 Okay, so I stopped the meeting and I'm working for my gym center and I printed out so I can read it. Conor, I think I beat you here. Oh, can't hear him. Now we can't hear Conor. Are there any changes to the agenda as we get started? I have no changes, but Mike, you do sound a little muffled on there. I do. You do. That could be the speaker in the room, but... Did Conor say something? Conor, can we...? He tried. There you go. You're not with me at it. Is it Dix now? Yep, we got you. All I said was, Joe, I don't know how you did that. I literally looked right next door. I ran across crunchy. Okay, so no changes to the agenda. Are there any votes from the public here tonight? There is one member of the public on. Michael, if you are interested in speaking for items not on the agenda, you can raise your hand and we'll recognize you. Otherwise, we can recognize you later on the agenda. Okay, that's a hand raised. You can go ahead and unmute yourself, Michael, and speak. I just wanted to give a public comment in support of revising the parking minimums that are proposed changes to parking minimums that are outlined and would ask you to consider, you know, in terms of, for the purposes of increasing affordability and meeting our climate goals to follow recommendations from the... Michael? Michael, I just want to interrupt for a second. Are you ready for time? Because we'll be talking about this in a minute. Yeah, I actually have to go to another thing. Okay, that's fine, go ahead. Sorry, sorry to interrupt you. Yeah, so I just asked you to consider, you know, significantly reducing parking requirements in Windows 8 to enable more affordable development patterns, smaller apartment sizes, things that can help us to reduce mitigation emissions and increase bus and wrong roadshare. And I ask you to consider following all the recommendations from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission parking study that was conducted earlier this year around reducing residential parking requirements. Thanks. Okay, thank you, Michael. So, Eric, no other members of the public out there? There are not. Are you sure? We'll move on then. Approval of the previous meeting minutes. Looking for a motion and a second. I'll move to approve them. I do have one correction now. Before we do that, Joe, is there a second? Yeah, but how do you correct if you approve? Well, so he makes a motion to accept the minutes within it. You second it, and then we have discussion. Okay, I'll second it. Okay. It's nothing substantive that I have. It's just that I think the heading says 1, 13, 22, and it should read 11. That's the date. Any other comments? Sorry, Joe, what were you looking at on that? I actually might be mistaken. Never mind. Carry on. So they're not in edit? Not in edit. Okay. Anyone else have any edits, comments, questions about the minutes? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye or raise your hand. Aye. Joe, you said aye. I'm assuming in the Conner. Well, I'm stating just because I wasn't in the meeting. Okay. Aye. All against? And abstentions, Conner? Okay. So those pass. So next item, I think we're moving on to books. Going to get to the right place. Technical problems with my other computer. So we got continued discussion on article 4, sections 4-1 through 4-12. Eric, I will throw it over to you. Yep, thank you very much. I know Sarah, you had wanted to, so sorry, let me back up a step. So at our last meeting, we were, we started our discussion on parking in section 4-1-2. Sarah reached out to want to briefly revisit the incentives in under the design review section. So Sarah, I don't know if you wanted to go back to that now or if you still wanted to revisit that at this point. To do, was I, I think, am I correct in saying that we're all feeling okay about this, that we want to move this forward for the most part, is it? The section on incentives, you mean? On incentives, yeah. So, so let's, I had a conversation with Sarah and one with Eric as well. I'm going to suggest that we revisit, maybe briefly, section 4.4, the design review and the incentives and talk about keeping the design review language in as it presently exists rather than striking it and putting the incentives into an appropriate area and I think it's 5.3. 5.15. 5.15. I mean Conner and Joe, do you follow what I'm suggesting? This is 4.4. Yes. 4.4 is the design review area and I suggest let's leave that in as currently written. We can, we can come back to it at some later point to revise it, edit it or whatever we might want to do but for now leave it in there and Eric maybe you can let the rest of the planning commission know your, I think you had a conversation with the attorney. Yeah, so let me do a quick screen share here just so everybody can see what we're talking about. So right now, as is drafted, we were talking about the language in section 4.14. Currently it talks about design review. As we talked about a little bit, I believe at our last meeting, we don't really have a mechanism for design review. There's no design review district. This is a carryover from a previous version of the regulations. So the initial thought was to, to build in some level of preservation standard was to create some incentives while we work on some component of design review or other preservation elements. Which is where the language is, the new language proposed is coming from. After a conversation I had with our attorney recently about another issue, I'm more inclined to leave the language of design review as it is, as it's written. So we still have the design review language included under section 4.4. But then also add in this new language for the incentives for adaptive reuse in a new section 5.15. So in essence we'd be keeping what's already written even though it's shown as a strike out now. We would keep all that language as it is, not change that at all. So that there is still the basis for a design review component. We could revisit that in the future to bolster that language, add in standards for design review, the design review districts, the boards, other things that we've talked about previously. But then also add in this section 5.15 for the incentives for adaptive reuse. That's I think the better direction to go in at this point. So that we're not eliminating everything related to design review and we have nothing in place. At least right now we do have something. So we would continue to keep that. So there's something in place while we work on new language for design review. And then the incentive we're going to bundle that with this partner conversation and that would all go forward to the council. So yes, so the incentive language we would add that into a new section 5.15. As you recall, the incentives we did for priority housing, we created a new section 5.14. So it would follow in that same vein of incentives being included in article 5. So that would be part of this package of amendments that we would take forward. Really, in essence what we would do is take forward, my intent was everything from section 4.1 through 4.12, we would take forward as a package of amendments to council including section, a new section 5.15 on incentives for adaptive reuse and some additional language on, sorry, some additional definitions to make sure we have consistency with the various sections of the various language. Sorry, we have consistency with the terms used in 4.1 through 4.12. That makes sense. So within that, I just did want to talk a tiny bit more about graduate students and other similar structures because I know Joe brought that up last time that maybe some of those buildings are interesting, right? Can you pick that up, Joe, at all? Yeah, I think that's accurate. In some cases, perhaps more actually significant than maybe the primary structure. Yeah, so how do we incorporate that into the incentive possibility or does it not work under incentive? I don't know. Well, I guess that's the question, is if the, I guess one I would ask, do we know where examples of that exists in the city? Right. And two, if so, that's fine. And I think if we know that there are examples, I think we can potentially, under the applicability portion here, we can rewrite this so that it clarifies that if there is an accessory structure or something else that is historically significant, that would be the context of what we wanted to preserve. Yeah, I can only attest to the fact that I know in some instances where properties have been included in the state register, there are oftentimes complimentary structures that are included in the listing. Right. And they're probably, I mean, I don't have a definitive list off the top of my head, but I did cite at the last meeting an instance of it where a property that's on the state historic register where they had a pretty large carriage barn behind the house, it's now used as like, it was a former artist studio space, but now is like they were considering converting it into a dwelling unit and wondering about what grant funding might be available because there is like, there are certain grants available for Vermont barns because that's kind of a unique part of the landscape. Sure. And so they were kind of pursuing what they might be able to get for funding to restore that building and adaptive reuse into a dwelling. I think it does have benefit to include structures like that. Yeah. Let me just throw out, I was just thinking, trying to go through my mind some examples of that kind of structure and besides the one at Joe's, I was thinking of on the corner of Weaver and Union Street, the Roy property, the big barn and back, I think that would be an example of a structure like that. Right. Brina did identify one in the document that she put together, didn't she? One of the barns of structures. So basically, Eric, I guess to answer the question is, yes, there are some. Sure. Yeah, to Mike's point, that's actually very illustrative of the point I was just making that that's an instance where actually the barn is the more significant structure of the dwelling unit, historically speaking. That's a pretty large structure there. Yeah. I mean, I can add some language that clarifies that if it's not the primary structure that is the significant one, then we would look to have some level of preservation for incentives to preserve the accessory structure. Yes, great. And I guess I would also say that, just because we're moving on from this section and looking at 412, sorry, yeah, 412, we will come back and review everything before we set up public hearing so that all the language has been re-reviewed and there's nothing that we have missed or overlooked as we go forward. So there will be another opportunity to look at this language. And Brina, I just want to make sure that you know, chime in whenever and wherever you want, okay? Great, thanks. I actually did have a quick question. So based off of the discussion here, it looks like the applicability, so right now it's 4.4B. So these regulations shall not apply to Graus's sheds or similar structures that would all be revised. Yes, yep, yep, okay. All right, anything else on this before we jump back into parking? Awesome. So from no comments, I'm assuming everyone on that commission is comfortable with where we're going with this? I feel more comfortable now that Eric's running past the city attorney and it seems like he's given us some good guidance on it. Yeah, and I'll talk a little bit more about that relation later under city updates just to give you more context with that. I don't want to get into that now, but we'll get into that later on. Thank you. Okay, so are we... So we're good to move on to parking. Let me just make sure... Okay, so I'm just going to zip ahead here in the document. Real quick, apologies for the scrolling. All right, so parking. So we really just kind of touched on some of this at our last meeting. Primary changes at this point were I removed the reference to no maximum parking, which was at the under item C here under minimum reserved. So we still... Does everyone still feel okay that we're not putting a cap on? In other words, I know we talked about it last time. So we removed it just so it wasn't a topic of... I don't know, Eric, I just had that moment when you said, well, you know, we don't have that many spaces in the new scheme that this could happen. But I'm starting to get nervous about those kind of statements where I actually say we do have a maximum parking. Does anybody else have a feeling? Yeah, I do share that, Sarah. If you have any strong feelings about that, like, there's a number in mind. Or recommended number, Eric. Well, so I guess I would say in my experience with working with developers here in the city, since I've been here, there is no one that has wanted to build any more parking than they absolutely need to. And in fact, everybody wants to find ways to build less. So I don't know if we have any areas where putting a maximum would really apply. But I mean, it's something we can look at. It's gonna... I mean, we'll need to do some additional work on that if we do want to install maximums just because each use will be different. So it's not like we could... Although we could also say, you know, that they can't exceed a certain percentage of the required parking, the minimum required as a maximum. But I don't foresee anybody trying to build more than they need to. Just because it's costly and there's not a ton of land in the city. But yeah, I mean, we can look at that if you want to incorporate a maximum cap on parking. I personally am uncomfortable without it in there, but I'm 107. So I mean, we can... Let's talk about it. Because I'm not... It's kind of a foreign concept to me, but just for the fact that I agree what you're saying, Eric, I'm not sure that it's necessarily applicable. And here, especially... So... Especially... Yeah, anyway. It seems to be a bit of a non-issue. If there's no ever... I mean, what I can do is look at the numbers that we have. So we've gone through the table once, and I do a few updates just to highlight that I've made since our last discussion. So what I can do is look at the table, see if there's... And kind of get a sense of what a maximum might look like and if there's a way to kind of do it based on a percentage so that we could... So that we potentially could just say parking shouldn't exceed X percentage of the minimum. So if we want to go in that direction, that way we're not looking at individual uses and saying, well, this residential use, you can only have six spaces even though you've got room to put in 10 and that would accommodate all the units you have. You know, I... You know, it can be tricky to get to that number. So I can look at the numbers a bit and see if there's a way to establish maybe a percentage of maximum. Is there any... And I guess I would come from... And I don't know if this makes sense or not, like most stuff that I bring up. But anyway, a percentage is fine, but maybe if it exceeds a certain percentage over the minimum, it requires... I probably does a DRV approval, something like that. We could do something like that, sure. Does that make any sense? I mean, because I personally don't want to limit it. If someone wants to put in 20 spaces, they only need five. All right, that's their choice. But let them explain it to the DRV why they're doing that. Well, you know what I said last time, my fear was just that you get a drugstore or one of the chains, the chains do put those more parking in than they know they need. Is it possible that in the future something happens that there is property that some sort of chain will undo that? I don't know. I'm just being extra cautious about the future more than nobody's ever done it before. Do you know what I'm saying? And I guess when I think about that, it's like, well, I mean, again, that's their decision. And if that's what they want to use the land for, I mean, if they do it in the gateway, we have provisions going to be in the back anyway. So it's not going to be seen, right? So that's what they want to do. Right. In the gateways, there's limitations on where the parking can be located in the downtown core. It's also, there's some limitations on where it can be located. I mean, I'm, you know, I'm just bringing it up. Maybe I'm already on it. I hear what you're saying, Sarah, where you can picture places that are very suburban, where there's really a lot of land use that's wasted on massive amounts of parking that only get used maybe once or twice a year. I appreciate that. I'm just kind of wondering, is there in fact any utility to this? And I'm thinking back to, like, Michael Bryan's recollections about the downtown redevelopment era, like back in the early 2000s and trying to attract a supermarket here, and it was the opposite factor. And I'm just kind of wondering if this might be even more tipping the scales in another direction, that perhaps there are services that we would want and when you see that we're not going to get because we put a cap for some reason. Okay, that's fair. Yeah, I, and then just for, again, some validation for you, Sarah, I can see the need to minimize impervious surfaces for storm run or runoff that all would have to be managed by our wastewater system. That's non-point source water that has to be managed and treated. I think about the canopy, the urban canopy, need for green space, things like that that could be a factor. So, you know, I appreciate the question that you're raising, Sarah, and Mike, the creative thought behind, you know, if there is an increased desire in having, over the minimum, then perhaps having DRB consider that as well. So, I think it's fair not to limit it in the ordinance. I think that's a good compromise. I think if it, like, you're bringing it before the DRB and saying, here's why. Like, that actually makes sense. Yeah, yeah. I got it. I'm comfortable with that. I was just perusing to see what other jurisdictions were doing. And when you, or not when you keep Burlington, it's 125%, their maximum is 125% above their minimum. So, maybe that's the threshold that we use for DRB review. Yeah, that's actually what I was thinking. Something in the 120 to 125 range is typically what I've seen as well for a maximum percentage above what's required. That's Burlington, you said, Abby? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. And good on you for finding that so quickly. Yeah. I was just wondering what you said about, you know, about getting admitted to that spiritually, I'd rather screen. So, I guess that's what we'll do is put the 1.25, if it's over that, then it's going to go through or be explained by DRB to whatever. Yeah, I'll write in some... I can write in some language for that. 125% of the minimum. Yeah. Right, so we're not limiting it to what we're saying. If you're going to go over that, you need to explain it. Yeah. And what I don't understand, and it was always helpful to have Amy, because she had done the DRB, and I know you oversee both, she had sort of indicated that the DRB review isn't... they don't really have much power to review anything that's not stated in some standard. So, how would they, if we sent this off to review, to the DRB for review, how would they be able to yay or nay something like that? Yeah, that's a good question. It may be that we could look to the conditional use standards as far as what would be their standard of review, but yeah, you're right. There needs to be some standard of review for the DRB to follow in that instance. So it may be that anything above that percentage would trigger review by the DRB and they would need to follow a standard of review for similar to conditional use. Or something else. We could even come up with our own standard of review for that to say that there needs to be X, Y, and Z and review for them to justify why they need the additional parking. Go ahead, Mike. Is it enough to put the regulations, something to the effect of the intent of why we're putting it in there? You know what I mean? So that the DRB has something to fall back on as this was the intent of the regulation. You've got to give a good reason why you're going over it. I mean, I think the intent that we have in our parking standards already may cover that. Okay. So I don't know that we need to have an additional intent, but we could potentially add to this to say something like to reduce impervious cover or provide additional green space or something along those lines as necessary. But I don't know that we need to add more language under the intent on why we would need to do that. If it were to fall under conditional use review, what is the standard that they use for that? Yeah, I was actually just thinking about that. So let's see. Under conditional use, it would be the character of the area affected, the bylaws in effect, the utilization of renewable energy resources, capacity of community services and facilities. And then there's specific performance standards related to section 413, which gets into, I believe, the noise. I'm sorry. I think that's the wrong graph. Yeah, 413, which gets into noise and vibration and odor and things of that nature. It may be that some of those could work, but maybe we would use those standards to create an additional standard for parking-specific review. So it's not really a conditional use review, but it is a review with a specific standard included. So I'll look and see what other communities are doing to get a sense as well of how they're reviewing if they do allow for a project to go over the maximum. So Wellington is not the only one that has maximum parking limitations. So it may be that we write our own standard for that. So, Eric, quick question. Do you just reference section 4.13? Did I hear you right? Yes. There is no 4.13, is there? There is. You just don't have it with this document. Of course there is one. I didn't want you to get too far ahead of things. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for that discussion on that. It's good. Okay. So looking at the table, some changes that were made since our last meeting. Let me just get my other sheet from last meeting. So assisted living, we changed that to one spaces per three bed, or 1.0 spaces per three beds. Under theater and entertainment, we included the language of the square footage component if no seats existed. Our healthcare facility, we did patient bed or room, just in case there's one or the other. And then we had a discussion about the school parking. And so I did reach out, I didn't reach out to the school directly, but I did reach out to the architect who designed the school, just because I thought he might have some more input on both our school and other schools in general. And he actually did have quite a bit of really good information on this. So what he recommended, well, I shouldn't say he recommended it, but what we talked about was, so one of the things that we talked about, sorry, trying to find my other notes, is that, and I didn't realize this, but with the primary schools, there's often time, while it's children that aren't driving, there's often potentially three or four adults in the room as well for the instructional space. So when you get into the first through fifth grade, you're looking at oftentimes two or three adults in the room, and then when you get into the high school and middle school, it's usually just one teacher per classroom at that point. But then there's also other staff and what not going on. So what he suggested was that a number for primary and secondary schools may be closer to a three to four spaces per classroom or per instructional space, as he called it. So, and then what he also mentioned was that something for higher education may be closer in line with the six spaces per instructional space. So what I was thinking is we may, and looking at what the school has currently and what they proposed, there, so the previous school before the redevelopment, I believe had around 200 to 225 spaces on site. They were proposing 275 spaces with the redevelopment. So that would be, so at three spaces, sorry, they have 86 instructional spaces in the new school total. So at three spaces per instructional, three parking spaces per instructional space, that would come out to 258 spaces. If we did three and a half, that would be 301 spaces. If we did four, that would be 344 parking spaces. So I was thinking somewhere in the, I was thinking at three spaces, three parking spaces per classroom for primary and secondary putting those on the same line and then changing the line of secondary school to higher education at six spaces per classroom. Did he have any insight on why that goes up? I think because you've got more people driving. Ah, okay, totally makes sense. Yeah, I would think that for secondary school you've also got seniors that might be driving. Right, exactly, which so as you're ramping down the number of teachers and instructional aides in the classroom, you are kind of increasing the number of students that are driving. I don't know what our current enrollment is at the high school of students that are driving age and how many of them actually drive. But my guess is a majority of them are still walking if they are able to drive. But I have no real insight on that. That was where my mind went was I was thinking by high school you should have fewer pair of educators but definitely more people driving in that sense. Right, exactly. So I was thinking we make it primary and secondary schools at three spaces per classroom and then higher education at six spaces per classroom. Because we do have CCB so we do have higher education here in the city but the three spaces per classroom at least given Winooski's new project lands us kind of right around where they are with the number of spaces that they have. And this is probably going to have more implications for private education facilities because I mean we've already I mean the public school was granted its zoning variance so like they're fine but if this is really going to and I assume that they're staffed less than the public school I mean that's an assumption on my part but this is probably a pretty generous standard. I think so, yeah I think so. Yeah that's my question because I'm thinking you know we do have St. Francis that's what I don't have kindergarten but one through eight anyway. Don't we also have center point school? Center point as well, yep. So I mean... And there's one on what is it East Allen? Yeah there is there's a school back in the hillside industrial park as well the Belvedere school I think or a branch of the Belvedere school I'm not sure if that's still what they're called. They thought it was called the middle school. That might be what it is. They'd have to take down those buildings and rebuild the buildings and that's when they were right now they have what they have right? Right so would they be, would it apply to existing structures now or would they essentially? This would only apply for new development. So anything that currently exists is fine. This would only apply to new development. So what if they were altering existing? If they were adding any new square footage that would require a zoning permit we would look at their standard of review and I believe actually there is language I added language to that effect further down in this section. So like say like the middle school adds you know four classrooms on a wing or something that they have to now revisit this standard? Yes. Okay. Are you going to keep it classroom or what was the other term? Instructional space? I don't really have a preference one way or another I think it's really more... classroom makes sense for me just because that's what I've always referenced. What if they didn't, what if they wanted to say put the wing on as Joe's saying but they didn't want to increase their parking or didn't feel they needed to? Would they be required? If they did not meet the minimum parking standards then yes they would need to increase the parking. Could they seek a variance through the DRB? Not currently. Okay. So we have no mechanism in place to reduce the number of... we have no mechanism in place currently to reduce the parking standards beyond what's included in here for adjustments. So they could take advantage of the adjustments that are outlined in here but we have no mechanism to just wave minimum parking. So the Winooski Capital project at the school system that's an instance of where the variance was sought to actually exceed the minimum? That was more of a case because we didn't have a standard. When they came in for their application we didn't have a standard so the standard I was looking at would have been for office so they would have had to do four spaces per thousand square feet which would have been like I think five or six hundred parking spaces which they definitely did not need so that's why the language for the waiver was part of the reason why the language for the waiver was developed which they did take advantage of when it was available. So it was more than what they had but less than what they would have been required under that interpretation. Correct. Okay. Just so I understand that correctly. Yes. And so would it apply following up on Joe's question would it apply only to an addition? Would these requirements apply only to an addition? Are the square footage for the addition or would it then apply to the whole building? I believe it would apply to the whole building. We would look at it as an entire site as they're changing the site we would look at the entire site to make sure it was compliant. Okay. Go ahead. I have a question. Since our winning school is K-12 when you talked about 85 classrooms or educational spaces did you break out which were for the high school that weren't for the elementary school? I did not, no. That came straight from the architect that he just gave me the number of 86 instructional spaces. Because I wonder if the numbers wouldn't work out if we did have that breakout based on the 1.5 because he said go up with your primary and down with your secondary but I wonder if we broke out the spaces how they're currently attributed to the grade that we wouldn't end up... It would be helpful to know that because we took this standard directly from Burlington and it doesn't seem like Burlington is the place to overbuild parking for their schools so I just would be hesitant to kind of make our own standard without sort of grounding it a little bit more. Sure. I can definitely follow up to see if he can give me a breakout of that. I think though if we're combining the primary and secondary into the same line or making it the same standard of parking I think if I'm thinking about it correctly it would be a wash depending on... It wouldn't matter if it was primary or secondary because it's the same standard but I might not be thinking about that correctly. I just don't know. It's probably not 50% of the classroom for high school and 50% are the K-3. It probably is not divided by that but I'm not sure. If it is divided like that then maybe it would come out the same. It's hard to really understand it without that breakdown and then JFK or I shouldn't say JFK but the Wudnowski School District is unique because it's a K-12 campus but the other schools in Wudnowski are not so is there value in keeping those separated? I mean I think that's a good question. I guess I don't know enough about schools and what the actual... who's all in the classrooms and how many teacher's aides and other staff they have so I'm not entirely sure... I guess I don't know if there's a good consistent standard that would apply to all of our schools that would... Yeah, I'm not sure if there's a good consistent standard so Connor, I see you have your hand raised. Oh, I mean this is related and I apologize if I missed this earlier but is there a definition of what the instructional space is? Is like my first thought was are we talking about, I don't know, band rooms or like labs as well that aren't commonly used? So, yeah, that's a really good question so in my conversations with the architect he did indicate that the instructional spaces are not necessarily just traditional classrooms so it could be some sort of art studio or stand room or something like that that they're calling instructional spaces which may be why they're using the term instructional space because it's more just generic than a classroom. It does seem like you sought out the best possible information from the architect on that because I'm sure that they put a great deal of thought into it. I think I may have raised this question at a previous meeting. I think we were kind of talking about new construction versus pre-existing but like St. Francis Xavier School like a few years ago they didn't rebuild the school but they redesigned their parking and I can't remember what we discussed if they, did they have to visit that office standard when they redesigned that? Yeah, that's a good question. I think that was happening right as I was starting so I don't believe they did have to revisit it because they weren't adding new space they were just kind of reconfiguring their existing parking and I think they were maybe adding some additional parking but I'm not entirely sure of the details on that. I know they were doing a lot of interior renovation because I thought the actual, I mean it might have been the actual paved surface decreased which was, they did a beautiful job doing it I'm just kind of wondering what process they went through. Yeah, that's a good question. I'm not entirely sure. That was, like I said, I think that was before, that had already been improved before I was on staff. So Eric, going back to the classroom versus instructional space it seems like instructional space makes more sense and needs to be defined to include classrooms and bedroom, you know, wherever instruction is taking place. Yep, I can make that change and add that new language. So the other thing, this is different I'm just going to break it up because it crossed my mind but so in the school, cases of the school can parking be classified under flexible parking? In other words, we have some situations where shared parking can happen did the schools fall under that? So in other words can people use the parking in the evenings when school is not in session? They, technically they could if there was an agreement with the school and whoever was looking to use it because that's private property the school would have to authorize the use of that those parking spaces after hours. Yeah, but could anybody you might need a refresher on how this actually works in the city so there's some situations where people are developing properties and they're using other people's property to park on in exchange for different times of the day or some flexible schedules, right? So actually we'll get into that here just below in our parking adjustments that is an option. Parking adjustments, yeah, okay. So I just wondered if the school would fall these schools would fall under that too? It could. Perfect one for that, isn't it? Yeah, I mean it could if there was adjacent uses that needed parking they could work with the school to utilize their parking in those off hours. And that's actually a good point Sarah because that the Holgerboom parcel there which is a relatively large, undeveloped track is very close to the school parking. So I mean are they at will to use the parking during the evening? Right. Also just the thought crosses my mind if we're talking about what the public school was able to use as far as the variants that they were granted does that kind of de facto make it best practices for any other private organization? Because I know there's some subjectivity there but wouldn't it be like, you know, kind of if this is the standard that's applied to the Monewski School District, you know if your center point school could you say hey, this is what they did? Yeah, that's a good question. I think if I remember correctly with the waiver process that the school went through they had identified a number of spaces that they needed and could accommodate on site and I think they just brought that number forward because there was no standard at the time to review against a school and I think that is what they used as the basis of review for getting that waiver to the parking standards. So that would not be available currently for anybody else again because the waiver doesn't exist anymore. So that's where we would look to add in some minimum standards for parking for those uses. Okay. Since it didn't exist at the time. Which is theoretically what we're going on is based on what they used to calculate. Sure, yes, that's correct. So here what you're suggesting if I heard you correctly is under schools you'll make schools primary and secondary. Three spaces per institutional space or whatever the heck we call it and then you'll have school, higher education and that'll be six spaces per instructional space. That would be my proposal with the caveat of going back to determine what the breakdown is in instructional spaces at the Winooski School complex so that we can get a better sense of how many are dedicated to the I'll say the primary school versus the secondary school and see what those numbers look like. Now I thought I heard you say that the architect said that it really is a wash because there are more instructional aids in the primary schools and more staff in the secondary. Generally that's what he said. Yes, that as you go from the primary school to the secondary school you're shifting the number of aids in the classroom but you're adding in some of the other administrative staff. Not that the administrative staff is only serving the secondary school but you can account for that parking need within that component. So you're going to contact the school? I'm going to contact the architect to find out what the breakdown is of instructional spaces for primary versus secondary. If there is a breakdown? Yeah, I'm sure they have something. So in this instance we're actually going up from where we're increasing the... we're kind of blending it for primary and secondary. Sorry Abby. I was just saying if you can't get answers from the architect about the school the buildings, I'm happy to... I'm there all the time, I'm happy to pop in and talk to him in the shooter and see if that's something that's readily available. In my experience at this school there's a primary teacher and there's at least one aid in the rooms with the kids but those are only assigned based on the need of like a specific child in the room and then the secondary is so much higher because of the number of high schoolers that are deriving to school. That's my understanding of why there's such a spread there. Yeah, it'd be good to just like round it maybe with somebody else and check the numbers in the school to make sure it makes sense. Yep, I can follow up on that and bring some more information back to the next meeting. And okay, I'm sorry I'm still trying to understand something. So if you were to take this formula or the one that you're going to re-go to and there was a school that didn't say have high school does that affect that? I mean... Nope, it would be... primary and secondary would all be the same number. So if it's only primary school they would still fall under that same standard. Okay, thank you. Yep. Under the way it is currently if it was just an elementary school they would have to build only 1.5 or what Aaron's proposing is they would have to build 3. Correct. If it's just a primary school they would have to build more spaces than what's proposed currently and then if it's just a secondary school they would have to build more spaces than what's proposed. So there is some implications of combining them if we think we'll have schools that aren't K through 12. Right. Right, but the guidance or at least the information that I got was that generally those primary school classrooms have more aids or other teachers' aids or other instructors that are helping out. He basically said 15 to 20 kids is the information that he gave to me. So which I think that's kind of what they designed for in some of their work. I don't have any basis to refute that or to come up with a different number but I'm just going off of what he's told me. I'm only wondering if that's excessive because again being a public school system there's a lot of different needs being accommodated whereas like say like a smaller more intimate educational setting that maybe wanted to open up when you see like this might be a little bit restrictive that's just the thought that crosses. But I'm also like I just mentioned earlier I'm kind of wondering if this is the standard that the school district follows shouldn't the others have to follow that as well. Sure. Yep, so some more research to come. So Aaron your last comment about Pre-K brought me down to day care facility and I think most day care facilities are basically Pre-K although they weren't around the amount of the kid but I wonder if one space for 500 square feet for a day care is adequate. I don't know the answer I just I know where my son says my granddaughters seems to be quite a bit of staff to handle the kids. Does anyone know if there's what the legal requirements are on number of adults per children if any exists for safety reasons? If they're under two you can only have I think it's four three or four per adult and then over to I think it's five so my experience is that they don't often exceed the minimum requirements because it's costly. Yeah, very costly. So on day care would it make sense to relate the spaces to number of children as opposed to the square footage of the building? So with our definition of day care we include care for children early or individuals with disabilities and protective in a protective setting for a portion of a 24 hour day including state registered or licensed child care providers serving more than six full time and four part time children. So it's not we're not so our definition of day care facility does not include only children. Yeah, this is what's a little confusing because I thought that would be under assisted living before we were it's how is it statewide there must be people is this ridiculous to say like maybe there should actually be an asterisk on like those two like to see the definition because like I think I don't know if I was like a developer proposing an elder care facility I wouldn't necessarily think of looking for a day care facility under I don't know. So for assisted living we define that as a licensed facility that provides rooms meals and personal care service in living arrangements designed to meet the needs of people who cannot live independently and usually do not require the type of care provided in a nursing home. That's how we define assisted living. No, no problem with the definition. I'm just saying like we're like just how how people might think of this and looking at the standards I guess So they're going to ask Eric where do I fall if I'm putting in an adult day care and Eric will say under day care, right? Yeah, depending on what you're doing there, yes if it's just you're just taking care of some folks for part of the day they're not living there you're not providing meals necessarily or other care to them then yeah I'd say you're under day care facility I guess I'm thinking of like say I'm Cathedral Square and I'm pursuing you know a complex I wouldn't have immediately thought to look under day care facility like right which I think would probably fall more under the assisted living category potentially So what is our lady of Providence care facility on West Spring currently fall under? I would classify them as an assisted living facility personally. Okay so I will do some more research on some of these numbers as well just in the interest of time and moving past just the minimums I did want to bring up retail sales because I had been three spaces per thousand and now it's one per thousand restaurant we cut down to one per five hundred and two per thousand and I'm just wondering I don't recall I thought we were going to do retail sales the same as restaurant but maybe I what's the term misunderstood I don't have any My concern is really gets back to retail use the first level commercial can use on-street parking to offset some of the required parking but I am always concerned about the fact that I'm not sure that there's really anything that we've ever discussed or in zoning that it's about inventory the on-street parking capacity and if you've got 10 retail or first level commercial spaces and you give them a reduction in the on-site requirement for parking because you say you can use 5-street spaces over over using those over subscribing those street spaces yeah well Mike you're in luck because I do have language that's proposed under the public parking section of parking reductions to address just that issue alright you mean I should have read further down it's in section 4.13 oh I mean I did want to just mention there in case we wanted to ask if there were any comments oh yes Michael has left us and Daisy has joined us so Daisy if there's anything you want to comment on at any time please feel free to use the raise hand feature or the chat function and we can recognize you and I was looking up right before we move on to the next section I just like to see what other jurisdictions are doing again to kind of ground some of the stuff and I looked at Concord, New Hampshire and they have just as comparison they have for their primary school which is their elementary and middle two spaces per classroom their high school is seven spaces per classroom and their post-secondary school and colleges are 15 per classroom if it's residential and only five if there's residential if there's dorms on campus so again there is a spread there is like that spread that's similar to what Burlington has exists in other places so I'm just going to throw that out there that combining them is not something just like quickly looking through something I see so between now and the next meeting they'll give us more time to dig into that but can I ask you said you're up at the school a lot yeah I'm assuming you know Sean uh yeah can you do you want to pop in and just ask him again say Sean what are your thoughts I think he would fall over if I said that's R-E-Tech so there are four to five adults in each of these classrooms um yeah I wouldn't even go there I just say Sean we're dealing with parking we're just trying to get a feel for what from your experience what kind of numbers you need for primary and secondary schools yeah I'm happy to have that conversation yeah I'll take one more thing off Eric's plate sure I mean we can also leave these as they are I mean we don't have to change anything here if we don't want to so just I'll also throw that out so these are sure that's why these are all draft so let's Eric if you do a little bit more with the architect and Abby gets some input from Sean up at the school or whoever and we can revisit it and I'm just to reiterate I think we know that like the Wenuski school district has kind of taken care of this regard we're kind of thinking about I don't know from my perspective this would be going forward for other potential new educational facilities coming into Wenuski sure and I think it's also important to remember that these are just the minimums that we're proposing so this would be the minimum number of spaces that are needed people can as we've talked we have no maximum so they can add as much as they want within the limitations of the rest of our regulations but this is the minimum that we would require that they do and that's why I'm kind of wondering if the minimums are onerous if we're basing them towards a public education system versus a smaller facility yep absolutely and that's a good point so okay I actually thought theirs went down that they proposed a smaller lot than what they had had because they wanted they wanted more green space and they were expanding the playground facilities and so forth I think it would be good to also take that into account okay alright so moving on the next section here I believe I believe the language that's stricken under item two here has been moved I don't believe this is a get rid of because it's in green I'm not exactly sure I think it was it some of it was rolled into part D here under the parking adjustments yeah so some of it was rolled into part D some of it I believe was removed for clarification but really this section under part D is where we get into some of these adjustments that we've been talking about and how to reduce the the minimum number of parking that's required currently not much new changing here under D one thing that has come up I was contacted by one of the property owners and developers in town about the shared use and questioning if the the square footage number here was too high if there'd be a any interest in potentially considering a reduction in the amount of non-residential square footage that could be shared and I don't disagree that's something I've been thinking about as well I think 10,000 square feet of non-residential space is a is a fairly high number for what we've seen for developments and I guess just to give you a sense of some of the gateway developments that have been built recently the 348 Main Street juniors foe dang I believe they've got about 6400 square feet of non-residential on their first floor 355 Main Street at the corner of Bellevue and Main they've got about 1200 square feet of non-residential on their first floor 211 Main where the fusion cafe and Wicked Wings that's about that's just over 5,000 square feet of non-residential space on that first floor the 10 Manso Street where Sarms Cafe is that's about 1500 1500 square feet of non-residential space on that first floor so I mean we are seeing non-residential space we're just seeing smaller amounts so I don't know if what you're all's opinion is on the 10,000 number it seems high to me if we're looking at creating areas of shared use where we're looking at a non-residential use sharing with a residential use or even the non-residential uses sharing among themselves which I believe is how this is currently written well you just referenced a property that I think I've asked this a number of times but you're just saying that you hadn't seen an instance where a developer had built parking beyond what the minimum was required right? correct so the building that juniors is in on Upper Main Street I forget the address number 348 the parcel just south of it so yes so there was an agreement in place to be able to use that on a temporary basis for parking there is actually a development proposal to redevelop that property I believe 348 has all the parking they need on site I think there was just an interest in having some potential overflow there if they needed it because there's nothing else on that parcel correct that's correct there's one outstanding condition on the issuance of the permit for redevelopment on that site okay so that might I guess could be an instance of where a developer builds in more parking but that was really just more of a placeholder for future development correct what if they had bought that property and just left it that way the juniors building owners are we good with that in other words would that be tied to the buildings the parking in other words can you just buy a lot and make a big parking space not if it's its own lot they would have to combine the two lots so that's what I was understanding but those lots have been merged then they have not which is why there so there was an agreement in place again like I said to be able to use that for parking on a temporary basis I forget exactly the mechanism again that was something that happened right as I just started but there has since been a development proposal that has been approved with one outstanding condition to redevelop that site at what's addressed as 340 Main Street when that gets developed whatever parking is associated with that development will accommodate what the needs for that project and 348 Main Street I believe has all the parking they need on site currently to accommodate their development I guess that's what I didn't understand because if so 340 the juniors building just north if they had adequate parking why would they have built a separate parking structure just south of it so they didn't actually build any structure there or it was basically just the lot that so they as I understand it the lot was cleared and they used that as the staging area to build 348 Main Street and so then that just remained as an empty space they do park there but it's not any type of improved parking area as far as I'm aware it's not paved I don't believe it is no I think it's gravel which is why they also closed off the curb cut off a Main Street and put up the fence as part of the part of the requirements to be able to use that for parking okay okay so yeah just curious what people's thoughts are on the 10,000 square foot minimum for non-residential to use shared parking if there's any interest in reducing that number at all I mean based on what you said part of me saying no we got our nose I use that term and part of me saying well if no one is building over about 5,000 square feet maybe cutting it in half with the 5,000 but yeah the other thing I was thinking of I was thinking something similar Mike but I was also thinking about maybe we do a tiered approach or we could do a tiered approach so like from 0 to 2,000 square feet you get a certain percentage and then from 2,000 to 5,000 you get another percentage and then so on and so on up to 10,000 so that for these projects that are building these smaller commercial spaces they still can get the benefit of the shared parking because generally speaking during the day when for these residential uses the vehicles are leaving during the day so that frees up those spaces to potentially be used for to meet the needs of any type of non-residential use that's there so the examples you cited nothing was even close to 10,000 right correct yeah the largest one was the juniors in Fodang which I believe is if I looked at the plants correctly about 6,400 so was the intent here when this was originally drafted that shared use would just be for these like really exceptional instances I think so I'm not entirely sure what the thought process was for that for using that number but I haven't seen anything Eric when we talked about it way back when we were drafting this it was looking at the whole blocks being developed and having shared parking between adjacent properties going down because we also talked about limiting the number of driveways or curb cuts on the main street or on the main drag are you saying Mike that it was just envisioned that there would be projects built with larger retail space yes and more it was really we were looking at the full build out we were doing this and so okay on a plot you've got all these buildings and all this parking let's do share allow shared parking between the properties yeah and well as I interpret this it's done on an individual site basis so each site would have to have that 10,000 square foot yeah and I think that's right I think that was a number when we're doing this I think there was more feeling that first level would be commercial as opposed to there's such a strong market for residential now and it's pretty soft market for commercial things have changed yeah it did seem like there was some like bare minimum like no requirements for the commercial spaces like the tiny the tiny little restaurant in the one office Mansu and then there's like an office like there that they're not going above what the requirement is for non-residential space and I wonder if part of this was trying to encourage them to use their first floor for non-residential I know it is required based on where you are in eight way places like up on Mansu where it wouldn't we're required on the first floor if this would have had an incentive for that large building to use more of their first floor for non-residential use well so you're viewing this as an incentive Abby that this was like to get developers to build in more retail space okay I kind of I couldn't see that I guess I feel like this isn't an incentive because it's like saying hey you can build one parking in this circumstance right you like we'll consider you the sharing of these spaces and I don't know like classically yes like residents would be during the day and then they would return in the evening but we're also saying hey nobody's driving anymore a bunch of people aren't you know driving and then we're also saying hey it's real and here you know so are we are we grounded in the same reality we were when it was proposed yeah I mean that's a good point as well I guess to the point of the incentive and I do believe Abby that you are correct that it was there was some incentive to create these larger non-residential spaces with that said you know looking at the juniors Fodang space and the Wicked Wings Fusion Cafe spaces their entire first floor is non-residential and they're not getting close to the 10,000 so again that's just an example I think it's just a reality of the size of the buildings that are being constructed and just what what available land is there to put anything in so I'm happy leaving it 10,000 square feet I just just wanted to just get some insight on from you all if that's still a realistic number or if we should reduce that sum to to be able to encourage more shared parking on sites I do have clarifying questions so in these multi-use buildings where the year's incentive to reduce the amount of to increase more affordable units by allowing reductions in the parking how will that work with shared shared uses so if a commercial space is required to have so many spaces and then with share incentive but on site because there's been incentives applied to the residential side of things will that shake out as intended that's a good question yeah I'm not sure I've looked at that in any in any detail to see how that might be impacted I would guess that it would just given the if they were able to utilize this shared use provision just given the percentage of parking that would be allowed to be shared but that's a good question because I'm just thinking about yeah I and I don't have the ability to put numbers to it but I'm thinking about the desire optimizing space and for both residential units and for commercial retail space and we're encouraging shared use but we're also at the same time agreeing to reduce parking minimums like how if that actually would really work out the way we need it to for the shared incentive to work yeah yeah that's a good question I mean I'll see what I can do to put some numbers to that and in which case perhaps tiering might be an option right yeah the other question I had which um so how does shared use work does that mean that that deal with these properties make with each other is a perpetuity I mean how do you so it gets sold I mean so as I interpret this Sarah it's on one individual site is where the sharing occurs it's not between sites so okay not between sites so if that site that building sells or says I don't want to share anymore that's okay well yeah because it's still be all on site so they would have a certain number of spaces that are serving both the non-residential space on the first floor and any residential space in the building okay so it's just this is not like an easement on a joining parcel that's correct that's correct that's actually there is a provision for off-site locations which is further down but this would not as I interpreted this is only for on-site for the same site all the all the development needs to be on the on the same site because I think we discussed that eons ago about making sure that if there was shared parking on an off-site parcel that that was in fact going to be like a deed of record and yes would be enforceable yep absolutely oh sorry go ahead Abby yeah and the other thing that occurs to me throughout all these conversations because we use parking so much as like an incentive and like a token throughout a lot of the changes we've made in the zoning I'm always thinking about like how the developer can stack can stack all these together to get to you know to get to a parking reduction that will have then consequences on the neighborhoods around it which sort of is where this all this conversation started way back when so I'm just thinking about like we're reducing the parking reduction from the table and then we have parking reductions for the TDM you know incentives we have the parking reductions potentially with shared use and then with EV charging and then with under underground parking right so I'm like what I just want to make sure that we're thinking about how these all can be stacked on top of each other and what implications that could have for a property and then in the neighborhoods surrounding it because I think when we made some changes and the man so property happened that was like all we heard about for a long time and it really like I think sparked to retracing some of this stuff and I think we're making some really good moves on like right sizing things but I don't know if we're fully thinking about what it looks like if incentives are stacked upon one another because there is definitely an incentive on the developer side to have less parking if they can be accommodating if their clientele could be accommodated in an existing shoe parking so I think it's just a balance but it's a balance and I bring that up to make sure that we are thinking about that. Yeah and that's a really good point and I think that also comes into play when we look at not just the minimum parking that we're requiring and all the incentives that we may be offering but that starts to bleed into the management of our existing on-street facilities and where we're metering, where we're enforcing, where we're doing resident only, some of those other components that came out of that parking inventory analysis and management plan so I don't think it's exclusively just looking at minimum parking standards, I think it also is going to include looking at the management of our existing on-street facilities which is obviously not included in zoning but is a part of the conversation. Yeah. I do think the point you raised with the 10,000 square feet of non-residential gross floor area I mean unless that is in fact going to be an incentive to get that built in it does seem so far afield from what the average is that it's not functional. I see the value in the tiered approach. Yeah I was going to say, I was going to just ask are folks comfortable if I draft some language that has a tiered approach to this rather than just leaving it at the 10,000 square feet or do you just want to leave it where it is? Well I hate to give you more work Eric but that doesn't make a certain sense. I did offer so. Why don't you give us that Eric? Okay. And Abby, thank you for bringing up the impact of neighborhood because that's something I think about all the time. Yeah and I think about the building that Wicked Wings is in and under the current I don't think they needed the shared use provision to work for them because it's pretty minimal their parking in the back is pretty minimal, pretty small tiny lot back there that's serving that building so I don't think they would need would have needed to take advantage of this based on what they're already required to do and how little that is. I think they actually I think they have about 45 spaces back there for that property. Is there an underground? There's not. They originally had proposed underground but they decided to not go that route but they do have quite a bit of parking in the back. Okay. I walked at the other day because I was looking at the EVs too like they have a fair amount of EV stations and it seemed like a pretty minimal amount of parking for the size of the building so it's always helpful to have specific projects to ground the stuff in. Yeah, I think just for reference that building has it's got 27 residential units in it so it is a big building but I don't think it's as big as it might seem for the number of spaces they have. Yeah. I'm going to jump in and give a time check it's 57 so just keep that in mind Eric how much longer do you think on this parking Well, we've got We did one page Yeah I know We've got about 10 more pages so I mean we can go all night long if you want Mike That's the way parking goes Well, yeah That's the only thing we had on the agenda tonight Right So I'm wondering if we could just make time to break or break Eric? Well no Connor was about to say something I was just going to say Mike just texted me and said that that was fine I went all night so sorry Who tagged you? Me? No I'm ready to go I just wondering if this is a good break point or you want to go to something else I mean I think this is probably a decent spot to break the next so we're into the parking adjustments the next part would be our transportation demand management strategies and I think this is going to be some good conversation I think so because we are while we already have the place for transportation demand management in here this is definitely getting a pretty healthy update just to get some better guardrails on what's required and what we're offering for those reductions so that might take some that might take some additional time so it's probably good that we pause here or I'm okay if we want to pause here I think so because I don't think Bryn wants to be here much longer I mean I was here until 1130 on Monday we could make this an all nighter That's okay That's okay I'm already on my works Alright so let's see so we'll stop there on this section and I go back to my agenda I think city updates is probably next I believe that is correct let me just make sure I've got my organization together yes okay so city updates I've got several I have several updates for you all I guess I would turn it over to councilor Oakley first if there's any updates from council to share sure I'd say the most important thing is that we are right in the very beginning of budget season I know although for staff they've been working on it for a couple months now but council just had our first meeting to review the budget high level review the budget on Monday so we pretty much meet almost weekly through the end of January and I'd say as much as you can just to encourage you to follow along with that and email myself and the other counselors any questions that you have I know that the slide deck can be pretty dense and sometimes hard to follow so certainly don't be shy about sending us information about what we fit like how you feel about things feedback is really important at this stage of the game as well as any questions so it really your input really will help move the direction that council ends up going with this I think namely the most important thing is if the city keeps a level funding at this point the tax rate could increase 14 about just over 14 percent we propose some proposed cuts as well as a proposal to use one time bridge funding essentially ARPA funding that would bring it from that 14 just over 14 percent down to 5 percent and then there are some adjustments that could be made they would be significant cuts and I think the community would feel it so it's not they're not easy decisions by the means and so in that regard it would be really valuable to get your feedback the city has and I think the slide kind of goes into it but the you know there's good review over how the tax rates have progressed over the last 10 years or so as well as how the tax rates have progressed from the city side of things to the school side of things property education tax side of things so it's nice to have that side by side as well I think there tends to be some confusion in the community as to how much the city has influence over all of the taxes so this city council only has control over the city taxes and not the school side of things so you know attending school board meetings is helpful too but you know I'm sure we you know I'm thrilled about these meetings as I'm sure many others are so any time that you can give it to looking into it and engaging early is beneficial and there might be some other city updates that will be covered but I think that's pretty much the primary thing that I want to emphasize right now was on the cover of a nice community newsletter I appreciate that if you say that if we level fund the taxes will go 15% but we can use the ARPA funds to meet that only 5% for the next year so budget cuts as well as some bridge funding oh budget cuts as well and how's the TIF exploration and future funding play into all this sure so that there's a slide in the slide deck from the council meeting on this one point of confusion is that the file will be saved as a dot ppt it will be saved as a dot pdf which is no surprise to many of you but if anybody is watching I've already had some of that confusion of where's the slide deck so there is a slide in there that talks about the TIF what's allocated what's left over and it accounts for what council has approved so it doesn't talk about other potential intended uses on that slide and I think the anticipation is the TIF should expire in FOI 25 and any ARPA funds that would be applied for FOI 24 the gap would need to be filled by the TIF so that answers your question so picking up on that at this point roughly what kind of dollars we're talking about increase from the TIF to the municipal side of things I might not be understanding the question in other words is there an estimate of how much more general fund revenue will be generated from the TIF revenue that's currently going to pay off the debt so I'm going to pass that over to Eric I want to say it's around a million dollars or so somewhere in that neighborhood and I think of that of that money there's about 350 to 400 thousand that's uncommitted right now that's still available I think the number might be more like 438 yeah so it's somewhere but it's something in that general range it's not a significant figure it is not insignificant but it's not as large as one might think correct do you know today does a penny still generate like $48,000 and is that right? I think it was a penny that was $48,000 in tax revenue but what? the tax rate would raise so much that sounds about right again I think Angela helped develop the slide deck so she's pretty thorough I would say it's probably in there and while we're chatting I actually might have it up and cross reference that that's about what it was when I was on the council 7-10 years ago I'll try and drop the link in the chat once we move to city updates and also in the slide deck right at the very beginning has the calendar of when we're reviewing each next section of the budget so that's a good reference point as well and that survey that went out that asked the community how to spend the ARPA funds was anything compiled reported back was funding diverted towards what the public had asked for but what happened with that? great question so the survey is still open and the councilors have been doing basically some listening sessions and going out to community groups to meet with them during the day at their convenient location at their convenient time so we're progressing through that and basically compiling the feedback as those meetings occur I would anticipate because there's no urgency so the way the council and city staff have been referring to ARPA funds is essentially the money formerly known as ARPA because we were able to essentially apply that money to the general fund now we passed year now that money is for the most part unrestricted is from what I understand it's still one time funds but we don't have the same it's essentially available general fund money so the ARPA money we got was applied to the general fund that overages for lack of a better word of other available one time funding so it could just be spent to help with the tax bill the resident tax bill and that could be the end of it yeah yeah initially the ARPA funds had all these specific requirements of how they could be spent and all these programmatic requirements and then eventually over time I think the federal government just kind of said smaller communities are size or smaller communities they basically just said here's some money do with it what you need to do with it so we technically we wanted to could just put it all in the general fund and use it as for for paving or for sidewalks or whatever whatever we want to do but yeah so it's basically unrestricted funds at this point that's a very over simplification of it but that's generally the just trying to break it down yeah hey so I did drop the link for the slide deck into the chat for quick reference and that's for anybody's I don't know if this is the recording to be posted or is live yes it'll be it's both live and it'll be posted okay then the link is on the city council agenda from Monday night yeah it's December 5th so is it the budgeting process to make it 1130 we also had negotiations about lot 7D ah 7D is back so for anybody that's interested in that the project is continuing to progress and I imagine Eric will get into it as much as you can yeah I mean I guess I would just say yeah it's still moving forward it's slow it is still moving forward I haven't been too involved in the discussions just because I'll be the permitting entity on it so I've been kept at an arms length on purpose but yeah there is still a proposal moving forward 7D is the furthest eastern parcel right? the dirt lot behind CCV yep it's currently being used for parking yep so earlier today some information went out to the business community about some proposed changes to our sidewalk use regulations in the city currently we allow for businesses to request use of the sidewalks any business in the city can do this request use of the city sidewalk space for seasonal activities mostly it's been happening down in the circle but there are other businesses in the city that use those so we've been having some staff has internally been having some discussions and some concerns about how that space is used and just getting a little bit better handle on the administration and review of those applications as they get more complicated and people are looking for more space and wanting to push the boundaries a bit so we have drafted some new information provided that out to the business community so that they have a sense of what's coming that will be on a future council agenda so I think it's for sure so probably not till later in January at the earliest we'll start in on those discussions but just to give you a... Eric is the boardwalk considered sidewalk down there? it technically is, yeah where waterworks is that's technically considered well I don't know if it's considered sidewalk but that is under our sidewalk use application I hope the city is making a good amount of money on that so that is one of the other things we're looking at so for example waterworks and also McKee's are they've got kind of a different scenario because it's not really sidewalk per se as much as it's city property so we're looking at what we should do as far as some sort of licensing agreement or leasing agreement for instances like that so I think they're both great spaces I'm glad they're being used yeah absolutely but I hope the city is making money on it that's all yep we're making money on all of them so not a lot of money we do charge a fee I should say can we pay more on it? we do charge a fee for use of the sidewalk so it's not free for the businesses waterworks basically has a second restaurant out there another item to update you all on is you may remember the proposed development at Main and Mansion for the old mansion house and then the property next to it November 19th the permit expired so there's no longer a development proposal that has a valid permit for that project so anything they want to do on that site they have to come back through the whole process they have to start the application process over and comply with our current regulations that are in place you may recall we did make some changes in the form-based code recently that do impact that project so it would probably have to go through a complete redesign for any type of future development what was the developer for that one? the owner was Jeff Mungin okay did he sell it? I believe he was trying to I don't believe that he did but I think he was trying to sell it as a basically as a permitted project but wasn't there a partnership agreement with another developer that would take over the he would still be owner but there would be another firm developing the parcel that I don't know I'm not sure what the logistics of it were as far as the agreements in place but I do know that there were there were other folks that were I believe trying to purchase it I don't know what the terms of that sale would have been is there any movement on the it was called like the the waggoner block that was east of CCD that went dormant and then it kind of yep similar situation that's also they had a permit back I think in 2016 they were issued a permit but that has long since expired as well so there's been no new application on that project it's odd though because it's been reoffered though like and there's there's architects renderings but there's actually no permit in place correct there's concepts out there on the websites or on websites if you you can find them and actually I believe Abby and Sarah both shared some of those concepts but there is no permit there is no project that is able to be built on that site at this time the other item I wanted to update you all on and this eludes back to what Mike had mentioned about the design review standards and why the interest in now keeping the language in place we did receive a an application for demolition of the St. Stephen's church that has come in there is still an outstanding item that needs to be included with that application before we can consider it a complete application and conduct our review because it's only an application for demolition it will fall under those standards of design review so it will get issued a zoning permit presuming everything is in place it will get issued a zoning permit which carries all the same standards as any other zoning permit does so with the property will be posted before any permit will be issued on that site and then because it's demolition there's other standards that they need to follow with I believe it's with the EPA and the state office of whatever I don't remember what state environmental office it is but related to air quality and kind of a time frame for when any action can occur on that property so still more to come on that but they will get issued a zoning permit or sorry presuming everything is complete and they provide the rest of the documentation a zoning permit would be issued property posted rights to appeal to the developer review board like any other zoning permit is but like I said we still need the environmental report on that I did reach out to the state division of historic preservation because while that building is not listed in the survey for the rectory building and the state basically said that that's not enough of a connection to consider it historic the property owner could request a determination of eligibility in which case that would put in some other standards if it is determined to be eligible it would kick in some other provisions of our regulations that would require a qualified historic preservation consultant to make a determination that the building is no longer contributing or eligible for listing if they did not make that finding if they said it is still eligible then we would not be able to issue a zoning permit so or a demolition permit for that matter as well so just so that you all are aware that is that has come into the city Eric I don't think I followed you are you saying that the place next to it is considered historical and not the church that's correct as far as the listings in the national in the state register sorry the rectory building is listed but the church building is not when the survey was done the church building was either not quite old enough to be eligible or was just barely old enough to be eligible and so they did not survey it it was like 49 years I'm sorry Abby what the listing is enough to stop the demolition of the residents unless they get it delisted and then it can be demolished and is the permit that they're seeking right now to demolish both of them the permit they're seeking is just for the church because that's as far as I understand it as part of the sale agreement is that the church needs to be demolished and that's actually coming from St. Francis the parish is saying that there was a letter that came along with the application that from St. Francis basically saying we've decontocrated the church it is now considered a vile use as canon law uses that term vile use it doesn't mean that it's somehow V-I-L-E yes that's technically that's the technical term for a church that's no longer usable for church services and worship and has been deconsecrated so it's in vile use now which doesn't have the same meaning as you're thinking it does but because of that because of that the church is basically saying that they are fully supporting the demolition of this and the demolition is needed so to ensure that the building can't be used for anything contrary to the church to the church's beliefs so they're the ones that are are basically requiring this as a part of the same can I ask who wrote the letter? one of the pastors at the church father somebody father Royer I believe that's correct so anyway so that is we have the application like I said it's not currently complete we still need the environmental assessment on the lead and asbestos and then because it's coming in sorry this is what I meant to also add because it's coming in as just a demolition so in the past as a little bit of background in the past when a property has requested demolition like with the mansion house like with the property at the hoods crossing at the old 223 East Allen Street it was accompanied with a redevelopment proposal so technically on our regulations we would issue a zoning permit on the demolition and on we would issue a zoning permit on the demolition and the redevelopment the zoning permit would cover both because the proposal included redevelopment in this case there is no proposal for redevelopment so we would be issuing a zoning permit just on the demolition so in that case again it follows the same standards as any other zoning permit does with posting appeals etc so it's slightly different in that regard where those other buildings that were historic in nature received a review from the state with a memorandum of agreement with the division of historic preservation on how to mitigate the how to how to mitigate the demolition basically in this case it's there's no development proposal so it's just for the demolition right now which could carry some adverse consequences when they go to redevelop it's what they call anticipatory demolition so that may cause some issues in the future when they when and if they do submit a proposal for redevelopment but that would occur at the state and potentially federal level depending on what they're proposing and what potential funding they might be seeking so it's not a guarantee like I said it could be appealed but the application has come in I'm just going to point out here this actually dovetails with what we were discussing earlier about where the complementary structure is important but again that's a situation where the complementary structure is not listed so there's no it doesn't carry any protections or any I don't want to say protections but it doesn't carry the same quote value as the listed structure or the survey structure this is where relying upon the state survey fails Winooski for sure and we have no language of our own I'd say we'd like to say that I guess other than that it requires a zoning permit that's where we go to at this point demolishing it is a permanent like we it sounds like as long as they have their paperwork in place that that's a permanent thing to do and even if there's like some outcry to save that building it's that doesn't impact whether the demolition gets permanent or not well I guess I would say yes and I guess it depends on what it is I mean there's been a lot of talk on front porch forum about what to do with the church that's obviously up to the owner of the church what they do with it you know there's nothing to stop somebody from appealing the permit and going through that process which then goes to the development review board for their hearing and then potentially that decision could get appealed as well so it's I guess it depends on what the process is and that's a place going forward but demolition is not a prohibited activity in the city and this brothers and sisters they handy do they own a bunch of properties in when you ski yes they do and like any we would be familiar I mean others are probably familiar but any big properties that you can name I'm just not familiar with what other properties they own in the city oh boy that's a good question well so they I believe are the they have the proposal in for the the hugaboo properties which are the 379 381 Main Street up by the school they have conditional approval to redevelop those properties they own I think they own property the corner of I want to say Main Street Steven Street they own a lot of different properties in the city I they also own in front of the school that oh right care right and the old gas station and I think the building behind yep they have a very extensive real estate portfolio in the city yeah they own the 401 Main Street the laundromat behind it and the kind of daycare apartment to the north of it in front of the school as well if you if you use the regional planning commissions arc viewer for Winooski you can click on all the different properties and see who owns them and you'll you'll see their name come up quite a bit quite a bit yeah okay I'll check it out and we don't know do we have any idea I don't know maybe you can answer this are they planning to do any kind of affordable housing there does anybody know anything I've had zero conversations with them about what what they want to do or what they think they want to do there's there's been nothing there's been no conversations that I've had anyway on on what what a redevelopment of that site might look like did you and did you see that there's an article in Vermont Digger aren't you read that if you had it talks about what they plan to do they plan to do housing is what it said well that's about all they could do because it's in the residential zoning district right so I'm assuming yes the incentives that we just cast if they don't choose to pick up on those they can just do market market value correct yeah I mean it would be it would limit probably what they the amount of density they could put there the number of units and depending on what they do I mean there's there's different options but it's yes and only one of our incentives deals with affordability too so they could take advantage of one of them without yeah without that it was sort of what we talked about you know D kept showing up and telling like when you see housing authorities are really get shot at this and this is sort of what they need to make it work and you know we even like pitch like if you don't get it and it was like no no no we have plenty of money so I must say I am a bit disappointed that the city didn't take a more assertive lead on coming up with a solution for this yeah this was brought up many many times at our meetings so I hate to end on that note but that is the only other I think that's the only other update that I had alright thanks for your update and I would just kind of follow that for anyone that attending city council meetings really makes a big difference so to the extent that you can email all the counselors any thoughts or opinions before council meetings approach or dropping in to share thoughts about a particular agenda item it has value so we have a liaison which is the mayor as Joe was saying we had a lot of conversations about this did this get back to the rest of the council how we felt about this I would say that I have not been informed I can't speak for the other counselors okay other business the only other thing I wanted to bring up is so we this is our only meeting in December so we will resume meeting again in January so our next meeting would be January 12th the second second Thursday again will be hybrid and actually that would be the last opportunity so starting January 15th the legislation that allowed for remote only meetings expires so we will have to go back to hybrid meetings unless the legislature re-ups that that legislation so January 12th will be our next meeting and unless we discuss at that meeting otherwise the intent anyway was to go back to two meetings a month in January so we would be meeting again then on January 26th I believe so that's all I had for other business anyone else have any other business okay Siri seeing or hearing none then I would ask for a motion to adjourn okay I found this on the website sorry somehow my phone picked that up I'll be listening I don't think Siri can make the motion Mike sorry did I hear Joe make a motion to adjourn Abby made the motion Abby made a motion well what can I say and who seconded it I don't know if we had a second I think Connor wants to second it I'll second it see it in his face okay all this in favor okay I mean we're opposed and we're staying thank you all thank you Brent for showing up Eric thank you for all your work and everyone hope you have a great holiday season see you after the new year if not sooner