 Any adjustments to the agenda? Okay, hearing none, we'll deem the agenda approved by consensus Third item on the agenda is comments from the chair Last meeting we did not have a quorum so we had a working session and we discussed Ideas for moving the city plan process forward John Came up with some good ideas, and we'll get into some more details when we get to the city plan item on I eat but I just want to kind of highlight highlight from a high level Some of the ideas we kicked around One of the the big one I think is we need to be working off a map at this point in time It'll be the most productive way to kind of figure out how we want to Drill down here and there, but first we'll look at a big map and make Get you seek input on what the public and other members of the commission want to evolve maintain or transform and so we have some Capabilities of being able to do this with layers That is not available quite yet, but it's probably coming in the near future. So We haven't iron out all the details, but the basic gist is we're gonna want to be able to distribute this map with clear instructions, which we have to figure out what they are and In the meantime, Mike is going to start just depositing Materials into the Google Drive And you're gonna try to roughly categorize them so that they're easier to sort through in my Hard drive. I just haven't started to drag them for yet. I'm just gonna organize in one place and then I can pull them all over Okay So and they will they go into different files in the I don't know. I'll probably work with John to figure out how best to Organize and once you have it down probably walk through it I mean people should play or feel free to play around with it, but we could probably just do a walk-through at one of the meetings Later Yeah, so then the other comments I have is just that you know as you see on our agenda We have some last final items for dealing with the zoning fixes I'd really like if we could finish them today So we can move on to the master of the city plan So that's good. That's my plan is like let's really focused on these these Zoning rewrites. Let's get done with some of the less interesting stuff But very necessary and important and then we can move into the more Exciting development of city plan So Fourth item the agenda is when we invite members from the public who are present to come up and give comments and something not on the agenda But we have no members of the public here. So we'll move on to item five, which is the final punch list items for zoning fixes Mike You had the four numbers there 15 Because I could not find my copy of this You just This is the channel right this is the channelized city council adopted the zoning at one of the last meetings coming up Decided they would So they decided they would insert into The zoning Requirement because we had a requirement that had We actually were allowing Like balconies and things to overhang the waters, especially on the north branch because there already are on Elm Street So the first thing they did was remove that and then they wanted to see more Green space and I removed that. What do you mean? Requirement out of the zone. So it went to a zero setback. Okay, and then the question came in there was a push from Basically one person who really wanted to push to see that there was more green space more riparian vegetation along the quarter even through the downtown and so the compromise that came out was that there was a Determination that if something was already channelized Then it wouldn't have to meet that requirement it could still be zero setback Or ten foot whatever the requirement is for that district But if it's un-channelized, then you would have to meet the riparian setback requirements And it was gonna have to be I think a 15-foot riparian so That turned out to be a little bit challenging because we didn't have a definition of what channelized is we didn't have any Rules so what you have on the map is basically I went through and looked at where we have river walls And I colored them in orange And then there's a couple of spots near the confluence which have some Green dots those are areas Where the DRB has already kind of made a determination because they didn't have rules and there were projects going on the DRB Had to make a determination is this channelized or is it not channelized and they determine those were already channelized So we could make rules that overrule that but that's basically the back parking lot of the Jacob slot and on the other side of the river and Then down near Confluence Park that's proposed. There's also a small section. That's not that actually hasn't been gone through DRB For channelization, but it's very similar to the other ones the only spot that I could find that really was not River wall channelized was kind of that state portion from the railroad bridge down to Bailey That's about the only stretch. That's not doesn't have river walls Does you have any other kind of retainage at all? I'm sure it's got Buried Something in there and keep the river from eroding in but there's no there's nothing really formal That's there. So the couple options we have are to eliminate the channelized, you know and kick it back to the council To go through and say we think you made you you aired on the last time by including it The other option would be to adopt this map or to adopt some reference to this Because really what the DRB needs is some clarity of what's channelized. What's not channelized And if this is the only thing That we can find that's not channelized and let's just say that's not channelized and adjust the regulations Now where is this in the in the regulations? In this case, it's where number 15 is noting it is in figure 2-0 1 which is Urban Center 1. Yeah, that didn't it just line up Oh The channel requirement that was passed only applies to urban center urban center. Yeah, because we had exempted Riparian buffers in urban 1 2 and 3. Okay, they went through and said This is a compromise. Yeah, add we'll add it into one two and three, but only where the stream isn't channelized. Okay So we so we never intended for their done to We never did What I'm getting out of this is for outside the urban center though We did intend for there to be riparian buffers. Yes. No, they are. Yeah Second part I remember I was Yeah, you don't remember what you did Note to under those That's all right Kirby So I I'm 2-0 1 is the urban center one dimensional standard. So I think it's just an incorrect citations It is technically there because it's underwater setbacks. Oh, okay Oh, I see 20 feet or as per note no to the channelized sections where the river setback got it. Sorry I missed that. Yeah, so they did the two sections kind of work together. Okay And then three zero zero five E One talked about this Um, I guess as far as the city planning that we're gonna be doing goes I take it. We're gonna be having conversations about What we will do about maybe making the city more river oriented It's this stretch of the small stretch that we're talking about about that's not channelized This is what apply to is it something that we would maybe Plan long term to have a park or green anyway. It's mostly state Land except for the last parcel, which I believe is owned by the credit union So I think that the bigger challenge for doing anything with that is that it's mostly That's where the bike path is right. That's the bike path is on the other side Right, right. Oh, it's the parking lot. Yeah. Yeah, it's the state little state parking lots that kind of Yeah tuck in there I mean, I'm sure there are a lot of things we would like to do like to see changed in that area but I think a lot of that is gonna come down to negotiations with bgs and I don't think we'd be forcing things through regulations on the state Okay, I mean that in some ways you answered what I was kind of getting out was like to what extent is it moved Yeah, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot. Whatever we decide to do and probably should be explicit about it in the plan So Mike is it will there be an effect on the Confluence Park development? Given our determination that it's channelized. It actually helps it if it's channelized Because if it's un-channelized and you have to meet the buffer in the setback And then you wouldn't be able to put in a number of the things that you That people want because it's a measurement from the top of bank So if you went to one Taylor Street and said you had to meet a 15 foot setback then You can't have any of those Different seating structures because it's supposed to be natural riparian buffer. Okay, so we don't have any other Requirements for a channelized section of the river and non-development of those areas Not in the zoning ordinance for that specific because it's setback of zero So if it's channelized and has a hard wall then it's It's a zero setback I mean the hard wall along there is not continuous No, they're yeah, they're a couple of gaps in there But the river can't really meander with that little gap those gaps. Yeah through to any of this area. It's not like it's gonna So is there is there and I'm sorry if I missed this, but is there a Urgency to making this decision or is this something we can kind of kick until after we've worked on this section in the city plan it's well, it certainly counts as a fix in that the council Said to have a channelized You know to regulate different differently between channelized and unchanalized and we the DRB has had To basically make a case-by-case basis for each one of these as to whether something is channelized or unchanalized Because it's not really defined And a map would be the best way to resolve it to kind of go and identify which areas are channelized in which areas aren't and According to the engineers who came up and testified for both projects on the east and the west of The north branch they both said you know according to Army Corps of engineers even though those don't have river walls Those are still channelized based on engineering standards. Yeah I would probably guess almost all of this would probably meet that same definition all the way through Yeah, which makes most of it move which basically means we would go back to the council and say none of this is unchanalized And if that's the argument we want to make we can go back and see what city council does but Why don't we do that or just say this consider this area channelized and this including the area That's designated with your green line Currently would we say that was not part of the channelized section Come on here. So that's not considered channelized then Well, it's up to us at this point right want to or no it hasn't yet been determined Okay, right. I guess it's not obviously channelized It hasn't been determined to be channelized, but we could here And I think if we determined that it is channelized then we would just go to city council make a recommendation to remove that Addition that they put in Which addition what do you mean the addition that they they added this the city council added this language in Right due to steve ceases So where we'd be essentially finding Everything within the urban core as channelized and therefore this would be superfluous language Which we would just ask them to remove rather well if we do that I think we need a memo because or some some maybe not in written form, but we should explain because We did recommend that there were no riparian there was no setback in the urban center um after hearing testimony The city council made this decision to have a channelized Determination And I think you know curvy and I were there for that and I think we probably figured well everything at urban centers channelized So it's effectively the same, but we didn't consciously know at the time That the compromise they ended up with was pretty much giving us exactly what we wanted Right, so the d rv the d rv could have seen this in taken testimony and said no when we took testimony on the jacob plot and took testimony on the the heaney lot projects that Both of those were going to find If they had found both those to be un-channelized despite testimony, then then we would be having a different conversation The fact that yeah, I think what steve was thinking of was those areas should be considered un-channelized But even those that the rv found to be channelized Well, I think I mean just from my conversations with him My understanding was he was thinking about backyards So that wouldn't have been These spots here. Yeah further up. It would be yes. It would be further up where he would have been concerned Um, yeah, and a number of those I looked and you could see the the river wall was it was still there Along the upper part you probably see from your porch and still see it's kind of pushed in there, but it's there You can also see everyone, uh dumping their snow in the river from that porch too Yes Nobody's supposed to do it Here's the stretch we're talking about you can't possibly get closer to the river there Right, so you kind of show everyone here. I I mean, it's not a backyard. We're aesthetic value is going to be high. I mean, I think I just think we need to be thoughtful about how we present this change, you know if we're going to do it I think I think we should mention that you know We didn't know at the time that we now realize that the compromise Solution means that there's essentially no non-channelized sections And then we asked it to be removed. I think from a law perspective, we should be removed if we're going There shouldn't there shouldn't be a I'm like a moot rule or a pointless rule in there that should be removed because that could create legal trouble later Yeah, but then we need to present something that indicates all of that area Or generally just say that Leave the language that there are no un-channelized sections in the urban core too Is that what you're looking for Well, I'll draft a memo if the decision is that we're going to consider all of this channelized Were you was that going to be your thought john was that even this section is channelized? I'm not hearing strong Yeah, either Concerns to the contrary. I mean, how do people feel about Making a determination that all of this area is indeed channelized and that there should be no water setback I think that's one. I think that's one way to To deal with that. The other is to say that if we do want to Pull something out is not channelized and what Mike's done is fine And I want to just this background. I know that Aaron definitely wasn't here with this discussion. I can't remember if you were on but Um we kind of went around about it and Settles on A determination that water quality Is not really going to be It's not you're not going to have any sort of purifying or water quality benefits to Um the riparian buffer in this particular area The river has been Channelized like this for so long and we built up on it that it just This is sort of a policy decision that we made a long time ago And it would be really it would wreak a lot of havoc to change That now it's not to say that we don't care about the river. It's just that Um when john and I met with sasha peeler from a and r She she recommended that we focus our efforts on ensuring that the river had meander room In the north branch, you know up past the downtown That that would help with flooding that would help with water quality And that as far as the downtown is concerned we can Deal with water quality a little bit more comprehensively with storm water the storm water system and we haven't We need to move forward on that but we haven't yet But that's sort of the thought is we need more comprehensive there And if we only have like a patch here there of riparian Buffer then everything's going to get sheet flow there Everything's going to get what There's going to it's going to get funneled. Oh funneled to that spot Yeah, essentially that there's not very much to be gained in terms of water quality with that regulation and that a non regulatory approach would Probably yield a lot more in terms of water water quality benefits then Sort of a blunt instrument of saying, you know, don't develop 15 feet from here even though it's already all Right, I think it's a good practice, but we have to be thoughtful about where we're putting it that rule Any structures in that area would be pretty severely limited because that area is all in flood hazard Yeah, so they have to build up Yeah, I really Or else they're going to you know build up to a flood plain which is something we don't want to do in that area either Well, thank you for that context Yeah, I mean we we thought of I mean I water quality is very important to me. It's very dear issue to my heart. So I I see I saw that as kind of like wait, we have to work through this And for the northern section that still has its river corridor that's in like good shape I think we're one of the first communities in the state that have a river corridor regulation Yeah, and we were also taking things in steps. So prior to 2018 There were no riparian buffers as requirements at all. You know, there were no slope requirements No riparian buffer requirements. There were no wetland requirements. So You know in the new zoning in a couple of places we went through to go through and say riparian buffers We're not going to worry about them in the downtown mostly because we were looking at the fact that We have just added regulations to all these other places And if if in the future we want to take an incremental step about trying to figure out how to introduce that more in the downtown That was going to be a question for a later time we thought so Um, so I've got a little bit. So I will draft a memo when we've got our public hearing. I'll So go through and approve that that kind of just goes and determines it's all channelized and therefore We recommend you removing it. Um Everyone comfortable with that really that's slightly better to say that it's all channelized just because I think we're all it seemed to be an agreement that is kind of pointless to To call this out to call that one section out. It's not channelized And chances are the state's going to do is going to be able to preempt whatever we do but there could be a complication cost and To what in or wants to be gained, you know, so that's why I think it's slightly better cleaner just to Call it channelized. Is there It feels more honest, I guess. Yeah Like the only reason we'd be leaving it in is for some kind of like Politically it becomes more palatable to at least have something included, but we're being honest like it's not going to make a difference Why do we have this regulation? That's why we need to explain it though, right? The better it becomes more complicated, I guess Well, I'll try to put something together That's relatively Short to the point on that. I don't think it has to be too complicated Thank you Yeah, I happy I'd be happy to give you comments if you want. Yeah, I can I can circulate it Okay, um, so do we have a Discussion on 15 and move on Yeah, Barbara and Ariane still okay about yeah, okay Okay art studio, yeah Thank you Yeah, and I looked for that actually when I printed the It is a painting. It's not an art Found it Means a use of land or structure for the creation of art Through the application of paint pigments colors or other medium on a solid surface All other art studios shall be considered light manufacturing. What I did was a Dictionary search of what painting was and that's what came up. So Mm-hmm does say other media So it could be it's still only the application of paint That was really what we were more concerned about was that the other forms of art Can sometimes be If it's creating metal sculptures. Yeah. Oh, yeah for sure polishing granite or I guess Well, that's what you learn that at marvel college Slytherin school we but we did have a little bit of that conversation of once you have art You know somebody when we were just talking about art generically not painting Somebody could say I'm a band and therefore, you know If we get too much of an exemption we would end up with you know, that's art and therefore So my thought is it's more about the noise level than it is about the actual activity Which is why we made it into light manufacturing light manufacturing tends to also have similar In in certain districts, it's permitted and those are districts that you'd probably have other noisy uses in other districts It's conditional and we can take a look at Whether it's appropriate for that If that particular art studio happens to be polishing granite or We'll flag this one for a glen On the council You'll probably pick up on it. You can And it's still all loud as a Home-based occupation. Yeah, if it's home-based it ends up in a different category. This is for ones where people Um We had an application in the downtown somebody wanted to have a studio where they were doing painting Here in the downtown on the second floor and we really didn't have a use to Kind of pigeonhole it into so that was why it came up Um for consideration in the fix-it list Um and the decision was you know, we we should be able to exclude this one if it's a painting studio in your home It's going to probably be exempt all together This definition seems fine to me. I don't I mean I would suggest we add photography in there too. Which seems similar to painting So I could see that easily coming up in the same context The quiet arts Sounds like a movie title And I'm sure people are going to come up with ones that they're just going to get us so um Yeah, we're going to need public input. I'm sure we're going to get we're going to get beat up This just happened to be the one that came out and I don't know how else to Fix this one, but well, would it be trouble if we just said application of any media to a fixed surface? Hard surface is that what your definition solid surf solid surf. Oh solid surface then could potentially involve Sculpture I'm just thinking that you know photography As Kirby said also fabric art all those kinds of things They're pretty quiet Photography now is just sitting in front of a computer and burning things. It's not like There's a dark room We got to get printed somehow right Yeah, but I think most of those are come under professional services. Oh, it's going to be more of a service and it will be Quite fits in the same So how do galleries fit then? Galleries are their own use. They're defined. Yeah, that's that's a public. This is Right, this is strictly the artist in their media Well, unless we have any other ideas, let's put this out to the public and get some input Sound good. So let's go. Okay. So that means we're accepting it. Yeah And so change of views. I don't know if we was at the next one. I'm changing I don't think we have to go through this one. This actually was in the regulations and I didn't know it The only change and change of use was to add Change of use means an increase in the intensity of an existing use or an increase in intensity beyond a limit established under an existing permit including the addition of a dwelling unit so that Was just added in there to Reflect the fact that in our use table, we had Single and two family in one line three and four family in another line and therefore And somebody had already made this argument because they were going from three units four units They weren't actually needing to get a permit attention of grouping those together. It was just Based So by putting this in it just kind of gives us that thing to go through and say no no no change of use Maybe that but if you're adding units Okay, does this coincide with the building code or building code Because they determine Some requirements based on change of use. Yeah building code Operates under its own set of rules Yeah, we might just end up with you the totally different definition Uh, in it and it happens in a lot of cases that the definitions are different between the Various Various Ordinances depending on where they come from Just like the definition of development is different for flood hazards than it is for zoning because the federal sets the rule for flood hazard Development Yeah, and they're pretty specific about the change of use definition All right, everyone go with that looks good to me 131 so 131 was really just kind of a larger strikeout replace I didn't make copies this one probably should have Um, so what it was it came down to the enforcement rules I say I put in there that that they were too restrictive and not organized well So our zoning administrator reviewed the river has the river hazard area of provisions Which follow the same state statutes and found them to be much clearer So we just kind of transposed those over And I made a strikeout copy of that and that's in the bigger copy that you sent us. Yes. Where is that? So this is page four dash 23 So it would no longer be in Chapter 470 no, it's done chapter 470. It would be and it would remain there Yeah, and it would remain there and really what the big issue that came up was in a lot of cases I Um, I usually insert in regulations that I've written a provision that gives the administrative officer the right to negotiate settlements of of ways of coming into compliance Because the way this was written she didn't have any any ability. So we had a project on court street where somebody put something in the wrong place And in december we told them they had to move it It's buried under snow and they agreed we'll move it as soon as the snow melts Well officially The way it's written she can't even write an agreement that goes through and say you agree to do this I agree to do this the notice of violation stays in effect, but I'm not pursuing enforcement beyond that because we have an agreement that you're going to fix it and this could happen for Landscaping or something else. So this would just give her a little bit of the rights that go through and say you can write these agreements that go through and You know Yeah, there are limits, you know, she can't Allow things to happen Any agreement shall be signed by the violator and the administrative officer shall establish Minimum reasonable timeline for curing the violation give written authorization to allow the administrative officer to inspect the premises upon completion Or the agreed upon date of completion to ensure compliance Where the property only fails Blah blah blah goes through a bunch of things. So It just gives us an amicable way to work with property owners without Give a little typo in 4702 a7 just The second line should be administrative officer And just is missing the R. That's all it says office It's interesting because I would argue that the ability to enter into agreements might be inherent in the authority The the way statute is written as the administrative officer must literally follow the zoning and that's that's the way it's actually in statute You must literally follow And therefore In this sometimes, you know, a lot of times we'll Not do it anyways, but if you're in a case where You've got two neighbors who really don't get along You could be getting beaten up because we are required to find them $150 a day and somebody may just get their kicks out of the fact that they're going to push the city and box them into a corner That goes and says you have to find them $150 a day Because you literally have to enforce the rules and that's what the rules say So giving a little bit of an out in a lot of cases People aren't complaining or we'll get a complaint and we just figure out. Yeah, we've got an agreement They know to fix it and they're going to fix it as soon as weather's there and nobody cares But for people who want to make a big deal about it. Yeah Any concerns with the enforcement provisions? I only have one or it's minor I I sort of wonder about the appropriateness of the one chemical Because it means result of violations. It's an alternative to resolving violations. Okay, I'm okay I just feel like I Yeah, just say resolution. Yeah We don't have to sign an agreement Our way to be nice to you. I don't have to be nice to you So where do we have here? Where I'm looking at as as an alternative Okay, sounds like it's approved with that minor change. Okay So Let's talk about Kirby and Barb's memos. I was wondering if that was is it a part of number six Uh, I don't have number six in front of me, but oh, oh item six. Yeah, no, let's do it now Well Yes, let's start item six. We'll we'll do it under item six upcoming adoption process for zoning. So um, let's first talk about The memo that barbing Kirby Drafted and revised and provided us. I think the last one was emailed from Kirby Right, right. Yes, and I have a printed copy here. I think so If anyone doesn't have it, I don't yeah, here we go So I think I mean they're dated February 20th. So that might have been the day that you emailed them. I'm not sure This seems right Lastly, do you have an extra printed copy? I I don't I just have Why don't Oh, yeah, why don't we Let's Do people the copies or do you have them up on your screens already because we can go print we can go copy them right now So This is only one of them Mike's holding the other Mike's holding it. So the one with track changes is the one that I think you wrote barb and curvy edited is that accurate um And then the other one is curvy standalone memo if we want to do it that way But this There's there's so from from the email that I sent there's there's two attachments one says that I said is the joint council memo, which would be um To get into specifics of it. I had written I think a couple of drafts and then barb had altered one Which would which I would consider barb's version And then so this joint memo is me further editing barb's memo, right? I actually generated another one after that when we after we met Um, I generated another one that was a standalone memo, which I thought take into consideration your issues So did I work off of that one? Yeah, then I then I think the only thing that came back was you provided both and um And I had a you know very minor like one a one word revision to Uh to one But I wasn't clear to me from your email if you were proposing to send both memos or not No, so I have a strong preference to send one memo. Yes. Yeah, and it seems like we're in a good position to do that Yeah, I believe that's the last I heard I think barb said that she's fine with the joint memo, which was My edits to to one of her versions Um, so I think that's where we that's where we are as far as I understand it Nothing jumped out at me when I read it and I mean, I haven't read it since I prepared for the last meeting But I could tell you that it nothing jumped out at me or I would have She felt good and if the two of you are satisfied with it, then I'm Yeah, I mean, I concerns Yeah, I still have a minor issue with one deletion. Um, but uh Under advantages was deleted the section the wording was deleted deemed necessary So eliminates lengthfully Administrative work deemed necessary by the panning office I'm not sure why that got deleted That was deleted because I want to make sure that the tone of what we send Is one where we're taking mike's word for what the issue was And so deemed necessary Suggest that we're skeptical of the issue that was presented when I don't think That the city that the planning commission as a whole was skeptical Oh, I don't think I mean deemed necessary by the planning office is because they're the ones doing the work Um, we're not necessarily making a judgment about that um I I mean, I have gotten a question from previous planning commission many members saying I thought we knew I thought we did have a method for Determining that fairly simply so Anyway, I I just is there another way to word that so that it accomplishes what you're looking for without Maybe triggering any sort of concern about skepticism I thought the meanings stayed the same by deleting it I thought it's still presents what the issue was it says By deleting those two words this it still says eliminates lengthy administrative work by the planning office Yeah, but who's making that determination that it's lengthy administrative work is Is a qualification is is Making it so now in this case. We're making that determination right. We're taking the planning office's word For it. We're holding that at face value. We're not questioning that And that's I think what the point of that deletion is exactly Why don't we just take out Lengthly and then we can say eliminates administrative work by the planning office and I'll be fine That way, we're not making a determination ourselves on how lengthy it is without having seen evidence Um, yeah, we can do that and Mike you can explain your concerns Yeah, and how you presented that to us if you want. Yes Does that sound good to everybody? Okay This and for disadvantages the change could allow for increased density on steep Sites and or development on steep slopes I think density is just like a measure. So I think what this could do is allow for an increase of housing units on parcels that have steep slopes or Wetlands well, it's not just housing units, but maybe seeing increased buildings on steep slopes Well density is not a measure of buildings though. Yeah, but All it is is the number of households we're talking about Is it strictly related to housing units? That's what our density So do you think we could change density to units placed on steep slopes? Well, they they would be on sites that continue because we're not changing The regulations around what you can actually do or not do we're just saying if a site has this Then the then the the maximum allowable residential units you can build on it go up So it doesn't mean that it'll necessarily Beyond that steep part of the slope. It's just saying if a parcel has this So what what this bullet point it was trying to get to though was that it is possible that there's Some construction on the either the wetlands or the steep slopes because we Had already suggested to make the change that Some construction could be done with an engineering plan, right? So that's that's actually what this bullet's trying to get to is that It's feasible that there could be construction on steep slopes As a result of this change Well, it's actually the result of the other change The two in combination, but this is if you had five units you could Under the even if we didn't change the billable area you could still with engineering build something on a steep slope And whether that five units become seven units And you can build something on there. I think it's irrelevant or If I'm with you, it's complicated. It is a word that people don't seem to understand Well, the bullet was just conceding that it's feasible, right? So construction could happen Increased housing units. So yeah, so considering you guys read it a little differently than maybe yeah, we could Be very clear about what that means So replace density with housing units Yeah on on parcels with steep slopes or I don't know or I think I think the main thing is density because that's just like Well, just a metric so it doesn't density is not a thing I think we could cut out the big actually looking at this again. It's kind of repeats itself This change could allow for development on steep slopes or But we have already allowed for development on steep slopes This is really about how many units could be placed for additional development on steep slopes And if we want to specifically say that it's for housing Probably where most of that Seems like the disadvantages are mostly just captured by the other The disadvantage in in and of itself is not having more housing units Yeah, then I would object. Yeah. I mean, I think it's a valid point It's just a matter of how it's worded to To clearly point out that we're going to allow for additional housing units on steep sites So if What if you just put the reference back in that goes it's in combination with the earlier Changes To slopes there's additional building potential Yeah, but you could you could develop these additional units without having to develop them on the steep slope So it is it is about developing additional units and we've are We've already accepted the potential development on steep parts of the site Right. It doesn't seem like this is a disadvantage then I mean they took you took out an inappropriate Increased so I mean if we want to Because I think the point is that it gets to whether the housing unit density is appropriate on that site And we're just going to allow it With this change So if if you're feeling that I mean the second part of the sentence Is a restatement of what we already did with the previous allowance for building on steep slopes, but It may be more clarifying To leave it in I guess I I would agree with changing density to housing units if you think that's more That's clearer john Yeah density is not this the sentence doesn't really make sense just saying into the structures And it and we're not and we're not well, we're not talking about structures either. We're just talking about housing units That's like what the measure is, right So for increased housing units on steep sites So we need someone to write down with that changes and my copy's over with barb So I'd say I don't know I would propose we just delete that second bullet That's that's what I'm hearing and I'm and she's saying that she I don't think she'll be on board the memo anymore if we do Which this is a majority of this bullet This is essentially the majority of what minor bars conversation is about I'm trying to drill down to figure out like, you know, what the concerns are and what the descendants are in this In this area One thing we did discuss which I was kind of waiting for later, but I could bring it up now since we're talking about this is In the change that we that we suggested previously We could try to give the drb some more of a standard to apply when making a decision about um engineered plans and I'm building on steeper slopes this because Through a conversation and I don't want to speak for you barb. So feel free to chime in but we got to a point where Barb it seems like farb would feel a lot better about all of this if We were making sure that the rb was being responsible about what kinds of units and development that's happening on the slopes Which I think we all do agree with that so if Like beefing of that area might be A way to to do the safeguards in for this area that barb's concerned with You know anything else to add to that? Well, I think what we talked about was the fact that that Given engineering plans that people could choose to locate buildings or housing units on steep slopes in lieu of Developing it on a flat set portion of the site But I think that really does kind of touch on a different issue maybe the previous section more than this one Isn't it sort of an incentive to avoid the steep slope that you You know don't have to hire the engineer to prove that you can build on the steep slope. I mean well, you still do I mean you have to have an engineered plan And d rb approval. I mean the biggest incentive I could think of is that you have less risk to your home If you're building honestly like there's a practical matter, you know, there's there are a lot of people who choose to build on the steepest What's that even cliff street in town here? I mean there's there are houses hanging outside the boy there are yeah And and undeveloped areas that are potentially subject to something like that The standard I was thinking of just something like adding some language to that to the d rb allowance thing, you know something standard to the effect of if possible The project will take advantage of The slopes of less than 30 degrees so Mike where are the standards would that fit in? Page 316 We already have standards to limit the amount of disturbance clearing of existing natural vegetation in the surface surface And to minimize potential of erosion storm water runoff and flooding and water quality impairments Not to create slopes Deeper than or equal to 30% without an engineering plan Reserves distinctive natural features general topography of the site and existing natural vegetation maintain or reduce the pre-existing rate Or and retain the pattern of storm water runoff that leaves property Produce final grade that is compatible with natural surroundings create a harmony harmonious transition between graded slopes and natural terrain Avoid creating continuous unbroken slopes or linear slopes Contour graded slopes by varying the slope incremental reduced mental grades not to Just just to interrupt you here. I mean it seems like so everything you're reading is under 3007.h design standards in it. It's all Dealing with development on steep slopes So it's to the maximum extent feasible development on steep slopes how be designed to and then all those factors that you just Rattled off plus some more that I cut you off before you got to Um, it almost seems like the kind of provision that we're talking about would be before that Like maybe, you know, we'd move the h down to i and put it on new age that says um I don't know. I don't the language in mind, but Showing some sort of preference To the maximum extent feasible development should happen on the Platter areas of the site Maybe I was thinking another way would be just add us add on the sub two there. Oh, yeah, just just to clarify Uh, that'd be easier. Yeah. No. Yeah, not not create so steeper than or equal to 30 without an engineered plan to you know a development Or with I don't know actually I feel like I'm gonna be clumsy in anything I propose but the gist of it would be that Developing on flatter surfaces will be a priority just to add that there number one kind of caught that I think the maximum sense feasible limit the amount of disturbance clearing of existing natural vegetation in a pervious surface I I agree the one does but I mean we can it's not explicit A real fine point on it. Yeah So john you have a World brow What's uh, I'm just thinking about it. I mean it's It feels like academic to think of in those terms like when in reality, that's not really how like building things work I think we have like the luxury here and Have a bunch of nice flat sites for us to build things and like we'll choose the spot that's like less That's hanging off the side of a cliff And we'll end up in a situation where this goes before the drb And they'll say well, you've got all these better places on your property to build so we're not we're gonna deny this It seems just seems like a tortured situation that we're It's just clumsy or it's it's a very blunt Tool that we're trying to make into a scalpel to address this situation But we do give drb other kinds of recommendations I think the biggest concern that curvy and I were talking about was developing savings faster Because that's an area that has both low slope and steep slopes So it would be very possible for someone to choose to develop the sleeves steep slopes in advance of the of the lesser slopes But um, it seems like there are just so many other provisions of the bylaw that Would get at it could be wrong, but minimum setback Might The beauty standards I can't You're talking about like just a one One building rather than like a development of beauty No, I think it within developing probably within a pu d But um, I mean maybe splitting hairs here with that particular section and may have to find out I think we can I mean I think we could write some language that kind of clarifies that And it reiterates mostly what's already there that there's a You know desire to not develop on these steep slopes, but at the same time make it Truly make it a standard not a rule But um If if barba be okay with that. So what I'm proposing is not like any You know rigorous new rule or anything that would Talking about aspirational language, I think Guiding language, which uh, Mike's not a big fan of and rules Because it's hard to know what to do with it. You can it's it's fine to do as long as you've got guidelines to The regional client Has wording that discourages building on slopes over 25 For us We could say that we encourage building on the lower On the flatter areas of the site in preference to the steeper sections But I don't know if that just gets too cumbersome It's just like there are so many factors it may not make sense to build there, right? Like we may all agree like oh no like don't put that building like right next to the road blocking the view of something that everyone loves As opposed to this totally different location that makes sense Um, but we wrote this regulation so like the only place someone could build is like You know one foot out of the flood plain Because that's the only flat part or something like that. We're saying just preference It's not saying that that they have to do it, but at least they need to address it Address why they didn't choose to do that I mean a preference is kind of a loose word, which I know Mike doesn't like but well It just wouldn't have any standing in the court. Yeah, I don't see like how the city benefits from understanding someone's preference Oh, no, I guess. Yeah, I was interpreting preference with a little bit more scope than that But I don't know it's really up to you Kirby because you're the one who wants to insert that section Yeah, well again, I think that I saw it as a way to To address what your concerns are um In that bullet point because you're afraid of development on these slopes. So instead of not doing what we want to do With buildable area Let's get to the heart of it and address it here, which is about development on steep slopes But not strictly. Yeah, not strictly on steep slopes, but all right So it's not, you know, it doesn't address all of your concerns, but It addressed at least one that I thought was a big one Um, it addresses the part that we've previously already accepted Which is allowing Yeah development on steep slopes without an engineering Can we pin down what the concern is that we're trying to fix here or address because I I feel like I've lost it in the All of the discussion. So we have so the minimums built of advantages and disadvantages is kind of the meat of it and the second bullet point under disadvantages Is that this the word the wording right now is this change could allow for increased density on steep sites And or development on steep slopes with an engineered plan a drb approval John pointed out how Density is not used correctly there and that it really means residential units Or units, uh, so this change could allow for increased units on those Sites And this change is meaning it's the allowance of building on steep slopes. That's what we're talking about No, the changing the buildable area changing the buildable area could increase the number of units built on the steep slopes Yes, right. Okay on steep sites in combination with other things not the change by itself So it's a difference between the steep sites and the steep slopes Unparcels with steep slopes, but but then if we're saying you could build more housing units on places where we say it's okay for you to build And our one of our big goals is to increase the number of housing units. I fail to see like how it's a disadvantage And I'm with you I'm with you on that and and You know barb and I talked about that I think it's definitely subjective to call that a disadvantage the second part. I think so it's less subjective and that's That it could lead to development on steep slopes so if we But that's mitigated if we maybe beef up the standards a little bit. Can we call that bullet and put it up in the Description of I mean, I'm just thinking maybe if we move it could allow for increased housing units on steep sites period Yeah, I mean you could just put it John's concern is that he doesn't see that as a disadvantage because we want more We do we do want to disclose that this change could happen, right? Yes, but we we don't agree. Whether it's an advantage or disadvantage. So Let's disclose it in a section that's not Listed under either We're trying to be as clear as possible to city council about the decision As clear as it gets I mean The crux of this debate here for the last 20 minutes has been whether or not The inclusion of a bullet point it can be characterized as an advantage or disadvantage Nobody's denying that it has an impact. It's how we characterize it. So don't characterize Yeah, just to leave advantage and disadvantage and then rework That to say Could allow for an increase in housing units on parcels with steep with steep slopes in steep sites Well, just as I was already taken out, right? It wasn't that deleted That I mean That seems like an elegant solution I I mean that I think it becomes it's worth it. Mission can't agree upon what is properly characterized as an advantage or disadvantage when Outlining the impacts of the change I don't know how we would expect The city council or anybody any other reader to Not have that same problem So what's not so the problem Yeah, because then maybe we're making determinations about it too if we see something as an advantage or a disadvantage So you're suggesting just put all the bullet bullet points together. They're all just impact as impacts leader can Robust debate will follow We're not just leading them down the path Well, I could certainly agree with that I I don't I don't have that strong of feelings. I do think that it's it's doesn't communicate as well Look what our thinking is I think it's like That resolution means that we're just let's just be less clear about what we're saying is and That's not what I was going for but I also Don't think the city council's gonna put as much energy in it as we have I don't know I think if we can if we can put them all under one header that says impacts and approve the memo We should because you're right. We've spent a lot of time on this I really appreciate the extra effort that Kirby and barb have done So if the two of you are comfortable with that, you know, it's It's comfortable with putting all of the bullet points together. Yeah under one Heading impacts. Yeah and changing that one Bullet in the manner John Adams described just to change density to housing units Oh, so from density to increased Units on sites with steep slopes Steep site says the same thing you want to change the word density to units that To just yeah residential units residential units. Okay. Okay change density to residential units and leave the rest as it is You can or you could say parcels with steep slopes Just to be really clear. Yeah, either way the main thing is like density getting rid of the density Okay And maybe the second half of that gets to to what you wanted to do So The development on steep slopes I just again, I mean like my suggestions about the 30% standards for the drb is just That was an area that I agree with barb that I thought we'd all agree that We're not trying to make a change where all of a sudden it's like fair game to start building on the steepest slopes you can like that's not so Adding adding in a little bit of clarifying language. I thought would be a good way To resolve that and I thought that was out of that bullet point. That was the part I would be concerned about Um, because I agree with John that increasing density in and of itself is Certainly not a disadvantage So Appropriate housing units, but um, okay. Well, thank you Next up under same item item six um Let's talk about Mike's written report Do any updates? Or if it's new you're required in the state law to put together a zoning report That provides gives a brief explanation of the proposed by-law amendment including the statement of purpose Some findings regarding how the proposal conforms With or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan And findings regarding on how the proposal is compatible with the future land uses and densities in the municipal plan So I put together A memo that really just kind of outlines what's there You guys Give any comments. We certainly can make amendments If we need to have a later date too, but we have to send the required report out with the Warning One of these things planners really wish the state would just Get rid of The only thing it's good for is lawyers Super planning directors Not personally. Yes, personally So it's just one of these ones that they find the little polls of well, you didn't follow that one word So how does this last part about where you're referencing the master plan? That comes as part of this report because all of these sections are Being affected Well, the second one how the proposed how the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan That's the statutory requirements that that's the statutory requirement What I've got to talk about so the master plan adopted in 2017 identifies goals So to f Okay, so it just identifies the particular goals that these Address yeah Yeah, the zoning talked about some of these a couple of these I could have eliminated for maybe for the amendment but The steep slopes does affect The earth extraction Well, um This is going to be finalized after the public hearing right we could finalize So It looks fine to me now. Um, most of what I pulled from the zoning when we did the zoning adoption Yeah, I I'd like to just take some time. Yeah, so I haven't had time to really look at this Yeah, so we'll we can all take some time with it and then we can incorporate any other changes that we may make as a result of the public hearing So we'll just so this doesn't have to go to the council beforehand As an explanation of the change. No, I believe it goes It's a part of the package that goes to a ccd goes to neighboring towns. It goes to the regional planning commission and it goes to The lawyers They'll find out which one I missed. So it's after Approval by city council. Well, no, no, no, it's it's after our public hearing And I need to send this with the public hearing notice to others, but oh you do others. Okay Yeah for the planning commission public hearing Okay, how much? What's the timeline on that? I think it's just 15 days. So okay If I got if I got comments in the next 15 days, I can look but let me check because they Conveniently make things just a little bit different for each one So I'm confused. This would be sent in and then uh to the council In in 15 days So the okay, so we're working against a suggested public hearing date of april 8th And we need to get 15 days notice Before that public hearing And we need to send this out as part of that notice So if we're calculating 15 days backwards from april 8th, I see then that puts us at whatever the deadline is for getting this out The only purpose of this is because it's required by law to send along And so it's just right like we're changing the zoning to make it better. Right. No, it makes more detail It makes sense to have this it's just a question because it says it's going to city council, but I thought I heard mike say it wasn't yeah. Yeah, it is it's just not it's the initial notice for the public hearing goes to The other guys this will go to city council once you guys are done So it's 15 days counting weekends or not Counts weekends 15 actual days Weren't public hearing less than 15 days Seemed like I'm we're not one of those lawyers that we're ever doing a city plan. We don't even know I don't even know how to see you So march sunday march 24 So the 22nd Friday the 22nd Yeah 22nd would give us extra. Yeah If you don't mind I'd like to just spend some time with it now send to the group if I have anything I probably don't Yeah Why don't why don't we just why don't we each send comments that we have to mike and he can Compile them and send us a new draft I don't know within a week if everyone gets some comments by the end of this week I it was the date the end uh, yeah the 15th And then mike can get us a revised version a couple days later like on the 19th And this you know, I assume we won't have any issues then we can send it out on the 22nd Do you send us that the pdf or a word back It was it was part of the I don't know which one I sent I could try to resend it You just send it out with the package. Yeah, I don't remember I just hit print Yeah Except unless it's got colors Oh, I actually don't I don't think I have a copy of that Did you send that out in the last batch of stuff? A couple days ago It was on friday. I thought I sent it friday Yeah, it's in word except it's tight. Maybe title a little bit funny. It's yeah unified development regulations Oh, that's something important. It's in um, it's in word. It's a word version. So perfect Yeah, great It also references a proposed land use map. Is that a change that we're making? We are making a change to the land use map this guy Oh That's changed to the map. Okay, but we haven't talked about that Well, yeah, it's already been approved. It's already approved on the matrix Oh, so which All right Refresher memories. Yeah north street Okay, that's part of it. Let's Yeah, okay. Keep going. This was a there's the river There's north street. Actually if you were over here on elm street, you can see a little house over here There it was built on the hillside so these guys went and This property sold And had a new house built on it And these guys Knew each other and these guys always wanted to have more land So they did a boundary line adjustment to add more land to his property. So he had a little bit more room But because he had the parcel that was on the edge of Yeah, the zoning man right We he now had a split parcel half of his parcel or two thirds of his parcel One zone one third of his parcel is in another zone. So we figured Move the zoning boundary. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you Okay, so I think we're We need to vote to set the date for the public hearing Uh, suggested date is april 8th Do I have a motion to set april 8th as the date for the public hearing for the zoning changes? Okay, any discussion about that Are we gonna have a quorum for that? So john stephanie and barb are gonna be gone we have to all be there So Okay, so that's We need to have quorum to open it here We didn't look good Well those were working probably For the hearing the actual hearing that occurred. There were only two actual hearings at the city council all right, so Hearing no more discussion. Uh, all those in favor say aye All those opposed Okay, the motion carries and the meeting date Is set for april 8th um I don't number seven was kind of Hitting both of those Seven is motion to warn a hearing on april 8th to consider the draft amendment To the unify development regulations, so We we set the hearing date, but we did we accomplish this mic and I think we did that. Yeah, I think that would technically follow that So will we get it? We get a final copy of all the changes all the strikeout ones Would you like a hard copy or do you want me to I think I emailed you a digital copy. She emailed the digital copy. You can take mine I just didn't know if there was anything Yeah, I guess we only made a few questions. Yeah, Mike. Maybe would you mind Making sure that we have a few copies printed for the actual hearing Yes, well, I have to I have to have copies in Downstairs and I have to have Some copies the strikeout the strikeout one. Yeah. Yeah, officially. That's what we are Going to be adopting. We went through the matrix, but officially What is in the strikeout copy with the changes we made today, which were on 424 423 and 315 those three pages we made typo fixes Oh, okay. Well, that's all it is. I can just look at what you emailed Yeah Oh Yeah, so I will make those three changes Yes, we can That's right um So as far as the hearing process will um Bank to you are you up for giving a quick overview of kind of the The approach that we took and the types of changes that we I will come prepared and we'll see Who shows up and how many people show up and we can kind of take it from there I mean if we don't get a lot of Input or we get one or two people we can probably Answer their questions. Mm-hmm If we get a bigger crowd then it makes sense to kind of do an overview of it If we don't get anybody then we can Move on to the city plane Do we typically get a draw? Usually well my experience here is that yes I think we can anticipate Um, I'm something really good size comments Is it it's typically just one hearing is that correct for the planning commission? There's one required hearing we can have as many hearings as we want We had with the last adoption we had multiple rounds of hearings Yeah, so we moved her item seven So item eight is the city plan identify this year's mild stones toward completion Discuss the presentation room sustainable Montpelier coalition and next steps So like I mentioned we had a little bit of a working session at our last meeting since we didn't have a quorum and The big takeaways I had were that um The sustainable Montpelier coalition Presentation was really valuable for giving us ideas about the potential for our city and the next step is to kind of start marking on a map Which of those we feel We should pursue so A lot of information is going to go into that some is you know if we want to review Various documents that Mike's going to be uploading under the google drive We're going to be seeking public comment that will also give us information on that Of course, we have the master plan that we can look to for ideas You know, we don't have to just pull these out of thin air so but the I think the most Comprehensive way to start the process is to actually pull up a map in one of our meetings Look at it together and talk about Various things so we can decide whether we want to talk about a portion of the city or if we want to talk about like a You know transportation needs throughout the city and we can just have an organic discussion And since it was your idea john With the map you want to give any more? Background or details um Yeah, well, so we'll we have this tool. I guess that the that stern environmental is Developing that'll give us basically the ability to collect information On a map from the community And like a very easy to use way either using your phone or online or something um It would probably make sense for one that as soon as that's available for us to be the first to Take it for a test drive and start to populate it with things um and the idea of framing it with With the like degrees of change, so what do what do we want in our community? What do we want to transform? What do we want to improve and what do we want to maintain? It's like a productive way of capturing People's ideas around specific areas in the town um, but short of Come up with something quickly, but we probably just want to do this once and if someone's going to do it probably Want to wait until that's ready the other part of this is so we have the website that I started last year that everyone has access to as a place where we'll put some material and in that we'll put Barbara she gave me the energy committee Sort of goals and plans and I tried to work them into a format that could serve as a template for Other communities and for ourselves in terms of how do we want to break out? Do we want to people to to give us Information so that it's useful and in a way that's consistent with other Other committees and other people and how we'll end up using it in the end so also so that it's it ends up being practical as opposed to a 300 page document that We feel relieved to be completed with and never look at again So In the in the folders there and I can send just a direct link which will be easier. There's um I don't know if you've had a chance to look at it Barbara, but I didn't because I I guess I misunderstood when we were looking at it Just on the last session It wasn't clear to me What how much information was actually in there from the from the energy goals? So you actually have incorporated it different levels. I did and it I boiled it down Quite a bit from what was there And essentially has it as you know one maybe vision statement and then Goals and measures. So basically measurable goals that I think the community had a lot of so I put Those in there and then And then strategies and strategies could be policies or actions to Accomplish those So there are three levels vision. There's three levels. Yeah vision a single statement that talks about what you know where we want to go goals that are actual Measurable so like how do we know if we'd attain that vision? We should be able to check off those It's measurable goals and then the strategies And and in it I also have like a Evaluation matrix that we may not want to get into now, but I thought it would be worth Bringing up as a you know, where are we going with this and also as something to communicate for communities to think of And I just proposed these but we can talk about what what makes sense But to look at what is the effectiveness of a proposed strategy or action? Action, what is the what are the effort or resources required? What are the any existing programs or projects Related to this what are the timelines? What are the supporting documents like how fleshed out is this idea? Because some things will be you know already on their way and very developed others will be may just be pie in the sky ideas And then responsible parties anticipated costs and partners that way when we Bring all of these together we can look at What is the highest where do we get the biggest bang for our buck? And start to prioritize what the different strategies are and And hopefully the people or the committees or folks who've come up with these ideas can understand that We'll be we'll have to make some hard decisions or like that's the challenge of this is actually finding those those strategies that are going to make it the biggest difference and Try to have them work with us with and looking at this rather than With the idea that everyone submits ideas and we'll accept all of them and put them into a plan Which is easy to do. We're not doing anyone any favor by doing that So you're suggesting we would prioritize not each individual group Well, they can fill out They can fill out the matrix if they'd like but that that would Maybe something we go back to them because it can be a lot to Yeah to come up with all of that and then to evaluate it You probably want to get them all together and then evaluate them in context, right? But if they had at least had the evaluation matrix, then that would might give them a better idea of what areas to emphasize In terms of getting us information If i'm reading this yeah, or that we'll be going back to them and that this will be evaluated under this criteria Right, I mean so they could identify what resources there are You know each one of these line items, so we don't have to do that work. It's is it Full for us to work with some kind of a map prior to Relying on the stone environmental map might be a Just a much simpler method as as Leslie was saying, you know Maybe we look at a map and we address transportation throughout the city and then We look at another copy of the map and we address, you know, one of the other topics Housing or something like that just to try and sort of Put a graphic interface into this Yeah, we can as a group we could also just actually have a map and start Drawing it up at our meetings. Yeah, that's how I started that. That's what I mean. Yeah, so if we could have Large scale, I mean a large map that we can all work on top of sure, you know always do it as overlays On a single map I'd like it if we could start that at the next meeting. Yeah, and we have a map That should be somewhere on the site that has a lot of the layers that you can toggle on Is it possible to print is it possible to print? I wouldn't print from it. I mean you could Okay, well, yeah, I guess what I'm talking about. Do you want paper copies or do you want to just get digital and No, I think we should just project it I think or if we have a paper one But I just bring up that so we don't have the need to Oh, I see everything on it because we have we can access that digitally other than Looking at something that's like we tried to put we put too much on and then we can't figure out what we're looking at anymore Yeah, I guess I was thinking about doing it physically as overlays. So, you know, we have a base map that has I don't know how much information we want to include and then look at each specific Area, but it might be useful to draw, you know to pull up that those Individual maps those layers you have to give us some background as we're looking at the whole thing So, but I think we need to be able to actually get in at least I do get into it as a graphic tool So I don't see it on the actual on our little planning website yet Okay, so I might have taken it down because Yeah, we stopped talking about the city So if you go to sland.mongp.city you can pull up our little website that john made So if I don't know if you want to it's pretty it's pretty great for a unused website at this point You did a great job on it. You really did. Yeah, so if you could send us that link again john What you sent it in a previous email right to the yeah, yeah, I can send you the link to that and then also just the the spreadsheet for the energy goals Yeah, that would be great. Yeah, I'm sending it right now. Okay. I already got it well Because I tried pulling it up with pop's plan plan That city and I did not get it So speaking of overlays that you guys discussed sort of The different buckets or areas that we might discuss Well only generally nothing no focused discussion on that We have the list of one of the buckets. I'll just talk about top chapters. Yeah Yeah, so Erin there's a list of chapters That and who would be responsible Is that on that website? I don't know I just don't think that's on the website It'll start to get over there We've got to set up a folder for each one of them so I can start otherwise you're just going to end up with a giant library of Unorganized documents, so I kind of have to make Folders. Yeah make an energy folder that will that I'll have some subfolders in that'll have like Resources either general resources or not failure specific Right, so then they can start to populate that with their resources. Yeah, because that's what I started to do on my own Just to work through it first was to just set up Different subfolders so under housing there are different subfolders. So we could I would know where start chucking things if I find them So so it seems like we have a good idea of how we're going to get feedback and information from the committees Did you talk about how We'll incorporate the public feedback along the way The idea was with that that map the the tool from stone Okay, but having meetings actually having public hearings to get feedback Well, there will be certainly um The discussion that we've been having in the past was that you know We have a plan that has a lot of visions And what we wanted to do is to start to make a more strategic Plan so we were going to kind of reorganize the plan and kind of go back to the committees to kind of write Plans for you know the historic chapter would have something that's going to work out with the historic preservation committee And to try to make it more strategic and then And then kind of go to the public with you know after working with the committees because the committees are made up of members of the public too Each one of those meetings would be open to the public and then just to start to work our way back to Taking all the pieces and then putting the pieces into a plan and then getting back to having You know more public outreach on each one of these pieces Which I think is where The access mob pillar will be very helpful When that comes online The stone product because we'll be right access more failure. That's the name of it. Yeah And so if we get that all going and you know, we're gonna have to have multiple ways of of reaching out And I think as with the zoning process You know, we're gonna This plan won't be 200 pages But you know the zoning was 200 pages and we spent tons and tons of time discussing probably about 15 of them I think the city plan is going to be a lot the same where we're going to come up with a lot of Goals policies recommendations and a lot of it people are going to kind of go and say well, this is this is what we do And this is good and then a couple sections that we're gonna Friction Creates a friction and and you know different there are going to be different groups. It's just out there You know, we've got people who Um The merchants and folks Very concerned about making sure there's enough parking for customers and another group that wants bike lane to another group that wants no cars so Apparently we're gonna have to make a decision as to what our recommended policies are and somebody's not going to be happy with that and we're gonna hear about it But the point is is for us to have is to put stuff out there for people to start to react to What committee is going to inform us the most on parking? Transportation committee, okay, I mean you're gonna hear from the act because there's a portion of them that Has a you know sees the the cars as a conflict point for bikes and You know a limited of them that think Parking is you know cars cars are going to be a thing of the future and You know or a thing of the past And they're not going to be here anymore and we don't have to be planning for them We shouldn't be building parking garages. What about complete streets? Complete streets is going to be the parking. It's going to be the transportation plan Okay, that's the name of the transportation committee. They're going to be this transportation plan We're going to we'll draw heavily on the on the complete streets plan because that's really the policy that the city city has taken To identify where the bike lane should be to identify where the on-street parking should be And to establish a plan and a map And that'll probably tell us a lot about the that you know our Maintain evolved transform is looking at You know where where the gaps in that complete streets where we have Streets that completely don't match what our ideal future is And that policy has been adopted by city council. The complete streets plan has yeah We were looking at a number of different transportation plans I'm pretty sure I've got a long long history of lots of transportation plans Yeah, so I mean there's a lot of things that will go into the transportation plan not just that you know, there's there is the public transit Yeah There's a there is a map on the website. Uh, it probably needs to be updated because it's from august 2017 But there's an interactive map there That you can go and toggle on Just a whole pile of layers again Take a look at this and see what's still relevant We have like some drafts So is that on our site? Uh, it is I think it's sort of buried in there. I was just looking for things to Content put onto it Yeah, so, you know I just aim on that the link to this page Unburied that that would help in for us to just kind of maybe look at before the next meeting So Mike, are you going to be able to provide some kind of a hard copy large physical map for us to work over Are we looking for just one per meeting? Just with the ortho and parcel lines Yeah, that would probably just one we could put on the table for the next meeting And then we could do tracing paper over two by three Do you have tracing paper? Oh, yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay, so bring that. Can you bring that? Yeah That's when it gets fun. Yeah Colored okay Sound good for the next meeting on that So I sent the link to the map if anyone wants to play around with it. You can do that Um, I sent it in your email So we have some meeting minutes we should blow through right now and try to get approved starting with January 28. I just had one question Under the punch list for zoning fixes number four Gravel to whether or not they would need Permit to change from gravel to believe it was yes And I I thought that we actually had voted on the matrix That they would need a permit, but it looks like this discussion says we Don't they don't need a permit. Um, no, I think if you read I mean my read of it is that they do it says Mike recommended this is the second last and it's mic recommended that if it's a new surface it requires permit repaving is means Oh, I see Yes But repaving a paved surface is that what that means? When I already paid yeah, it was an already it was a gravel surface being paved for example Mike, do you recall what we I remember in our Matrix discussion. I guess I thought that meant repaving But maybe I'm totally that's something that was already that was not gravel, but But Pave a gravel path and it says either material is an impervious surface So we could keep track of that impervious surfaces curvy If they got a permit So the decision Pc agrees to regulate paving of unpaved surfaces Okay, so I guess that would mean that we changed our position from number four In a later date Sorry, can you read that again Mike? Pc agrees to regulate paving of unpaved surfaces. Oh I mean, it doesn't matter. We could have made that decision then and changed our decision later I'm just bringing it up as a point if somebody goes back and read our Minutes we didn't change our decision later. I don't think I think that was the decision so we should make this clear So my proposal is that we change the last sentence from the consensus was an agreement with that recommendation to the consensus was an agreement To regulate whatever Mike just read was our regulate paving of unpaved surfaces To regulate Thank you for catching that Anything else with these? Do I have a motion to approve with that amendment? Second a second Any other discussion on this? All those in favor say aye all those opposed Okay January 28 meeting minutes are approved with that change February 11 Do I have a motion to approve these? Second from anyone here. Okay barb seconds any discussion This is our okay all those in favor say aye All those opposed Okay February 11 meeting minutes approved February 25th Barb you've got to be the one to second this one I do We're running out of the other person there Oh, because oh wait. Do we even have minutes technically she wrote minutes anyways because she had a copy of the Yeah, we might as well approve them. I mean I'm sure Second Okay, all those in favor Say aye. Okay good. I'll vote on that one Okay, they're approved Okay, I have a second Okay, it's a non-dematable motion All those in favor say aye Okay, and we are adjourned. Thanks everyone. Thank you