 So I will call the May 24th meeting of the S construction city council to order. Are there any agenda addition recording in progress. Sorry, any agenda additions or changes from anyone. Nope. Nope. Great. All right. Just don't need to prove the agenda. So we'll do public to be heard to start off the meeting. It's an opportunity for members of the public to bring concerns or. Bring comments to the board. I don't see anybody in the room that wants to do this. Is there anyone on zoom who has anything to add to the meeting. See anyone. So we will move on to the first business item. Discussion of community vision and strategic action plan RFP. So we've got Ashley on, I will share my screen. Ashley. Good evening. Go for it. All right. So back in April, I came to you guys with a draft outline of the strategic plan RFP. And so we had some discussions at night. I took that feedback from that meeting and drafted this. And so I'm going to go ahead and review the RFP for a community vision and strategic action plan. It is included in this packet for us to review and discuss tonight. We would like you guys to come. Give me some feedback, ask questions, come up with a consensus. And then once we have come with a consistent, the staff will issue the RFP at F with your input that you have tonight. So one or two members of the council would consider being on the selection committee that will select the consultant moving forward and to help out with the initial stages of the RFP process. So with that being said, it's a very short brief introduction, but I'd like to have time for discussion on this and any questions that you might have. Who would like to go first? Go for it. Just a question and observation. I really like the RFP Ashley so thank you very much for pulling this together. Throughout the RFP it's mentioned that this about the city's values and the community vision, but it's never explained what those are. The process to identify those things, but we actually already have done that in the heart and soul process. And you do refer to the documents that the RFP that the vendor may use. But I just wonder if it might not be a good idea to upfront say in the past, the community has identified through pretty robust community visioning process. The six heart and soul values that we do have and they are in our comprehensive plan. So it is a part of what we do now. And I just think of a good idea to have them know that upfront. I do mention it in the background that we do have the six core values and general goals and vision for the village that was in that's in the mentioned in the background. But if you'd like me to list out those six core values in the background section, I'm happy to do that. It just feels like it might be a good idea to share what they are when you're referring to them fairly frequently throughout the document. Yeah, not a problem. Thank you. Anyone else. Hammer. I can't see. I was trying to find my hand and then I couldn't find my hands. I just had a quick question, Ashley. Yeah, in the evaluation criteria, it talks about the selection committee will review the minimum qualifications and the mandatory requirements. So I see that there's a submittal requirements section but I'm not entirely sure what the distinction is between those two, the mandatory and the minimum. That's my point. I probably was trying to make sure that they had that probably is a typo right there, because there really isn't any difference between that so thank you for pointing that out. Let me go down to that. Yeah, so yeah so basically it is the same thing it would be the submittal requirements are what we're asking them to provide information from so that's what they'll be evaluated on. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, so the only thing that I had is that there are consultants who can do this work take us through this process and are very well qualified to do this work. The concern that I have is based on things that we did before with like the merger efforts and some of the survey and community engagement efforts during that process where we put information out and accepted whatever came. It wasn't very intentional at trying to get those underrepresented populations and I know we've mentioned it in this in the RFP. I think we might want to change the evaluation criteria to actually make an intentional choice in that factor and to have that be a part of the rating criteria. Okay, where we could do that by within the engagement experience. You could have a sub category of about 5 or so points in their experience in engaging underrepresented populations and then in their approach. You could assign 10 points within the approach category for underrepresented populations. This way we would as a as a community be saying that we would look, we would emphasize the availability or the possibility of engaging underrepresented groups. Similar to or equal to the cost of the project. So I think philosophically that would align with where we're trying to go and what we would like to do as well as make sure that the consultant understands. We don't want to just cast the net and be okay with whatever it is that we get as an example and this is not a criticism of the current effort. The LDC survey 93% of the respondents on their own home according to the American community survey that's only 59% of our community actually own their own home. The median income is 70 is just under $80,000 in our community, but over 80% of the respondents have an income over 75,000. So if we just ask the community, we're going to get those who own their homes and more affluent than our actual population. And so if we want to try to get some other groups, I think we need to have people who are experienced out and know how to do that. Sounds great. I would say that absolutely echoes what I have written down to say to and I was going to ask for a second look at how you how we wait. So I'll leave it Andrew said it better I think that what I was going to say so I'll just say Andrew said and I love it. I think that's great. The only other thing I would add is I would really love to see one or two counselors take part in this. And one, one thing I'd add to that is the consideration of maybe, you know, trying to get our committee members involved, bike walk tree and others, and put that call out to a member from each to basically convey that we find their input important and their participation and we need their input there. They're content and subject matter experts on their own committees. So I think it'd be great to see if we could figure out a way to include them in the process either in the evaluations or the evaluations and then the work getting the consultant set with the with the work prior to engagement. Yeah, yeah, you know, and and it just helps with more, you know, the wider we cast the net for for working with a consultant, the more likely we are going to reach other segments for population. Otherwise, I think it's great. Nope, I think it's a great idea. Thank you, Raj. In terms of city council availability, I have time in the next few months. So I'm happy to be a part of it, but at the same time for newer members. I also don't want that to dissuade anybody else who might be. That was door number two. I will, I will be a part of that. So, I mean, did you have a number you said one or two would you take two. Yeah, two would be great. That just so that we don't have to call it a council meeting. That's right. Amber, do you know, I don't take anything away from what you want to do, Amber. But I can't see you so I don't know if you're if you're disappointed. I am not disappointed. Okay, I'm okay. I will gladly give the floor to the others. Okay. So, I'm hearing Marcus and Andrew was that you guys have a great deal. There you go. Great. That sounds great. Well, thank you. Yeah, go ahead. Ashley, on page five, the table, the table might need a closer look. Okay. Thank you. Doesn't look like we need a motion or anything. Right. Yeah. Thanks for getting this process started. Ashley, looking forward to it very much. Not a problem. I'm very excited to move this forward and get this out and start talking to our community. It's something I'm very excited to start with. So we will move forward with this and I appreciate your feedback and we'll incorporate it into it and we'll get it out to the public as soon as possible and start moving for the process and Marcus and Andrew I'll be in touch with next steps for moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Looking forward to it. Thanks, Ashley. Thank you. All right, if I be discussion and consideration of large water user rate policy and national warning of public hearing. All right, so we've got Jess on for this and I will share my screen. All right. So, just want to back up a second and see if there is any input from the community on the idea of the strategic visioning request proposal. Seeing any hands there's no one in the room raising their hand. Do we see I'm having trouble with zoom here. Yeah, I don't see any hands on zoom. Great. So, moving on to I begin. All right, so as I was getting ready to draft a memo to warn public hearings for the large user rate setting public hearing setting, setting of the public hearing sorry. I've been in touch with David Soto, who is the facilities engineer at Global Foundries. Right now, Global Foundries is the only large user that we have on our water system. So we are in touch monthly at the very least. He receives all of our bills and we're in regular communication during budget time as well. So I had reached out to him just saying, Hey, you know, with everything the city's got going on right now. Would you guys be amenable to holding just one public hearing this year for the user, the rate setting. And looking at it going forward I realized, as you'll see from the copy of the policy that's attached. This policy was so old it didn't even exist in electronic format. So, my guess is that this policy was written well before meetings were easily accessible, especially with the remote options that we have so we actually decided to just propose this as a policy change. So if you look at the policy, essentially, there were basically three things that changed in the policy, everything else remains the same, including the way the method that is used for calculating the rate itself. So, you'll see item five is highlighted the with the change in FY 21 or FY 22 to the tri annual billing process. I just updated this used to say April meter reading. I don't read meters in April anymore so I changed that to February which would be the last reading that would happen before the rate setting process happens. And then under item six, we're just updating the wording to reflect the one public hearing and the timing of when that public hearing would be held. So these were previously both May, June hearings and so we're changing that just to the second meeting in May. So tonight what we're what we're looking for is just to see if the council is also amenable to changing the policy going forward to one public hearing, and then also warning our public hearing for June 24 for the large, large user rate setting. Great. Thanks, Jess. I do not have any questions on this, but I don't know if anyone else does. I would like a little clarity if possible and I know I sent a question out this week just that you and Regina responded to on again as I think about public hearings generally. Generally, I see two public hearings for everything. I don't know if that is a particular policy looking at state statute appeared to me that they're for the most part, one is what is mandatory not to. So, after thinking about the fact that. You know, who I guess the question that came back to me was. Who is this impacting and who needs to give their feedback? It is called a public hearing. The fee impacts 1. Large user. But is it how does it impact our community? So therefore. I mean, if we have 1 public hearing, and it's really about that 1 customer, or is it about. Having accessibility to the entire community because it impacts the entire community. So I guess I would like some input or feedback around that. Or so. Marcus, you're right. This rate really just affects 1 user of the system right now, which is global foundries. But there is an impact on the entire system and all customers because global foundry pays what we pay CWD for the water. But on top of that, they pay a slight fee as a very small fee to the city's water system. So basically that just covers the extra cost of managing their part in the system. And the calculation is all done. So like we calculate the large user rate. I actually calculate the, the regular user rates on the system. So there's an order and a flow to how the rates. So, so there is somewhat of an impact to the entire budget revenue as a whole. So that being said, to those 2 scenarios, I think for myself. If we were getting people showing up to our meetings and participating or more, I might feel different. But right now I feel like keeping 2 public hearings. Is either necessary or the right thing to do to provide as much opportunity as possible to try to get. People to be here and participate. Now, there could be some logic also that says, if you have 1 public hearing push to that 1 public hearing, therefore. You drive to. Yeah, so. So Marcus, I will add that this rate, this, the public hearing is not the first time that this rate is presented to global foundries or the general public. So this rate is actually part of the, the entire budget process. So we calculate estimated rates from the very get go like on budget day basically will present those rates. And then we have the public hearing for the budget itself also includes the rate information. And then we'll do this public hearing separately in May for just this 1 rate. So there are other opportunities that the public is involved in this and, and aware of the rate setting if they're tuning in throughout the entire budget process. And that begins in December traditionally and maybe earlier, depending on how we do things. Yeah, can I just add something to Marcus in our charter. We have for ordinances and for the annual budget. That the council shall hold a minimum of 1 public hearing prior to adoption. So we do have instances where we also. But we have the option of having more than 1 should be feeling. And we could hear right if someone comes to the 1st public hearing and ask us a question that we don't feel that we can answer or act on. We can just have more in a second public hearing. There is also just another angle at this. There's a public hearing and there's also just an agenda item of meeting. There's always something to where this could be done as just an agenda item on a meeting 2, 3 or 4 times to help heat up if there's some kind of desire. If we think there might be some public outcry for some big change. It's just that with the public hearing, there is as I think you sent them that email, there is the, the extra cost in terms of just a physical costs or actual monetary costs of advertising as well as in staff time to arrange that. Thank you. Amber has her hand. Thank you. Amber. Quick question. I know this didn't change in the policy, but the. 20 days due to the 20 day due date and the. Interest charge. Is that the same for non large users? Non, non large users have a 30 day payment date with the panel with that same penalty. Okay. Thanks. Yep. Sure. And I'll add global foundries pays by a CH. So it's a very quick turnaround. They usually pay within a week or 2 of us getting the invoice to them. Right. If there's nothing else from the council open up to public comment. Is anyone in the room that wants to address this issue not seeing anyone. See if anyone on zoom is raising their hand doesn't look like it. So brings it back to the board. I think we have 2 motions. I would move that the city council worn the large water user rates public hearing for June 24, 2023. Sure. Why don't you do both at the same time? I would further move it to council approved the revised large volume water user rate setting policy has amended. Second on both of those from someone. I'll second. Great. I'm sorry. That should be June 28. Yep. To June 28. You second that friendly amendment. Yep. Great. So there's 2 motions on the 1st 1. All those in favor say aye. It's unanimous. And in the 2nd motion, all those in favor. Aye. All those opposed. Both unanimous. Great. Thanks, Jess. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. Thanks. So next up, I'll just start this off by. Trying to explain how we, why we have 2 separate land development code agenda here. It's confusing. So we have talked previously in the land development code amendment process that it may make more sense for the fee schedule itself to be a separate document from the land development code. It's currently appendix B of land development code. And I think I understand in practice, it's been amended outside of the LDC anyway. So we just want to formalize that take the fee schedule out of that. So you can amend that more regularly if you'd like to. But currently it's in the package from the planning commission and it has amendments in the fee schedule itself from the planning commission. So that is still combined as package. This 1st agenda item about the wastewater connection fees is a new topic. Didn't come up through the planning commission. And because of the timing there's some, there's some logic and really taking a look at this. But just know that you've got 2 potential pathways in front of you. If you feel like this topic is not ready to incorporate into the fee schedule now. We could look at it again. And essentially we'll move the LDCs through the process and if approved. We will also have a motion to remove the fee schedule. And that will be a free document to be amended on its own going forward. So, or if you're happy with this approach that Chelsea will explain. You can go ahead and send us in a direction of incorporating that now. So hopefully that's clear as much. Okay, so I'm going to share my screen here. So I apologize for the last minute revision. It was brought to my attention that we used the water rate for Essex by mistake for sewer connection. But their allocation fee was the same rate except the $1,000 is actually their sewer connection. So I do apologize for that. And I think the town public works director for catching that he is a city resident so he's he checked the agenda and noticed it and I appreciate him reaching out. So anyways, this has been something that's been on the previous water quality superintendent's mind and we had many discussions about it before his retirement. And then with a lot of the recent developments going through on Pearl Street, I kept saying well I feel like we're missing out on rent revenue and I, this was one of the first topics I actually approached Chris on in his first few weeks. With the city, but a little plug on this issue. So, where to start. I think the best. I kind of use the three tri town communities as an example. The town of Wilson is currently revising their fees as well and their call prompted me to really dive into this. He was already. The public works director there was already doing some research and helped provide me with the other communities that he looked at. He also looked at Shelburne and Colchester. And everyone or the other communities really are focusing on gallons per day connection fee. Where we're just a flat fee per unit. And I think that's a real missed opportunity, as I explained in this memo. And if we could go to the tables I think that's really where it shows where we could capture some extra revenue. So, I have these are all based on current or recent applications that went through planning and zoning and also my desk for allocation approval. And so, I just went through each one. And the real interesting exercise is for some of the larger studio multi fit dwelling units that are going through. That far off, which was encouraging to see, but some of these other projects that go through like this one's commercial with two apartments. We're definitely missing out on some revenue. Single family homes, not quite as much, but still there's some opportunity there it's still capacity that we're giving away of the facility. It's still wear and tear on our collection system, which is not in the same shape as the facility is in outstanding shape compared to the collection system in our pump stations, which are quickly aging, at least half of our pump stations are original to install and are needing to be retrofitted and the next 10, less than 10 years really. So if, or go ahead. I think someone was going to say something. No. So, I, after looking at the current fees, I then did an assessment being like, well, what could we propose as some as a new type of fee if we were to use gallon per day. And my first approach was going with an average of Wilson and Essex rates. Even though we had the Essex rate off a little bit, I still felt like after looking at the numbers earlier today that that was still a good proposal. And so that I did the same exact comparison for each type of development between the three communities. And then the other option, I just kind of picked, because that is kind of a big jump. I picked some numbers that were near the ballpark of Wilson in the town as well as the other two communities Shelburne and Colchester, but made them a little bit less than the average and looked at with where those fees came in. So I guess with that, I'm happy to open up for discussion with a council and hear your thoughts. And Chelsea, just to clarify for those listening at home, or even us. This is for this is an effort to fund future capital needs and wear and tear on a lot of our home stations and to try to recognize that our sewer allocation is finite. And so once a development uses that we have less to then develop with and trying to put a price on that a bit. Absolutely. I'm learning that the Wilson in the town definitely have more defined allocation processes than we do. It's kind of been historically, and this is something that I'm working on changing the next year or two is. We keep Wilson in the town keep track of their allocation that they've bought from the facility and then as extension. Yes, we have some on paper, but we're also what's left over and that includes infiltration. Of groundwater into the system. So, Wilson in the town do a lot of being counting, whereas we historically have not as much and I'm trying to make it so that we are doing a better job being counting. For the wastewater, wastewater capacity. And so trying to build that, that network and starting with even requiring forms from developers. We just had our first developer submit a form to actually formally request allocation. And that way we have a better paper trail to And so Wilson goes through an exercise. Every year and reallocates their wastewater capacity per zoning district like they're really defined. The town just really focuses on their core, the town center area and I'm going to give some background, but this is all going to be geared to the sanitation fund, which capital reserve fund, which is for pump stations sewer lines maintenance with those. Great. Any questions from the board. I'm going to assume looking at these examples. This is not make or break for any particular project. These are the kinds of these kinds of numbers of these fees. So when looking at the two options, they don't look that far off from each other. One looks like it's, you know, if you're trying to compare us against the other two communities, then we end up a little bit more favorable than the other versus being right in the middle of the other two communities but I mean, I'd love to hear from staff about whether or not they feel that this would either. If this truly either encourages development, or if it impacts development one way or the other, depending on which choice, otherwise. If that's not, if that's not how these numbers will impact development one way or the other, then I don't know why we wouldn't just maximize our revenue from these two options and just pick option. I think Chelsea, you, you were saying and at some point that there was a little bit. Previous history that the thought about keeping the city's connection fees so low were in an attempt to encourage development to happen here in the city. And so, I'm not sure at this stage we're having difficulty encouraging development in the city. I think, you know, we're at a point with the housing situation that people who can do it are doing it. And I have to say that the cost of development is not also a part of the of the big picture, but I do think you're right generally speaking. If you're talking about the act what percentage this would make up in the big scheme of a large project. It's, it's relatively low. The, my slight concern would be more just about going from some of these to nothing to immediately this, this amount but that's, again, do we give up. Do we go through another couple of years with a lower amount than we should be collecting based on our capital needs. Probably not anyone else. A couple questions. So our current projects that are before the planning commission going at the current rates or would they be included in these new rates should we adopt. They would they're already at the planning commission so they would be in the past rates. Because this isn't going to be an effect till July, August, right. Yeah, so I think maybe I'll go ahead. My question only is if something has come through under conceptual approval at the DRB thus far, and when we're charging the allocation fee, are we going to charge it at that stage or are we going to charge it at the final application stage. We've been charging at the final stage. So I think some of the things that are that have not gone through that stage yet would be captured. And on the residential charts. I noticed that option to ads residential addition of bedroom over garage which is different from addition of the bedroom in a house. Considering the emphasis that we're starting to put on ad use and encouraging more density within residential zones. I'm just wondering whether charging more is going to be a disincentive for some folks to make changes to their house. Because they're also if they're increasing their footprint their property taxes will go up the cost of building materials all that kind of stuff the difficulty finding contractors. Is this a place where we could maybe back off a little bit and or maintain the lower rate for residential only. We could. Yeah, the standpoint. Yeah, that's possible. They're still adding they're still taking away capacity. And the reason why over the garage is different than in the house is because you could need an additional connection from a garage, a new sewer line added to the street versus the one already coming out of the house depending on how your lot is plumbed. But, and so if you did an ADU in the backyard. Very likely. Well, in my case, I would have to have another connection, but I'd be, yeah, and I, well, I guess I know that's that's the fee. So, if you wouldn't, if you didn't need to add a connection, then we wouldn't add that fee. We would just do the allocation fee. So it might still fall like even if you're putting something over your garage, but the way your house is oriented, they could still work to be in the same sewer line to our connection, then we wouldn't charge that. But I was just showing like a worst case scenario. Okay. Yeah. So this is for brand new hookup. Yeah. I think that would be the connection fee to the sewer line in the street. Yes. Would be the connection fee. The allocation fee is just saying I'm issuing you 140 gallons of wastewater capacity at the facility. You know, that has value to it. So we'd like to be compensated for it right now we get, we are, we have zero. We don't charge anything for that. That's a big, like we were talking earlier about a big, a big leap from zero to 35,000 dollars or whatever for a development, but then zero to $1,400 for a single family home feels like a lot. Well, it was zero. Well, it was, it was zero allocation fee under residential addition of bedroom and residential single family. So, yeah, I'm just trying to figure out ways where, you know, we're encouraging people to build more density and then we're charging them a fairly high fee all sudden. So I just want to balance that. I do think in the, I do think in the grand scheme of that kind of a development 2000, if that's the total cost to do it. That's less than the cost of the bathroom significantly. And if they're putting that on the market, they're going to get that month or two. So I, I get it. They'll get that cost back overwhelmingly. And if they're not moving, but they're charging rent. They'll cover it through the rent. Yeah. I need to have any other questions. I mean, I guess my only question Chelsea was. Let me just make sure this was the question. Williston had a report done. Is there anything significant, significantly different about how they operate and the criteria they use to come up with their rate and how we would come up with our rate. And I guess what I'm getting at is if they have what I can only presume is the most recent data on the same system. Which is our wastewater treatment plan and whatnot. Should we then use the numbers that they have and take advantage of the fact that they paid for the report. I think I did talk to the engineer who did this study. He's, he's the one who was one of the engineers for the wastewater facility. So it's a firm we work with all the time. And he indicates to me that they're especially their allocation fee. They calculated that based on recent completed projects in Wilson. So there's been a lot. I mean, the cities have got a lot of development, but I do feel like there's been a lot more development in Wilson. So. I still think if we're like a little bit behind Wilson, that's probably fair more fair to the residents and developers here than comparing us to Wilson in their current development phase. And the Williston is a little more the allocations harder to get more value. Okay. There. Amber anything to add. No. You guys all know that I love revenue so. Chelsea. We talk about revenue we should get both amber and whoever else is on the screen. So, so the options are try to get this into the LDC now. Or keep discussing it. And hopefully we warn the LDC tonight and the current rates go through with it. And this comes back. Or we ask you to incorporate these in the LDC that we're considering now and they go into effect when the whole package goes into effect. And we remove them at the same time so that they're on standalone. Okay. Did I do that? Okay. Feels like the ladder is the most efficient process. Adding them now, and then separating them permanently along with the fee schedule from LDC. Yep. Wait, no. Marcus. I think I understand, but. But I'm not going to ask a question about that. I will acknowledge this. That. I think. I think councilor Haney made it made a very good point. Which rather me say way. Anyway, I think Elaine made a very good point concerning. Who or what kinds of development we may encourage or, or, you know, in with these kinds of fees. And I think that for me, as I, as I thought about that comp those comments, I start to go, well, what if you did play around this. So personally, I'm kind of in the place right now where I feel like I want to either table this for later discussions. I don't know that we're prepared to get into the minutia right now. But that's kind of where I'm feeling. You were going to correct me. Good idea. Well, I was going to say it's, it's easy if folks are ready to move this, then we don't have to worry about it too much. But if, if. So your options are to. Incorporate this right now. Or not. Let me keep it that simple. We're going around, I would be in favor of incorporating it now using option one as recommended. I would have to agree with that. But is that a formal motion because I'll second it. I'll turn it into a formal motion. Well, I mean, I would like, but I think. People are ready for that. I think. I understand the points that everyone's making about about the. But I do think these are in the grand scheme of the. In the grand scheme of the whole project, I think they're minor. Before we get to that point and you make a motion. Is there anybody in the room that has any comments and anything to add to the conversation or on zoom. I'll say that the public engagement we've done so far. The narrative has been that's where the. Amendments to the LDC are meant to reduce barriers to developments and. I mean, that doesn't mean that this is also this is. A different direction, but also it's very important. So, I mean, I'd be happy to update all the materials, but. It's possible that. There might be some. Some conflicts and. Contradiction. Yeah. I think for me, it comes down to, and I'm not seeing any, any hands raised in the room or online, but I think for me, it comes down to. Trying to balance. You know, future maintenance costs and wear and tear in the system that we haven't been capturing that we're, if we're encouraging. More people to move here and more people to use the system and we need to make sure that. Because if it doesn't happen here, it's going to happen in property taxes, this money's got to come from somewhere and those capital projects are going to happen. And then we carry over. That's strange in terms of how we set staff. Time that I can't remember the term for that right now. Administrative allocation that goes into the utility rates. So the cost for this is going to come somewhere. So it seems to. For capturing that where it's created for that expense is created as. And just a reminder. So. Right now we have a study that's at 90% done for 3 of our pump stations that need to be retrofit. In the next within the next 5 years and 2 would be hopefully within the next year to 2. And then the major 1 would be West street, but that's also a town cost share. So that's a little bit of a different animal, but. There's 3 coming down the pipe really shortly. So if we're ready for it, I would make the motion at the city council authorize staff to amend the sewer connection fee to be a rate of $7.19 per gallon per day. And create an allocation fee of $12 and 80 cents per gallon per day as part of the current LDC changes. Second. Great. Good emotion in a second. Any comment. No, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. All right. Do we need to go around the room since we have 1 person on zoom. Yes. Okay. So we'll just do that quickly. Try to do this in alphabetical order Andrew. Marcus. Nay. Elaine. Oh wait, that would be me. Hold on. Raj. Marcus. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. All right. Great. That's 4 to 1. Motion passes. Do we need, did you want us to remove that too? I swear I was paying attention earlier today. I'm sorry. We don't need it. You don't need a further motion in terms of the LDC that's coming next. Correct. We're good to go. That motion covered. Great. Thank you very much for supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Chelsea for the war. Thank you. All right. Five D discussion and consideration of land development code amendments and warned of public hearing. Okay. I will get us loaded up here and Chris will take it away. Okay. Well, I guess I can start talking about this. So we're moving, we're moving along swiftly here in terms of getting this. So we're moving along with the LDC amendments ready for the public. There are the four additional changes we've already talked about last time. And that has been included in the draft that you've seen that that draft hasn't changed since last meeting two weeks ago. So that includes the change to the PUD conceptual plan review. The change to pedestrian path lighting and the wording around that. Some changes to the wording of sewer allocations. Not about the fees, but just about how the, how, how you have to, how a developer would have to request the allocation, how it would expire if they don't use it. And also clarifications on bike parking requirements. Yeah. Are there any, are there any additional comments on that before we move forward? I have one thing. So the, the detail isn't in here, but the concept about the sewer allocation from here. This part is that we are adding in the more formal process that Chelsea talked about in terms of having allocation expire. So basically we, we just don't, for some projects that aren't moving, we don't hear back from them. We don't really know. So really the hope here is that we've got some system in place so that we know we could actually reallocate that capacity to somebody else. The current language has that at two years. And the, started thinking about this with the fact that now we're going to charge people for this allocation and what that will look like if it expires. And two years feel short to me, particularly for some projects, they really take a good amount of time to get all their ducks in a row and up and running. So the thinking was to potentially move that to a three year expiration. So we still have some form of expiration in there, but it's not quite so short. Anything to add to that Chelsea. No, I think that's, that's reasonable. I also think we could grant extensions if we wanted to add language on that. It's just, we need to be kept for these larger project in the know if it's going to move forward or not because historically sometimes that doesn't happen and then we have a large amount of allocation hanging out there. I'm just trying to tighten the reins a little bit here. I have a question about that. Are there is the intention that's the sewer allocations are transferable like if someone sells, you know, how sells a commercial building and the new use needs a little more, but not that much more. Do they have to pay all of it from scratch or just see it. Just because we would, in our database, we would already see that piece of property. Well, as a database is being formed. That's what we've got. We'd already see that piece of property have the allocation. So it's be basically like a change of use. And so they would just have to say, we'd have on record. Most cases we do have on record. We would go through the state wastewater permit or in some of our property files. What the use was and how much was allocated and then we would just amend it for the new allocation sometimes people want to mend it down and that's fine that helps us track it as well that's an example that came in today, one of our first uses of the form. So we would only pay for that change. We're not going to recharge. If they amend it down. They don't get any money back right it's just like that, that they just lose it right. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Because they want to put that cost, you know, if they didn't previously own the building. Okay. So any other questions or comments about the first four changes that were already discussed. I don't think so. I do think it makes sense with what's being said about the possible waiver possible extension, depending on how frequently that kind of thing does happen. Yep. I think that makes sense to you all have the data as to how long that typically is. I'm almost thinking a waiver might be better like we say after two years or something, the waiver must be submitted to continue the allocation or extend allocation. And we could set a limit on that. Maybe like another two years. Sounds reasonable. Okay, so the next thing that's that will be the next set of changes that are necessary have to do with s 100, which has now passed. This is the omnibus housing bill by this at the state level. And it has a bunch of requirements for municipalities and meets and it's got three, three effective dates. The first is mostly for the July 1 of this year is mostly for things that don't require municipal action. And then there's September 1 2023 for some for some some kind of technical tweaks that municipalities would have to make. These are things about what kind of land uses you cannot ban. I think emergency shelters was one of them. It says you can restrict that from from certain areas. So September 1 has to be done by then and then the rest of the requirements are effective December 1 2024. So with that in mind, we let's let's talk over the next few changes. So number five I want here is for plexus and I know we've been talking about duplexes and try plexus but at this point because most of the the city is all is fully served by sewer and water. What we're talking about are for plexus where where a single house single family houses are allowed right now. This kicks in whether or not we do anything by July 1. So one thing we can do here is just to update the language in the LDC just to just to avoid confusion. But even if we don't people can submit an application to make it to build for or to retrofit their house into a for plex or to build a new one. Any questions or comments or thoughts on this one. The only thing I have on this one is just to make sure for anybody listening whether live now or later. So the our elected officials and Montpelier they are the people who have decided that within sx junction anywhere that a residential units is being served by water or sewer is all of sx junction. We'll now have to allow within our land development code up to four stories. That's nothing for you for you to sorry for us. So nothing that we do here can overrule that. And so for anybody who may be concerned about that we are not the people who have any type of influence on that whatsoever. And this is out of our hands altogether. Is that accurate. Correct. Great. There's a little caveat there with homeowners associations that may. What's in March 2021. We're still I think that's still being looked into. There might be portions of our community that are covered by HOAs that were in existence and prevented some of this. Right. Was that was that ad use only or was that so the 2020 2021 was. From 2021 onwards. New covenants could not have. To not ban ad use and from. July 1st forward of this year in the passing of. S 100 new covenants. From major ways cannot prevent. For plexus and I may have confused that ad use with what Andrew is talking about, which is that to the covenants. Prior to March 2021 also can they also prevent for plexus. Yes. Okay. If they're if they're already in place. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And we'll probably get to some of that conversation a little bit, but. I don't have any questions about that, except that probably some of what will come up during the next, during the next little while. In terms of. If that's what we're likely to see. And in a couple of places throughout the LDC, I'm wondering. If we can. Make sure we're paying very close attention to things like how. Trash containers for some of these like placement. Really kind of revisit where cars. Are able to be placed. I think I mentioned this the last minute, but we can go through the order, but I think there's going to be a couple of things that kind of refer back to the potential of having. You know. What is. We thought would be maybe perhaps predominantly duplexes, but now we're looking at for. And that really does change the picture of. Of some of these other ancillary impacts that are kind of mentioned in the LDC, but not really. When you, when you have 4 apartments on 1. City of S extension lot. You know, the dumpster issue comes up. Parking next to a house with no barrier there comes up. So. At what point do we, with this in mind, do we kind of look at that and revisit it and say, we might want to tighten some of this up and do we have that ability. Like they say we have to put them there, but what, what. Ability do we have to control some of the ancillary impacts of that. Or to try to mitigate it. I don't mean to control so much as like to prevent we're not trying to prevent it from coming in, but we're trying to preserve character. So. I think a lot of that has been. It doesn't doesn't change the fact that it's that. You know, we have to allow for flexes that we have other. Measures that said the planning commission has a has a. Brought forward that's. Would. Limit the ability for some people to to actually add. More units and that's the that's a lot coverage. And the. Thoughts about parking 30% frontage limits for the space that you can take up with parking or there was also a certain number of feet, whichever was a. Whichever was higher, if you cannot fit all the cars and the buildings within those limitations. Then you wouldn't be able to. To apply to you wouldn't be able to build a for flex. And I think for a lot of people. Just the existing size of the house will will will be their limiting factor as well if they're not going to be building more. So I think there's. We'll probably have to take a look at what actually happens in the next. The next year or 2 years and make another iteration of changes based on the unintended consequences we might see. But I think in terms of what we can what we can anticipate, we've. We've covered our faces pretty well. And none of us anticipate a boom. And a rush to build and to do all of this in this sort of. Predicting the impacts of this to be slow. Yes, I certainly I predict this to be slow because the where from from what you see in other cities. Most people don't want to make any change. If they were already building, if a house is in terrible condition, then it was going to be rebuilt anyway. What is then built tends to be bigger and have more units. But for for most people, they're they're not looking to change things up. And they're just there for stability. This also makes a difference because we're built out. I think it's different when when you're in a. A part of the region where there's. There's green field to the build. I appreciate the clarity on the percentage and the parking because I had a feeling that's. That would assist us in this situation, but at the same time. Because I don't find it easy to just. Find the answer to what I'm thinking right now, which is. If someone wanted to convert their property into a four plex. But. Obviously. The percentage and the parking rules have certain create certain limitations. But they can only create three. Parking spots, say, for instance. Could they force a parking on the street. I'm not sure off the top of my head what. Our rules say about parking on our. In our neighborhoods on our particular streets. So our existing, we have a parking restrictions. We have ordinances that. That's a restrict parking on certain streets. And also during the winter, there's a, there are more bands. So in the winter, I would have more of an impact, but say, like. I'll speak about the street that I live on because I live on Hiawatha. There is enough with that someone can park there. But there is enough driveway space to. That happens rarely unless somebody has guests over. But if for some reason. I wanted to turn my space into a four plex. Currently, I don't have enough driveway space for. Four cars, but there is enough parking on that street, but winter it would be a problem, but. Yeah. So right now under the way the rules work. And with these amendments, you could not count a street space as one of your required for parking spaces. Yeah. Thank you. Right. You have to have a one space per dwelling units. Officer. Thank you. Yeah. I will just add a clarification that we are adding shared parking arrangements within this. It existed a little bit before too, but within this proposal, there's a concept that if you are, it's really much more applicable to parking spaces. It's a little bit more of a, it's a little bit more of a different concept that if you are, it's really much more applicable to sort of our trunk roots and the village center than an individual residential lot. But if you have a mixed use development next to another mixed use development, and you've got a legally binding relationship where you can share parking between the two that that could potentially have. But not as a. Not as exist in other places as we get more urbanized. And we'll look at more of these things down the road, but today you can't count a on street spot as your required parking spot. Thank you. Any other thoughts on. On. So there's a one item here that. I didn't have this in here, but but I found out more about it. So I just wanted to, to bring the clarification. Some, one of you asked about the plan agricultural zone. And what's allowed on there right now. Why. Sorry, Mr. Planned Agricultural. Yes. I have confirmed that. Multi multi unit residential uses already allowed there. So it doesn't, it doesn't make a change. We might want to add in the, in the future, look more into that to see if it aligns with the goals of a conserving farmland as well. Isn't that through the is the PUD overlay districts. Is that what it is within the existing land development code. Where those overlay districts are a part of multiple portions of our community. So that's why in the, the planned agricultural. You have the, the condos and single family homes. You deal with a district. Regina D. You are ringing a little bit of a bell. In the back of my mind. I don't think it's overly necessary for now, but just. Yeah. Part of the complexity of things like this and that we have districts when we have overlay districts on top of the districts that then add confusion to. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that is a topic that's. We might look at in the future. Yeah. Okay. Number six here. Affordable housing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Number six here. Affordable housing density and height bonus. This is also related to S 100. There's. And this is one of the things that does not, is not required until. December 1st. 2024. So if. You want to hold off that as possible. Or if you want. Put it in now. So. That's available too, but we basically have to allow for a 40% density bonus and an additional story. If someone is if napkins is building what's considered an affordable housing development, and that is defined by the states as housing development with at least 20% of the of the units or a minimum of five units as affordable and affordable for a minimum of 15 years or longer as stated in a covenant. But the definition of affordable is also defined by the states. We have it in the LDC as well, but we match it with the state definition is. So I think something to consider here is that, you know, they, they're talking about 40% density bonus. Basically, if you if you build 20% affordable, you get 20% bonus. So you get, you get, I mean, you get a 40% bonus, but you get 20% extra. But they only require a municipality to add to add one allowable extra story. So for four stories that if you want to add a 40% density bonus, that's going to mean that's units have to be smaller. So, yeah, there's the minimum that's that's municipality can do or you can also do two additional stories so that the sizes can be comparable and more family friendly. And also you could do nothing for now. If you prefer to think about this for longer. I guess I was thinking about the density bonus may be different. Can you explain that how that would work a little more. I think I was thinking about it incorrectly. So if you, if you build an affordable housing development, which is defined as a development with at least 20% of the units affordable. And then we have to allow for a 40% density bonus. So a density bonus is for us, we'd be, we'd be changing the numbers of how many units per square feet of land area you're allowed. And you have to allow for one extra story, at least. I understand the math a little bit clear. Is it 40% of the total, or is it 40% of the market rate, theoretically in that development that we're talking about. Sorry, the 40 40% is when you're talking when you're talking about allowing that 40% and we're talking about 40% more on the total number of units. Are we talking about 40% additional market rate. That portion of the total thing we have to total. Total square feet total number of units per, let's say 10,000 square feet. So they would end up smaller, like you said. Well, unless you allow for an extra story, right. Even if you had four stories, though, if you allow for one more story, you would likely be smaller still. And to recap, this is everywhere. This is everywhere, but it only kicks in affordable housing developments are only developments which where at least 20% of the units are affordable or minimum five units, whichever is greater. Larger projects, larger projects, you wouldn't be able to take advantage of this rule in the R1 and R2 districts, for example. Right. So we're more likely to see that in the village center or along the along Pearl Street. Yeah, potentially is to a. And so for those people who are sensitive toward the habit in the city. We right now would have to essentially be comfortable with 5 store. Which changes the conversation around that we were probably inevitably going to have at some point. Around, do we change it at all, because we may want to save that extra to incentivize affordable housing, as opposed to going to 6 and then the point seven story building. Right. Or five with the six and we're probably talking about that later, but that isn't that this definitely an aspect of this. Just so I know, I'm going to refer to my notes. When is the time for that conversation? I mean, you know, dealers. So I think on this, I guess that's part of this, but kind of my thinking tonight was that. Staff are going to need an answer on each one of these things. Yeah. If we're going to warn this tonight, they're going to need answers so that they can go and and take our guidance into language as we warn this tonight ideally. So every 1 of these that needs a decision, we're going to try to make a decision at that point. And sort of a straw poll, not necessarily by motion. So that height building height is an aspect of this, right? So we might as well. Discuss that. So, Andrew, you're ready. Yeah. So in my mind, even with this with this change with this language, I'm still all in on allowing for just within the village center, adding the allowance for 6 stories. The 4 developments that have come through in the last few years for Pearl streets has 17 units per story. 3 maple has 10 units per story 15 park has 15 units per story. 9 park has 16 units per story. That's 58 units in total per story for all of those units. If we would have allowed 6 stories, that would be 116 units of housing that would be within our downtown center. That could have been open to 116 individuals, 116 families, some make up there and some of these are studios, some of these are 1 bedroom, some of these are 2 bedrooms. So it is a mix by not allowing that 6 stories we have in essence prevented 116 households from being able to call this extension home. So for me, it's being able to write the wrong that I was a part of. That's why I'm pushing this is why I strongly believe in this. Even if that means with this density bonus, some buildings within our downtown core could end up being 7 units with 20% of those being affordable. That then means we can help to make a 6 junction more accessible to our broader community who currently can't afford to live here because these rates are beyond what is anywhere near affordable for the median income of our current community. So at the last time I'll say it again, I would really love to see that section of the village center. So just section 604 being amended to have the maximum story set at 6 instead of 4. So when you. So are you thinking about maximum maximum height at 6 stories to start and then if you then with if you want to be in compliance with the state legislation will it means that's an affordable housing developments within the. The village center could go to 7. Yeah. Okay. A question on that. Chris, then there's no, there's nothing in here that says that the affordable apartments have to be any specific size. Make up. No, we have no. We can ask, but we have no sort of say over who those units would be serving. They just need to have 20% or five. So, well, that's, that's the minimum requirement. Like, yeah, if you want to meet state statute, that's it. The municipality can have more complex rules. And also the density bonus can be 2 stories if you want it to be. Right. So we could keep we could do 5 or 4 and just let someone came in with a project they know they can work with us on that they could. We could. In this project like this that meets these requirements. We could make it whatever we want. Yes. And that would be a DRV decision. I'm not necessarily a council decision. At that point. Well, we've the right to criteria. Basically, if you, if you meet. If we said it before, we leave it, I'm just as hypothetical only if we, let's say we make it 5 project comes down the road meets these criteria. They ask for 7. That's a DRV decision. Not a council decision. Yes, but I would say this is a little more weighty than just a waiver. Like they don't. This is state statute requiring us to do this. The DRB couldn't say. Actually, we don't feel like it in this case. We don't think they have to say yes to the one. But if someone asked for 2 or 3. They could, they could then. Or can we then limit that. So if we went to 6, someone came and wanted 2 more. They would get 7 by state statute. But if they asked for 8. Where's that decision? I'm assuming it's there. Yeah, I think you're, I think you're right. And then the appeal process would bring it. Well, I think, I think if you, if you want it to be the DRV right, it's, it would be possible to write it in a way where. The DRV can basically allow can consider. And I put a waiver for an additional additional floor, which would be the. In that case, the. This, the second bonus floor, the first bonus for they would have to give for sure because of affordability. So anyone else. So, are we having the height conversation now? It looks like we're having a conversation. It wasn't prepared. So I'm writing my notes at the moment. We can come back. No, no. I think we need to, to be fair. This wasn't on the agenda necessarily. And. It's only sort of being forced by this, I think. Okay. Well, I'll share my thoughts on whether we decide to make a decision tonight is. We decided to do. So we already have a 5 story building height. So I don't think it's fair for us to say that we have to keep it at 4 now because to snuck in. So for me, that means we have 5 and then this. Statute. Bumps it to 6. And personally, I am so not willing to go beyond 6. I'm not willing to go beyond 4. I think we have to make a decision tonight. I think we have to make a decision tonight. I think we have to make a decision tonight. I think. I am so not willing to go beyond 6. I'm not willing to go beyond 4, but the 5. Happened and we have to acknowledge that and deal with it. I know that we have a dire higher housing crisis. But s x junction is not responsible for solving. We're responsible for doing our part as best we can. But I, I not in favor as much as adding additional stories adds additional housing. I just don't. Feel that that's appropriate for our 4 and a half square mile city. I'm concerned about parking impacts, traffic and congestion, infrastructure impact. I just, I'm concerned about building height going beyond 5. I also, I'm definitely not in favor of allowing beyond. The village center boundary, not on the trunk routes. We're not beyond whatever the village center boundary is, which I believe is like. Whitcombs and maple street, Rockies and the X. So it's a big leap. We start doing very tall buildings. Vermont very tall buildings in the city center. And then we start allowing that happening on the trunk roads, then the entire city center expands and the trunk roads have really tall buildings as well. I just, I, when we first had this conversation. I forget when, but Lori Houghton and I were on the village trust board at the time and the two of us were very. We were asked for six stories at the time. And we did not agree on it. We managed to convince the trustees to go with four. And I still think that's a reasonable size for this community. The decisions have been made in the past that have bumped it up to five. So we have to acknowledge that. So that means six. And that's where we are. So I'd like to ask a clarifying question first, because looking at the. Yeah, so you have a zoning map on the wall. Yeah, we get that back. Well, this map. It shows both multifamily. The MFU two and the village center, both approximately the same color on this map. It looks like the village sent from a color standpoint, looks like the village center extends. Down mainstream for a considerable amount of ways. Yeah, you're right. So, but I can see by the letter labels on here. It looks like village center is what I think we, we all believe it to be, but it's not. Colors are definitely off. Colored appropriate. So if, if the public is looking at this, I want them to be, I want us to be clear about what we're talking about boundary wise. Yeah, I mean, it, it doesn't go. It doesn't go past Rockies. I don't think it gets quite to Rockies. Yeah, it doesn't get all the way up the hill on Pearl Street. Yeah. So it doesn't quite, it doesn't get to keep. Yeah. It doesn't get to the export key bank. It doesn't get much past the flower store. And Andrew, what about the other thing? I'm pretty sure stock is working on getting the PDF version, which is the one that is the better picture of that. I do believe it does extend to Rockies. Yeah, this Rockies does extend down to the intersection going to central beverage, the train station, Central Street, and then cutting down from there. It does not extend out to anywhere near as far as that. And that goes. We could, however, so, so along the trunk roads, however, what we just talked about about the affordable housing, we could see 5 or 6 depending on how we. On how we write any kind of waiver situation for the. Projects that meet the affordable definition. So. Almost certainly if, if those projects are built and we sort of hope that they are. We will, we could see 5 and we should talk about how to then. Handle a request to come into the DRB for 6 or more. Because according to this, and what we just talked about. I'm not trying to stop the discussion, but according to this, when we talked to actually possible to see the taller ones up the trunk roads. So, and that is not what the single family houses on Park Street are going to want to have next week. Well, this, that brings up my, you know, so I'll, I'll go. I'm not good Marcus. I'm sorry. Are you. No, I think, I think it's perfectly fine. I have some of the same concerns. I appreciate the history. I. To, I did the quick math again, based on your, your example, Andrew. You know, 168 houses, 20% of that that's 3334 affordable houses that come into. That community that's been built, but I, I'm. Yeah, I'm a little nervous once we get outside village center. But I think that the density here in the center would be important because. I recognize and acknowledge we can't solve all the problems, but I think that what we can do is we can make a difference in our community and I've heard from community members. Who want to make that difference. So. But yes, I would agree that we have to balance that out. Amber, did you want to jump in here? I can't. I'm okay for now. Keep going. I guess I'll. I kind of agree with everything that's been said. We desperately need more housing and more affordable housing. I agree a land that we, we. The city of ice construction has a lot of non taxable land. We do provide other services to the greater northern part of the state. In tree farm in the Champlain Valley Expo federal and state offices along West street. So we do do our, we do do service beside housing. To the greater northern Vermont area. I think. I'm really concerned about how some of this. Impacts the border. Homes. Around these districts that we're talking about. And. We have. I'm going to botch the name of this. Opportunity coming up for FY 24 and 25. We got $100,000 grant. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go back to the city with CCRPC to have a consultant work with us on transit oriented design. Thank you. Which will, from what I understand. Allow us to almost go lot by lot and really fine tune a plan on how to approach. This question. Where would these buildings be really well suited? And where. You had a good example where we were talking earlier. We were talking about building a single family home neighbor. So they're there, but they're less impactful to the homes that are already there. And I think a good example of some of the issues I'm having are. As we try to. To bring that density and create the city center that we want. We see projects like the one that just proposed on railroad. Where the example you used will get to in a few minutes for buffers. Really kind of limits that project. Well, that lot was only ever designed for a single family home in the past. It's a building that is very long and narrow. Then we start complaining about buffers, but that is a huge impact. And if that weren't 20% of those were affordable, it could be one or two stories higher next to a single family home. And I know we don't have dozens and dozens of these examples, but we have examples. And I think that I'm. I'm hoping we can. It sounds like we're coming to a consensus about the village center. But I'm hoping that before we go any higher than that, that we can really take advantage of the opportunity we have coming up. To, to really fine tune where we can really get the news. We also, I think have, have those approved affordable house that approved for the housing project. Coming over here. And I'm also curious whether that can take advantage of this. This new law, whether. I remember the name of the project either. I'm terrible with this stuff, but yeah, the other in crossing buildings. I'm not entirely sure how. I think some of that came through as a master plan and they probably have to come back through for site plans and so yes. And also they could. Reapply. Even if it didn't. And I guess, yeah. I guess lastly, we haven't had a chance to engage the public. I mean, it's, we haven't talked to, I mean, the two of you recently were elected. So you're out probably the most talking to folks most recently. But in great numbers. But we haven't done any. We haven't signed the input on this specifically. And I think this is one of those issues aside from the whole LDC thing that would bring a lot of people out of the. We asked them to come specifically talk about it. And I think we have to approve the money to do a strategic visioning process. And then we have the grant coming up. So I. I guess I'm saying I'd like to put the brakes on that conversation a little bit. That's just my input. It's 1 is that s 100 has already has just given us an opportunity to address housing in areas that we weren't necessarily going to do that. And so it gives us more flexibility to improve density on a smaller scale. Without raising building. So if enough families took advantage of the things that they're able to do that s 100 enables. That's also is going to provide a lot more affordable housing. And we haven't talked to our housing commission. And there's a, there's a really need to be on this conversation. So I think the question before us is actually, you know, with this particular item. Which isn't doesn't come into play until December 24. Do we let it go for now? Or do we try to incorporate it now? Incorporating it now might move some projects forward. It also sort of calls the building height question. If we include it now, and we don't change building heights. It sounded like we were sort of unconscious in consensus with 5 and that would get us to 5. In the village center, it would get us to 5. So I guess we need to figure out what the board wants to do with. These 2 options of, you know, taking no action now and. Learning more and discussing it. In the next year and a half. Or adding this to the old, you see now, I don't think we can take action now without community conversation. This, this is a much bigger talk. Amber, what do you think? I agree with Elaine. Marcus. If we were to move this forward, it would be part of the discussion of the upcoming public. Where we would get feedback. I'm not sure that would be sufficient. Feedback necessarily. But it might also give us a temperature. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. But we do have the ability through this upcoming process to pull it back out. Right. So therefore. We could. Start the conversation, engage the conversation and pull it later. If we wanted to, or is that. It's a, it would just be another. And we have that. Time factored into our schedule. If a public hearing is born tonight, we have that factored into our schedule. But if we're putting it in, we're going. Because it's going to be part of the LBC therefore it's going to be worn. But I'm just saying it would come up in those upcoming community conversations. Later on, we could. Theoretically. Pull it back out. Yes. Later on. Before we finalize the LBC. So. I'm. I'm wondering if. It wouldn't also potentially be prudent to start the community conversation. Have this put in there. Knowing the fact that if we wish to. We can pull this up. I would agree with what Marcus is saying, largely if the concern is. A potential lack of community engagement and not to engage in a community in this, this portion of the conversation. By taking it out of the conversation now prevents the conversation on June 14th from even happening. Where we could at least have some and hear what the general flavor of the community is at that point in time. If the community start is hearing that we are talking about 6 stories in just our village center. If we get no reaction from that, that is significantly telling from that point in time and we were on the on the trustees at the time and we had that. Input from the community fairly strongly saying, don't do this. So. I think we have an opportunity to add. To have developers think differently about some of the units they want to bring. And I don't necessarily want to miss an opportunity to get a more affordable housing. Brought to the community. Where we stand now. State is telling us we have to have 5 stories. So there's really. We're just delaying the potential of having more affordable housing units by putting this off. That's kind of how I look at it. I don't necessarily think there's going to be a rush to build them, but. That then helps us have a conversation with the community long term. That says, hey, look. We need affordable housing. If somebody brings affordable housing, they meet these standards. We're a 4 story community now. That project would get 5. So as we talk about what you want us to do about building height. That is still out of our hands in large. That's still out of our control. In this aspect, and that's not going to change. So I would be for including it now. Starting the conversation. But on. The conversation about just a general blanket increase. I think should, should wait and see how this plays out and leverage the other opportunities we have. You make a good point that nobody says a word. Over the next 2 months. That's also telling, but I don't think that that's the right way to approach it. I would rather, you know, like I said earlier, where we have 2 giant opportunities to really. Engage and I think we should leverage them. I don't think. Then moving this putting this in the LBC as it's proposed. Makes that. Makes a change in how we, because we're not going to go back to 3. Right, so we're not going to go backwards. So the state's telling us this is what we have to do. We're just welcoming the affordable units sooner. They're still going to happen wherever they get posed. So I think does that make any sense? It does. And I think the state is forcing our hand on us. However, I am. I am concerned that no one's paying attention. And I know that the lack of. In many cases, the lack of public input is input. That it's more of a status quo and folks are saying we're fine with this because we're not showing up at your meetings complaint. This is such a significant change. That it warrants more attention. And we have a strategic planning process just starting that. This conversation would be a piece of not ideal fit for that conversation. So I guess what I'm saying is we have to have it in because the state is by enforcing. But. I would want it to be explained in great detail to the public that why it's in there. Because there's going to be a lot of people out there who say, you're slipping this in now. Not realizing it's not us and or it doesn't matter if it's not something that's a huge change. People are not going to be paying attention and that first building that goes up. This room is going to be full. It's no one will have realized that it happened. I agree with everything you're saying. And I think. It's going to be up to us to make sure that people understand why it's happening. Where it's coming from. And what the next part of that conversation is, which is. Do you want to go higher? And hear the consequences. Or do you want to leave that leverage for trying to ask developers to put in. But I think, you know, the part B to this too, or maybe it's D by now is, or F. I'd like to know what we can do to keep that creep from happening at some point in the process. So what can we do? How can we answer the question what's stopping it from going over the additional one. Where in that process does public have input where. You know, how does that play itself through the development process, the approval process. Because if there's no limit. And that's still, and that has to, because I don't understand where that would come in. So, again, if a developer comes to say, well, you have to give me my extra one because I met the standard. But I actually want to. So stories. Yeah, we don't. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All we have to do right now is allow the one. And that's it. There's no, there's no more. But you do allow 40% density bonus. So if you say you can have one more story. But you can have 40% more density. It just means they will make them studios. So for people like me. Yeah. I'm a little less concerned about that. The market's going to build the type of units that the markets are going to build. And the 40%. So far, I think in S extension is a little bit of a. Potentially not a real change because I don't think density has been a limiting factor to people, at least in the village center and the trunk roots. That may change slightly because I think parking has been a limiting factor. And now we're reducing the parking. So perhaps we'll see that change slightly. But the, the amount of units you can build to begin with is not the limiting factor. So 40%. I think you can be less concerned about that. It's really just people are going to be allowed to have another story. And they're going to be allowed to have another story when they do 20% of their project as affordable. But we can and so that helps. And we can then say, but this is the ultimate max we approve for generally, which means 5 or we approve. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yeah. Yeah. And we don't have to make that decision. We have to change that base. Now. Correct. If you would like to change that, of course, that's always an option for future conversations or now, but. I'll, I'll just say the fact that this has to be in place by December 1st, 2024 doesn't really give us time. Basically, we need to add this in right now, I would say. Otherwise, the planning commission has to talk about this next Thursday, start their public hearing process to get this incorporated in by to get back over to your table in order to get it in by December 1st, 2024. So the base requirement, I think, makes the most sense that it's incorporated now at this point in time. May I, may I ask a question along the lines of the, because the market will build with the market. Feels like get away with what it is. I don't believe that I read now that we have. We're doing anything to encourage types of. Development in that area, and I say this from this aspect. That if a. Planned piece of housing buildings planned for a village center. We want to encourage more families. I would hope the developers building more 2 bedrooms or 3 bedrooms that right that would accommodate. A family like dwelling. Versus a series of. You know, single bedroom. Not that we would right now with the current. I'm just asking is that something that we can encourage that's something you think or that. That you see in other communities where they encourage. That you know, that they put some attention or find some way to incentivize development that they want to see in those areas. Yes, when you ski has been thinking about this quite a bit to try to figure out how to incentivize larger units. I will say it's not that easy. It's a little bit more of a complex situation because. Your base zoning tools don't help you in a great way, but yes, it is a conversation that we can have and put on the table to figure out how to do that. Amber, I don't think I asked you how you were feeling about this. One way or the other. You did. Did I? Okay. I'll just. It's okay. We're going to put this in the current LDC rewrite. We're going to move it forward now. And that's one extra story. So like for affordable housing. And so basically the minimum for that's that's required. Right. Okay. So number seven and number eight are items that's the, what has been proposed by the planning commission already addresses, but will now be required as a part of S 100 minimum parking requirements and changing that to. Requiring no more than one parking space per dwelling units. Yeah, again, this would, at the state level, take effects December 1st, 2024, but we already have that on the table right now. Accessory dwelling units. There's some slight change to. That's that the state is requiring so 900 square feet or 30% of the total habitable floor area of the single family dwelling that it's that that it's attached to. That's exactly the wording that we already have. Okay. Number nine, that's, this is drive through facilities. I looked more into it and looked into why the village center. As some, there's some wording in the village center rules about drive throughs and that's because we still allow bank drives, drive throughs. And also drive throughs are allowed in most of the other zoning districts along Pearl Street. For example, I mean, we're still getting some new applications for drive throughs. Just a current example would be the. There's a, there's a cannabis retailer that's, that's going to be applying to make a drive through. I'm not sure if it's actually going to. On willies. What was that on willies? Willies and pearl. Sleep, sleep center. Right. But that is just an initial inquiry. There's no real application and right now. But yeah, it just means that there's still a market for drive through facilities at this point. So, yeah, I think there are four main options. I mean, there, there are five options here. Just keep it, keep things the way they are. Think about, or think about this in the future. Change rules in the village center. And, or just to also disallow drive throughs in the village center that they transit oriented developments. The zoning district and the multi family makes use districts or to disallow drive through city wide. And that's going for this wouldn't be retroactive any, any drive throughs that exist right now would be grandfathered. Thoughts board. Quick question on that for me if I'm wrong. So if there is a business right now that does have a. That does have a drive through and they do some type of significant renovation that impacts their exterior. At what point do they then need to comply with the current land development code if we were to do away with drivers. If they were changing the layout of the drive through portion. Changing the site. So if the site plan changes so that you need to basically allow for a new portion of the site that is a drive through, I think that would. I think there would be a case for having to require. Meeting the new requirements. So KFC and Duncan donuts just a fairly expensive renovations inside slightly on the outside didn't really impact. None of those would have then triggered that they comply with the land development code for moving them. The, the drivers. That's going to be a total new use. Right. I think I think. If they're not, if the, if the change that they're proposing is not making the nonconformance more nonconforming. Then, and that's the nonconforming elements more nonconforming than we can say no. Sure. So I was on the planning commission when this was put into place and the purpose I think was at the time to prevent. There was a pharmacy that wanted to put a drive through at five corners. And I think that was the impetus for this particular rule. And then the idea of not allowing new drive throughs in the village center, but also in that constricted village center that we were talking about, not a larger one on the map. So, yeah, root 15 is an okay place to have drive throughs and we have plenty of them there already. I think that the key was to keep them from the village center. So I would not be interested in changing this at all to either disallow or allow, but keep what we have and then not have new ones in the middle of the heart of the village center. In having given this. I kind of thought I kind of felt like see was the best option. But I'm in understanding. Oh, I see. Okay, sorry. I read it. But no, I agree that the village center, not drive. And Amber. I agree with that. I guess feeling the only part that I'm on the fence about is the planning commissions. Consideration of this and whether I'm kind of leaning to be versus see and having them take a look at this in general. Yeah, I was the one that brought this up. At first I was having a hard time with how we are conceiving with the village center and the idea of from my time on the bike walk watching the renovation on all of the entrances to five corners, especially this one, and how bike lanes disappeared was infuriating because we couldn't ask a developer to go for four feet more on the sidewalk, whatever that's that's always explained to me. Especially over the past few years, spending an awful lot more time in the city and on my bike and coming in number 15. The drive-thrus that are there are sort of a cycling minutes and a pedestrian hassle. And as we welcome more development hotels, more apartment buildings or traffic. I think adding more, it's just my opinion, adding more drive-thrus and more cross sidewalk lines. And I think it's antithetical to what we were trying to achieve. When we talk about a, you know, alternative transportation friendly community. I realize I've been schooled on many cars have idling. They turn off while they're sitting, there's electric cars right now electric cars, I think, or maybe max 12% of the. So, from that perspective, it seems silly to me to facilitate that. So, I brought this up. I mean, I would say we have enough and cut off the rest of the drive-thru additions and grandfather and the ones that are there. For those reasons and a couple others, I just think they're a little antithetical to what we're trying to achieve in terms of a, you know, non-car friendly experience. You know, take your public health person, take your input on what happened during COVID. But as was pointed out in the memo, we can always adjust this for as needed. There's only one pharmacy I think with the drive-thru and that's not here anymore. There's one. There's one active. Kenny. Yep. Amber raised her hand. See, I can't see. I know it's fine. I think you were talking about it, Raj. But I think the only thing that came up to me as you were making your comments was that since COVID, we have seen a considerable amount of increase in the traffic, which does block on a number of occasions. I've had a hard time even getting down Pearl Street just to get home because there's, there are cars in the road or cars across the sidewalk or whatnot. And so I think that's a separate, a separate conversation, but that's just what came to mind as you were talking. And my apologies if you said that I might have missed a piece. No, it's great. So it sounds like they might have some consensus on the Village Center. And I don't think that you're wrong. And I think that it would be a good idea for the planning commission. Part of the strategic planning, what have you to talk about? Do we in the next 50 years want to have there be more drive-throughs or is the number that we currently have adequately? When we think about these kinds of developments that goes through and would replace an existing drive-through, those buildings, those developments are here for 50 plus years. They're not here for five years, not here for 10 years. And so that's really the mindset we want to have with this kind of thing is, what is it we want to see our community look like? Long after we're all gone, hate to say it that way. And so just from that lens, I can totally see, no, don't necessarily want there to be more drive-throughs than what we currently have. But having that be a part of a conversation. I mean, the potential application you're talking about as I think about it would be a drive-through off of a side street. Not off of Pearl Street because there is no driveway entrance on Pearl Street, the property, I don't think. And so while it's in the district, it's allowed, it's off what is arguably a residential side street. Even though there's a business, you know, so it's, it's sort of that does bring up in the conversation. So it'd be great to get the planning commission's thoughts, I think, on that long term or just add it's their list of something to think about. But it sounds like we have consensus about the, what is the consensus about Village Center that nothing new or keep the bank thing the way it is? So if I, if I may, I would, I would be okay with allowing the planning committee, you know, taking this and having the planning commission look at this for discussion later on. I think I do hear that generally speaking in the Village Center, we seem to be in a similar place. But I do want to add, I do want to add this and I acknowledge that I would like to see more accessibility for bike walk in the community. But I also think about things like the amenities within this particular community that make this an attractive community to live and walk and bike and exist within this particular community without necessarily having to go to Williston or the town or, you know, other communities. So, I think, again, I would agree that if we want to move this to planning commission discussion of that would be agreeable because of the fact that I would love to hear more about how the impact and what would drive into this make this community work. Okay. All right, so again, we just need a little how about BMC combining the one. So basically, so basically, see, but then get the planning commission to think about D and E. Yeah, sounds good. Okay. Number 10. I think it's a other easy one traffic control plan we don't currently require a traffic control plan in the LDC but on a case by case basis. I'm an engineering has been has been asking for it and we've been getting the traffic control plans. So just to improve consistency. I'd recommend that we just put that requirements into into the LDC whenever their impacts to public right away. Yep. Excellent. Great. All right. Number 11 is the Village Center 15 foot buffer. So, I think. Yeah, I think the way this has been presented by the planning commission and thought through with CCRBC is that the 15 foot buffer when you happen to be a current house with a small launch. If there are if there's a 15 foot buffer required on both sides, you're going to stay a house. And at the same time, some of the places in the Village Center zoning districts, which are, which are, which have commercial on the bottom and some residential above. We have old historic buildings that are built to the lot line. And it makes those areas very walkable and and very dense and have kind of a village feel to it. But yeah, it doesn't mean that there are some actual impacts and there's an example of that. The Eight Railroad base that I put on here and the Eight Railroad case is is an applicable example, but it's also a little bit weird in that there is there is a lane there. Gaines Court. It's Gaines Court if it was an actual city right away. You know, the 15 foot buffer kind of wouldn't apply because 15 foot buffer like that would be the buffer. But in this case, Gaines Court is a split in ownership between all these parcels so we're treating it as if those were just single family homes. Just that if Gaines Court was an actual public right of way, I think we would actually treat this situation like a corner a lot. And the buffer wouldn't apply on either frontage railroad or Gaines Court, but this one, this one is a weird one, but the. It's tight enough in here that you can get the point anyway, the 15 foot buffer in the Village is going to limit development. Either buy houses that are single family homes now wanting to do something different or even, you know, a somewhat underutilized lot becoming more in line with what we hope for the Village Center. Right. And then of course, it's still possible for. Like different, like different parcels, different lots to join together and in an assembly to to kind of get over some of these issues but that that does make it much less likely. So yeah, you see examples on Pearl streets, there are three houses right there just across the street, if the middle one, for example, were to want to redevelop 15 feet on both sides would make it impossible, at least at a higher density. Let's start with Amber. Anything to add here. Do you have a preference will ask two questions at once. Nothing to add, I think my preference is to go with the planning commission recommendation to remove the buffer. That's a. Hey, that's correct. Andrew. Elaine. Degree. Alright, it is. Okay. I was going to say. Be for those. We're going to be potentially. Rubbing elbows. I think that. 1 of the difficulties is when you buy a home. 30, 40, 50 years ago, and the community around you is changing. And what you bought is not what you currently have. It's got to be difficult. I don't personally understand that it's not something I've had to live through so I can't truly understand it from that vantage point. But we have a 6 junction has been 1 of the if not the fastest growing communities in Vermont for a few years now. This is going to continue to happen. It's. Part of redevelopment. If you have a single family home in the village center. I can't imagine in 30 years. It's still going to be there or it's going to be. Probably unaffordable to keep it that way. Don't disagree, but I would say that. Like going back to what earlier comment. I'm okay with this in the village center. But I don't, I don't want to see this cream outside the village center because then I think we're going to severely impact. The field of what is this extension. So that's why. Okay. Yeah, I mean, my worry, my concern initially, I know the reason I brought this up was to. To consider those homes on the border of the district. And. Figure out a way to. At least on that. Property line that shared. I think it's important to respect that. Impact. Especially now we're thinking a potential of five or maybe six stories. But no buffer. Naturally, there will be something. Right. But next to a single family home that traditionally didn't have much of a buffer anyway around here. Having that loom. In the neighborhood that is still going to remain residential. It's not part of the village center district. It's not necessarily changing in the way that we're changing the village center district. There are not many examples of that. I think he said six. But so that's what I was thinking is like, how do we. How do we figure out a way to. To keep that growth where it belongs without negatively impacting the folks that aren't in that district. I don't know if there's an update for the full council, but I'll just throw this out as like. If. Desired, could we. Write a role for that edge. You know, the BC edge. So that's where. A buffer. Versus. In the other. I don't know if that would. That's what option. Let alone. If. Option B doesn't prevent. What's going on. On railroad, for instance, if you're, if you're two properties that are wholly within. The village center district. There would still be no problem. That's right. But then eight railroad would be affected because the. South side of that is. Well, what I'm thinking is actually the backside. The backside of that is multifan. Oh, yeah. Oh, it's not right. It's not some. It's not an R1 or R2 district. Next to it. Yeah. So right next to it is actually a multi family mix use district. With detached houses with a few detached houses right now. Those homeowners certainly have things to say at this point. But even with option B. That I guess that would not change because they're in a. They're in a different district. They're in a multi family district. Regina, what are your thoughts on this? Just that to Marcus's point of a little bit of a more kind of refined way to do this. I think we will also it's like I hang all my. Hopes and joys on two projects. The strategic planning process and the transit oriented design project, but really transit oriented design. The concept there is to start that out like a charrette, which is how most foreign based codes are started. And you're really looking parcel by parcel. What are the impacts? What are you trying to protect? And how you transition between the two. And how do you set up where you're. Building where the most intense part of the lots are being built to and where you downgrade in the other parts. So I think we will have better tools available to us in the future. Once we get through those projects to really. Figure this out. And I think at this point, the planning commission did agree and concur that within the village center district, this buffer, is not helpful for the goals that you're trying to achieve right now. So you're saying basically just leave it. And we'll address it in the next couple of years. Yeah. As this process plays out. All right. Leave it as the planning commission recommended. Which is to. Yeah. Right. Everybody's good. Okay. Great. So. Yeah. So a lot coverage. There was talk last time about. About. What has been recommended for that. The planning commission recommended a modest. Increase. To allowable lot coverage. From 25 to 30% for the building. And then full lot coverage remains the same. 40. And as I mentioned, I do think that this will be a limiting factor for. For. Some homeowners wishing to convert their, their homes at this. At this time. So I looked around at some other municipalities and what they did. When new ski has. Of course, for some areas with the similar law sizes, 50% for the building. And then full lot coverage remains the same 40. And as I mentioned, I do think that this will be a limiting factor for the building. So. This is a 50%. And Burlington ranges. The house I live in is 80, but it's a very high density area. And then I, I saw, I put down two options here, but I actually realized from. From what I saw playing out in Portland, Oregon, when I was living there and they were going through this same conversation about residential infill and this kind of residential density. They actually ended up raising allowable. Lot coverage limits based on, on a graduated scale. So if you are rebuilding just a single family house on one lot. What the lot coverage limits you have is that's it. But then if you are, so if you're going to build more units, you're going to have more space to do that. The idea of that was to prevent the, some people from just building large luxury homes on, on lots based on policy that wasn't intended to spur that. And of course, like the other thought is that if you, if you're going to have some environmental impacts, you might as well get something for it. That is consistent with the, with the city goals. So I would put that as a option C to make a graduated. Increasing scale. And that would theoretically incentivize. The kind of development we've been talking about, maybe the addition of an ADU that wasn't necessarily quite possible before or conversion, adding up a bedroom or. Right. That would incentivize that. And it would, it would avoid. Accidentally incentivizing just larger homes. Good question. Regina, something you said to the last portion about the. Is it the transit oriented design grants. When I had internalized that my understanding or my thought was, it was only for our transit oriented district. Is that right or wrong? I. It's a good question. I would say. More than what our transit oriented design zoning district is, because that's fairly limited on Pearl street, but I think it could be. Geographically bounded by where the bus goes in the city. Potentially, but I also am not positive if CCRPC has worked out some of these specifics. So the reason I ask is because that process, I think if it were possible to then also align with lot coverage, could be very helpful because part of the reason why I brought this up is. It saying 30%, 40%, 50% and looking at our zoning map. I don't know what that really means. I don't know what that's actually going to look like. And so it just feels like this, this intangible thing that we're just trying to throw a dart at a number that feels. And I don't know what that is. So. Personally, for me as a person who asked a question, I would say just continue with the recommendations from the planning commission. And hope that the grant will allow us to make a more informed decision. Yeah. Or if not, we can find out another tool or solution. Way to figure this out. Sounds good to me. Anybody else. Yeah. Yeah. Great thumbs up. All right. Great. And number 13, 25 year storm standard. So yeah, there was a question about whether or not that's that's sufficient given the impacts of climate change. We recommend that. We talked about it internally and recommend that. No, we stick with that. And that this can be reviewed with the future changes to MS for requirements. Fee schedule. So. Yes, we discussed before it can be taken out of the LDC. And separately approved. Yeah, which I don't, I don't think we need a decision on right now. Essentially, if you're ready to warn the LDC, we just warn it as package because there are amendments in there and you'll want to either approve them or deny them. And then post action. We will remove it. But I thought you have to warn, I thought. You have to warn things as you intend to potentially. I think this and I think this is technical. Is this a minor enough thing that doesn't actually change policy. Yeah, I think it's fine. Okay. Oh, actually, I guess I did have planned agriculture in there. Yeah, we already talked about that. No changes required. Right. So. Schedule as it stands now. So if we warn the public hearing tonight. Planning commission updates summary report. And we have our first public hearing on June 14th. And another opportunity if there are more changes to have. The second potentially the final public hearing on July 26th. Yeah. That's right. Great. I'm looking for. The motion before we get to the motion. We've been talking about this for almost an hour and a half. Do we want to do some kind of a recap on the major points? I was just trying to get my bearings on where we're going next. Suggestion regarding public participation. So based on thank you for sharing the demographics of who's responded. So far to the survey. I'm wondering if you or anybody in village city staff has. Connections with the property management organizations that. Manage the apartment buildings we have. And if we did. Could we ask them to email their tenants. And ask them to respond. We can ask. I'm not sure if they would have a. Spam policy side that prevent it, but I consider that we can also, you know, make like a poster for them to put up as won't be as effective as if they actually email. Yeah, we can certainly try. Prior to separation. Our effort to educate and outreach and give outreach about separation process. We connected with some property managers and asked them, would you please share this. Information coming from the village trustees. Yeah. And we're told yes. And yeah, but specifically the. Riverside folks. I don't know how much they followed through with that, but we just asked them to email a PDF. Yeah. And, you know, for, for example, in my condo association. I hear from them all the time. So like, if there's something that the city wants to get out there. I'm sure they'd be willing to. Share it out in their communications with their tenants. Yeah, we can definitely do that. And the other group to that Chris will reach out to is really the developers themselves. We've been holding on that specific push just to figure out the. Some of these final changes and fees. So once now that we've got that, we'll, we'll do that as well. Now, one complicating factor with public engagement is that it's the, all the questions, the material that has been put out. And our messaging points have been based on what was proposed prior to S 100. And I do know from the interim results that the most contentious issues are the ones that have to be changed anyway. Like that, that's a, that's certainly a question for you then whether should we be. Should, should we be pushing, you know, pushing this public engagement the same way as before? Should we be shifting to more information. Focus approach. Yeah, so we were thinking we would get the website updated. So all those parts that talk about triplexes, we will get all of that updated as best we can based on and now update with S 100. This is what we have to do and kind of more front face that as opposed to really push the survey for more folks to respond to the questions in particular because now we're going to end up with. Sort of two different fields. But it does mean that what, yeah. So the results you see will be. And they'll be focused on perhaps the questions that's remained to be really decided on. But yeah, if you have a, yeah, I could use more direction on what to do in terms of public engagement. It seems like a hassle, but with the changes coming from S 100, particularly if they're becoming controversial, they have to set up a new survey or something. But the people that have already taken the survey are, I feel like unlikely to want to take it again. Right. But how many people? Two. So about 200 have taken it. 199 today. I understand what you're saying, but. It, it feels odd to collect responses on changes. And then add more changes and not collect responses on that. And I think Amber has her hand. Ever. It has nothing to do with what Elaine just said, so you can come back to me. Good. Is there a way you can, you can kind of segment. So when you update the website, we start putting out the new info. You know, the responses, you know, the data responses prior and the responses you receive after. So I suppose we would be thinking, do we ask the same questions? Does the survey change materially? It still would be nice to know what people think about some of this stuff, but if it's sort of. From down on high, then. Yeah, and it's not in. Yeah. It's tough to because we, our hand is forced. We will be changing the zoning to four plexes. I hate to say it this way, but regardless of what we hear from community members, because. It is now state law and that's what we have to do. Maybe the, the, the next part of that conversation right is, oh my gosh, you have to do that. Will that impact me. So much like some of the conversation we had here tonight. Yes, but or yes, and we have to do this. Here's where it's likely possible. And here's where it's likely not possible. Here's a potential timeline for when you might see it and here's how that might play out. And also, by the way, once again, they're telling us we have to do this. So thanks for participating. But I think people, once they hear that they're going to want to know, okay, can that happen in my neighbor. Either negatively or positively, you know, they're either going to want to, can I do that? Or is that what's likely to be done? So in some of these things, I think, yeah, I think we have to switch to. Hey, look, this is what's definitely coming. Here's the timeline. Here's the where and what the impact is likely to be. In a neutral way. But there's still some of this that we have a choice on. Yeah. And, you know, I think to some extent, from the folks that we've heard from so far, you know, they'll probably be fairly. Strong opinions about triplexes and I can assume that those opinions are the same if it says for flex. However, as we learned, there are reasons why that doesn't work for every lot. And reasons why it may not work, even if it's wanted. And so, yeah, so certainly I, I can update the, the information side of this can be updated. With the new with these, with the changes that we talked about today and what's required of as 100 I can certainly put that in the survey. One thing I can do is just to add. And a point to two things, what would be to the housing section and. And the parking section that some of these changes will have to happen anyway. But people can continue to submit the survey. And if nothing else, at least that the qualitative, the, the short answer part of it would still be valid. Valid for analysis in terms of what people's actual, like actual concerns are. Yeah, and you know, maybe putting in a question or somewhere around the question. This is now required by the state, right? That's, you know, just making it very clear. We still want to know which tank. Yeah. We've now learned. Yeah. And we can still try to work on reaching, you know, getting the word out to. If we have heard from you. Which we have some. We have, we have her. And again, just putting it in the context of when you had sent that update to us in the packet. It was over 80% homeowners when our community is almost 42% renters skewed extremely to the, the more affluent forces of our community. So we're not hearing from the people who literally would benefit from a triplex or quad flex. Not that everyone else doesn't, but. The people who would be renting those, those units most likely are not going to be those owning their home and more. Okay. I think I can work with that. We want to recap of what we ever stand is up with something not related to what Elaine had said before. I had 2 comments 1 public comment. I'm not sure where we were going to put that in and then to, I'm not sure if this is the right time or not, but I had a couple of revisions to the hearing notice before we approve that. And actually, Amber, thank you also so amber has sent edits as well that I think we can sort of categorize as. We've done substantive but all good edits for the LDC itself. So those we can get incorporated as well. Great. Why don't we do public to be heard on all of this right now. We'll start with zoom. I don't see any hands raised but we can give it a minute for people to find the right button. I see you. Risa. Please go ahead. Hi. What you've all discussed is really interesting. I'd be very eager to suggest that you discuss this with public as much as possible hearing your discussions. One thing I kept coming up with thinking about in terms of density of affordable housing in the town center. If one of those buildings doesn't have a grocery store on the main level. It's really far to walk to Hanifords or maps. There are basic amenities in the town center that we don't have. And food is one of them with fewer options for cars and I understand that you know we're required by the state to do a lot of this. We really have to think carefully about how do we best support the very people we're trying really hard to draw here because if we if we build wonderful buildings they can be gorgeous with great apartments. But if they have to walk to Hanifords to get food. It's too far. It really is. We can't count on what the bus routes are going to be. And we just don't have these services there yet. So the more that you can get people talking for these kinds of things that we're not thinking about, I think would be really helpful. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the room. Okay. Andrew you wanted to recap of where we went tonight. Or now. So what you asked for before. Yeah, you asked me do I want to give the recap or I mean you offering now I'm not offering. I can tell you what I've done myself. We just run through it. I think I could probably. That's great. She doesn't. This is. Sorry. I was all prepped on the public hearing notice, but now I got to get back to the memo. Okay, so one, let me share this one through four is what we talked about last time we're just confirming that that's what we're doing. Five, we are doing it because we have to. Six, we are also going to add this in right now because we don't have time in terms of adding the one. Bonus story as required by state statute. Seven, we already have these changes in there and we're doing them from state statute. Eight, same thing for accessory dwelling units are already in there. Nine, we are going with option C. For now, so that we are disallowing drive-throughs in the village center district and we are asking the planning commission to take a look at drive-throughs and the other districts on their future to do list. This is a minor tweak to get the LDCs to know what we're doing in common practice for the traffic control plans. 11 for the 15 foot buffer. We are sticking with what the planning commission's recommendation is. And so that's option A. 12 on lot coverage. We are also sticking with a what the planning commission has presented to you so far. And we will take a look at opportunities for adjusting lot coverage through the other projects that we are going to be looking at. 13, we are going to look at that in the future when we look at other MS for for folks who don't know what that means. That's our storm water permit requirements. And on the fee schedule, we are deciding that we are all that changes that are proposed to the fee schedule right now are moving forward to being warned with the public hearing with all the other LDC amendments. Ultimately, we will figure out how to remove that fee schedule from the LDC so it can be amended on its own going forward. 15 is just a note on the planned agricultural district. Nothing needs to change with that right now. Thank you. Great. So public hearing notice. Remind me of what we need to do to warn this read the first part. Amber has some. Oh, right. Okay. So I'm going to move on to friendly amendments. In paragraph one of the statement, if we could change the words village to city. Minus the village. And I would like to see back to all of the conversation we've just had been having about how much as 100 has impacted these decisions that we are making. To in response to the severe housing shortage, elevated costs and. His requirements of S 100 passed by the legislature, something to that effect, but somehow implicating the S 100 in this statement. That's it for my friendly amendments. Oh, I see them. Yep. I'm with the city council through the additional changes to land development code amendments that discuss. We have a second. Second. Great. Andrew Marcus. Any discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. It's unanimous. I would move to city council one public hearing on the LDC amendments for June 14, 2023 at 630 PM. Right there a second. Second. Great lane. No discussion. All those in favor say aye. That's unanimous. That passes as well. Great. Thank you. As we're transitioning to the next one, I do just want to comment on someone who's been a part of the board here for a while. This has been the most substantive conversation on the land development code that I've ever been a part of. And so I really appreciate the effort from staff to bring this to us and not in a. This is a formality, please approve approach, but rather this is what was talked about. And so please continue to discuss. I really appreciate that. So I just want to thank you both. Oh yeah, second. Very patient, very thorough. Very thorough. So thank you. Thank you. I was going to wait for this. Under my manager notes, but I'll take the time to congratulate Chrissy past his. AICP exam on Monday morning. So. Well done. Thank you. So we call you doctor now. I'm actually not, I don't have the designation yet. I have to, I have to write an essay about how I have already met the experience requirements, which I have already. But now it's just administration in the way. Okay. Amber will proofread it for you. She's saying yes. She shakes her. I got to go. Alright discussion and consideration of regional committee appointments. Okay. So what I've done here in your memo is try to explain what all of these appointments are, but you don't have to act on all of them, but it's helpful I think to see all of these in place. So, and I'll just kind of touch briefly on some of them. So communications, Chittenden County communications union district. So just so folks know, we're still really kind of in the infancy phase of getting that up and running. We have just decided today on a consultant to help do the RFP to figure out the service provider work in Chittenden County. And to do some project management work, which will help CCRPC has mostly been holding this up for folks thus far. I'm happy to still be that person for the city, but it will quickly move to more like in depth content about how broadband and service providers work and I will not likely be your best person at the table for that. At some point and at any point. Happy to switch that over to someone. Chris, I think Chris just gonna say. Let me let me cut off that real quick. Just to say, while I think I might be the most. I believe I have my conflict of interest being an employee of Comcast will not be. Sorry. So, at some point, if there isn't another council member who wants to do that, we can certainly advertise that out, but still fine. Doing it for now. So what does need to be decided tonight is your CCRPC reps as it has been Dan is the prime rep. That's not the right word, but main rep Elaine alternate. Those are two year seats and they are up for reappointment right now. Dan and I have communicated and indicated to the CCRPC board that I will take the main position and Dan will be the alternate. That was what I was hoping for only because I want to make sure we have that communication back and forth. But I still want to end. And also been asked by CCRPC to take position on the executive committee as the large municipality representative. Because the current one. Jackie Murphy from Colchester is moving into a different position on the council on the executive committees. So you won't have any free Wednesdays. No, as a matter of fact, every Wednesday will be booked. So I'm also on the equity advisory committee. Be sure. Everybody alright with that. Yep. Okay, great. Thank you very much. I'm happy to. Excellent. Okay, Chittan solid waste district. This. So the other thing that's a little bit weird about this is some of these organizations we just joined. Not too long ago. So we've had some of these conversations not too far in the distant past. In the future, when we do this at this time, annually, this will make a little bit more sense. So Mike Sullivan is your main rep Amber is your alternate. I'll just keep rolling through unless anybody wants to do anything different. Green Mountain transit. Andrew is the city rep Raj is the alternate. So in this, this is also an organization that we just became a member of not too long ago. Paul Boney is the city resident and he's always been on the rep for the town, which is a collective. Going forward, we'll have to figure this out. The town is not making their decisions on. This seat until the end of June. So I think for the moment we can hold on this one, unless anybody would like to make any changes right now. I'm happy to stay on until there is somebody else who would be appointed. I would personally be more than happy to step aside so that comes to life or somebody else can take it. Okay. A town meeting TV. Amber is the main rep. We don't have somebody in the vacancy. This term does this position does need to be appointed right now. They're 1 year terms. I did reach out to Amber myself and required, but I will let her speak for herself. But I am more than willing to take that baking. I'm more than willing to alternate. Amber, do you want to stay where you are on that board? Yeah, so basically the discussion was, I think I was relatively new on this board. So I'd kind of like to at least keep some consistency for the next year. So I'll, I'll keep the, the main spot and as Marcus said, if he'll take the vacancy on the at the alternate. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Champlain Water District. So nothing that we need to do for this right now. Ultimately, both Greg and I met with Joe Duncan on one day this week to figure out what the, what to do on this. So members, board members on Champlain Water District are elected members. And also we will need to have a city vote in order to add us as a member. Our current member, our current, the towns, collectively with the city current member is Aaron Martin. He is a city resident and is the engineer in the town. So he has done a great job all this time of serving both of us. Our suggestion is that he rides out his term, which will go all the way through March 2025 because they're three year elected terms. Next town meeting for us next city meeting. We have a vote on the ballot about whether to join Champlain Water District. If that goes well at the next spring, right when this position is coming to an end, we have a member on the ballot for election to carry forward. Winooski Valley Parks District. George Tyler is appointed to that I reached out to him he's fine staying on but also completely fine if somebody else stepping off if somebody else wants to take this on. So Anybody want to do George has such a lock on this. Yeah. Okay, then just so you know also for local committees we have the chat. Try town committee on sewage. George Tyler was on that the bylaws for this committee are ancient. They have not been changed in a very long time they do refer to council and legislative body reps on it. They're mostly it has been staff that have been going to these. And we've got Chelsea, Jess and myself going to these now. But if a council member wanted to be on it, we can figure that out. I'm sure. Capital plan review committee amber has been chairing that. And as far as I know she wants to still do that. Take that as yes. Sorry, I'm so I'm still here. Yeah, that's fine. And then just for CCRPC there are also other committees you have a transportation advisory committee clean water advisory committee. Chris will be on the tack Chelsea will be on the quack. Sounds great. And there's your recommendations and your motion so you just need to I'm sorry I don't have a word document in front of me that I can swap out some of those names. And then you can do the review. Chittenden County communications district. It's just going to stay me so you don't need to do that one. CCRPC we're going to have Elaine as the rep. Dan as the alternate and Chris on the transportation advisory Chelsea on the clean water. Count meeting to be amber as the representative Marcus as the alternate. And then when you see the parks district we're going to keep that. And then what the next is was there anything else we talked about changing right now. We're holding. That's on an alternate year. So. I'd actually like to just post the position for the communications union district. I mean unless somebody disagrees. I'd like to see this come off of Regina's plate. She has enough on her plate and it doesn't seem like anybody on on the council is going to be able to take those that seat. Thank you. You have a new best friend. I'd also suggest going to the, maybe to the bike walk to see about the Winooski Valley parks district. Every do that. And if no interest there, then you just probably. Yeah, all committees. Came to us. I think there was general feeling of the board that everybody had to take something. Yes. Yeah. Well, I think. Tassie. I think I'm pronouncing that correctly. Apologies if I'm not was also interested in Winooski Valley park district as well. So. She might still be interested in taking that on. All right. So then we need. We're going to hold on that. We need that tonight. Right. Sorry. So these are. This is very difficult. I haven't. Attempt to craft. No, we can, we can, we can hold on. Valley park district looks like. So we need. We're going to add, we're going to post the communications union district. Yes. It looks like just the two bullets, the two middle bullets. Yeah. So, I'll move that we appoint Elaine Haney to the chin and county regional planning commission as primary representative and Dan Karen as alternate. We point her assume to the transportation advisory committee and Chelsea Mandigo to the. Team water advisory committee. And we appoint town meeting Amber Tebow as representative to town meeting TV. Second, and Marcus is alternate. Marcus is alternate. I'll second that. Any discussion hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those who say unanimous. Thank you all very much. Thank you. That's it. All right. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Second. Lane move Andrew seconded. All those in favor say aye. Good night. All right. Excuse me. Yes. On item six G as a resident of Hiawatha and a participant in this block party, I would like to formally invite. Council and staff to come join us for our block party. I've heard in the past that you were not invited. So my apologies. So this year we would like to like to come join us for our little so please come on. Thank you very much. Thank you. While we're making comments on the, on this, I guess I would also just like to appreciate having one of our appointees. Being here at the meeting sitting through all of this joy that we have had of a meeting for this portion. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. And love the land development code. Do you want to add anything? Any comments on it? Your favorite passages. Thanks for working through that. Anything else? Great. All right. So all those in favor, approving the consent agenda, please say aye. And that is unanimous. Reading file, council and manager comments. Okay. Any comments? Any other comments? Any other comments? Councilmember Cina, you already shared one great one. Yes. Anything else? We are fully aware that the West street extension sidewalk is bad. And so. One way. Yeah. So. Our latest thinking is Ricky is going to try to see if there's somebody who can do. quick sidewalk pavement paving of it just to try to buy us some time. Our more long-term plan is to a couple of things. CCRPC is gonna do a sidewalk inventory for us this summer and so that'll help us set us up with a plan but we don't necessarily need that to know that this sidewalk is in desperate need of improvement. And when we have that, we can work that into the capital planning review committee and try to prioritize that amongst all of the things that have to be prioritized in that plan. So we have that on our plate and are working on it so just wanna make sure folks are aware of that. We, the city received a settlement check from Monsanto for about $17,000. It's associated with the fact that we're on the Winooski River and what staff is planning to use that for is to get us started on figuring out the stormwater utility. So it's helpful cause it's a little bit of cash and we can try to get a consultant on board to just help us really get that process going because despite Jess and Chelsea's efforts, they are busy. So getting somebody to help with that will be really great. Memorial Day Parade, thank you folks know about that. But so everybody knows pre-parade program at Five Corners at 930, parade starts at 10, Lincoln Street and Pearl Street will be closed for that. Who is emceeing the parade? Oh, is that Elana Marcus? Awesome, that'd be amazing. That'd be a good time and the weather would be nice. Oh, that's good to hear. Yeah. Then next week, there is a tree and history walk. I think it's the first annual tree and history walk on the third. And there's also the first annual pride festival at EJRP as well. We have started out a monthly town meeting TV show. Thanks to Howard at Wastewater. We're going with so far, Junction City News. Anybody has any thoughts? We can shift, we can change, but yeah, it's pretty good. So the first show was Chris and I on Monday for the land development code. And that will always be the fourth Monday at 525. So, very exciting. That's great. Yeah, it's really cool. There's a player recorder in case they need a house band. Amber does, it's only on Zoom. We are in process for, we've got the admin assistant and clerk assistant jobs have been out there for a while and over 60 applicants for admin assistant and over 40 for clerk assistant. So it's actually really great and surprising. Can I ask a question regarding that? Yes. Once those folks are in the office, will there be, will the front door be open during business hours all the time once we have a full staff at the front desk? The plan is that once the clerk is here and so that will be July as well, basically. So the, we have to send so many people over to 81 main that that's part of the reason why the door is locked. So as soon as the clerk comes, Susan comes here to this office, plus these two people. Yes. And the thinking really is July 5th is the opening day because the first is the Saturday and then the third is a Monday, but then fourth of July. So that's the, that's the idea. Okay, thanks. Then hotel program. So that is coming to an end. Some folks will be out of the hotels on June 1st and some out July 1st. So just so folks know, the majority of people that have been housed in the hotel program are in Colchester, South Burlington, Williston and Shelburne. So it's, we will likely see less direct impacts here, but nonetheless, this are, there are about 500 people all collectively in Chittenden County. And so we are, I have been participating as of Tuesday morning with a awesome weekly meeting that Sarah Russell, who's co-chair of the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance, as well as Carrie Duquette Hoffman, who is the AHS Field Services Director in Burlington in Chittenden County in Addison. I think Addison, I might be Washington. They are hosting a weekly meeting now through July to just coordinate with folks in Chittenden County to be thinking about solutions, alternatives and how to sort of help folks as they're transitioning out of those programs. So that is happening and I think that's it. On your last point, I saw some of the emails going back and forth today and read some of the material and did wonder, so if there's anything we can do to be welcoming and supportive, understanding we don't have a shelter and in terms of housing, not much to offer, not respect. I think we've been through this conversation with a couple of different refugee groups where we looked around and realized we were sort of not able to provide much in terms of that. But some of the interesting ideas that came from a brainstorming session in my career were access to wifi, access to safe places to park a car and sleep, access to, and it goes on and on in ways you might not automatically think of immediately. So I don't know, I can't think of a way we can, I don't have any solutions right now but it would be a really interesting thing to see if the community could figure out a way to provide some transitional assistance in a coordinated way. At least in the ways that we can. So I don't know what we can do as a board or individually or I think it's amazing that you're going to those meetings and if you could bring anything back, sort of report out between meetings, what you find at the whole council, then we can maybe engage with some of the nonprofits and churches in other places around here and see if there's something we can do. Yeah, my mind went to, you know, the fairgrounds and them stepping up with vaccines and testing, but some of these states don't work with the events they have going, you know, there's the whole complication of how that works out and does it really work? So just something. Yeah. That's my thinking in terms of just trying to attend these meetings just to see what's going on and how we can assist, how we can be helpful or if there's any ideas that are happening in other communities that make sense here. Yeah, or even if there's some way that our community can support another community's work. Yeah. Anybody have anything? Great. Well, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Summelt. Second. All those in favor of adjourning? See aye.