which it's on, I believe right Joe. Yeah, it is federal money. It works. It works similarly. It works similarly. The only the only thing that I think the feds might be able to do is that if they're as Joe just mentioned if there were federal monies used for any type of rehabilitation, they may have to pay that back. The mill over here I think had federal money. I think that's, I think that is one of the ties that the that comes with any type of funding that's that's that's granted because of the designations. Would that change though because it like the Wheniske block block has changed ownership since like that work was done with federal money like that. I mean so that wouldn't even necessarily reach back to I think it would carry to whoever the new owner is quite frankly that I think because because the money was used for the building itself I think the improvements are what they look at I'm not sure of any of this so please don't quote me on any of this but that's my understanding is that if there's federal money involved it's there's there's some recourse that the that the federal government can take in those in those instances. Yeah. And so Eric just to your understanding it's not as if like if this were to happen, like the Vermont Attorney General like let's say you know there was a huge uproar and you know we were like no no no the state you got to step in. It's not like the Attorney General's office could necessarily file like a lawsuit and basically just stop it. It's as far as you know. Um, well, I mean, what would be there would be like a little basis for them to like do that. I mean, I guess Brendan I would ask you as the. Is there a basis to sue somebody. Oh, I don't know I mean I don't I don't like to I don't, I don't know like what if there is like an interest recognized in state law like I did that. Yeah, I just I don't know, because I'm trying I'm just trying to get a sense of like, this is definitely a priority. I don't understand how, how thin the line really is because if it's really that bad like to me you know there are certain buildings in the city that kind of have to be off limits they're like a small number. I say everything on our logo should be off limits. Well, Brendan let me pose this hypothetical to you. There's a very real possibility of St. Stephen's church being demolished. Yeah, because that church was recently closed. I've said this to other people, what if the shoe was on the other foot, and St. Stephen's stayed open, St. Francis closed, and we were talking about the demolition of St. Francis, that would like be a nose job for the face face of you lose something that was just like so symbolic of the city and in recognizable, like, I mean, it's unfathomable but it could happen, like we have nothing in place here. We have nothing in place. So let me, let me, let me pose kind of two, two prongs here one I think I don't disagree with anything anybody said as far as the need for some level of local protection. Right now we can't do that with our current land use regulations so but what we can do is incentivize their protection so I'm almost thinking it may be worth identifying specific buildings or properties or districts that we think or that you all think are the most critical. So I know the DHB did a study with some funding that looked at the gateways for historic structures. We have our existing inventory of historic buildings that are listed. But you know those, they're kind of a scattershot throughout the city so it may be if we may gain more traction by saying these specific properties or specific areas are the most critical for when new ski to protect right now. And we want to create some sort of design review district or whatever it is for those properties and try to move that effort forward. And which which may be what we've been talking about the whole time but really focusing in on what that is and what those properties are so that so that it might seem like a an easier an easier ask because we would all ultimately have to have the property owners involved in the decisions as well to include their properties in these districts. So, you know, it's possible that we could say you know all these properties should be in a district and then those property owners go to council and say no we don't want to be in this district and the boundary lines are redrawn to exclude properties. That may or may not be may or may not may that shooter should not be excluded for their historic quality so I don't I don't really get that though, because like how like the state historic register like the properties didn't like the property owners at the time didn't get to say no I don't want this to be on the state register. I think because it's a local big well. The, I guess the difference that I see is the state and national register is really just an inventory of properties, where the local, the local regulations would have would have regulatory oversight of those properties as well. So it's, it's, it's both including them but also then adding additional limitations on what can happen with those properties at the local level, where with the state and national registers. They don't, they don't have any, any regulatory authority with those designations. But Eric, that seems like, if I'm a property owner, regardless of how much I value the historic nature of my property. I'm not going to agree to anything that might limit me in the future. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it's like signing up for an easement on your house like nobody. Nobody would do that. Yeah. But that's why we need to be focused in what it is that we're talking about. And the properties we're looking at the specific criteria that might be included in in some sort of design review. Again, or whatever it is, I just, I'm defaulting to the term of design review as a generic term for either design historic, whatever, whatever type of district or protection. I think I'm, I'm a little bit finding a little bit of frustration with this because like, I understand the steps that need to happen here. But the way that we've built this, it seems like it's an almost impossible task and yet when use keys actually one of the few municipalities I know of its size that doesn't have it. Like, that's a little dumbfounding to me. Well, it got rid of it in 2015. So, how do this for a potential solution, or at least the next step is that we find out is as Mike requested from the lawyers, can we re issue those districts based on the 2014 and move forward from there if we can, then we can quickly go ahead and do what we need to do. In the meantime, I think that these incentives are fine, but it doesn't get to the meat of the problem. Yeah. Well, and to, to, I think Joe mentioned it, are folks willing to kind of just either walk around or off top of your head. I think there was some properties that they think should be priorities for us to save. So, in other words, important historic structures and whether it's, you know, whoever lives on the east side kind of look at properties there people on the west side look over there. Yeah, Mike, I think it's another scenario where like, we're not ultimately qualified to be doing that because it would be like our impressions I mean I think that's that's community input for like a consultant doing it, but So, I guess two things Joe, one is yeah, let's let's get what Brita, the report from Brita so we all see that, but we can, we can come up with some, some properties we think and talk about it and doesn't mean that they're necessarily there but at least we're identifying some properties, maybe like the RVA or wood is key block. Yeah, Steven's church St Francis church, you know things like that. Well and that's where that's what I'm saying before is I, because we're only were a pretty small city I don't understand why the city for this matter is not considered a district and then an inventory could be done in totality. Instead of doing like a street, a street, a street like that that seems to because we keep harping on like the same few things and then things that are in the periphery get missed continually. I guess all I'm saying is maybe as a start, we as a commission just just say, hey, these are properties that we see that we think are important, they may not pan out to be but you know, like my house I think is important well no it's not right. Well and that's usually what it is is people typically consider the house they live in is not historic because like that. Oh it's just where I live. Other people like in the community like it's something that's contributing right in the sense of place. And that goes to your point about the whole city because I mean you could take the whole West End from Malta Bay Avenue down and say, you know, maybe we we should go back and look at what the districts were originally and see what what that was and why did people choose to eliminate it. That's what I'm curious about. I don't remember having a specific conversation about dropping it. No, I don't recall that either in fact I was wrecking my brain trying to and I can't imagine that we would have recommended that it beats deleted I think that it was an oversight of anything. I mean then we need to know how that happened because well I think we know that that's true. Sarah what I think happened was we did the form based code. We had the downtown that that was purview of the city council, and there were some restrictions I recall, but we also put in language, relying on the Vermont historic preservation, whatever the council, thinking that that they had the power to stop anyone from taking down anything on the Vermont. It's a historic register, which is this language here under item D. Which we learned, you know, four or five years ago that that what when we're going through the mansion house stuff that it's irrelevant none of this information it doesn't. The state can't use it and we can't use it. So, and to me that was a shock to me because I thought that historic preservation had teeth. I thought it had teeth and I think we all did. And that's why we left it there. Eric can speak to this I think more articulately than I can but the one. The one scenario is that when you have federal funding being involved, and you also when you have an act act 250 is triggered that that is when there is some oversight on this. Am I speaking correctly on that. Correct. That's that's my understanding as well. So could we figure out what buildings have had some federal funding and then we could start with those. Because at least those will have. I'd like to see if we could take it back to the beginning and have it be. I'd like the idea of having the city be a district, but finding out the lawyer says our options are rather than trying to piecemeal it if we don't have to. Well, I kind of wonder about like, if it's like, because the districts were of record. Like it's almost like a parcel that existed, you know, in land records like it still can be identified as does that does is that making any sense Eric. I mean, there's a record of where the boundaries were. I don't know what what legal what legal right those boundaries have to exist outside of a of a land use document. I guess I, I'm, I think that's okay as far as like, if we want to pursue that as like a step on this but I myself would rather see. But again, small city, just the whole city be looked at as a whole on this issue, because I think it gets kind of weird and dangerous too and you're just kind of identifying like, it feels like red line when I know that like there are higher concentrations of historic districts but when you're saying that like, Oh, you know, only the buildings on Main Street are important but anyone who lives down and like the West side like nothing down there is really important like that I don't know. Yeah, it does. Mike, do you remember I don't remember it being those those districts being parceled that way I just, maybe it's my memory, because I think we would have objected to that. I think so too. And again, all I can think of is that we thought that I don't remember talking about the design districts. I just, my recollection is that we were so confident that the lanes we used about the, the, if they were on the national or state register, they weren't they couldn't be taken down. That's for my recollection. Yeah. When I looked up with the mansion house, it was like, what? What do you mean there's no protection. Just just like for my own knowledge, does anyone here know like so in Burlington if you propose a project I thought like that all went through design review. Well, I know that I know that any building that's on historic register goes through design review and they've got multiple levels. Because the example I use is the building I used to own at 289 College Street. Okay, we sold that and the develop the guy that bought it, you know, proposed putting an addition on it that that reflected the original building. Yeah, and the design review board over there said no it's got to be, it can't look anything like the original building so it's a box. Yeah. But that likely would have been. I assume that being on College Street would have been in a district but I can't think that I can't think that like an area in Burlington that wouldn't be considered in a district. Like that's what I'm wondering about. Yeah, yeah. Even, even there, like, yeah, because there was I remember like there was out an apple tree point like the Stanford house which was like one of the oldest structures in that part of the city, and a developer that was on like a 10 acre parcel, and they had to raise it and put a development project in its place. And there was opposition to the demolition of that structure. And so what they did instead was a developer moved it somewhere else on the parcel and proceeded with his, his PUD. I'm not sure but I have a feeling that any, at least major development or redevelopment requires the design review. I think probably anything does because I know they had. I don't they still do but like vinyl siding. Well yeah and that's that's Burlington zone kind of what they. I don't think that was part of the design review whole process. And I guess that that this is what I'm feeling is like work. It feels like we're kind of stabbing in the dark here. And like we kind of know a course. But I'm just like, you know, this is what I'm trying to figure out is like other municipalities are doing this like and I'm just wondering why it seems such an obstacle for when you ski. Well partly it can hinder development. And I think going back to what Eric said, you know, other towns have instituted these things and to do it, you have to go through a process. And so we had some but they got taken out when, and that's why I asked to find out from our attorney if we could just reinstitute them or if we have to go through the whole process. And if we have to go through the whole process. I mean, I think I'm on your side Joe. Let's look at the whole city. I agree with that. I guess if we are going to ask the attorney something we also should ask was the getting rid of the design review district or the district was. Where was that legally done. Was that legally done. I mean, who voted that. I mean, I would say it was legally done because the regulations would have been adopted so they were adopted as written. And if they were written without that, without those references in, then they would have been written out. It's an interesting question, because we do have section four four still in the regulations, we don't have a map that depicts any design review district so it's, it's, it's an interesting question. I mean you, did you go through some of this there with the mansion house me you had to deal with some legal questions during that. Did you. You're really testing my memory there. But I think it's, it's important to, to keep in mind a zoning ordinance or any type of regulatory zoning any type of land use document is two pieces, it's both the text and the map. So amendments can be made to either of them, or both of them. And so it may be that because we have the text, we need to have a map that relates to it so how about this, why don't we, in order to keep the conversation moving. I will spend some time doing some additional research talking to our attorney seeing looking at our past regulations, seeing what we had in place what we have in place what options are going forward. What I want to look at is, if we made the whole city a designer view district does that mean that every parcel has to fall under that review, which would then basically go against the whole reason why we put in the form base code in the first place and make making that an administrative process. So, there's some other questions that I think I would like to get a better sense of what the answers are to myself so I can help advise you all. In the interest of that I think is the incentive approach is one that we, I know we can put in place now, because it's, it would be voluntary and it would apply to these specific properties so what I would like to do is get any comments you have on these incentives, while I review all these other pieces, and then we can if we need to, we can make a bunch more changes this as necessary. If we find out that in fact yes we can bring back those design review districts without any issue. You know that's that is something we that that's something I want to look into before we we get too much further down the road in this conversation. It sounds like we kind of have consensus so that we like this. You've put together something admirable for us. It's just, it doesn't quite accomplish the, the objective though that there will be more work. You feel okay does everyone feel okay with just trying to move the incentives forward as quickly as possible. Yeah, the only issue I'm seeing here is I'm not comfortable with the 25% or more of an existing structure, because that seems like pretty weak, but I'd be more like 50 but I'll say these are, I mean, I just I threw in some numbers that seem like they might make sense. But I, you know, definitely happy to make changes to this. If there's changes that folks would like to see made. Yeah, and I was wondering why there was a difference in the percentage between the downtown core and a central business core. Or the central business district, I'm sorry, in the downtown core, right. I mean, to me, maybe 50% and then going 100% in the residential zones. So you're saying Mike 50% of the downtown and 50% of the central business district. And, and in the, in the gateway. So 50% and all of them except the residential. Yeah, I mean, I just throw that as a thought I don't know what other people think. I thought the same thing. Sorry, does the 25% does that keep a facade is that what we're looking at. Well, the way I've written it is that it has to include the facade. Okay, it has to include that's what I'm getting is that's one wall 25% is kind of yeah. But if we can save some facades, I mean, people may feel philosophically different, differently than I do but I think that's great. Facades are disproportionately important in. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I would say I for me though like I'd say 50% because like 25% it's no longer a building anymore it's a facade, like that's right. I don't know that's just my Eric you said something about it has to include the facade so this in C1 this inclusive of the facade. Is that mean that that the facade can be part of the 25% or are you saying that in order to take advantage of this you must keep the facade as it is. So the, I guess I didn't, I didn't have any specific examples of buildings in mind to do a calculation of 25%, but my intent with this was that, at a minimum, the facade of the building would be kept. Right. And that would have to be part of that 25%, but if that if we need to increase that or reword that so it basically says, you're required to keep the facade and a certain percentage of the rest of the building. I mean, that's, that was really my intent with this is that we're saving the facades. Yeah, yeah, I think I would, I would flush that out. Yeah. Yeah, because you think about the, the buildings on the west side of the roundabout, you know where. Well, I guess the sneakers still there monkey house and yeah, those buildings you know they're pretty rough. I mean, the interiors of those and the apartments and whatnot upstairs so I can imagine you could save that facade. And rebuild the backs of them. And I would be happy with that I don't know how Joe would feel that would be. I still feel like 50 because you're getting like a sense of like the footprint of the original structure, but you're still it's still giving you enough like leeway that you can do something with it I'm kind of picturing like what would be kind of nice to see And I think it probably will be done to some extent is like I always go back to this example on Main Street in Burlington like the new hotel Vermont where they took the old Armory and made it kind of like the entry to the new building. And I can see like with 50% of a building doing that successfully and still having new development that's serving me. Does that make sense. I get it. I'm just trying to think practically in terms of a developer. Eric does this percentage does that include the. Is this just the exterior, like what what if you got the whole you keep you keep the outside exactly the same, but you totally changed the inside is that is that maintaining 100% of the building. Um, that's a good question. I, I think I would say it is, but I agree. I think I think I can interject here because like preservation guidelines do not extend to the interior of the building in any of these municipalities so like, I mean it would be the percentage you're talking about are the exterior elements of the building. Yeah, so maybe you just have the exterior, you know, 25% or more of the exterior. I just say that. I'm going to say like, I don't think 25% works for me because like, yeah, I'm not, I, I'm not going to the number. I'm just thinking like, for instance, like if you demolished 75% of St. Stephen's church and left the front, you're not getting much, like, you might as well have just taken the whole building down like that that doesn't work. So, I don't know. Well, that's in the residential district Joe so they'd have to save 100% of it to get the. Sorry. But anyway, so the incentives, the approach of incentives is your, your, for what we, the tools that we have available to us this is one that you're comfortable with right now. Is that in general terms not necessarily these specific numbers but in general terms. I think so and like you said, I think someone said, making it clear that the facade must remain. Yep. Yep. Yeah, I'll clarify that in this language as well. Okay, any minor detail. Number four you have a typo in the word preserve, instead of persevere. Thank you very much. Yeah, I'm spell check. Let's see. Yeah, it doesn't, it doesn't tell you when it's the right word. The wrong. It's in the wrong spot. Eric, what's the map look like on like one be up to 25% of the gross square footage of the preserved building footprint is incorporated, maybe use towards that requirement for private open space. Like, how does that math. How in terms of what, you know, saving a historic building means for open space on the property. Yeah, that's a good question. And again, this is where the, the numbers may not make sense. It was, I think what I was thinking of is a way to, is a way to say that if you're, if you're saving the building be and and potentially resetting the building line, then the site itself might have some other limitations to it so you may not be able to get in all the private open space that's required. So this would be a way to provide some relief from the open space requirement by saving a portion of this existing building. So, again, I don't know if that's the right percentage. But it was, it seemed like there should be some level of trade off for what might happen with the site and to ensure that the required elements that are in the open space code could still be met while still saving a building. That does kind of make sense because if you have like a building that's non conforming to begin with that you're working with. Right. I'm wondering if I'm more appropriate thing instead of tackling open space is like some relief from the RBL. So how like in the gateway, you have a massing of your building along the RBL, like you have to take up most of your RBL with your building massing. If we're trying to save historic properties that probably not massed appropriately for form based code, and maybe relief from those massing requirements would both enable them to save a historic building and then not take away from open space on the site. So you're thinking more than just what's identified in item a as far as moving the RBL, you're thinking more about how much of the RBL needs to be filled with building. Yeah, because essentially like if they took, let's just use like the mansion street property right in order to redevelop that they have to put buildings up against both sides of it to fill up the RBL so that we had a building that was massed on the property in, in, in a way that complies with the form based code. So, for me it makes more sense to give them relief off of that massing and it does to make them mass it up like that and then decrease the open space on the site. Yeah, that's a good point. That makes sense. Yep. Okay. Like that. Thank you, I mean. Okay, anything else on this and again, we'll, we'll get to look at this again in the future meetings but I don't want to be cognizant of the time and try to move us along if we can. Any other thing that jumps out at you right now it's maybe of concern or you think we should look at again, other than what we just talked about. We're trying to follow if people like the step up the 2550 75100 or where we trying to do like a 50% and 100% where did people fall with with the percentage of the building. So me it sounded like we landed on 50 for everything except the residential and then the residential was 100%. That's what I thought that I'd heard, but I'll defer to the group. So if we go from 25 to 50. So let's just use the example of the west side of the roundabout those buildings. So, so you have to save the side at the 25%. So what else in there would you need to do what other 25% of that would be, can we envision. What would you say how would you do that architecturally. Sounds like Sarah like those numbers might be flipped. Is it like gateway zoning district should be more like 50 and downtown core should be more like the 25% where you're talking about really dense facades like what you're, is that are we kind of on the, yeah, I think track. Yeah, maybe that's what it is that we're well so the buildings that you're thinking of Sarah are not in the downtown core district they're in the central business district. Okay. So maybe if I could throw in. Maybe it's we keep. Maybe we identify, excuse me, the facade as being 25% of the building. So that's set. Right. And then it's in addition to that. And the exception would be buildings that have common walls. So you're talking about the buildings on Main Street. Maybe it's just the facade for those buildings. Right. And that's an exception. The facade must stay and, and up, you know, 50% the facade accounts for 25%. I see what you're saying Mike because when it's a freestanding structure versus a co join structure that's where I'm right. And we don't have a whole lot of those besides that little strip. Right, that's why that's why I'm trying to save that little string. There's someone now it's Bay Avenue but yeah, yeah. And that's why I'm saying you just make those an exception, except for movies with common walls that, you know, to require just the facade or something like that. Yeah, good, good. Eric, how would the supply to like the Champlain middle, though, I mean, just keep this the facade of that building and that's, that's enough. Federal, that's got federal money. 50%. So they have to keep at least 50% of the building. And that's, that's in the downtown core. This is not perfect guys this is just trying to get something before it's all gone frankly that's how I feel. Because that I mean I'll frankly say it like that like, when I think about this I'm thinking about like the Champlain mill and one mill and the buildings on the west side of the circle. And when you ski block, I think. So, that's what I'm really concerned about add to what you're saying Brendan and why we're even talking about this very issue and our zoning laws is that every one of those buildings was threatened with demolition at one point. Yeah, it was real. So like, Joe, I'm not, I'm not, I'm in agreement. What I think what I'm saying is, like, to me it's a little, I got more concerned with the downtown than maybe like some of the residential areas, I guess, you know, this is kind of this is kind of where, like, in municipalities that have a designer be bored you can kind of like rank that where you can say like, Hey, this is a highly visible building that's very iconic for the city versus like oh this is a well preserved structure but does it really have the same level of importance. Yeah. Whereas we're kind of having to navigate that here. I'm not trying to trivialize it at all. I haven't tried to sound out. I don't get that sense, but I'm just, again, I just want to say, you know, I've been bugging city council about this stuff for probably five or six years now. And I feel like right now this incentive stuff. And that may be all we're going to get for the day. So we can keep working on the rest of it but I really want to get this stuff through I think it's. Okay. So. Yep. Okay, any other thoughts or comments on this this has been good discussion. Can you just go up to the beginning of this section because I just want to again look at the the wording for the tie into the to the master plan. As well as the the intent here is for us to, you know, we have concerns about losing historic properties. So I just want to make sure that we, and I would say this under a the city of Windows keys master plan. I think you either need to put parentheses plan and use the word plan throughout the rest of that or at the end of that line it says throughout the plan. Make sure you identify the master plan. You know I mean so. Oh yeah. So it's not no one could take it out of context and say well what do you mean what's the plan it doesn't say master plan. Right. Got it. And when I read this I thought it was, it was fine and it got the intent through and what we're trying to do. I just want to make sure everyone looks at it and is an agreement. Yeah, it looked good to me. And thanks Eric for doing that by the way. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Can you just go to that next page is it say up to, or at least 25%, how is that should say Adam minimum, Adam minimum, okay. That was the intent or more. Okay, or yeah. Okay. Yes, more to come on all this so but thank you very much this has been good conversation. So, Eric, yep, it's 748. Okay, so I don't know if you want to finish up anything in this article, or just move to the concluding meeting stuff. I'll leave that all up to you. If you all want to keep going. Okay, so the rest of the rest of the section with the exception of parking we've already talked about and there's not much. And I don't think we're going to start talking about parking right now because we'll be here till 10. Well how about this. Why don't we go through the rest of this, and then stop it parking so then we really just have the section 44 and section 412 for our next meeting. I think we can get through the rest of this fairly quick because like I said not much of it has changed. Right, if at all from the last time you all have seen this. So 45 equal treatment of housing nothing new here. That's all the same as before fences and walls I don't believe any of this is new from the last time you saw it. So really what I'm basically saying here is that. So we exempt fences and walls from our regulations as long as they're six feet or less in height, with the exception of properties against the gateway which you can do eight feet in height, which is all spelled out here. But what I wanted to do is make make it more clear that any wall that was incorporated to basically be a retaining wall over a certain size needed to needed to get a permit. So that it can be reviewed for engine so that it's engineered properly and constructed properly that it's actually going to function the way it should. Or if it's against a public right away or public walkway just because of some of the issues we've had with in other places with walls against city property and maintenance of city property. And then finally this last item D this may be new. I just wanted to differentiate between a project that was being designed that had retaining walls in it and I'm thinking about like cast event overlook on East Allen Street. They have some pretty good retaining walls on the back of that property. I didn't need them to come in with a separate application just for the wall when they're getting the entire site permitted with the walls included in that project. So that's what item D is for in that case. Eric, I think I probably asked you this before and I don't have the full regulation in front of me fences and walls are defined someplace in the regulations. They should be. Yes. They should be. Okay. I don't think that's going to work on that though to. Yeah, because if they're not they need to be defined so people know what we're talking about. Yeah. Okay, next is landscaping and screening. I don't think anything here has changed we did talk about this language in the last couple of meetings and I believe this we discussed last time at the time before and was got to what we were the issue was. So yeah, I don't think anything new there. See, that's all still the same natural resources and open space. No changes proposed here. Sorry for the scrolling again stop me if you need me to non conforming lots and structures and right of ways. This is all still the same as what we've previously discussed adding this fourth item to make sure that there's clear clear title of the of the property that's been recorded in the city's land records. One item that I was thinking about potentially adding is under non conforming structures is a number five to talk about change of use in non conforming structures just so it's. So there's a, an acknowledgement that a structure even if it's non conforming may still change the use and how we would address the use change in a non conforming structure. We talk about non conforming uses we talk about non conforming structures, but we don't talk about changes of use in non conforming structure. So I'm thinking about adding that language in in this section under item number five. So there will be new language for the next time with that. So the other thing I don't know if we feel like we went through this a little bit before did we get kind of an idea of how many structures we're talking about we did go through that right in the city that are non conforming. Yeah, right. We talked about non conforming lots. I don't know if we talked about non conforming structures specifically. Yeah, I recall we asked there was a, it's like how many undeveloped non conforming lots are there right we didn't do the structures. Yeah, I don't think we've done the structures to be interesting to have a number on the structures. I mean that might take a little bit of work. We have a lot of non conforming structures. We have an idea of what we're talking about indeed, you know, I mean we also have a lot of non conforming lots. Yeah, we have a lot of non conforming uses a lot of non conforming structures and a lot of non conforming lots right now so So sometimes it makes me wonder why the, why the regulations are written as they are especially with the dimensional standards but that's that's just that's for another day. More common conforming section. Let's see next up nothing, nothing new here in that language. Outdoor lighting this was, we, I believe we talked about this at the last meeting as well to, to better, better get to the point that this is. This isn't really intended for residential single unit to unit developments unless it's in a PUD in those districts. So this is really going to apply to everything else. The downtown and the gateway have their own lighting standards. So this is really more for those other districts. So just to typo Eric on the third line, when it starts in red, are you saying on the same lot twice. Oh, yes, I am. Oh, you know what, that's interesting because my version does not say that, but it's the same version that I sent out so maybe I saw that and changed it. That must be it. But anyway, yes, I'm thank you for noting that. I'll just flag that to make sure it's taken care of it the next time. Okay, whoops, sorry, I was looking at the wrong page. Yes, it's there. Okay, so then that same language is carried over under outdoor storage and mechanical equipment. And then I added some additional language on three for the screening so that it's for year round coverage, I believe it said something with just sufficient covered or something, some other generic language previously. So, and then that gets us to parking. Right. So, Okay, so at our next meeting, I will add some more information for you all on historic preservation and what that looks like and how, how the design review district component fits in or does not fit in based on hopefully leave a opinion at that point. Perfect. And then we can get into parking. All right. Well, I'll just say in advance. I did just so you all know I did have a meeting with Abbie a week or so ago to talk through the draft parking language. She provided some really good, really good edits that I've incorporated and also a couple of points to for discussion at our next meeting when we get into into that, that language. So, thank you Abbie for your help with those with those edits. Thank you. So the parking study and British historic survey are on the website. That's a good question. I know the parking study is actually I'm not sure if it's on our website. I know it's on the regional planning commissions website since they're the ones that actually technically conducted the study on our behalf. What I can do is I will, I will see where I will see if we have it somewhere either in our, it may be, I think it's linked into one of our council agendas. So what I can do is send out that link and the RPC link but then also Sarah, I forgot to do this Sarah asked me to send out the report that VHB did British report to to you all since some of you either probably haven't seen that or don't remember, there's a copy of it so I will send a link to both of those documents. Perfect for you all to have. All right, thank you. Absolutely. Any city updates Eric. Yeah, just a couple things for updates. Festival of pumpkins is coming up. So I believe next weekend, they are going to be doing all the carving. So I believe they need some help with both carving and picking potentially so I'm sure there's going to be some some information being sent out from the city on on the volunteer options for folks and also the event itself but that'll be then I think the following weekend. The following weekend is when the actual event will take place. Let's see I'm trying to say oh the city approved their first retail cannabis license. We're still waiting on the state's approval on that though before we can issue the retail license but there is a, the old lofts deli 165 East Allen street is is where they're looking to to establish that use so once the state issues are licensed or if the state issues their license the city has already reviewed that that their last. I guess I should say at our first cannabis control condition meeting so that may be the first that lots not going to get redeveloped. Nobody's looking at redeveloping that very very profitable very quickly. This is a property that could be redeveloped you develop wouldn't hurt anything. So, are they, is it going to be a grow and sell operation like they grow on that site and sell it. They will only be able to sell, they will not be able to grow there. Okay. The state allows for both licenses to occur on the same site. Well, I know they allow for multiple license types on the same site but I don't think I think retail is the only one that they don't allow another type of license to occur so the cultivator the manufacturer, the processor I don't think they can also have a retail license on the same site. The same person can have the same entity can have multiple licenses but they have to be in different locations. And those are really the only two things come to mind right now for me, I was thinking the mayor might be here to provide some other updates but that's all I have for city updates. Was it discussed at the last meeting. I didn't see it in the minutes about the hiring of the housing incentives. Director. There is. Well, so we did not discuss it at the last meeting. I know there, the city has. I believe we've advertised for a housing incentive director I think is what the position is called. I have not seen the, the, the formal job announcement about it or at least the job description so unfortunately I don't have a lot of information on that position. Okay, because I read about it in the community newsletter and my impression was that it sounded like we already had somebody so I didn't know. No, not yet, not yet I know they were working on finalizing the job description getting that out to for for hopefully to get applicants and so I guess just a little more on that this position will replace our community and economic development position. You may know Heather Carrington for those of you know her, the position that she held will be for lack of a better word going away in this the housing initiatives director would take would basically fill that role. Obviously different role but would would take that position. Okay. I assume that we would be working pretty closely with that is that individual going to be like part of our commission meetings. That's a good question I don't know yet. I'm guessing a lot of what they will do will work through the housing commission and then the housing commission would forward recommendations or different options to us to look at for including in the land use that's pertinent to land use but I don't, I don't know a lot of the specifics on how that's going to function and it may be that that still needs to, that's going to kind of be figured out when they, when the person is on board. Okay. Yes, Eric, you want to talk about our next meeting. Well, first I do have a little bit of other business I did receive an email request from a resident or property owner at least asking the planning commission to consider reducing the lot size for the residential C zoning district to 5,000 square feet, or even for the residential for a 50 foot frontage in a 75 foot depth and a 5000 square foot lot size. Basically saying that there's a lot of lots in the city that are between 0.07 to basically 3000 square foot to 7500 square feet. And so that basically asking for us to consider looking at the dimensional standards for the residential zoning districts. And then similarly they also requested that the planning commission look at extending the townhouse small apartment zoning districts or building form standard in the gateway zoning district. Further out mallets Bay Avenue. Right now. Let me real quick if I can. Eric, we have a 10,000. There's a lot of informing lots but we have a 10,000 square foot minimum and in all in our A B and C. So right now the residential A is 10,000 square feet, the residential B, and I believe the C as well are both 75. Okay. Yeah, they're both 75. We had this discussion. I mean, we talked about this already. It was at the very beginning of our sort of housing. Push this was one of the things we talked about that we didn't end up doing. Push that to counsel for their approval. Well, so we did end up amending the residential C dimensions. Yeah, but not the square footage. Right. So just for on the other request for the gateway portion. So you can see here mallets Bay Avenue, the building form standards, the orange is the urban general, the red is the storefront, the urban storefront. The blue is the townhouse small apartment and the yellow is the detached frontage and these go from levels of intensity for more intense to least intense as you go out the corridor. So basically the request here is to extend this townhouse small apartment further out the corridor doesn't say how far they'd like it to go, but they just would like it to go further out the corridor. This is a property owner. They do own property they do own property along mallets Bay Avenue as well. Are they residents of Windows key or are they. That's a good question. I don't know if they're not to thank you their name. Well, we can look that up. I was wondering is it is it a resident. How KV are they. They've given me their name. I'm choosing not to give you their name. So I know who it is. But I don't know if they live in the city or not. But whether they're their property owners right there or not, or if you look at that there's like what, six or eight lots that are in the townhouse. It's pretty small. It's like why even do it. Yeah, yeah. It's weird. It was put there for a reason that right and their request is to make more of mallets Bay Avenue that townhouse small apartment. So, because it has more development intensity. That's anyway. One of the one of the issues was the topography along mouth Bay Avenue. Right. So anyway, just so you just so that's out there they, they submitted the request to me. As part of the process I bring it to you all for consideration and we can take this up at a future meeting or say thank you very much. We are going to decline your, your request at this time. So, anyway, I brought it forward to you all. Yes. The other, the other thing I wanted to bring up under other business. So, I know we talked previously about potentially we took some time off to just do one meeting a month. Now that we're in October, we had talked about going back to two meetings a month. If we do a second meeting, if we do go back to two meetings a month we would do a meeting on October 27. And our, our November meeting would be November 10. And then we would obviously we wouldn't have a second meeting in November because it falls on Thanksgiving. So, and then pick up again in December, I think only one meeting in December again so I don't know if we want to do two meetings now, and then one meeting November one meeting December or just do one meeting. So, only one meeting in October one to November one in December, and then maybe pick up two meetings again in January. Not sure how folks are feeling with. I know how Abby's feeling now with that meeting schedule. But I think it's, I think once we start getting into the discussions on parking and and revisiting some of these discussions on historic preservation. Two meetings a month is going to be more beneficial as it'll help with the continuity of discussion. So, it would only change one meeting then for the rest of the year. It's just basically we want a meeting in two weeks or not. That's basically what we're asking. Is it this in January, like, yeah, okay. Yeah, and that's fine. I just wanted to put that out there. The other thing we should probably talk about as well is if we're going to try to do any in person meetings or go to hybrid or just keep it remote because I believe in. I think in January, we're no longer going to be able to do remote only. Based on the legislature or the guidance they provided last session so that will be coming to an end at some point so that doesn't mean that you necessarily you all have to be in the room but it means that I need to be in the room at least so So and a hybrid is either in person or you can join on zoom. Yep, there needs to be the way statutes written for open meeting is that we need to have a location where the public can join the meeting. Which is at City Hall. It's been written in the past that a member of the commission needs to attend that meeting in person as well but that's I believe been changed. I believe statute was changed to say that a member of the commission or staff, or something else so that the commission members don't have to show up either. But somebody needs to be in the room to manage the meeting. I'm going to throw out for the rest of the year we do we try a hybrid. And that way people can. We can show up if we want or we can do it on zoom. Yeah, most other groups that I belong to that are having board meetings are kind of doing the hybrid model now at this point. I do feel that if we can. I mean, and this is what I think the statute is dictating is it's slightly discriminatory if we just this is for, you know, a dire pandemic situation that we're doing this but we just we're doing this you know it's slightly discriminatory because you don't have access to a computer or, you know you can't participate in these meetings. And at the same time though to Joe to that point, you know, having in person meetings is also can be challenging for access because people need to find childcare, I need to get there. You know, there's there's other issues with the in person option as well. I hear you it's just slightly more encompassing, I guess. I mean the hybrid meeting may be a little challenging to manage but you know that's that's not for you all to worry about that's for me to figure out how the logistics of that will run, but either way I'm happy to do it. So Eric, after January the legislature is saying they all have to be in person but can, can it still be a hybrid so that folks. Yes, can't get there can join on zoom. It can still be hybrid. What the legislature has, what will be expiring, or at least as far as I understand it that will be expiring is the option to do remote only. I got you. Okay, so there's another outbreak. Right. We'll see what the legislature says when they come back in session but that's, yeah, it that will expire next meetings next meeting is going to be a November 10 that November 10. Yep. So that'll be hybrid, like we'll be able to go to city hall and do it there if we want to, but that's how you want to do it we can do it that way. Eric, let's do this let's play it and do it at hybrid. If something comes up where you can't logistically get it going for some reason. Technically whatever. Let us know and we'll just do the zoom. Okay, sounds good. But otherwise we'll plan on on hybrid and anyone who wants to go to city hall can anyone that wants to join on zoom can. All right, any, any other business from anyone. Well, I had one other item. Oh, quick. Well, maybe not real quick, but I just wanted to I received an email from both Abby and Sarah about a. A speculative real estate development out on East Allen Street. So I don't know if others have seen that but there's a. It's the properties right next to CCV that shows a rendering of a potential building on those sites and as far as I can tell there's not dimensions shown with it. I don't have the specific details but as far as I can tell those building that the building that shown, most likely could not be built based on our regulations. So, if you see that don't presume that what they're showing is something that's been permitted. There's no permits on the properties. There's been no applications there's nothing that's been submitted. So, if you see those have permits but they expired right that's correct they had permits for. They just build 150 to 175 unit building. Yep. Yeah, so I was sent that link by a friend who was like, what is this and I was in the real estate. And I didn't even respond to it because I kind of knew that like that had not gone through any. Right. Sort of funny. There's been no discussion or there's been no applications for any any formal action taken by the property owners so what's being shown is very speculative and as I'm looking at the renderings again I don't have dimensions or any any specific numbers with it what I what I've seen I don't believe would meet our code. What's interesting about it though is that they couldn't sell it when it was permitted. And now they're trying to do the same thing without it permanent like that's kind of a, I don't know. The issue before Joe was that one of, they didn't own all the properties, and there was one of the property owners in the middle was not either wanted more money or didn't want to sell or something. So they couldn't make the project work without having all the property and now I believe they do own all the property. And aren't those weren't those properties in the historic district, the little brick mill buildings there. They are listed I don't know if there's a district down there but several of them are listed. So, they're all going to go. We're not saving those. Anyway, in case you do see those renderings. Rest assured there's no applications that are going to allow that to happen. And chances are that that design is not consistent with our regulations. Any other business Eric. Abby sorry, did you want to say something. I was just wondering if there's any updates on the St. Stephens property. Has somebody bought it. Are they working hasn't closed yet. There was a contract for sale, and it was extended I think to November for diligence. Thanks. Yep. Any other business. If you want to make a motion to adjourn or do you want to stay all night. I moved. Second Tommy. And any, any discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Hi. Thanks everybody. Thank you, Eric. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. We'll see you in November.