 All right, so we'll open the meeting. Excuse me. Any changes to the agenda? Okay. Is there anyone in the public that wants to address the commission on any issue? Not on tonight's agenda? Well, as I mentioned, Maryl Matthews from the Winooski partnership for prevention did indicate that she wanted to speak, but she is not currently on the call yet. So we can maybe hold off on that until she does. Yeah, I was going to say what she shows up. Let's have her get her comments. Okay. And you did send us the letter from Michael Arnold. Michael Arnold did. Yes. I sent that around earlier today. That actually came in. I've been holding off on sending that to you because that did come in at our during our last meeting. I received that email. So I've just been kind of waiting to to send that around to folks. But yes. So, so maybe we'll just make sure that's included in the minutes. We'll note that. Yes. Also, Mike, are you are you purposefully keeping your camera off? Who me? Yes. I don't want to scare anyone. Yes. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Hello, mayor. So, let's make sure that that letter goes in the minutes and and Brendan Tommy and Connor, you all got it and read it. Christine, did you get a copy of that letter to it was sent directly to to the mayor and myself. Okay. This is the one from Michael Arnold. I have not seen that was that today? Yes, as I mentioned, that came in during our last meeting. And because there was such a gap between meetings, I wanted to, I didn't send that around to you all until today, just so that it would be current for you. If I should read it, I can pull it up now. I don't think we need to read it. Okay. Then I will be, I think it's it'd be good if you did read it at some point. We'll do. Hi, Joe, we just started a few minutes ago. We're on public comment. You got a copy of the letter that Eric Eric sent today. Okay. Perfect. All right. So, if there's no other public comment, let's move on to the approval of the previous meeting minutes. We're included with the agenda information if anybody has any comments or questions. Any comments, questions, corrections. Eric, I can't see Connor. So if if Connor, if you have something, just speak up. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. All right. So if nothing, I look for a motion to approve the minutes as presented. I'll make the motion. Okay. Is there a second? I can second. I was there. Okay. There's no further discussion. All in favor of the motion to approve the minutes. Please either say I or raise your hand. Hi, Abby. Was that an eye for the minutes, Abby? Okay. Any, any no's and any abstentions. Joe abstaining. Joe is your microphone on. I can't hear you. I can't hear you. And Mike Mariel is here now. So just for reference. So Joe, why you figure that out will listen to, is it Mariel Mariel, you can go ahead and unmute yourself. Can you hear me okay. Yep. Great. Hi everyone. Mariel Matthews. She or they pronouns. I'm from when you ski partnership for prevention. And just wanted to give you an overview of what we found in our advertising monitoring report that I don't know if you've seen actually I know that Eric has seen it but I don't know if the commissioners have seen it. Does this sound familiar to anybody. Advertising monitoring. I think you came before us, maybe a year or two ago. I don't know with some students right. We came in front of the council last June this past June talking about flavor tobacco restriction. But it's possible that my one of the other staff at when you ski partnership for prevention came to speak with the council. I've been here once before, but I'm not sure if I don't think I spoke. Okay, I'm pretty sure that we had some students and someone come before us. Boy, it might have been even two years ago. I don't know. But anyway, great. Still has Mary on included the, the document that she's referring to in with her request, I believe I should be able to access that so I will send that around to you all tomorrow. So you have that document. Thank you, Eric. Yeah. So the history of this project is that Kate, the executive director asked, you know, how could we do ski partnership for prevention be helpful. And also be helpful to city staff and also like do something that as prevention substance use prevention as a goal or end result. And one of the things that came up was enforcing exist or documenting compliance with existing advertising restrictions which I'll summarize my understanding of them to just double check with you all that that is the correct understanding. But what we are generally looking for when we do a survey of the exterior of stores for our purposes we're looking to document like how much of this exterior advertising is substance related, what does it look like. And to praise stores that choose to not have any age restricted substance related exterior advertising, because then kids don't get exposed on their roots to school, etc. So we go around the Gateway District and look at the exterior stores and the things that I think might be violations but we'll check with you and obviously we don't do anything to enforce this just document it and send it on to Eric. Our thing like ads that are hung on structures, other than the building fences, gas pumps, etc. That is my interpretation of the current section on exterior ads in the form based code. But that would be, I would love to hear comment from the commissioners I'm not sure if you can comment on that in this but it would be great to just get clarification on whether that's correct understanding. But in this document that Eric is going to send on to you you can see a few different stores that we looked at I called out a few that we gave certificates to praising them for not having age restricted substance advertising on the outside of their stores. And you can see just what it looks like right now and then there are some recommendations at the end of the report. A few that other towns have implemented namely restricting internally illuminated signs, or like, you know, you know what I mean fluorescent signs that that light up and say, get your age restricted substance here that are really have a lot of youth appeal, because that's their visibility. And then some other recommendations for a contract content neutral coverage restriction and some just some examples of how that could work and some other precedents from across the state, per day that so I'll have it if you would take a look at that we're going to do another one shortly like in the next couple months. And I'll send that on to Eric, and hopefully he can get it to all of you again. Great. Thanks. Eric, can you refresh my, my memory gateway zoning. It seems like we've had the conversation about signage, but not content of signage. We have and, and specifically we can't regulate content because it's considered regulating speech. So what we can do is regulate location size, things like that type of sign but we can't actually regulate the content what's actually on the sign. The general rule of thumb is if you have to read the sign to to interpret your regulations, then your regulations are illegal. That's typically how we've, how those have been interpreted through Supreme Court, other courts, etc. Yeah, and that's why I was specific on the, on the language of content use neutral advertising restrictions because they're, they're always about coverage and not about the actual ads that are being shown. Okay. You may recall we have had conversations with the Winooski Partnership for Prevention at past meetings. This has been, it's been several years since we've had anybody in to talk to us about it. Primarily what we've, as we've set this up, we've, we were, the intent is to invite the partnership for prevention in when we start looking at our sign regulations to get input from them since they have done a lot of extensive research in the city specifically on signage, types of signs, locations of signs so we can get a better sense of, of what it is that we're, we're regulating and, and how and, and what we specifically want to look at. A lot of times the issue is really related to temporary signs where they put something up for, you know, a couple of weeks or a month or two or whatever, and then they change it out based on whatever products they're selling. So those are a little harder to regulate. So it's, you know, that's, those are some of the things we, we have intended to address and to talk about when we start reviewing our sign regulations. Abby. Thanks. Can you hear me okay. Yep. Okay. I have two questions. It sounded like Mary was asking for some clarification on her interpretation of the sign regs like, and if she's interpreted them correctly. Is there any action we can take for ones that are placed in locations that are not part of the regulations that's question one and then question two is when do you expect we'll get a chance to look at the sign and update the sign regulations. Yeah, that's a good question, or both, both are good questions. I'll start with the second one. So I think the intent was to work through the changes that we need to make for the act 47 to be compliant with statute, and then, and then shift back to other regulatory changes at that point. Looking at basically at sign regulations, I think is the first thing. I think that's the next big section that we actually have. And one of the final big sections that we have remaining to actually review and evaluate what changes we might want to make. I think generally speaking, Mariel's interpretation is correct. Typically what would happen is if there is a violation or perceived violation. That would be reported to me and as the zoning administrator, I would investigate and determine if if a violation does exist. And then follow the standard channels that we have in place for for any type of zoning violation. Okay, any other questions or comments. Thank you for coming and for your comments. And as Eric said, we'll be taking this up at some point. The question is when, but it's, I guess, sign is signage after we deal with the act 47 items would be probably the next big thing on our agenda. Sounds great. I'll be back. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Now, I think I've welcomed everyone, but our, our equity inclusion member. All I see is Stymets and I forget your first name. Yeah, sorry. It's Ruth. Ruth. Yes. Good to be here. Again, it's, I'm sorry for being late. This meeting overlaps with my commission meeting. No problem. You don't have to apologize. We're happy to have you here. So Eric, we'll go back to the agenda. And I think the next thing we're going to talk about is the act 47 staff. So, yeah, we're going to dive back into article two and kind of pick up where we left off. So I included with the agenda information. A, a version of article two with some draft changes and then a memo discussing some specifics primarily related to the dimensional standards. So the first thing I'm going to do is walk through some other changes that we're looking at or that I'm proposing at this point to article two. And then kind of flip back and forth between the, the memo and the information that I provided to you there when we look at our dimensional standards and potential changes. So we've already talked a little bit about this, but I'm proposing some additional some, I'm proposing some alternative changes as well that I want to talk about and some other options that potentially we can, we can review. So are you going to share your screen? Yep, I'm going to do that right now. Great. So I am going to go ahead and share my screen as Mike just mentioned and give me one second to rearrange some windows. And maybe blow it up a little bit for us all folks who can't read that small print. You mean for you, Mike? Yes. I was trying to be subtle and not embarrass myself, but thanks Eric. So what you meant? I just wanted to make sure. So, okay. So picking up where we left off, the first item of change is related to the applicability here in section 2.3. I've added, we've looked at this before, but I've added some additional language here. So basically to clarify that properties in the residential A, B and C district are intended to have one principal structure. They can have multiple accessory structures, but just one principal structure unless they're configured as a plan unit development. And then they can have multiple principal structures. So really just clarifying that this is going to apply to the R, A, R, B, R, C districts and then added this additional language to say that other districts may have multiple principal structures. I'm thinking specifically about our gateway districts, our commercial, our central business district where there's basically the entire lot pretty much can be built upon. And in particular with our gateway, there are provisions that limit the building footprint. So if it's a larger lot, they could put multiple buildings across the frontage and just to clarify that that is permitted in those districts. So really just kind of focusing on the R, A, R, B, R, C. I have some other language that we'll look at probably not tonight. I don't know that we'll get to it tonight, but at a future meeting that will allow for some accessory dwellings as well on these lots. So there could be a primary building that say for example has four units in it and then they could potentially also have an accessory dwelling or some other accessory structure. So kind of focusing on what we're looking at as the primary principal structure on those properties. So not a whole lot different here, just a couple of extra clarifying sentences. In section 2.4, I'm proposing some additional changes here, but most of them relate to pretty much all the changes I'm proposing relate to language that we're using in other parts of the document. Primarily the definitions and in our, in Article 5, which is our specific use regulations. There wasn't consistency between what we were using in Article 5 and in our definitions and also what we're including in the land use table. So that's why some of these changes are being proposed. Just to run through these specifically and kind of refresh everybody from where we were at our last discussion. Accessory dwelling units would be permitted in all districts. That's not changing. The only reason there's a change here is because the footnote has changed. Two unit dwellings are now permitted in the RA district. That's a statutory change. We're looking at eliminating the use of a detached cottage just because it's duplicative for the most part with the accessory dwelling. And I've added some new language in Article 5 as well where we talk about specifics related to accessory dwellings to kind of clarify the difference there. So eliminating the detached cottage. Multi-unit dwellings. Three and four units. I mean, I'm showing these as permitted and conditional. And the reason I'm doing that is because one of the things that I want to talk with you all about, again, not tonight, but with the change in Act 47 that is now requiring municipalities with water and wastewater to allow up to four unit buildings in areas where you allow single unit dwellings. One of the things I wanted to do is look at the incentives that we have in place for a potential route, either a permitted route or a conditional use route for those multi-unit buildings. That's why I have it listed as permitted slash conditional. Because as you may recall, the incentives that we had previously for priority housing, that being affordable units and or units with three or more bedrooms. One of the provisions we included as an incentive was to allow for four unit buildings in the RA and the RC and the RA and the RB district. With the change in Act 47, that's really no longer an incentive. So I want to look at other incentives that we may include. That's why I've listed those as permitted or conditional. So potentially the use would be permitted if it meets the standards of whatever we plug in for some sort of priority housing or something else. And if they don't meet those standards, then it would be a conditional approval. So, again, trying to figure out ways that we can incentivize the types of development that we really want in the city and what the council has prioritized versus just a random development. So that's why it's really, yeah. Sorry. I've read through Act 47 a couple of times and I haven't memorized it. I'll start off by that. But it seemed like the allowance for three and four units wasn't the same as for duplex. Duplex is as loud by right. There's some language about a three and four unit that I think there's some discretion, isn't there? There is. And that's why, so we can make it condition, we don't have to treat it the same as a single unit or a two unit. The way that Act 47 is written, or at least the way that I'm interpreting Act 47, is that single unit and two unit have to be treated the same. So if they're permitted by right, then if a single unit is permitted by right, then the two unit has to be permitted by right. The three and four unit, however, need to be allowed, is though I believe the way it's written. So the way I interpret that is we can make those conditional if we want, but we can also make them permitted. So they don't have to be treated the exact same way as the single and two unit dwellings. Let me just ask folks on the commission if they've seen or had a chance to read Act 47. I have. If you haven't, that's fine too. I'm just wondering, maybe Eric, can you send a link to us so that everyone can access. Yeah. And actually, I, if you recall several meetings ago, I put together a memo. Actually, I'll pop that up here quick that outlines basically the language in Act 47. And what it means to the city and what we need to look at. So this is from our October meeting. And this is on the website as well, if you go to the city's website. So this specifically pulls out language from Act 47 and includes commentary on what the impacts look like or potentially look like for the city. So this is kind of a crib note version of Act 47. If you want to look at that as well. Right. Yeah. But I think it's, I think it's, it's nice if we all have the whole thing so we can read it. Absolutely. Happy to send that out. Okay. Thanks. Let me just make a note for myself. Okay. I have a quick question. I know you don't want to this in depth right here, but I just for my own understanding. Yep. The distinction between the permitting and conditional use in like in your framing, the incentive is really just to reduce risk for the development. Right. Like non-approval if it's conditional. Yes. Yeah. I mean that is one of the incentives I would say it's also there's a time element to it. Yeah. Where the conditional use is going to take longer to go through the process versus a permitted use. So, but yeah, there's also some level of uncertainty or potentially having conditions applied that the owner may not want to comply with. Right. Okay. But yes. Thanks. Generally speaking, that's correct. Okay. So we're adding this new multi-unit of five or more dwellings to basically just contrast with the three and four unit buildings. So those are not permitted in any of the residential districts, but would be permitted in our commercial and other districts. The next item here, this is just again, text change for consistency. Eric. Yeah. Sorry, I had to unmute myself. Didn't wasn't one of the incentives for three and four bedrooms in the RB and or RC to allow six or eight units in a building? No, the most we did was for for the RA and RB the RC district. We have the incentive to allow up to six units in the building. Okay. Yeah. So, so in the RC zone, should the do we need to put maybe multi-unit dwellings three to six units or have a different five or six units in the RC because it's an incentive. I don't think so. Mostly be and the reason I say that is because we may be changing all those incentives anyway. So I don't want to, we can do that, but I don't know that we need to do that. Fair enough. So and we could probably do that as just a note in as we had previously with C note 10 for the options, we could potentially do that in the RC if that is something we want to keep in play. All right. Yeah, that probably makes more sense and adding another. So, yeah, so any other questions? Okay, great. So the next item here the, the it is again, like I said, it's just a language change. It did say it was listed as group home. The rest of the regulations call it a group boarding and residential care home. So nothing, nothing changing about the use itself other than the name. Further down retail sales and neighborhood commercial uses again for consistency. This next change from restaurant restaurant comma cafe to restaurant neighborhood. The reason I'm proposing this is in our definition of I believe in the definition of restaurant. We include a cafe as an option. So I think for clarity sake, I wanted to eliminate the cafe option from restaurant common cafe and make it restaurant common neighborhood because it's really intended to be a neighborhood scale restaurant rather than anything else and calling it a cafe. To me was confusing because we use cafe in another definition. So this is really more just for clarity more than anything else. Again, do we have that in the definitions that restaurant neighborhood. It's right now defined as restaurant cafe. So it's just it's changing the definition as well. Right. So we'll have to change or change or add the definition to include restaurant neighborhood. Yes, that's correct. Yeah, so it's just an edit to the current definition of restaurant cafe to call that restaurant neighborhood. Okay. So then on the next page. Again, these are adding I'm adding in two new uses because we reference them in article five already. Those are family child care facility and family child care home. They're basically fairly similar in in how they're defined statutorily. One, the I believe the family child care home allows for up to six, six children to be cared for basically as a home occupation anywhere that a single unit dwelling is allowed. The family child care home. Sorry, the family child care facility allows for it's similar except you can have up to six children full time and four children part time. So it's it adds a few more children into the mix. And then daycare facility is kind of for that larger, more robust type of option. So looking at kind of changing around some of the uses as well. In this case, the family child care home, the home occupation basically with six children would be a permitted use in our residential districts, including the gateway, the detached frontage and small apartment. The family child care facility would be conditional in the residential because it allows it has more children that can be that can be included at the facility, but leaving it permitted in the gateway as well. And then the daycare facility, making that conditional for the residential and conditional for the gateway side also. Question for you on that. That one. Why would it be conditional in a B and C but permitted in the in the gateway. Yeah, it's a good question. The reason that I listed it is permitted in the gateway, but conditionally others is because because that category of the gateway allows for both the it includes both the townhouse. The townhouse development and the detached frontage development. So you could have a larger building with commercial space in it that that would be more suitable for that type of a use. So it's because there's more options for development and and commercial development non residential development in in the gateway. I wanted to make that an easier option for for approval. But that's in that category is the residential component of the gateway. So where would that be applicable that it'd be permitted. So in. Let's see the mean in the next one over in the gateway urban and general storefront. That seems reasonable, but not in the residential one. Yeah, so it's and and that's a good point we can. We could split that so that it's permitted in the in the townhouse small apartment, which is as an example, the park terrace facility on East Allen Street that right there hoods crossing is in that townhouse small apartment. So they do they do have some commercial space there. So that's that's the type of use that. I think where a this the the family child care facility may make sense as a permitted use, but you're right it's possible that we could split that as two different or make it conditional in either case. I'm happy to do either one. So in the gateway urban general storefront would be one that you would want to add that right. I'm not sure we do because that again the two categories the family child care facility and the family child care home are really intended to be accessory to single unit development. Whereas the daycare facility is really intended to be that more kind of commercial style facility. Gotcha. Thank you for the clarification. Any other questions on that. Okay, the next item here then on the use table and this is really I was looking back at my notes and I didn't get a clear understanding of what we did if we did anything. For the accessory structure I was proposing to delete that as a as a permitted use or use at all from the central business district general commercial downtown core and the the urban general and storefront of the gateway. The reason I was doing that is because in our existing use sorry in our existing dimensional table. We don't list any standards for accessory structures in those districts so I wasn't sure and I thought I think we talked about this but I don't remember clearly if we did or not. So because we don't have any standards for setbacks in any dimensional standards for accessory structures in those districts. My thought was that we would eliminate them from those districts. Conversely we can add in dimensional standards to those districts if we need to. Or if you all want to keep accessory structures in those areas. There's a part of me that doesn't think that we need to have accessory structures in those specific districts because just because of the nature of the development we want those to be more intense dense developments or development patterns in those areas. And so carving off a part of the property for an accessory structure may not make sense but we could still we could leave it in as an option. What if it's a conditional use. What if it's a conditional use. I mean we could we could leave it as a conditional use it just makes it a little more clunky I think for those because most everything else is permitted in those districts. So it just it. I mean it can be done just thinking of keeping the door open in case who knows right but you know someone in the downtown or one of these districts decides they want to put in. I don't know. It's some kind of accessory structure. And, you know, by eliminating they can't do it by at least having as conditional use. It's an option forum and they have to come in and explain why and how it's impacting, you know, the development and maybe there's. You know, I don't know. I'm just thinking about this because we never know what's going to come down the road in the future. And just to keep it there in case someone wants to do it but I mean, the reality is is probably not going to happen. In that case, maybe what I would suggest is we leave it as permitted for two reasons. First, we already so we have an exemption for for accessory structures that are less than 100 square feet there. They don't need a permit to have an accessory structure that's less than 100 square feet. The other thing is pretty much anything that would go into any of these districts. So for the central business district and general commercial projects in those in those two districts need to go through site plan approval, which already goes to the to the DRB for for their review. Projects in the downtown core go to the city council for their review and projects in the gateway districts go to the project review committee for their review. So there's already some other level of review going on. So it may make more sense then to just leave them as permitted since they're going to go through another another review process anyway. I'm okay with that. I just I just think it's it's good to leave the leave the potential in there as opposed to eliminate it. Yep. Okay. Well, then let's leave them. I would probably recommend then leaving them in is permitted just given the fact that there are other review processes that will will kind of dictate how they how they get reviewed. Sure. Everyone else okay with that? I'm guessing that addresses. What's that? But you just put in the chat. I'm guessing that would address your concern. Okay, great. So do you want to add something? No. Yeah, I don't feel really strongly either way. Excellent. And I'll just just so folks know, Joe's having issues with his audio so he's he's communicating via the chat right now. So he's chatting. So we'll want to make sure that we acknowledge that. Okay. So that's pretty much the use table. The footnotes are changing again just because of what's happening. So nothing new here that we haven't already discussed. Again, changing some of the the names of things to be for consistency, etc. And eliminating some of the footnotes because they no longer apply based on act 47. So now we get into the dimensional standards. So the first table, we're basically deleting all together and starting anew with this is where we'll jump back and forth between the memo that I've provided with you. So included with the agenda was an updated proposal for dimensional standards for lot sizes for in some cases for minimum frontage, minimum depth and lot coverage. I will say the document that went out with your agenda packet had had information that was not correct in for lot coverage. I believe it listed the RB and RC at 60%. That should only be listed at 50%. So what you're seeing on the screen here and what was included in the memo does show it at 50% in those instances. I just wanted to make that clarification real quick for you. So as part of this process, evaluating lot sizes and dimensional standards, one of the things I did was I looked at all the properties in our residential districts, our residential A, residential B, residential C to evaluate their frontage, their depth and their size. What I prepared in the memo outlines kind of the results of that information and I have all the GIS data as well that I can bring up to show you what this looks like. So in our residential districts, so this is what you're seeing on the screen right now is what was actually let me zoom in a little bit also. This is what we previously looked at that was drafted the last time. So keeping the residential B and C districts for single and two unit dwellings at 7,500 square feet, minimum lot size, reducing the RA from 10,000 to 8,500 to comply with that 47. And then having some level of increase to a three unit and then to a four unit. And then the same thing for non-residential as the base. Similarly for the dimensions, the frontages were unchanged. So 75 feet and 50 feet respectively, the depths, the lot depth was not changed and a lot coverage was not changed. The front, sorry, the setbacks also remain the same. So the only thing we changed from what's existing now to what is being proposed were the lot sizes for single and two unit in the RA. And then adding in the three and four unit. So when I looked at the data, the dimensional data, there's 1,294 properties in our residential districts. Of those, I did an analysis on 1,228. The 66 properties that were not included were left out for either they didn't have frontage. They were in some sort of condominium ownership. They were restricted by the use or the restricted to a use I should say and redevelopment of the property was highly unlikely. So let me bring up my GIS map here and I might need to redo my share. So give me one second to switch screen share. So when we look at the map, this is all the properties in the residential districts. These properties that are in the hatched are what I left out. These were not analyzed. So for example, over here on West Street, we've got the condos since they're an association. It's not really a strict development pattern. That's not going to be good. Sorry about that. Again, we had properties that are landlocked, so they have no frontage. So they wouldn't meet the standards anyway. So I did not look at those properties. Properties that are highly unlikely to redevelop St. Francis. I took that out. Again, Barbara Lane was left out. So you can get a sense of what was in and what was out for this analysis. Restricted properties, Richards Park was left out as the only one there. So everything else was analyzed through this process. Sorry, was there a question? Okay. So looking at all the properties, let me switch back to my other memo. So looking at the properties then, what I did was analyzed for individual standards. So table one, and this will be reflected in other tables as well. So what I looked at were for parcels with 50 feet or more frontage only. So that's not applicable in the RA and the RB. That does apply in the RC. 69% of the properties of the... So sorry, first of all, these are the total properties in each district that were analyzed less the properties that I just showed you. So of the properties in the RC district, 69% of them have at least 50 feet of frontage. Similarly in the RA and RB, at least 63% and at least 39% respectively have at least 75% frontage. So then I did that with lot depth for the 60 feet and the 100 feet, and then for the square footage based on what was proposed at the last time we talked about this. So this shows just those individual metrics. Any questions about that? And Eric, that's based on the draft standards that we talked about last time that we're on page two of six of your memo. Yes, that's based on these standards here with the 8500, 7500, 17000, 255, etc. So yes, so that's what you'll see reflected here is that, for example, in the RA district, just looking at parcels that have 25,500 square feet or more, there's only 17 properties that have that amount of land area. And Colin, I see you have your hand up online. I'll get to you in a second. So does that make sense for what this table is explaining or showing? Eric, can you talk about where the 15, 17, 22, 500 are coming from? Oh, so those are the numbers that we talked about when we last reviewed changes to the dimensional standards. In relation to, I'm just trying to like track them back to, okay, so we're talking about the multi-unit dwelling for unit standards. Yes, be either the multi-unit, the three-unit or more in the RA, RBRC, or the four-unit in the RA, RBRC for the 255 to 225, 1715. Cool. Can you go over each of those so we can kind of see where those landed as well? Sorry, back down to the chart that you were just reviewing. So these are the number of properties that were analyzed that have these minimums for each individual metric. So then what I did was I looked at, because the dimensional standards all need to be met, not just one of them for it to be a conforming lot, I took each dimensional, I took all of the lots in each district to see where the properties had 70, for example, in the RA, had 75 feet of frunge and 100 feet of depth and 8,500 square feet of area or 17,000 square feet of area or 255 square feet of area to see how many properties would actually meet all the dimensional standards for the district. It's just to be clear that the 17,000 square feet that you're using in residential A is to get three units and the 255 is to get four units. Correct. Okay. That's correct. As it was, as we discussed at our last meeting. Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure I understand it and everyone else does. And then similarly with the 15,0225, that would apply to the three unit and the four unit in the RB and RC districts. Okay. So when we look at them all collectively, table two shows what this looks like for the number of properties. So in the RA district, there's 94 properties, 20, 27% that meet the lot depth, lot frontage and square footage lot area for one and two unit dwellings as proposed. Similarly, there's 17 that meet all those requirements for three unit dwellings and there's only 11 that meet all of them for the four unit dwellings. Same thing for the RB and for the RC analyzed here. So you can see what, how many properties in each of our districts are going to meet these minimums that were that were we discussed at our last meeting as proposed dimensional standards. In total, you know, do you know, like in the RA, those 17 that meet the dimensional standards for three units and the 11 for four units. How many, if any of those properties are developed with three or four units? I don't know specifically, I mean, it's easy to find out. I have all the properties mapped. So it's easy to determine what's on them. I'm going to guess for the RA district, probably very few are developed that way because they're that's not currently a develop an allowed use. And just thinking about where those properties are the RA district, the bulk of them are developed with single unit dwellings. Right. Okay. In total, there's only 440 properties in across all three districts that would meet all of the minimum dimensional standards that were previously discussed. So let's that's great. So just to be clear, only 36% of all the properties in the city would meet those dimensional requirements today if they were vacant lots and someone proposed to develop them. The reality is that of the 1200 and whatever it was 94 properties in the city. I'm guessing probably close to 1294 are already developed. That's correct, but when we're talking about this, we're talking in the context of potential redevelopment or additional units being added. So. If a property is currently developed with a single unit dwelling. It would need to have at least it's in the RA district it would need to have at least 25,500 square feet to add three more units. The way it's drafted now. Right, right. But the fact is that the lots that don't conform. Currently for a single family three whatever how many units. Have the right to single families, no matter if they meet or not have the right to to redevelop with 1 or 2. Residential units. That's correct. That's correct. Okay. I just want to put that in perspective because we're kind of talking about these dimensions as if everything was vacant. And that's not the case. But we are talking about potentially adding new units. And really the intent of the home act is to add more dwellings in municipalities that have water and wastewater. So yes, this is really the intent here is to give you to give you the basis of how many more units we potentially could even see in the city. Based on the dimensional standards that we are that we have currently drafted. Or that was were discussed at the last meeting. This is all good information, but I think if we've talked. I think that we as a city need to get our arms around. What exactly are we striving for? What's our goal? Is it to double the number of units in the city or is it. Something else. So I will, I believe this was sent around to you all at the meeting on the city council meeting on November 6. The council actually had a discussion on priorities related to the home act. And basically the first item that they identified was to maximize the changes in service of priority housing for affordable three, three or more bedroom units family size units. And home ownership opportunities. So I believe and I don't want to speak for council. I've got the mayors here and deputy mayor both here on the call. So I don't want to speak for the council, but my understanding is that council has has directed us and other commissions to do what we can to maximize the the usability or the functionality of the the change in legislation. To increase options for for housing in the city. Go ahead. Agreed. My comment though is more of. What's the goal? Is it to double the number of housing units in the city? Or is it something else? And I think that's a conversation deeper conversation that needs to take place. And I think we've already started to discuss having. Other meetings to get ourselves the council and the housing commission. All on the same page. So we know where we're going and we're working in unison. That's opposed to different directions. Yep. And I'm happy to hear from the mayor or the deputy mayor. I don't, it's Thomas on here. Yes, he's he's in as a, as an attendee right now. Oh, put him in a panel. If he wants to come in. So. We have not discussed a number. From from. All of my reading and engagement with. Housing development best practices over the years. Setting specific numbers is not. The most valuable way to approach housing as the needs keep changing. What the council's intent is. Is specifically around priority housing. So if. Changing. Zoning restrictions would let somebody create a three unit dwelling. It's cheaper. So maybe it's affordable. And they. Could fit three or more bedrooms in there, or they could make those condos and. For owner occupancy. Any increase that meets those priorities is desirable. We have staff has put out for a grant to do a deeper housing study. That's probably several months out. We are also probably targeting a joint housing and planning commission meeting in February is what we're thinking right now. I do want to make one observation about this data though. The dimensions represented here in this table. For one and two unit dwellings, which are already in existence. More than two thirds of properties don't meet these dimensions. So these dimensions don't even match our current development patterns. So a comment that I would have on that is that that is something that. At least in history in the commission, this was discussed in. And the question was, should we go back and look at. To make at least 80% of what we have an inventory. Line up with our requirements. We never went back and did that. But to me, it seems like a reasonable thing to do at this point in time. So I think that's what Eric did is we moved down. His draft memo is. Modify that to see how we could get. Ex percentage of our existing. Lots. In that. They would, they would comply with. The current zoning regs. Yeah, that was definitely part of it. And to that point, there was several years ago now we did make some changes to the RC district to better align with what's on the ground there. But yeah, to Tommy's point there. The next section here tries to better align what's on the ground now with, with what we're proposing for, for possible amendments to the dimensional standards. So my only question on that, and I know you haven't gotten there yet Eric. But my question on sizing is public safety. Is there any. Reason that. Some of the sizes would be. Inappropriate for public safety for fire and rescue to get to that. Unit that development area. If, if the lot size or the frontage is, is smaller. Is there any. Thing we need to consider with that. That's a good question. I don't think so because of some of the other standards that are in place now, for example, a lot coverage. And just what our driveway standards are. I don't know that there would be anything that would be prohibitive from a public safety standpoint with anything that's being proposed. Typically where our driveways, I believe the minimum, the minimum width of a driveway that we allow or the maximum width we allow is 20 feet for a curb cut, which is generally what public safety wants to see for access. The bigger issue is distance from the road and how far they might have to travel with either hoses or equipment to get to a structure. So I think that's the bigger, the bigger piece of public safety when we look at dimensional standards. But it's a good question. Okay, so I'm going to move on to the next section here, unless you want to say something, Connor. Yeah, I had a quick comment when we're just discussing this data. And this may echo, I think, what City Council has both explicitly and implicitly kind of communicated. I'm not sure looking at this data if this is, I don't want to be obtuse, but I don't know if this is good. And in terms of like, I know we don't, I agree with the mayor that I don't think we should set specific numbers or targets just because it's a moving ball anyway. But if we were hoping to have more or incentivize more priority housing, I'm not sure in terms of three and four unit buildings, dwellings, a total of 7%. I'm not sure if that's a wonderfully progressive, you know, target, right? And so, and that's part of the discussion that I assume that we'll have with Housing Commission, with the Council, with, you know, in future days. But I'm not sure this is super helpful actually to look at like this, because I didn't realize it was so few that would actually, right? Yeah, there's not many that would qualify for the four unit dwelling. And again, I have all these properties mapped so I can show you where they are within the city if you want to look at that data. But anything else on this before I move to the potential alternative analysis? Eric, how do PUDs play into this? That's a good question. So with the plan unit development, what we do is we look at the overall lot size and then divide that by the minimum lot size for the district. And then that's the number of potential lots that could be put on a property. So as we are proposing this now, breaking out the three unit and four unit, sorry, single and two, three and then four as separate lot sizes. If somebody wanted to come in and do a PUD with that had three unit buildings in it, in the residential A district, they would need to have a 20,000 square, sorry, they would need to have a 17,000 square foot lot to do. No, they would need to have a 34,000 square foot lot to be able to do two buildings with three units each, because that's because 17,000 square feet is what we're proposing or what has been proposed as the minimum lot size for that, for that type of unit. Does that make sense? I think I follow. I'm sure it'll click once we continue reviewing. Thanks. Okay, so you have this data, then I also did an analysis on some alternatives. And what I proposed was in this second analysis, reducing the lot sizes in the RA and RB to 5,000, 10,000 and 15,000 respectively. And for the RC, reducing it to 3,000, 5,000 and 7,500. And then similarly for the non-residential uses. Additionally, propose reducing the minimum frontage to 50 feet in the RA and RB from 75 feet. And then increasing the lot coverage in the RA from 40% to 50%. And then reducing the setbacks in all the districts basically by 5 to 10 feet. So in the RA, the front setback is currently at 20 feet, the side and the rear are at 15 feet. In the RB and RC, the front is at 10, the sides are at 10, and the rear is at 15. So this would be a reduction in setbacks as well. And so part of the reason why I came up with the numbers for the minimum lot sizes is basically it was an equivalent dimension. So 50 feet of frontage by 100 feet of depth is 5,000 square feet. Similarly, 50 feet of frontage by 60 feet of depth is 3,000 square feet. No changes are proposed for the dimensional standards of the RC district just to be clear. And again, this is, I believe, where the draft of Article 2 shows lot coverage of the RB and RC at 60%. That's not what I'm proposing. I'm saving that for a potential incentive. So looking at these new numbers, I did the same analysis as I did previously. And so that's where Table 3 comes into play. So looking at 50 feet of frontage, because they would all have 50 feet of frontage now, all of our lots, 95% of our residential A, 83%, 69%, respectively, have at least 50 feet of frontage. For the 60 feet of depth, almost every parcel in the RC has 60 feet of depth, 100 or more feet of depth in the RB and C, et cetera, et cetera. So this is, again, for each individual metric of this updated proposal. And then what that looks like in Table 4, with all of the metrics being met, the numbers flip a little bit. We do increase all the numbers. The biggest change is probably in the RC where that kind of flipped because previously the minimum lot size was 7,500 square feet for a single and two. Now that's the maximum, or that's the minimum now for the four unit. So it kind of shifted that balance. But it's not a significant increase overall. It went from 440 to 730, basically. So it's a larger percentage, for sure. It's basically another third of the properties that were analyzed in the district. So we go from 36-ish percent to almost 60% of the properties now could have one of these development types. For comparison, since it's not on the screen, for the three unit dwellings in the RA, for the three unit dwellings, it was 17, 21, and 16, respectively. And for the four unit dwellings, it was 11, 8, and 13. Also the one and twos, it was 94, 58, and 202, respectively. So just to give you some comparison of what we're looking at. So again, not a big increase, but it better aligns, I think, with some of the properties that we currently have. And then the next table just shows everything that we looked at, or everything that was analyzed. So including the individual metrics on both the draft and the alternative draft to show you what that looks like. The gray boxes are on here to show these would not apply to the specific district. So for example, in the RA district, we're not looking at any properties. We're not proposing 60 feet of depth for anything, but I just wanted to show you what the numbers would look like as being analyzed throughout. So this gives you a sense of what we're looking at as far as the number of properties that even have the baseline for any of these standards that we're considering. Thanks so much for putting this together, Eric. It looks like a ton of work, but it's super helpful as we navigate these conversations. And like I said, I've got all this mapped so I can show you what it looks like in the city as well if you want to see that. But it's, you know, it's, there's a lot of data here to get through. So that's why I'm proposing the alternative options, at least for now. And again, we can talk about this and we can look at other options as well. And those can be, we can analyze that as necessary. So let me jump in, Eric. I can. My initial thought was maybe we should have a different minimum lot size for the different zones, but the other thing that you and I think have talked about a little bit offline was the setback and a lot coverage percentages to, to limit or whatever the number of units that can put on a lot as opposed to doing density or anything else. And one thing to be clear of is making sure that the setbacks and a lot coverage line up and just doing some real quick rough calculations. In the RA, if you have a 50 by 100 foot lot with the setbacks that you're suggesting that would equate to about a 48% lock coverage, which is close to 50. Right. If you have the same 50 by 100 foot lot with the setbacks, the setbacks will allow 68% block coverage as opposed to 50. And in the RC, if you had a 50 by 60 foot lot with those setbacks, you could build 60% lock coverage. You know what I'm saying? So this is a really good segue, Mike. I've got one other thing I want to show here because I put together some slides actually of what this, what the, basically what development looks like in the city now. So I'm going to stop this share and Colin, I haven't forgotten about you. I'm going to stop this share and do a new one here on my slideshow and hopefully this will work. Give me one second. Okay. Hang on. I need to switch screens for this. Okay. So looking at our dimensional standards and what this looks like in real life, I did an analysis of the properties in the city. I looked at three properties in particular, which are highlighted here on the map. They're all in the RC zoning district, but I don't think that really matters for the purposes of this analysis. So this is North Street, the property on North Street, and then two properties on West Spring Street that I looked at. So the first property on North Street, 78 North Street, it's developed with a two unit dwelling. It's in the residential C zoning district. So here's what the property looks like from the aerial. This is a 7,500 square foot lot. So this falls really kind of right in our sweet spot of what we're talking about for the RC district. The analysis that I'm showing you here is based off the updated draft. So when we look at the setbacks, five foot for the front and sides and 10 foot for the rear, that gives us a buildable area of about 5,400 square feet within the setbacks. We have to take into account, though, that we're only permitting 50% of the lot to be covered, which is this area. So that puts us at about 3,700 square feet of lot area that can even be used for the development. And for reference, lot coverage is buildings, driveways, walkways, anything that's covering the lot, and that's some sort of impermeable surface. So accessory structures as well. So what that results in then is we have about that same amount, that 37,5 square feet of open space that remains. So when you look at this property, the buildable area lines up pretty close with what's there now. So in order for this property with two units to add any more units, they would have to add them in the, they would have to add all of the lot coverage, including parking, including other dimensional standards. Sorry, other things within that same area that's already there. So they would basically have to add two more units into the same footprint that already exists. Okay, so moving to West Spring Street. This here is 92 West Spring Street. It's a single unit dwelling, again in the residential sea zoning district. This property is 1,750 square feet. So well below what we're even talking about, about half of what we're talking about for the minimum in the RC district in the alternative proposal. Again, looking at the setbacks, the 5 foot, 10 foot setbacks, the buildable area that exists for this property is only 800 square feet in total. But when you look at 50% of the lot, they can cover 870 square feet, but they don't have the buildable area to do it. So in this case, even though they can do 50% lot coverage, they're limited by the setbacks to 800 square feet of building. Again, resulting in the similar amount of open space that's available. In this case, it may be a little bit more, but it's pretty similar. So when you look at it again, there's a single unit dwelling that's pretty much right on that buildable area threshold. So then the final property that I looked at was 126 West Spring Street. This is a single unit dwelling, again in the residential sea district. This is a 17,500 square foot lot, almost. Again, when you look at the setbacks, the 5 foot, 5 foot, 10 foot results in almost 14,500 square feet of buildable area. But this is a case where 50% lot coverage only gives you 8,700 square feet that you can occupy with, again, buildings, structures, driveways, parking areas, whatever the case might be. So again, resulting in the same amount of open space as you do lot coverage. Here's just the aerial straight away. So a lot of what I think the more important factor to talk about here is less about lot size and more about, kind of to what Mike was just talking about, the setbacks and lot coverage that we're allowing. Because that's really going to limit what you're going to do on a property. And just again, for a little additional information, this is an aerial, a little hard to see, but an aerial of kind of the heart of the city or a central area in the city. St. Francis Church, Our Lady of Providence, the O'Brien Community Center. I wanted to show you this because from a setback perspective, most every dwelling in the city is built right up on the street. So that five foot setback is going to pretty much be consistent with the development pattern, the five foot or 10 foot setback that it's under the alternative draft. It's going to be pretty consistent with what we already have in the city as far as what's developed there now. The other thing I wanted to just give you some information on is what we're looking at as far as lot coverage and what that actually looks like. So a standard parking space is nine by 18. So about 160 square feet, a single unit, a single dwelling in Vermont on average for the state is about 2000 square feet. So that's a two story building. That's a thousand square feet. That's a thousand square foot footprint. So in that second example, the 92 West Spring Street, they wouldn't be able to build that because there's not enough lot coverage to even do 1000 square feet. So if you think about a 1200 square foot property or 1200 square foot dwelling that's two stories, you're looking at at least 600 square feet of lot coverage right there. So when we talk about multiples of units, you're for a four unit building with 1200 square foot units in each one that are two stories, that's 2400 square feet of lot coverage straight away. So that's going to start to limit where those buildings can even go regardless of the minimum lot sizes that we're looking at because of that lot coverage component that we're putting into play. So again, just a little additional information for you. Any questions about this portion? Eric, forgive me if I missed it in the charts that you showed. Is there data about like what lot coverage compliance currently looks like in the city ie like, do we know what percentage of properties have 60% coverage what percentage have 70% coverage, if you will. That's a good question. That data is a little harder to come by. It's, there's a bit more processing that needs to happen. I started looking into that with using some of the state's LiDAR data, but it's, there's more processing that needs to be done to really get a good sense of what's actually, what's lot coverage versus grass versus other things. So I don't have a good sense of where we are with lot coverage in the city right now. Unfortunately. Yeah, and not again not that what we have now needs to determine the future but I just think, as we're thinking about what would this actually look like it's helpful if we can know. Okay, well, we kind of, I think we kind of like what we have now at least we know what we have now so if you can, if you can kind of like, to the extent that we could get data on that that would be helpful because I think it helps sort of visualize like 70% lot coverage might sound like a lot but if that's actually what we already have maybe it's not that big a deal. Yeah, I would say generally speaking we're probably on average we're probably in a 40 to 50% lot coverage right now. Again, a lot of it's going to depend on the lot, but just looking at some properties that's probably where we're things are going to land somewhere in those somewhere in that range I would think. But do you think that's something I can I can definitely try to get some data on that. Do you think that if we were to like, say allow a relatively modest increase right like right now we're proposing in our HRC a maximum of 50 right like would would go into 55. Do you think that that could potentially meaningfully facilitate like allowing three units instead of two mean I know every lot is different but potentially, like I said, one of the things I'm looking at for our incentives is to use lot coverage as an incentive, so that if for our priority housing for our affordable units or our units with three or more bedrooms that if something like that is proposed then maybe we allow for an increased lot coverage so that they can do either more units or get it get the rest of what's needed on the property, depending on the zoning district so that's kind of where I'm. I want to hold on to some of those lot coverage increases is to potentially use that as an incentive, because I think that could be a pretty valuable incentive. If we're looking at reducing overall lot sizes but then increasing the lot coverage. I think that could be could be beneficial for for development. Okay, that makes sense to me and I think it's that would be consistent with sort of the general idea of allowing more density if you're building the types of housing that we want you to build basically. That's exactly right. Yeah, so yeah, go ahead, Abby. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, that that sounds great to me if we have a baseline that we can further incentivize like me so making sure our baseline is this thoughtful and represents sort of what we want to see as a what probably should reflect what's out there today and then improving giving bonuses for kind of the housing all all makes sense to me but my question was what is how are we regulated just because we're talking about like open space and lot coverage how what do we need to look at for regulations in terms of stormwater or like not as familiar with like that side of things so are there stormwater regulations that we need to be considering when we're talking about lot coverage. Yeah, that's a good question. I would say, generally speaking, no, because we have a because we have a municipal stormwater system that's really designed to handle runoff. Now, having said that, we do have some standards for for stormwater related to running off to adjacent properties. You know, in some instances for some of the larger developments that we have in the gateways, we require more stormwater containment on site. So but generally speaking, between what we're required to do from our our state stormwater permits and also some of the other regulations we have in place, I would say in general stormwater is not really a concern. We have capacity for additional runoff. And so we don't at this point you don't feel like we need to take into account like stormwater concerns. Yeah, I'm not. I'm not concerned about that and actually in our in our central business district our C one district right now we allow for 100% lot coverage with the caveat that basically the developer gets all the necessary stormwater permits to allow for that. So so yeah, I'm I'm not concerned about stormwater. I can look into it though and see if our public works folks have any, any concerns. There may be some concerns related to our permit. But I think I think that would probably be more related to what we're sending into our stormwater system. For example, phosphorus is something that we have to reduce for for the health of the lake. But we're we are meeting all of our stormwater requirements. And I don't think increasing the lot sizes will sorry increasing lot coverages will adversely impact what's currently what we're currently doing or what we may do in the future for stormwater. Okay, thank you. On that note, I think that we probably have plenty of infrastructure to support. Additional development I'm talking water sewer stormwater all that stuff, but it probably would be it probably just a double check with with John or someone at P public works to make sure. We're in really good shape on our water and wastewater are our plant is only at about 50% capacity right now for treatment. We've got more than enough capacity to support any changes, at least in our residential districts that we're we're considering right now. And Mike, I want to be mindful of the time I know there's a couple members of the public that are on one in particular has had a hand raised for a little while so. Yeah, thank you I was going to do a time check with you so why don't we let the folks with public if they have comments to chime in. Sure, Colin you can go ahead and unmute. Yep. Okay, great. So, first thing I wanted to raise just for discussion is dimensional standards, like minimum lot size depth and frontage specifically Mike or Eric you kind of alluded to this earlier. For me they seem redundant when we come when we also have setbacks and lock coverage limits, and then I assume there's also a minimum habitable area somewhere in the Winooski code that dictates like basically how small a building can be a home can be. You know, all of those factors taken together, you're like double regulating the size of a building and how big it is on the lot. You know, just generally propose as an idea for discussion, remove minimum lot size, you know, potentially remove depth and frontage or at least like reduce them. So you could enable more subdivision opportunities. And like I said, there is still going to be like a minimum size that a home can be, and the minimum size a lot that that home can be on could be I think if it's like 450 square feet might be the minimum habitable area like that lots not going to be any smaller than 1000 square feet. And I think if someone wants to be able to do that and they're able to make that work. You know, to me at least I don't see a reason to prohibit that. And then the second thing I just wanted to flag and I know it's not explicitly on this agenda but parking minimums. Under Act 47 the most that you can require is one per dwelling unit. But I would suggest just removing parking minimums entirely, because they would, you know, a surface parking lot for a four unit building for four cars still takes up a lot of lot coverage area. I think, I would hope that we can mostly agree that we should have more homes and fewer cars in our in our cities. You know, those were the things I wanted to put up for either current or future discussion. Thanks. Thanks Colin. Anyone else from the public at the Eric. No one else has a hand raised at this time. Okay. Great. Is this a good place to stop our discussion. Eric on this or potentially what I wanted to do is just conclude with showing you again. This is the updated draft that I included in the agenda packet with minimum lot sizes reduced based on the other data and the increase in lot covered for the R a and the reduction in frontage for the R a and R b. Mostly I wanted to show this to you just to get any feedback to see if this is a direction you want me to continue in or shift again. One of the things that just for, for everyone's sake, what Mike and I talked about briefly before the meeting started was, you know, maybe we only need one, one minimum lot size standard and, you know, kind of build off of that. Happy to keep multiple options for the different dwelling types and then that's something that we can look at. Again, we can look at the incentives to potentially amend or, or, or have reductions or increases depending on what it is for the housing types that were that we have prioritized in the city. But so yeah, that's right. We talked briefly before and it was one lot size per district. As opposed to doing, you know, 5000 10,000 15,000 and then and then kind of as the examples I just showed for, for example, a property like a property like 92 West spring street at 1700 square feet. There's not going to have enough room to do probably anything more than a single unit dwelling anyway, so kind of let the lot dictate what's going to end up on the property. Still limit the residential districts to single two unit, three unit and four unit, not allow them to do additional units in those, in those districts, but just kind of folk have one minimum lot size that then applies to all the different configurations of dwellings. Or, or something else altogether. Yeah, so give it thought and when we meet in January, because that'll be our next meeting. Any other thoughts folks have bring them up. Let's talk this through. The only thought that I have is, I think, based upon the data you showed Eric, the minimum lot size, certainly in a and B for four unit dwellings and probably three unit seems still seems high to me. I don't have a number in mind that it should be reduced to and the one, just having one minimum lot size I'd, you know, I think that through more but just at a high level I think that that we're probably still higher than we need to be in realistically higher than we actually currently have on the ground in the city for the three and four unit dwellings in our and B. I think maybe next time, Eric, we can come back with with again, I think, I think, Brennan, that's what we're talking about is that is let the set back and coverage dictate how much building is there. And maybe we can do a little bit of you showed a little bit, Eric, but if we had a 50 by 100 square foot lot, you know, how much building, how much parking, etc. Yeah, we can look at all that stuff as well as necessary to do the evaluation. I guess just kind of as a concluding question, are folks comfortable with looking at reduced lot sizes beyond what we showed at the last meeting. So maybe not necessarily what what I presented tonight but something that reduces beyond the 15,000 17,000 22 and a half thousand and 25 and a half thousand for the three and four units. Yes. I am too. I think that anything we can do that would better approximate what is already existing would be more fair to the constituents in that if you happen to be on one of the lots that don't conform now, you don't have any options. So anything that we can do that would and we don't find those unacceptable as we walk through the city. So anything we can do that would get us to approximate existing conditions. Perhaps not the whole way, but to a greater extent would be acceptable to me. Great. Great. Thank you for those comments. All right, anything else on this before we move on. We have another person online that has a hand up. Okay. Let's see. Evan, you can go ahead and unmute yourself. Hey, I was just watching but joined kind of hearing the discussion. I just wanted to state I think it's a good idea to go to one dimensional standard for one to four units effectively. So it sounds like that's kind of the way the wind is blowing, but I just wanted to voice my support for that. I think it simplifies things. Thanks Evan. Yeah, the wind is blowing that way. May or may not shift. We'll see. All right. So let's move on. I think the next thing is going to be city updates. Mayor first for any updates. Sure. At Monday City Council meeting, we had our first introduction to the updates. You all put forward for preservation of historic cultural archaeological. There's a fourth thing in there. Architectural. Yeah, thank you. We set a public hearing for February 5th. And we'll have another in-depth discussion before then as well. We also approved a concept presented by our housing initiative director for regulation of short term rentals in the city. She's going to be running that through the city attorney to get some of the specifics in order before it comes back. I'm sorry for short term rentals short term rentals. Yeah. And then we did a deep dive into the. Capital improvement plan piece of the budget. I don't want to read this out loud. So I'm going to put it in the chat. It's also going to be in my front porch forum post, but this is. Can I even chat to everyone? It doesn't look like I can. I can't wait to see it. If you don't want to say it publicly. Oh, it's just a lot. It's, um, wait, can I not paste in either? Okay. I'll just read it. We're. Everyone. Oops. I can't. It might be in the machine. It's, we're looking at three different budget proposals. So. Council directed, um, retaining all existing services. With a modest increase to catch up in municipal infrastructure. That is projected to be. An 8.7% rate increase. About $250 for the average, um, municipal tax bill. The city manager is proposing additional increases for deficiencies in safe, healthy connected people strategic vision area. That is a 12.76% increase about $360 for the average property. Um, and then there's an alternative budget that's in the middle of those 2. We also are considering a bond vote for the $3 million local match for the bridge project. I continue to work diligently along with staff to advocate for reductions in that from the state. Um, it's the, these, these numbers are high. I would encourage you to look at the, the meeting content, the presentation. If you have thoughts. We're really having looked at the capital improvement plan. I'm sure years don't look great either. Um, for getting caught up in infrastructure. Trying to keep up with like streets sidewalks, um, adding more multimodal infrastructure. Um, so. That's, there's some pretty significant projected increases there to consider. We have 2 more meetings in January on the 2nd and the 8th to look at community services and public works in depth. I'm sorry. Oh. And public safety 3 more. Um, before we have our final discussion on January 22nd. Christine, can I just ask? Well, I think we've all heard about the state. Talking about like an 18% increase in education. Oh, education. We don't expect the school district doesn't actually expect to be impacted in that way because of the. People waiting adjustments. We actually should be better resource than years past. I believe the superintendent is proposing. A flat like either no increase or a small 1 on the education side. Which is a change of pace from years past. The only other question I have is, I assume that your projections take into account the money that I believe next year starts to roll in from the Tiff. We pre-spent that last year in last this year's budget. We last year. It was a 5% increase because we used our money to buy down an actual 11% increase. So we retained a number of community services positions that were previously grant funded. And next, so. When the Tiff money comes in, it's going to cover a lot of that plus existing costs that were in the tip district and main street. So there's not. The revenue is already kind of accounted for in the expenses. So it's accounted for in those projections you gave. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the mayor? Yes, not. Is Thomas still on it? He wanted. Is not. Okay. He is not, but I wanted to, since Ruth is here, I wanted to give Ruth an opportunity to provide any updates from the inclusion and belonging. Commission or anything else related to that. Hi, since the meeting overlaps and. This was the first meeting that we've had in a while. I don't have a lot of updates, except that we got to give some feedback on our experience as. I had a great discussion with Elaine. So that's it. That's it for me. Ruth, I will again invite you if you're during these, these discussions, if you have anything you want to add, feel free to jump in. Okay. Yeah, it's a whirlwind, but I'm trying to wrap my head around it and I will ask or talk to you. Like, I can say something substantive. That's fine. I just want to make sure that you're comfortable and understand that we welcome any input that you might have, whether it's agreeing with us. And usually it's disagreeing with me, but that's okay. I appreciate that. I did want to comment on the. Public comment letter that was provided that Eric should have. I thought that was really insightful and I actually have those selected a couple of those books. To check out on my own. And I think resources like that will really help me to get my head in the planning world more. So I welcome whatever resources you have to share as well. And don't be shy about reaching out to Eric. You have any questions? Sorry, Eric. I'm throwing you out of the bus here. Absolutely. Or any of us on the commission. Okay. We can help. We're happy to. Thanks. That should go to any members of the commission that if you ever need to. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me about anything. I don't have any specific updates. Anything new to add, I should say the only thing I would, I will mention is related to the mayor's update on the draft amendments to section 4.4 for the. Historic cultural, architectural and archeological resources. As she mentioned, we're going to the intent is to go back to council on January 8th. I believe to do the detailed discussion so that we can have time from that discussion to the public hearing to get a draft together that can be advertised for the hearing on the 5th. So that's that's tentatively what we have queued up for the detailed discussion on those regulations. But otherwise I don't have any specific updates. Eric, just one thing. I don't know. If people have seen it or not. But on the 21st. The historic society. Yeah. We're going to do a caroling thing down at McKee. So anyone is welcome to come and. Join in and. I believe it starts at 6. Five o'clock. It starts at. Five to 530. It's a short one. If you want to come and add to that. I don't know if people have seen it or not, but on the 21st. The historic society. It's a short one. If you want to come and add your singing voices or if you have. Maybe some non traditional. Songs for any other. Holiday that other folks are not aware of. Or don't. I hope I'm not saying this incorrectly. Alternate celebration. Things please come and share them with us. I can see everyone's excited. So I look forward to seeing everybody there. For you. That's my. Otherwise, I would definitely be there, but. It's your birthday. Yes. I've got a day with my wife. Otherwise, I would definitely be there. Your birthday. First. Yes. So. Oh my goodness. Davies. Yeah. Darkest day of the year. Yeah, that's what someone said to me today. And I was like, no. It's the shortest day of the year. Yeah. So anyway. Yeah. And happy birthday. Brendan and to Abby and anyone else's birthdays on that day. Good day. Thanks. Next meeting. Next meeting is January 11th. And as you may recall, we did decide to go back to two meetings a month starting in the new year. So the 11th January 11th and then January 25th will be our meeting after that. So. More to come. The only other other business that I had was I sent out an email to you all about copies of the master plan. So I do have some of those printed here. If you do want one, please let me know. Otherwise, I sent you the link as well to the online version. So. Yeah, let me know and I'll make those available here at city hall for you to pick up. Great. Thanks for being that Eric. Is there, I know we've sort of talked about it, but I don't know how where we landed or what people are thinking about having trying to do an in person meeting where we can really like workshop a lot of these big ideas. Is that something from the table or folks are interested in. Absolutely do that aside from a regular meeting. No, like as well, I guess either, but I was thinking as like a, during 1 of our, since we're meeting twice a month, I probably wouldn't add a 3rd meeting, but. Like, take a date that we plan to meet and actually like. Come in in person and have a more dynamic conversation and workshops and stuff that way. Yeah, I mean, I'm happy to do that. I think that's a good idea. Yeah, I'm good with that. We can. Start coming in person next month if you want. I mean. I did, I was going to come tonight, but things ran a little late. So I decided to do it this way. Plus. The laziness in me, right? Yeah, I mean, it's really convenient. It's really convenient to participate this way. So it wasn't the intention was not to make it like moving forward to be like all like in person, but like to pick. If we wanted to do our next meeting, for instance, in the 11th and in person meeting, just like sort of pick that and plan on it. How about, how about we pick the 25th. Do it in person. Yeah. That works for me. I'm going to the Caribbean the next day. So I'll be in a very good mood. So. Well, we will always offer an online option as well. Just so we won't, we won't do away with this. This setup. Completely. Yeah, so. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you everyone for coming tonight. The good conversation that we had and we'll continue to plug forward. At this point, I'd be looking for a motion to adjourn and in the meantime. Wish all of you happy holidays, Merry Christmas. Happy, whatever you celebrate and have a wonderful. New years and we'll see you in the new years. So I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. I'll move. I'll say no one else wants to leave. Abby, you seconded. Tommy did. Oh, Tommy did. Okay. Yeah, let's give that to Tommy. All those in favor, please say I or raise your hand. Hi. Anyone opposed. Okay, we're adjourned again. Thank you everybody. Thank you, Ruth. Thank you, Christine. Thanks Eric. Thank you.