 minute So neither Connor oh, yes, so I think so We will table the minutes till next meeting Okay, and we'll continue with Ulu dr. Amendments unified land use Use development regulations. You got it. Don't like that Don't you say zoning rags? Well, you can say that too. That's first all goats that yeah, so we remember them by It's both both work. So Okay, so yeah, we're continuing on with our discussion of the amendments to the to the land use regulations primarily for act 47 updates What I want to focus on is articles 2 3 and 4 tonight and hopefully we'll be able to get through all this We've talked a lot already about article 2 so there's a couple things I want to highlight specifically just to make sure that you all are aware of the changes that are being included, but I Think yeah, I think we should be able to get through this Hopefully we'll be able to get through these fairly quick. So anyway, I'm gonna share my screen here So we can all see what's going on and give you one second to Pop in a few other windows in case people show up I can let them in God I printed this off because I can't read that on the screen. Well, I'll make it a little bit. I don't need to I don't need to Because I've got I've got a paper copy in front of me I also want to what the folks in the room to be able to see it. So spent a lot of time talking about the land use table so Not I don't have anything to highlight there for specific changes, but I do want to highlight note for this is a amended note that talked previously about density multi-unit density in the central business district only what I'm proposing here is Some amendments to the language for central business district density But also because we're putting multi-unit into the general commercial the C1 Adding in language about that and also adding language about the downtown core because those will also be New let me just back up here quick to show that so under the multi-unit of The five units or more we're adding this as a permitted use in the C1 C2 and see sorry in the downtown core So I wanted to update The note number four to reflect those additional zoning districts But the other part that I want to make sure I highlight here is that What I'm proposing is that properties that front on East Allen Street or Main Street will have no density limitations So they can be as dense as they need to be based on those properties There's a couple reasons for this one and I'm gonna bring up the zoning map here as well So we're talking about the properties in orange basically the Winooski block out to the bevy is on this white property So this is East Street Over here on the end. So basically the properties that front along East Allen Street Directly across from the downtown core district also included in the TIF district So these properties along East Allen and then the properties along Main Street here from basically the post office at the corner of West Allen and Main down to The residential building just past the Mandarin Those properties I'm proposing would have no density limitation one Eric. Yeah, go ahead Sorry interrupt you would that include is that next lot down in the bottom Main Street? Is that the The mill it is the mill but because that is Fronts on West Canal Street and is addressed on West Canal Street. I would not consider that a Main Street property so But the way it's written is it fronts on Main Street. Yeah So I don't view that as fronting on Main Street that the property extends to Main Street But the frontage of that is West Canal Street. Well, I think you might have a Tough argument there. I Know that when we when we looked at other things if they had any frontage at all on the street it counted so Just the heads up. Yeah, we could I mean we could add language that said that fronts on and is addressed as So that the address has to also coincide to Main Street or East Allen Street But what I mean, I guess would it necessarily let's let's just say We said, you know the mill No density limit is there. I guess what's what is the concern about at versus the other The other properties here actually, let me look at something quick because this argue or this discussion may be unnecessary Just looking at the size of the mill property So right now the mill property is It's just over six acres in size according to this information six point two acres There are about a hundred and seventy units Dwelling units on that property if we left it at the sixty units per acre They would be allowed to do three hundred and seventy two units So they're already well under what they could do at that density So my guess is that they're maxed out to what they can do for what they need for parking and what they can do for Developable area so they may already be at The max that they could do and I I know I should probably know this but like in the central business district Are there? Lot coverage limitations there. There are not so the central business district allows for a hundred percent lot coverage Provided there the property is able to get a stormwater permit to to accommodate that coverage. I assume there's a height There is a height limitation of 60 feet. Yeah, so that's kind of your so yeah So that's gonna be right right the height is gonna be the limiting factor No for the most part so is that from the street or is that any part of the building any part of the building? The maximum height the building can be a 60 feet So they're probably pretty close to that if not they are ready there. You go to the lower parking lot Feeds pretty high. They're probably around there. They're there maybe yeah, but it's probably 60 feet is about five stories Roughly, yeah five or six stories. Those are I mean they've obviously got a taller floor-to-floor span Right, right, so I mean they're probably in some parts of the building. They might be close to the 60 foot Okay, so but is that from the grade or like is that from from great? Okay? Yep, and we have a definition of how we measure height so but that property aside There's a lot of these smaller properties along both Main Street and East Allen Street And I think I brought this up. I did bring this up several meetings ago For example the Winooski block is based on that standard of 60 units per acre It's a non-conforming building because right based on their size. They would only be allowed to have 19 units And they've got 24 units similarly the monkey house is a non-conforming because the most they could have is two units, and they've got three so Eliminating the density Require the density maximum for those properties one makes them some of them conforming and two Allows additional density to be placed adjacent to the downtown core where we want other density And these are all properties both the East Allen properties and the Main Street properties are included in the Tiff district So there is some correlation there to allow for that Basically removing any type of density limitation for those properties only so as comparison This property behind This property off of Barlow Street here Would still be limited to that density cap because it does not front or it is not On East Allen Street or on Main Street, but it's still in the central business district So going back to the woolen mill. Yeah I'm not sure that I mean why not just leave it the way it is and see what happens I mean, there's still there's still minimum parking requirements, right? Did we drop it down to is it three quarters of a space per unit or for apartments or one per unit? It'd be one space per unit. Okay So they're probably pretty close to that right like you said, right? But some of these other properties like for example the on East Allen Street There's these three properties here that are a parking lot, which you know That's not really a great use and so if they were able to redevelop that without any type of density limitation It could provide some much-needed housing for example and and provide a better use for those properties Similarly the bank property for example that were to redevelop based on the size that's there now They might only be able to put four units on it or so, but could do You know it might they might be able to design something that could accommodate six to ten units But they wouldn't be able to do that again given the height allowance that's there, right? So it's I think it's It's a way to help some of these properties one bring them into conformance But also to allow for some redevelopment option options of some underutilized properties Yeah, and I think I mean the parking lot I Used to park over there when I lived at Riverrun because we had one one spot Yeah, put our second car there. Yeah It was never full and as I understand it the garage Is like almost never fall right and I think this is where we want Housing there's going to be housing. Yeah, and I think it couldn't I think that this can also take some of the pressure off of The residential areas where we have to allow for more density based on Act 47 This could provide some opportunities where somebody might say well I could either buy that that lot in an RV district and redevelop it with 40 units Or I could buy a lot here and put 15 units on it for example, so You know, I think it I think it opens up some options And I think it makes sense just given proximity to the downtown core fact that these are in the tiff district I think it's a good Can help promote some additional development density. Yeah, I yeah, I agree with these changes. That's fine with me Christine do you have any thoughts? I'm always a fan of bringing the regulations into conformance with the existing development Oh, why am I not surprised to hear that? So that's one of the changes and then the other two basically the other parts of this limit The C2 the general commercial to 30 units per acre And then the downtown core basically just references the downtown regulations in article 3 for what the density limitations are there The only other change here is just these notes at the bottom which were requested a recommendation from Sarah She asked that just and I think it's a good idea just to make sure that we're Stating what P and cu and P slash cu mean in the in the charts And there haven't been any changes to the table about P versus cu, right? Not since the last time we reviewed it. No, I mean there are some uses there. Let me just back up to that That's what I thought I've been there are some uses that we're listing we're Updating to be permitted or conditional depending on the scenarios, but Otherwise no, I think everything is still pretty much the same as the last time this was reviewed. All right Just one thing about those definitions. Can you go to the p slash cu? Yeah definition So indicates that special circumstance exists that if met would allow the used to be be administratively approved Special circumstances that you know that definition doesn't really explain What that means so right I assume that for the specific uses we're talking about it's like spelled out Yeah, so let me let me just confirm But yes, I believe anywhere where we list something as both permitted or conditional There's a footnote with the use so yeah for accessory dwelling There's a footnote that references section five one that has those specific circumstances For the multi unit the three to four dwellings the note would reference the priority housing section that we'll get to Hopefully at the next meeting So yes, so that'll outline what those specific circumstances are that need to be met in order to be administratively approved And then under the group boarding homes that footnote five actually includes those circumstances Which is basically a distance requirement. So um that it'd be permitted if it's Left if it's more than a thousand feet from another group home. Otherwise, it's conditional So yeah, so that's those circumstances are spelled out. I guess that's a long way of saying all that Is that satisfactory to you? Yeah, I think it's fine. Okay Um, okay any other questions on Those items So the next thing we have I want to just touch briefly on the Dimensional requirements for the primary structures. We've talked a lot about this over the past several meetings. So None of this has changed from our last discussion. The one thing I did want to highlight is under the public zoning district We don't list anything Currently and I wasn't proposing to list anything but then as I was reading through this I added a note for what NA means and that it basically says that the use is not allowed so I want to put something in here because We want to be able to So for example the public district The uses are pretty limited in that public zoning district As it is and there's only I think four properties that are zoned public The uses it does not allow for any residential uses. It does not allow for any commercial uses It only allows for a cultural facility a daycare facility an educational facility a non-commercial recreation and entertainment facility and accessory or supporting uses And let me just pull up the zoning map again So As I mentioned there's only four properties that meet or that are zoned this way Gilbrook the front end of Gilbrook a baseball field up by the school and For some reason the musky housing authority property at the top of franklin street is zoned public And then landry park and the meyers pool. Those are the only properties that are zoned public The smallest one I believe is Meyers pool and it's at just under two and a half acres so When we look at the use table We have no standards for these excuse me for these districts. So for the residential We can leave that as an na for the non-residential though I think we need to include something and then have a minimum frontage and depth Which I was thinking we could we could match potentially any of the residential districts If we wanted to or we could match any of the other districts quite frankly because the properties that are currently in that category Would exceed Would meet or exceed all of the standards for any of the other districts that we have now Eric can we just put for for the minimum lot size is just put none We could yeah, that was something else. I was thinking we could do is just listed at zero and just Yeah, it has no minimum. Yeah, the idea of a lot size minimum for a public use Feel I don't I guess I'm not sure what that really accomplishes and I could I don't know maybe maybe there's some small lot that At some point the city decides to build like I don't know a small daycare or something Well, you know, yeah, and I was thinking about actually I was thinking about making all of these Zeros instead of na obviously the the residential use would stay as na because we don't allow residential uses But the rest of them setting them all at zero or no minimum that way If there's some slipper of land somewhere It could become a park And there's no minimum Requirements for it. It can just be used as is and be conforming for that zoning district because I think um For property to be rezone public I mean like we would have to approve that. Yep. So that's right. I mean I think Whatever the individual proposed use was someone would like look at it Yes, right seems appropriate. Right and we do have I mean we do have setbacks. We do have a maximum height We do have a a maximum lot coverage listed. So I mean I think putting it at zero or no minimum To me makes sense again. I agree the uses are so limited in this district that Nobody's I don't think anybody's gonna come in to request a change to public Because it's gonna hamstring anything that they can do I like no minimum as opposed to zero Okay, yep And maybe for the other for minimum lot frontage and and depth Same thing no minimum. Yep. I could do that And and the map brings up a question. I guess at some point we should we look at uh, that the housing up on Top of franklin street. Yeah, I mean, I think that does make sense There's obviously some other properties that we've been talking about Evaluate for example Memorial park the back half of gilbrook Casavent we these are all properties we've We've identified in the future land use map in the in the master plan as needing some evaluation So but yeah, I think it's it's worth looking at in the future that that property at the top of franklin street Yes, so the housing authority piece on the bottom of elm street. Is that in the our? See that is in the rb Yep, that's in the rc district rc. Yep. Oh and and but we've got rb and ra up there. So Yeah, right. So, um, okay. Yeah, I can list those at no no minimum. I think that makes sense okay, um Great and then the We have not spent really any time. I don't think looking at the accessory structure table so Everything here is basically the same as it was previously with relation to setbacks For the front side and rear none of that's changed from what was Previously included and let me just double check that with the exception that We we didn't list anything in the central business district or general commercial Or the downtown core And the gateway so i'm just referencing article three and appendix b for those two And then just matching the rest for the central business district in general commercial The biggest change here is Related to maximum height previously Or the current regulations have the maximum height for An accessory structure at the same as the primary structure for almost all of these so 35 feet for the primary structure in the residential districts um 35 feet for an accessory structure Similarly, so what i've done here is amended it to say Basically 75 percent of the primary structure, but no less than 10 feet So that way if you just have a single story building You can do At least 10 feet for an accessory structure if you live in a garage or whatever We measure height as a reference to from grade to i believe it's average of the peak So it's not to the exact peak of the roof So there's some the structure itself from ground to peak of roof May end up being taller, but by the the definition of how we measure It would be 10 feet um Is that 75 percent? Sorry, does that just is that best practice or? You know it varies i What i wanted to do is make sure that we weren't An accessory structure is intended to be subordinate to the primary structure. So i wanted to make sure that There was some deviation or differentiation between what was primary and what was accessory You'll notice that i have a note here on the maximum height So the only one i guess let me back up a step The only one that i'm not proposing to be 75 percent or 10 feet is the central business district at 25 feet Because we allow for buildings to be 60 feet in that district So i wanted to give a little bit of extra increase there and Presumably there's probably not going to be a lot of accessory structures in the central business district Just given the nature of the uses and what's allowed there. So That seemed like that was a good compromise The note that i have on maximum height Basically says that if you're putting an accessory dwelling Into that accessory structure you can go at least 17 feet in height to accommodate Potentially a garage through the first floor Parking area and then a dwelling above it And then also that if if you were allowed to be higher based on the size of the primary structure You could obviously go taller than 17 feet, but 17 feet would give you That would basically give you And i looked at multiple plans for accessory structures Sorry accessory dwellings that we've received over the years And they're all right around that 17 foot height. So that's basically a first floor of 8 feet With a gap of a foot between any type of garage space and living space. So I wanted to make sure that we were not limiting accessory dwellings as part of these accessory structures So question for you on that Eric if you've got eight feet plus a foot that's nine feet That gives you eight feet for a for a living area Should we allow that to be a little bit higher because Some people like a nine foot or a 10 foot ceiling Again based on the way we measure height. We only measure to average roof pitch so The overall height of the building may be taller than 17 feet, but we're only measuring to the average Roof pitch for that. So it's possible they could have a A nine foot second story Based on the design I don't understand the average roof pitch. So are you saying if I've got a if I've got a Gable roof. Yep You're going halfway point of that. Yep, right the height. Yeah, so you're losing So so that means you're losing some height on the second floor Well, no, so you're actually gaining peak height The overall total height. So We're taking from e-line to peak And taking the middle of that is where we measure to the we measure height too. So what do you mean e-lined? Right like above if I'm understanding this correctly like you could actually at the very top of the structure At least theoretically have like a loft that's above This average pitch if you will that is correct. Yeah, let me let me just bring up our regulations That might be the easier way to do this So here's our diagram for height So we basically measure from the Mean ground level. So whatever the average is of high and low and go to the main roof line. So You could so basically this space up here above that that e-line is still That's still considered that's still included in that height. But anything above that then We wouldn't we wouldn't count that towards the height limitation Right. So so what I'm saying is Keep that up if you've got the first eight feet is garage. Yep And then you've got a foot for Whatever between the floors. Yep, we're left that leaves you nine that leaves you nine feet to get up to that medium pitch so that means that Some of the second floor space that nine feet is cut down because of the angle of the roof unless you put a Dormer on it You know, I'm saying you're losing floor space In that case Well, presumably You are I mean, it's it's it's that simple if I can only 19 feet or 17 feet I've got I've got what Eight feet of of I see your point now. I'm like, yes. Yeah, right, right, right Well, let me That's why I'm saying maybe we could go 20 feet or something like that to to Give them a full two second story or maybe we just say accessory structure can be A maximum of two stories unless the primary Structure allows you more or something like that Well, I want to put a I want to put a number on it A actual foot number because you could say I've got two stories that are both 20 feet tall Yeah, so You know, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I mean I'd be comfortable going to 20 feet I think that gives a little bit more More flexibility to someone they could have a full second story in in that situation I'd be okay with that Everyone else okay with that Yeah, I'm fine with that too. I guess I'm still hung up on the 75% thing and I'm sorry for bringing us all the way back there I'm just curious. No problem. I get the intention in terms of Having an accessory structure be subordinate to the main structure, but doesn't I don't know like the minimum setbacks and like lot Like placement does that does that not inherently limit like the scale I would say no Mostly because so as an example there's a property over on union street 62 union street They just put an accessory dwelling on the back of the property a detached cottage is how it was classified So it went through conditional use it's It's a three bedroom I believe it's a three bedroom two car attached garage that's The way we define detached cottage allows for 100 square feet of finished habitable sorry a thousand square feet of finished habitable floor area So that structure is I believe right at 35 feet tall and right at a thousand It's actually of habitable Floor area is it's like right at a thousand but the garage doesn't count as habitable floor area So it's in essence a A second house on the property Which isn't isn't a bad thing. I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing. Yeah, um, but as an accessory structure it kind of In my opinion doesn't really meet the definition of accessory structure being us being something that is subordinate to the primary structure well, and we Somewhere we have something that says each lot Is intended to only have one primary Structure right right that's new language. We're adding in here to article two unless it comes in as a plan unit development and then they can do as many as the as the project would allow and Do we Like other than this proposed 75 percent height limit Do we have anything else concrete to kind of like give give Some teeth to that to that goal right of having only one one primary structure Yeah, not really right not really. Yeah, so to me this is Seems to be intended to like it's like a way of carrying that Right, right Yeah, and just doing some quick calculations if you have a primary structure that's 20 feet tall So roughly, you know two stories with some roof pitch The two-story structure would give you a 15 foot tall accessory structure at 75 So it's still You know that's still a fairly good sized building but is Again, obviously incidental. Well, I shouldn't say obvious if it's Only five feet shorter than the primary structure So it's but it is still Then accessory and I think that's really the intent here The other option is we could put in a specific number if we wanted to do it that way well What if we did like 80 percent? So it's a little bit higher. I mean we could do that. Yeah, that's fine. Do you looking for a compromise playing here? Well, what I miss I miss that. I don't I mean I'm more Align with you. I'm thinking about where the commission tends to be as as a whole That's I guess that's the that that is also like the border that I'm walking to because I I think we all know here I'm fine with Two primary structures and like, you know and like big 100 percent. However, if the intention of This measure is to make sure that it's an accessory dwelling like what is it or accessory structure? What are the parameters around that? Right? I mean I don't know I'm Eric. Yeah, what it makes going back to your original and the discussion we just had it seems like And I'm just right off the top of my head. So this may sound crazy, but It seems like the language you had Was fine, but if we can add something like You know if the accessory structure includes first floor garage Then the height Is 20 feet or something like that because That's really what we're talking about is if if someone has a garage underneath living space, right? I mean Are you referring to the the note number four? Yeah, no number four because well, you're just saying that the 17 feet if it's an accessory structure Without a garage That's that's fine because you know, whatever, um But the the the thing is you brought up, you know if someone has a garage on the first floor living space above That's where I think the height needs to be adjusted So if we just maybe add some of that language Oh, I see so what you're suggesting is that There's basically two categories of accessory structure. One is A an accessory structure that's purely a dwelling Right and the other is a garage that has a finished finished floor above it, right? And have those it's two different height Different different height to allow the the garage the second floor of the garage to have adequate I see face Does that make sense? It makes sense to me and i'm fine with that. I'm just curious does that open up like other doors to hypotheticals around I don't know building on top of an existing structure that is in a garage And I don't know what that would be in this moment, but like yeah like a Crick, I don't know what I'm saying here. Yeah, I mean maybe yeah And I can I can look at some language, but I'm thinking about something along the lines of a new Accessory structure that is intended as an accessory dwelling Yes, could be x versus conversion of an existing accessory structure To include my garage include an accessory dwelling can be x Yeah, I think that gets that Gets us to where we were talking about I don't have a concern with it. I I think To me it could encourage Well, let's put a garage in the accessory accessory structure right like let's make it let's make it more like a regular House because because if we put a garage in then we can we can build higher and I mean That doesn't really bother me, but I I think that that that's what I would to me. That's that's the incentive that I think that that Creates so Yeah, it could it could or like I said the other option is we could just put in a set height that is for Accessory structures and just leave it at that right you can do it How do with it as you please you know, I prefer a percentage versus like yeah, I like a percentage kind of because I don't know. I think that that that fulfills the goal of like Not radically changing the character of like what what currently exists, right? So I kind of like the percentage thing and you have the the alternative minimum if you will if you have like a weird Small really short. Yep. Existing primary structure. Yeah, and to that point right now we can have an accessory structure that is 20 feet taller than the primary structure Based on our current regulations because we allow the same height And if a primary structure is built that's only a single story ranch house, for example You could come in with a 35 foot tall accessory structure behind it Yeah so I guess so How do you all feel about language that differentiates New a new accessory structure for a dwelling versus conversion of an existing Accessory structure to include a dwelling what I really want to avoid is any limitations on accessory dwellings We have to allow them by right for one and I want to make sure that we're able to accommodate those I have seen multiple projects over the years where somebody has an existing garage and they want to add living space above it Not expanding the size of the garage at all just converting it to existing living space But I've also seen it where A brand new structure has been built that is both garage and living space or two stories of living space so I want to be sensitive to the various options, but also Mindful that These are intended to be based on the definition subordinate to the principal structure So they shouldn't be larger I guess So getting back to I think Connor was talking about it Maybe if you just take out that the new With a garage so so it allows if someone wants to put in A accessory structure with a first floor garage and living space above Yeah, I think the way I would write it is a new a new accessory structure versus an existing accessory structure The conversion so if you're if you're developing a new Accessory dwelling thereby creating a new accessory structure that doesn't exist on the property currently That's one height allowance, but if you have an existing building Whatever it's used for doesn't matter what the use is and you want to add living space to it There's a separate a different height allowance Do we need to put a height allowance on an on a existing? I suppose if it's a one-story garage you do right if they wanted to add above it Yeah Why do we care about well, I guess So I guess to the extent that the goal if the goal was to basically Allow for more height or some other way of more building for an accessory dwelling I I understand that I guess I don't To me whether whether you're just building from scratch or you're adding to something that exists I think It seems to me what we care about is the ultimate like finished Product. Yeah, that's a good point. So maybe we just change this to 20 feet And say that an accessory structure that includes an accessory dwelling Can be up to 20 feet unless the primary structure would allow it to be taller based on 75 percent I did to agree with him. I just It was the intention of the delineation about like if For example, like an existing structure like a garage was would push You know having One story Like over like the limit that would be preventative to actually making it like So we kind of grandfather them in Is that the intention of like the delineation? Well, I think the the intent is to again Make sure that the accessory structures are accessory, right, right. That's the whole point of To have a different height so that it's not basically two primary structures. You're just building one I mean if you have a Right now our regulations if you have a large enough lot and can can stay below the maximum lot coverage You can build an accessory structure that's twice as large as the primary structure and and like Well, let me ask what is what in like the r a r b r c. What's our maximum height for 35 feet right now In all three. Yep They're all three the same so And the maximum height for an accessory structure in all three is also 35 feet So if if let's say you have a 35 foot primary structure 20 feet puts you at What four sevenths of that so that's a little bit less than 75 well, so that's the caveat that if the You can go taller if the primary or principal structure would allow for it based on the 75 feet So if you had a if you had a if we capped it at 20 feet For example, and you had a primary structure that was 30 feet tall that would put you at 22 feet So that'd allow you to go over that that minimum Or that cap The way the four is written that you'd be limited to the height Unless the Primary structure would allow you to go higher based on the 75 percent Right so throwing another wrench into this discussion If you've got a single story house Yep You want to put an accessory in in your single story house The the average height is let's say 15 feet. Yep I can build a 17 foot tall structure For accessory dwelling Yes, yeah So does that kind of Contradict what we're trying to do Well, I think that's why allowing that for the accessory dwelling Was the the carve out there so that if it's for a dwelling you can go taller to accommodate That extra height and living space But if it's just an accessory structure for a garage for example, then you'd be limited to that 75 percent or 10 feet Okay, i'm sorry. So we're talking about accessory structure as opposed to accessory dwelling unit Well, we're talking about both but there's the The purpose of note 4 Is to catch exactly what you just talked about Mike. Okay, all right If you're doing an accessory dwelling There's the allowance for the additional height To potentially Get a garage underneath it if you wanted Yeah, whereas if you're just building a garage then It would be 75 but not less than 10 feet to allow you to Have some usable space What what if maybe maybe this might make it easier and correct me if i'm understanding wrong eric if i understand this correctly for an accessory Dwelling under this Any accessory dwelling no matter how big The primary structure could be at least 17 feet As it's written. Yes, and if you have an existing Structure that's 35 feet You can go up to 75 percent of that correct, which is 24 and a half feet right so that would put all at least accessory dwellings Between 17 feet and 24 and a half feet correct under this that's correct Seems reasonable to me I guess so I'm a little bit. I'm sorry. I've been I've been confusing This one I've been confusing accessory structure and accessory dwelling unit. We're talking only here about accessory structure That can be up to 75 percent Of the primary structure But not less than 10 feet for just an accessory structure correct, right? So why are we have four in there because it brings in accessory dwelling unit other than Other than saying if it's got first floor Garage or non-habitable space sure you you're putting on a second floor it can be Such and such so the reason I brought in item four is because a lot of the accessory Dwellings a lot of the accessory dwellings that I've been seeing are two story or they're Because there is a limitation on the size that they can be A lot of times they're being designed as a two-story building um with a garage first floor or with living space on the ground floor and With like kitchen living room on the ground floor and a bedroom on the second floor Okay, because they're limited Some of that's based on where they're going where there's just limited lot area and the setbacks won't accommodate a a single story building as an accessory dwelling And that's and that's fine. I think don't you on four you want to talk about you're talking about an accessory structure that has living space above whatever the current use is Or just the dwelling itself See that's why that's what's confusing me. I guess and maybe it's just my thick head We're talking about accessory structure. We're and we brought in excess So I'll I'll say it this way all accessory dwellings are accessory structures But not all accessory structures are accessory dwellings Understood. So I want to make sure I want to have the carve out that if there's an accessory structure that is an accessory dwelling That can get that additional height to allow for that living space Okay, so So it says that includes accessory dwelling unit So we're talking about an accessory structure that has both non-living space and Dwelling unit It could or is it is it's sure to say an accessory structure that has Or that's intended to be accessory dwelling unit And I'm sorry. I'm throwing a wrench into the middle of this and I probably This is good because I want to make sure that it's clear and and what we're talking about So what if would it make would it clear things up if I just deleted the first part and just said an accessory dwelling Can be up to 17 feet in height Well, but but okay. What about the example? You have an existing 12 foot garage And you want to add a dwelling Unit. Yep on top of that. I would read that as saying you can add 15 feet on top of the 12 foot garage, which would put you at 29 feet, I guess If I understood if I heard you correctly Because I think you'd say the accessory dwelling unit can be and I maybe Maybe in that case the whole thing would be considered the whole building would be considered the dwelling unit But I could see an argument that like no, no, no The first floor is the garage, which is separate from sort of the living space at the top if you will maybe that's crazy No, it's I mean These are the these are the conversations that lead to changes to regulations where somebody finds a loophole and then Uh, so let me how about this? Let me look at this language a little closer I think I understand the intent of what you all are saying and The intent of what I'd like to do and I don't know if we know what the intent of what we're saying is I think I understand it. That's a joke. Yeah, okay So let me let me go away and come back with some some different language for item four other one maybe Eric, maybe it's it's two footnotes. Maybe it's item four and five. Well, maybe it is. Yeah separate amount Maybe that's a yeah, maybe that's the way it goes to is that it's a a separate footnote to address Both of these an accessory structure that it's not an accessory dwelling maybe this height an accessory dwelling Maybe this height two footnotes, right? Yeah, it could be it could be two separate footnotes Otherwise there are folks comfortable with the 75 Limitation on primary structures. I'm okay with it. I would be okay with like 80 percent I you know, but I understand the the intent and I think 75 percent especially with the alternative minimum of 17 feet for dwelling right allows for Something meaningful. Yeah, so It's okay with me. Okay. I agree with that. I yeah, I'm fine knowing like the rest of the commission It's like tendencies like I not to be too cute, but I made the joke to Brandon like I like I'd be fine with 99 percent Right, but I also know that that's pushing it. So I'm fine with 75 percent. I'm fine with 80 percent whatever We have to start somewhere. I know so we can we may end up there, but okay Okay, great then I will work on the footnote here for this section Um, all right the rest of article two, there's only a couple of other changes and it's really more just cleanup So I'm not going to go into those unless you all want to like I said, it's Well, I will show you what they are without getting into the detail actually let me zoom out here because that's awfully far in But it's little things like hyphenating high density High-density mixed-use hyphenated Yeah, and then a couple of table references that are wrong in two of these sections updating them Follow me Otherwise, there's no other changes to article two Perfect. Okay, great Article two in the books We ran through that one in about 45 minutes. That's good. Right so article three This is our downtown core. These are specific regulations for our downtown core district um Most of the changes that are being proposed here are either going to be cleanup or related to parking Um, since this does get impacted by act 47 So the first thing I'm changing or proposing is under item nine here for allowed uses and actually this is a comment that's Sarah made um Changing hotels motels inns to basically just say lodging establishments or bed and breakfast We don't have definitions for hotels motels or inns, but we do have Definition for a lodging establishment and a bed and breakfast So I'm looking at just changing it to to add or basically to say lodging establishment instead of those other things And that you'll you'll see that change highlighted throughout this article and article four The next change is this is cleanup really more clarification related to Uh, how we measure the height of buildings and in the downtown core. We measure based off of The high point of the the immediate fronting street But it doesn't take into account lots that are on a corner that might have two fronting streets So I wanted to clarify what street would be used for measuring the height Which is what this change is for. Yeah, that made sense to me when I read it. So yeah, nothing Again keeping all the general idea the same um The next change is in the parking section So the first part here related to minimum parking We had all these residential categories basically deleting them and doing one space per dwelling unit Which is what act 47 is requiring us to do Um, let me zoom in here. So it's a little bit easier to see um So adding that one space per dwelling unit for residential eliminating these other components and then changing lodging establishment um From hotel to lodging establishment and then adding uh sleeping room That's what we call it in the parking section as well. So just for consistency The other thing i'm proposing here is that we don't have any minimum We'll delete and eliminate all the other minimums for the other uses and only have minimum parking for our residential uses I agree with that I think given the nature of downtown given the fact that we've got a an 850 space garage and another 300 space garage under construction Most of these other uses are going to be transient enough in nature that They lend themselves and downtowns in general lend themselves to people Coming and going and not needing dedicated parking on site We also have a provision as it is that allows for The parking to be included in the garage for any use in downtown as long as there's an agreement in place with the city so it kind of builds off of that idea and just says Whatever if you've got a non-residential use In downtown you don't need to provide parking for it. This is just in downtown. This is only in the downtown core Yes, that's correct. What what do we have in the central business? district um it would have the The uh parking standards are based off of what we just recently adopted Okay, so yeah those uses would be None of that would be changing so So the downtown court eric is uh east allen main street um Let me it's the arian red is only a downtown court. Yeah, okay got east allen main street and then uh Uh Basically, it's just ccv. Yep park. Yeah ccv. Yep only so What i'm proposing here will only apply to this area in red right Yeah, and oh and it includes the it includes the rotary park. Correct. That's right right parking required for the park Yeah, and you still because I was just thinking through well, okay, that would mean if if another Parkment building was built in the downtown core. There'd be no parking minimum, but that's not right. It's one that's correct That would still need parking so residential uses and hotels still require parking. Yeah, but anything else would not need any parking yeah, so like Fortunately, it's gone, but like commodities. Yep. Not need minimum parking. Exactly. That's right because there's a garage There's off-street parking right there in front of the building so I mean that's really what the downtown is intended for is for for people in businesses and commerce and and bikes and Buses not for parking So the fact that we've got a city garage and another one on the way Should accommodate any of the uses any of the non-residential uses that would ever happen in downtown So then that eliminates the need for a shared use table as well This is just clarifying that this is for vehicle parking So this basically says that all vehicle parking needs to be located in downtown either in a municipal garage or on the site itself Um, then the rest of this can also get deleted change of use won't matter anymore either But then I'm adding in bicycle parking As well. We didn't have anything any standards for bicycle parking. So I'm including this the one of the provisions that we did include just so to remind folks is that we do allow for Uh, existing parking existing bicycle parking to be used to satisfy this and for the short term and we allow Short-term parking to be located in the right-of-way So with public works approval. So this will allow the city to better identify where we want to put More large-scale bicycle parking that can serve the entire downtown core and those areas would satisfy any of the short term needs Provided there's enough spaces available based on the parking table. So Um, just bringing forward the bike parking standards Also bringing forward the uh, long-term short-term bike parking standards I did eliminate a couple the uses out of here But in general these are all still the same as what we just adopted in the article for Parking minimums. So that was like the fall summer fall. Sorry to even remember the time Yeah, yeah. Yeah, actually council just approved those um Just at the end of last year right back in november they were approved by council. So um, I obviously took out things like, um, I think we had Funeral homes listed here and industrial uses Those were both taken out. So um So nothing there, but otherwise they're all the same as what they were previously Um, Eric might just said he's excusing himself Yep, does that can we keep going because that that I don't think with two people, right? So well, I don't think we can for the moment since we don't have a quorum technically without like so Um, we'll pause for now. You're gonna hit pause for A few minutes. Yep. Let me uh bicycle parking again. I was saying this is all basically the same as what was What's included with um our standard parking requirements So no new language Proposed in any of this for short term or long term The one change that I did make and I'll talk about this As well under article four is item eight The language that is included currently says required long term bicycle parking shall be made available to all Residents or tenants of the building free of charge. This is a comment that sarah made where she She was getting tripped up on the all because she was thinking that it's possible that there isn't enough Parking for all since we only require one space per unit So if there's two people in the unit or two people in every unit that would be double what would even be provided so We wouldn't there wouldn't be an opportunity to provide it to all the residents or tenants So to change basically changing that to the Residents instead of all can can you share? The screen where I can't see oh i'm sorry. I did stop sharing. Oh my goodness. Yes good Leave it to me to mess everything up. I leave in for a few minutes. I I forgot that I stopped my share Anyway, so Yeah, I'm here. So yeah just here on item eight where it says The the here previously or in the in article four says all right But otherwise nothing's changing there so um and then Just deleting this section on non-compliant structures because it's related to needing to add parking. So if Uh, if it becomes conforming if it's a residential structure, they would need to add parking. Otherwise parking would not be needed The only other change here is again for clarification is items on What's required with the zoning permit application? And really just to clarify the act 250 piece that's needed It was just written a little awkwardly and I just wanted to Make sure it made a little bit more sense with what's proposed there now so Any questions or concerns on that information? No the bulk of it really for act 47 So I think eliminating that parking is a good thing. It gets us, you know, one step closer To what is actually happening. I think and makes sense Also downtown and I'm going along with that believe it or not. I know I I There's hope for you yet, Mike Well, we'll see And Eric if I understood what you're saying that the city is envisioning in the downtown core There'd be like very large bike parking like Racks or something right like we would have the opportunity to do that and I believe there was Some corrals in front of the Champlain Mill for a while and I think there is still some quite a bit of bike parking there or The racks are there. Maybe we took them out for the winter but we usually do have a number of bike racks in front of the mill and It would it it'll allow us. I think there is an intent to incorporate more More specific bicycle parking in and around downtown where we can and where we have the space to do it. So Yes, those short-term spaces could be accommodated by any existing bike parking that's out there And I should also say that any of the uses that are there now Wouldn't need to apply Wouldn't need to adhere to any of these requirements because they're already existing right, right It'll only be for new uses Um, okay, so moving into article four. I know we just uh, we just made changes and approved these But we did talk about the fact that we would need to come back to them. So Um, here we are So the first change is actually unrelated to parking but is something that I have Been thinking about lately and this is related to conversion or change of uses So as it's written now If you're changing a use from a permitted use to a permitted use, you still need a zoning permit Um, if you're going from permitted to conditional, you need a zoning permit There you've gone from conditional to permitted. You still need to permit Um What I'm proposing here under item one is to basically say that if you're converting from a use that is permitted To another use that is permitted and you're not adding any new square footage Or any new lot coverage or any new residential units You don't need a zoning permit at all And it needs to be Um, or and you don't need site plan approval But the use itself has to be listed as Only permitted in the use table and not permitted slash conditional And where this is this has come up actually Several times in in recent months Really what I'm trying to get at with this amendment is a lot of the Non-residential spaces that we have for example In downtown um, the the building at the corner of West center street and main street the the old the optimum building as I like to call it right there on the corner um There's ground floor office space that Um, they're looking to put a retail use in there and had to get a change of use permit for that What this would do is allow them to change that use without needing to get a permit because that's a permitted use now And they're proposing a permitted use. They're not adding new square footage. They're not adding residential units It's really a way to say, okay You've got a storefront as long as the use that you're proposing is permitted You can change it out and you don't need a zoning permit You might still need a building permit to do any fit-ups But from a zoning standpoint The uses that you're proposing and the uses that are there are all permitted uses So there's no reason for you to come in to get a change of use permit Because we're not going to do anything. All I'm doing is taking money from them and making them wait 15 days To do anything with their use There's there's literally no review of the project from a zoning standpoint if it's a permitted use going to a permitted use And it's it's not adding square footage. It's not Adding lot of coverage. It's not adding dwellings. There is no zoning required I don't Eric in a in a case like that. Is there any kind of building code? Requirements or or checks either state fire marshal or so if they're doing any if any fit-up or any change to the interior Yes, they would need to get a building permit. They would need to get a state building permit as well with fire marshal review So there would be some level of application required for that Okay, it's just a zoning permit Correct just to avoid the zoning piece of it all together and like I said, this is pretty narrowly focused To uses that are only permitted That are not adding new square footage that are not adding lot coverage and that are not adding residential uses Yeah Okay Um Okay, so the next Let me just and that eliminates the 50 day 15 day waiting period too. Correct. Yep. Okay. Yep. So it It's a user friendly Amendment. Absolutely. Yeah, it's really it's really in design at least the way I I've thought about this was It's really intended to in to allow for If a business moves out of a storefront for a new business to move in right away and not have any type of waiting period to do that or for example standing stone wines on the Um The east side of the circle They have a long-term plan. They started out as retail But they have a plan to start kind of selling food out of that to kind of go to a more of like a restaurant type use This would allow them just to do it without needing to come in to get a permit for me to say Yeah, you can put a restaurant in there. It's a permitted use. It should be able to just add on to the existing use I'm fine with that I'm good with it too Okay, great. That's was that's what I was hoping for Um, all right. The next part here is specific to parking Um I wanted to be clear So I wanted to clarify here actually on the we have this provision that if you're exceeding the minimum parking by 125 that you need to get Approval by the drb As a conditional use I wanted to clarify that that surface parking. So if you're doing a parking garage for example or underground parking Um Sorry, if you're doing underground parking a parking garage would still be surface parking in my opinion Um, if you're doing underground parking, you're not creating any new surface area any new impervious cover. So Um If you wanted to exceed 125 of underground parking, that's fine. This would just be for surface parking So it's almost like a soft Parking maximum kind of yeah, in some sense, right, right to basically say we don't want you creating a massive surface lot On your property And if you want to you have to get approval from the development review board to do it. This is Um, I'm sorry. Is this just in the downtown core? This would be for anything except the residential districts Okay, because right now they only have a requirement or they yeah, they will have a requirement of one space So if they put in two they've well exceeded that They're they're 200 right, right, right. Yeah, so they don't yeah, so I wanted to make I wanted to give some I didn't want any of those uses coming through the drb Uh, the next changes are really related to act 47. So Taking all of our residential uses and combining them into one And basically saying just one space per dwelling unit, which is what the state is mandating And then clarifying accessory dwelling unit is just one space per dwelling unit. Just adding in that terminology for consistency with our definitions Again here just changing it from hotel to lodging establishment per Sarah's comment and what we just talked about under article three Um, and then there's a couple of other little changes That I'm proposing That is just a footnote correction. So there's nothing there Um, Eric Eric if you go back, I sorry. No, we talked about this the school The instructional space is equivalent to a classroom So we added a definition for instructional space as well, right? I remember we had this long discussion and you know, yeah, it's basically a classroom. Um, specifically Well, it's a space included in a building intended for teaching or academic use including Traditional classrooms art rooms music rooms computer rooms were seminars. Yeah, okay. I thought we added gyms to that We did not okay. That's that's better. That's better. I'm fine with that. Okay Like 200 per gym or something like that or right? Yeah, I think I went per seat in the gym So this is a um, I wanted to So item b here As it's written we're requiring the short-term parking for bicycles Outdoor it needs to be outdoor and covered I'm proposing we strike the outdoor covered Because it can it contradicts language in another section Where we do allow for short-term parking To be uncovered if it's a certain distance away. Uh, sorry if it's Certain distance to the building So we don't require that it be covered um In one section, but here we are requiring it to be covered. So I wanted to clarify So i'm fine changing it in one or the other but I think one of them needs to be amended And I think this one makes more sense because in the other section actually, let me just go to that so we can look at it The other section has a caveat for distance Yeah here under short-term. So if it's on site within 50 feet It can be anywhere, but if it's on site further than 50 feet, it needs to be covered So if it's further than 50 feet, we're saying it needs to be covered But in this other section under the incentives for tdms, we're saying that it needs to be covered. So I think there's an argument can be made that the tdm piece is specific to the relief that's being given So it needs to be covered where here it doesn't need to be But I just want to I don't know if we want to Have the two standards because it does need a bit of an explanation or might need additional clarification For that purpose. I'm fine with the proposed change to make it more consistent. The only thing in the back of my mind is um Abby's not in this meeting. Well, right. Yeah, and I defer her around this kind of thing But I'm also fine with this language. So I don't know Should we hit pause on this and then Yeah, we can I just wanted to bring this up as something that um, well, I mean, we'll review all this again Yeah, I had a future so conner. You're fine with the way it's presented in both places Or or changing to be consistent Yeah, I'm fine with changing to be consistent in this proposed change from eric tonight, but I don't I'm I Also like to have avi's input Yeah, yeah, I I agree with that. See I'm good with the way it's written now. So The reason I that's me. I I think the reason why it's it is um, yeah, so the reference There is the reference to 412 g Under the tdm piece, which is what we were just looking at. Yeah, so it's Because of the reference in there. I don't Because there's the reference it's not specific to just The tdm strategy. So that's why I just want to have the discussion to see which way we go I'm fine either way as well. I just want to make sure we're consistent Because let's defer and get the experts in here This did just come up recently when I was talking with a An applicant about a project. They were like, well, it says covered here, but it says not covered there. So what am I? What am I going by and I didn't have a good answer so Um, it didn't become an issue, but anyway I I thought though the difference was we were talking before about the downtown core Or it doesn't have to be covered. This is for anywhere. This is for any bike parking, right? So so Maybe we just put in excluding the downtown core well Because they have their own It has its own. Well, so this section doesn't apply to downtown anyway There's already the caveat at the beginning of section 412 that exempts downtown from it Okay, well, yeah, so so for that reason I don't see a conflict because The what we talked about earlier was just the downtown core or it doesn't have to be covered Well, so this is for everywhere else in the city That's what i'm saying Everywhere else it has to be covered so far from the from the main building Oh, so down Well, so right these are both in the same section This there's two references to covered bike parking in the same section which applies So everything except the downtown core Right and the downtown core doesn't need covered parking right so this is downtown set that aside Right, so that's what i'm saying. I have no problem because the downtown is separate This is every place else So I don't see the I don't see the conflict you're saying consistency between this and the downtown core I'm saying it's consistent because the downtown core has its own set of rules separate from these You follow me right but within this section there's a conflict is what i'm saying Because it says 412 g Well because it says covered In this in this section under part b It's specifically saying that at a minimum There needs to be short-term outdoor covered bicycle parking consistent with the standards Oh, yeah in 12g. Yeah, but in 12g we say that parking bike parking can be covered or not covered Gotcha, so that's where the conflict is So Can we just eliminate section 412 g? No, no, no No, we need to keep that What i'm I think it's either we can either eliminate the outdoor covered here or We need to clarify it that it's specific potentially specific to the tdm strategy That this section is in or have some other referential component to it so that there's Clarity in what we're talking about Like I said, which way we go with it. I just want to make sure that it's consistent Gotcha, gotcha. So anyway, we can we can set that aside agreed. That's Something we can set aside um, okay, the other change Is Let's see. What else do I have here? I think the only other change here is related to Yeah, so lodging establishment again instead of hotel under minimum bike parking and then The same comment that we looked at under the downtown core that changing the all residents To the residents based on comments from sarah and then The last thing that i'm proposing in this section is under dimensions Some of this is stemming from actually some of this is stemming from draft legislation That I don't believe is included anymore But was included for for a minute And also the fact that we don't have any standards or allowances for compact car parking So I wanted to add in a provision for that and also basically take out all the numbers that we're including on minimum parking and just say Follow the department of public work standards for parking dimensions and drive aisles which Is um We do uh, we either have it or it's drafted. So It's basically follows all of these numbers But it allows what this would do Is allow those to change without having to change the the regulations The the zoning regulations the land use regulations so This is consistent with some other things we've done like ADA parking where we've basically said Just follow the ADA rules for what your minimum parking standards are. This would basically be a similar thing that says Follow our public work standards for drive aisles and parking space sizes depending on the angles and everything else and then you're allowed to do Up to 20 of the minimum required parking as compact. So Sarah actually Asked if that was too much the 20 It may be too little. Uh, for example, burlington allows up to 50 of their minimum parking to be compact spaces So I thought this was a good start for where we are. I mean, we're not quite yet to a Density threshold. I don't think to where we can Just have everybody driving small cars You know people still drive big vehicles out there myself included. So You know, not everything can fit in a compact space. We want to make sure that It's not just all a bunch of little spaces in a parking lot So, yeah, I thought 20 was a good place to start Because I think That The compact car thing I think is maybe, you know, this is me I think that can work really well for People living in apartments without families downtown. I think it's it's harder if you're sort of more out in like the residential Yeah, I agree. So, yeah, I agreed I agree. Um Yeah, and that's the last That's the last thing I had on this section Good Okay, so So we'll hang on to talk more about the bicycle parking when Abby's here Yeah, so the only two notes that I have is The bike parking, uh, actually the the covered bike parking piece And then the note on accessory dwellings in the dimensional table Yeah, maybe making two sub to footnotes right something else there Yeah Um Going back to that. I I did my math again and under the 75 percent if you had a Um 35 foot primary structure the secondary structure secondary dwelling unit could be 25.75 It said 24.5, but that would be that would be 70 24.5 would be 70 Thank you. I was I was I was going to call you out on that. I didn't want to see in the spot. I was too All right, well that gets us through all of those pieces so nice very much for that And yeah, we'll look at that again and I'll bring We'll bring some of this discussion back at our next meeting and start looking at article five, which is going to get into Um The priority housing incentives, so We'll have a lot of discussion there. There's also a bunch of other changes. I'm proposing an article five mostly is cleanup And just clarification. So there will be a lot to to go through but The bulk of what is really going to be impactful will be that The priority housing stuff so We'll get into that next next meeting So is that is that kind of a uh Precursor to the joint meeting with the housing Commission, uh, I mean it's not intended to be but I think it's it's going to line up pretty good for timing Yeah Okay, yeah, that's not that wasn't the intent, but I think that is going to be a happy outcome good All right, city updates Merrill lot you have anything to update us on? Budget budget budget budget budget budget We're done with that. You guys get to vote on it now Just kidding not done. I still have one more presentation to do Um, I won't be there to give it crap. So you'll be good Thank goodness, um A couple of updates from tuesday's city council meeting so we reviewed draft agreements with shamblain housing trust for the o'brien community center um You know at the last meeting well the last one I attended There was concern on this commission for the Updating the zoning ensuring that the use of that cht doesn't change the use of the building and so I will include If I can paste into the chat Oh, you're not on zoom. Okay, basically the We authorized a resolution For the city manager to sign the documents And this includes a statement that cht intends to retain the facility as a community center and will honor the terms of existing leases with o'brien center tenants and then The options agreement so one of the pieces of the development agreement Mentioned the zoning change and includes a Sentence that the optione intends to use the property as a community center um so this is language to address like that we While we transfer ownership, they will be retaining it as a community center and not changing the use there is also um In the leases for both the city and the community health centers options to purchase the space at the end of the lease Not necessarily something the city is going to do but I know the community health center wants to but that's yet another way to sort of ensure the Long-term consistency of use of the space Two other updates. We adopted the white. Let me interrupt you. I'm sorry Because one of the things was that the lots would be merged to create one lot Was that put in the agreement or is that something the city plans to do before itself? It's in the agreement that we will Eric, correct me if i'm wrong if you're involved in this at all. Um It is in the agreement that we intend to make that like we intend to make the zoning change But part of our intent to make the zoning change is their intent to retain the use of the community center Right, but specifically that the 21 Pickock street will be merged into and become part of the larger parcels Yeah, yeah, that's that language is in there. Okay. All right Yeah, and I'm also just to say a few more words on that I've had some conversations with other city staff about trying to get that process moving sooner than later because it It is an administrative process to dissolve that boundary line so that Ideally that could be done before the the The zoning amendments go to council for approval and that way it can all just happen at once perfect Okay The two other items we adopted the walk white plan Um Which is somewhat relevant to the this work, right? Um provides us that means I have to walk and bike everywhere You specifically Mike No, it just provides recommendations that we can look to in the future as there are funding opportunities to make improvements in our network And we adopted the short term rental regulations. So we now will require licensing from anyone operating a short term rental in the city of linuski with a $250 fee for owner occupied folks and $1,400 for non owner occupied annually that money will be used to cover some of the costs of administration and inspection but also Put some ongoing funding into our housing trust fund to support more affordable housing options So that will now start I'm sorry that'll become effective 30 days from When you approved it Is it the same does it work the same for? I don't know. I'm assuming but that was part of them, but there must be an appeal period Code so yes, that would be a 30 day effective Yeah, and then staff has got to start doing outreach. Oh and it has It's written so that like a year from now when we have people licensed There's data we can then set a cap on how many non owner occupied units there are in the city Our the current council's intent for that is that we would cap it to what's existing and not allow additional non owner occupied short term rentals So I guess I missed the boat Not yet You can rent out room in your house mic. That's still allowed. You got time I got time That's it from our city updates Thanks, christine Eric, I have no specific updates for you all tonight. Okay Let's move on to other business Anyone on the commission have other business? And I'll throw it I'll throw it to you Eric for our usual other business next meeting. Yep The only other business I have is our next meeting will be march 14th So we have a little bit of a gap here just given the way the calendar lines up So, uh, but yeah march 14th will be our next regular meeting We will have a public hearing on the amendments to the o'brien community center at that meeting as well And then following we will have a joint meeting on march 19th That's a tuesday That will be a joint meeting with the housing commission. So I believe that is the Yeah, that'll be it'll be hybrid those will both be hybrid meetings. Um, so more information coming out on both of those Perfect Okay, if there's no other business I'd look for a motion to adjourn Um 805 all second Okay, I'm assuming we're all in favor Technically, we should raise our hand or say yes Well, and you have to vote on this one mic. So I did I raised my hand. All right. Thank you everyone. Thanks everybody Thanks everyone