 any changes to the agenda? I have nothing. Okay. Hearing none let's move on to and I don't have the agenda in front of me so I'm weighing it here so if I mess up just let me know. Approval of the minutes or actually a public comment. Public comment, right. Anyone out there from the public? There is no public in attendance currently actually the mayor and Ruth just joined as well so they should be coming over but yeah there's no public here. Okay and hi Christine and Ruth is our liaison from the whatever. Yep commission on inclusion and belonging. I can see a shadow of you Ruth. Yeah sorry I don't do overhead lights and I have migraine so. Okay no problem yeah you're there. All right so I think the next thing is probably approval of the minutes of last meeting. That's correct. Yep minutes were included with the agenda packet so happy to take any comments or questions. Any comments or questions? I guess actually before we get into that if I can Mike since I know some folks don't like to vote on minutes if they were not at the meeting so since Sarah and Connor were the only two in attendance that are here I don't know Brendan how you feel about voting on minutes that you did not for a meeting you didn't attend or similarly Mike. I'm okay I'm okay voting on it because I mean technically we can because if if Sarah and Connor are good with them. Yeah I wouldn't prefer to abstain I guess you know I wasn't there so I don't want to make representations and I think it's accurate but this is yeah. Okay well I'll make a motion to accept the minutes. I'll second. Okay is there any further discussion? Kristine any thoughts on the minutes they look okay to you? Okay so all in favor please say I or raise your hand and I'll say I to get them passed and no no's and an abstention from Brendan. Okay perfect. Okay great thank you. Okay so I guess the next thing is moving into our business and are we going to go through your report? So the first item is actually a approval or sorry authorization of the chair to sign off on a resolution for a municipal planning grant so included with the packet was a just a quick narrative of a grant application that we are submitting actually our housing initiative director Jasmine Hurley is actually submitting this application to the state to the agency of commerce and community development for a municipal planning grant to do the the grant would be for an equitable housing needs assessment for the city basically the purpose is to enhance our understanding of Winooski's existing housing inventory and the effectiveness in meeting residents needs and proposing a comprehensive approach involving in-depth community engagement and stakeholder meetings the ultimate goal would be to formulate recommendations for the city ensuring that preservation and enhancement of housing accessibility for marginalized communities has done particularly in the ongoing redevelopment of the gateway districts so this is this is something we do every year well I shouldn't say we do it every year but we have in years past done this this is an annual grant that the state offers to communities so this would be a it requires a 10% match the grant amount would be for $30,000 total we are proposing a $12,000 match so more than the 30 sorry more than the 10% but basically what we're looking for tonight is just authorization for Mike to sign off on the resolution city council did review this at their previous meeting and signed off on it from their side so it's more of an administrative thing but it does require authorization for the planning commission chair to sign off on the application okay does anyone have any questions about that if not oh Brendan did you I'm just just curious Eric does the does doing a bigger match like make it more more likely that we'll get the grant it can it can yeah because that means that there's less of the state funds that need to be expended to to meet up the to meet the total amount that's necessary or that we're asking for so so yeah we're basically asking for a lower amount from the state to do the same work so that does that does I believe it does increase the points in their review okay thanks yep yeah sounds good to me okay if folks are okay with it I look for a motion to approve or authorize me to sign it on behalf of the planning commission I'm happy to second second okay any further discussion hearing none all those in favor of the motion please say aye or raise your hand hi anyone opposed no abstention so that passes okay okay thank you so Mike the Eric I'll stop in oh I was going to say the resolution will be waiting for you at the at the front desk whenever at your convenience it's there right now so if you can stop in tomorrow that'd be great if I don't forget I will do that okay so are we moving on to the report of the the the changes that the council yes yeah so the next item is basically re-approving the statutory report on the suite of amendments that you've already forwarded on to city council because there were several changes that were made by council you're the way that statute is the way the statute reads is that the planning commission needs to basically re-approve the report you're not looking to review the changes in fact though you did I did walk through the changes with you at your meeting on September 14th what was being proposed basically council went along with those changes with a few modifications they most of the changes were related to the bicycle parking so they made a compromise on the minimum required bicycle parking so they left the standard at for residential they left the standard at one space per dwelling unit they left the standard for community cultural community center cultural facility and religious facility at one space per thousand gross square feet but they did modify this the minimum for funeral homes from one space per thousand to one space per two thousand otherwise the other items related to the location of short-term bicycle parking that again that we discussed previously were included with that suite of amendments so again it's really just the reauthorization of this report or re-approval of this report to comply with statute so Eric as I was going through it I picked up one or two things that I had missed before just and I think there's just clarification um let me just run those by if I could sure so um I'm going to page 26 or article 4.2 h no I I guess it is approximately 16 driveways yep hang on let me uh I'm going to pull this up so we can all look at it together here yeah give me one second you said page 26 Mike yeah okay it's 4.2 I yep so as I recall the the um what we're trying to do is allow folks to move that setback encroaching the setback of the four feet right so and so be a one foot setback yeah and this language actually already exists it's just being moved from a from an earlier section it's currently under uh item e yeah so so here's my here's my comment yep so it says um I'm going to the third line driveways may encroach into the required five foot setback up to four feet from the property line and as I read that from the property line to me makes it sound like you you can go four feet from the property line so it's only a one foot encroachment I think from the property line I think should be taken out of there and I'm going to Brendan what do you think as an attorney how's that for throwing you under the bus no actually Mike I think that is the way that's intended to be written because that gives so the way this is set up is that you can do that encroachment kind of automatically but if you wanted to encroach any further then it needs to go through the review process with uh I believe it's conditional use approval unless I'm thinking of a different section well what I'm I guess the way I read it was we're allowing them to encroach into four feet of the setback and the way this reads it says encroach four feet from the property line so it sounds like it's measured from the property line you know what I mean I mean I don't I the only reason I'm bringing it up is because if it goes through and that's interpreted that way it could change what we've intended to do well like I said this is what's in the regulations currently okay so we're not looking to change we know there was no changes proposed here other than where it's located in the draft yeah no I understood I've just I'm just I guess I'm at the at the 12th hour questioning that if that language is correct right well I tell you what maybe that's something we can flag for a future amendment okay potentially or for future revisiting so that we're not potentially holding up this process sure yeah that's fine I mean I don't think I I don't think in the time that I've been here I've ever used this provision for anything so yeah it would be like to create a driveway so I read this as like applying if you're trying to like alter a driveway of a non of an existing non-conforming lot to add more parking space is that is that right Eric basically yeah to allow for two side-by-side spaces it's very specific so probably I doubt it comes up very much right the only other thing that I saw today going through is in definitions and again I think it's not calling for a major change but just clarification probably on my part party wall yep on page 97 yep so a party wall is an internal shared wall that separates one dwelling from another I mean a party wall can be a shared wall between two buildings you know like downtown all those buildings along the west side of main street I see what you're saying party walls so I don't know if just taking out one you know the word dwelling maybe it doesn't need to be changed I don't know I just I think so I believe this definition is specifically in relation to the definition of two-unit dwelling yeah so this was included because of the definition of two-unit dwelling so let me go back up to that to where we're actually we're using the term party wall in that definition yeah so it's really intended to reference that it's a separation between dwellings but we will be revisiting the definitions again okay in the near future so that is something we can clarify if we need to okay Eric is party wall used in in any other definition other than two-unit dwelling I don't believe it is no okay okay sorry about that folks that's what happens when I come back into a meeting well every time you read these things over though you always find another little thing you go gee how did everybody not think about that I mean I'm just for the beast so I wouldn't worry about it I think a lot of these things sit buried and no one pays them any attention for long periods of time this is the nature of it yeah yeah yeah okay Eric so we just need to re-approve this anything else that you want to add no that's that's basically it this is just for the re-approval per statute so that it can go back to council with basically saying that the planning commission has approved the updated report okay any other questions or comments probably if I read it and I might but yeah so I want to make a motion to approve the the the revised report I'll make that motion okay is there a second Abby any further discussion I'm happy to second it what's that I'll second it oh Abby did oh Abby raised her hand yeah I can't see her there's no further discussion all those in favor please say I or raise your hand Abby I can't hear you if you're talking Abby I see your lips moving but I can't hear you she I believe she just said she doesn't know what's going on yeah she's what she's doing some trouble shooting okay did you have some comments about this you still can't hear you Abby well she seconded it so yeah she liked it well enough you're good okay all right good so I think I said all in favor and everyone raised their hand so no no's and no abstentions okay thanks Eric all right thank you all so just as a point of reference the uh city council will be having a hearing on this uh November 6th so and I'll mention that again in a minute or under updates what's the next item on our agenda next is beginning a review of the the land use regulations related to the act 47 statute changes oh boy the fun stuff huh here we go so um all right so as I've been talking for several meetings there's change statute changed uh in with the past legislative session through act 47 uh basically now there are some requirements that municipalities have in particular related to uh dwelling units and uh allowable dwelling units um minimum density requirements and parking requirements so I included a memo in your agenda that kind of walked through what I thought were the the pertinent sections of the of the updated statute that are going to apply to us in particular I believe it's the first like three or four sections that are in here um I have the real meat of any changes for the most part up through section four which is included on page six um so everything the other items some of them are more more will have more impact than others some are more just like things like there's a new definition that needs to be added so it's not a critical update for example so I'm gonna share my screen here to start walking through the memo a little bit first Eric can I have just a quick clarity a clarifying question absolutely so this is so we're just walking through like the updates that have to be made from like per statute statute right like this is not a this is not necessarily anything that we need to edit or well we discussed but it still needs to happen right so yes and no so these are updates that need to happen but how they happen I think is really what you all can weigh in on so what I've drafted are some options for what I believe will meet the new statute and how we actually incorporate those changes is really up to you all so so I think it's it's both it's we're reacting or we're responding to the statutory changes but how we actually incorporate that into the regulations is really up to you and so some changes will there's some thresholds that will need to stay within for those changes but we can go we can go further if we want to also Eric yes Mike as as background these are based on your interpretation as well as I'm asking this question from a previous conversation you had as well as communications you've had with other planning professionals around the state for the most part yes and also some discussions with our the city's city attorney to get some interpretations there to that point there's still I would say there's not unanimous consensus among my colleagues on how to interpret some of the changes in act 47 some folks are taking a more conservative approach and some are taking a more liberal approach so I will I'm what I've proposed is what my interpretation is and some of the other folks in our more urban communities around us and kind of what their approaches are as well and what their interpretations are as well which I think we're kind of all in agreement on so there's also guidance from the state which I did share a link in my email to you all about this meeting that provides some some frequently asked questions in the state's responses to with them so and even even with the state what the state is providing there's still some folks that aren't fully in agreement with how the state is interpreting some of the changes as well so I'm suspecting that with the the next legislative session there's well I know there's going to be some new bills that that talk about housing and kind of build off of this but I I'm suspecting that there will be some bills that provide greater clarity on some of these issues so I think it may be that we need to we may be revisiting these as well in the future but this is what what I'm giving you tonight is my interpretation of statute and how it's going to how our regulations need to be updated accordingly so then does the state back to do or us and say we don't like the way you interpreted that and you need to do it this way how does that play out well that's a good question um not being an attorney I don't know exactly what the I don't know exactly what the mechanism is for the state to so let me back up a step I don't know that the state would come in and say that they I mean they may say you've interpreted this incorrectly and you need to change it and we could say well we disagree and then somebody may submit an application that is that is reviewed against those regulations and then they appeal that and then it would be up to the courts to say your regulations are incorrect that's probably how that would happen I doubt the state would come in and say no you have to change this or else we're going to sue you I think it would be from an applicant saying well I don't agree with your interpretation and they appeal a decision of basically the zoning administrator myself to say that you've interpreted this incorrectly and your regulations are wrong and then that would go to the court to be appealed that to every single city and town and state then I mean if they're going to look at potentially yeah okay potentially and Eric can you hear me yep okay great um because there's so much there's so much great area currently and people have different ways of interpreting it are for the most part are jurisdictions holding off until they get clarity to change their zoning regs or are people tackling it now yeah that's a great question I think a lot of people are doing it now because these regulations are all in effect currently um they're they all took effect on July 1st of this year so with the exception of uh the the parking changes those don't take effect until December 1st of 2024 so basically regardless of whether or not we change these now or a year from now if somebody submits an application that's consistent with statute that's what needs to be followed okay thanks yep so yeah so that's that's a really good point so regardless of of how long it takes us to change these regulations to comply with statute any application that comes in currently that meets the statutory changes has to be reviewed against statute even if our regulations are different for those for those areas that apply so you're asking us I guess basically you've gone through this and you're sort of asking for feedback to to see if we feel that what you're recommending jives with what we think the written statutory is is that based on what the exercise is not necessarily I think it's more of I'm telling you I'm giving you information based on what I think statute says and asking and with with changes that are proposed and asking you to comment on those changes not the interpretation of statute yeah if I understand Eric it's like here are two options that I believe both comply with statute what do you think is a better option that's a that's a very well put statement yes yes any other questions before we get started this is great I love everything about this this conversation that is okay I will say Eric that the q and a's from the the state yep I didn't think they were real helpful I mean there were some that were and some that kind of were vague but that's whatever yeah and I think that's part of the challenge is that there there's not a lot of good clarity on what's what's going on here so it's but I think I think what's being proposed what I've proposed is will be consistent with statute so all right I'm going to share a screen and first walk through the memo or some parts of the memo I should say for any comments or feedback so the first section of the memo is is the parking section and this doesn't take effect until December 1st of 2024 so I don't want to get too much into this but basically what it says is for residential uses in our residential districts we can't require any more than one parking space per dwelling unit so right now our regulations what's what's going forward to council is staying consistent with what we have in the regulations now which is for multi-unit it's one space per unit for sorry for our for dwellings in our residential a b and c it's two spaces per dwelling for for dwelling units in our gateway and commercial districts it's one space per dwelling unit plus one per every four so we're going to have to change those but we've got some time before we're required to change those so okay not a lot there what at one small question I yep I had a couple so in your red section under section one yeah in the red um it says residential sues I don't know what sues are you it's you I think it's supposed to be uses right oh yep that's probably a typo on my part I was googling it I'm just for clarification all right this so like the language in italics that we're looking at here is that language that you wrote does it does it come is it like quoting the statute or are you like summarizing the statute like what what are we looking at exactly that's a really good question uh brennan so yeah so what you're seeing here this is directly out of the statute so the red is the new language going into statute with the exception of the typo and what's in strikeout it's what's coming out of statute so this is what the law says now and then my interpretation or my what I've what I think are the impacts to our regulations are included after it okay so yeah so the the the language that shows up in the italics sections are what is what act 47 has included as well for changes to statute so um so yeah I want to set that one aside for now so section two again this is the new language in statute that's in red so basically what the way that I'm interpreting this and I think there's again this is a section where there's not full consensus from all the planning practitioners but basically what this is saying is uh anywhere that you allow residential development a two unit dwelling a duplex has to be allowed in those same districts and treated the same way that you treat a single family dwelling a single unit dwelling so right now in all of our residential districts where uh that so there's two pieces to this that's the first part um right now we allow for two unit dwellings in our residential b and c but not in our residential a so we'll need to change that the way that I'm interpreting this section is that if we allow for a single unit dwelling we we have to allow for a two unit dwelling in that same location under the exact same standards so we can't treat a single unit and a two unit any differently so in other words the minimum lot size for a single family is going to be the same for a duplex so the density is double basically in essence yeah but if you think about it um if you have a a single unit dwelling with an attached accessory dwelling you in essence have a two unit dwelling as well yeah so which which if it's a single unit owner occupied property we have to allow an accessory dwelling by right so in essence we're already allowing two unit dwellings in in all of our residential districts where we allow a single unit dwelling so that's the first part of this change of statute the second part is on this piece where multi unit dwellings uh with four or fewer units have to be a permitted use as well in these same districts so we don't have to regulate them the exact same way as a single unit or a two unit but we have to allow them so the way that I've interpreted this is they could be allowed by right they could be conditional they could have different uh lot size requirements um but we have to allow them in those same districts so in our residential a b and c we have to allow buildings that have up to four units so the next change and these are all I'm only going to go through some of these because they relate to the the draft that I've provided to you so we're not going to go through everything just a couple of them so Eric I know you and I had this conversation offline in terms of this just to reiterate what you said earlier so if we allow four units we can make a minimum lot size per unit in other words you know if we if as long as we allow five units per acre we can we can for a four unit you might have to have whatever it is 35,000 square feet or whatever the number is yep yeah that's the way I'm interpreting it yeah and so to your point Mike about the five unit so that's the next piece that we'll be looking at here is under yep uh under item 12 uh in this section so bottom of the next page yep so the bottom of page three here so basically anywhere that we have water and wastewater which a lot a lot of the statute is caveated on having water and wastewater the entire city is covered by water and wastewater so all of these changes apply basically what this says is we have to we have to establish lot building dimensions that allow for up to five dwelling units per acre so in essence what that means is the minimum lot size that we can require in any of our residential districts is 8,712 square feet we have to allow for that as the minimum lot size and then it further goes on to say that the density standards shall not be any more restrictive so we can't we can't say that if you have a four unit building you're going to need more acreage than if you would for a two-unit building for whatever it has to be proportional so if we say your minimum lot size is is this much then you have to you have to proportion it to a consistent minimum lot size for additional units and I know that is a little confusing but basically basically the five units per acre is two tenths of an acre per unit is what it kind of comes out to be it doesn't kind of come out to be that's what it does come out to be at a at a five-unit per acre density what this is saying the the same density and lot standards what it's saying is you can't require point you can't require three tenths of an acre for a four-unit or for a three-unit sorry let me let me pull up something different I believe the one of the Q and A's I think yeah I was going to say one of the Q and A's explained this much better than I am doing right now let me it was let's see I think it's in yeah so it's in this section thank you I was going to ask you if you blow it out it's in this section 1.4 it's really this last part here is what what I was trying to get at so it's basically saying we can't require two tenths of an acre for a single unit and then say you need to have at least three tenths of an acre for each two-unit because that's a or for each yeah for each of the individual units so we couldn't say for a a single unit you need two tenths of an acre but for a duplex you need six tenths so you need three tenths for each unit on it yeah so we have to say it has to be proportional so we could say a single unit you can do a single unit two unit you can do two tenths and then for a for a three-unit you could do four tenths for a four-unit you could do the full the full acreage so or sorry you do for five you do the full acre yeah okay I mean so it's it's a little confusing but it's it's a little confusing from the statutory perspective but I think the way I've drafted the changes I think it hopefully will make some sense so let me ask you this if if a single family lot you you have to allow two units then can't we keep the minimum lot size for a single family at 10,000 square feet because in theory you could put two units on it and then when you get to three units it would be what six tenths of an acre or whatever or just go by density you know what I mean yes I do know what you mean that's a good question it's I'll say maybe we'd have to look at it more directly I'd say there's only one other thing and I not it's nothing that we need to worry about tonight I don't think it will impact some of our other sections of our regulations but it's this section here under 13 basically what it's this is saying is that if you if if a project is proposing an affordable housing development as is defined in statute and I've included the definition here then there then the project is entitled to a a density bonus of at least 40 percent and potentially an additional story the way that the definition of affordable housing development works out is that you're basically looking at a 25 unit building in order to meet that minimum to to be eligible for that bonus which pretty much wouldn't be permitted in any of our residential districts even with these other statutory changes so it's it's going to impact our commercial district our gateway district our downtown core it'll impact some of those districts but not our residential districts so we will need to address it but just I don't think it's it's germane for the conversation for tonight's meeting so Eric is that true if if it's a PUD then could it come into play in the residential districts I don't believe well it would have to be a big planned unit development because you basically need to have 25 units in the development total so yeah like the the Barlow redevelopment wasn't it like 75 units that they were trying to get on that um I think with that project let me do some math quick the Barlow what what should what are you talking about the same Stevens well they haven't even posed anything have they no I think the most they could have gotten was around 54 if the whole lot was cleared including the senior center so but the configuration of the units they would need to do at least 20 percent of the project as affordable housing in order to meet this standard so in that case saying that they would say if they did 54 units at least 11 of them would need to be affordable for them to to be eligible for that bonus which will want to kind of look back on our incentives because we did put affordable housing incentives and density bonuses and all that stuff for PUD so we'll just want to double check how these two interact yep absolutely yes that's exactly right so yeah some of these changes are going to definitely impact some of the incentives that we've been working on over the past several years so um there will be some impacts for sure so um any other questions before we look at the the the actual regulations and what I'm proposing to change let me just clarify this 13 yeah um if someone like Champlain housing or something proposed a 12 unit affordable project that would that would they could get a 40 bonus I mean in a case like that yeah if the entire project was going to be affordable yeah yeah yeah in a situation like that yes okay yeah um can you explain that so like you said 12 units I thought the threshold I just I just picked I just picked a number out of my hat like you know like if if Champlain housing put up an affordable housing project with however many units whether it be eight or 20 they would still be they would be entitled to this 40 bonus so what was the 25 unit threshold that Eric had mentioned or like the 25 unit minimum so what I was saying is based on the definition of affordable housing development at least 20 percent of the units or a minimum of five need to be affordable in order to qualify for that standard so what I was presuming is that if it was a market rate project they would need to do basically uh 25 units to meet to meet that minimum okay so if they come in and they do 100 percent affordable housing it would come into play at five units that's right that's right okay yeah or actually any number of units right it could be well it has to be a minimum so the minimum they would have to do is five units so if they came in with a four-unit building they wouldn't be eligible because it would not meet the definition of affordable housing development okay so the minimum that they would have to do is five and all five of those would have to be affordable in order to meet this standard yeah okay Eric how does minimum or excuse me maximum lot coverage fit into this right because that's that's something I'm thinking about like so we can't we basically have to have like a maximum of 0.2 acres per unit for for like lot size but we have a lot coverage requirements that as I understand it like limit you can't just you can't just cover a whole lot with buildings so that that limits how much you can actually build on on a lot does does the new statute like address that at all so that's a really good question I do not believe it does so we can continue to maintain our maximum lot coverage I think as long as we're consistent and we're applying it the same across all of these different development types so that we don't have a different so that we don't have one lot coverage standard for a single and two unit and then a different lot coverage standard for a for a three or four unit building I think as long as it's the same lot coverage across all of those I think we're okay so yeah so that is that's a good question so that is an option that we have available which we currently have in place and similarly with our setbacks we can you know the setbacks and lot coverage combined kind of give you the the buildable area on a property and you know those as long as we're in as long as we're applying them consistently and are we not applying them consistently now is that part of this too no we are we're applying them consistently now as long as we continue to do that we we can we can continue to use those as as mechanisms for for land development okay so that's good to know so all that work that we've sort of done to say we want a certain amount of open space or a certain amount of space between other things that's right affected yeah we can still keep all of that that's why I that's the way I am interpreting the changes to statute okay okay so we're ready to start looking at things I'll take that as a yes yes all right so I'm starting with I'm starting off in article two because this is where this is our land use table and our dimensional standards which is really going to get into a lot of what a lot of the changes that we need to make right away to address statute so the first change that I'm proposing comes up under section three under item e there's basically this new item e to basically say that we're only allowed to have one principle or primary structure on a lot and the idea there is so that we don't have multiple like you we we kind of already imply this but we're not explicit in saying that you can't have more than one principle or primary structure now the caveat would be that if you're doing a plan unit development you can have multiple primary structures which we basically do now but basically this would just clarify that on a standard building lot you can have one primary structure so that primary structure could have four units in it in the residential districts or up to 60 units an acre in our commercial districts or more in our downtown core but basically just to clarify that we are we're only allowing one primary structure on a property unless it's a plan unit development and then they can have whatever they want for accessory structures as they're defined provided they stay within the dimensional standards that are already included so so eric they could they could have a single family house and a detached cottage still they could yes okay yes but what this would do is basically say that if you're going to like you couldn't come in and if you had a large enough lot you couldn't come in and say I want to put up a three-unit building or I already have a three-unit building and now I want to add a two-unit building to it as well yeah and have basically two primary structures on it unless you came in as a plan unit development you couldn't just do that by right you could still do it but there's a different process to do it so are we going to keep detached cottage and accessory I guess we don't really need accessory dwelling anymore right we have to do accessory dwelling actually what I'm okay we uh well first if there's any questions about e I'll take those otherwise I will answer your question there Mike next okay just to comment the language is intended to have to me that that's that's like a statement of intent it's not necessarily like a rate like it's not binding so if the intention is to only have one primary structure on each lot I would say each lot in the city shall have if that's what we're trying to do yep that's a good point that that's what I'm intending to do so yeah okay good comment all right so on the next page is our use table and this is where some things are going to start this is where I'm proposing some changes some of these changes that are showing up in red are more just because the footnotes are changing so for example under the use categories for the urban storefront sorry for the storefront and for the residential the detached residential it's just because the footnote is changed so nothing's changing there similarly with accessory dwelling the footnote is changing so it just the way that the track changes worked it it updated it to make it look like something else is going on so the first change that I'm proposing here is for two unit dwelling making it a use by right in the residential a district again aligning with the way I'm interpreting statute that single unit and two unit dwellings have to be treated the same um so that would basically take it from being a as we had previously with note nine a an allowable use with a planned unit development with those incentives that we built in for affordability in multi-bedroom basically just making it a use by right similarly I'm proposing to remove two units from the general commercial district so that we wouldn't allow those there anymore res basically reserving the general commercial the central business district in the downtown core for the more intense development the the the five plus unit developments so the next thing I'm proposing to do is eliminate detached cottage as a use the reason I'm proposing this is right now we have the category of detached cottage for properties that are not either they're either not owner occupied sorry they're not single unit owner occupied or they're already developed with like for example a two-unit building the way our regulations are written now is that a detached cottage is basically it's an accessory dwelling unit for all intents and purposes except for the property is not a single unit owner occupied property or there's more than one unit already on the property so because we're now going to be required to allow for three and four unit buildings on a property I don't think there's a need to have the detached cottage as an option presumably where we're seeing the detached cottages developed now those properties can support additional units as given by their adding a detached cottage but now they'd be able to just add them on to the existing structure and would that for example a carriage house or a garage or someone wanted to convert that to a residential unit would that fall under accessory dwelling unit if it met the standards of accessory dwelling unit yes which is it needs to be a single unit dwelling and it needs to be owner occupied the property it would be a use by right in those instances so so because we're we have to allow two units on a lot or duplex someone can't have a single family home and make a second unit within a secondary structure is what you're saying you know I'm saying if there was a carriage house or a garage they unless maybe they stick a two by four to connect it to the main building yeah I think they would have to connect it or they could just add on to the primary structure yeah I'm wondering if I'm wondering if that eliminates you know the the potential for some of these properties couldn't they just do it as an adu yeah well if it's an owner occupied single unit dwelling and that's something we can look at as well we can relax the adu standards under section 5.1 that we have now but right now statute requires that if you have a single unit owner occupied dwelling you're allowed to have one accessory dwelling either attached or detached as a use by right right so we can revisit that standard to say it doesn't have to be an owner occupied property or you could have an accessory dwelling with other circumstances um but I didn't the only thing we gained from the detached cottage was a lot somebody who was renting out the the primary unit to rent out the back unit as well so yeah so the assessor sorry the detached cottage came into play when either the owner didn't live on the property or there was more than one unit already on the property so if it was so for example on union street um we just one was just finished right across from the schoolhouse condos there or whatever they're called the school the old schoolhouse there was an detached cottage was constructed just recently finished construction just recently the reason they went the detached cottage route is because the primary structure was already a two-unit building and the owners didn't live there so their only option for adding additional units was a detached cottage with the change to statute that property if they depending on what we do with dimensional standards that property could have up to four units on it as all one building right when I feel like if there's an existing building no matter what it is and someone wants to put housing in it we don't really want to discourage that do we I don't believe we do I know thinking too yeah so maybe we need to change the definition of accessory dwelling unit I think that's going to be the better option than having both the accessory dwelling and the detached cottage because they basically do the same thing except one is allowed by right if it's an owner occupied single unit dwelling and the other is allowed when it's not a single a single unit owner occupied dwelling and I think if you eliminate the detached cottage and change the definition that it simplifies it a little bit it does it gets a little confusing yeah it does and then the other thing is buildings that now fall under let's say detached cottage if you were to do this did they stay with that designation or do you change the designations of the buildings or the they would probably remain as a detached cottage it would just be again depending on on what we do with accessory dwelling unit language and the regulations it would it could just be a pre-existing nonconformity and it would it would it would remain as is there wouldn't be any need to change it at all unless the owners decided they wanted to make changes to the structure expanding the size of it things like that but no different than then that same the school house on Union Street is that's a pre-existing nonconforming structure because it has I think 20 20 units in it and we wouldn't allow that much density under our current regulations so it's it can function as it is and and they can do things and make changes and updates to the to the units as a pre-existing nonconformity Eric I saw that um 12 West Spring Street was putting in a unit in the back is that a oh yeah is that an ADU or a detached yeah that is an ADU yes yes that's a single unit owner occupied dwelling so yeah so they're coming in under the the ADU provisions that we have now so yeah so what I'm proposing here is to eliminate detached cottage as a use and again look at some other changes to our ADU standards so that and it may be a conjunction of you know an ADU is allowed but it counts against the total unit mix on the property so it becomes an additional unit it just it counts against that that unit mix or density but again I haven't really thought much about what to do with it I wanted to see what your thoughts were first on eliminating the detached cottage as a use okay okay so the next Eric before you it's just a dumb question because the table there's that vertical line it looks like a cross out that's I'm I'm sure that's just a formatting thing that's yeah that's just there to show that there's changes being proposed okay on those columns or on those rows so yeah so the next change here would be multi-unit dwelling so right now it's it's listed at three or more units so this is now going to basically kind of be a new land use category of multi-unit dwelling at three to four units that there's a plus sign there that's crossed out as well so just it happens that the strikeout and the plus sign line up so this would say multi-unit dwelling three to four units so we would not allow these in our central business our general commercial or our downtown core because we'd want more density there but we would allow them in our residential a b and c so right now I have them listed as a permitted use I believe we can do those as conditional use I believe statute does allow us that option if you want to go that route so this is going to come into a question of one do we want to do it as permitted conditional and or do we want to have a different lot size standard for those units which is going to be in the next section in section 2.5 for the dimensional standards so I don't know if we want to get into that conversation when we talk about dimensional standards and just understand with the understanding that this is a new use category that we're adding because we we need to for statute but happy to talk about that now too if you want to talk about permitted versus conditional for the three and four unit buildings in those residential districts I think since we're getting rid of a conditional use and that was sort of like um and that this is a new type of permitted or permittable use that having conditional use would just give a little bit more of a review process to it yeah and we can also split those into two different categories we could do a three unit as a use and a four unit as a separate use if you know if we wanted to have slightly different standards for the two but we can we can just as easily combine them as well I like the conditional put it as a conditional use and one of the things I've been exploring and I don't know what this ultimately looks like and is a bigger conversation um as to kind of go back to what Abby mentioned earlier about our incentives and and revisiting those one of the incentives that I've been looking into is to see if we can if we can have a different process of approval so for example we could have three and four unit as a conditional use as a standard but if somebody was proposing a three to four unit building that they would be willing to deed restrict for uh owner occupancy requirements and for sale fee simple basically or some sort of condo type project that maybe we make those an administrative approval so to cut or if they come in as you know three plus unit or three plus bedroom units in a three or four unit building then that becomes a uh a permitted rather than a conditional so those are the types of incentives I'm starting to think about now and how we can kind of adjust what we were doing before with saying we'll do a multi unit building as a plan unit development if you do three plus bedroom and affordable maybe now we're doing the the permitting process takes on that role so we could list them as both permitted slash conditional and then that could be a if you're doing three plus bedroom affordable it's it's a permitted use and it'll just be an administrative approval if these are going to be whatever you want them to then it's a conditional use and it goes through that process so would you do that as a footnote under the table that's what I would do yeah I would do it as uh as a p slash um see you like we do for for example for group homes and then have a footnote that that talks about that okay yeah so I mean and I can put that in for our next review just so you can see what that looks like this is um maybe a little off the the mark but again I always like to kind of bring up this issue of are we doing anything that's going to encourage um purchasing of properties units or apartments versus just rental um so you mean you mean when units are being built are we doing anything to encourage them to be for sale rather than rental units yeah well again that's something I've been looking into to see if there's a way that we can do that uh if that's something we can legally do for one and if it's like what that would actually look like the the big challenge with that is is the administration of it and so for example if if a project came in that had it was a four unit building and we had an incentive that said if you if you offer those units for sale we'll do it as an administrative approval and if is their deed restricted that way then what's to say that somebody doesn't come in behind that and change the deed to say well now it's going to be I'm taking that out and then what's the mechanism for the city to enforce that or to you know to stay on top of that or is it something where we say you know for the initial sale or for the initial occupancy it has to be offered for sale and then what happens after that is up to whoever buys it and then just kind of hope that people in option who start to do some investments in properties right right I think you I think you can you could make that incentive for to make them for sale but beyond that you don't if someone buys it rents it there's nothing you can do unless the condo documents limit the number of rental right and then that happens because sometimes banks won't loan on condos if a certain percentage are rent right well and then there's also nothing that would stop the association from changing the bylaws of the of the condo to to remove that or to allow it so I think it really comes down to a factor of how important is something like that to the city for ongoing enforcement and what that ultimately looks like so but it's a good question Sarah and something that again something that I've been thinking about as well to try to encourage more home ownership yeah because it just it diversifies where the wealth sits in the city as well yeah yep yep so so anyway so that is an addition is the multi-unit three to four units and these new changes the next item here is a new category all together is multi-unit with five or more units and that's something that now would be permitted in the central business central business district general commercial district in downtown core they're already permitted in the gateway in storefront or the gateway district so no changes there but basically adding in those as permitted uses because they were basically with the exception of the general commercial district they were already permitted the multi-unit dwellings were already permitted in those districts so this is really just shifting that and then allowing multi-unit dwellings in the general commercial district as well as a use by right Eric when I'm looking at like the c2 general commercial district in our zoning map yep it looks like it is basically cassavent there's a building behind the new gas station and then maybe a tiny plot okay good thank you and then maybe a tiny plot on no on main yep yeah so there's only three properties right now that are in this district there's the property here by the school which is the it's a laundromat right now it's behind the vacant lot that used to be the old simons gas station I think up on upper main so there's that property there's the the hillside industrial park off of east allen street and then cassavent so I mean this is a situation as well where this is a zoning district that really doesn't have any property in it so it may be that this is a district we look at eliminating altogether anyway but yeah it's just weird to me that that's the district and that everything was conditional use before maybe because that's what the district looks like right it's so changing things to permitted use when you only have three plots and ones like a city park essentially right yeah I don't know what the history is for why they were conditional but I don't I mean given the locations of these properties and what could be built basically in front of them or next to them I don't know why they were why multi-unit was listed as commercial or sorry as condition as conditional why multi-unit was listed as conditional well is it does it protect cassavent having them as conditional versus permanent I mean I think the real protection on cassavent is the fact that the city owns it so it's in wetlands and yeah and most of it's not developable anyway because it's all it's either let's see let me bring up another map um I think it's flood plain or wetlands it's either yeah it's all flood plain in wetlands so this is a the basically the agency natural resources this is cassavent here it's pretty much the entire property is in a wetland complex or in the river corridor so it's really not a developable property anyway is it there's nothing developer could do to mitigate it if down the road the city wants to sell the property to mitigate development no I think because of the flood plain and the flood hazard area and actually let me bring up a different map there was there was a study done 10 or 15 years ago of you know the field as you as you walk in there yep that that is actually out of the flood plain and I believe out of the wetland I I don't know if it is any more Mike I think they've updated I think they've done a more recent study so for example this map here is showing that that's all in the 100-year flood plain um and we have our flood hazard regs wouldn't allow any any permanent buildings there or anything that's occupied not sure so and then what about along the railroad um on the north side of the natural area yeah I'm available I don't know that there's that's a good question I don't know that there's no up that's why it's not the flood plain I don't know if there's enough there other than it is a steep slope up so that's probably it's the flood plain is probably at the base of the yeah you know me yeah this is all a pretty heavy slope along this edge so it probably wouldn't be developable under our steep slope requirements and I don't understand I I know I've brought it up over the years but why we wouldn't just like protect that with a better zoning district like why would we why are we leaving that in a commercials and in district yeah that's a great question I think that's that's um we have talked about that on several occasions and something that we talked about with our master plan update I think and we've got several properties like that so for example um Memorial Park is industrial and the back side of Gilbrook is industrial as well I think and might correct me if I'm wrong but I think some of the reason for leaving those not as a natural area or park area was in case there was the need for the city to sell them off at some future time um there would be development potential and they'd have more value but I don't I don't know the history and I know Memorial Park and basically all of Cassavan is for the most part undevelopable based on the flood hazard so I will I don't know about Memorial Park because I think Memorial Park's all pretty much a flood plane um Gilbrook certainly that's that that was the um the thought is it's at the end of Hercules Drive so there's access to it and it was its own industrial so we left it like that just in case um Cassavan the the thought was well there might be I think at the time six acres that is potentially developable so leave it like that um but if it's now all if it's determined it's all floodplaining can't be developed well that maybe changes what can happen down at Cassavan yeah yeah I guess to me just looking at this map I'd rather get rid of that district right then have like a special I don't know like a special district just for these basically two properties of Cassavan is truly undevelopable right and just absorb them into whatever they're adjacent to it also the question now pops up on on um was it hillside east yep that parcel it fronts it fronts on east allen street so why isn't part of the gateway well so it doesn't really it's the driveway does but there's the two gas stations are directly in front of it so I'm guessing that's why it's not in the gateway similarly with the property up in front of the school is it's kind of landlocked in behind other properties yeah go that way so it doesn't really have any access on to main street so these are they're it's a good question but they're kind of two outlier properties that don't they don't really have the same characteristics of the properties around them that are in the gateway so um we would need to look at how to we would need to look at what to do with them and and it could be that we put them in the gateway and they just you know they've got some special provisions so for example the one up by the school if we made that part of the gateway based on the the standards that we have in that district those two properties would have to be combined in order to develop the back piece so there's like other there's one just south of that that looks kind of like that is that those have to be combined these three here no i'm sorry two more south oh because those are on a street those are those wouldn't have to be combined right yeah they're on the side street well so is so is the one off norman street it's on norman street yeah technically norman street is well it's only that little bit that's showing up in gray is what is public and it's one way so the development potential on that property is very challenging without access to main street i got you so but anyway but you technically you get in but you can't get out so what you're saying pretty much well so there way across it's complicated i'll say that we could spend the rest of the meeting talking about that property all right so anyway so that's that's why i've included multi-unit in the commercial as a use by right sorry the c2 is a use by right but it is it does beg the question of whether or not we should even have that as a zoning district so the only other change here is that's just a footnote change just changing the name of of this district from restaurant cafe to restaurant neighborhood to be more consistent with for example our retail sales the reason i'm proposing that is because we actually i think it's under i think it's under um the definition of retail sales neighborhood commercial that we actually use as an example a cafe so it just seemed confusing to have cafe as a use under the retail sales but then also be a separate use under the restaurant cafe so that's more of just a semantical cleanup in my opinion so then no changes proposed on this sheet other than some of the footnotes so we would need to strike footnotes one and two because they deal with density of the of the residential districts and what's allowed basically the number of units we can have per lot which we have to shift away from now and then the other definitions just kind of the only other i think the only other change is adding a a unit per acre maximum for the yeah for the c2 district so our unit per acre maximum in the central business district the c1 is currently at 60 units per acre so i basically just put it at half of that for the c2 um as a place to start to just show that there is some uh some difference there and then obviously nine and ten would go away because we now have to allow for the multi unit three and four units in the uh residential districts and it's no longer um so that would no longer apply question for you eric yep just clarification so like in the downtown and and gateways and whatnot yeah um primarily downtown and commercial zones where where someone wants to put commercial first floor and residential up how do you it's not specified for mixed use how do you do that just that the two uses might be allowed oh for you mean for the for the use table um so in the downtown we do identify what's allowed and what's not in this table but we also have in article three we have a whole list uh article three deals specifically with the downtown core there's a whole list of uses there as well that are permitted yeah but what about the commercial the the central business district um and if someone wanted to put up you know like like on the corner of west west um canal and main street where grazers is yep you know restaurant downstairs apartments up yeah that's not identifies as specific use but is it just based on they're both allowed in the zone yes yes yeah because we allow for that type of a restaurant use or retail use and the residential use yes those would both be allowed okay so you don't think it's important to have that mixed use category and that's fine if you don't I just yeah I don't think so I mean we could we could maybe add a footnote that says include like that mixed use is is permitted in these districts as well but because we allow all of the various uses I think it's it's implied that you can do them all in the same footprint okay okay so the next I'm gonna note the time it's 746 so the next section here and this is actually the next big discussion point I think um which I think it's good to get into uh because so this is our dimensional table so what I'm proposing is to basically strike the existing table all together and do a new table um and this is where we can make some changes as well but this is where I figured we'd start so I've got our our uses here on the left side or sorry our zoning districts on the left side and then for for the residential I've got it broken down in single and two unit for under the lot size requirement single and two unit and then a separate category for the multi unit of three and four and then a separate one for the multi unit of five plus and then for the non-residential so I have the same num so this is where currently our residential a is at 10 000 square feet so this is where I'm proposing a reduction to 8500 square feet to meet that five unit per acre threshold as I mentioned earlier five units per acre breaks out to 8 712 square feet per lot so I just rounded it down to be a little bit easier to work with to 8500 um that way we're squarely within that range so that's the only change from the lot size for the residential districts actually that's the only change in lot size to any of the districts so Eric um should under multifamily three to four units and five units should that be 8500 square feet per unit well that's what I wanted to talk about is how we want to as how we want to do that so if we want to do a different standard for the multi unit uh and if we want to do a standard for a three unit and then a separate standard for a four unit or if we want to keep it the same and just say if you can put I mean we have a lot of properties in the city right now that are I mean there's several that I can think of off hand that are 4 000 square feet that have four units on it so we can put four units on a pretty small lot um it's just a matter of whether or not we want to require more lot area for the multi unit buildings or not so I just I started with the same numbers um so that we could have this conversation and basically have it as a placeholder but before we talk about that I just want to mention that the only thing on this table that's changed is the lot size for the minimum lot size for the residential a from 10 000 to 8500 so all the other categories all the other setbacks height requirements lot coverages are all still the same but so that's where we can have the discussion about what we want to put in for a minimum lot size in the three and four unit buildings or for the yeah for the three and four unit dwellings in those residential districts so I'll start and say I would like to see if we're grouping three and four units together I'd like to see 8500 square feet per unit so that we keep the we keep the density at five units an acre yep so so Mike if I'm understanding correctly so for uh so it for a single and two would be 8500 if you did a three unit it would be 8500 for the next unit so 17 000 total for a three unit I would say 27 five whatever that three times seven 8500 I mean isn't that massive how many how many Eric how many uh lots do we have that are like by my calculation what what Mike is proposing if if it was a four unit building we'd be talking about 34 000 feet right so so what I'm talking though is it comes down to density and do we want the residential density to have potentially 20 units an acre so Brendan I can answer your question fairly quickly the number so looking at if we if we took the the 8500 and just doubled it to 17 000 that's just shy of four tenths of a of an acre so it's 0.39 acres in the city we have there's my notes in the city we have 96 lots that are 0.3 or larger and of those as you can see here on the map let me zoom in a little bit that includes some properties like for example st francis um richards park this industrial lot or sorry this lot by the industrial park that is owned by the city that's I believe reserved as part of the stormwater for the industrial park it's owned by the city of the industrial park I think the city owns it there's this lot up along pine grove terrace that is part of an agreement with the quarry that's to be vacant and it's adjacent property across the street so of those 96 lots there's some that already have things going on with them but there's only 96 total lots which represents about five percent of the the properties in the city the total lots in the city there's about 1717 75 lots in the city 1775 building lots in the city so 96 of them would be equal to or greater than that 17 000 square foot threshold is it basically everything that we see highlighted here everything that you see highlighted is 0.3 yeah 0.3 acre 0.39 acres or more and just um how many square feet are in an acre four thousand forty three thousand five hundred and sixty okay so a tenth a tenth of an acre is is about 4400 square feet a little a little bit less a little less yeah 43 56 is a tenth of an acre and under the statue we could if i'm understanding right we could have we could require up to um two tenths of an acre per unit is that right yep we could require up to 8712 square feet per yeah yeah per unit per unit yes well yeah except for it except for that lot you could put two units on yeah yeah because you can't treat a two-unit different than a single unit right and so what i'm suggesting is is carrying that through okay we gotta allow two units on a two-tenths of an acre lot but if you have three units i i guess the question is do we want the density in the residential eight zone to change from what it is and has been to give more density i mean we do that anyway because we have to allow five units per acre we want to allow more than that and duplex is now you know which is a big change and in theory it could be ten years an acre now right well except except eric we can we can put a maximum of four units per lot right as long as it's we can do that so we can do a maximum of four units per building right per building per building yeah and we can also keep in mind we can still limit lot coverage and setbacks and things of that nature so that you know you might have you might have a 12 000 square foot lot but you could only you only have enough room to put for your parking for your setbacks for your building you may only be able to do a two-unit building on it so there are going to be other factors here that are going to limit what can actually be done on these lots i personally like like talking in terms of density but that's me well yeah and as long as we as long as we remain at the five units per acre then that that's we can pretty much do anything within that threshold or within that range we can we can do more as well but we can't do less right it makes sense what you suggest than like and then eric i did see um maybe a typo on the the depth the minimum lot depth for rc went from 60 to 50 i believe that is let's see a lot depth oh yeah yes thank you yeah so mike just to clarify again what your what your suggestion was is 8500 as the minimum for single and two unit yeah and then if you were going to do a third unit it would be you would need 17 000 and then if you were to do that fourth unit you would need 25 5 yeah i was i was actually thinking of being more strict and saying if you're doing three units now you need 25 5 but i could live with that what you're saying because what what you're saying would allow someone if they if there was an acre lot out there they could do six units or they could well i i guess the the alternative is someone had acre a lot they could subdivide it into up to 10 units yeah also what happens if people buy adjacent properties did those then become one lot i guess i don't know how that works they would have to combine them i mean they could combine them into one lot and how does that work legally you just say you want uh they have to they basically do a boundary line adjustment and we make sure that it meets the the dimensional standards for the new lot and they can they can basically they have to get a survey done by a licensed surveyor that needs to be recorded and then that new lot becomes the what's there time check it's eight o'clock for what it's worth so okay so 8500 so in the looking at the residential a sorry let me switch back over here yeah so looking at 8500 for single and two and then 8500 per additional unit for the three or four which would go to 17 000 or 25 5 depending on which one you did yeah yeah and carry that basically the per unit for then the residential b and residential c right as they are now right okay okay um and then just looking at this table real quick for the five and more they're listed as na there's a footnote at the bottom that says if it's if it's listed as na it means it's not permitted so you wouldn't be permitted in those districts and then for the non-residential uses which there's not very many in the residential districts basically retail sales for a neighborhood scale which i think limits it to 2000 square feet of a structure and then the restaurant cafe and some civic uses like daycares educational facilities are conditional uses um how do folks feel about just leaving those as the minimum for basically the single unit kind of as they are now um at the 85 and and 7500 you're talking about for a single or two family no for the non-residential uses with this new category of non-residential um how do we do it now Eric so we we basically do the same as what we do for the for we only have one standard now um okay so we just have a minimum lot size for any use yeah so now that we're breaking it out between a single unit and a multi unit it's i thought it might be appropriate to add a non-residential category as well just to clarify that that is included i could also loop that in under the single or two unit i could it could be just single single or two unit and non-residential is that same standard i like keeping non-residential separate but it's fine there's not many non-residential uses that are allowed yeah there's really not yeah and it's the same not like right now it's it's non-residential is the same as residential but i i agree i think i like having it separate maybe it's something someone might want to revisit one day okay yep i think that makes sense on that note oh never mind it i didn't see it before okay the only other thing and i know we're short on time um like i said nothing else is changing on the table except for the typo with the the lot depth uh that abby just pointed out and i'll double check the rest of them so i've broken out a separate um separate table for accessory structures nothing here is changing as well except the maximum height right now our maximum height for accessory structures is the same as they are for primary structures they're both at 35 feet for the for basically where we allow them okay and so i've always struggled with that a bit because i think that's too much for an accessory structure so what i've done is now limited it to 75 of the primary structure but not less than 10 feet and basically for for measuring of height we measure from the average grade of the ground to the um just i think to the average of the peak so it's not to the very tip of the peak it's part way up half of the half the way up so is two and a half stories or two how do you judge that one error the 35 feet yeah it's 35 feet but that however many stories they want to put in they could do one 35 foot tall story or four 35 as long as they stay within the 35 feet i mean they're gonna be limited by building code as well and habitable space so generally that would be like three and a half stories yeah you know i mean right now i'm in my bedroom it's i think the bedroom see a regular height and i don't know it's maybe 10 or 12 feet may like you know it's it's about that yeah typically first floor is like 12 to 50 and i know when we went to gateway that's kind of the right the standard and then other floors are 10 to 12 so it's basically three story yeah all right and the 75 percent would get it down to 20 about 24 feet so yeah so it would it would become a truly accessory structure inside that's all that looks good the only other thing sorry one more thing here in the central business district and general commercial are currently we don't we don't list a standard for accessory structures um let me just double check make sure i'm looking at this right yeah we don't list a height for those two so i don't know if that means that we don't want to allow accessory structures in those districts and if so then we need to change the use table um but they don't currently have a height listed for them it's just it's listed as na in the use table currently so again i don't know if that's an area where we want to remove accessory structures from those districts or if we want to add a height in there as well or a height limit a maximum height for to put an accessory structure in there um i'm not sure why there would be an accessory structure in a in one of those districts quite frankly yeah i mean but but there might be you never know yeah there might be i mean we could also say that you can't have one in those districts and it's just those are more for commercial are those those are more intense commercial districts and we want to keep them that way so we don't want to be taking up land with a garage for example but i mean that's up to the property owner right so maybe we to an extent if we leave it yeah if we leave it in there maybe we just put you know 20 or 24 feet the same as as ends up for um the residential well yeah i mean we we definitely can do that i just that's just something that i've always has always kind of troubled me a bit and similarly in the industrial it doesn't list anything in our current table for the industrial use it doesn't list anything for height for setbacks for anything related to accessory structures so so so how about if if accessory structures were conditional uses in those downs and then we put a height limit and so well they had your dr the drb we could ever come i wrong is the just the idea of an accessory structure in a non residential zone feels really weird to me i mean our our accessory structures like ever not residential i mean the only time that i could that i can think of that where they there might be as if it's like a in a commercial area where you've got like a a shed where you're keeping some some like a lawn mower and things like that to care for the property and in those cases we allow for one accessory structure that's no more than 100 square feet per property as an exempt use so yeah yeah i mean i typically don't see them there but i guess to mike's point it's we could we could just as easily say they're not permitted in those districts in our more intense commercial districts or as conditional uses sure keep thinking of a caretaker's cottage well and i guess that's a question that would be like a residential i would picture that being a residential area yeah one in the industrial park yeah yeah i don't know see any reason not allow it really someone wants to do that yeah i mean if we if we make a conditional use it has to go through the drb and then we limit yeah 500 square feet and 10 feet or whatever a one story or something yeah i mean we could even make those permitted uses with the limitations so that it doesn't require them to go through the drb but there's a square footage limitation just so that it's not you know so that those commercial areas which we have limited space we have limited land in those as it is are really going to try to be maximized for some sort of non-residential use more so than somebody putting a yeah a tool shed on so yeah okay well that i believe the only other changes for this section were just a couple of minor corrections to section references so that's pretty much the bulk of this section so i will thank you for the comments first of all i will take this information and make some changes and updates and then this is actually really what i needed to start looking at the rest of our regulations to see what other changes we need to make so i guess the only other question that i have and i want to be mindful of time is do we still do we think it's still necessary to have three residential districts and i'll leave you with that for something to chew on for our next meeting because as we look at it and it may be that it's the residential a remains but then the residential b and c kind of coming together and coalesce a bit more i mean really the only difference between these two districts is the frontage and the lot depth yeah but it's still the same lot square it's still the same size of a lot right so i think having the lot depth and i think if we didn't have a square footage and only lot depth and lot width that would be one thing but with the square footage requirement it kind of keeps them all the same yep so that may be something else we want to think about as if it's even necessary and the uses are the same in both of them yeah it's just a matter of whether or not we need three residential districts that are all basically pretty much going to be doing the same thing now yeah we did him and how over this like a lot back a couple years ago and because the new legislation only affects the residential a lot size b and c would still remain intact as they were before so i just want to bring up that we did have a very lengthy discussion on this in the past and none of the new legislation actually affects changing either of those so we can talk about it next time but yeah no absolutely absolutely agree it's just just something that i've been thinking about as well is that do we need to have two districts that are doing the same thing or could we somehow coalesce them to to one district with you know with that that does the same thing too so anyway thank you very much for that conversation i think that's something just for y'all to think about for the next time all right i think next on the agenda is city update right uh yes city updates christine are you still there yeah i am sorry um i'm trying to think of what has happened since our last meeting a lot has happened since i was last year that's true um our last city council meeting we approved a bid award for main street um and the low bid actually came in just under the 23 million bond vote uh that voters approved which is exciting given that was like five years ago and escalating costs since then um so will that start next year hopefully that is the plan um and our housing commission is making is starting to look at draft ordinance for short-term rental regulation we also have made some forward momentum with um the O'Brien community center project in partnership with shambling housing trust the goal is to transfer ownership and management to them and they also are looking to do some significant renovations which would include expansion of the library space and the public access event hall kitchen community room etc and um more most notably the health center and dental clinic down there would have expansion as well um i think that's it since the last meeting christine on main street do you know um when we're talking about the exit 16 work they're going to tie in tigant street lights do you know if that's still to my knowledge that's still the plan okay um john did share a couple of like value engineering items that was not mentioned okay eric you got anything the only thing i would mention is as i mentioned at the earlier in the meeting on november 6 the city council will be having a public hearing on the last set of amendments that you uh sent forward to them uh with the changes that we just approved the report on um and hopefully on that same agenda uh i think the intent is to have an item for them to consider approval of those minutes or sorry of those uh those amendments okay about other i'm sarah do you want to say something i had one quick um there weren't a lot of us at the meeting last time but i wanted to just ask actually sort of for the mayor and eric um we should probably put it ask it at city council but um there there was a meeting was a number weeks ago that was about the bridge um and eric we also talked about it just got you mentioned it briefly about the um design for the bridge was already completed was already finished and is that like you're shaking your head because it's not it's not okay i was just confused because we were talking we were giving input about the bridge but um so i i think i'm on the whatever they call it planning advisory committee um i think they've they know how they're going to do it but last meeting i was at they they're they're going to take input on design okay so they're still i mean i think they they generally have a basis for what the design is going to look like but it's not finalized yeah okay so they know generally what the cross section is going to look like for what space they have available lane widths number of lanes pedestrian access things like that but i don't think the final design has been done okay but the i guess the biggest concern the meeting that we participated in um talked about the the sidewalks and the you know the pedestrian bicycle walkways and i didn't know if that was already set in gold or if that's potentially can be changed because there was a lot of concern about that i think the configuration is pretty well set if i'm not mistaken but the design what it's going to look like final you know aesthetically okay so that yeah i guess i'm asking the wrong question then so the so the walkway you know like we could talk about this another time we don't maybe this is any commission uh conversation i don't know but there are there's i had a email exchange with the consultant because of someone else to some of their input we got i can't remember her name right now but she said that they had received a bunch of input at that meeting and they were going to see what like tweaking they could do um but if you want more details i can connect you with her um Jennifer something yeah yeah yeah we don't again it's just coming from this point of view where um we use that bridge to walk across a lot and looking at the design of the bridge didn't look like a big improvement to what that experience is going to be so i didn't know if that was still well there remember they're also changing the intersection of barrett street do so you're not going to have that slip lane anymore okay anyway i can find out okay i stopped okay erica i don't know if you shared that picture when i was in oh man was i in london i think i was in london you said that again i did not and i i pulled it up specifically so i could share it and i'm glad you brought that up mike because i was about to not okay there you go i i think that was in london i can't remember his london or paris but you can see they're they're rebuilding a building but keeping the facade keeping the facade yeah yeah but when i shared it with erica he said yeah see it can be done can be done yeah you know sometimes sometimes i know what i'm talking about yep yeah that's great yeah so i thought it was pretty interesting yeah great yeah yeah erick um i have a question i saw um the armory is maybe getting redeveloped so it's for i don't know what what's happening there they did submit an application for uh for demolition of the existing building but that's that's as much as they've done i don't know if there's a plan for the for the uh the state to retain the property if they're looking to sell it there's i haven't heard anything other than they they are planning to take it down i know there's a lot of environmental issues with the building and just the the whole property itself i think given the nature of what's happened in that building over the years but there's not currently a plan for any new development on that site this is the building by richard richards park correct i i i've heard i don't know if it's accurate or not like it's several million dollars to take that thing down yeah i think it's going to be quite quite a process i've been you know i live just down the street and i've been deeply confused about what what that building is for like for a while so i'm sorry we're both there actually yeah you can get your COVID shot there in the old days right so yeah so we've been in touch we've been in touch with the facilities person from the national guard um they do have to demo and do environmental remediation and then they will sell the property it's state owned and so there's like specific state procedures for how that happens um but we're staying in close contact with them to know the timeline has repeatedly been pushed back oh and it's it's in the r.a district right that's right yep yep it's limited what they can what could be done with it after yeah yeah i think based on the lot size and the and the new statute i think the most they could do there under a planned unit development is like 20 units maybe 28 units i think is the most they could do there that doesn't take into account that's just strictly a land area versus unit count that doesn't take into in that doesn't bring in setbacks driveways any type of access to the units so it's that's literally just raw land value versus uh minimum lot acreage for for a unit count so they would probably be in the 15 unit range maybe if it was a planned unit development and then maybe they could take advantage of the incentives to yeah potentially it or have more potentially or whoever ends up with the property i would say yeah i didn't notice it was one of the highlighted when brandon you asked the question before about like the properties that are of that size that was one of the property highlighted yeah i think they have about an acre and a half their total right around there sir you still have another question no i'm good okay your hand's still up oh no that's just my hands um eric next meeting so before i get to that mic i know that ruth is on the call and just wanted to see if she had anything to update on i know they haven't i believe they haven't met since our last meeting which we did get some updates so um ruth is there anything you wanted to share with us no updates except for um we um endorsed the um housing assessment grant via email that's it great thank you thank you okay so other business um yeah so our next meeting will be november 9th um we will be having a public hearing on that night uh to take comments on the local resource regulations that we all that some of us some of you all reviewed at the last meeting and recommended advancing it to public hearing so we'll have that on the agenda and and also continue our discussions on changes for based on act 47 so november 9th we'll only have one meeting in november and then our next meeting after that will be december 14th and that will be our only meeting in december as well and then i think the intent is starting in january we'll go back to two meetings a month uh if we need to to work our way through the act 47 changes great ruth i wanted to thank you for coming and also remind you or invite you at when you're at a meeting don't feel shy about jumping in and making comments okay thank you yeah you're welcome yeah uh okay so i guess that's the end of the meeting i'd look for a motion to adjourn a moment a second all right friend and and abby um christine thank you eric thank you for all your work ruth again thank you thanks everyone for being here all in favor of the motion to adjourn say aye anyone opposed okay we'll see you on november nine thank you all thank you all very much everyone thanks eric good job good evening thank you thanks eric