 Okay, we'll call the meeting to order for the planning commission for December 13th First item is public comment Guess we don't have any public comments. So who will read along approved minute meetings meeting minutes of October 25th and November 8th 2018 Oh Yeah, but we did but we didn't We we only had corn briefly because we're aiming on the phone Right, so we skipped over a lot of those items to get to the business part of setting the public hearing. Good so I don't know folks remember the October 25th meeting or not. I remember getting the minutes of that but we can Take it. I'll take a motion to approve either October by itself November November by itself number eight by itself or both together Anyone want to make a motion one way or the other I? Make a motion to approve the minutes from 1025 and 118. Okay. Is there a second? second second Any discussion? Doing none all those in favor, please say aye. Opposed extensions Okay, most curious city updates Couple things to quickly update on nothing significant right now the We've had a couple of meetings with the project review committee and this is the award in the last month I'll say we reviewed a project at 120 mallets Bay Avenue for the development of that site So that's moving forward and the development review board last night met and Approved a variance for a pre-existing non-conforming lot at 77 Boone Street. So Basically, it's a very complicated Discussion, so I'm not gonna get it into any of the details, but they did improve the variance for that last night So otherwise Just Lot of stuff happening in the city right now. What was the heat variance? So there's a there is There are multiple properties that still exist as lots of record from the 1920s from the subdivision And so the current owners wanted to establish one of those existing spots as a building lot So it doesn't meet our minimum standards currently, but it has been interested in the current configuration since the original subdivision in the 20s before Basically right after we came to see so before we had any regulations in place So they wanted to establish it as a building lot. So they can build an additional home correct, correct Single family lap. Yes. Yeah Where is 120 malls Bay Avenue, which it's right at the intersection right near just north of the intersection with Bay and I believe spring Street. Oh Union in West West Lane. Yes, Wayne. Yep. They want to rip down some of those buildings. So it's an existing home It's the big purple house Finally, they want to tear that house down and build three townhouses Using a purple house Is that it Jesse or Seth anything you want to add in city updates? Just just want to acknowledge actually just for a second that the regional planning Commission had their annual Legislative breakfast and I think Mike from his work on the regional planning Commission Because free breakfast List of things that were happening Welcome Okay I'm going to open the master plan public hearing and presentation. So But when we start with the presentation and hope The hordes of public come storming I don't think we need to do it. We'll take a motion Can I have a motion to open open the public hearing? Anybody Okay, Joe. It's here a second second all in favor Opposed, okay. We're officially open. I'm glad someone's keeping me on my toes Okay, so I can run through this pretty quickly For the benefit of the folks at home, but a lot of this won't be necessarily new information to the people here with us So I'm Regina Mahoney with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission And I've been helping the city put this master plan together So essentially the purpose of these plans are To lay out a vision for the future land development To help the plan help the city prioritize and Determine Investments going forward to realize that vision also to help Winooski respond to Changing circumstances going forward as best as they can be determined much like Strong rain events that we get much more of than we that we used to get and then Specifically for this particular plan that you have in front of you This is really a high-level umbrella summarized plan of a lot of very specific planning Plans and studies that the city's been working on over the last few years This plan was developed based around the city's strategic vision Which was done by the city council a few years ago and refined by the planning commission to Really address where the city would like to go the goal and The goal statements were really developed both by the planning commission as well as the other the city's other four commissions Public safety commission public works Commission Community services commission and the housing commission Then CCRQC Helped draft the document along with the with the planning commission and really helped Bring the plan together and summarize and reference again a lot of those other very specific planning documents Public engagement for this Because lots of in-depth public engagement went on and a lot of those more specific plans We really Used public engagement this time around to let folks know that this sort of summarization Product was happening So we went to the farmers market When you see Halloween party Were on the world of when you ski with the mayor and used various social media for a porch forum outlets Also, a flyer was put together in the beginning of the Project to lay out the schedule for how we were going through the various Components, I'll just mention if you haven't seen the world of when you see it is available on our website We're directly to that from the master plan page. So feel free to go watch It's thrilling Is that page we need to be in the master plan just as it is I did not put that picture in the plan Okay, so the mission statement this is the essentially the organizing principle for the plan itself and also lays out where the city would like to go I do want to point out that CCRPC also Ultimately gives an approval to municipal plans it it's not a requirement But essentially if you have regional plan approval of your municipal plan you get some added benefits through state grant funding programs and a variety of other things So we did that first step of that yesterday in front of the planning advisory committee at the regional planning Commission and There was a comment that this plan Really reflects that when you ski knows who you are really brief enjoy Celebrates who you are and really lays out where you want to go And so it was just really great to hear that because that's You know really the intent of these plans and we often don't quite get there So and I think it's this vision statement and the way that the plan lays out that really helps do that So one of the things we just mentioned was the regional approval Makes us eligible for some state grant funding and things like that one of the one of the funding streams that Does become available as the new planning grant, which is what we use to get Regina here to help us with this So I think that regional approval. It's it's showing right now as we're doing this and what something important about So This is impossible to read but Probably part of why it's so difficult for some of these plans to really Adequately show a community and where who they are and where they want to go is because these are all of the things that a Municipal plan has to have in it based on state statute And so this matrix is basically showing all the requirements down the left-hand side and the Organization of your plan across the top so the introduction chapter economic vitality municipal infrastructure Etc. So essentially the plan has to have a land use element transportation utility facility natural resources education an implementation program development trends energy housing economic development flood resiliency and Generally you have to be doing all of this based on current analysis and data so Ultimately something like this will probably live in an appendix of your plan because it really is just helping show how These requirements are are met Our plan across the top here of the Slide are the various sections that we are including that is a lot that are aligned with the strategic vision statement And so this is this is a good way to identify where each of these elements are Being met in our plan because we're organizing it very differently than a lot of communities do In most a lot of communities will just each of those required elements is a chapter and that's how they describe their plan So this is a this is an important piece to make sure that we can go back and cross-reference where exactly The required elements are being met in our planning document That would be for the benefit of the state. I mean is there a is there a What's the benefit of being in the plan is it more like a table of contents maybe for someone if they want to see Where's the energy plan they go to this chapter? it could be but I think also for ensuring it's I Think it helps us on multiple fronts for kind of being a table of contents It would help us to just do a Cross-check to make sure that we are meeting the statutory requirements, but also help in some of our regional reviews and other Reviews to kind of easily point out where we're meeting these requirements that Of the statutory parts. I also think if the public was interested in one of those things They would know where to go as well. I think it's great diagram. Yeah So There's two elements in state statute Sorry, I shouldn't use the term elements because that's what those other things are But there's two lists of things in state statute that you have to Adhere to in your plan. The first one was just the content and this are this is the state goals Essentially, this is a very similar looking list down the left-hand side But another benefit I think Mike in including Something like this in the appendix is that One of the items on that list is use of resources That's very specific to extraction resources like sand and gravel pits That while there is one in Colchester just north of us That's not necessarily a land use issue per se for when you ski So having this in the appendix allows us to say Essentially Not applicable to when you ski because not necessarily relevant from a land use perspective And we can put that in the appendix rather than having to write a whole paragraph in the plan Just to say we've met that The previous one. Are you thinking though of putting it Like after the table of contents are up front. So I mean if If the public benefit of that to the reader is to identify where things are It seems like it might be good to have it right up front As opposed to in an Addendum or appendix. Yeah, we can we can certainly put it there goals Okay, so as you folks know, there's Those very other specific plans that are out there with a lot lots more detail But there are there is some new content in this plan that hasn't been analyzed or addressed in any of those other plans River corridors is one of those concepts. So just to quickly explain what that is essentially floodplain regulations, which the city already has in place addresses the Flooding of a river So essentially if you think about a river like this and water floods, it's rising Vertically And so within that land area once the river rises vertically The regulations try to keep development outside of that so that when the river comes up Nothing's impacted on the side River corridors acknowledge that a river again flat like this Over time doesn't always just stay here It really moves horizontally in the landscape because it's eroding on one side Scoring out on the other side and it sort of is constantly moving The concept is that the land area for that river Should really be much wider than where the river sits today And the idea if we were living in a brand new place with no development at all Is that that width would not have any development in it? Wenuski is a very different place largely because of the dams and largely because of your existing development that you have already But there are some state maps out that show pretty wide river corridor buffer And so the plan just identifies that that that is out there and that the city and this is probably Probably for you folks the planning commission To work with the state and readjust that boundary to a much more logical boundary for the city Second topic area one other topic area. I should say that's new and this plan is the fact that we have phosphorus problem in lake Champlain Phosphorus makes its way into the lake from all kinds of different land resources Agricultural uses being the biggest contributor to that But it's also developed land. It's wastewater treatment plants. It's it's a number of different things So there are some new regulations that the city will need to Adhere to in order to reduce phosphorus for mentoring the river and ultimately go into the lake third thing is Enhanced energy planning so over the last few years There's been a pretty Big effort to look at energy planning much more so than we have in the past The real reason why this started is because We've seen lots of solar projects and wind projects in the state And municipalities weren't necessarily feeling like their Opinions weren't being considered In permitting those projects All those projects are permitted at the state level of the public utility commission So this planning enhanced planning program I'll say for a little bit better word Was put into play So that municipalities could Do some planning to Work towards the state's pretty ambitious energy goals. So this is Using a lot less energy Um Shifting so that our energy is coming from our more renewable sources as opposed to fossil fuel sources And so if a municipality agrees to meet those goals and lay out a plan for Helping to meet those goals, then that municipality can get greater weight at the public utility commission when Our renewable energy project is coming forward. That's the that's sort of the incentive-based program that this is um We have talked about this a little bit. Um, and we've Not really sure how important it is for the city of wood news ski to have greater weight at the public utility commission table um and Burlington actually has decided to get the enhanced energy planning because They are thinking they might Want a table a seat at the table public utility commission for these projects because Their goal is to have more development go up In the city because that's the most likely place to go so One product one developer wants to put solar panels on their roof but There's plans for a higher development to happen right next to it The city may weigh That that higher development might be the more important thing to do there And so you might want to go to the table and have some input in that So i'll listen to say, uh The regional planning commission reviewed this draft plan to see if you would meet the enhanced energy elements We think that you would so, um It's really a choice for you folks and probably any recommendations to the council on what you want to do with that. Um So the reason why we've been slightly hesitant about doing this is um In order to get the enhanced energy planning you've got to have some maps In your plan these maps are attached now to the energy supplement Um The light green on this map Is a state possible constraint and it's mostly the agricultural soils So all these areas that are showing this lighter shade Are identified as a state level constraint for as Regina mentioned primarily agricultural So our hesitation is that These areas are not High value for the city of winewski as agricultural soils um So we just don't want to confuse the public by putting a map in your plan Um that shows this as an important resource that you don't want to see developed essentially um, I think that we have Made the case in the plan to try to clarify this and make it super clear that that is not the intent of the city of winewski um And so I think it will be okay But that's that's sort of the two things that you folks should weigh in deciding if you want to Make this very most so do you have do you know If we don't do this and someone wants to put a solar project In some place in the winewski that is identified as agricultural soils Does it then go to the the state Board do they look at that? You know me so I don't know what the I'm not sure what the what the Benefit or the difference would be I guess the benefit of Keeping it out. Yeah, that's going to be looked at anyway. It will be looked at anyway There's no doubt about that regardless of what we say in winewski Um one potential benefit is that winewski could go to the table and say we know the state's looking at this for agricultural purposes We want to be here to say that We don't see the same value in that The other thing that's a little bit tricky in this whole process is that Um these constraints are very clearly identified in the enhanced planet energy planning component As constraints to all development Um And the reason for that In the whole program is that the state didn't want municipalities saying We are not okay with 90 of our land Being used for wind or solar We're okay with it being used for anything else But we definitely don't want to see wind and solar So they were trying to make sure that the municipalities weren't unnecessarily Biased against wind and solar wind and solar Um, so it complicates things a little bit, but again, I think we can Make it clear in the plan what the intent is here. Yeah, and these these issues really I think for the city are less critical because we're basically completely developed Whereas if we were a Roxbury and there's giant swaths of undeveloped area These types of constraints really become a benefit to slowing some of that development where here We're already developed. So we're going to be getting redevelopment and I think Making the case that it's it might show up as an agricultural soil or some other state identified constraint Carry I don't I don't think carries as much weight because we can show The area was previously developed. So the value of that state resource is no longer there From the resources perspective, I should say So is this map in layman's terms showing us the only areas that the state considers Both are renewable energy are the non green Red and orange areas like the gray essentially Is the area is what where they're saying you can develop Renewable energy sources with the exception of a lot of things. So There's two components of it one are where do we really want renewable energy resources to go And that is one of those places is Indeveloped areas. So it's rooftops parking lots all that kind of stuff and these maps taken in and out They're taken on their own don't acknowledge that other whole very important component of it So I think that answers your question. Yeah, so if this isn't the plan Are we have is that Is the thought that a developer is going to be like, oh, no I'm not going to develop there because there's this constraint Like I don't know who you're expecting to get confused if this isn't the plan Somebody who wants to stop development in the city And a neighbor a neighbor next to somebody who doesn't want to see their neighbor develop something And could they use this to stop development? They could try to I think they're like I said, there'll be a lot of very clear language in the plan that Indicates that that is not the intent by any means But that that's really the fear for The person who may pick up this plan and try to use it to stop development And is that Like you is the likelihood of that Higher than the likelihood of us getting a benefit from having this in there like getting renewable energy in the city so I don't think it's an issue of Prohibiting renewable energy development I think the concern is that it would be probe it would be a Could be used as a case to prohibit development period Not just renewable development Right, but I I guess what I'm saying is Is not having this because we think somebody who doesn't want property developed Is that is the likelihood of that higher than the benefit? We would get in having this which is having a seat at the table for renewable Energy development in our city where appropriate, which is like rooftops and stuff, right? It's hard to say because I think both are going to happen so infrequently That we're having like it's and uh It's this whole thing has been a struggle because it's a lot of like Nervousness on my part to for something that's so unlikely going to happen. Yeah Um How let me ask you when does this So if the state looks at a project, what's the what's the baseline? I mean how big a project to have to be if I want to put solar panels on the roof of my house I don't have to go through a state here I wouldn't think you're you're going to go through a very simple state approval. Um, where Most of the time Most people aren't even going to be notified on it You're going to it's like a very streamlined administrative Okay, as an individual person who just wants to put solar panels on you But it's like twin craft they're like up a little bit, right if they want to put some wind turbines there Is not it's not having this in our plan going to make that harder for them to do Or for the city to do I don't know who ends up owning them It's not It's for public generation not for on-site individual So for if a city of when you ski wants to put wind turbines to have wind energy Then we would need this if it's a scale project With the public service That would generate more than the electricity needed on the actual facility Wouldn't happen there That was my understanding of it My net meter I could come part of it Yeah And wouldn't a project how likely would a project like that be a city project versus a green mow and power project? so um considering that uh most of the More open spaces that you have in the city are actually city owned It's more than likely that it would be a city project. It would be a city project Which sort of negates the need for the city to go and advocate for themselves to the public utility commission because they're an applicant Because they're an applicant Yeah But in that case the state's going to look at an agile map And say this is a possible constraint and so it's up to the city to say yeah, but It's developed or it's you know, there's no agricultural value here because it's you know A quarter of an acre or whatever. Yeah, right Can you pay in a situation where this would be helpful? That's what I guess what I'm trying to get at like Is it we don't the city doesn't own the land they want to develop wind power? We have a good place for it. They want to move forward some eminent domain I mean like what's the scenario where these are really valuable so I think fundamentally in order for the city to get this substantial deference and have The municipal plan our master plan certified As meaning to get the certificate of energy compliance We need to have this map included along with a bunch of other information not just this map But this is one of the the ones we're keen on so um If we did not include it we wouldn't be eligible to get That level of deference which gives us what which gives us the Presumably or the way it's intended I should say is it gives us that additional uh additional weight in public utility commission proceedings When a certificate of public good application comes before them So if gmp wanted to put up a huge wind farm or a solar farm If we had this the city could then could go to the hearing as a What they call a deferential party substantial yeah Withstanding and say We like it or we don't Yes The the fact that this map is showing that that may or may not have this constraint is going to there's going to be a map Look at anyway by then so the fact that this is in there Is not a big deal because it's going to be looked at anyway So really as I understand it gives the city the opportunity to go With any big project that they go through the public service board to Sit there and be able to say we support it. We don't like it Yeah, I think From the perspective of getting the deference I think it is a good thing for the city to to get the designation of having the enhanced energy planning I I think the Potential concerns that we're showing We need to include these types of maps and these types of resources So we're showing a picture that may not be accurate for what's actually going on in the ground in the city And having that be used for something. It's not intended to be used for let me ask you this Could that map go in there with an overlay? Whether it's hash mark or something of These areas are already developed So it shows the ag soils, but it also shows The city's developed That's a really good question. And I think we've probably Thanks, I've been thinking about that for a week That might be a good simple solution. The other thing that we thought that might might be another um solution is To meet the requirements we could essentially refer to the maps that exist in the regional plan So that the maps themselves don't actually live in the when you see plans So it's acknowledging that the state has identified these constraints. They're going to look at them But they're just not physically in there, which I think would immediately eliminate the Confusion that somebody from the public might get Down and this is the an appendix. Yeah, okay So you're going to find out if that's possible. Yeah, because if it is then I think we're good, right? Yeah, though to Mike's point and it might be too much work But like if you just did this map using like a google satellite image instead and then just Put the like a translucent color over the areas then it would probably convey it more clearly Yeah, and it would It would help by bringing those two components together that there are Most every place in when you see is a place where we want to see rooftop solar again considering the Challenger we want to also go higher which development but But yeah, I think I can find out between those two options what we can do and Can there be language in there that says That the constraints exist but when you see the fully developed can you see some language that addresses this concern? Yep And the main part of your plan says that pretty clearly right now the appendix does it so one of the comments from the Pack yesterday is to just get that correct line those both up And what we would do in the appendix is make sure it's matching what the Main part of your plan says and is the map as I mean is this the map? It's super big like state known constraint local known constraint state possible like that doesn't say anything but axiomals are So there are in your in the appendix In your draft it identifies all of the resources that Come together to make those two layers We would remove local known constraints for your particular map because we're not adding any City constraints to this map most of the other municipalities have added additional constraints on top of the state constraints But those two are aggregate layers of multiple other resources Like rare threatened and endangered species agricultural soils the river corridor is the main component of that darker green on the bottom there We just have to go digging to figure out what the colors are because it's not Listed there right and we have the other potential benefit of kind of referring back over to the regional plan Is that in our online maps you can open these essentially and it shows you what everything is Well, thank you It's like one of those conversations. I'm glad nobody from the public is here. So we could actually have that actual I didn't mean that Can I just ask of those three categories that you just mentioned how are they going to fall within the document? Um, which three things that I just mentioned. Well, just the energy the phosphorus and the river so River corridors is in there pretty well discussed in your land use section in the introduction chapter The phosphorus is pretty well discussed in your municipal infrastructure chapter under storm water I'm pretty sure that's the title the heading it's under and then enhanced energy is also there's Fairly decent discussion of it in the municipal infrastructure chapter But we would have that much more in-depth tons of data lots of information and actions in an appendix So it would kind of live like those other plans live now, but the city's council has never seen it So we're thinking it would be more like an appendix as opposed to a separate standalone document. So next steps We're going to edit the plan We don't have anybody here from the public giving us comments tonight, but we've got Comments from mic read through the whole thing. Thank you mic. Eric has some comments. Jesse has some comments Um, we've got some comments from the planning advisory committee and just myself some of them like To do items are still outstanding So let's we can take a pause right now and see if anyone here has any comments Is if that's all right Yeah, one thing I wanted to just mention Regina just mentioned the the comments from the planning advisory committee. I put a copy of that at your place So there's a memo from from Emily at the regional planning commission that outlines the So comments that came out of that discussion yesterday But the bottom line was they were fine with that there was one item that needed to be Enhanced a bit was to meet the the statutory requirements and that dealt with the earth extraction resources We do as Regina mentioned we talk about the chlorine and colchester, but we don't The the opinion was that we didn't do enough to explain why That that particular element is not relevant to new scheme because we don't have any That's not relevant enough Right, so I think so adding in the the table that we had as an earlier slide will help Provide that connection that we are addressing it, but it's just not It's not applicable to our to our city. Okay Um, the other sorry, I'll just highlight two other things you've got the memo, but the other two things that are a little bit more relevant um They just wanted a little bit more about how your implementation program is really pulling from those actions that are in this separate more detailed plan So we'll just tweak that very easily with the language um And then there was Definite confusion about the future land use plan with that cross hatches over commercial and industrial Plans, so I've got that map up here that we can circle back to if we have time to think through that Okay, anyone have any comments there? Yeah, so is it um I just marked up the whole plan But is it better to go online and market for you to get comments that way? Um That will take a lot of time for you. So you I will either physically take it and I can copy it and get it back over to you if you would like, um, or If you can scan it in send it to me whatever is the most easiest for you, but I'd be happy to just take it Okay, I can give it to you And um, so a general comment, which I think I just saw on here too is that it's really hard to read the maps throughout it Yeah, so having a way to Better understand what the map is with like a title or whatever and then Better imaging clear images. Yeah, so we're thinking on the maps that we would Clean up the maps in the document as best as we can But also have an appendix where each of those maps is a full size eight and a half by 11 With a very standardized title legend all that kind of stuff. Yeah That makes sense because Yeah, I think that would be nice because I when I was reading it too I was like, well, what map is it referring to with the statistic and have I gotten to that map yet or It was that would be helpful Would it help to just have a figure number for each map and in like all out of the figure? Yeah, where you're talking about it. Yeah, I do guess that would be That would be helpful and then having a full page for each map or something so that you can zoom in and The clarity is better Anyone else with any comments? Yeah, I just wanted to clarify one thing. I was going through the going through this In the computer and Looking at the historical You know facts about if you can pull the pull up pull it up in the master plan there Um The picture before um, that is before the circulator There's this picture the circulator and then there's one before that Um, I just wanted to make sure that's relevant. That's um, the picture looks like a new picture to me and you know, that's that's uh Is it the giant parking lot? Um, where do you see the Wadeski block in the back? It's it's is it right before the Circular Oh, yes Is it time relevant? Is it from that time? It is From the 70s Oh, okay Either living right now as they keep floating all over the place But the idea with the timeline is this is going to be one of the places where we redesign it And it's done in a different way. So that all of this is properly connected to its spot Okay. Yeah, if it does make sense if if that's relevant that that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that's because that Look pretty It looked kind of new picture to me. So just wanted to make sure It's kind of my favorite photo in the whole Oh, okay Yeah, where are we standing is are we in a building? It's looking from from what would be used to be barlow street looking towards main street It's not because this is this is the old bank Yeah, you're where the bridges are a little bit closer to probably the one that's closer to the Well, I'm thinking back to what was there before. Do you remember the little shopping? Yeah, sir. It's like right in front of where Denny's was or higher round was Denny's Wait, that's where you're standing right there. Yeah, this is East Allen Street That was a bank right there So you're looking If you want to go way back, you'd say Archie Myers auto dealership in that spot if you wanted to go way back Gadjews You guys saw the reference to four pick This is Well, this is the Green Church across the street and this is where my Oh I have a From the VHFA conference. I have another presentation here. I'll bring up quick that has these photos in it That we're talking about right now Yes, so Yes, so this is the photo. So there's another photo in here. So here's an aerial from 2004 where you can see the whole downtown is basically a parking lot So where was that photo from? About here Because the bank was a bank you see is right there Interesting And that was the Grocer store A water mat and a pharmacy, I think was there was a Chinese restaurant there for a while too. Yeah, but in Israel That's the higher ground See this is why everybody's heard about the parking. This is the reason right here. You've got a music cover And then yeah, this was from 2004 And then I went to this Not too long after Too bad, you don't have a 1960s shot Right there we go You see these old houses The downtown they got demolished. Yeah, you saw the reference the four pick that was four pick What year what year did that all get to go in the 70s? 1873 there was like There's a picture someplace So why did that happen model cities The way the parking lots or we were new at parking the parking lot. Yeah, that's what was there before There was no parking It was So we need So what's in the roundabout there Right are those houses in there is that the Basically the east the east side basically mirrored what is the west side of main street now Let's don't You should Forest Hills factory out the store go back you guys know what that is. Oh, I like it. That's uh, is that the chase note? No, no, that's the woolen woolen apartment forest hills was an apartment store What year was that? Did we ever get permission from Dan Higgins for the Yes, you know that image that word Yeah I guess there's one thing that it might be worth talking about as a group that I had a comment about um the economic vitality goals and objections every commission has a box in there And the planning commission box is is one sentence very short sentence the planning commission supports attack hub concept It's like page 37 if anybody that has it The public works commission supports small locally owned businesses that arts commission supports an art arts district How public works commission supports Adequate sewer capacity and easy transportation access to the interstate in burlington And then we support a tech hub. So that was sort of an early concept of trying to identify How and where all these goal statements came from and trying to sort of bring some of the cross connection What you guys also have in front of you is Something that looks like this So The thought for the goal objective sections of the plan is that we would get them all in this sort of form The whole plan itself is also going to follow this font Style it's not going to be laid out like this, but it's going to follow this font style So that these pages can be sort of just like stuck right in and it would look all seamless um So with this concept that box concept sort of goes away a little bit Um, it's not to say that we can't reintroduce that in some way Well, is that I guess it doesn't matter about the boxes, but is that language going to be there like each This is what this commission supports in this commission. Is that language going to be in the? um I was thinking about taking them out, but that would have just been My own decision without you guys. So what do you guys think? I would think it should come out because the commissions have given their input into different areas And for example, the planning commission, I don't know why you would have a planning commission supports You support it all it's it's in the plan also Well Whether we vote for it or not the majority is going to support You know, but but I guess since all the commission input is throughout the Document, I don't see any support That's me opening my big knot early. So unless you can jump in I agree I don't think it's a to be there because all of these are stated in other types of the plan Yeah So, yeah, I think that's that's a good point to kind of Bring it back to so far because comment about the photos is that we are the draft that you have now we intend to We being the gene in the rpc We'll reformat it Kind of integrate these other design elements that we've talked about into that next iteration That you get before it goes forward to council. So you will see Does everyone decide to do that? Yeah, the next version you guys see will be all Formatted like we're intending it. So the design page the one the one page She will be in the next version as well as all the other formatting that we intend to do with The changing of the fonts and most of it or actually all of it is really based off of the city's Rebranding so it's going to follow the same color schemes and the same font styles and layouts and things like that So we're going to keep it consistent with what we're trying to do as a city with all of our Documents. So just to be clear. We're going to see a copy of the completed draft Prior to our next meeting. Yes, so that we can then vote to pass it on to the City council. Correct. Okay, that's the expectation For that january 10th meeting, right? So we'll get it. We won't get it until your ninth We'll get sometime before that. We are really really hoping for january 4th the friday before we are Well, the comments are manageable thus far So So that I know Mike went over this in the beginning but the public, you know, the online commenting portal It will remain open until Until what until the 4th? Yeah, we can keep that open till friday For incorporation into our draft that we're going to move forward to the council But folks will still be able to comment if they want to I mean, we obviously we prefer comments to be come in before the planning commission Finalizes the draft so next friday the 21st of december But there still is an opportunity because we have to approve it Or recommend it, I guess And forward it to the city council and they will go through their own public hearing process Where they can take comments as well Yeah, and they can take comments and it's at that stage it essentially it is the city council document So they can make edits they can make substantial changes that they want to If they do that comes back to the planning commission only for Acknowledgement essentially and making sure that it's all technically correct However, if there are substantial changes at the city council level that means they will need to re-warn it essentially so it So the best time for the public To comment is now so that it can be incorporated in this version of the plan And the city can meet the deadline before the current plan expires in april And does the online comment thing work? Is it just me that Had no clue. I got it to work. Okay So for you people like me who have no clue on how to do that handwritten email Regular mail Anyway, if possible, I will take Any other comments from the planning commission related to this draft Everyone's happy with it Seth and or jesse. Do you have any comments you want to make about the plan? No Good anything else for Gina? Yes for your presentation. Oh, okay Yeah, so this is already kind of been covered for the most part and then The last slide we have here is the future land use map, which was a point of discussion at the planning advisory committee yesterday specifically related to the the hatched areas to show up as uh, the morning park in gillbrook and at castelana and I think it was more in context with the way it's described in the legend Did you say it's future this is a future land use map? Yes This is an existing land use It is in the plan is the future land use map So it doesn't reflect the existing land use map Because future makes me think that like where we've changed the existing map to what we want it to be in the future But if this is just the existing land use map, we should probably call it that So, yeah So this map Is probably acting in reality a little bit more like an existing land use map because you see The industrial and the commercial zoning districts, even though that's not what is actually on the ground at all So we can do a few things to really clarify what we're trying to what we're trying to do here Um, so we can really sort of divorce this from the zoning altogether um, and we could Be more straightforward about where you want to go with these hatched Places. Um, so you've got a goal statement in the plan that says, uh, you want to look At the zoning to make sure that the recreational economy or something like that is Accommodated going forward, which is sort of the language that we landed on for where you might want to go with these three pieces um So we could Just Identify them as that As opposed to being industrial and commercial rezoned like they are now Identify them as what what was the first industrially and commercial As parks as recreation parks designate them as yeah parks or we can even do Recreational um We could follow the language you've got in your goal statement pretty closely, which I think is the Recreational economy or something like that. We can kind of bring that into the map a little bit more Or we can be very simple and we can call it a park just like the greens Already out there now. Yeah this Ever since the first time that this was introduced has always made me kind of nervous about About those areas that they would someday be developed um And I don't know if that's you know, I mean that was just my first impression of it. So maybe other people that Haven't been following this whole conversation might feel the same way when they see this Yeah, the planners thought we wanted to have industrial and commercial parks So the The discussion at the at the planning advisory committee yesterday was really The fact that we are showing Future land use but also bringing in zoning to the same map, which are really two fundamentally different concepts and and and maps for that matter so The concern that they raised was we have these areas that are zoned uh, they're zoned industrial or These so mario park and gilbrook are both zoned industrial But act as parks and cast event is zone commercial that acts as a park so Do we so there the the comment was a good one? I think is that we need to we need to decide which one which way we want to go So either show them on the future land use map as future parks or open space or public land or something Or stay consistent with the way that they're zoned and show them as future industrial or commercial areas So it's that's what the comment was coming forward. So it's really more a question of How do you want to represent this in the plan for For our future land use map? Well, I was going to say the rub is if you look at memorial park I believe it was given as a park and it's in a floodplain I mean, it's it's it's going to be a park just by the way it was given and everything else Casavet the island You're not going to do anything on the island, right? A majority of the casavet park You're not going to do anything because it's wetlands and whatnot but there The city has not had the conversation about future use of Whatever might be Developable in there whether it's for some kind of recreational use parking, I mean Whatever it might be Same goes for gilbrook the northern part that's outlined there. So half of gilbrook is zone public And the northern half is zone industrial The the city has not had the conversation about Future what what wants to happen? So to me the the rub is gilbrook and part of casavet that has not been Really open to a public conversation public decision About what the future is going to bring even though we may sit here and say Well, nothing's going to happen at casavet. It's all in a floodplain or wetland But we don't know because There is some land there that's not In a wetland and not in a floodplain Who owns who owns these three? Does the city own all of all three of them? Uh, the city owned memorial park. Was it dated to the city? Yeah Yeah, okay So it's city. So maybe the thing to do is for those areas. Maybe just put City City land future to be tbd. I don't know Is there any I'm just trying to think because Knowing that their park land and the connectivity between everything I just feel like it's so important to show the green So we know how much park is in our In our city Seth You're scratching your hair. Do you want to say something? No, I do. Um, that place where stress is taking the handling Tell me about it Just to put additional context on it so It wasn't the intent obviously when we passed enough dating zoning that to leave these As they were At the time planning commission of which none of you were on right None of you knew then right punted it back to the it was the Where you are there, but it was it was back to um The conversation was taking place at the community services Commission level in regards to the difference between park space the difference between park space and For lack of better word wild Wild natural areas must be there's natural areas versus park space and the two definitions of the planning Documents have very different implications in terms of what can be done there including the creation of apparatuses So there's supposed to be a process where that commission then gave feedback as to the recommendations of where Structures should or should not be built and where there may or may not want to be playground equipment Because technically if you designated a natural area, you can't put playground equipment in there You couldn't build a gazebo for music to happen or things like that So there's supposed to be a process where that committee should came back to you guys. That was You know, I'm just finding a lot of change staff and everyone else That's where that conversation stopped right it hasn't come back to the planning commission Right and when we did zoning we definitely had the conversation about we didn't want to get into the discussion especially at gilbara Trying to get the zoning done we you're right. We punted it for a future time Which is something it's on our future agenda sometime So so I don't know, you know if The problem with when you put it in a future land map You've kind of determined what's going to be there. Yeah, I like I don't like that because we I think that would include a much Larger discussion about what we envision the future being including the community in that So I don't like that name of future at all in it. It can either be an existing zoning map or it can be an existing use map But we need to have a future you have to have a future land use map We could identify those as future planning areas and just not show them as anything We could We could also take. Well, I don't know that that helps. We could take a very different tact with this map Which is to have sort of a simple Areas where you want to relatively retain what they are now areas that you might see Transition into the future areas that you might want to totally evolve what's happening The challenge still remains though that Would those be in a total evolution only because the zoning is incorrect or would they actually stay maintained? Because the actual on the ground thing is totally is totally fine Or you can just take out your hash city parks and leave it as is I guess I get stuck in the future, but it's the existing zoning map if you take out the hash Right, which I don't think is what you want to identify as the future But you need something in there that's called the future what land use map. Yeah So it seems like the the two places are the Gilbrook That's known industrial and Casabat well in part of memorial park. Well, see I think If I remember memorial park is all in a floodplain isn't it Or it's wetlands or something. I mean, so it's It's all There's wetlands in this flood. It's all in the river corridor. Yeah It's all in the river corridor. That's pretty sure all castings to the river corridor Memorial probably is Mostly as well So, I mean, I think if we identified them as future planning areas that way Leaves it open to right future discussion for what it ends up being and it doesn't lock us into any one Category or any one direction. We could just leave them blank. I assume we can do that You're shaking your head confident Yeah really Wrestle with that but that's okay. I think that's um, That shouldn't be the reason that dictates Taking a stance on these one way or the other. I think we I think we can come up with a solution that Makes it clear that there needs to be further discussion about what the future is going to be here so maybe they're almost like just grayed out or wet or something and Subject to continue to conversations about the future or something In calling the future planning areas does that freak out anybody thinking that like we're trying to develop It freaks me out. Yeah sitting right here looking at all this park line. It freaks me out. That's what I was trying to say 10 minutes ago when we started talking about this just just knowing that there's the potential that that could be commercial or industrial Freaks me out and if it if it can't be to my point if it can't if it cannot be developed Physically like there's no way we can develop because wetland guidelines or river or whatever Can we just change it? To show undeveloped undevelopable land or something that indicates that it will never be anything than what it is Well, I think that concept is really tied up in what sam was talking about These are not going to be commercial or industrial parks in the future, but they might have a pavilion There might be an amphitheater. There might be some, you know, minimal amount of improvement That is considered development of some kind That the city might want in the future So I wouldn't want to I wouldn't want to take it so far to say They're going to be completely undeveloped but I think I think we can be clear that the city Doesn't want them to be a commercial or industrial park going forward Well, I think I think clearly cast event. That's the case We haven't had discussion at gilbrook Gilbrook ends. I mean hercules drive ends at gilbrook So there's access there We may not want it the city may No one may want it, but we haven't had the conversation That's one on the point. Can we just call it municipal land leave it at that Don't call it a park just municipal land That way that the city has the chance to determine whatever they want Is that a use though? Municipal use sure It's undefined what that use is, but it's municipal I mean we need to come up with a definition for what that means then Municipally owned land that you know It's flexible. It's just a public purpose and you know, whatever My my only rub is the fact that we haven't had the citywide come the public conversation about this and for us Any board to say You can't do anything there or you can do something there Is to my eyes is not appropriate. You've got to have the you've got to have the conversation with the public And if you put it as parkland It's not actually parkland, right? Like it is In its it's acting is it becomes parkland Parkland, but I don't think we can can we right now like if we all are like, yeah, we want it to be parkland Do we even have an authority to make to say like make it parkland on this map? So the purpose of the future land use map is to inform Your future land use decisions. So what we show here if we decide then to change Change the zoning. So for example if we left memorial park as Industrial on the map and we wanted to say well, this is a park we're going to develop as a park Because it's showing up as industrial that's going to be a conflict with what we're trying to do in the future. So it's I think It's difficult because we need to be Kind of specific but kind of vague at the same time to give us flexibility unless we really know what we want to do So what do you suggest? Well, the fact that it's it's zone industrial doesn't mean it can't be a park If you show that as a park though on a future land use map It's a park The that would signal that the intent is to make it a park at some point Well, so what happens is if it's if someone comes along and says hey, you know what? I want to put an industrial building down there It's zone industrial and they run up against the future land use map of the municipal plan. It says no, it's identified as parkland I would think there's a big problem There could be but we would also then need to make sure that we update our regulations to reflect that that is no longer Zoned industrial, right? And that's the and to me That's the problem with these areas. We haven't done that great Yeah, I think we Can probably figure out Some kind of way to define it That it's Unknown at the moment in terms of where where you want to go with it And I'm feeling like we can still try to tie it to that goal a little bit the recreational autonomy goal, but I think we can come up with this Can we say something like public slash industrial? Because it's owned by the the city it's public use now I think that's not much different than what this map is saying right now except we should take out the lines Having business those lines look so different colors and different, you know, they look different on different colors So they're not all unified And I'm just wondering if they were all black then they would all feel they're all the same, you know I don't I don't know if that was because like cast event that doesn't look green to me It just looks bright yellow to me. It doesn't look like it has green lines acting as a park Or am I not reading it right? You are reading it correctly. Yeah, it's and I do see your how you're seeing it now that you mentioned it Because I think I don't know I think if it was very clear that that is current like if you had park Park Use is used as park, but it's industrial zoned. I think that would be understandable I just think there's just so many colors going on and it gets confusing But do you want those it's owned as an industrial for our future land use now? But I I sort of feel like can you change? I mean we can't really change that right now That's why they're talking about putting like a category that says like right areas are I mean, but I still like the idea Knowing that it's well, maybe I personally didn't have trouble reading this map, but I I I if we decide to use the terminology like unknown or something like that or I think the Down potential downside of that is I think it will call attention to to say like we need to have this conversation right now And I don't know maybe we want that maybe we don't but I mean, I think Mike's point before has been Maybe we don't know what the future will hold. I mean, we know their parks now. We have no other conversation happening publicly at the moment about anything else Do we want to Leave room for that conversation or do we want to say like hey? This is an issue that we need to talk about right now and figure out Like I think that's really what we're talking about Um So and I don't have the right answer to that but I think that that's kind of the conversation Well, and the the intent of the planning commission When new zoning was passed was that conversation, especially for gilbrook was going to happen After we got through all this stuff And it's something that's I mean, it's going to fill this room Believe me It's going to be because we started it about 10 years ago and it filled the room and it was like, okay Let's put the brakes on here so Sorry, the city owns that yes up there in gilbrook. Yes Okay Can we just call it city owned? property Where zoning does not match use Because there's other city on property too, right? Yeah, the challenge becomes that's as a land use category. That's not It's yeah How about future? I don't want to give it the culture This probably isn't a useful observation, but I'm just curious why the area West of i-89 is zoned as residential Like basically surrounding the ramp where there's no residential development as it stands On the southern part of east alan Yes, southern part kind of bordering cassavan that whole We're not here. Uh, nope Just off there right there. Yeah, that whole area being being zoned as That's like combat fitness and like yeah, that's that area Not that area because clearly florida a rolling court is you know residential, but I think this Commercial is supposed to go up and catch the whole side and you've got the and you're at the form-based code going along east alan street Okay, and the rest is for I imagine it's for rolling court Yeah, and part of this is also it's hard to tell on this map, but there is it fades From the the yellow that is the commercial into that residential color, so it's not The the commercial really comes over about here. Okay in real life. Yeah, I guess I'm confused I'm surprised that there's any zone residential in that kind of corner. Yeah, I don't think there is it's just budding up against the It says if the highway doesn't exist so you're just seeing the tan and the yellow come together Okay, I guess I would have figured the highway would have been like kind of a demarcating line, but 10 minutes, so I mean if you're comfortable with with us working on this and coming up with something then we can do that You can just put text and just explain it So the pack was Didn't like that the term that the hash marks do the term city part zone commercial or industrial So if you say was it the hash marks and the labeling of it I think it was the and I'll let Virginia speak to this as well But I think it was the the labeling and the combining of future land use and zoning into the same map Where they're really intended to be different. So we're talking about future land use but also bringing zoning into that equation Yeah, but it seems like every future land use map I've seen most of them incorporate Whether by specifically or not The zoning is what you know, they may not say r1 r2 or 3 but it says residential In those are the categories that they use Yeah, and I I think the challenge really was more from a bunch of Municipal planners sitting around a table. They would really love a future land use map to be clear about what the intention Is going forward and I think we would know that So if there's a way for you to market that To mark these in a way that gives us the flexibility And not be pinned down to future land use we don't want and that we might not know yet because we haven't had that discussion What's what's the downside of of just taking the hash marks out? and adjusting it adjusting it when we Make that determination what the future is going to be I think to terry's point and I don't know maybe more I think the concern is that they will be going forward industrial and commercial properties Yeah, but they still have to go they still In order for anyone to do anything they still have to go through the the process They have to acquire from the city. So there's a whole bunch of But it would be hard. It'd be hard for us to make those into parks if our future land use maps says they're not Right. Well, unless we change zoning and add parks or whatever into commercial and industrial zoning districts But my my point I guess is simply If we just leave it without those hash marks in there Leave it the way it's zoned now Because that reflects whatever the zoning vision was And as we move along zoning is going to be changing We have to address these things in zoning And we can we can amend the the municipal plan And even if we don't if we have You know if we have Gilbrook as industrial and There's a public process that says We don't want the city to ever sell this we want to keep it Natural area or open space whatever forever. All right In order for it to be developed either the city's going to do it or we're going to sell it to a developer and if the residents say No, we don't want that It's not going to happen But if you remove the hash marks, yeah, then Anybody else looking at this this map anybody that picks this up this this plan up looks at this and says Oh, that's an industrial area. That's an industrial area. That's a commercial area. There's no Indication of land use exactly and that that it's a park right now that I go to that park every single day Right now it's a park. Yeah, I understood but the problem is it's a future land use so your time What you're doing is if you put that as parkland land you've made a parkland for For us basically And that's the rub we It's not responsible for us as seven members of this community to say that should be park or that should be industrial That should be that And that's the that's where the rub is It may well be that that's always going to be parkland all those places But who are we to who are we to dictate that to the city? I mean, I think if we had more time with this process to develop this plan It would be on your table to come to a conclusion about where you want to go with these parcels We Just as we ran out of time in zoning now We're running out of time on the municipal plan to solve this issue for for once and for all I think Um So I think we can try to figure out how to just make it clear that the decision is not Determined is undetermined. Maybe could you just say city park or commercial city park or industrial is the category so that it there's like It includes both, but it's like an or statement Is pass the word Is park the word that's that's throwing these the municipal planners because they're I thought I heard you say the uncertainty is what's throwing off the planners Well, sorry Welcome to our world What happens I mean mike I I agree with you and that maybe if you just left It the purple or the yellow but then there was just in black sort of conflict area or something that's conflicting You don't have to say park because they're they're so different But you just highlight an area that's saying Needs to be determined. It's just sort of a note on the plan. It's not his own. I mean, it's do you know what I mean? It's sort of a Yeah, we're not noting a certain issue It calls out on the text that it's a it's recommended to that have been looked at Are we not happy with that? I mean, it's just And I'm just saying in the absence of making the change and number one It's got to fall under a definition like if you can't it can't you can't make up your own definition Because then even if we do get a proposal it becomes a massive legal fight because We have to refer back to something that Provides us with some kind of standing or back loan for making a decision and not making a decision Okay, I just wanted for the planning process. Can you not I mean You can still leave it with that text right that says we recommend that this be a request What the plan is supposed to do is tell us what to do in the future So we really we really could think about a concept where this whole map goes to a much more generic Sort of maintain transform evolve And these areas are in a place that We can define as transform Because they're unknown Or I think we can still also keep it somewhat like it is and just Say that it's something to be figured out in the future. Well, I Think Seth is saying right? Isn't that what Seth's saying that it says that in the plan? Yeah, so can't we just leave it like this? Does it stymie our ability to do what we may want to do in the future By calling this leaving it the zoning as is and not calling out these areas But the text is calling out the areas So Regina, why not what you just said for those those three areas? Just make a new color and call it transition or whatever the term is The only thing I like hesitate about is that I does that imply that no other part of when you ski could transition Right, you know You know, maybe it's just a different word What about like zone conflicting with use right something that that shows that It's zoned for that, but maybe it's just making it a different color Yeah, I don't know not making it Yeah, I just use I think sess words to be basically Should be see page so-and-so in the plan And we'll be talking about this Do whatever needs to happen so that we can have a bigger discussion Well, we Regina and I will and we'll involve other folks if necessary to Come to some type of a resolution that hopefully will be I do think that you can take the islands in the river and make them green But can we just do that? Can't we just decide to do that? Because if we can then I want to be the one How are you officially become John King? I say that because there's what there's those are islands So you can build a bridge. I hear what you're saying, but all right No, especially Trump just rolled back a bunch of wetland mitigation. That's right regulation. So well, there was Reportedly, there was a horse track on that big island. So way back in the day All right, never mind and who knows that river may change and then the floodplain, you know I don't think those are actually I know this is kind of a painful night But those were two tough conversations that had to happen at some point. So we fit them in I mean in an ideal world Your future land use map Would really be just generic shapes that talk about Broad categories of use That you would like to see happen at some future point in time It would also involve a public process to get there that we don't wish we Right, we've not had the luxury of getting that deep into this one component So, I mean I've seen future land use discussions take 12 months to resolve just that one piece So it's not an easy thing to to get to Um, so we'll we'll see what we can do Okay We're going to have some time to time think about these questions that are going to stir people Is there a debate online debate online prep or form isn't that what that's about? No Oh goodness sakes. So are you folks done with your presentation? We are So anyone from the public want to comment? I guess not. I'm willing for a motion to close the public hearing So moved Second All in favor Opposed Okay We wanted Can we quickly get it to these next things or uh, you want to wait until our next meeting? Well, no, I think we've made through these very quickly. I didn't have anything a significant plan for these next few items. Um, I think The the next item in the discussion of future work is in planning implementation. I think we fairly well just discussed Uh as items that we need to do basically Uh, I wanted to just make you all aware that we are going to once we finish with the plan start looking at One implementation and how we're going to start figuring out what to how we implement our plan But also I've got our running list of potential Zoning changes that I would like to start discussing With you all we also may have some well in the short term We should have something from the housing commission related to Inclusionary zoning that we may need to be looking at so Those are all items just to put that on your radar that these are things that will be coming up in future meetings The other thing to think about is We used to meet once a month when we got into municipal plan we moved it twice a month So we can think about I don't know what the work schedule is going to be like But maybe going back to once a month instead twice a month Okay, cancellation. We're not having meeting on december 27th Uh, I mean if that's Okay Yeah, let me let me do that through a motion. Someone will make a motion to cancel the december 27th 2018 meeting so moved second Anyone second all in favor All right, okay, I guess no one wants to be here Okay, other business Any other business There's some interest of getting bike improvements in our city since we have zero bike lanes Or sharers I think Unless we call the bike lane on east island bike lane, but anyway, so there's an appetite for bicycle infrastructure and in the city and Local motion wants to help us with that And I didn't know if that was something After we get through the master plan process of something That would be something the planning commission took on like coming up with models or pilots Or if that should be like a subgroup in the planning commission just is informed of that happening I was going to say that may also Works commission For there they might read it and bring in Planning commission, but it might fall in their wheelhouse more directly, but it's Definitely a conversation you can have Do they meet the same time as us? I guess they're meeting once a month. Yeah, they meet once a month. They do their meetings are also on thursdays It overlaps with one more meeting. It's obviously not this one. I think the second meeting of the month they overlap Or they are set up This one it is this one Okay, so it would be this meeting normally that they would overlap with so it is the same night So would it make sense to I guess when I was talking to locomotion I was like potentially we can meet right before our planning commission meeting and then whoever from either commissions could meet And talk about this or does it make sense have a joint meeting with the public commission? to talk about it Maybe both depending on the The miscage of the process and what's happening might Might be good to do both Okay But yeah, I can talk with john rousher the staff for public works to Get his input on that as well. Okay. Thanks. Any other other business? Hearing none for a motion to adjourn Second second all in favor. Hi. Okay We are adjourned Happy holidays everyone. Thank you