 This is the agenda public comment, I think, is the next item. Yep. Michael, if you wanted to. We have Michael Arnold in the room here. If you want to just come up to the table. We should be able to get you on camera here as well with your audio, I think. Jordan, is his mic hot? Yeah, he's hot. Good. I'll keep things brief. I just wanted to encourage you to consider loosening parking minimums. I talked a little bit about why that's a good idea from economic vitality and improving housing affordability reasons. But a more immediate and self-interested reason for you guys is that S100 is proposing to require all municipalities that have sewer to have one parking unit per drilling unit. And that would be the cap statewide, whether sewer. So if that passes, as it's written, you'll have to go back and change your parking requirements as they're currently written in a month or a couple of months. So just something to consider. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, Michael. Any other public on Zoom? There is not. No. OK. So next item, I believe, is approval of the minutes of February 9th. Yeah, that's right. Sorry, Mike. I think I had sent out to you the minutes from our last meeting, February 23rd. But at that meeting, we did not approve the minutes of February 9th. So what was included with the agenda were the minutes for February 9th, not the 23rd. So because they were not included, we aren't able to approve those tonight. So I don't know if you all have had a chance to look over the minutes from February 9th or not. I can bring those up on the screen if we need to, to give folks a chance to review that. I know the last time the folks who were present, and that was, excuse me. Yeah, so at the last meeting, we had. You told me and read it. Right. Read it. That's right, yeah. And so we tabled the minutes because Joe and Brendan were not at the meeting on the 9th to vote. Yeah, and I work here just as a general policy, I don't like to approve minutes that I wasn't at the meeting. Right, so we have the minutes of the 9th up for potential approval tonight if folks are comfortable moving forward with those. Abby, are you okay with approving them and want to second it or do you want to not? You're on mute, Abby, on your phone. Can you hear me now? Yeah. OK, did you say that you are going to pull them up on the screen or should I take them up? Either way, I can bring them up if that's what you'd prefer. Yeah, sure. Yep, let me do that quick. So if you recall, this was the meeting where I provided a legislative update for you all and we just had some other general discussion, continuing our discussion. I believe we did more parking discussion and we're getting towards the bicycle parking but stopped right before that. So I'll just slowly scroll through these. All right, Alex did. OK. I'll make the motion to approve the minutes of the February 19th. Actually, Tommy made the motion. You just need to second it. Oh, sorry, second. That's all right. OK, is there any further discussion or corrections, comments, if not, all those in favor? I read it really quickly. I didn't see it in the album, maybe I missed it. Do we include anything about revisiting the commercial-based dyes as it's linked to shared parking in Los Angeles used buildings? I don't know if it's included directly in the minutes, but that was updated, yes. That language was changed. Yep. Thank you. Any other questions? If not all in favor, please say aye or raise your hand. And I will too to make a three. Any abstentions? Joe, I'm assuming you're abstaining? Yeah. And any against? OK. Great. Thank you. We'll move on to discussion of Section 4. Is that right? Yes, so we are the information I sent out is basically the report on Article 4 with the various sections, including the information up through Section 412, which is on parking. I also included with this document Section 515, which was something we had talked about several meetings ago on incentives for historic preservation, and also information on Section 6.6, which is site plan review, mostly because some of the graphics that were included in the sections of Article 4 that we reviewed have been moved into that site plan review section. So I just wanted to show how we're not deleting them completely, but just kind of relocating them as they're more appropriately included in site plan review. And then Article 9 for some definitions. So what I thought we would do tonight is basically start at the beginning in Section 4.1 and start to re-review the specific changes that have been proposed. And I've got some items highlighted to just to make sure that you all are comfortable with what is in here. I also received some written comments from Sarah. So I have those flagged as well to be able to show as we go through. And I see, Joe, you have your hand up. Yeah, I don't know if it's an appropriate time to bring this up, but I am kind of curious about the public comment we just received from Michael Arnold about the S100 bill. I don't know if we want to talk about that after the meeting or what relation that has to what we're working on here. Yeah, so what he's referring to, and I believe I talked about this at the meeting on the 9th. You weren't at that meeting, Joe. But there's some legislation moving its way through the Senate, it started in Senate economic development in that bill. But one of the items that's included is that there's language that would limit the minimum number of parking spaces that a municipality can require. So it basically says that if you have water and wastewater in your community, you cannot require more than one parking space per dwelling unit. I think there's been some change to that that allows one and a half in some circumstances. But in any event, what Michael was alluding to is that if S100 goes through in its existing form, it would, our current regulations as they're drafted would need to be changed again because we require two spaces per residential units in the residential A, residential B, and residential C zoning districts. So that bill has not yet gone to the House side. I think next, so they're on break right now. The legislature is on break right now. And anticipating that they will, the Senate natural resources will vote that bill out of committee next week, early next week. And then I don't know if it's going to need to go into any of the finance committees first or go to the House side for review. So there's still some work that needs to be done, I think. But yeah, that's what he was referring to. Just thank you for that update, Eric. Is there a general picture of how long it could be before we see a decision from that just to know how that affects what we're working on? That's a really good question, Joe. And hold on one second. Mike is not on the call anymore, but he did just call my cell phone. So I'm going to grab this really quick and see what's going on. So hello, Mike. Yes, I've got you on the phone, technically. So that does qualify if you need anything. So we'll see if we can make that work somehow. We're going to bring them. If you're OK with that, we're just going to bring up Mike over and I'll put you on speakerphone here. That's right. We can have Abby chair the meeting as vice chair. So let me get you on the speakerphone here and see if this is workable for folks and go from there, OK? OK, all right. Let me turn up the volume here. All right, Mike, can you hear me, Mike? I can hear you. Folks on Zoom, can you hear Mike? We can hear Mike. OK. All right, I'll just talk a little louder and I think we can make this work. So Joe, back to your question. I don't know if we really have a timeline for when anything is going to happen with this bill. It may be later this legislative session. It still has some way to go, I think, before it gets to the finish line. And it's possible that those provisions will be changed again when it goes through the house. So it's something to keep in mind, but I'm not sure where we're going to land with that. OK, I was just kind of curious, as far as the energy that we expend on this, if it's highly probable that there will be super seatback. Yeah, so I think if that is something that goes, so as we talked about it on the 9th, that was something that the commission was not interested in trying to address right now. If it is something that does end up in the final form of the bill, then I think it's something we can react to fairly quickly because it really just impacts that one line in our table. So I think we can change it. And I believe even if we don't change it, state statute would still apply. So we will have time to make that happen officially. OK. But good questions. Thank you. Are you talking about this or that 81? Yep, that's right. Well, there's. For what it's worth. Right. Understood, thank you. Yeah, sorry. No problem. So also just so you guys know, Mike is trying to reboot his computer, so hopefully he will be able to join us again, which is some of the noise that you or some of the sounds you were just hearing. So anyway, included with your agenda was the or is the report with all the sections we've talked about, I thought what we would do tonight is work our way through. Basically starting at the beginning, as I mentioned, Sarah provided me some written comments, so I will highlight those. And I've got some other items that I'll highlight along the way, just for clarity. A lot of this hasn't changed since we reviewed it initially, but it's been a while, so I want to give you a chance to see it all. So OK. All right, so Mike should be joining us here momentarily. Let's hope. OK. Well, now you're on mute, though, Mike. That always helps. OK. All right. Sorry about that, Mike. For some reason, Mike, then crashed. OK. Well, all right. Everybody under has everybody, everybody know what we're doing here? Nope. OK. How many technicals is this without these? Right, exactly. This is, you'd think by this point we'd have all this stuff figured out, but clearly not. It's worse, not better. I think it's a sign that we all need to get back in a room together. So all right, I'm going to start sharing my screen, and we will just start walking through this information. And if you have questions, please stop me. But I will, like I said, I'll highlight things as necessary, but generally a lot of the information is not changed from previous discussions. So starting in section 4.1, there's some new language here related to demolition and stabilization and abandonment. I believe we've reviewed all of this previously. Some of this will relate also back to section 4.4 on design review. So as we discussed at the last meeting, the language in section 4.4 we're intending to keep as it is now. And so no amendments. And then once we get through all of this, we'll come back and immediately start working on section 4.4 for some actual design review language. So the information in section 4.1 is just kind of set up some of that discussion. It can stand on its own. So it doesn't need 4.4 to be updated yet. But it will benefit from updates to section 4.4. So one of the comments that Sarah had was actually in this section. She was suggesting, well, she had two suggestions. One is that we don't do anything with this until we do something with section 4.4. So that's one of her comments that we leave 4.1 as it is. The other comment she had was to include the word irreparably in after damaged here, or sorry, before damaged. So something that is irreparably damaged by fire, explosion, natural disaster, act of God, public enemy. So that it's not just a minor issue then leads to a demolition of the entire structure. So she thought that would be a good clarification. I agree with that. So that's one piece of it. The other part is whether or not you all want to move forward with any of these amendments or, as Sarah suggests, we wait until 4.4 is updated first. Eric, I have two questions, two things on 4.1. Yep. The first one is I didn't see and hear anything about abandonment. So maybe it's a different section. If a use or building is abandoned for a certain period of time that loses, it's. So item B here talks about abandonment. Or are you thinking in more detail then, or something other than what's described here? I was thinking more than what's described there. I was thinking more in terms of, I guess it would be a pre-existing non-conforming use. If it's abandoned for more than six months, you have to start over. Let me look here quick. I believe there is language to that effect. Yeah, I'm not sure where it is. That may come up in, well, so we do have section 4.9 is on non-conformities. So it may be included in there. So we can look at that again. If not, I'll just make a note here for non-conformities that we may need to address that. The other question I have, and when my computer crashed a minute ago, I lost. I had a PDF of this with notes on it and I lost that. So I have to go for memory. But the aid talks about no zoning permits required for all these things. And then down below, and I don't know if it's D or on the next page, it talks about you need a zoning permit. I didn't know if that was a conflict. So yeah, so under A, that's a good question and it may need to be clarified. Under A, the intent here is that if something happens outside the control of the property owner that for whatever reason, if there's a fire, explosion, whatever happens that causes damage to the property, they wouldn't need a zoning permit to rebuild or to repair that property to its current state or to its pre-damaged state. Item D is talking about if you're electing to do, if you're electing to demo the property or electing to change or alter it yourself, then you would need a zoning permit. So I think the comment I had written down was on D, demolition of a building, except as defined in section A or something like that. Sure, yep, okay. But yeah, this was really, this is really done to clarify that, so typically what happens when we get a zoning permit application in, it's for demolition but also redevelopment. So it's not often that we get just a request for demolition. And so what the intent here under D is really to clarify that if you're coming in for demolition, you still need to get a zoning permit, even though the demolition permit itself, the actual blue card that we issue may be coming from a different office, you still need to go through the zoning process and the appeal period and all those factors as well if it's only for demolition. Like I said, generally that happens when there's the redevelopment proposal, so we're covering both demolition with the redevelopment at the same time and issuing a zoning permit for both. So this is just to clarify that if you're doing one without the other, you still need to get a zoning permit. Can I ask a question on that? If something had a fire or whatever that it was not no longer safe and they go ahead and demolish it like tomorrow? That is a good question. I think there still needs to be, I don't know if it's that quick, quite frankly. I think there's still some investigation that needs to be done. It would seem as though waiting for a permit though might not be in the best interest of the safety of the area. Oh, sure. So for something like that, we wouldn't require a permit anyway. So if, which is what item A is talking about, that if there is, if a building is damaged by fire or something like that where it's completely unsalvageable, then there would be no need for a permit to take the building to the ground because it's unsafe. So what were you referring to in D that would say that you do? I mean, the person who's demolishing it tomorrow probably will want to rebuild, but in D it looks as though they'd have to have a permit for the demo as well as the permit for the reconstruction. Yeah, so D is if there's no issues with the property and they just choose to go in and redevelop. So for example, like the property at 355 Main Street that was the old Andy's used cars or whatever it was, they elected to demolish that to rebuild the building that's there now. So in that instance, that's where item D applies. Understood now, thank you. Okay, any other comments here on 4.1? Okay, 4.2. So some of this is gonna be, should be a refresh, just adding in language about public work standards instead of the specific citation, since I don't believe that document exists or it's not a final document. Existing driveways item three here, we're moving to the end as we've discussed before. Sorry, Mike, are you gonna say something? Yeah, some place in here, and I don't know if it's above, it says driveways shall be perpendicular close to it. Yeah. Right there, approximately perpendicular. I guess my only question is we've had instances or maybe public works allows up to, I don't know if it's a 45 degree angle or whatever it is, because we ran into it when Pauli wanted to redevelop East Spring Street. I didn't see where that is taken into unless it relates to the standards for the Winniski Department of Public Works. So I know in that particular instance, there was an amendment made to section 4.9 to add in non-conforming lot structures right of ways and drives. So I know there was an amendment at that time to address that issue, but I think that's something that would be covered with public works. And I can, on the, on our website, I believe we have the detail, we at least have the curb cut detail. I don't know if we have a driveway detail on there, but yeah, there was, I know that was a consideration at the time. So I'm wondering though, if it says here, access shall be established approximately perpendicular to the street, I mean, that leaves it wide open. What's approximate? 70 degrees, 60 degrees, 89 degrees. Should something be in there, unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works or something like that? So that's a good question. Got a full of good questions. Let me, let me look at that to see what their standards talk about if they have anything specific in their standards. Okay. Okay. So encroachment, as I mentioned, that's moving to the end. This, the section F talks about, this is where we talk about curb cuts specifically. So we talked about this previously, this figure one I'm proposing, as I mentioned earlier, I'm proposing these figures to move to section 6.6. Figure one I'm proposing to delete altogether, mostly because the width that's shown here at 25 feet is greater than our public works standards allow. So it's kind of out of date with our current standards. So I'm proposing that this one just be deleted altogether. The public works standards would speak to all of these conditions. So as far as too wide, too narrow, or just right kind of this Goldilocks scenario. So I'm proposing that this is just deleted altogether. And then figures two and three and four proposing to remove from this section and move into section 6.6. Also just to say a few more words about that, we talked about this at the last meeting. Section 6.6 is our site plan review. And most of these figures are coming from a previous version of the regulations that included site plan review. So, or they weren't previously included under site plan review in an older version of our regulations. So basically just proposing to move them back to that section. So that's why they're showing as strikeouts here, but would come back in to site plan review. And yep, figure five as well, sorry. So no changes there. Here's the encroachment for existing driveways. Sarah had a comment here about if we wanted to require any type of screening against the adjacent properties for this encroachment. I think I kind of go back and forth on that just because sometimes the screening may encroach into the driveway and make it harder to actually put the two car width driveway in. But I guess I think it depends on what the circumstances may require. So I'm not sure how folks feel about doing that. And I should also point out that there would be a foot remaining with this provision. It's allowed to go up to four feet. They can go closer with DRB approval. And usually in the past, when this has gone to the DRB, they have talked about screening against the adjacent properties, but that's only if they're going that additional encroachment. So we can include some language here if you'd like, but we can also leave it open. Again, the intent here is really to be able to provide two side-by-side spaces. So that screening may encroach the opposite way back into the driveway and limit the ability to get those two spaces. So anyway, that was a comment from Sarah. Just wanted to share that with you all. Any thoughts on that? I just had a quick question regarding that, not necessarily directly to this issue, but regarding screening. I was kind of wondering about the Park Terrace project on East Allen Street. A detail of that. There's some screening that's in front of two of the entrances. And I was wondering, is that, I'm trying to remember, was that something required by form-based code or was that something that developers opted to do? Are you talking about some landscaping, Joe? That's- No, it's like a kind of perforated wall. Oh, sure. Yep, I know what you're talking about. That was, I think the developers elected to do that. Okay. Because I'm curious in regards to, there's sort of a fine balance here between mitigating effect on the adjacent property owners and adding landscaping and hardscaping to ease that, but also possibly creating like a visual obstacle to traffic. Sure. I kind of, because I do often notice what a visibility issue that creates looking up East Allen Street if you're coming from East Spring that you can't really see around this thing that's been created that's jutting out from the property. Yeah, so what we would do, even if we did require screening, if we were to amend this to require screening against the adjacent property, there's still limitations on how far it can extend forward in towards the street. Mostly, for one, it can't go into the right-of-way because that's city property. And two, we generally require them to lower it. So there is a vision clearance to allow for any vehicles backing out to see pedestrians or vice versa. So there is some requirement taken into consider, or there is some consideration taken into any type of side yard fencing in that regard. So we would be looking at that anyway. I'm also just thinking too, that kind of looking at that element as built, that it might be a little bit contradictory to what we're actually looking for as far as the streetscape with form-based code that we've talked a lot about having an engaged streetscape and actually when you're baffling the door front, like the fronts of the property has kind of the opposite effect of what we're looking for. Just maybe a subject of a future discussion, I don't know if there's ever future edits for our form-based code, but that might be something we don't in fact want. Yep, absolutely. These are living documents and we can revisit them at any time. So I'll make a note for future conversation on that, but yeah, that's something to play with. It was somewhat germane to this conversation. Sure, yep. I was just thinking about, I mean, I'm thinking about my neighborhood and other neighborhoods that are developed and how many properties actually have screening between the driveway and the adjacent property, and I can't think of any in my neighborhood anyway. I think it's kind of atypical. I mean, yeah, we can leave it out. I mean, there's no, that's not, it's not something we've required in the past, so it's, I mean, we can just leave it as is, if you want. Maybe like the idea is that the proximity is closer than the way that things have been built in that neighborhood, I don't know. Yeah, well, even where I grew up on Mansion Street and older neighborhoods, I mean, I don't know. I guess I'm just, I'm in favor of just leaving it out. I guess what I would say, there's nothing that would prohibit somebody from coming in after the fact and putting in screening if they wanted to. The difference is that, I believe what Sarah's suggesting is that maybe we require that there is screening to be included. And is that specifically staring crochet in that five foot setback? Sorry, say that again, Abby. Is the screening specifically, is there encroaching the five foot setback? I think that's what Sarah's comment was, yeah, that if you're going to encroach into that setback, then you, that screening would be required. There's not much room left. If you encroach up to four feet, you've only got one foot left. And it would seem as though putting something screening there would be an obstacle for safe parking, too. Yeah, I sort of, I'm thinking about my scenario with the neighbor, like, so, and how that would work. Like, the neighbor encroached on that setback and now there's only like two feet between where they park at a house. So I'm like, yeah, I just, with the way that we're developed, I'm not sure, I don't really know how that would work. Yeah, and I think it's gonna, I think it's also gonna be situational dependent because like in your situation, Abby, the driveway is right next to your house, but it, so it's gonna create, it would create this weird, well, not weird, but a really narrow space in there that's not, nothing can happen if there's screening in there as well. Whereas if it was on the other side, there may be a bigger gap between, or it may be against an adjacent driveway as well. So it's just driveway next to driveway, depending on how the properties are actually developed. So I think requiring screening overall is, personally, I think that becomes a challenge, one for enforcement and two for just the fact that it may create these just unusable spaces. So, okay, so it sounds like, oh, sorry, sorry. Not requiring it. Yeah, okay, so it sounds like we'll just leave it as is. Okay, so then under four, three, so two things. One, I realized that this has an A without a B, so I will correct that in one form or fashion, whether these all just become letters or something else, but that will be changed. Sarah had a comment about this added language unless otherwise noted in these regulations, and basically I didn't realize this, but it is kind of a redundancy in this sentence because in the opening we say, the proposed use shall be subject to all the requirements of these regulations, and then complete it with saying unless otherwise noted in these regulations. So we're saying the same thing twice, basically, or that's what I was proposing, so I'm thinking we can just strike this unless otherwise noted in these regulations line and just leave it as the original text. Sounds good. Okay, so then the only other comment, equal treatment, that's nothing new, just some clarifications. Section 4.6, again we have an A without a B, so I'll correct that. Sarah had a comment about whether or not these items A, B, C, and D are all of them need to apply or any one of them can apply, and I had intended for any one of these to apply, so I'd be, I'm proposing then to add in and or after these statements so that if any of these situations arise, you would need a zoning permit for a wall. Otherwise, if you're just doing something decorative in the middle of your yard, that's fine, and it would be exempt. I don't believe there's anything new in that section either. So then in section 4.7, this is something we talked about previously with the language, so nothing new has changed here or there's no, nothing has been proposed since the last time we talked about this and settled on this language. And I should mention, sorry, I should also mention that after this, after you're all comfortable with this review, we would still hold a public hearing on all this, so there will be another opportunity to look at it again. So don't feel like you need to be fine tooth comb with everything right now, you're welcome to, but if something, if I'm moving too quickly for you, please stop me, but also know that there will be another opportunity or more opportunities to look at this information. Okay, so let's see. Again, a lot of this remained unchanged, adding in the specifications for public works, for street trees, 4.9, non-conformities, I believe. Yeah, okay, Sarah had a comment in here as well, but on the next page. So this is all consistent with what we were reviewed before, nothing changed in this language. Okay, so under item five here with non-conformities, Sarah had a comment about, for this sentence of item five, at the end, basically changing this to read, changes of use in a non-conforming structure are allowed, provided the structure must be made, hang on, I may have translated that wrong. Changes of use in a non-conforming structure, yeah, must be made in accordance with section 4.9e and as follows, so kind of rewording this a little bit. So, yeah, so basically striking, she was suggesting to strike, the are allowed provided the structure is not, is not changed or altered unless done. So just to say, basically taking out, taking out this text, so deleting that text out. So, just for clarification. And adding it must be done. Sorry, go ahead, Mike. 0.9e, that's the section we're talking about? Yeah. And is that cover that I gotta go back through here, that the structure, I mean, the intent there is that the structure, basically outside of the structure can't be changed. Basically, yeah, yeah. So this is talking about non-conforming structures in general, and so item five I added in, in case the use of that structure were to change, so that we can, because it's an existing structure, I just wanted to clarify that if you're changing the use in it, that's fine, unless you're doing something else, like if you're, unless you're planning to make an alteration to the structure, then you need to do it in conformance with items one through four here. Otherwise. I guess I'm wondering why take that language out. I think she was, her suggestion, I think was really more for clarification. It's basically saying the same thing. She just thought it was worded a little awkwardly, the way it's worded currently. So, what? I guess the way it's worded currently makes sense to me. I think, it sounds like she's saying it's repetitive, is that the? A little bit, I mean, so let me read this again, because she's, what she's suggesting it be changed to say is changes of use in a non-conforming structure must be made in accordance with section 4.9e and as follows. So 4.9e is what this section is at? Correct. And so, I guess I didn't really read one, two, and three above or four above. Yeah, I mean, I think she's basically saying that it's a little wordy. But if, again. It would still require 4.9e. Yeah, I guess that's okay, because I was looking back now, like number one says, you know, does not increase the structure's degree of non-conformity, which essentially says, you can't expand it. Right. Yeah. So yeah, so. Okay. She's basically saying, remove this language that's highlighted, but in its place say must be made. So it would say changes of use in a non-conforming structure must be made in accordance with section 4.9e and as follows. Yeah. Reference to the fact that you still have to do everything from one through four. Right. So I think she's just rewording it to clarify and to make it a little less wordy, is what she's suggesting here. Should, I think that's fine. I'm just wondering if when I see section 4.9e, it makes me stop and think, okay, what is section 4.9e? Does it make more sense? You know, items 1, 2, 3, and 4 above or of this section? I guess it's fine the way it is. So you're comfortable with the language that Sarah's suggesting here? Is that what I'm hearing? I think so. Is that what I'm hearing? Okay. Let's see. Then moving along, nothing new changing here or nothing that we haven't already discussed. Can we stop for a minute and go back up to one? This one or a different one? Yeah, keep going up to the right there. Okay. So this is saying that if you're converting a non-conforming, non-residential use in the R, A, B, and C zone, you can put in up to six, in the R, A, and B zone, you put up to 16 residential units? That is what this is saying. Yes. 24 residential units in the R, C zone. That's correct. And so currently in a R, A, B, and C zone, the density is like four units an acre. I mean, it varies, but roughly four to five, six? Per acre is, let's see. In the R, C right now, I think a per acre calculation is like 15 units. The R, B is roughly 10 units and the R, A is roughly eight units on a per acre basis, that is. So because you put a duplex on a lot, right? Or a triplex or whatever. Well, we do it on a per lot basis, not on a per acre basis. So it's, you can do the R, A, and R, B, you can do two units per acre, or sorry, two units per lot. R, C, you can do three units per lot and it's based off the minimum lot size requirement. Right, so in an R, A, I think it's 10,000 square feet, minimum lot size. Correct. Or four lots with two units each. Right. Yeah, it's okay. Yeah, so, and this is all language that currently exists in the regulation, so. I just wanted to get a feel for it. We're basically doubling the density is what we're saying. Yeah, and I think the idea here was to try to get rid of some of those non-conforming uses in those residential areas. And in order to do that, they were providing some incentives for additional density. This all. Non-conforming non-residential uses. Exactly, sorry, yes. Non-conforming non-residential. So I don't think there's a lot of those out there right now in the residential zoning districts in the R, A, R, B, and R, C. So there's really only two or three properties that I can think of offhand. And I believe at least one of them has already gone through this process. Okay. But it also, you know, it has minimum areas that need to be met, et cetera. So, and then also the parking and other requirements here. So, yeah, okay. So the only thing that I was thinking we may want to leave this item B in depending on where we draw a design review district. It may, I don't know if there's gonna be any non-conforming, what the area that I currently have proposed, I don't believe has any non-conformities in it now. Any non-conforming, any non-conforming non-residential uses. So, but we could, I think this is an easy enough one that we can leave it in or we can bring it back in if we need to, or we can just leave it in now and it's there and we don't have to make any changes. Let's leave it in now. So, we're gonna institute it, or we're gonna talk about instituting design review. Yep, okay. Okay, yeah. So, all right. Next is the outdoor lighting. Again, this is similar to our landscaping section that we just looked at in four seven. Similar language, just more clarification, nothing new from the last time we looked at this. And I believe we carry similar language through in section four 11. Yeah, similar language as well. Adding in this language, again, nothing different than what you've reviewed previously and that brings us to parking. Everybody's favorite. Absolutely. So, I don't think there's anything new on this first page. Just to highlight, we did provide that this item two for maximum parking, that if you exceed 125%, you need to go to the DRB basically for conditional use, except in the RARB and RC districts, just because we're already requiring two spaces per unit. Again, that might be something we need to change later depending on legislation, but there may be other things we need to change with the legislation as well. So, we can revisit all those once we see what the final bill looks like. If it gets to that point. So, nothing new there. The, let's see, the use table itself, I don't think there's anything new here since the last time we spoke. The biggest discussion I believe we had was on schools. We landed on three spaces per instructional space. So, I do have a definition for instructional space as well that we can look at in a bit, but I don't think anything has changed here. I will say that, again, I think I had advocated for increasing some of those minimums because we reduced by a half or a third some and by a lot more for others, but I think everybody else was comfortable with these. So, I'll leave it alone. Okay. Just want to get it out there. I disagree with some of that. Right, understood, understood. So, then we get into parking adjustments. This green language was moved. So, it's not going away, just moving to a different section. Similarly, with the last part of this parking adjustments language, I believe it's just moved down here, quite frankly. The shared use section. So, Abby, this'll be new for you. I don't believe you were with us the last time we spoke about this. But so, this is what I, after our last conversation, this is what I drafted to kind of clean this up. And I believe, let me, it's been a little bit since I've looked at this as well. So, I will try to explain this as best I can. So, part A is for one non-residential unit and sharing with residential parking. So, mixed use buildings with just one space, one non-residential space, can share the parking, 15% of that with the residential parking. So, this to your original question earlier, Abby, about the minutes. Previously, there was different tiers and thresholds for the amount of, the percentage of parking that could be shared based on the amount of square footage of the non-residential. I changed that to basically say that two or more non-residential spaces can share 30% between the non-residential spaces. So, really what this is intended to do then is say, doesn't matter how many non-residential spaces you have, if you've got at least two, those two spaces can share parking among themselves only. So, and the example I thought of was 211 Main Street where the Fusion Cafe and Wicked Wings are located. That was originally proposed as three spaces. They combined two of them to make, I believe the Wicked Wings space and kept the third as it was. So, they originally proposed three and now they have two. So, this would, item B here would still apply in either of those scenarios that the parking, because they still need the same number of parking spaces for the total square footage. It's about 5,000 square feet total. That way they can cut it up however they want for the number of units they have. The minimum parking is still gonna be the same regardless of the number of spaces and they can share among those spaces equally or up to that 30%. So, instead of trying to differentiate between the size of the space and a certain percentage, and if two units get combined or two units get split up, then that's a different percentage. I just looked at it as two or more spaces, two or more non-residential spaces to be able to share among themselves. And then item C, I believe I added in some extra language on the accessibility portion and just to clarify what we're talking about as far as measuring the off-site component. Or sorry, measuring if they are in a location. So I think for the parking adjustments, I think what we, the conversation had that and was using this burn-up and incentive to be able to share your spaces with the non-residential uses and that we could word this in a way that encouraged developers to use more of their, you know, their first-floor space for non-residential uses to kind of get more of that storefront office space, you know, providing jobs, having access to retail and using this, like, sharing accommodation to encourage developers to do more than the minimum. That was sort of where the conversation we were having around this. So are you thinking then that this is not going in that direction? Yeah, yeah, I guess unless I'm misunderstanding it, it looks like to me it's not about, like, the space being used, it's really about how many non-residential uses, units that they have within the space. So like, the development, where, what is it? The big one off of Manso Minche Street. Park Terrace. Has a little cafe. Yep. Yeah, has a little cafe in it. And then across the street, I actually don't think they have any commercial space, but anyway, they have a little cafe in that one. And it was like, oh, wouldn't it be great if there was more than just a little cafe in there if they had used more of that storefront for, you know, employment or, you know, other retail space? Could having an incentive about sharing parking get developers to do more than the minimum so that we have these, like, more of a mixture of uses happening in these building blocks gateway. Yeah, that's a good question. So I think some of that is driven by market and how many, how much non-residential space the property owners think they can actually lease. And I think also is a factor of where the building form standard, what building form standard the property is located along. So in certain areas, we do require first floor non-residential. So they don't even have the option. They have to do it. And in other areas, it is an option. Right now, our shared parking requires a minimum 10,000 square feet of non-residential space. So I think right now our shared parking isn't doing anything. And what this is, the hope here was that it would, by not putting a requirement of the amount of space or focusing it on a square footage number and just the leaving it just as the number of actual storefronts they have may actually encourage that. So they can make smaller storefronts and more of them that could be converted and could be expanded or contracted depending on the business and may actually be more beneficial to smaller startup businesses or as they grow they may need more space and can add to it. And it's not gonna impact their parking needs. So the way that it's currently written, they have a minimum parking standard, 30% of that minimum can be taken out of the residential parking lot. So allocated parking, is that how that leads? So right now the way it's written is that you need to have 10,000 square feet and I believe it's only for the non-residential that can be shared but they can share up to 60% of it. And Abby, if I heard you right, B is talking about, in A it's one unit can share 15% of the residential parking and B, two units or more can only share the non-residential parking. Correct, that's the way it's written right now. So that if you have multiple storefronts, one could be an office, one could be a restaurant and they can share their parking because they have different hours of operation. Similarly under A, if you just have one space, like the Park Terrace example, if they only wanna build in one space, they can share with the residential uses that are there as well. Thanks for that clarification. What's the difference between what was previously there or I'm not tracking this well, I'm sorry? Yeah, no, that's fine, no need to apologize. So the current shared use requirement is that you have to have 10,000 square feet of non-residential space. Oh, okay, residential, non-residential space. Right. And we're not seeing anywhere near 10,000 square feet of non-residential space being built right now in any of these projects. What about the 60%? So that's 60% of that non-residential parking is what can be shared. So I think my guess is that this is really more intended for some of the industrial uses that we have so that when they're doing shift work or other things, they don't need to put in, they don't need to build to an industrial standard, which currently is listed at three spaces per second. 10,000 square feet. So if you're doing a 50,000 square foot building in an industrial area, you would need 150 parking spaces but that 50,000 square feet might only have 15, 20 shift workers over three shifts. So you don't need anywhere near that parking for what's there. And this is only speculation. I believe the shared use provision was to say you could share up to 60% of that in your non-residential space, but I don't really know how that works. I haven't had to use this because nobody's built anywhere near 10,000 square feet of non-residential space since I've been with the city. So I'm- I can't give that it's no longer the 10,000 square feet. That makes perfect sense to me. I just wasn't understanding 60% but I do understand what you have in B. So the minimum requirement for non-residential parking and you go back up to the table and show me what what that would be if it's a restaurant. It's one space for 500 square feet. Yes. Yes, that's correct. So if it's 5,000 square feet that would be 10 spaces, right? I believe that's, it would be 20 spaces. 10 spaces for 500? No, sorry. 10 spaces, that's correct, yes. And so if you had two restaurants, each of which was 5,000 square feet, instead of requiring 10, they could be sharing and have seven. I think that's right. Each, yeah, that would be seven each. So a total of 14 on the site in that case, instead of 20. Right, yeah. And that makes sense to me and I just wanted to make sure I was understanding it in that way. Yes, that's the intent is so that when you have, or if you had an office use, for example, next to a restaurant, they could still share those spaces because they're gonna be on off-peak times. And similarly, if it's two non-residential uses, they're gonna potentially either be on off-peak times or even if they are both restaurants, they're gonna have different turnover rates so those spaces will be opening up more regularly. Whereas if it's a residential use, people are either gone most of the day and then they're all night long so those spaces are turning over as often. Okay. So yeah, so this went away from a square footage-based to more of a unit, a number of units, a number of commercial storefront space. So they can be as big or as small as they need to be based on the market and the percentage is, they're still gonna need the parking. It's just gonna, if they add, or I guess if they cut up the total area into, if they start with two spaces and then add a third, they still have the same number of total spaces needed overall, it's just now they can share them with each other a little bit differently. So I think it gives more flexibility to a property owner that's looking to put in non-residential space. So Eric, your example of the industrial use prompted a question I had thought about. We are not providing, and I'm okay with this, we're not providing shared use, shared parking use for strictly non-commercial, non-residential properties has to be mixed use property. That's correct, yes. It has to be mixed use. Okay, yes. I'm good with that, I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding it. Yep, yep, so, okay, great. And then item C here is really related to the garage, right? I think it's more related to the, yes, I believe that's correct for shared parking. So that they're within, yeah, so if a business is, or if a non-residential use or mixed use is within 500 feet of a municipal facility, they can put all of their non-residential parking in that location. Thinking about the businesses in downtown on the west side of the circle that they don't have any parking on site but they are all within 500 feet of the parking garage. It's, I think, makes sense to allow them to utilize that as their parking requirements. So, okay. And we talked about in C that you've got in there, you've got to be able to access it through a complete ADA accessible walkway. Yep. And there's available parking. Yep, absolutely. Yep, those are in items I and II. Right. Yeah, I try to say that for, I think Abby wasn't here, I don't know if she had seen that, so. Yep. So, and then, I don't know if I had this in the last one, but item G is really to make sure that if, if it's a phased project, that if they're building all residential in the first phase and they have future phases proposed for non-residential space, they can't take advantage of that of the shared parking until those future phases with the non-residential uses come in. So, you can't presume that the residential phase, because there's gonna be a future non-residential phase, you have to do it based on when that non-residential use is incorporated. So, you're not building less parking than you might otherwise need when you actually are going to need it. Okay, so then part two is the TDM section. I don't believe anything has changed since we spoke about this the last time. I don't think. But this is all, again, credit goes to Abby for this. Most of this language, if not all of it, came from her. Eric? Yeah. Sorry, on D, I think it is. This item D? No, no, no, two trespasses to management. Yep. Nope, well, I'm sorry, go back up. I guess I can't read. On A, number IV. Okay. Got you. You talk about travel demand estimates, and it's under the methodology of the ensued transportation engineers. Yeah. But it doesn't say it has to be done by a qualified engineer. I believe that's where that is in here. No, it's down later, but it doesn't say, I guess what I'm getting at is, in this section it says you provide us with the travel demand estimates. I see. Down below it says you have to do some studies by a stamped engineer. But I think it should say that here too. Got it. It sounds reasonable, yep. Okay, yep, that makes sense. I mean, I think typically to access those ITE trip generation estimates, you pretty much need to be an engineer because the document is so expensive, but that's an easy add and happy to do it. I say that because we've had situations where property owners tell us what the demand is. Sure, yep, nope, understood, absolutely. Okay. So let's see, moving on. Yep, nothing new here. And then in location is our next item. Again, I think this is pretty consistent with what we looked at previously. I think I updated this with similar language to the shared use about the ADA accessible pedestrian pathway. So just to have the consistency in all these different sections. So I think that's the only change in part three here. Public parking, I similarly added that language somewhere, yeah, under item I down here, that it's the ADA and under II with the ADA, but this was updated based on our last conversations for the location to be within 100 feet of the proposed development and et cetera, et cetera. So similar language with the 500 feet of the garage, yeah, ADA accessible in all of these other options. So some of this was updated a bit, but pretty, I believe consistent with the discussions we had at our last meeting about it. About ensuring that there was capacity in the, there, yeah, I think that's the language in their unencumbered public parking available in this facility that that also needs to be added. So I kind of touch on that under item IV that if no spaces exist, then it can't be utilized. But I mean, I can bring that language over if you would prefer that. Yeah, because to me, the spaces of the self-salt like exists in the parking garage, even if they're both cars. Right. Right, but that unencumbered parking, I think goes to more of the capacity question. Yep, yep, I can add that in. Absolutely. Okay, then the next section E as a new section is on incentives. So this has changed a bit from the last time we looked at it. One, I did remove the language on the housing affordability that we had included. So that's been taken out. I changed it to, I believe it was one and a half spaces previously reduced it to one and a quarter based on again, our discussions because we have that requirement for the extra one space for every four units. This would basically eliminate that with the underground parking, sorry, just to make sure I stated that. So this would apply to underground parking. And I believe those are the two, oh, and then that only residential parking can be counted towards this incentive. So if the parking is for residential uses, it can be counted. If it's not intended for residential uses, it would not be counted in this incentive. And then on the electric vehicle charging, this was also updated to eliminate the level one chargers as having any incentive and then level two for a space and a half and level three or higher for two. These can't be individually assigned and they cannot be the same chargers used to meet the commercial building energy standards except level three. And then I did place this item E so that to put a cap on the number of spaces that could be utilized or the number, the amount of reduction that they could get for electric vehicle charging. So they didn't just throw electric vehicle chargers through the entire parking area. And then I also added item three to say that either you can do one or the other of these incentives. You can't do them both. So if you're taking advantage of one of these incentives, you're either doing the underground parking only or you're doing the electric vehicle charging parking only not to, and you can't combine those two with the intention. I believe we talked at the last meeting or the last time we talked about this so that you're not just completely reducing your parking to a point where you have almost no parking on site. I'm scared, Eric. Thanks for updating the language. The one thing I think you'd accept what I'm not seeing here was the rounding down instead of us with the new numbers. Yeah, I thought I had that in here. Maybe it was in another section. I will make a note of that. Rounding down or rounding up? I know we had the conversation about which it is if you round up or round down. So for reduced parking we were rounding up. So it might basically say 1.25 phases would be one space, not two. Or 1.5 would equal one space, not two, right? Yes, yes, that's right. For limiting, for reducing parking, yeah, I think that's right. So we're rounding down, correct? Yeah, there was an earlier place where we rounded up and I think that was for required parking. I think that's right. Yes. Yeah. That is what we talked about just. Okay. So yeah, if we round down here I think we do a lot of parking. Yeah, I think that's right. So okay, yep, I'll make sure to add that in. And then under handicap accessible parking, we're eliminating this and basically just saying you're gonna follow the ADA standards for accessible design so that when those change we don't have to update our regulations and can eliminate that section. Eric, I'm gonna do a time check at 7.52. Just keep that in mind. Yep, so we do have a little bit more to cover in this if you wanna keep going. This is the only item we have on the agenda for tonight other than updates and other business. So happy to keep it. Is everyone okay? It was sticking around for several more minutes? Sure. We're getting right into the bike parking, so. And we have Abby here to talk about this as well. So since we did have some questions at our last meeting. So here under item four, or sorry, item, yeah, item G we're talking about bike parking. I did add in some language at the end of this section to talk about at our last meeting we did talk about having some sort of minimum. So I added this last sentence to basically say for all uses we're requiring at least one rack with a minimum two bike capacity for short term and at least one long term space regardless of the size of the project. So there's at least some short term and long term parking included with all of these uses on the next page. And then on the use page, I don't know if I changed anything here. I know that we did have some discussion about whether or not some of the long term numbers were too high. And if we should maybe look at bringing them down versus the short term. And I don't know, Abby, if you had any thoughts on that kind of going back to the previous discussion about shared use parking. I'm not sure that we're seeing a lot of like personal service in retail that are getting into the 20,000 square feet size. So I don't know if it makes sense to have those that large. Again, now that we have the additional requirement that at least one short term or sorry, at least two short term and one long term per for any of these uses is required. It may not be as critical that we try to dial in the numbers as much. So just wanted to, I know, like I said, I know we started that discussion at our last meeting or we had some of that discussion, but we were definitely wanted to wait until you were with us, Abby, to really get into it in much detail. Yeah, thanks. And I was able to balance off the number of locomotion and they came up with a theme concern about the personal services of retail. So I thought 20,000 square feet is too big. Their recommendation was, and this is for the long term, to use a 6,000 square feet of floor area instead. So, and you said- I think that it goes through. Yeah, go ahead. And you said that was for the personal service? Yeah, that personal service or retail sales with a long term parking, that 20,000 square feet was too big and that's 6,000 was their recommendation on that one. Did you, was that the only one they had any comments on? No, the next one as well, I guess, easier, I'm happy to send them to you. There's not, it's not all of them, but the next one, again, for the long term, they choose 2,500 grid square feet to 1,000 grid square feet. But the next, the following one seems the same with the exception of, yeah, industrial. Industrial there, they need a recommended change too. And then a couple of them got flip-flops at some point. Like office and- Do you, Abby, do you have an updated table that you can just send to me and I can plug this in? That might be easier to- Yeah, that might be easier to do that. So, okay. Eric, yep. Oh, Eric and or Abby, did we come up with a definition of what short term means in long term? I think, I believe I added that in on the next page. Yeah, I did. Well, the bottom of this page and the top of the next page. So, yes, I did add in some language to that because of that point. So, yeah, so Abby, if you can send me the updated tables, I'll plug them in and that way we don't have to go through these one by one right now. Save some time. Yeah, absolutely. Great. It's just curious, Abby, where were you getting those numbers from? What was the source? To the original table, which like you said, some of them are flip-flops, like there's the short term should always be more than the long term. So, like for some reason, the industrial and office got flip-flops on this copy that you got, but these numbers were all based off the city of Burlington, like parking requirements, local motion, the local bike path advocacy group, take a look at them to see if they're squared with what their recommendations were. And they picked up on some of the gross square footage issues that it sounds like the planning commission talked about at the last meeting, which is like when you see small, we don't have a ton of big buildings, like they're too big, so the size of our establishment. So, I can share with Eric or the whole group, whatever makes sense, sort of their recommended changes to this table to kind of bring down those gross square footage standards. That's great. I did note that some of them to us last meeting seemed as though they were reversed. So, I'm glad that got picked up on it, can be corrected. Yeah, it's quite possible that I put those in in the wrong order as I was going through too. So, yes, I'm glad there was another set of eyes on these for sure. So, okay, well, yeah, if you can send me the updated table, that'd be great. So then in this next section, I think what was added here, Mike, to your point, is item three for some definitions, basically. And I wasn't sure if there were good definitions for this, so I just tried to basically say that short term is if you're leaving a bike unattended for a period not more than 48 hours. And that long term is that it's unattended beyond 48 hours and may include consecutive days, multiple consecutive days. I didn't know if it should be 24 hours or 48 hours. I mean, I think you leave a bike overnight somewhere. It might sit for a little bit and then you go collect it. Otherwise, if you're longer than that, you need to, it's really gonna be those multiple consecutive days. I guess I just, I don't understand. I mean, if these time frames are appropriate, I don't understand why you'd need so much long-term parking for certain commercial uses. That's just me, I don't know. For example, a restaurant, if maybe an employee leaves it overnight, but if they ride it to work, they're probably gonna ride it home. If it's raining, okay, they take a bus instead of riding the bike and they come and get the next day. But you're the expert, Abby. I just, I don't know. I just don't understand this need for short-term and long-term parking. I can help with the definition, right? So that's clear. It's more up to do with having a weatherproof space. Like long-term bike parking has to have a coverage, has to have walls. So it's relevant to situations that are not residential so people can bike and be able to store their bike while they're working or they're eating in a place that's sitting out in the elements. And that just goes to the viability of a year-round, like biking every year-round, the option. People are fine biking through the rain and they wear the gear to bike through the rain in the snow, but they want a place to secure their bike while they're doing whatever they're doing that's not in the elements. So I can help with that definition to make that clear. Yeah, that'd be great. That would be great. And then item four, I don't believe any of this was changed as well. Basically just saying it needs to be separated. The bike parking needs to be separated. And then the short-term needs to be on-site in a covered location protected from the elements. And at the long-term needs to be completely enclosed, secure on-site facility protected from the elements with controlled access limited to the residents or tenants of the building. And then I did add this last line about that it could be a dedicated room on-site or individual storage units assigned to each dwelling or similar space. I think that was based on, at our last meeting, Brendan's comments about the previous building where he lived that had like a storage locker in front of the parking spaces that were assigned to the unit that would I think satisfy the long-term ability if it's as long as it's large enough to accommodate the bike itself. So that could be considered long-term bike storage as well or bike parking. And I don't think anything else has changed in this section. Yeah, because that's basically the end of this section. And then taking out this part, change of use. The only thing I added here was to clarify that under item three, that for the change of use that it only needs to be brought in conformance for the new residential or new square footage. I believe that was something we talked about previously. Yeah, we talked about that at the last meeting that this should only apply to those new spaces. And I think that is the only other item there. Surface parking, I don't believe anything changed here. And then in the next section, we get back into all these figures. Pretty much everything from here on out, I'm proposing to delete and move to the site plan review section. So that's why all this is stricken from here. Again, it's more related to site plan review and I think it's more appropriate there. So that's where you'll find those items. And that is the end of article four. So 803, that might be a good place to pause if everybody's comfortable. And then we can look at, so this language just as a quick primer for everybody going forward, section 515, the adaptive reuse language that we developed to kind of replace the design review kind of as a temporary step because we already had it developed, providing it for you again, nothing has changed here from the last time we talked about it. It's still the same as it was then. So that is one item. And then after that, it's site plan review. And as you look through this information, there's a few minor clarification pieces like adding in some titles and a few punctuation items. But mostly what you'll see is the language from the previous figures, whatever kind of intro was included previously. I've carried over and then edited slightly just so that it flows better with the rest of the section and then added in the figures into this part where they fit under the various headings. So really nothing is new here. Just the language didn't, because of the way I had to transfer it over, it came over as new language instead of the green double strike like some of the others did. But you'll notice that it's basically, it's all pretty much the same as what was in there previously. So just to give you that little update. And then in the definition section, there's several definitions that I've added for clarity. Accessory structure is one that we have in our hazard inundation areas, but don't have included in the base regulations. And this actually came up as, I had an issue of violation based off of this. So we added, I'm proposing to add accessory structure just so it's clear what that actually means. Hey, Eric. Yep. I see Christine's never hand up. Oh, geez, I'm sorry. I just learned on the office little buddy. That was a mistake, I'm sorry. Oh, okay. I was hoping that you hadn't had it up for the whole time because I had clicked the thing to not show people who weren't talking. No worries. Or we'll want a video, I guess. So this definition for certificate of appropriateness is something that is related to the new design review language. So that may be something we want to hold off on, including some clarifications in with demolition and with two unit building, a new definition for fence because we've clarified some of the language in section 4.6. Instructional space, a new definition because that shows up in parking, clarification on land development about demolition, again related to sections in Article 4. Party wall, this is related to two unit. And both of those actually, these definitions are, again, because of some situations that I've seen with development where somebody's basically just, they'll have a single unit dwelling and they'll basically just put a little breezeway or a little roof line and build another building and say that that's now a two unit. And so I'm trying to clarify that to really be a two unit, we want them to be connected somehow. So party wall is included in the definition of two unit now. So I wanted to make sure we had a definition of party wall. Substantially commenced another definition that's in our inundation hazard section, but not in here. But this almost led, I'm adding this because I almost had to issue a violation based off of this definition. So just wanted to make sure it's included as well and a definition for wall. So anyway, just that's basically the end of all of this, but we can commence review at a future meeting. So just to give you, that was, I just really wanted to give you that high level overview of the rest of the section since there's not a lot that's being changed or being proposed in the next couple of sections. So ideally we'll be able to get through updates on bicycle parking and the rest of this at our next meeting. So yeah, I think this is a good place to stop, but I think the next meeting, maybe we can go through the bike parking stuff after you've got the changes by Abby. Yep. And get through section five and the definitions you just talked about. Yeah. I think that would be, and then we could potentially, if you all are ready to, we can schedule a public hearing on this section and then start in on design review. Sounds good. Thank you for your attention on that, Abby. I do appreciate that. No problem. I've been really eager to get this out good front of us and moving forward. So happy to help. Okay. Let's move on to city updates. Christine, do you have anything? Just town meeting day. That's all I've been up to. Everything passed. We'll see how the charter change goes next year. I don't expect the legislature to address it since they've already done crossover, but yeah, all budgets passed. Very low turnout, very high pass rates. Yeah. Well, congratulations. Thanks. Eric. The only update I had under city updates is next Thursday, we will be having a development review board meeting. The development review board did issue their decision on St. Stephens. They basically, the decision was to reopen the hearing to take some additional testimony. There was a, their testimony that was provided at the first hearing back in February, there was some question about whether or not the church actually is included in the state register. So the DRB wanted to reopen the hearing to take testimony on that question specifically. So they have a better sense of whether or not this building is in fact listed or not, mostly because that hinges on the decision that was made to issue the zoning permit. So they will be having a hearing next Thursday just for that one, basically to take testimony on that specific question so that they are better informed on issuing their decision. Are they asking the experts to come in? So they are giving the appellant the opportunity to provide that testimony and invite in who they want to make sure that they have a clear picture on whether or not it is in fact listed. So I believe the agenda should be posted. I think it may have actually gotten posted today. So the documents that were provided by the appellant are included with that agenda attachment. So, yep. It'll be next Thursday at 6.30, the 16th. Sorry, what was that, Abby? So yeah, so if the DRB closes the hearing, they will have 45 days to issue the decision and then that decision will be posted for 30 days for potential appeals. And that appeal will go to the environmental court? That appeal will go to the environmental court, yes. Yep. I should say if there is an appeal. Correct, if it's an appeal, that's right, if it is appealed. Sorry, Joe, you were asking a question there as well. Well, I was just saying, I read because I will often walk my dog around that block in front of seeing, seeing that the sign's posted for the hearing and my understanding is it's open but they're only looking for testimony from people who are like basically accredited professionals who can give kind of a test to whether or not it's historic status. So I don't know that they're, I think what they're looking for is really just for that testimony to be provided. And yeah, I think having some formal experts or expert be able to provide that is what they're looking for. True. Yeah, I'm gonna think about, you can't really limit who speaks at the public meeting, right? That's right, yep. Yeah, interesting, okay. So I think that's, I mean, I guess that's really what they're after is to have some level of expertise provided at that hearing to be able to give them a better sense of whether or not the property is listed or the building is listed. It's, I think there was, again, I should caveat all this by saying I was not in any of their deliberations, so I don't know what the specific questions were. Right, and I'm only speaking to how I saw the meeting being notified because it did kind of give the impression that like, unless you're an accredited preservation specialist, like don't come and speak here. It was sort of a... Yeah, I mean, because it's a public hearing, anybody can speak, but they may just, they may not, the testimony may not be utilized. Okay, understood. And that's all that I had for city updates. I'm sorry, does anyone have any other business? Can I ask a question here? Sure. Our housing initiatives, director position, is that, how's that coming along? We actually, oh, sorry, go ahead, Mayor. Thank you, I was just gonna say there's an interview tomorrow. Ah. I was gonna say the same thing. Good to know. I had one thing to share with the group. We had an interview with a bike share provider today. It looks like we'll move forward with them. So that's what we see from Burlington and Burlington would be the participants under the umbrella of Katma. And so if all goes according to plan, we should see bike share bikes from the ground in May. So. Wow, great. That's an opportunity to weigh in on the location. And I also sort of, I mentioned because Colchester's not involved. If it was possible to be able to draw the zone map so it would cover the shards. Just because I think a lot of people are shopping there and when you see it doesn't have a full grocery store, they didn't know if there were other places in on the other side. Anywhere in Colchester that you guys would want to be included in the zone. I feel like the grocery store is the one. You talking about the zone for the bike share? Yeah, so basically the bike, once they get outside of the operating zone, they lock up on you, right? And I can just see somebody kind of pedaled to the grocery store and getting locked up, like, on the interchange. Is that different than what was there last year that I don't think, I don't know if the MPO did or if it was Katma? It was Katma, yeah. So the same group is the one that's administering it this time, but the bike's been locked. You had to, you were assessed fees if you walked outside the service area. But you can tell there's not, there was nothing, the assist did not cut out if you wanted to pedal out of the service area and then come back and lock it within the service area. So that's like a pretty big difference with this. I was gonna say, in addition to Shaw's, a high school class told me that they wanna be able to get to like Costco and the bowling alley and stuff for employment opportunities. Oh yeah, that's a good point. And something else that's being discussed is like the bike shares have an 18 plus eight limit. And it's not something we wanna enforce in the new share. So it was a discussion today because the way they do it in most markets is you upload like a driver's license or something to show like your age, but that we wouldn't have to do that if we didn't want to do that. Because I know that there's newer populations that are interested in accessing the bike share. So I think the next conversation is to maybe with Cole Chester, and I guess I'll connect with John and see if he wants to initiate that conversation with the folks of the BDW and Cole Chester to see if they would be okay having just a small section of their town included. What about state bikes? State bikes want to be included too. I don't know, yeah, Johnny, that would probably make sense to have just the conversation about state bikes at the same time because it really is not far from our border. So hopefully at the next meeting I'll have, I'll be able to like announce who it is and provide more of an update. That was, we get to try out the bikes today and meet them and kind of ask a lot of questions and those are the things that came up. Great discussion. Great, thank you. Yeah, thanks, Abby. Any other business? I would just- Otherwise we're talking about the next meeting. Yeah, I was going to say, I would just note our next meeting is, will be March 23rd. So two weeks from tonight. I believe, yeah, two weeks from tonight. So we can, we'll continue our discussions on the proposed amendments and hopefully get to a point where we can set a hearing. And hopefully we'll have any technical difficulties. Right. When do you need the updated? So I will try to get that agenda out next Thursday. So if you can have it to me before then, that would be great. Early next week would be fine. Five, like Wednesday, it's okay. Yeah, that's fine, yep. Okay, thanks, Christine. I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. Two moved. Second. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone want to stick around? I don't think so. So thank you, everyone. Mike, did you vote on that or no? I didn't need to, because we have plenty, but you can vote on the adjournment. Yeah. You know I want to adjourn, so you might as well put me down as a yes. All right, just want to make sure. All right, thank you all very much. Have a great night. Thanks, everyone.