 Okay, so we'll officially call the meeting to order any changes on the agenda for tonight Not for me. I don't think so All right, so let's see public comment anyone from the public out there. There's no public All right We're gonna approve the previous meeting minutes. I think the only well we'll start with February 8th Since I think Abby and Tommy were at that one. That's correct And I happen to have been there too, right if the minutes are correct And Sarah you can vote or not vote whatever you want to do and so do I have a motion to approve the minutes of February 8th With any adjustment motion. Okay, Abby you're gonna second that. Sure. All right any changes or edits Okay, then all those in favor of the minutes, please say aye or raise your hand or whatever Okay, that's approved. Okay, and actually Connor just joined so We I guess depending on how people feel about approving or yeah approving minutes that meetings they didn't attend I'll I'm not sure Abby Tommy or Sarah how you feel about that, but We may be able to take action on those meet those minutes as well So Connor and I were at the last meeting. So actually Brendan just joined as well online. Oh, perfect Look at that Better late than ever. That's right, and he should be showing up there. He is okay It is Brendan. Okay. We started the meeting Brendan and Connor and we're on the approval of the minutes from February 22nd So and I know Connor and Brendan were there with me So would one of you like to make a motion to approve the minutes with any edits? I Didn't see any edits What's that? So I didn't see any edits. So I'll make a motion. I'm yeah, but if there are any so approve the minutes Yeah, with any edits. So Connor you do that Brendan second it Yes, I'll second it Any corrections to the minutes? None for me Okay, then all in favor of approving the minutes. Please say I or raise your hand Okay, this why okay anyone want to abstain Tommy and Joe No one's gonna vote against it. I'm assuming so okay that passes. Thank you everyone So caught up on the minutes. Sorry just to make sure I get a vote correct on that as far as I Think I had three in favor no one against in two abstentions Just I think you had technically five. I think you had five five including me Well, thank you We have all seven members right now. So two are Technically non-voting alternates, but if people are abstaining or not voting then those alternates can vote So And like you don't vote so I won't vote then so we so it'd be a four zero. I presume four zero. Okay Yeah, well, that's how we'll call it. Okay. Thanks. I will call it All right Next is a public hearing on amendments to the unified land use develop regulations zoning map and text 32 Malis Bay Avenue and 21 Hickok street I have a motion to open the public hearing So my Is there a second? Okay Abby and Tommy Is there any public out there? Uh ray coffee is here, but there's no public You know, all right. We're not counting ray as public. So Ray any comments you want to make So I can also walk through the amendments just so folks are Clear as to what it is that we're doing um in case ray is stepped away from his computer briefly or doesn't feel like he wants to say anything There we go. Sorry. I was trying to figure out how my phone worked I'm in the uh in the lobby at regal gymnastics. I apologize No, no specific comments. I think the discussion at the last meeting was pretty informative and Nothing nothing more to add for me at this moment. Okay Eric you want to run us Briefly through it. I can we can also close the hearing first if you want It's up to you if you want to leave it open while I do this and let's leave it open while you do that So yep, I'm going to do a quick screen share here Or a screen share. Maybe not very quick, but it'll be a share nonetheless um, okay, so the amendments that are proposed are really related to the it primarily impacts the Gateway zoning district the form-based code Related to the designation of the o'brien community center building as a civic Designated building and also some amendments to the text to kind of help shore up Shore that up as well. So also it includes a zoning map amendment for 21 hickok street, which is currently Where the community gardens that are utilized by the o'brien center o'brien community center are located so Um, there's a couple of areas of cleanup in these amendments as well that are not related to this They're more just cleanup because we are opening up these sections So the first main amendment is to the civic use category striking all the the kind of um Potential use types under this section and referring to part nine under definitions Um, similarly just clearing up some language under civic as a development and performance standard Under definitions a couple of cleanups for other purposes on accessory dwelling on civic use building And adding a definition of green roof And then the big change is Under the use the category of use civic Bringing in specific uses that we discussed at the last meeting The only amendment that I would offer to this definition is that We add the word family before child care facility. So it reads daycare or family child care facilities uh, the main reason i'm suggesting that is because that that's consistent with What statute or how statute refers to those uses? And also how our definitions or other definitions in our regulations are also written And we'll talk about that more under the the next agenda item where we look at specific changes. So um, that's the only amendment that I would offer is just to To add the word family before child care facilities for consistency with statute Everyone okay with that? Who Joe you have audio great I have a new computer Oh Wonderful um And then oh sorry go ahead mike. No, no, I was just gonna say okay. I would say add it Oh, okay, and then just to show you the map as we are required to include the map component Uh, let me zoom out a couple bumps here. So here is the o'brien community center property 32 mallets bay avenue as it is now with 21 hickock street Uh, the proposal would uh and the neighborhood manners boundary around 21 hickock street The proposed amendment would Change the zoning of 21 hickock to gateway. It would relocate They would remove a neighborhood manners boundary on the north end the I guess the east end technically of 21 hickock Move it move a the neighborhood manners boundary to that common boundary with The residential c zoning and then designate the actual building footprint as a civic use building Uh, I just so to be clear We don't need to add in Areas of future expansion of you know on the building footprint The fact that it's currently designated as a civic building Or the the fact that we are designating it as a civic building or proposing to Is enough to allow for it to be amended and changed and uh move forward similar to the way that the the the wunewski school complex was designated as a civic building and then they made Some significant renovations and additions Um as as they needed to so we don't need to be concerned with What the future footprint of the building will look like Provided that the existing footprint is designated as a civic building Um, otherwise those are the amendments for that are being proposed for this process Eric can I assume that when they do the addition for the library that will also be a civic building? Yes. Yep, that's right. Yep. We probably won't adjust The the designation at that time just because it requires an amendment like we're doing now So, uh, we would probably cover that in a future amendment Okay So any questions from anyone about what we're proposing? Like the outline of the building Includes an area that is like a shed and a walkway right now Is this because it is actually inclusive of what the expectation is when the library addition happens Let me Are you talking about Up here on this end? Yeah, that shed right there that your your curse is over and the walkway in between the shed in the building Is all like a blacked out area On the map you just showed us. Yeah, that's a good point. Uh ray. Maybe you can speak to that I think that will be future library Area or future building of some kind Correct. Yeah, the intent at this point with the new development As we've been sort of mapping it out would be that the addition Of the new library and some peripheral spaces are community services offices and then some other social service offices would actually go The the new current library would be demolished and we would add an about roughly 500 square foot addition that would go sort of As far to the boundary there And then push back through the 21 Hickok lot So that area where the current greenhouse is and where those storage containers are now Would be part of the new building Okay, but this footprint that we're looking at Is in the expected footprint of the new building. It's just sort of encompassing what's currently Correct. And I'm imagining because the greenhouse is sort of active space. It may have been included in that that blacked out box there Okay Thank you And the Hickok won't be garden space anymore. It potentially could be a building. Is that what you're? Correct. Yeah, the hope is that that will be part of the new addition And so we'll there's um currently 15 garden plots on that parcel the 21 Hickok parcel that we will be finding a new Home for somewhere in our community garden program I just have a quick question to interject here Um, Mike, maybe you can lend some insight on this How did the city ever end up acquiring the o'brien's center? Is my understanding was that the pomerlo family used to own this? Yep How did that how did that transpire? Well, I think I'm trying to think back how it transpired, but um The the As I recall that the shopping center Had lost tenants. I guess And I think palm lows. I don't think came to the city or or the city approached them about Buying it and making it a community center And money was raised Rich Tarrant was the primary donor And yeah bought it. I I don't really know like I said, I don't recall what the specific circumstances were if Pomelos came through the city or vice versa But they sold it to us Okay, yeah If you if you remember any more details about that, I am interested to know how this this came to be so okay Thank you. I'll try to unlock those Memories I can try to dig around too. Joe. I don't I've those before my time as well. So I'm not sure how that all came to be, but um Yeah, I'll see what I can find Okay, just from my standpoint. It's worth knowing as far as context. So thank you Ray that gerry mires might be a source Yep. Yep. Yeah, he was one person I was thinking might know Yeah, he was a manager at the time. I think Uh-huh. Yeah And he's a lot younger than me. So he's got a better better memory I say that he's one year younger than me, but Hey years a year Means a lot Yeah Okay, so So I'm a motion to close the public hearing. I'm assuming there's no public yet. There's no public I'll make a motion Okay, is there a second? I'll second. Sarah. Okay. All in favor. Please say I Or raise your hand or whatever. I All right. So now we're looking for a motion right to approve Or do we approve it tonight Ray or do we have to wait till the next meeting? So So no, so what you're doing tonight is um If you're if you're ready to you will make a motion to forward the amendments on to city council for their consideration With any changes if you so choose to make changes Yeah, either the one that I suggested or others Okay, so do I have a motion to move this on to the city council for their approval? Uh, if I could I I would move it with the one change to Fam was it family child care centers? Yep. Eric. Yep. Yeah, I would move so move Okay, is there a second? I'll second Okay, Tommy any further discussion or any Changes that someone wants to bring up Hearing none all those in favor. Please say I or raise your hand Hi, I'm gonna abstain just because I haven't been in the conversations. Okay Joe, were you a yes or a did we lose Joe? Uh, he's still here Or he's I see is online Joe, can you hear me? His mic is showing that it's on But his camera is showing that it's off which equates to what we're seeing Right. So Well, I think I had another yes is on that to move this on So did every Sarah you abstained everyone else said yes. Is that right? Yeah Yeah Any no If Joe can hear us, maybe he wants to put it in the chat Do you like calling or guys new new computer can With Up for a minute You know, um, oh, I do think we have one at least. Oh, there he is There is Joe, can you still hear us? Yes Oh, were you a yes or a bit or on the vote to approve the uh moving it forward to the city council? Yes, yes, okay all right So I think it's whatever One abstention everyone else. Yes Okay. Okay. Next is continued discussion of u l u r U l u d r amendments really the statutory changes. Okay. Thank you very much So we are going to continue on with our discussions here. So what I'm going to do is Uh, share my screen again, and I'm going to highlight a couple of quick changes Maybe not quick changes, but a couple of small changes that we discussed Uh, since the last time we've met with either all of you or some of you. So Um, we got through at our last meeting Uh, we got through basically The rest of article two and article three and article four. Uh, yes the bulk of article four We had a couple of questions and a couple outstanding items Uh, that we needed to revisit. So I'm going to highlight a couple of those Now and if you all want me to stop to talk about anything else, please Please do so. I know some of you are not at that meeting. So I want to make sure that Folks are comfortable with what's being proposed. So Um, just starting in article two Again, um nothing major change wise from the last meeting except for on under the use table under Uh, which one family child care facility This was previously listed as a, um I don't know that it was listed as a use at all or sorry. I don't know that it was listed under The gateway small apartment category. So I've added that in as a conditional use For consistency with other the other child care facility uses So, um Just given that it's basically that's what we're proposing for all the other residential Uh use categories I wanted to add it there as well to make sure that we didn't leave it out of a of a specific category. So That has changed Um I don't know that we changed anything else in the use table Hey, Eric. Yep Just a quick question because you got you got family child care facility as a conditional use Family child care home as a permitted use. Is that because statute? So it's based on the definition of what those uses are So the family child care home is more of like a home occupation Where you okay where you're you're hosting children in your own house Where the family child care facility could be a separate like business type facility So it's it's based on the definition and um when we get into article five tonight If we do get an article five tonight, I'll highlight some of those specific changes So it'll make more sense. Those are to the to that point though, Mike These are the statutory I guess the statutory terminology that's used as far as daycare facility family child care facility family child care home That's why they're proposed the way they are Okay Okay Then we talked A lot about the dimensional standards. So since the last time We talked at the last meeting about the public use and how there was no Lot sizes being shown. So we've added in the terminology of no minimum So just to indicate that if it's a public use And just for reference, there's I think we only have four Properties in the city that are designated public use And I think they're all owned by the city and they're all parks So we wanted to at the last meeting we talked about the fact that if a Portion of land happens to become available or that the city owns that is Basically not usable. It could be designated public and would have no minimum lot size To to to for the requirements Also, the uses that are allowed in that public category are extremely limited. So There's not really anything that that uh The use categories that are permitted there are Yeah, they're they're very limited. So not much not much development can happen in those public designations anyway, so Then before you move on It looks like the minimum setback maybe got You got flipped. Um, I don't think you were proposing changes in the setbacks Or maybe you are but we looks like they got flipped did propose changes in the setbacks. Yes Reducing basically reducing the setbacks Based on a lot of what the development standards are currently in the city So we did propose I believe we talked about that several meetings ago reducing the setbacks For the primary structures in the Uh in the residential ab and c districts To match more closely with what's actually out uh on the ground because um Front 10 side 5 rear 5 to 5 5 ton and I just don't understand why we would Before decreasing setbacks. Why are we increasing the rear setback? It just Yeah, the rear setback currently is For the primary structure Uh is 15 across the board for all the districts. So we're actually Okay I see that. Okay. I was looking at the accessory structure instead of the primary structure So we across the board reduce setbacks. That's correct. Okay. Yep Yeah, generally about the feet for each of them Um Eric could you maybe speak to I I know there was recently an uh I don't know if it's defined as a detached cottage or an ad you or both but um one built on um Believe it's west spring street Um, that's I'm now noticing there are like basically three ad us that are clustered together and they're Pretty close. Um And just kind of wondering How how that kind of how they interact with one another Yeah, so the ad you on spring street It it was permitted as a as an accessory dwelling unit because the property is owner occupied and it's a single unit dwelling Uh, right that that structure is Five feet from the property boundaries. So that one is consistent with our current regulations Um, I believe the other structures that are around it are all within that five setback So I think the other properties are technically non conforming with their setbacks and and the structures that are on it So that's why it has that really kind of crowded in feel to it And that that's kind of what I was wondering because like just seeing this as built like Quite frankly, it strikes me as a little bit of a fire hazard because there there are three buildings that are so independent But so close to one another a little bit like um the parcel that was at the corner of Stevens and main were like An incident occurred in one and spread to all the structures. Yeah, we we the so our fire marshal that to that point Joe our fire marshal was uh was on site on multiple occasions reviewing the the setbacks and I believe they added some additional Um structural components for fire blocking in that new building to make sure that a situation like that wouldn't if if one of the adjacent Structures catches fire that there would be some additional protection for the the new structure to make sure that it wasn't as as adversely impacted Okay, I'm just bringing it up because we we kind of talk about this in a hypothetical But actually seeing it as bill is a little different than looking at the metrics here. Yep. Yeah I've noticed I've noticed the same thing about that property. It does feel like it's really built upon and like I My curiosity was also around like the 50 lock coverage like And how and I had a resident bring it to me about like maybe The definition of the of what lock coverage or open space requirements are might need a little more refining but um Like is a deck over a grass considered not coverage or stairs You know, so I was wondering how that Property also wasn't more than 50 lock coverage Yeah, I'd have to I'd have to look back at the at that specific site plan But they were able they were able to to remain under the 50 lock coverage and the way that I evaluate lock coverage is any structures Including decks I I count towards lock coverage So accessory buildings the primary structure I also count driveways and walkways and things of that nature as part of sorry walkways are not because they're exempt From the regulations presuming it's more it's it's literally just to serve access to To the the door not a a big paved swath of something so But driveways are included in that we include things like swimming pools as well that would count as lock coverage Um, it's I think it's spelled out in our definitions what we all what what is all considered lock coverage um, generally if it's if you're putting in stairs that are uh Simply to access the property that is those are exempt from zoning and so they do not require a permit Which wouldn't count towards the lock coverage, but again That's really just if it's a stair a set of stairs and some sort of landing that's not considered a deck or or The amount of landing that's needed to meet building code is what we would Allow to be to be built without a permit and not count towards lock coverage Is that definition in part of what we're reviewing or is that a different section of the code? It's so there's not any changes proposed to that it isn't it's in the definition section in article nine Um, I believe we made some changes to that several years ago but we we can look at that because we are going to be looking at The definitions so we can revisit the definition of lock coverage as well if you so desire, but uh It's not included with what we're looking at tonight Yeah, here's a I don't know. I guess this is kind of how I read this. Um, if if you're building a structure that's adjacent to a non-conforming structure Shouldn't there still be the same setback like just as far as like spacing um for instance like if you had a non-conforming structure built to like The the lot line or perhaps even extending over the lot line like shouldn't be spacing be like I don't know like shouldn't it be like for instance, there would be 10 feet between those structures regardless Well, I think the challenge there is that we would be adversely impacting A property that doesn't have a structure on it Or we would be there would be a greater impact to that property because they would then have to absorb a setback That is not on their property as well You know, this is this is an old city. So it's it's a very built-up city and there's a lot of non-conformities out there So, um, you know a lot of the development predates the the city's land use regulations so a lot of this is We're we're trying to catch up to some extent as new buildings come in and some of those non-conformities are altered or changed They we require they become conforming. So um I don't know if there's a way that we can write the regulations to say that If there's a non-conformity on an adjacent property that your property then has to Increase it's it's setbacks or offsets to accommodate for that non-conformity on on another property I don't know that we can impose regulations on one property because of something that's happening on another property I don't think we can and I don't think I would want to see that you need them personally Is that what you meant Joe the neighboring property adjusting? Yeah Yeah, because I mean in theory there should be 10 feet between those buildings, right? What's your concern Joe? Oh just as far as like structures that are too close together like as far as like Like like we're just saying like if if you look at that it will strike you as that instance There's jets Um, it will strike you that like for being non-contiguous buildings, they're really close together In a way that strikes me almost as unsafe or maybe not So can you not not necessarily good planning but Can you walk through between the buildings? Flying over me now Is there enough space to walk between There So in that particular instance the west spring street the The the new structure is set Um, I think it's actually set slightly more than five feet off the property boundaries So there is space to get around it And again as I mentioned our fire marshal Our fire marshal was out on site when they were before they even poured the the foundation of that to evaluate And to make sure that there were safe clearances around it and that all of the potential building code issues were being met To some of that point there's I don't believe there's any windows on the back or side of that Structure where it is adjacent to the other properties So it's solid walls on both of those on both of those faces to to help with Uh fire protection and fire safety And is the green space I don't know how to ask this question exactly but Is Is is green space is there any kind of requirement to have it be open? Or can it be little alleyways between all the build between the buildings? I mean, I guess I mean I could see that you'd have these sort of dark alleys that Yeah, they're green but Do they actually able to grow anything as far as lot coverage is concerned? We do not have specifics on On where people can put buildings as long as the setbacks We we don't have any requirements for specific contiguous patches of Of lot coverage So we call it green space, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to grow green space because it could could be in the shadows Is that well, it could also be it could also be Mulch it doesn't necessarily have to be grass or green space. It can be as long as it's not built as long as it allows As long as it allows water to penetrate and to be absorbed into the ground that is basically the only requirement that it needs to have You know going back to Joe's question, I wonder if the way around it is I don't know if you can do it in zoning or not, but If someone has a situation where they've got a vacant lot And properly on one side I'll wait till they stop Yes, I can hear them, but they're not right overhead I didn't hear what you said mic. I'm sorry I'm waiting for the planes Comes another one We're gonna have to learn sign language here I think that I think I hear another one coming So what I was saying, can you hear me Joe? Yep Yep What I was saying is to your point is maybe if you've got a If that's a vacant lot next to a property that you know is built right up to the the line maybe Somehow you encourage them to site the the building On the other side of the lot. So between the non-conforming structure and They're building maybe that's where the driveway goes and I don't know And then yeah, I said doesn't sound like anything they want to put up a house Or a building do they need site plan approval for anything or can they just do what they want? It depends on what they're proposing if it's a if it's a single unit dwelling or an ad u for example They do not need site plan approval for that They just as long as they're I mean they need to submit some kind of a site plan But they don't need to go to the development review board for site plan review as it's outlined in our regs Would it be possible to say whenever whenever possible we encourage, you know In a situation like this we we encourage Keeping a minimum of maybe 10 feet is it put a driveway there or something Well, I'll say for this particular project We we worked with the property owner quite extensively to to cite it as far away from the other structures as we could And still not and still have usable space on the property. So it's I mean that's That's a unique situation of how that came about so Um, well, and I'm not talking about that one specifically. I'm just talking if it comes up in the future that you know, maybe somehow there's that To make sure that there's that communication With the city so that you can encourage them to you know, hey Keep a little more space. I don't know. I'm just yeah, I popped it by head We what's that when when when these projects come in like we work with the property owners to figure out the best way to Sight them and make sure that there's clearance and that fire safety can have access all around the building to what they need Uh, and all those things and you know, I I rely on them as the experts in their field to to make sure that they're comfortable with what's being proposed So so to me that kind of answer the question is is you do have some input And so you can if it's a situation where it's that close Yep, you could say hey, how about you cite it a little bit over this way? Yep, absolutely And and that's I guess that's why I'm bringing up the issue is because as you said We do have many non conforming structures in the city So we're going to see more instances of this phenomena and as you described there's basically like Windowless structures on those sides with a dark alley between them. Yeah, so kind of I could I could tell you that's not a good thing I grew up in a house where our house was about five feet from my great aunt's house And we both had windows on either side because they used to spy on us make sure we weren't you know doing anything crazy Yeah, it was tough to have parties with my parents who are out of town. I'll tell you that Um, all right, so the other Uh, also at our last meeting we discussed the accessory structure table Um, I believe the only change from the last time is related to to note four and I'll look to Brendan and Connor and Mike since you guys were involved in the discussion Um, what I did here is basically I rephrased this a bit so that it so for the rest of the folks we had a discussion around um 80 use versus uh Um Just a regular accessory structure um, and so What I try to do is clarify a bit that a An accessory an accessory dwelling Could be up to 20 feet in height unless the primary or principal structure would allow a greater height Um, that's all related to the maximum height of an accessory structure that right now It's listed at 35 which is the same as the primary structure. So this is now a A reduction saying that it can be up to 75 feet of the primary structure But no less than 10 feet so that it can in essence be a usable accessory structure If that's just for example, it's a ranch house that's only You know 12 feet tall 15 feet tall. So this will give some Some relief for that in except in the instance of an accessory dwelling Which could be up to 20 feet tall to allow for a second story or something like that. So yeah, abby I see you've got your hand up Um, yeah, sorry one other thing about the setbacks Is going from the 15 to 20 foot setbacks that exist in the code right now to what we've updated to the 5 or 10 feet Is that limiting our ability to improve sidewalk infrastructure or install? sidewalk infrastructure So the I would say no because the setbacks are so the the sidewalks are Are typically in the right-of-way and are Not on private property even though generally private property owners maintain the green belt in front of their houses I don't think we have any situation where the sidewalk is on private property They're all in the right-of-way. So the property boundary actually starts behind the sidewalk Okay. Thank you. Yep So, uh, yeah, so going back to the accessory structure So, yeah, basically I should back up here for the rest of folks that yes as I was saying the maximum height currently is 35 feet Which is the same in the residential districts, which is the same as the primary structure So I've proposed A new standard that would be 75 percent of the primary structure Um, but no less than 10 feet for an accessory structure in height And then except for the central business district where they could do a 25 foot tall accessory structure Because the maximum height there is 60 feet right now. So um That would give some some relief, but we didn't I didn't think that 75 percent of the Of 60 feet would be a good number either. So gave it a smaller cap And then just some notes about what all this means in particular note for that if An accessory dwelling is being proposed. It can be up to 20 feet tall That's partially based on the way that we measure height of a building where we measure it to Either the If it's a flat roof, we measure the whole building If it's a pitched roof We measure to the average of the the edge of the basically the cornice of the the wall to the Um to the peak of the roof. So we take half of that. So the 20 feet is really to allow for in essence a An eight to nine foot first floor entrance and then some gap between the stories and then a Eight foot tall second story to get that height that could actually be livable space I'm an error. I recall this footnote for Yep about an accessory dwelling unit being maybe up to 20 feet Unless the primary structures would allow for more less weight a second correct But the point of that right is an accessory dwelling unit is adding more Housing right and so we want to allow greater height for that as opposed to An accessory structure like a garage That's correct Yes, and We need to pause for a minute Yeah and typically Typically what I've seen is that if somebody is putting an accessory dwelling on their property They're generally designing it as a two-story building just because the The lots are typically too small to put in just a single floor or a single story building So they're typically building them as two stories to to be able to shrink the footprint enough to fit on the property Uh conveniently So that's why the the allowance for the additional height for an accessory dwelling Eric are you saying this section? Sorry, I may have missed it is um hovering accessory dwelling units and Like to and I guess to me an accessory structure sounds like a garage a shed something like that Are we addressing 80 years with in this too? I get the height thing that we just discussed But are we saying that it's the same setbacks? as an accessory structure So it would be so an accessory dwelling unit can take on two forms It can be a detached unit or it can be attached to the building So in the instance of where it would be detached from the building Then it would be considered an accessory structure as well as an accessory dwelling So it would need to follow these standards for an accessory structure as well as Being an accessory dwelling Okay, and then we have under like our our land use table permitted slash conditional use Yep Did have did you guys get into that discussion or will we today? I'm hoping we will get to that today. The reason is so you'll also notice in the land use table We're removing detached cottage as a use which is a conditional use So pretty much what we're doing is is basically saying an accessory dwelling unit is either going to be permitted Which is the way that statute treats it as when it's a single single unit owner occupied dwelling versus a non owner occupied property or if there's more than one dwelling on it So that's how we've that's how we viewed them previously and but we've called The non owner occupied single unit dwelling a detached cottage with with slightly different standards But that's we're basically combining the two into one and so if it's Well, anyway, we'll get into that later. Hopefully we'll get to that point Gotcha. Thanks. That's the goal Um, so any other questions on this section? Um Sorry going back to the setbacks the chart before if you were to have so the buildings along The west side of the roundabout for instance are all next to each other They're you know, they're literally attached to each other. Yep If something is say one of those structures is taken down does the side setback? So they're their business district So they have no setbacks So they have no setbacks and if somebody else wanted in a different area To build buildings that were adjacent to each other there is that possible or not not under they need to get a waiver from the setbacks And okay, there's only soaked relief that can be granted from the development review board With the waiver process Yeah, okay I mean It might be a good thing because I'm worrying about these sort of little five foot alleys between things I wouldn't want somebody who actually wanted to put the building right up to an adjacent property and Could work that out to not be able to do that. You know what I mean? Eric Is there a provision? I think there's a provision in our statute Uh, they normally are if a building is destroyed by fire or Acts of God a lot of times it has they have a certain period of time to rebuild exactly where it was, right? Yep, that's right. They've got six months to do that or six months to pull permits. I should say Yeah, so in that case if if There's a non-compliant structure and it burns and they rebuild it. They can stay right where they were That's right Yeah, that's right and that and the farm based code areas of the city you can You have that flexibility to build Units next to each other like that Generally speaking yes Yes, along the gateways for some of the some of the building form standards do allow for that. Yeah So, okay And then that is the only other change for this section that we did not previously talk about So any question any additional questions on that? Okay So then looking at article three a couple of items to highlight since Eric. Yep. Sorry. You skipped over Section 2.6 2.7. I just had a real quick question. Oh, sure. Uh, hang on. Let me I just closed that. Let me bring it back up. Sorry You said 2.6 and 7 Yeah, it's time at the residential that you know that residents a b and c. Yep And I'm just wondering why given the given the um Goal of the city council, I guess In residential c you you talk about infill development, but you don't talk about infill development and Residential b specifically and maybe even residential a Should there be the same verbiage? Um, I mean we could add that I don't I don't know that it really matters I think this is really more just a general kind of overview of what the district is intended for and We don't really use this for anything specific necessarily I mean, there are some references to it in like conditional use review, but um I typically I don't look at these when I'm reviewing projects to see if it if what is proposed is consistent with the Kind of the purpose of the district Yeah, I mean we can add that but I don't I don't know that it's necessary I don't know if it is either. I was just thinking when I was reading through it That it's in residential c and you know the council is looking for more housing So Well, and you may not use it. I may not use it But someone who's looking to do something will look at it Yeah, and some of that's also going to be dictated by the actual uses that we permit So that you know, we're not permitting any type of large multi unit developments in any of those districts anyway, so They're going to be limited to what type of infill they could even do based on the use table So which actually is going to carry more weight than some of the descriptions. So If you don't want to do it, that's fine. I just I read it and I was wondering why it wasn't there. That's all Yep, and I see abby shaking your head. So I'm guessing she's not interested in doing it either I think it adds anything. I think it just you know, the It's been an evolving discussion about housing in these three districts and what they look like and how they look like And we're spending all this time defining that that I don't think there's any benefit of adding it And it might just add confusion because there is like this shift to making sure we're getting priority housing not just all housing Yeah Okay, that's fine. I Okay All right. So moving on to article three. These are so these regulations are specific to the downtown core zoning district Which is really just downtown. So Not a lot of changes here mostly related to act 47 And just some other clarification and cleanup. So On the use the permitted uses this line three here is really more just to For consistency with the use table and with statute So just adding in the additional language there Line nine was a change based on a comment that sarah provided to me a little while back and also for consistency with How we're defining some of these terms and how we're using them in other sections. So that's really more just a cleanup The the majority of the amendments in this section are all really just for clarification I'll say so I'm just going to roll through this. So stop me if you want to talk about any of it That is in red and I'll stop at some points too So here's a bunch of changes here Basically what we're proposing here is to eliminate all the parking standards for downtown except for residential uses and lodging establishments So any of the commercial uses any of the you know, it's a downtown So it should in my opinion should function as such and we have an 850 space parking garage That exists now and we're in the process of building a 300 space garage. So there should be enough And there's also on-street parking. So between those Three aspects there should be enough parking to support the non residential uses where you're just you're going to see high turnover anyway Um and is consistent with a downtown environment So proposing to eliminate the minimum parking standards For all the uses except for residential uses and lodging establishments And that eliminates then the need for a shared use Quotient as well And then I've added in the bicycle parking standards to be consistent with article four as well Which we talked about previously and is currently adopted So just to be aware it's adopted in article four not adopted here So these are the this is the same language that was in article four except just updated section references for consistency here related to long term and short term The table of minimum parking minimum bicycle parking Is basically the same as what we have in article four except I pulled out some of the uses that aren't permitted So for example funeral homes are not listed here Um, and I think industrial uses are not listed here either I also updated it for again for consistency with language. So family child care home um daycare facility and uh family child care facility as well With the same standards as previously And abby i'm glad you're here because we had a discussion at the last meeting and wanted to get your input on it Uh related to the short term bicycle parking Um, I realize there's an inconsistency in in what we've drafted. So uh related to The short term covered bicycle parking. So on under part a We say that short term parking needs to be within 50 feet on site item I I we say if it's further than 50 it needs to be covered Which is fine, but then under part b Double I We say that it can be the short term can be met. Um Um Sorry under part b. We talk about short term bike parking being allowed in the public right of way if it's approved by public works But then we also refer back to Uh meeting the the design and location standards and under Uh three six e seven a we talk about the distance and the covered So I don't know if it's if it makes sense to have covered Or if we can do covered bike parking in the public right of way just given the constraints of the right of way and making sure there's clearance for sidewalks and things like that. So um This also comes up in another section with covered short term parking versus not covered short term parking but which in article four Aside from this language as well. So um I guess we can go about this in one of two ways we can allow for the short term bike parking in the city of right away to not be covered And just and and make that explicit that it does not Have to be covered if it's in the right of way or if it's existing um Or we could leave it as it is and and the presumption being that If you're gonna put short term Bike parking in the right of way that it needs to be covered Yeah, I don't think they're actually contradictory because um It can be within 50 linear fee of the entrance So definitely in this town all the public right of way is going to be within that 50 fee That's quite a significant distance So if we're utilizing the right of way for parking for an establishment It'll be uncovered because of that linear distance It's saying if it's with it Without outside that 50 fee. I mean you're making it a more inconvenient parking spot less visible parking spot So we're asking if that's done that you have provide better accommodation So which would be a covered bike accommodation So I I don't think that this is saying to cover bike parking in the right of way Unless it is unless they use the right of way That's 50 linear feet away from the entrance and then now the expectation would be that there was some covering for it Yeah, and I just wanted to make sure that that was that That's how I was reading it and I just wanted to make sure that was the intent as well So that we weren't having a contradiction with potential right-of-way issues or things like that. So Yeah, and and that's I think that's good to to know or to to To have that discussion because it could be that If somebody wants to put it further than 50 feet from the entrance in the right of way There may not be room to put the covering which then means that they have to find another location So yeah, which is perfectly fine. I think Yeah, and it did come up because um counselor oak leaf was feeling like we were putting The onus on the public and on the taxpayer right to like be The providing and maintaining this infrastructure Instead of having a developer. So it's sort of like yeah, there's a little bit of give and take If we if they end up using the public right away In that circumstance and dpw can say we can't fit covered bike parking you have to You know it goes back to the developer to meet the standard, but this is only also for new Buildings, right? We're not retroactively requiring it. Just be for new new projects. So, okay Okay, and then so eric yep sorry, so If public work says no no cover Bike parking then they have to find another place within 50 feet or on their own property. That's right Yep, right. I would think that I mean public works are going to have something to say about about this, right? Oh for sure They're definitely going to have if there's going to be a structure in the right away. Yes They're going to have specific requirements and restrictions on what that structure looks like or how it's built or where it's actually physically located So should there be a reference to With public works approval or something like that? I believe it's in there Yeah Basically from public works the right above that section mic I gotta go back. Sorry Okay, if it's there, that's fine. Yep, it's there Okay Um, and then the only other change here which is has been updated in article four as well is uh, sarah made a comment again, uh Previously that under item eight here that the required bike parking shall be made available to The residents that used to say to all residents and the comment being that A building could have So the way we have long-term parking set up is that it's basically Uh, one space per unit of long-term parking There might be three people living in a unit and not all three of them can necessarily have access So instead of saying all the residents which could mean that you know There could be 150 people living in a 50 unit building that all have bikes that there wouldn't be able to accommodate So changing that to the residents rather than all residents So and then I believe the only other addition from the last time we reviewed this Uh Yeah, just the addition of item three here Which is really related to removal of soils, which is referenced in another section as well Needing a permit so Uh, the majority of these changes are really in reference to act 47 and just some other cleanup and clarification So not a lot of specific detail again, this is only related to uh, the downtown core district Which is really focuses on the the downtown itself. So Well, that actually only focuses on the downtown so Any questions about anything in this article? It's good Okay, great. So then moving to article four, there's only a couple of changes here That I want to talk about so we talked about this again at the last meeting I don't think that I've added anything new to this section Basically, we're saying here for those that were not a part of that conversation For conversion or change of use If you're not that basically saying that you wouldn't need a zoning permit if you're not adding new square footage you're not Um adding new lot coverage and you're not adding new dwelling units that you would not need a zoning permit really what this is in in in response to is I've had a lot of applications recently for change of use for buildings in downtown or along lower main street restaurant row Where it's an existing building It may have been an office use and they want to make it a retail use They're not changing anything about it other than the use itself And so I'm requiring them to get a zoning permit because it's in our regulations that they need one But they're not doing anything land use related other than saying instead of having this be an office We're going to have it as a storefront which is consistent with every other storefront next to us And we're not changing anything except interior. We might do some some, you know, some different walls or whatever Some new electrical work, but we're not changing anything about the structure itself so in those instances What i'm suggesting here is that they would not need to get a zoning permit They would still need to get building permits and other Applicable permits to do the work on the inside of the building But if all they're doing is changing a use from a permitted use to another permitted use It has to be a permitted use and a permitted use of what's there and what they're doing Then they can do that by right without a without a zoning permit If you make it by right Eric would you still get The information like would the city still get a piece of paper something saying like the change of use so that there's a record at the new use So generally what we would get it depends Typically when those uses change they're they're coming in for signage And so we we would get a record with the sign permit They would still need to get sign permitting if they're changing the signage or at least let us Well, let me let me back up if nothing else we would get We would have a conversation with that property owner typically because they will usually come to us and say hey I want to do this. What do I need for permits? And that's just a blanket comment of you know I want to move walls or I i'm not doing anything. What permits do I need to change this use? so We we know that they're doing something It's just a we might not know exactly what it is and it so yeah, we do have a way to Or we people will almost always reach out when they're when they want to do something different Can I can I interject here? Please um, so um One thing that I don't know how to write this in here, but because you are talking about downtown um The first building on the west side of uh Main Street, I don't remember the exact address number, but I think of it as the waltz pool room building or The old pawn shop if you're you've been around when you ski long enough, but that is now residential units um Is there any way to like write this in here that we would prevent something like that going forward? Because I think as far as like a planning standpoint. That's not something you would want. Um as far as like what should be Commercial space now being used for housing because it kind of to me looks Very odd and disruptive as far as like a downtown layout Like I don't think the church street marketplace would ever allow a vacant storefront to be turned into apartment units Well, so can you I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm just trying to follow the location that you're talking about Um, I you know where mandarin is? Mm-hmm The building south of that that used to be um a commercial building at least on the first floor that was converted to housing units Okay, thank you. Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, so two things to that joe. Um, this would not Because they'd be creating dwelling units This would not apply they would have to get a permit um, and depending on what they were actually doing we require We do not allow for um Basically, we require multi-unit buildings in the downtown and the adjacent areas So they would have to do a certain number of dwellings if they were going to do something like that or else they wouldn't be allowed to do it um, we wouldn't we wouldn't prohibit it from happening um If they were able to meet the rest of the regulations So for example, I don't know how many units are in that building now, but the draft that we have Uh for multi multi unit buildings would I think they'd have to do at least five At least five dwellings in there to qualify. Otherwise the use wouldn't be permitted Okay Joe there are some some towns that uh in districts they require first floor commercial Right, I guess that's what I'm saying why why that wasn't required there. Um, that seems like something was missing in our Our zoning laws that allowed that to occur And that's definitely possible. That's been that was well before my time. So I'm oh, yeah. Oh, it's yeah, absolutely I'm just saying like as far as I do often look at that and like how did this happen like it's such a to me. It's such an anomaly um because you know I think that our being a small city our downtown space is limited and you know as far as like the services that can be provided There in the commerce that can occur. So like having that taken up by You know A dwelling unit isn't I don't know the exchange isn't great there Are you suggesting that we change The use is downtown too What mike said about having only commercial use on the first floor I don't know exactly how to word that but I It seems to me that there should be something there. I mean Tell me i'm all wrong eric. I don't know That's that's not up to me. Uh quite frankly to tell you that I think if that's something that you all want to pursue We can definitely look at it. I don't know if it would fit into any of these Sections that we're talking about now, but that would probably be more fundamental to the actual zoning district itself Kind of like in our gateway district. We have our our building form standards In particular, we have one that is uh the urban storefront where you're required to do ground floor commercial Right, so I guess that's what i'm saying is that this seems somewhat Not uniform. Can I know this happened like 20 years ago or so, but it does sound like there's really nothing Other than number of units to prevent this from happening again. I mean right now. That's what we have. Yes Unless we unless we change it to require first floor commercial, which we can do that's correct. We can do that We can do that that's a that's going to be a bigger process than we have before us right now Since these are mostly cleanup, but yeah, that's definitely We can we can look into that if y'all want I think that's reasonable to consider It's just it seems worth worth Noting that here because we are talking about because that was a conversion or change of use Um, well, that's adding additional units so that would require a permit Okay, so that caveat is covered here whether or not It's it's a good one or not is that's a different discussion. So Okay, I presume you're talking about like The instance maybe is like what used to be the casey family services building like if that's going from offices to now Retail or whatever else like that's kind of what you're talking about Yeah, or for example, um, so the the across the circle, um The this the standing stone wines The space just went in it's a retail space now They they had to submit a change of use permit because they want to start selling food They're not doing anything different other than other than now they want to sell food And they're now they need to get a restaurant license. So they need to be a restaurant use as well so I'm basically taking money from them to do nothing And that feels kind of weird to me to say that a downtown use that Is not really doing anything other than adding some additional service should have to get a permit to do that So it's it's like that that i'm that i'm really trying to cover with this language Right here. Yeah, and I'm I guess i'm playing the devil's advocate seeing the other direction where something could go So sure, so put you just again, sorry not to get it the first time but The way it is now i'm trying to get to joe's point is if somebody did Say we want to change this building which is has Retail on the bottom floor to a dwelling unit. There's still a way you can do that That's what that's what item a here covers is that if you're adding dwelling units, you have to get a permit But you could get a permit and add dwelling units to the first floor of building that's now an office building We would need to look at the at the district the zoning district to see if that's allowed It might not be permitted Okay, so I guess to what i'm saying Sorry to interrupt. I guess to what i'm saying is like say for instance that building that now has housing units in it If they wanted to convert back to commercial space From what you're saying they would not need a permit for that other than a building permit for whatever interior modifications Again, it it's going to depend on what they're doing, but potentially that's correct Okay, which which sounds fine to me. So potentially that is correct And that seems reasonable to me. I do like the idea of at some point putting some discussion into The downtown district having the first floor commercial requirement It may not be here, but I'd like to put it on our our planning Agenda or planning horizon We can definitely make a note of that for sure for a future discussion Well, and again, I know we're not addressing that now, but like Isn't like like the river run and river house buildings, right? Like those those are in the downtown core, right? in data They don't have first floor retail is that So that's so bad to have like a building that's just housing downtown, I don't As long as it's a minimum size. I don't It doesn't bother me in in a in a city with with a housing Issue, so that's that's my perspective. Yeah, I agree with Brendan on that one Yeah, and I like the I like the mix too Yeah, and that's not in particular what I'm talking about. I'm just saying as far as like our our core commercial district as far as You know, there really are only so many spaces that a business can operate in the city And if that kind of gets eroded, that's what I'm thinking about You're really talking about Main Street, right Joe primarily and the downtown core has its own Correct me if I'm wrong Eric has its own regulations based on the act 250 permits Generally, yes, that's true. Yeah. Yeah, and everything that we just looked at in article three is also specifically related to the downtown core So those are these are all great discussions Definitely a lot of ground to cover if you all want to add a different meeting Not specific we need to here so Okay, moving on Um, so the next set of changes here is related to parking again. This is mostly act 47 related Uh, I added some language here at the end of item two that basically says So we added item two in that says that if you're doing more than 125 of the minimum requirement It requires conditional use Regardless of what you're doing to limit people from building excessive parking um We caveated it that it that it does not That does not apply to the rarbrc zoning districts just because If you have a single unit dwelling and you put in one space, which is all that's required now Per statute if you want to put in two spaces, you've basically Exceeded that percentage and you would have to go for a conditional use review, which Doesn't seem appropriate But then I added this additional language that if it's a municipal garage or other parking facility That's also exempt from that standard so that we can actually Build structured parking to avoid needing everybody to have their own parking And then the other changes here that you're seeing on the vehicle parking table These are all related to act 47 one space per dwelling. We're basically eliminating all the rest of the Residential components here and then just clarifying that it's an accessory dwelling unit an ad u versus just an accessory dwelling And eliminating the detached cottage because we're taking that out as well Lodging establishment instead of hotel again consistent with our definitions And then the family child care daycare etc consistent with our definitions like we just talked about under the Under article three um And then the next thing I believe this is another question we had For you abby I guess the next part first is going to be bicycle parking again lodging establishment family child care um So just consistency with our regs, uh the next wait, I may have just skipped it Hang on I might have to back up a step Uh, yeah, I did skip it I'm gonna back up so under our vehicle parking adjustments that we offer Under the transportation demand management strategies There there's this line in here that says That specific strategy has been implemented at a minimum short-term outdoor covered bicycle parking That exceeds the standards of 412g, which is where we talk about Short-term parking This recently came up actually with a project. I was discussing with a developer is This specifically requires outdoor covered But our our our other parking standards bicycle parking standards as we just discussed Depending on where it's located may not require the covered part so I don't know if If the intent here was to say that it all needs to be covered to be eligible for the t Tdm strategy reduction or only if it Meets the the the caveat of being more than 50 feet away from the entrance that it needs to be covered so I'll look to you for any clarification on this If I'm remembering this decision, right, I think we had started out by saying like the minimum entry into this tdm Incentive was to have exceed right the the standard bike parking, but then I think we said Maybe they don't have to exceed it as long as it's higher quality Short-term bike parking, which is where the outdoor covered Bike parking came in. I think that replaced language that originally said exceed Minimum short-term requirements. It still has the requirement for the exceeding the minimum standard Of short-term, so it was the outdoor covered that was That was the conflict because of where they were putting it was within 50 feet of the Of the entrance and they weren't Because that it said because it specifically says outdoor covered I just want to make sure that we're being consistent or if we actually want it to be covered Where it is then we're clear about that Otherwise if we just want it to exceed the the minimum short term then I think we can delete the covered and then wherever they put that short term is going to dictate if it's covered or not Yeah, so if we made that change to this section if we think that's reasonable How does it affect what already Went through would we say this is like this is just worded differently in the downtown Code but we keep the outdoor covered bike parking in the other Areas of the code like how would if you were to change this Yeah, so if we were to delete outdoor covered here It would have no impact on the downtown in article three that we just looked at because we're not Reduction in parking. This is specific. This language is only in the TDM section of the reduction So TDM section that applies to what districts though. So this is under the the heading of Uh, the transportation demand management for vehicle parking adjustments But what districts does this apply to all districts? This would apply to the downtown Everything but the downtown. Okay. Yep. So this will be in everything but the downtown And so it's a question of we can leave the outdoor covered in Or we can take that out and then Still keep in the exceeds that the minimum and then Allow the the section that talks about whether or not it needs to be covered based on the distance to dictate Whether or not it's covered So it's really a matter of of deleting outdoor covered from here and just leaving it to say that They need to exceed the the The minimum short term parking that we identify and then again depending on where it's located will dictate if it's covered or not Or if we want to specifically say That it has to it has to be it has to be covered And exceed that minimum To be eligible for the TDM strategy Uh, so in the circumstance where this came up with the development Was the developer saying That it was onerous to have it covered I guess it'd be helpful to To know the context a little bit. So they they ultimately ended up not pursuing the TDMs So it it didn't matter, but they just they weren't they weren't clear as to what they needed to do because we had We were saying two different things yeah What do others think about removing the covering I don't think the outdoor covered is necessary. I think we can remove it because it references parking standards and Parking standards will tell you if it needs to be covered or not And we're saying it needs to exceed those standards correct That's correct Yeah, I guess if there's no If you feel like eric it could lead to more people potentially taking advantage of the TDM incentive I think that could be a case for Taking it out I think it could definitely help because if somebody's got a good space that can Accommodate a lot of short-term parking right next to them And then they have this requirement that they have to cover it They might they might shoot not choose to take this advantage or take this. Okay So, yeah, no, I think that seems reasonable if everybody's in agreement Yeah, I'm good with that Yeah, great excellent. Thank you for that. Um, and then I think the only other change Um Yeah, actually that was that's the last that was the last change of of things we haven't already talked about so The verbiage updates that's all the same and then that same change from all residents to the residents and or tenants that we talked about under the downtown core and Yeah, and then removing eliminating this we talked about this at the last meeting Taking out the dimensional standards specifically of that are included in here and referring to public work standards That way that they can change and and and be modified Part of this Removing this language is is in reaction to some draft legislation that I don't think is moving forward anymore But there was draft legislation that I read early on that was basically in a dictate that A parking space could not exceed Eight feet wide by 16 feet deep Um So I wanted to make sure that if that was happening we were going to park my big SUV Well, that I think was part of the argument which is why I believe they have taken that out So just in case something like that comes up in the future If we're referencing another standard that standard can change and we don't have to amend the the land use regulations Similar to what we did with ADA parking where we eliminated all of those standards and Refer to the ADA guidelines for accessible parking so Yeah, remember this coming up from a developer wanted more compact parking and we sort of discuss the most popular vehicle in bramon is the f-150 and sort of like How what people are driving actually it would affect the Dimensional standards of the parking, but I think if john has dpw dimensional standards Already it makes sense to refer to those. Yep And that'll that'll apply to both the parking standard the parking stall for angled parking parallel parking etc And also the drive aisles. So that's why looking at eliminating all this and just letting dpw kind of dictate how that goes Uh, and yep, that was it for that Okay, great Get a time check 10 till 10 till what 10 till eight seven minutes till eight okay Um Just as a as a reminder. This is our this is our only meeting for this month As our next meeting will be a joint meeting, which we'll talk about a little later on so I don't know how folks feel about moving forward and continuing for a little bit longer Um, the next section here is is in article five And this is where we this is where I've got language related to the accessory dwelling unit and detached cottage kind of distinction If we want to at least try to get through this section Maybe or what are you thinking on timing because I I also want to talk about the joint meeting next week housing, right You mean how long will this take? Yeah Anyone's guess, right? Well, I'll say parts a and b are Basically what we have now, uh, they're just kind of reworded and reorganized a bit And this is what statute requires of us. So There's not a lot to change in a and b Um, why don't we go on for 10 minutes or so and just see where we get another So I'm just going to point out here about the owner occupied unit. I remember bringing that up at a meeting I mean quite a long time ago and saying and being Told that there was no way of verifying that Well, it's typically the way that we do it is we write it into the permit that that's a condition of the approval Is that the owner has to live on the property? So, um, we obviously don't have the resources to go out and check that But if if it if a complaint is made we would we would pursue that Um through the the mechanisms we have available to us So because I remember what I was talking about this as far as like incentives for you know residents and homeowners rather than outside development and One of the things was being said that we couldn't verify, you know owner occupied. However, like Could a homestead declaration be submitted with that? I mean I I suppose it could I don't know that that necessarily Does anything different than the person telling us that they live there? I mean granted they have to do that for tax purposes, but I don't that right You know they couldn't they could move at any time. I guess and that Only affects that tax year that they submitted it for Right, but it's still something because I mean otherwise. How is this going to be? How are we verifying that but you you have claimed homestead every year I think No, but you'd still theoretically have that but then we'd have to have somebody submitting that to us every year And we'd have to have some mechanism to administer that and make sure that we're tracking it and verifying it And I don't I don't know that we have the resources to do that typically when these come up it's The the property owner is the one submitting the application and they are listing the I mean it's at some point. There's there's a level. There's a there's a There's an element of trust that needs to be had as well to just Believe that the person isn't trying to pull a fast one on us Right, right. No, I didn't declaration go to the assessor You're you're talking things that I don't know Well, so is I I presume that this is something that's being Required by statute that this is why we're including this well a and b a Yes, this first part is a statutory requirement. We cannot We cannot deny a A single unit owner occupied dwelling from having a necessary dwelling unit But can we what if we said Is it possible because we want to increase? um housing Why does it have to be owner occupied? Is that part of the statute that is part of statute? Yes So it must be owner occupied. Is that Has to live on the property they could live in the adu or in the primary dwelling But they have to live on the property for it for it to be considered a use by right Which is yeah So how me we we talked about this being like one of the only mechanisms we have to encourage Home ownership and retention of of homeowners in winnyski Yeah, I'm getting this by right. So I don't think that's something we'd want to mess with and there is a pathway For investors to get these too. It just includes a conditional use review if I'm understanding it, right? Right, and that's what this second part is is talking about the part c here. That's this new language that's added in So right now Under our regulations we allow for what we call a detached cottage which is for either non owner occupied properties or There's more than a single unit on the property What I'm proposing here is to instead of calling that a detached cottage and having a separate standard That's just still an adu, but it now requires conditional use approval just like an attached cottage does now So this is basically saying that you can still do an adu if you meet If you meet the if you don't meet these standards of part b Then you can still do an adu, but there's conditions to that as well That there can't be more than More than four units on the property Again, that's in reference to statute the statute change that says we have to allow up to four units That all the existing dwellings are in the same building So if you've got there's a couple properties that I'm aware of and there's I'm sure there's more where there's Two basically two primary structures that have multiple units in each one of them So they would all have to be in the same unit in the same building to qualify There's not already an accessory dwelling on the property And that there's sufficient water and wastewater In that instance, they would be eligible to put an adu in But it would go through the conditional use approval Just like we do now for a detached cottage They would still need to meet all the parking standards all the setbacks all the lot coverage standards everything like we require now for both an adu and for a detached cottage It basically is just saying that it's it's still an adu It's it is actually reducing the size to some extent Right now a detached cottage is allowed to be up to a thousand square foot of habitable floor area Here we're saying it's either 900 square feet or 30 of the of the dwelling whichever is greater And for reference in order to get to that thousand square feet. I think it would need to be That 30 the the primary structure would need to be a lot bigger Then then one might think but this basically takes the average of The habitable floor area of the existing dwellings In order to calculate the size so Really that's the main It's still in essence a detached cottage we're just permitting it through a different process and Calling it a an accessory dwelling that's just not on an owner-occupied lot So what happens if I have an adu I live on the property I sell the property and the person wants to take advantage of The idea of c who wants to buy my property what happens then So then they need to go through a conditional use process And they could though they they could uh, it depends. I mean we'd have to look at the at the situation But yes, that would be an option So For existing buildings not just new structures as well Sorry say that again This would apply to Existing structures, not just new builds. Absolutely. That's right. Yeah This would apply to any anything that exists currently if somebody wanted to put in an accessory dwelling But it's already in in my mind. It's it's there I've sold the property And I'm going to come and need conditional use. What are you going to say to me? For my conditional use. Yeah, so what we so that's a good question In that case so in that instance, so let me just make sure I understand the situation Hypothetically, you've got your single unit dwelling You you add an ad you to it as an owner occupied single unit dwelling You sell the property to somebody else who basically wants to rent both units Correct They would need to come in for conditional use approval To get basically to get a change of use Um, and in that instance the development review board could say We will approve this with certain conditions that need to be met like additional screening or Additional landscaping things like that or they could say we don't approve this and then you basically can't use that ad you Okay Until or unless something else changes So there's other ways around it Really the I think the advantage with doing it in this In this mechanism and in this format is that It takes situations where we might have for example A single unit dwelling that has an attached ad you That then is sold and they run out both sides of it That could come in then as a change of use for a for a two-unit building And so there's still a pathway forward for both of those units to exist as they are So the example for the property next to you abby In that case that owner would have to come in For a change of use because it's now no longer an owner occupied ad you Or an owner property with an ad you She went after the detached cottage because her plan was always to to leave the the front the front building as well So now they're both right there being these. Yep. Yeah So it would have to be done in a format like that where there's some Some other component that allows for the use to continue. I mean the I think personally The last thing we want to start doing is having dwellings that we can't use or that are no longer allowed to be used For some technicality because for whatever reason You know Somebody has an ad you and they stop living on the property that that's now there's not a mechanism to allow that ad you to continue Unless owner lives on the property. Yeah, I do think a few years ago when we were going through some of this we were worried about the short-term rental situation and You know, hopefully Well, that's addressed from different ways term rental regulations. So we are yeah Trying to get a handle on that as well It looked like it looked like from the regulations. You could just pay your way out of it and I'm wondering like In the in the circumstance Tommy mentioned where somebody's owner occupied and puts an ad you in the back and sells it and investor buys it and just wants to You know, turn it over to short-term rentals. For example, could the conditional use process include an evaluation of of the type of residents That is like versus like a tent having a tenant like having an actual resident tenant Could that be part of this the conditional use process or is that outside the scope of what that body can I I would believe that's outside of their their bounds now To that point, uh, I guess to the point about short-term rentals There is a provision in the regulations that would allow for a city council to cap on licenses That you know, if we have say they cap it at 50 And somebody want then the 51st one wants to come in they wouldn't be allowed to get a license So they couldn't do the short-term rental So does sound like that something council is going to take that back? I think they're I think so the way it was If I remember correctly the way that it was all drafted is that they wanted to just kind of see how the program was working first And see if that if that either helped or hindered some of the short-term rental inventory and They they have the ability to do it at any time It's I don't I don't know that they have are under any type of constraint to say We have to do x before we can add a cap. I think it's more just a matter of When they when they feel like they've got enough data, they can they can evaluate that Okay, so I might I'm entirely ignorant on this Liquor licenses in the city of when you used to work that way I don't know if they still do but there was like a certain number of them And once that quota was filled that was as many as the city got Yeah, I don't think that's the case anymore Okay There's the ability to do that still. I just think they have chosen not to Okay So That's basically what part c is is kind of that non owner occupied adu So it's in essence. It's still a it's still a detached cottage. We're just calling it an adu that's not owner occupied So how are people feeling want to keep rolling or because the next couple sections are pretty Just cleanup stuff quite frankly Go ahead Okay, I like it So next is the clean up, but you know us here, right? So this is a section we have this again a lot of this is just cleanup and consistency with statute Changing the the terminology to to match what statute says And adding in kind of basically what the statutory definitions are of these uses So a family child care home is basically 10 children at any one time with six Full time and four part time The owner has to live on site This is actually so the provision that a zoning permit is not required is because that is also considered Basically a home business which or a home occupation which we allow by right without a permit So that's why that language is in there the next category Oh Eric, sorry. Why did we go from six children total to 10? Because that's what statute says for a family child care home. That's the statutory definition And statutorily every required to allow This in like the residential zones. Is that also a statutory requirement? So The family child care home as I understand statute is that it's Intended to be basically like a home occupation So it's it is allowed in residential districts. Um, I'm just double checking here We do allow it as a permitted use in the residential districts Again, because that's the intent is that it's really more of like a home occupation Mm-hmm. So the the owner lives on site. It's not like it's not a business in the sense that it's Like a big facility of any kind so But yeah statute allows for 10 total children with Six of those being full time and the rest being part time So no more than six full time. No more than six full time. Correct for a five family child care home Uh, and then the next one is a family child care facility Um, this will require a zoning permit This is really there's not in this instance, I don't believe there's any limit in statute on the number of children Uh, and in this case we do allow it as a I believe we have it listed as a conditional use in the residential areas And permitted in non residential areas certain certain ones Um, and this is kind of the so the first two the family child care home and the family child care facility Are really more for children. So it's it's that daycare aspect The family child care home is really your home occupation The family child care facility is a larger facility that's going to have more kids a little bit more of a commercial operation um The final category the day care facility is for both adults or children With disabilities or not that just needs some additional type of care Which is why it's called a day care facility um, similarly um There's no limits. I don't believe in statute on the number of people that can be there At any one time, but we also I believe have this as a conditional use as well, so Yes, this is a conditional use in the residential districts permitted in the commercial districts consistent with the family child care facility, so um, just to kind of This is really a lot of this what's here is really just clarification to to what these uses are And aligning with statute Yeah, and I would also add I would think that like if somebody's proposing to have a facility whether it's child care or day care I think If they want to try to do that in a residential zoning district They're going to be probably pretty constrained in terms of getting A license right like by like we only allow certain types of buildings in In residential zoning districts, so I don't I think it would be pretty hard for them to meet like state Like state permitting and licensing requirements to build some huge daycare center out of like a normal house If you know if you know, I mean there might be some constraints on that for sure But in either event there are conditional uses and they would require review and approval by the development review board So um, so yeah, so that's really kind of the distinction there Um, all right. I see connor is telling us that we've gotten to our our 10 minutes, so I will defer to the rest of the group to see if you want to Roll on or or pause here I'm both for pausing so we talk about the The joint meeting a little bit Sounds good Thank you connor for the time check Uh, all right. I'm gonna stop hearing my screen then Okay So we can have a little bit more view on each other. All right. Well, thank you for all that. That's all good information So the next item is city updates and eric. Do you have any? Um, no specific updates. Not unless there's anything that anybody wants to talk about The other business. Sorry. I'll I'll say a few more words. Um, the council met on monday night. They appointed Five members for the local resources advisory board. So you all now are no longer serving that capacity um And they basically did a lot of their reorganization since it was the first council meeting since uh town meeting day. So just um rules and procedures Conflict ventures policy that sort of stuff electing Deputy mayor etc. So Not really any formal business Okay Other business eric Yeah, so um as as mike's alluded to several times, um, we will be meeting next tuesday the 19th with a joint meeting with the housing commission to talk about various, um basically housing policy items that are kind of Uh, that council has asked us to look at um, the housing commission generally We'll do some data analysis and review and rep make recommendations to the planning commission on and then we will take that information and develop policy out of it and kind of land use policy so There's two specific items that council has asked us to look at One being an inclusionary zoning, uh ordinance, which or inclusionary zoning regulations, which basically would require Projects to include a certain number or percentage of affordable housing units If the project is over a certain size And then the other one is a replacement housing ordinance or replacement housing regulations, which would basically say that um, it can take on several different forms, but what we're looking at is Uh, regulations that would say if you have Existing units of a certain size or number of bedrooms Whatever you're putting whatever you're redeveloping in place needs to have that same Number of units and bedrooms at a minimum and then you can do whatever else you want So replacing what's there now with Uh in in the new in the new project We're also looking at some some incentives to potentially encourage larger units. So for example, if you have Two two bedroom units you could put in one affordable three bedroom unit And that would take place of that that two bedroom those two two bedroom units The details are still kind of all being worked out and that's part of the discussion for our meeting next Tuesday is to Is to have those those conversations with the housing commission So that we both can understand kind of where they're coming from where we're coming from To help help write what these regulations look like One thing I'll note is that in article five the draft that you have The last two sections Of article five section five sixteen and five seventeen Have some draft language already kind of generally framed up and proposed for what Inclusionary and replacement regulations might look like I I really want to emphasize that The intent of me including that in in article five right now is really just to kind of set the stage I anticipate there's going to be some additional work that'll be needed To really kind of refine what that looks like But so it's really right now It's included one as a placeholder but two just to kind of give you a sense of what What the replacement regulations or what the inclusionary regulations might look like so Please don't read too much into them right now. It's possible that some of this may stay as it is But it's possible a lot of it might change The other reason I wanted to bring that up is because I'm My intent is so all the regulations we talked about tonight And this is a slight aside, but it'll I'll bring it back All the regulations we talked about tonight and then what we're going to continue talking about in article five up to The new language in five sixteen and five seventeen It's kind of what I hope to take forward as as the next package of amendments and separate out Five sixteen and five seventeen so we can continue the discussions on those two those two sections because I think I think they're going to be more meaty discussions And I want to make sure that we're moving forward these other amendments One to comply with statute and two also to to clean up some of the regulations While we spend some time really kind of Focusing on the inclusionary and the replacement regulations and making sure that the housing commission is is On board with whatever we're proposing and that we can also then take that forward to council So kind of is setting the stage for future meetings and what that looks like We will also look at some other sections related to the statutory changes and what we've also discussed tonight In our definitions and there's a few other things in the gateway district that don't need to change but Generally speaking my intent is to kind of separate out five sixteen and five seventeen For future discussion, but I wanted to include it so that you could see kind of how it fits into the rest of the regulations Now having said all that if we are able to get through five sixteen and five seventeen without much concern We'll move those along too just but I want to I want to caveat it that we Can separate them out for for more discussion I don't I don't want to hold up the statutory changes because we're still working through these two new sections that are fairly new regulations and Not something we've ever done so it's not really clean up or Or changes to existing language. It's it's new language all together. So um, but anyway, the intent for the joint meeting is to really start to to Get an understanding of what what the council policy is or council policy direction is Kind of what the housing commission has already done And and what guidance they're providing and then kind of what we all think As a group what that can look like as far as policy um, you should Tomorrow the agenda should be getting published for that meeting that'll have a bunch of attachments in it and some analysis From the housing commission and from our housing initiative director jasmine hurley. So, uh, I will I will forward that around when it's done if she does not send it out. So, um Logistically that meeting will be here in person and online. We'll have both options available for folks So whatever you're comfortable with I think Well, I don't want to say most people will be in line in in the room But I know the housing commission typically meets in person But again, you're you're welcome to meet however you're comfortable. Um, so That's tuesday at 6 30 eric I'm not sure the time I have to confirm the time, but it is definitely tuesday the 19th I yeah, I have 5 p.m. For some reason on my calendar Yeah, that's what i'm not sure of if we're gonna meet earlier or I know the housing commission typically meets at six o'clock We 6 30 so I don't I'm not sure I'll I'll when the agenda is published will confirm times And eric, did you say you sent around article five? Yes, article five was included with uh With the agenda and should it's on the website as well with the with the agenda the draft of article five great great Other business I guess is first is there anything else you want me to cover on that first? Oh, sorry Okay, um one question. I did have and I guess I'm not familiar with article five But I know like the changes that we're making are going above and beyond Act 47 and it really affects sort of the incentives that we've laid out prior to act 47 Is that what's in article five those incentives? Yes, those incentives are in article five And I do want to I do want to work through those before we move anything forward to council I want to make sure I always get updated because they're already in our regulations Yeah, exactly. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, that's a really great point. Yeah, I definitely want to make sure that we get through the Incentives to make sure that those are up to date In relation to act 47 and because those already exist I think it's important to make sure we update those before we send any of this to council The inclusionary and replacement are brand new and so I'm I'm comfortable taking more time with those Because it's all new language that doesn't have any Have any relation currently Yeah, okay that makes sense and it's not that those aren't required by act 47, right? That is correct. They are not required. Yeah, these will be new new regulations. A lot of communities have them You know the the replacement ordinances typically are done Or in historically have been in relation to conversion of non-residential to your point joe non-residential to residential or sorry vice versa residential to non-residential Um And so it's really a way to that's typically or historically what they've been used for is that there was a lot of conversion Um To non-residential uses when there was a lot of demand for that from residential uses So there was a mechanism put in place to say, okay, if you're getting rid of those residential uses You could you have to put them back somewhere So some communities allow for off-site some communities allow for a fee in lieu Um, so there's there's a lot of different options and a lot of different directions It can go in that we'll we'll we'll get into uh at future meetings Anything else on that? Uh, not on the joint meeting. No Okay, anyone on the commission have any comments? Okay, um, did we I know we had sort of talked about that the second meeting of every month. We try to be in person I was just wondering if folks are gonna try to be, you know, it's not like a plan our second planning commission meeting But it's serving is that our folks gonna try to be in person for it on Tuesday Yeah, yeah Yeah, uh, I'll be there barring Sick kid or something Okay I'll be sounds like some will Okay, I'll be there Can you tell me how this meeting is going to be facilitated? Who's who's Going to do Yeah, that that's a great question. Actually, um, Mike will be facilitating that meeting for us That's great Nice Same way. I was elected chair of this. I was asked to do that That's perfect by default We'll be facilitating the housing commission telling us what to do, which is which is fine, you know It's their job. We can we can take it or leave it, right? That's right They're gonna make recommendations and we're gonna craft policy based on that that will then go forward to the to the city council for their consideration There you go other business Eric, I asked you what I thought I'd bring it up here that on Franklin street and Leclerc street. There are some signs up for demoing some buildings Yeah, yeah, I was gonna bring up the Leclerc street one. It's from my perspective. It's nothing we need to talk about on the record, uh, but I'm Curious about it. So it's 30 the one I saw is 39 Leclerc street, which is big white building The I don't know. It looks like it's maybe three or four apartments or something. I'm not exactly sure, uh Very single unit single unit. Okay. Yeah Okay, and yeah, it's it's it's like pretty overgrown frankly, but there is there is a family living there now With children and I think Are you sure it's 39 Leclerc? I was gonna say 39 Leclerc should be vacant the utilities have all been disconnected and There shouldn't be anybody living in that. So I might have the number wrong. I but that's the one I'm talking about So there's like there's like a there's like the yellow building and then there's a gap And then it's the white building like neck next to it basically Um So yeah, I was sort of curious about if you know what what the plan is post post demolition Yeah, so right now there is no plan. Um, the the property owner has just submitted applications for the demolition and not Submitted anything for redevelopment. So once once a redevelopment proposal Um has been identified they'll need to submit applications for For uh zoning approval for that, uh, whatever it is that they're proposing So I I'm not sure what they're proposing what I do know in that case in particular for 39 Leclerc My understanding anyway Is that there was some pretty significant code violations building code and life safety violations on the property Um, I I actually looked in the file the other day because I've been getting a lot of calls about it as well from adjacent property owners And the inspection report is like 20 pages long of violations. So yeah Yeah, I I believe it. Yeah, I think the owner basically was like, well, it's gonna be It's gonna be cost me so much money to try to fix all this Some are like structural concerns as well. Yeah that yeah, who's the owner? It's actually it's Gabe handy is the owner Oh So, um So yeah, so he's it's for him I think it was uh a question of if it if it's cost effective to Try to fix it or just tear it down and start over with something different. So one one question I'm gonna interject here So this is exactly why what we came up with as far as just adopting the state historic register For our register why it's ineffective because that's absolutely a historic structure Like it's one of the gems of that street And because we have a landlord who doesn't want to bring it up to code now, it's going to be destroyed Well, so like this isn't this is a great instance of one of the gaps of our solution Sure. Yeah, um, and I think though Joe to that point I think in order to bring it up to code he would probably have to significantly alter the building Um, so that it would probably lose a lot of its its uh current integrity quite honestly So but I don't know that for sure. So um, but yeah to I guess brendan to your question There's there's no there's nothing proposed for redevelopment of that site at this time and in one question again, it's I'm not I think the building is in bad shape. So I guess it's not I'm not surprised by your report basically one thing. I'm just more curious about Is there's sort of like what looks like a carriage barn kind of back behind there? And I'm not sure if it's on that lot or the one Next to it and do you know if there's any and It's that barn to me. It's like it's leaning pretty heavily too, but it it is kind of interesting And you you don't have a lot of that in when you ski anymore. So I was wondering if that if if you know if that's Going to be so so brendan as as a bit of context That parcel was originally proposed for including in the redevelopment of what is now your neighborhood Yeah, and it was proposed that that house would be demolished and replaced with a smaller structure in its In its place as part of the pud that was initially proposed that was scrapped and rework Yeah, I mean that makes sense to me Yeah, it's not it's not that lot is not our lot now, but maybe there was a plan to to Had it I don't know So do we do one of the code violations by the way, I'm just curious what Is does anyone know that I mean I'd have to look back at the report to get the specifics But I know there was things like there's asbestos on on there's asbestos insulation on some of the pipes the flooring is all Inconsistent with with code as far as it's it's warped and not even or smooth Um, the electrical systems are in disrepair and need to be upgraded There's some structural components. There's I there's some pictures of basically Beams that are completely separated from the structure itself. So just A lot of a variety of things. Um, I don't think there's any one component or one category of of violation. It's Pretty much runs the gamut of violations When was it last occupied? Oh, there's there's a family there. I mean, there's there's a family there Well, if there is they have no utilities because the water and yeah, or and electric have all been disconnected Or let me let me let me caveat that I certainly There I have seen a family living there I you know, I can't honestly say it's been the last like month, but but you know relatively recently So the building has been in that terrible shape has been neglected for a long time. That's really sad Eric does the the um Historic or resource board Have a look at that now or is that before them? No, it's not currently listed. So they they would not have an involvement with that It's not listed. It is not listed. I thought you said it was This is what I'm saying where where that what we have instituted the blind spots Oh, I thought you said it was listed as a historic. Oh, it's no, it's not. I know it's not listed It's a structure that anyone doing a survey of that street today would have In the professional field would have included But but the the regulations that we sent up to the council was any building even it's not on the The list would be looked at right? Not not for no not for those no I thought we I thought we included that that that any building for demolition and we we We did the whole city It was only we looked at only properties that are included on on the local register are are reviewed by the um The local resources advisory board Anyway, I was just curious if if you knew what's going in and there's no plan for anything to go in. Um, The building is in whatever I mean, I'm I'm comfortable saying whatever Historic value the building may have once had It is in very rough shape and it's not it it It doesn't it's not it's not in in good repair Um to me well, but but this would be incentivizing people again Not to maintain their building by saying oh sure demolish it. You haven't updated anything on it like Yeah, I mean, yeah, I think that that's part of part of what happens inevitably with time to some buildings I would motion to adjourn here Yeah, well First is there any other other business? What was the demolition on franklin street? There's there's two properties on franklin street, uh, eight and a half and 12 franklin That are also slated for demolition same property owner I know 12 franklin early. I shouldn't say I know 12 franklin from what I understand Basically the foundation is Is completely crumbling so I don't think that that building is actually habitable right now either So, uh, I think in order to bring that Up to code it has to be demolished Um, and then eight and a half. I don't I'm not sure what the status of that building is why um What the what the motivation is for the demolition of that one? But those are the other properties all three of these half permits demolished, right? Well, they are they've all been applied for and they're in the appeal period right now for For the demolition. Yeah Eric not to belabor the point and la claire, but I'm just looking at the zoning map And I'm wondering is it not Updated because it shows like brendon's driveway basically where it ends and there's like the open space is still part of the la claire street property Is that just because it's not been updated or is that the actual property boundary? Um, sorry. What are you looking at? Um, the look the la claire property that we were just talking about demo the property line on the map viewer shows that it goes back into the Yeah, so the map viewer, uh, you're probably yes, you're look the so the map viewer. I think is using parcel data from Um, I want to say 2018 Okay, so it's not that big anymore that's correct. Yeah, so the um for the 64 la fountain street They did carve off a chunk of the back of that property. There was a boundary adjustment with uh 39 la claire street so some of the the rear of that property was um basically Added to 64 la fountain street Okay, and when um people come in for a demolition permit, there's nothing on there that sort of asks Like a reason for demolition There's not no because it's private property. We we can't dictate whether or not They're allowed to demolish the building or not. Um, I mean Obviously in some circumstances now that we've got some regulations for The local resources we can require additional steps, but As a private property if they want to if they want to demolish it. That's that's they're right Okay Any other other business I have one other item, but I'll let the rest of the commission go first if there is anything else I don't think there is Okay, so while I have you all um, and I believe all are still here. Uh, connor. Are you still on with us? I think you are I am indeed. Okay, great. So full commission great. Um, I just want to let you all know, um Later this year. I will be leaving the city. Uh, I'm uh, I'm gonna be moving to wisconsin, so Relocating probably staying with the city through the end of june is my goal right now But just wanted to give you all a heads up that I'll be stepping down from my position, uh with the city um later this year, so Big move ahead, uh a lot of things to figure out and logistics to to determine as well, but uh, Yeah, so just wanted to give you all a heads up About that. So trying, uh, hopefully I'll be trying to transition some projects To a new, uh, planning and zoning manager that to be named later I have some people in mind that I think would do really well in this role. So If you all know of anybody, please have them reach out to me as well, but Yeah more to come so you're not you're not rid of me just yet Still a few more months to to get through before before that happens, but Just wanted to let you all know that That that that'll be happening in the next couple of months Well, thank you for letting us know eric and thank you for the work you've done while you've been over the city Um You'll be missed, but good luck to you in your future endeavors. Thank you very much Agree Thank you, eric. Yeah, thanks eric Congratulations sounds like an exciting new adventure um Is the goal to have someone on board so you can help chain them before you leave? That's my hope Yeah, that's my hope is to bring somebody in so that there's some overlap to at least get them up to speed on regulations And where we are with projects as I I don't anticipate that Everything that I've been working on will be done So, um So, yeah, I hope I hope that's the case because I'd hate to see us have to train them Like that brings me back memories of many years ago in the planning commission and oh my goodness Can't do that yet Eric you've been when I when I look back on this it is amazing how How competent and how knowledgeable you are and it's Or me at least A contrast that's been greatly appreciated. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Well, like I said, I'm still around for a few more months So we'll have many more meetings to to to discuss things Yeah, well, you've been excellent eric and I think this is an incentive for us to keep Keep to the two meeting a month schedule for the next We need to use you while while you're here And to that point, I guess I would just close by saying our next meeting Um, where it's just us will be april 11th. So Make sure that is on your calendars for our next planning commission meeting Okay And we'll go from there. Joe. Do you want to make your motion now to adjourn? I'm we'll so move Okay, second Anyone? I'm always happy to say second on that one Great. Thanks everyone for the discussion for coming tonight and have a great weekend. Happy st patty's day for anyone who's irish or irish Thank you And happy pi day irish on that day. Yeah. Yeah, happy pi day math nerds unite So all in favor of adjourning Say aye or wave your hand Okay. Good night everyone. Thanks. Eric. Good night. Thank you. Have a great evening