 My name is Megan Tuttle. I'm the director of the Office of City Planning. I was previously our comprehensive planner for about six years and moved into this role about a year ago when David White retired. So nice to meet those of you who are new. Hi everybody. My name is Charles Dillard. I am principal planner in the Office of City Planning, moved to Burlington from North Carolina. I've physically arrived in August. I've been working for almost a year since March and it's good to see everybody. I'm Chase Taylor. I'm on the DRB. Miles Waite on the conservation board. I'm Zoe Richards and I'm chair of the conservation board. My name is Lena Swisslocki and I'm also on the conservation board. Hi, I'm Julia Randall. I'm on the planning commission. I'm Andy Montroll. I'm the chair of the planning commission. Jeff Hand. I'm on the DRB. Leo Sprinzen. I'm also on the DRB. Emily Morris. I'm on the DAB. Kathleen Ryan. I'm a substitute on the DAB. Gabriel Stettiker. I'm on the DAB. And hoping we can go online for those of you that are joining us remotely. We'll go Carolyn, Don, and then Emily. My name is Karen Connolly and I'm on the conservation board. Don Mills on the conservation board also. I'm an alternate on the DRB and this is actually my first meeting with you all. So thanks to be here. Thanks. Great. So then do we want to go? Sorry, I missed the back row. If you want to go. All right. Great. Thank you all. As Scott said, thanks everyone for being here tonight. Charles is going to pull up some slides and we'll get started on our presentations. The first policy issue that we wanted to share an update with you on is actually one that is brand new. Something that council took action on just last Monday night. But really is something that I think most of you will find familiar. And that is a change to our parking standards here in Burlington. So for a quick background for those of you who were not on the boards two years ago in 2020, the city council adopted a zoning ordinance change that removed the minimum onsite parking requirements in essentially our downtown and in other kind of high density mixed use areas of Burlington, our zone for high dense mixed use development in Burlington. And with that first implemented TDM transportation demand management standards as part of our zoning requirements here in Burlington. So I would imagine those of you that are on the DRB have gained some familiarity with these new policies over the last couple of years. I know working with Scott and hearing updates about the number of projects that have come through that have been required to have TDM plans and to really kind of move into this new framework of regulating parking by maximums rather than minimums. Really quick update for you on how that's been going. About a year ago at this time we worked with Scott to go through some of the larger projects that you all had seen come through the permitting process here in Burlington to just understand what the effect of that change really meant for housing developments in particular in our downtown. So these are six projects that had received permits or amended permits since that zoning change was adopted in late 2020. And really focusing on the bottom half of this graph at the projects that are in the light blue. These are three new residential projects in downtown Burlington, all that are fewer than 50 units. And you can really see that the effect of switching from minimums to maximums has had the greatest impact for these projects. We've seen these projects come in anywhere from 25 to 70 percent fewer parking spaces than what the ordinance would have previously required them to achieve. But again as part of that required to provide new transportation demand management benefits to the occupants of those buildings. The projects that you see on the top half of the screen have had less of an effect we would say in terms of the policy change in part due to their location in the city. Two of the three on the top half of the screen are further from downtown. Their senior housing project out on Riverside Avenue and the Cambrian Rise project. And one of them was already subject to parking agreements as part of its permit process. So really we've been looking at these newer smaller projects in the downtown to kind of measure what the impact has been of this policy change. And we've just had a couple years of implementation of that piece of the policy when in late 2021 the city council introduced an extension of this policy really to take that translation of minimum parking requirements to maximum parking limits and TDM requirements citywide essentially. So that is the policy in short that was just adopted by the city council on Monday night and will be going into effect here shortly. While it was the original intent of the councilor that introduced this policy to essentially keep everything else about this policy the same as you can imagine over the year plus of discussion about changing this part of our zoning ordinance there were a number of other parts of the ordinance that ended up being modified as well. So I'll just quickly run through the sort of three major things that this amendment does. The first as I've said a couple of times just switches from a reliance on minimum onsite parking requirements to maximum onsite parking limits. By and large the amendment while it introduces a new table of parking maximums it really maintains our previous maximum parking standards in large part. There were a couple of places that we used this policy as an opportunity to address some challenges we knew we were already having with how the ordinance was structured before. For example where the maximum parking limit was zero in our multimodal mixed use district people would have to actually come to you as the DRB to ask to have one space per dwelling unit or one space per thousand square feet of commercial space. This fixed that problem and ensured that the maximum limit for those uses is one space per whatever the increment is. There are a couple new minor exceptions to our maximum limit such as for ADA accessible parking spaces, residential driveways and an important caveat in terms of how this change dovetails with the institutional parking management plans which I'll talk about in a second. And then again in large part this maintains our three different parking districts the neighborhood shared use and multimodal mixed use parking districts. The only district's boundary that changed is the multimodal mixed use district. As part of a rezoning for the BHS site on Institute Road the council changed the parking district for that property from neighborhood to multimodal mixed use but otherwise the boundaries for those districts remain the same. The next set of amendments that we made to this part of the ordinance was related to the TDM standards that were newly adopted in 2020. So again this expands the requirement to provide a TDM plan for developments of 10 units or greater or 15,000 square feet of gross floor area to all parking districts where it previously only applied in the multimodal district. And now creates a few new tiers for TDM requirements. One specific thing that the council heard a lot of feedback about was the fact that our TDM standards did not provide enough flexibility to allow for individual developments to tailor their TDM strategies to the users or to their location. So one of the new tiers that was introduced in this amendment was that for projects over these size thresholds that include 75 percent or more inclusionary housing units those projects are only required to provide education and outreach and do some of their agreement that they don't have access to off-street parking etc. They also introduced a new tier for smaller residential projects so these are developments between five and nine units. These projects are simply required to unbundle the cost of parking from the cost of rent or the sale of the unit. And then the last piece that was modified in terms of the TDM strategies themselves is that again instead of all of the TDM strategies being fixed strategies that apply to every development this amendment gives a modest bit of flexibility in terms of developments being able to select two out of a list of five potential TDM strategies to utilize for their project. Go ahead AJ. It's a great question so and I believe in a lot of cases this actually this issue would not come to the DRB this is not an in lieu of standard this is something that would be required for all developments of five to nine units to comply with so that there's no longer a requirement that they provide any number of spaces they are capped at if it was nine units they'd be capped at 18 parking spaces if it's in the neighborhood district for example and they would be required to then unbundle the cost of parking from the cost of rent or the sale price of a unit. And I don't know if you want to speak to how you've seen that demonstrated in other TDM plans. It's really been afforded as a condition for the next person or part of the impact I think it's still accurate to say it's one of the projects and actually occupying that yeah yeah it would be condition or approval of an issue that we'd want to see I know we have heard anecdotally from people living at Cambrian Rise for example that they have actually been offered a different rental rate if they don't have a car versus if they do have a car on site so we do know that some projects have begun to implement this even if like Cambrian Rise for example really was permitted before these standards were in place but that's essentially how this is intended to work. I will say and I'll get to this at the very end that your question though is one of the I would say ongoing pieces of this work is just about how we actually implement this and what is the best location for some of these standards so I'll talk about that in just a second. The last piece of the ordinance that was amended in part out of necessity was the section that talks about the institutional parking management plans for those of you that aren't familiar the parking management plans are required by each of the three hill institutions as a way to analyze their demand for parking and how they're meeting it as well as how they're reducing that demand in the past these parking management plans essentially amounted to a parking waiver they would provide justification for why the you know number of parking spaces that our ordinance would have otherwise required was not necessary to meet their demand and would bring a comprehensive plan before the DRB for approval because we no longer require a minimum number of spaces it required us to rethink how that works so now the institutional parking management plans continue to be required for all three of the hill institutions and instead of being used essentially as a waiver process we have strengthened some of the language around what specific types of generators of parking demand we need them to look at and what types of strategies they are providing information on how they are utilizing in order to meet that to meet or reduce that demand the process also requires an annual report and update to the city and re-approval of this plan preparation and re-approval of this plan at least every five years if not more frequently based on the DRB's approval so as we are working through kind of the mechanics of how to update this section of the ordinance we were also asked to consider how to give a little bit more teeth to this section of the ordinance in terms of enforcing the implementation of the plan so there are two new pieces of this and I think the DRB actually saw one of the new pieces of this recently we actually require that the plan be approved as a prerequisite to issuing a zoning permit for development on the institution's campuses as well as a prerequisite to getting a certificate of occupancy and the other piece that we strengthened was clarifying that failure to submit the annual report on performance of the plan is a zoning violation so it really requires the institutions to more closely engage in this process we also implemented a new six-month extension process for the DRB to actually if the institutions are working on updating their plan they can come and request a one-time extension in order to ensure that that plan remains in effect and then as far as next steps um when the original policy was adopted in 2020 the city council budgeted for us our office in collaboration with DPW to actually conduct a transportation demand management study to help us better evaluate the best ways for us to be affecting TDM in the city um this amendment got introduced before we could actually do that work um but it still very much is on our work plan and um we recently uh completed interviews for a consultant that's going to help us evaluate the effectiveness of previous TDM plans and policies best practices for how to move this work forward and then recommendations for you know better or other regulatory approaches that we could take uh to implementing TDM so this will be something that we'll be continuing to work on uh over the coming year so with that I'll stop talking about parking although I know we could probably talk about parking all night any other questions? yeah I think that's actually a great idea for something that we could share in one of these meetings in a future year um I know Scott has been hearing a lot of that feedback um Scott's been involved in helping work with all of the major transportation agencies in the area to provide better guidance for applicants on exactly what qualifies to meet our requirements um but we have not yet received anyone's annual report to demonstrate what the reduction in demand might have been or participation in the programs might have been uh because these requirements are so new um but that is part of what we anticipate that our consultant will help us look at um it's just you know how effective in the first few years of implementation have our existing policies been or what other tools could be used to be more effective right does it shift the mode share yep some other bond other properties that's not being looked at oh I see yep right yep offsite parking yeah yep could I um a project that already has a permit under the old system that has yet to be developed could they go back and retroactively amend their permit with the new maximums yeah I think it extends or it depends uh the extent to which they are amending their permit overall um in the 2020 ordinance amendments we did allow for projects that are in the downtown multi multimodal mixed use district um to actually come back and amend their permit to get rid of previous parking requirements um and that was really an effort to try to make uh or open up more sharing of parking particularly in the downtown where there may have been offsite resources that were precluded from being shared in the past but we do allow that in some places who's developed the requirements and metrics around that where did these come from yeah yep uh the TDM standards that we have in our ordinance right now uh date back to our process of changing the zoning in 2019 2020 um and really emerged from a discussion with members of the public and members primarily of all the major transportation organizations uh about what standards we thought could fit into our ordinance today I think it's always we've always recognized that this is just our first dipping of our toes into the water of regulating TDM and we know it's not perfect um but that's essentially how it emerged you get a a zoning violation by now doing your yearly report of our health act it's going to be that kind of landed back on these boards or the panel is going to straight up the health how will the zoning violation go do you want to talk to that one scar um I think well there's an annual reporting department in front of us because annual reports go to us sorry for for everyone if you're wondering about the mics it's so that everyone remotely can hear us it's you just want to keep the whole thing up I'll just look at the thing of a bob all right so it has that annual uh reporting requirement to us um if for some reason we don't get that annual report we would follow up with the applicant or the owner at the time and say hey you know we haven't seen this what's up can you submit it within you know 30 days and we haven't done this yet hopefully that it happens if it doesn't happen then it follows up with um a notice of zoning violation and that's appealable and that goes to this board I would like to think that based on how violation work typically works friendly outreach to say hey there's an issue here especially for somebody as basic as submitting a report uh would take care of it but uh the way the ordinance is worded it would become a violation enforcement matter if folks didn't submit what they needed to eventually uh neither it's uh well it's not just the institutions and we have tdm light now right so if you're tdm light you don't have any reporting requirement give me a bad look I didn't think there's a reporting requirement no there is a reporting requirement um for even the little ones tdm light for the projects of 10 units are greater there is a an annual reporting requirement for seven years following the implementation of the plan um there are also some requirements that the project manager do some surveys of the tenants or occupants of a building in order to understand their utilization of some of the benefits that are being provided and that information is to be provided to the administrative officer upon request um but the specific issue of the zoning violation I believe that is for the institutional plan the institutional plans um although it might be for both now that I'm thinking about it doing it again so project is approved with tdm they need to provide their annual reports they decide midway through screw you guys we're not doing this anymore our friendly outreach doesn't produce results then it does become an enforcement issue uh with zoning violation and just one more follow-up is the idea for the institutional plans that they would also provide the drb all of those annual reports when they come in for one of the things we struggle with even there they have to be renewed at least every five years but we don't often have a good way to judge their effectiveness yeah that's a great question um I know the planning commission also sees the institutional plans before they come to the drb for approval and that's actually been a topic of discussion for them as well um so it's not explicit in the ordinance but we have tried to improve that process of annual reporting so for example the planning commission saw an update on their first annual report ever um just this past year so that's something that we can talk with scott about as well making sure um that the drb gets those updates as well it seems like it would be the applicant's benefit to give us those four or five years whatever it is in advance or as part of the application otherwise I think we're just asking yeah so you know how things went yeah yeah yeah we could talk about um how to provide those to you as well when they come to us I guess I should clarify I think it's only necessary to give us we have an action to be as part of the five years the next update okay great mm-hmm yeah okay all right I'll move us on past parking then I seem to be having some technical difficulties uh so the next set of policies that we want to share an update with you on uh emerged from the 10 point housing action plan that was announced back in December of 2021 uh this plan supports two major goals related to housing in the city the first goal being to double the rate of housing production over the next five years from the previous five years rate and the second goal was to end chronic homelessness in burlington by 2025 so we're going to share an update with you on just three of the 10 points in this action plan that relate to zoning amendments that you are going to see uh coming forward in the next year uh number eight in the 10 point plan was to explore new housing opportunities through the creation of a mixed youth mixed use district in a portion of the south end and I'm actually going to turn this over to Charles to walk us through this portion are we missing slides no we're not missing slides they're just um what we're going to do is first we're going to go to the south end innovation district we'll come back uh to these slides on trinity campus and missing middle housing and then we'll we'll go back we're a bit out of over here um so the south end innovation district and there are a lot of slides here I will be as quick as I can um this is an idea that came out of the plan btv south end planning process uh that was adopted in 2019 that plan called for the creation of a district in a portion of the enterprise light manufacturing district where arts and the burgeoning office market that exist in the south end could be fostered and continue to grow um notably uh the plan and the community input behind the plan uh stated that residential uses should not be contemplated presently uh in any future innovation district but that conversations in the community should continue over the coming years and those conversations have continued uh and accelerated uh I think with everybody's uh acknowledgement of a housing shortage and crisis in burlington and elsewhere um the idea of and notion of housing in the south end innovation district has uh become popular and I think that in our community outreach and in our discussions with the planning commission and uh Barry sort of nascent discussions with the council I think there's I wouldn't say unanimous but clear support for housing in the innovation district and so this uh district is intended to both foster uh economic growth through arts and innovation in the south end while also being a place where a significant portion of the city's growth can occur and you can see that it would primarily take place on what is now vacant underutilized property including some very large fully impervious parking lots and the boundary of the proposed district is here in orange so essentially from Howard street in the north to just below Sears Lane in the south and from the lake right along hula's property to to pine street um bit of a sort of broken to smile here on pine street but we didn't want to include all of the properties on pine street for reasons we can get into if folks would like to have that discussion and so the intent of the innovation district again is to create a really vibrant urban district I think you know both in plain BTV south end and in our community outreach people are really hoping to see something that is very walkable there's car light um there's a place where it's comfortable and safe to live but also where uh people who are in residence can coexist with arts light manufacturing and office uses notably I would say that this bottom point about you know limiting emissions cleaning our water and fostering a healthy ecosystem I think this is not really an afterthought this has been sort of front of mind throughout our process in creating this zoning amendment so would be thrilled to hear how you all conservation board particularly feel about some of the proposals so again the innovation district as we're conceiving it is sort of a combination of that first generation of plain BTV south end with the more recent housing as a human right action plan that Megan just mentioned so I'm going to really briefly talk about the land use component and an urban form component for the zoning amendment we're sort of calling this a form light form code light it is not as prescriptive as the downtown form code is but it is more prescriptive than the sort of base ordinance so the land use concept sort of divides it creates two tiers of permitted uses permitted primary and secondary the permitted uses are those uses that include sort of multifamily residential uses and things like arts office spaces and some community spaces that were sort of examples of community spaces could be childcare library schools that sort of thing so those are those those uses really speak to the intent of of the innovation district as envisioned in plain BTV south end and then there's this secondary permitted use category and those can only be provided on a site at a one to two basis as proposed today with those non-residential uses in the primary category so for example if a developer comes in and they want to they know they want to develop a 5000 square foot restaurant in their development they would have to provide at least half of that 2500 square feet of any of those uses in the primary category so if we see somebody come in with a 10 000 square foot childcare facility they'd be able to then develop 20 000 square feet of you know any combination of those uses in the secondary category and again this is really meant to sort of balance the need between protecting and preserving and fostering arts and innovation while making room for a vibrant convenient urban district there's a there's a list of non permitted uses but really those are those are those uses some of which are permitted today that simply are not conducive and compatible conducive to and compatible with an urban residential neighborhood heavy manufacturing logistics single family homes there are no homes in the district and no single family homes are allowed either today in the district what is mostly allowed is manufacturing some commercial uses buildings up to four stories and you know 80 lock coverage and a few other standards the urban forum concept regulates a host of things won't go through them all right now but we've had some really productive conversations over the last six to eight months with members of the public and the planning commission that we think have have narrowed in on a on a key set of urban forum strategies so building bulk so we talk about floor area ratio and maximum building footprint so we're proposing a maximum building footprint of 15 000 square feet the Miller center on lakeside avenue across the street is actually just under 15 000 square feet for reference any floors seven and eight would be limited to 10 000 square feet unless those buildings are constructed to passive house standards or other rigorous sustainable building techniques the floor area ratio is proposed at 2.25 increase at 2.5 with the inclusionary zoning bonus of 0.025 to 0.25 this seems low to some people but given the size of some of these properties the building heights allowed we have shown through modeling the site in various permutations that we can fit hundreds of homes in this district potentially even more than hundreds but uh conservatively very easy to to to reach four or five hundred homes on just you know half of the district itself so these are just some examples these are not endorsements of any or depictions of any development scenarios but just to sort of show you what a 2.25 far might look like so this is the 125 lakeside properties just across the street so at an far of 2.25 including 570 parking spaces which is more than one per unit you could get 483 residential units and a significant amount of non-residential space similarly a property on pine street that's just I think just a few acres could easily fit at an far below two 300 residential units and a good amount of retail space is that is that the barge canal barge canal would be just yeah just west of here that's right of that site just west of this site is actually uh the site that is proposed for the the bathhouse and the bowling alley okay so it's the north side of the barge canal east side is the specific property that was just modeled as an illustrative example yeah that's right it's across from the other yeah that's right yeah this is literally just a what the far yeah maybe should have put this text in bold uh yes no this is really just to show what that kind of far looks like because I think for a lot of people um not experts like you find far to be kind of difficult to understand so building height we are permitting buildings up to eight stories in limited locations though so uh and this is as it stands today so any areas depicted in red on this map would permit up to eight stories yellow up to six and blue up to four uh so you can see that we're trying to consolidate sort of the tallest buildings in the core of the district uh to remove height off of pine street to keep it sort of consistent with with the built character today um we've had a lot of discussions about building height over the last month or two so I'm expecting maybe some questions here but we have diagrams on our website and some other presentations that we can share that sort of show what the impact might be uh just for your information the ordinance today actually states that the city's policy is to the extent practicable preserve views of the lake in the Adirondacks from public open space only and that it's very explicit the ordinance is that private views from private property are not to be you know protected uh from taller buildings uh the Champlain Parkway yes you just don't have to yeah I was right uh pervious area so the the base standard is 20 percent so there's 80 percent lot coverage with a minimum 25 percent composed of GSI green storm water infrastructure or that uh pervious amount can be reduced uh to 10 percent if all of that pervious area is composed exclusively of of um green storm water infrastructure that is approved by Department of Public Works setbacks uh minimum zero maximum 20 um initially we had this at 10 but we actually had some you know some stakeholders say you know we've heard from tenants of newer buildings they would like more outdoor seating space so we think 20 is appropriate it still maintains an urban character while allowing more flexibility on frontage so this is the amount of a lot's frontage onto a public street or path that must be occupied by buildings um so we have primary and secondary frontages in the district's primary it's at 80 percent secondary is at 70 percent um so you know these are just this is just an illustrative example of how that might work the the block face on the left is the primary street with an 80 percent coverage and the one on the right uh 70 percent uh lot coverage as occupied by buildings uh ground floor uses um trying to promote active ground floor uses um with the caveat that nationally uh maybe internationally there is a an abundance of vacant retail space in new development new mixed use development particularly i come from a place raleigh that has seen a ton of development uh and uh unfortunate amount of vacant retail space on the ground floor and i think this is true in many cities and so we wanted to sort of think about that and developing these standards um so these amounts can be reduced if developers will agree to to take some different approaches to site design or the program of their development so on the primary frontages that can go down to 30 percent uh active use requirement or or no requirement on the second on secondary frontages one way that they can achieve that is by providing uh affordable uh non-residential uses uh another way is to provide an equivalent amount of uh non-residential space in detached structures so think about the lunegs kiosk uh this is uh on the bottom right this is a i think a development from poland i believe uh a collection of shipping containers that have been turned into a sort of outdoor market um so again if if a building you know wants to exempt themselves from 500 square feet on the ground floor of a building they could construct something equivalent out in the public realm in a plaza on the streetscape that would meet the standard providing active publicly accessible open space at least 4 000 square feet in size located adjacent to that building would allow for that reduction in ground floor use requirements and the last way that they can achieve this is by providing family size units this is a problem nationally as well where many new apartment buildings have only studios and one bedrooms maybe a sprinkling of two bedrooms but it's it's a real problem here in many cities are trying to create family size units and new developments we know there's building code issues uh that i think are at the the foundation of that problem but we want to try and stem that tide a little bit just a few others um minimum we want to be very flexible with the the depth requirements and allow some very shallow spaces acknowledging again that this these could be expensive and that these you know shallower spaces might be ideal for for people like artists who could be living and working in the district uh want active uses at building corners and we want to make sure that buildings have ground floor entries that are reasonable spacing um block perimeter this is something that we've had i would say a pretty good deal of conversation about so we're proposing a maximum block perimeter of 1600 feet uh allowing developers and property owners to create block patterns of their own um but the only requirement is that they can be 16 no more than 1600 feet in perimeter and they can be achieved through any combination of public streets and paths so you might conceivably see blocks created in the district on some of these large blocks like across the street where there's only a block might have one street on one side and all the other sides of the block are multi-use paths uh that sort of thing uh this is just uh to show you sort of dimensionally how 1600 feet lays out on the ground uh in the district uh parking really want to minimize parking but do acknowledge that some people uh do rely on on cars to get around um so uh permitting a limited amount of surface lots and making sure that any parking garages are designed in a way that uh sort of mitigates the negative impacts of parking structures that's it on the innovation district we have an extensive website that's sarah built for us if you have not seen it yet you should check it out there's you probably you could probably answer many of the questions you have right now just on that website but happy taking now can i try one you might not have talked about um this was adding you know hundreds of people and um and cars and no cars but do has there been any traffic studies that would no predict the impact on not only pine street but the new shimpton parkway yeah i know that traffic studies have been done related directly to the parkway and that there there are concerns frankly about some of the intersections lakeside avenue and the future parkway being one um i can't speak for exactly what that data says um the ccrpc the regional planning commission did just complete a study looking at the feasibility of constructing a potential transit station and very large parking structure in the area a while ago right they just completed a couple months ago really okay um and i know there's some data in that report but i don't know off the top of my head what it says well that's my first you know observe observation that pine street right now has periods of time where it's really you know it's really packed up and and will that be relieved by the shimpton parkway or not i mean it's doesn't go direct it's good it'll have it's built in own clog points i think so uh one thing i'll just add to what charles said about studies that have been done so far um is that as part of moving forward with this zoning framework um we are also continuing to do some further planning work in especially in the vicinity of this area around lakeside avenue so we'll be able to explore in greater detail what potential uh development projects that could come forward as a result of this zoning framework may result in in terms of transportation other public infrastructure uh consideration so that's something we're continuing to do as well so do applicants right now um require a parking a transportation study to back up their um increase in use of yeah under our current ordinance i think the majority of the projects that you would see in this area would probably fall under a major impact or maybe even a conditional use project that would require those studies to be provided there is no yet so are the project with that so the way you framed it from it is so yeah it's a great question so the uses themselves we are proposing many of them to be permitted allowable uses not conditionally allowable uses however we are not proposing to change the major impact threshold so i think a lot of these projects would still come before you under that piece but when you're talking about four space exemptions for building temporary stories for certain mass temporary house of house standards are there any other uh conditions for exceptions like that uh yeah well specifically related to that one um if you're familiar with the form coded it also includes lead i think gold and platinum and a few other standards so those also apply this was an older presentation slide um there's no other you know the the pervious surface areas and other sort of incentive based approach to trying to get something more sustainable but with respect to building height yeah it's facet valves mass timber or lead gold platinum a few others where is this amendment in the amendment process uh to your left the planning commission um has been great at really i think helping solidify this and there i think at the tail end uh we potentially will have another discussion this Thursday but definitely on Tuesday yeah we've gone through the public hearing on it we had it the public hearing carried over two different things and we had some discussion and we will have our discussion continuing so it's a detail i would just really like to know what the website is oh we uh if you go to the office of city planning um what is it implemented implementing plan btv on the left i think you click on that and you'll find yeah or if you just google south end innovation district burlington it should be um i believe there's one large landholder that owns probably a good percentage of that area is that landholder on board there's actually a few very large landowners uh the city being one of them right um and then there are a couple i would actually say three individual property owners or groups of property owners that are related uh who own i can't say the percentage of probably 80 percent of the land i'm not sure something like that yes properties that are six to seven acres in size right now yeah and they're on board with this whole concept yeah we so we started this process with uh almost what like bi-weekly at least monthly meetings with a core group of stakeholders they included the property owners uh and we've continued outreach with with most of those folks throughout the process um and i would say we've seen almost no pushback to the general notion there has been some sort of you know heavy tinkering i would say by some of the stakeholders understandably um but yeah i think there's pretty strong support for it um i have another question the the parcel that is owned by the city that's in the area of the barge canal right um i this is just gossip but i don't know if it's true or not but the city is working with the planning commission or somebody or they were talking about trying to preserve part of that as a green space yeah uh yeah there so there so there are multiple city-owned properties there there is some city-owned land adjacent to the barge canal and there it there is some land that you know potentially the city could take control of uh i think the the vision is to preserve the land uh in a way that um allows for continued conservation of the property but also acknowledges that i think the pollution um and the contamination of the property um i don't i wouldn't go so far as to say that it's going to be a park in the future but i think it's one of the options on the table there's a lot of other city-owned property including 68 sears lane the formula homeless encampment is just under three acres the city owns that land uh this property uh and and i think a couple others there's just for clarity the the large piece of land that contains the water of the barge canal uh is city-owned land and is not part of this district it's already in a conservation zoning district and is not anticipated to be changed or developed as part of this work but there's another piece that connects to pine street is there not there are two privately owned parcels between i thought city-owned but no not right now nothing that i'm aware of i think 453 and 501 pine street are both privately owned parcels um and i know that there have been some discussions about ways that we could improve access and connectivity to the city-owned land that's my and what the future kind of use of each of those parcels might be but right now the city only owns that area outside of the orange box that says barge canal there and there are not other other interest in in achieving that same goal but making that green fun there there may be those are not discussions that we're actively engaged in but yeah i just had a question about um how much um we're considering heat um i think um you know there's this a lot of this parcel is a parking lot a lot of there seems like there's a real opportunity as we sort of go forward to do some really constructive work around heat which i know lots of other cities are thinking about the conservation board is embarking on a comprehensive forest plan for the city so that has some you know impact i'm going to talk about that a little bit later on but i do think um it's i do think it's super important for us to think about heat i think you know um and i i haven't heard too much about that and it seems like there's an opportunity to improve what's going on we already have heat maps for the city we know this is a pretty warm part of the city it's just based on having no other green space and i don't know in the long run if the comprehensive and probably none of us know this yet if will the comprehensive forest plan lead to ordinance that impacts this i'm not enough of an ex you know experienced with zoning and ordinance to know how this would all work or whether this is the right place to think about it but i do think that um i think it's really important and i think we're highly likely to have some super super hot spells which um you know like pacific northwest had and so there those things are going to be real and so i think um that there's a lot that can be done about that um there there's a lot of strategies there's a lot of um technical know-how about cooling that involves trees and color and all kinds of stuff and so i'm just encouraging us i don't have an active suggestion for that but i think it's really important for all these folks who are in planning for us to sort out what that combination of trees color you know materials there there definitely is a material discussion that needs to be wanted to be overlaid this that's fundamental concern you know warmth there um you know it's a it's a it's a hard it's a hard thing to impose or enforce the kind of you know materiality not necessarily based specifically on aesthetics but also on you know their return on investment over time sort of you know it's it's um wonderful to put those little sort of dutch you know for you know for story complexes we don't get to that level necessarily very often here so you know it's a question that comes up so often as if we can know is it third degree to which we can start to develop some covenants around but so densities of trees and and and materiality and reflectivity you know so that so that so that it's it's built for you know so that there really is a return to the city on uh i'm a little bit yeah i'm a little bit wary of that that outcome but something that should be i think you know continue to discuss to the extent that it can all right um i hate to cut this conversation because i it's a great one and so maybe let's follow up and have that offline but we should move on and talk about trinity campus so we have a lot of other agenda items so for making sure that zoe and patty each have an opportunity to share what they prepared i'm just going to be very brief and let you know that the two other major zoning amendments that the planning commission is working on right now have to do with trinity campus and a project that we're calling the neighborhood code um so i think many of you know that we have a specific zoning overlay district that applies to the trinity campus within the institutional district so the planning commission is has actually moved forward a recommended amendment to the city council for their consideration that would make a number of changes to primarily to the dimensional standards for what is allowed on the trinity campus changing building height and setbacks in particular as well as lot coverage um to some degree so uh essentially for those of you that are familiar with the campus now there is a large setback from colchester avenue um that precludes development within that setback it's a we say it's about 115 feet from the property line which is about 150 feet from the center line of colchester avenue where no buildings are permitted today so this change would allow some buildings within that setback buildings up to four stories in height and would then allow for taller buildings on the back kind of depth area of the campus so those are some of the most notable changes forthcoming on the trinity amendment and i'm happy to answer other questions if you have them about that uh the last item that is still in the early stages of development is um about new opportunities for neighborhood scale housing across the city so here in burlington we're calling this the neighborhood code in some places you may have heard this referred to as missing middle housing but we're really talking about ways that we can look for um you know more of the kind of mix of housing types that we have seen historically in almost all of our neighborhoods to have a home in our neighborhoods in the future as well we've spent a lot of time in the last few years focusing on the areas of the city that are zoned for the most intense levels of development really in the multi-family and mixed use development end of the spectrum so this is really giving us an opportunity to look at our residential neighborhoods 80 percent of which are zoned for the lowest density residential development today so um through this project we'll be looking at a number of uh zoning issues the first being ways that we can re-legalize existing historic neighborhood patterns that enabled some of these missing middle homes to occur naturally as neighborhoods were developing we'll also be looking to some solutions to common zoning barriers for enabling more of these small and middle housing types in the future we're also envisioning that this could take the form of a form code light for some of our residential neighborhoods really giving us the opportunity to create some more context sensitive zoning tools for these areas rather than relying on things like density alone to help us regulate these neighborhoods and then we'll also be looking at the scale of development that's enabled along some of our major thoroughfares where they run through these neighborhoods so think like North Avenue for example that's zoned almost exclusively low density residential so that's just a quick preview of that work we're currently Sarah's helping us do some analyses of our existing patterns and we will be starting to turn that into brainstorming about some potential zoning changes for that so I'll stop there so that we can move over to Patty and Zoe but take any quick questions about either of those if you have them Yeah that's a great question it originally was not necessarily part of our scope for this project but I do know Andy I don't know if you want to share your perspective about how you want to look at residential zoning standards at all through this project? Sure so we haven't really talked about that one particular but in general the way that I think we ought to approach this is historically there were a lot of zoning codes that would have been put in place because it matched the times and there are some limitations and some restrictions and some just as an example I often use is the accessory dwelling when the city first adopted those like 20 years ago or whatever it was 25 years ago the approach the city took was we didn't want and so they really tried to limit how you could do it well things have really evolved I think and those are the those are the kinds of units that we look at and say for the most part these are great why would you know we may have limited them you know appropriately then but today let's take a fresh look at that so what I've been encouraging you know Megan and Charles to do it and others to do is to just take a look at everything and just see you know what's appropriate for today what's not what changes might there be so you know we haven't gone through any like we haven't looked at war unrelated we haven't looked at as a planning commission I'm not sure what no we haven't either but yeah but just the approach that that I've encouraged at least and I think planning commission has also been encouraged is just really take a look at everything you know who knows what what changes might be proposed but take a look at everything because our policies reason for doing things have changed and we have different tools that we didn't have 10 20 30 years ago so I don't know where this will lead to but I think you start with everything on the table and then just go there all right thank you you still have an important goal but we took on one which was a conversation with the adopted a few things we have the infrastructure that made sense we have the registration process in place we have the registration process in place I have the software in place to be in place I think what was for me uh it thank you um so what was a little bit wonky at least for for us uh prior to the zoning division we learned that the zoning folks were issuing then breakfast so we live in the event of breakfast or traditional you know what people think of as a traditional then breakfast and that definition of traditional breakfast has evolved or that has got to be a short term involuntary have evolved in a couple of circumstances um we it felt like we were trying to sort of think in a round goal and I think there is a kind of both which the changes to the chapter between it's part of the good and our lack and you have to work with a third party to identify the short term rentals that are in our community as well as get a handle on the one based on the ordinance can be long term rentals are anything but so short term rentals in other groups of things long term rentals for us youngs are under 30 days that's the short version we didn't know until we started working with those compliance on the really existed in our city and we kept on working with them to find the contract because it was July 1st short version of the section at the bottom Granite Gits reports to us 282 short term units according to our registration population we have 171 so we're missing and one of the conditions for being short term rental because it is not over occupied exchange or register with us long term I say that so if you get them out there's a this isn't climbing up 100 right but there's about 150 minutes if you go to the graph and there are about 60 that Granite Gits has as short term rentals but they have not been able to actually we're working on that but I think that I have a small team of people that we found with them kind of a pavement to identify some of the discrepancies some of them as you'll see are not really in Burlington some are in Manuski some are South Burlington some are South Burlington and beyond the Parkway so we're teasing out those pieces some of them are still visited as short term rentals but they have a financial purpose to so we're trying to keep out whether they're going to watch those small percentage but we're going to continue to watch those and see if they become after the end of the spring months when there's a more active short term rental population that's a very quieted site here in Vancouver and March so we're going to see some of the ones that's in the org section for the last active three to four months ago which is also into the some into the seasonal rentals we're going to be watching none of them then um oh there's six hotels in Burlington that pop up and they show up on they show up on this report because they advertise through the short term rentals good for them right um and this has really been the crux of my job so there was an expectation versus reality out of the gate we started taking into this in july and got really crazy in august and then had to explore we really expected like our long-term rentals that more people would attempt to register or register and that stopped them with our long-term rentals about 90 percent registered without too much effort throughout the year we may see that come into play or that may take hold next year and the following years we have a lot of time left for us to do the register but we out of the gate saw about 40 percent of what happened which means we need to work through direct outreach um and that's pretty much been the last two months we've been direct out these days answering a lot of questions for people who thought they weren't going to find us trying to start they've started applications in our database and then and uh in the response to that the way that it's written we're not So it's not that it has to be an owner of a type of company, you can be kind of a non-compliance being in compliance in a monthly unit and not live on site by offering or having a use that is the most important of the criteria. The real catch here in this whole thing is that you have one new agent that you register for what you want. What we're finding without getting specific players is that there's a strong group of folks that have multiple units that have been registered to compliance. We really got into the needs of those people because folks have enough resources to do that. The other thing that I would just briefly add to that is that when the ordinance was adopted, it was adopted with a sort of runway, I would say, to compliance. So the council acknowledged that there were going to be some number of these short-term rentals that would not have a legal path to compliance, to a permit in the long term, and gave them until a date, I think it's May of this coming year, to continue to operate. At that point, we would no longer be issuing permits. So I think part of the hope was that people would register in the interim, and that would also help give us better information about how many we could expect to be registered in the long term. So I think the uptake on that has just not been what we expected. We see all these things. Sometimes it's like, that's our job, it's approval. You're going to be a big six-nump. Is there some process beyond that, aside from that, that these things get approved by, or are we all going to continue to be our leaders? Neither. So you're no longer the D.R.B. and B. So you're no longer the D.R.B. and B. So the D.R.B. is the D and B. There will be more, I don't know if that's a question, but there will be three. I did it some time. Essentially. We don't know. Can people please speak into the microphone. I'm having a very hard time hearing your mind. Sorry. So I'll just say, there are a lot of questions that members of the community have, all of the boards that have been involved in this, the council, and a big part of us being able to answer questions about, you know, how many short-term rentals are on owner-occupied properties, how many of them have a legal path, how many have converted, etc. These are all contingent on Patty's team being able to get cooperation and actually get those permit records so that we can answer those questions. But I would say that a lot of what we've done has given us, getting back to what I put together, with respect to the, I'm really expecting that there would be more of my neighbor's good support for what we were doing, and it has not proven to be that supported. We had to come down one recipe from an enforcement standpoint. You need to know what were we doing. We don't have enough of what we, we are in a few cases, but not in the last year. So, I think we've identified a couple of the 60 unidentified properties. The application review is not an instantaneous, and somebody puts information in, it lands in my lap, but at the same time there's other applications that are coming through. So, it's never just one touch, it's always multiple types of communication. We are continuing to answer questions from posts that are learned about the New Orleans regarding, you know, a lot of people did come in in the last few years to get zoning permits, believe that they were covered. And it's not that they're not in good standing, it's that they also need to register at the Georgetown level. The other piece that I told you too early on, I mentioned earlier, is that there's a couple of growing things with what Granikin's gives us, or understanding what Granikin's gives us, where they're getting it from, and making sure they're receiving the same language. We started getting more consistent data, what they call the complete data in September, which sounds like a lot, but it's not one you think is good enough. Next steps, for example, we're going to be keeping out, not to find out synonyms when issuing those tickets because we started where there's better reason to start writing the orders when we do what we've done, in warning folks or talking to folks at some point before it starts going to report. We also will need to chat with the speaker about this at some point here to make sure that we have open news for faculty. And then we'll be reporting back to the mayor and city council about what's working and what's not. Both of that is at the beginning of March. Okay. So I think in your slide. Yeah. And you can just move them for me. I'm happy to just say next slide and you get them up. Oh, maybe while Scott is getting the slides up, I will just let you know that my goal here is to tell you just a little bit about what the conservation board's been up to for like the last 18 months. And I think it's sort of an exciting possibility for the city is investing in nature-based climate solutions. So I know the planning commission has seen the plan and read a little bit about some of this work, but not everybody has. So I thought I would just give like a little bit of a brief introduction about nature-based climate solutions. And this is some work that we had done for us by a local artist when we went through a planning process. And it just sort of runs through a little bit about what nature-based climate solutions are. And you can just go to the next slide, Scott. Thanks. So, you know, the city of Burlington has done an incredible job in investing in climate action work. But it has been really, I think, mostly focused on this one central problem that is not an inclusive problem, which is how do you prevent the carbon that's in the ground in the form of fossil fuels from getting into the air as, you know, as carbon. And one of the things that nature-based climate solutions really looks at is how do you, all the other ways that we can take carbon out of the air and that we can keep carbon sequestered. And carbon eventually is really cycled through a natural system. And so we can't have processes that sort of exclude the natural systems. So you can go to the next slide, please. Yeah. So the classic example of nature-based climate solutions are trees, for example. So trees do this incredible work in which they pull carbon out of the air and they store it right in their bodies. So that's one great thing that trees do. But the other things that they also do is they provide all these ecosystem services, shade, so cooling. They're really important in terms of cooling cities. And they also cool cities by transpiration. So if you have trees all, you know, in your neighborhood, you get the act of cooling through them releasing water out into the world. So we're really thinking a lot about, okay. I was just seeing if someone could couldn't hear me. And can the people at home hear? I assume they can now. Great. Yeah. So let's move on to the next slide. So based on this kind of basic information, what the conservation board decided to do was put together a plan that sort of said, how do we start having nature-based climate solutions in Burlington? What would that mean? What does that look like? And you can actually go to the next slide. And so those nature-based climate solutions focused on sort of six main areas. And I was going to say one thing, but it slipped out of my mind. Let's see if I can get it back. Anyways, you can go to the next slide. Yeah. So, you know, the way that we think a lot about carbon is and the way that we think about climate action is sort of, I think, well identified in this graph. A lot of times when we're talking about climate action, we're looking at that sort of grayed out space that's talking about how do we prevent fossil fuel and carbon from going into the air? But we sort of neglect the whole natural ecosystem that we really need in order to have a healthy and resilient city. And yeah, you can go to the next slide. And the reason, so if you focus on like our net zero energy goals and plans, you know, those things are incredible in terms of the contribution that they do for the planet. But when you think about the city itself, like, are we, are those plans for resilience in the city? I think those are really questions that are worth asking. They don't really address things like heat that we know is coming for us. Burlington is, I think, right now, the seventh fastest heating city in the country. So it doesn't mean we're going to be as hot as some cities that are in the south, but we really have significant heat issues. Oh, somebody says the first up there. It's somewhere. Yeah. So, I mean, it's Vermont is one of the fastest heating states where like I think about four degrees on average, Burlington's something like 3.9 degrees. This is just a heat map right here that shows, you know, who's going to be most affected by heat as it as as the planet as the city starts to heat up. And it's the dense urban core. So, you know, nature based climate solutions are a real opportunity for us to figure out to avoid, you know, through cooling, to avoid putting carbon into the air, but also to make the city much more livable. And I really do think somebody once said to me something that, you know, you can think of last summer as the hottest summer you ever saw, or you can think of it as the coolest summer you're going to have for the next 20 years. And I think that's really worth us reflecting. And so we really have to plan for our city to be resilient. And nature based climate solutions, I think are very high impact and and low cost. And yeah, so a third of climate action, according to the UN should be nature based climate solutions. And the White House just came out with a goal that we should have 20% of all of our climate action should be nature based climate solutions. And this is the document that they just put out ahead of the COP 27 summit this fall. Yeah. And so, you know, there's, there's, there's, if you're a numbers person, there are real numbers behind a lot of these nature based climate solutions. So, you know, within if, if you look at our existing tree canopy, which is about 42%, it has big carbon storage capacity right now. And if we move to 50% tree canopy, and I'm not saying that's what we should do, but that was something that was outlined in our climate action plan in 20 in 2008. You're talking about increased value, also greatly increased capacity to sequester carbon, remove air pollution, we avoid stormwater runoff. And you know, it is when I say that nature based climate solutions are high impact and low cost, a strategy, a strategy like let your trees grow bigger, that's a nature based climate solution. And it that's a really low cost thing to do. So instead of planting a lot of new trees, you can just make sure that some of your other trees get large that. So there's a lot of like really interesting strategy that is very high impact in terms of what you can store in terms of the capacity to cool your city. Next slide. It's the it's the ecosystem services value. Those numbers were generated. We actually worked last year with a graduate student from University of Colorado who generated some of those numbers there from pretty common and used by cities programs. I think the carbon storage is from iTree, which I think was generated by Forest Service and a couple other, but they're like really standard ecosystem service calculators. And they were all reviewed by a number of folks at the University of Colorado who were sort of on the cutting edge of some of that. But I know like in terms of air pollution removal, I think the value is calculated based on avoided health incidents. So and that stuff's pretty significant. And so exactly how you get from the stormwater that you've avoided to the cost. I'm not exactly sure what that is, but it's a pretty standard metric. But anyways, it's you know it is there is real value to the city. And in terms of like having not only trees, but not only street trees, which are really important in terms of shade, but having healthy forests and regenerating forests. So forest, urban forests are almost as important as street trees in terms of urban cooling. So both are really important. Yeah. And so in terms of resilience, you know, we know that not only is it hotter and we are going to have one of these like big heat dome events if it's not next year and five years or six years. And we also get a tremendous amount of water. We, a lot of the city, we have open space in the city because we have a floodplain. This is a path in the floodplain. If you go to the next slide, this is the exact same path in an October storm. When was that Halloween storm that yeah, where Riverside slid. And you know, so we expect, you know, this is in the flood plain, but we're getting these pretty dramatic incidences. And so the value of having healthy ecosystems and really focusing on nature-based climate solutions is to make sure that we have things like, you know, appropriate for us to stop stuff up with, you know, a lot of our excess rainwater. And I guess the thing that I would add to that is one of the reasons to think through how to have these healthy, consistent, resilient forests is because climate change also threatens them. So if, you know, we have pollinators that are in decline, if we can no longer pollinate trees, we can't even grow our urban forests anymore. We have extensive invasive species issues. And so we really need to keep these, we have to pay attention, we have to keep our ecosystems within the city healthy. And so this nature-based climate solutions plan sort of outlines steps to make sure that that continues to happen. And it's got an implementation matrix along with it. And now I get to show you sort of a few of the fun things. Other than Lena and Miles, can anyone tell me, does anyone know where this is? I have a prize for you if you can guess. Would you say? Wow. Does anyone know where this is? Is it a good prize? You'll have to find out. But those of you that are online, you could participate too if you know where this is. Anybody know where this is? This is very close to here. This is the culvert that runs underneath Pine Street right at Champlain Elementary School, that Englesby Brook, the impaired Englesby Brook runs down into Oakledge and into Lake Champlain. And it's incredible. It's full of the old, you know, redstone construction. And you can move to the next slide, Scott. And these are wildlife cam photos from just above there. So there's Gray Fox, there's Wood Duck, there are Wood Duck babies, and there's Green Heron in there. And the reason that I'm talking about this is the good news is we have a lot of functional ecosystems in Burlington. This is one of the densest, most urbanized part of the city with the least amount of green space. And we've got incredible known traffic and corridors moving through there. But there's a lot of threat. And so we really need this plan and this implementation matrix to make sure that we have these areas in perpetuity. And that they provide, you know, incredible services. And then I'm just going to talk a little bit about a couple of projects that are ongoing in the city that are pretty exciting about implementing nature-based climate solutions. So here's one of them that's gotten some attention. It's a collaborative project with the school district and the parks department and a couple of other partners where we are actively growing a tree nursery at Champlain Elementary School. So we started out by planting a wildlife corridor because parks department had some extra trees that needed to get moved from the property they owned near Cambrian Rise. And so they asked the school if they could connect Anglesbury Brook to a piece of, a little piece of patch of forest. And so all the kids were involved in planting all these native trees and shrubs. And then they decided to go ahead and start a tree nursery right on the school grounds. And if you go to the next slide, Scott. So they've been working with the Interveil Center to both collect cuttings and seeds from local parks and to plant them right on site. And all kids have been participating. And it's been an incredible program. On the left, that's a stick nursery. Kids took cuttings from all over a bunch of local parks. And they have something like 500 trees that they planted in these cuttings forms. And they have done incredibly well. If you go to the next slide, that's the stick garden. Now, I think on the right, there's something like 350 willow stems. And then there's like 300 high bush cranberry. And I can't remember what the others dog would to the left of that. So those are all now available for restoration projects around the city. And if you think about the fact that instead of ordering trees from the Midwest that are put in pots full of fertilizer that gets shipped to Vermont, you have kids who are now growing who are fanning out to local parks who are growing trees on school ground sites. They understand the value of native species. They understand why they're doing it. They feel a lot of agency and climate change. It's place based education. It's nature connection. Those willow trees, we're going to plant out. So these were planted last. This is early in the fall. These were planted last spring. And they're going to go into an Engelsby Brook restoration project right there on site. And we so anyways, it's just been incredible process for the kids. The parks department has been really supportive. One of the things that the conservation board is considering is and working with council and the parks commission is can we use some of the legacy fund money to support projects that are similar to this that support nature-based climate action that allow, you know, inclusive participation in climate action that's really doable in the city and makes a big difference. So you go to the next slide. And that's not the only project. There's like a great example project out on Manhattan Drive where DPW cleared out this whole section off the side. It's kind of right as you it's right above the Manhattan landfill. And it's been it's had all these native plants put in there and orchard neighbors have been working on it parks department. These are high school kids planting all kinds of native shrubs. They've been and so, you know, students get a little bit of hands on work. They have an understanding of why the value of planting more trees of nature-based climate action. And they have a lot of connection with their locals with local areas in the city and they spend time outside. So and what's up next for us? The conservation board is working on an urban forest comprehensive plan that the parks department was going to do just a forest plan for the parks. But it seems really important that we think about the city as a whole when we think about our climate action and we think about how much canopy we want to have in the city, how we make sure that our urban forests stay healthy. And so we are embarking with a bunch of partners on a plan for the whole city and that may lead to some ordinance changed based on what we discover through that. And we think that both the nature-based climate solutions plan that we've already written and the urban forest comprehensive plan I hope will be the basis of sort of a next generation open space protection plan. Our open space protection plan is almost 25 years old now and I know it's due to be rewritten in the next few years. So it'll really bear have climate change in mind. And that's it. Or do you have things that we didn't talk about that you want to know about with the remaining time? I think the goal of the reason that I think we're trying to set these plans is so that we can start to do some of that. And I don't want folks to think, you know, I recognize that the city is a place that we should be developing. And so these aren't anti-development goals. What they really are is how do you have a smart effective city with a healthy ecosystem? And you know, there are lots of ways in which our ecosystems are struggling right now. And so there are things like we probably should have a native species ordinance. We know that we have insect decline and bird decline because we don't plant natives and insects need the native species and so on and so forth. So there's a lot of work that we can do and we can build an incentive structure there. But we felt like we needed some of these plans in place before we could get there. So that it sort of builds the science behind sort of getting to a more of an ordnance structure for some of this work. And I think it's really exciting. And I think the the bar is fairly low to doing some of this stuff. The cost is fairly low and the impact is really, really high. But we can't forget about it. We can't think that we can solve our climate problems without, you know, dealing with the fact that we have to have ecosystem health. You know, we have deer in the city that are preventing regeneration of forests. There are credible foresters in at UVM who think that Chittenden County could move towards an unforested state in the near future because there's so many threats. We can't regenerate trees because we don't have pollinators. We can't regenerate them because we have deer eating them down. We have invasive species so they're not making them. They never, they never can get out of the, you know, into the canopy. So these are the kind of real threats that we're thinking about and thinking about how do we mitigate them. And they're important, you know, it'll be one hot city where your crops will not grow if we don't really consider this kind of stuff. So normally this is where we would hear about the need to have updated short-term rental regulations. But since we've taken that off your plate, I don't know if there's anything else that anybody wanted to bring up. It's fine if not, if you're ready to leave. That's I like that. Yeah, definitely make sure to talk in the mic. So we recently approved the Demolition of 50 Trolls and 50 Fines for you. Leaving aside what just that, what the status of the church gave to the zoning standards that we're going to apply, zoning regulations, escape that for extorted properties. They have the five-year register for eligible registration that includes, even through some criteria. And, and requirements, federal standards by catch-all prohibition of similar broader debt that allows properties that are less than 50 years old that have clear architectural work and sports dividends to be eligible for listing. And they can move us and think about benefitting properties that are clearly properties that change sports dividends. Given the fact that we'll classify as probably too many states only have been stored in use of definition and the implementation of things that are relatively contracted or sheds behind people's homes. I think it was frustrating not to have that ability to consider. Understood. Thank you. Yeah, I know we've had conversations too with Scott and Mary. I don't either of you want to speak to that, but certainly a historic preservation plan is something that is on our radar for the very near term. And in my view and in the discussions that we've had, one of the important elements of that is for us to use that opportunity to identify the things in our community that really are important, that we really feel we need tools and opportunities to conserve and allow to evolve and maybe to identify the things that are not serving us as well in terms of our ordinance structures and other tools. So I think what I hear you saying is that this kind of fits right into that discussion. I think this comes up a lot too when we talk about renovations of properties, materials, things like that that you all have dealt with a lot as well. So that's certainly something that is a high priority on our radar to begin soon. And I would envision that then informing ordinance changes as well. I think there's a real authorizing historic representation and trying to adapt any of that that's reaching to addressing this and they'll have the Georgia Rectals small scale how the initiatives are going to be used to help with the development of, there's plenty of units that look forward to having the work that we have for this process to prepare. That's really interesting kind of phone hanging through the box. All right. Thanks, Brad. Any other topics? All right. Great. Thank you all for the time. Thanks for those of you that joined online. Sorry for the audio issues, but thanks for sticking with us and participating. I know. Hey, listen, if you want to come Hey, come on over. And then all of a sudden, it's done. Okay. I have a whole site. I feel like I'm in a position where I'm going to see you. I've been in a lot of education and games for the last year or six years. So excited because I feel like I don't know that much about it. And I'm like, yeah, I really love the general practice.