 So we're going to take a look and then we'll get a motion as that comes. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Okay. Motion by Stephanie second by bar. All those in favor of approving the agenda. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. So moving on, we have the comments from the chair and first, I'd like to thank Aaron for covering last week. I really appreciate that. And it looks like the big item from last week was discussion of the on the record review change or potential change. And it looks like everyone left it or the commission left it with. Consulting with a MAPA expert. After the DRB seems to have. Had a not, not such a warm reception to it. Is that the right characterization of what happened? We're also going to try and meet with the DRB, right? Yes. So I, I did talk with Bill Fraser. A little bit about it. And. And he certainly could see both sides as well. And he thought it would be good. You know, we were obviously already going to be inviting the DRB. The planning committee. And somebody from another community who has MAPA. So that way we can talk firsthand with somebody and ask questions about how the process works. It doesn't work. And what are the pluses and minuses and. Bill thought that was a good idea. And he also thought inviting city council, or at least some city councilors. Would also be helpful because they have for a number of years had an interest in it. And whatever we learn, they would probably benefit from. So rather than doing it, doing it. More than once. If we were going to invite somebody. We should have city council. So we'll try to set something up. Meredith, who's our DRB. Staff person. Has been busy. So we're, we're looking at some time in, in early January to try to set something up, whether it's on one of your. Nights or somebody else's night to try to fit that in. Okay. Thanks, Mike. That sounds like a. Good discussion for us to have. As far as other things from last week. It looks like there was a discussion. Housing changes do the statutory changes. And just so that I'm clear. The document. With potential amendments to the zoning that you sent out this week, Mike, is it directly related to that? Okay. So that's good. Sorry. And. There was a presentation. As far as other things from last week. It looks like there was a discussion of. Housing changes do the statutory changes. And just so that I'm clear. The document. With potential amendments to zoning that you sent out this week. There was a presentation that capital improvements plan, which would have been. I regret that I missed that. Okay. Well, I don't really have anything else to add. You know, I guess I do have one thing to add actually, and that's just to, to check in with the subcommittees and see how everyone feels about how that's going. I know for the housing, we have. You know, we have a lot of things to do. We have a lot of things to do. We have a lot of things to do. We have a lot of things to do next week. The. Economic development. So committee that I'm also part of. I think it was economic development. We haven't scheduled anything yet. But as for the folks on the other subcommittees, do you, does anyone have any updates? Kirby, did we, did we schedule a meeting for housing? Did I miss something? Nope. I just sent you an email asking you to do it. Okay, great. Yeah. And, and transportation. We were going to meet this past week, right? But we're going to meet next week or this week. Sorry. Yeah. I'm sorry. I actually. Anyway, I'll email you about it, but I double. I didn't. Sometimes my husband's schedule is. I don't know it. So. I'm not sure I can meet this Thursday. Yeah. Yeah. So we did some sort of modifications. Erin, are you there? Is Erin. Of course. Oh, okay. All right. I just can't see you. So. Yeah. So we made some changes that. For some simplifications, hopefully, and we had a really good discussion. So we just need to kind of take that one step further. So. We will meet sometime in the coming week, maybe then. Some time in the next, in the coming week. Why don't you suggest to have some times actually that work for you. Okay. And I'm also happy. I mean, if you and Aaron just want to finish it up, I feel like I have a chance to. I don't, I just don't have strong on the transportation issue, particularly. It seems like. It seems like we had general agreement about which, or I agreed with what you and Aaron. So anyway, but I'll send out an email. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. That's good. Okay. Okay. Do we have any of the other subcommittees that. Have anything to report? Including. I'm also interested right now in finding out how things are going as in. If people think this is worthwhile. Because it's worth checking up on. I don't want people to feel like they're wasting their time. I think it's worthwhile. I just sort of feel like, I mean, personally, I sort of lost momentum on it. But now. You know, maybe with. The coming new year and things looking up from here. I've gotten. I'm more invested in it. I'm more invested in it. I'm more invested in it. I'm more invested in it. I'm more invested in it. I'm more invested in it. I'm more invested in it. I'm more. And. I'm more invested in it. I'm more invested in it. I guess I feel like we can make some really good. Progress. I think that that question might be answered a little more. Concise. Once we. Here from like about the great. Oh yeah. Yeah, it's a good point. Yeah, that's a good point. The continuity. Instructions group has not been again, but we showed. I think so. It's been like, over a month, but yeah, I don't remember. I can't remember either. I mean, I can certainly go back and check. But I thought so, but we did, we had talked about providing more examples of like, outreach language and we have not done that yet. Right. I don't think I have anything for Marcella. I think, well, I need to just go back and look at it. If it did go out, it probably went out through Mike. But yeah, I honestly don't remember. I will go. Yeah, I don't remember seeing it, but maybe it's definitely possible that I missed it. Yeah, it's the same. Once we have a chance to look at that, I think it might be helpful as a group to take a look at it as the flow group and say, is this going to work for all the chapters and. And if so, we can make new tabs for each one and. And go through the same process, but. Okay, so let's plan to make that an item on the agenda for next time. All right, Mike. So specifically what is the item. To review. To, to check in, more or less to check in with the continuity and structure subcommittee. Okay. Can we, can we name that committee of the stroke and white committee. Just feel like it. Just sounds a little. Is that perhaps because that's, that doesn't sound fun to me. If that's, if that's an element of style. Yeah. Yeah. But it's more than, than just written style. So. Oh, well. All right. So we should try to meet again too before the next meeting. Okay. So John, did you have anything. You can shake your head if not. Nope. All right. Well, that's it for the chair. I don't have anyone on. The meeting who has something. Other than something on the agenda. Now's the time to speak up. I don't know who server is. Okay. So it's just part of the orca. Okay. It looks like there's no one else here then. All right with that, we can consider the minutes from November 23rd. If everyone take a look at those. And I move approval of the minutes. I'll second. Second from Barb. Does anyone need a minute to take a look? Speak now. I do just have a quick question. But maybe after we approve them because it's really outside of the. Minutes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Hi. Any opposed. Okay. And so that was a motion by Ariane and the second by Barb. And it passed. Barb, what was your thing? No, I just had a question for Mike. If he ever. Discovered. That listing for buildings. I believe it was under the energy section. Of, you know, it was $274,000. So it was a big line item. On the CIP. But it didn't. No one seems to know what it was. Did you find out anything, Mike? No. I texted. The mayor and also Kate. Stevenson, but they, they were going to look into it. I didn't know if you'd heard anything. Okay. Just curious. Thanks. No, I mean, it could be. As you said, all the money was spoken for. It's just where somebody probably put it. For purposes of this year's budget. Yeah, it was just my guess. My guess is a majority of that or all of that. Is from the roof project. Because they had to put the standing seam roof on the roof of city hall. They put standing seam on the roof. Yes. Oh, interesting. Okay. All right. So yeah, that could have been. I just was curious as to why it appeared under what I thought was the energy section. So I guess it. Yeah. Thanks. That could be it. All right. And with that, we. Are on to an update of the zoning hearing. Scheduled for January 11. So Mike, would you like to. Take over on that. It wasn't going to spend a lot on this, but I just wanted to let everybody know that the hearing notice did go out. For January 11th. Almost got warned with the wrong date because for some reason I had a calendar that had the 2021 dates wrong for January. Don't see calendars that are wrong often, but. I actually had one. I had next year and. December ended on a. Thursday and then January 2021 started on Saturday. So put all the days off by one. But we got through that. And. So I wanted to get you guys copies of it, but really, there wasn't much else. I was going to go and really get into. Just, I sent you guys copies of the abbreviated. You know, where the line. The red lines were. And I'll take any questions if people have them. Otherwise we'll have a hearing on the 11th to talk about it. So Mike, this included changes that were more than just what was required. By the legislature. These are changes going back to when. How far back. So. These changes, there were three. I'd considered three primary groups of changes. One was the group that we had talked about. Together as a planning commission about Sabin's pasture. And that we made two changes to one to traffic. And one to. The applicability for the planned unit development. And the other two were. I'll call them housing specific ones. There was a chunk of those that were required under state law. Because there were some S to 37 made some changes to. Nonconforming lots, accessory apartments. How we are allowed to regulate. We can't use character of the area. Therefore we took all of them. All the times that we had. Four units and less. As conditional uses and we shifted them all to permitted uses because. We only look at three things under conditional use. Character of the area traffic and. Facilities community facilities. It would never violate the first two. We would never use character of the area and if we're no longer allowed to use character of the area, then we might as well make them permitted uses. So all. All residential uses are now. Going to be permitted up through four unit. If it is allowed in that district. So. That's this. That's part of the housing while we were in working on housing. We also went through and touched on. Some other related housing related pieces. So we had some inconsistencies between. Our table of uses. And our specific uses that are written in text. So we had our list of uses with all the districts and it's a table form. Two dash figure two dash 15. And then we looked at the specific uses section of the zoning. And find that there were uses in there that were residential, that were not on the table. And so. We needed to fix some of those. So we went through and sat down and kind of made things a little more logical. And clean those up. So they weren't required to understand. But there was just some housekeeping. To clean those up. And then I looked at some of the different types of the zoning. That were not included. Which we're moving in that most of it's required. And a couple of it's just cleaned it up. And then a third group or a couple of administrative ones. So every time we go through these. We invariably run into a couple of these that just need to get fixed. There's an inconsistency somewhere. So we went through and. Made a couple of edits. In like section one of the first ones that would be on that strikeout list 1003 or 4 inserts the removal of vegetation in a riparian buffer as a trigger for in the definition of development. And the reason for that is, if something doesn't hit the top. Definition of development, then it doesn't require a permit and therefore you can't put in the requirements and what we had with somebody who came in and wanted to cut down the trees. In the water setback, but they didn't do anything else to trigger a permit, and therefore we couldn't prevent them from doing it. Had they been building a house they would not have been allowed to cut down those trees, but because they were just cutting down the trees, they didn't trigger the definition of development therefore they don't need a zoning permit therefore they were allowed to cut down the trees. And so we just simply said we we we missed one layer of the bucket you need to get it in that first bucket that says if you're going to remove the trees. Removal of trees in a water setback area requires a permit, and now we can catch those projects and that's why that and there are a number of those little things like that, that we went through. We also added in to that same piece, same discussion was a discussion was a was a adding in a provision that went around the VPA listserv was a suggestion that South Burlington had put into theirs on how to address requests for reasonable accommodations so those are if you have an ADA request, how do you handle those and what's the procedure so we thought that was a really good idea. So we built that into this revision. We just felt that would be a good provision to add in. We didn't take theirs we kind of changed it we thought we could make it fit a little better into ours by changing some of the requirements so you'll also see that so there are a number of these little things where we caught. So they're kind of as I said three groups there's the savings, the housing and then these administrative pieces in there. And when we have the presentation on January 11th I'll have PowerPoint now kind of point out more specifically. I think there's a lot of surprises as to what people are approving and then there's also some map, map changes we had to fix, fix two of the maps, because of mistakes that were made. And I think that was a, I had some questions around the accessory dwelling units and what the change was. Our regulations were more permissive than state law, but when I read the edits I didn't quite understand what was happening. Okay, so most of our rules were more flexible. And a couple of changes state law now says that it doesn't have to be a single or one bedroom, a studio or one bedroom it can now be any size. So we had to accommodate that. And I'm just scrolling up to it so I've got the language in front of me. I'm scrolling through I'm noticing a couple of things so as we changed the residential uses we had to fix the parking standards because the parking standards weren't addressing the same things accessory dwelling units. So, so there are a couple of little tweaks so I'm looking at the section three 104 a couple of the tweaks. For people who are here when Brandi was here helping to write everything. She tended to take things out of out of this, the way the statute worded them, and she would reword them in a different way. When we went through later on. For a couple of other places. City Council preferred that if unless it unless there's a reason. Not to we should really replicate. How state law words it so says, you know, one within or two. While Brandi changed it to say within or associated with so that's where that there's a little change there so I've rewarded it a little bit. Within or pertinent to the primary dwelling unit provided the ADU meets all of the following. So we struck an efficiency or one bedroom, because that's no longer can be one of the requirements. So that's the first strike out was to strike out and efficiency or bedroom because now a two bedroom you can you can have a two bedroom ADU under state law. And then the other set of changes that single dwelling unit with the ADU all other applicable requirements for single. So yeah, then a little bit just to help clarify. And then that the ADU meets applicable will dimensional standards and parking requirements and what is it now says is the single dwelling unit with the ADU meets all other applicable elements for single towards without need you most of which are usually dimensional parking kind of help to clean that up a little bit. The big change is really just that first one under number one in efficiency or one bedroom apartment is struck. Do you have any more questions for him job. No, it's just not exactly I remember it sending it to the city council but I guess city council might have changed changed things. And then the other question I had or maybe issue wanted to bring up to the planning commission that I think we discussed in the past was on the parking minimum parking requirements and which are only I think applicable and certain zoning districts and whether or not it made sense just to toss them. And I brought up in the housing subcommittee. Maybe that's what you're remembering. Because I think I reached out to you to ask your opinion on that too. So that was it was just an item and brought forward and kind of plan to, you know, to have what others think about that. Yeah, I mean I think if our intent is to promote infill and density that it doesn't make sense to have parking minimums. So just for specific districts wasn't it, john it wasn't just a blanket removal of the requirements. That's the current state. I mean, right that's the current one at last last go around. We couldn't get everyone on board with tossing them. And so we we sort of split the baby and the weird expression I don't know where's but but but anyway, but I think I don't know I just recall in the past like year or two us maybe coming up a few times and most people thinking, you know, we're not accomplishing a lot with minimum parking requirements, at least nothing really, I think that's in the public interest. So let's just, they probably do more more harm in taking up discussion time and and having that checked off and various staff reports that Mike writes or writes to the DRB than anything. So we can just make it easy and say there are no minimum parking requirements, I would be in favor of that and I don't know if now is is like a good time to do that if we're proposing something anyhow. For residential. This is strictly for residential I'm not clear about how extensive it is that you're suggesting. I would I would propose getting rid of the whole whole section. Which, which section is it. It is. It's on page 10 of the PDF, but it's figure three dash 13. Yeah, okay. I just found it too. Well, I think it's a big, a big move to remove the entire chart, just kind of basically what you're suggesting right. I think it would take more discussion. If it was just for residential that might be might be a different story. So I think where the balancing act comes in is where there's a lot of on street parking. There's actually a lot of districts where there is not on street parking or where on street parking could be it is very sparsely used. It's where you really don't need to have parking standards because think about the rural district. So if you lived on Elm Street out past the would be old Woodbury College out there you go past the nature center, you can't park on the street so it doesn't really make a lot of sense to have parking standards because you, you're forced to fit all your parking on your property and so it becomes its own limited limiting factor. It's only where there's on street parking and where there's a lot of on street parking a place like, you know, the parts of Berry Street, or, you know, just outside the meadow on Elm Street, where a project doesn't have problems. But that's, you know, nobody has a right to on street parking so it's, it's, you know, it's a policy question. The only issue that would come up with removing the chart is that we do have a requirement that tries to fit people into that window. So we have minimum standards that are, you know, pretty minimum. Most projects are coming in above that minimum because for economics they want it. You know, we've had some housing projects come in that are looking at, you know, one 1.25 cars per parking spaces per dwelling unit, which, it's good they were the developers are very happy to see that our numbers are requirements were so low because they weren't forced to put in more than they wanted to. So that was a good sign that they were kind of in that place they're happy to see our numbers were so low that they weren't going to be at the minimum, they were going to be above the minimum but only by a little bit. The issue is our zoning also has a buffer at the other end that says if you want to put in more than double, then you need to go to the DRB and you need to demonstrate a higher level you have to justify why you would need more than say two cars, you know, if you're putting in 20, 20 unit residential building, then you can, you have to put in at least 20 parking spaces, but you can't put in more than 40. And if you want to put in more than 40, you need to do a higher thing. So if we eliminate the table altogether, we also lose that upper bracket, where if somebody is going to be coming in to put in unnecessarily a large amount of parking, then we wouldn't have the ability to address that. Now, maybe that doesn't come up very often or maybe it wouldn't come up very often but just just so people are aware that would be another place where it could be impacted by removing the minimums. I mean, we could we could change it to maximum staple. I think that would be fine but right now the only thing we would be accomplishing is telling someone that they can't build a house or residential structure, because we think that they don't have enough parking in a place where we are trying to encourage more housing. So we're saying you can't build more housing here because you don't have parking. It's really the only thing this is accomplishing. It's not creating any more parking spaces for anyone. It's not helping parking situation or you know, it's not like it's creating a parking garage or anything. It's just saying you can't build something because you don't have enough parking. You have to provide that in your site plan that you have to provide that you have that off-street parking because we can't plan on developments having access to on-street parking, which is what you said before, Mike, right? We don't have a right to on-street parking and on-street parking might go away. Hopefully, at some point the on-street parking would go away. So, you know, it's a trade-off then if we don't say, well, you need to have on-street parking, and oh, here we're going to take away your on-street parking, even for projects that might be too distant to be able to have reasonable access to downtown. I mean, on-street parking is like by far the most efficient type of parking there is to be pushing things off-street. It's just putting down more pavement and requiring more space for cars that is not really, I don't see how this furthers any goal that's articulated in the plan. Nowhere in the plan are we saying like we need people to create more pavement in parking for cars on their properties. That's not... No, but a continuous piece of all of the planning for more bike lanes and everything else is removing on-street parking. So, we can't say that we will always have on-street parking. We might not. And just to know that that, you know, that we can't depend on that as a given. And so, if we're saying, oh, well, they'll just park on the street if they're making a delivery if, I mean, you know, anyway, there are all kinds of different options here. And I think residential does potentially have a different need than necessarily some of the other uses. So, to just kind of toss out the whole table without discussing it further, I think, is a problem. So, I think for me, when I thought about this issue, you know, putting on my policy hat, you have to make assumptions when you start to try to regulate parking that you know may not end up matching reality. But it's a big risk when we go to tell people how much parking they need when in reality is probably something different. And then you... And then when I kind of juxtapose that with the idea that this is the kind of thing that the market actually works out, where a renter is not going to agree to move into someplace if the landlord tells them that your parking isn't reliable or, you know, or if it's clear to the renter that there's no reliable parking that meets their needs. So, it just feels like we're regulating in the abstract and then... But then the market's going to work it out anyway. So, that's where I'm left with like this just doesn't make sense as policy. But if we have a rental occupancy rate or vacancy rate of less than 1%, then renters don't have choices. You know, if they find something that is in their range, you know, in their income range, they're not going to be able to say, oh, well, I can't park my car. So, therefore, I'm not going to take your apartment. They're going to take the apartment and then they're going to, you know, have to figure out how they get to their job in barrier or wherever. Not having the parking allows that rental apartment to be more affordable and for us to create more. There's a significant cost to creating a parking space. Like I have a friend in town and this always makes me laugh where he complains. He's like, well, it's really annoying that I don't have a parking space for my apartment. So why don't you move to a different apartment? And he's like, well, is it so much cheaper than the other apartments? And I figured out a place where I can park my car. And that's like perfect. Like he has a more, he has choice and he has a more affordable apartment and he's figured something out. So I think people will get creative and find solutions. That's what we, I think we want to see. And most times I think the market will, people will build probably more parking than they think they need. But right now it's basically a big cost on additional housing units that we're imposing. Well, I mean, it does take consideration. I would not say it was extremely large cost. We had rental units that required parking spaces. And yes, we don't require more than one parking space, but I think to just, I mean, and I would be interested in knowing what people are doing. You know what I've heard anecdotally if they don't have parking is they park in the parking garage overnight and then they get up early in the morning and move their vehicle, or they park somewhere, you know, but now we have, and now we have the odd and even side parking ban during the winter. So I don't know how that's going to affect on on street parking. It'll be interesting. Once we actually snow. All the units that we have now without parking spaces, would it be preferable to remove those units and replace them with parking so that every unit had a parking or would we prefer to have more housing units and fewer parking spaces. I would rather see the landlords have to provide not provide necessarily on site but at least have an accommodation for it and then if the if the tenant doesn't need it. That's all the better but I mean I'd be interested to find out what our people doing, you know what. But if the tenant. Well, we require it. Well, it's pretty rare that a tenant doesn't need it. So anyway, I don't know if this is the time when you want to have that whole discussion, but I think it needs further consideration. Well, if you're done barb. Sure. I mean, I'm in support of what John, I think Kirby are saying I mean I would. I would like to remove it but I, we can't do that for this hearing anyway right because it's not in the motion so. But I'd be interested in, you know, I don't know making some sort of whatever the next, I don't know Kirby what would the next step be, or should we put it on an agenda. I'd be interested in making change. Yeah, you raise a good point about how the, you know, the hearing for the changes before us has already been is it. I, is that right Mike is actually correct that the notice has already been done. We can't make changes tonight or next week, but once January 11 comes and that hearing is open, we are free to make whatever changes we want, including bringing new things onto the table so we can take up new items that get that can then get to the council at that time. So we're not limited specifically to what we have and in fact, I would argue that because we already are amending table. Three dash whatever that's in there that we certainly have already warned that we're making amendments to it and we can make changes before sending it to city council. So we could certainly make changes and I, I don't have any opposition to john's recommendation. I'm just putting out a few things that could come up that we may want to consider. So we wanted to potentially have a discussion to amend the parking we should maybe think about putting that on the next agenda as well just to talk about some of the kind of red lines that we might suggest as a motion at the 11th to go through and say, you know, here's the amended parking section that we want to incorporate into this change. Okay, our next meeting. Yeah, if we, if we have one it'll be the next meeting would be the 28th. That right. Yes. Okay. Yeah, we're planning to meet on the 28th. Okay, yeah, so we'll put that as madden for next time as well. And, you know, we'll plan to proceed like, if we decide to propose something or change anything then we could bring it up in the way that Mike wants, unless anyone has like a problem with going out at that way. I mean, there are just being doubles advocate I mean there's the case that it's, it's, it's a better practice to put it in to put it in the notice for the hearing or even strategically if you think it has a better chance without you know, by putting it out there first. But if no one has a problem will do it next week. That said, any thoughts on that. If you're saying we'll discuss it at our next meeting. Yeah, yeah, I was, yeah, I was throwing out, you know, there's, you know, there's other considerations that was just one point those ask people before we, you know, put it in stone. Okay, we'll plan to talk about next week then. Yeah, I think I think the last time we, john made this suggestion I think it was with the design review proposal and I think we were trying to limit the the amount of potential controversial items so that way we didn't damage the design review because, you know, everybody is going to be in the public is going to be in favor of not having parking requirements. People who have who live in areas with tight on street parking might not want to have that removed so they would like to make other people built parking. Yeah, I think there's a much better time to talk about it. Okay, it's my annual case for getting right about. Okay, it. Maybe it's your final annual case, because it will be. Okay. That sounds good. Do we have anything else. On the zoning changes here. Okay, everybody's good that. We're going to move on to the city plan and discussion of what we plan to do without an MPG. I can start with my thoughts which are that we continue the plan as normal we just put off the digital side of it, because that's what we were planning to do with the MPG money right so it, it sounds like it could just be a delay but we don't have to substantially change the plan other than that. Yeah, I mean that's really what I what I wanted to kind of get back to you all on the planning commission was that we did not get funded for the municipal planning grant, which was going to be kind of our technical help to build things out. And that kind of puts us in a position of. Okay, what's our next. What's our next strategy then. We want to do it in a web format because we're, we want to build this plan out. We've put a lot of work into it. Do we want to shift gears to go to a more conventional traditional document. Do we want to continue to try to do it but in a web format. Do we want to continue to try to do it in this arc GIS arc GIS hub was what I was trying to put it into because the city does have an arc GIS. I think it's going to work great but without the technical pieces. I don't know I haven't done it so I just don't know how hard it's going to be. So I want to kind of kick that out to you guys and hear what thoughts you had. Anyone have anything to say. Just a quick question on the content and as long as it's a not handwritten will be in a good position to potentially move it into a digital format later down the road. Mike was there a sense about why we didn't get the MPG This is the second time right. We haven't gotten one. Are they are they saying we haven't we've gotten enough as Montpelier. Haven't talked to Josh yet. Josh Hanford. So he's commissioner and he'll give me some insight. I do know in general that when you know back when I was young working at the regional planning commissions the MPGs were 800,000 to a million dollars statewide. They were in that in that range. So that's that was quite a bit and then when the financial crisis hit in 2008 2009 everything at the state got hit hard including municipal planning grants and they were cut down to 400,000. And in 2012 they announced they had brought everything back to pre great recession numbers except they hadn't they never brought back the municipal planning grants. So municipal planning grants this year I think we're about 460 480,000 something like that so it basically it never came back. Grant amounts have gone from 15,000 to 2025,000 so there's now more money that's being allocated to projects. So fewer projects are getting approved. In addition to the fact that the money's been cut in half and I think that is what they've weighed and looked at is probably that a number of smaller municipalities that don't have professional staff and they probably would look at somebody like Montpelier and say hey why would we give you guys money when you know we've got the warrants in the weight field weight fields in the in the wood berries of the world who don't have professional staff and move them in. It's that or else my grant writing skills have gotten significantly worse as I've gotten older one or the other. I suspect that you're right Mike. I think I think the perception of need and I can't say I disagree to be honest. No I can't. It would be tough to leave, you know, some of these these smaller towns to kind of get through, especially when we've had a number of changes to state laws. So you've got, you know, these act 171s, these acts for the energy requirements. So there are a number of requirements that are either for municipal plans or for zoning that have gone through in a lot of communities that need to make changes. And I think they just looked and waited that in that way, which is disappointing but understandable. So, yeah, so I think where where a small community used to just go through and readop their plan, they can't, because the state laws have changed. So they're forced forced to go through and do revisions because of the state law changes. How much can we do online then. I mean, basically it was going to give us a lot more interactivity. Having the grant. How much can we do without it. It. One of the art GIS hub is it is really a two way street. You can you think you can think of it as both your way of getting our plan out, but it's also a tool to get information in. It's an interactive tool that that you know you can go through and you you put together these storyboards that let you kind of scroll down and talk about things and provide opportunities for input and it's like when you see, you know, skilled people who are skilled at putting them together, it really is, is really a nice resource and I think very educational, and would really help the public understand. You know what is government I think so many of the issues we have in politics today is I think there's just a group of people who don't understand what government does and how we benefit. They're lives, and I think these, not that they're going to be all going out reading our storyboards but at least having that information out there gives an opportunity for people to understand how government works how it's not really doing blah blah blah just gives them an opportunity to kind of see why we're doing I think people can disagree with it philosophically and politically but at least understand. There's a reason why we have the rules the way we have them and why we do things the way we do them. I think that that's the nice part but I think if, if we don't have that ability to do it we can step back and write out a more of a written document the more traditional document let's say, but it's set up in a way that we know when we're ready. You know, we still don't need to make it a 500 page plan but we can do it shorter with a lot of links, which is what the website was going to be. But talk about everything we can just give a summary with a link to a report. You know, talk about what the complete streets plan is, but we don't have to restate the complete streets plan. And then have a link and we can still do that in a, in a PDF document, whereas somebody would most likely download the document be able to read it and be able to take active hyperlinks through to connect into these other other documents and we can keep it short we can keep it tight. And then when we're ready in a year or two, we can come back and just go and pop that language out and stick it into a into a more dynamic web based document. I think, I think it is that that part will be very hard it's really about getting the right content and in place. I think we focus on that. I could try to help set things up and I, where I won't, where I won't be able to get things done is is is producing the content because they won't just won't have time but if I can at least set up the framework and have people fill in the gaps and we should be able to get get something out. Do you think you're getting something online digital or getting something PDF document. No PDF. We can we can make this digital. Okay. That sounds great to me. Anybody else have anything. So it's going to be up to our structure or subcommittee then to make sure that the framework that you're talking about john is is put in place. So we're following a framework that will easily be digital. Is that right. I think that'll be part of it. And I think it, it'll be iterative as well. So I think just a quick push to get something out and, and it'll be rough and ugly, but it'll be something to respond to and that I think will help people or, or allow us to go back and forth and make sure that whatever we are working towards our producing is what we want it to be. Rather than trying to create the, you know, complete the format in a vacuum thinking we've got it all right and then, and then doing all of that work and then ending up with something that we don't feel great about. So if that makes any sense, I think, once we have content to work with, we can shape it into something online and not not wait for it to be perfect but just get something. And then I think that'll help us understand what needs to change or how we might, you know, if we if we just do one chapter let's say or, or ideally actually I think it would be to because the, the benefit of this or what we're trying to do is integrate them so that a whole bunch of silos. So maybe if we work with two chapters that have some overlap and just put get that in front of the planning commission, we can talk about what if it makes sense what we like what we don't if there's value added there or if we're just doing something because it's kind of cool. Yeah, I think we just want to make sure that as we, you know, bring forth the content that it's in a framework, a format that works. So that's, that's all I want to have some clear idea about. You already have a bit of a template right. Yeah, I don't know how much of a template that I've seen for the text part, but invite me to the next style, and you know the continuity and style committees just so I know what I'm working on. I think that's not the rest of us to to. Yeah, go ahead, Barb. No, just that that's that's it. Yeah, we, we, you know, we'll be work we need to work closely with Mike and like we, I mean I think we're all aware of that I don't really need to say it but we have to work closely with Mike obviously throughout this I mean, he has he has his vision, you know, we have members who have their own different visions. Everyone that thinks a little different a little fuzzy about right now but it'll work out as we start to get something down. But yeah, we should make sure we're moving Mike in on everything obviously when it comes to the structure part. So, so john do you think that there is something a rough format. Well we have the table. The template tables that we've pulled together that I think will be a strong base for and allow a lot of flexibility for what we what we produce. Can you send out a link to those again because it seems like it was a long time ago. This is the same thing that Marcel was talking about sending out earlier right. Okay, yeah. All right, so yeah, we just haven't seen it yet. Okay, great. So many get said to me I can send it to everybody. Yeah, I can do that after this. And that's most of where we're at with that when I'm meeting with the, I met with the Conservation Commission today. We're getting close on the natural resources chapter so that will be another one that we will be able to put into the into the put on to your plate and then get wrapped up. And then we're really just down to a handful of chapters were halfway done with the community services. We still have public safety, I don't know how that's going to be worded public safety community justice emergency services, I don't know how we, they're all the same basket and how we title that chapter, and land use. Land use will be ours I think we can work on land use once we have the natural resources chapter done, because that's an important layer of information that we need to kind of go through and do our, you know, a generalized land use. And I think we did a lot of our land use work when we put together our, our zoning, a lot of those zoning neighborhoods really kind of broke the city down into different little pieces that we don't need to be that fine grain for. We can generalize it a little bit out to get our land use map. But we can talk about that after the public hearing is over, because it'll have a meeting in January to talk about their final set final changes. So about the land use chapter. I'd encourage everyone as you're doing the subcommittee work. If you have, you know, big ideas that you're bringing to the subcommittee that think about if it's appropriate for part of our land use chapter discussion, even if it doesn't end up in that chapter. I mean, that'll be a time for us. I think it would be a good opportunity for us to open, open it up very broadly our discussions on things like this parking discussion that we had earlier. We can bring things like that up during the land use chapter discussion. And I'm never opposed to us. Instead of planning on doing something just being more efficient and just doing it. So that's some possibilities to at least I, I'm open to that. Why put something in the plan when we could even more easily just change the zoning now and achieve that goal. So, so those are the things on my mind when we get to the land use chapter. And so I invite everyone to bring your ideas. Yeah, so there were some sections on the, and the transportation plan that the subcommittee talked about that were really specific for specifically addressing land use, which is not necessarily appropriate. We thought in the transportation section, but should be referenced in, in the, in land use or at least should we should be thinking about it so we can keep flagging those things and bringing them forward. Yeah, there's a tight connection between transportation land use, you know, obviously you can't have, you know, high density walkable, if you don't, you know, if you don't have the sidewalks and the infrastructure to support that. I think that's part of the balance. That's, that's there. And then, as John points out, we can't have all the parking and basically push everything back out. You know, you, you automatically reduce density by converting space to parking. So that's the best way to make medium and low density is by having lots of parking spaces. So you kind of have this balancing act between getting getting high density without having the impact of vehicles. And some of it will balance itself out people who don't need cars. The parking cars are, are, you know, a necessary evil in a lot of cases, people can't afford them, but they can't live without them so they have to figure out how to live and have them so getting high density lets people take, take advantage of opportunities that aren't available in low density. So, but also then having transportation options that they can use so that they can survive, you know, get around without a car, get access. And I'm noticing too that in the housing section there is a reference specifically to, you know, housing neighborhoods being within a quarter mile, half mile of various things like parks and recreation and all of that. So all of those kinds of things do certainly impact us on the land use basis too. Okay, that all sounds great. Does anyone have anything else to add before we adjourn? Especially related to the city plan. That's the item we're discussing. Yeah, so getting, getting to the template for, for John's idea, we might be able to put together, I might be able to work to put together at some point, you know, not right away but soon, maybe a little bit of a historic resources. There is no subcommittee for that one so we can put together a quick one and that can help as one of your two kind of chunks that we can start with as a kind of a trial chapter. That's the one we use for, because it's a small and concise chapter we use that for the implementation strategy. That was why we did that one first. It's a pretty tight topic so we can get a chance to kind of put it in there before we jump into a housing or a transportation. Sounds like a plan. Anyone else have anything else to be plan related? Okay. Any other comments on the motion to adjourn? We want to just check in real quick on the 28th. Everybody's good with that. It's kind of a funky time between the Friday before is Christmas and everybody good with 28th still. I'm not going anywhere. Yeah. Exactly. I'm probably 90% on that. I'll make it work. Yeah, I'll just have to get the agenda out early that week, which is next week. Okay. Anything else? I'll move to adjourn. Okay. Second. Second by motion by area on second by John. All in favor of adjournment. All right. All right. Thanks everybody. See you next time.