 All right, changes to the agenda. Hearing none, what's next? Minutes, approval of minutes from last meeting. Minutes, yes. Sorry, public comments is next. Oh, public comment. Any public out there? We have Councilor Oakleaf and another member of the public. If anyone is interested in items not on the agenda, providing any public comments, feel free to use the raise hand feature or the chat, and we'll recognize you. Otherwise, you're welcome just to visit. All right. Is Brynn in the room or online? Online. We do have, hang on, the mayor just joined as well. I was just going to ask if she was representing the mayor. No. All right, I'm going to go ahead and say Elon. You can raise. You can unmute yourself and go ahead and speak. Hello, how's everybody doing? Very good. I just want to say about the housing situation in Minewski. Right now, we have, the housing is like mostly, there's no housing for families. And I don't know if they're working on building apartments or condos or things for family. Because right now, that's the big tuition in Minewski right now. So Minewski is going every time and there are new people coming or moving here. And housing is very scared. So I just want to bring that up and see if there's any plans or anything coming up to fix that problem. So did I hear you right? What you're talking about is family housing? Yes. Yeah. So we don't plan housing, but in our zoning regulations, we're trying to incentivize developers to build two, three, and four bedroom units. And that's about all we can do. And I don't know if there are any plans out there right now to build that Tuppy unit. And maybe Christine, the mayor might or Eric might have heard of something. I have not seen any proposals currently. But as Mike mentioned, we do have some regulations that would incentivize units with multiple bedrooms. But nothing currently that has been submitted through my office anyway. But thank you for that. It, again, reinforces what we've been hearing for the last number of years, that housing is scarce, especially housing for families. Three, four bedroom housing. Because as you're probably aware, a lot of the recent apartments being built are one bedroom and studios. Yes. Well, there's maybe two or three buildings that were built. And there's no three bedrooms or one or two. So families, like for now, there are people that are in small houses or apartment right now, and they aren't even illegal. But since there's no housing or bigger bedroom or size bedroom, everybody is just living the way they can at the moment. Right. Well, hopefully that will change with the zoning regulations or the changes we put into zoning. But time will tell. But thank you for your comments. Thank you. And Brynn is out there. Does she want to say anything to us? Council Oakleaf, if you'd like to say anything, feel free to raise your hand as well. Otherwise, you're welcome to just stay on and join. Seeing any comments? OK. All right. And as always, Brynn, you're welcome to jump in at any time during our discussion. So next is approval of the last meeting minutes. That's correct. Draft minutes were included with your agenda. Happy to identify any comments or changes or a motion to approve as presented. Are there any changes or edits? So I need a motion from either Abby or Connor to approve the minutes. OK. Second second. OK. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor of approving the minutes as presented, say aye. Aye. And I think I'll have to say aye to make it three. Yes. So it's three-nothing. So I guess I don't take any no's or abstentions. So next, are we going to review the work we've done on sections four, five, and six, et cetera? Right. Yeah. So I'll do a quick introduction. Excuse me. As I mentioned to Mike earlier, I'm getting over a cold. So apologize for the voice. Yeah. As Mike mentioned, this is an item that's on for potential consideration of updating the statutory report related to the amendments that you all previously reviewed and approved. City Council held the hearing on these amendments on September 5th. With the information that was presented at that hearing, I'd identified several items for possible addition or deletion of the regulations to address some concerns that several counselors had raised during a detailed discussion we had on the amendments at City Council on July 17th. Those items were not advertised for the hearing. So Council is intending to discuss those changes at a future meeting. I believe October 2nd is what we're currently scheduled for. That would be followed by another hearing, depending on what changes are included or left out from Council. So it's possible that we will have to re-approve a report after that discussion. So it may not make sense to approve this report tonight. But I wanted to highlight what the changes are that I'll be discussing with Council so that if there's any concerns or issues that you all have, I can raise those with Council during that discussion. So to be clear, this is not on tonight for a re-discussion of the amendments. The way that statute is set up is that since you've all had your hearing and forwarded to Council, it's basically now in Council's hands. The only role that the Planning Commission has right now is to re-approve any of the reports. So because these changes may get included into a future report, I wanted to have a chance to discuss them with you tonight. So any questions on any of that before I jump into this just to highlight these potential changes? Eric, just so I understand what you just said, what's in front of us that we're gonna review today is gonna be discussed by the City Council, at the next City Council meeting, but not voted on. That's correct. So in order for them to take action on these changes, they'll have to have another hearing based on statute. So unless they wanted to. The changes were significant enough, the changes in green. Well, I think because the changes were brought forward after the hearing was advertised, that's what's triggering the need to go back to another hearing. Now, having said that, if when Council discusses these changes, if they choose not to incorporate any of the changes and just revert back to what was advertised for the hearing, they could adopt that without another hearing. It would only be if they want to include any of this additional language or delete the language as proposed, would they need to have another hearing? Okay, and is that sort of like all or none? Like there's not part of the changes that they can move forward without a hearing. It's sort of like if there are any of the changes in green that they want to move forward with, they have to have a hearing. Right, yeah, because of those changes, whether they take any of them, they were not advertised for the previous hearing. So another hearing would have to be advertised. Okay, thank you. Yep, and if you want, I can bring up the specific section of statute that talks about that, if that would be helpful, just so you can see what that looks like. Eric? Yes. Sorry, I just got a text from Joe that he's having trouble accessing during the Zoom meeting. Have you seen him try to get on? I have not seen him show up in the attendees list, so I wonder if he has the correct link. Let's see, I'll have him check his link. Can you email that to Joe quick? Would you mind? Yep, I have it right here. I'm gonna have Connor email the link to Joe right now again. Okay. So just real quick so you can see the statutory reference here. So this language here in the middle highlighted in blue is what part of statute is actually dictating this. So because council hasn't made any changes to what was advertised, a new hearing needs to happen as well as the update to the report. So like I said, we can update the report tonight and then potentially update it again. I don't think that's a, there's no harm in doing that, but we can also just wait and see what council does after they discuss this at their meeting on the second and then bring it back to you all for an update of the report once they set the hearing. So either way is, I don't think there's a problem one way or another, but just to give you a context for why the planning commission is kind of removed from this process other than updating the report. This is the part of statute that specifically addresses that. And Eric, what does it mean that the planning commission will update the report? What does that mean exactly? Basically, so the first three, the first two pages of the attachment and actually let me just switch my share here so we can look at that. So every amendment is required to have a report that goes with it, that addresses certain aspects of statute. And the way that can be done in multiple different ways. So the way we typically do it is through this memo, basically saying, providing the purpose of the amendments, what's proposed and the consistency with the master plan. So this is kind of the report part of it, and then the text is what supports that report. So provided that this doesn't change or provided that any changes that might impact these parts of the report is what we would really be updating. So because the changes I think are fairly minor, I don't think there's nothing really of the report that needs to be changed or updated specifically. So that's kind of what we're looking at right now. And sorry, one more question. Sure. Is there a point where the changes are not minor, but if the changes are major, that it has to come back to the planning commission? So simply put, no. The only time that would happen is if council specifically takes action to forward something back to the planning commission to be reconsidered or to be changed. Generally, I think the way that would have to be done is through a denial by council of the amendment and then send it back to the planning commission for changes or revisions. There's not a part of the process that says if it's major or minor that it goes back to the planning commission for their review and consideration. Thank you. And so Eric, did they actually send this back to us? But because this is going to be, because they're gonna have detailed discussion on some additional language and some additional changes I should say, I wanted to bring it back to you all as well so that you could see what was happening and potentially approve the report or reapprove the report if you wanted to. But again, because council hasn't had the discussion, there may be other things that change as well that would require or necessitate the report to be approved after their discussion on the second. So it may just be easier to wait until then to do the actual approval. But I wanted to highlight the proposed language that's gonna go to council for their meeting on the second so that you're all aware of it. I think Abby, I think you've seen these changes already and I think Mike, you may have also seen these. This was all included with the council agenda packet. So if any of you looked at the council agenda and you saw these changes there, but so it's really more just to give this information to you all in case there's any concerns or comments that you wanna take to city council when they discuss it on the second. Okay, so let's get into it. Okay, so the first change and a lot of these are pretty minor. There's just some additional clarification with a few exceptions under the parking standards. So a couple of them should be fairly easy to get through. The first one is just some additional language under section four one for clarification, just to note that a building permit may be needed, separate from a demo permit anyway, just as a point of clarification. The next change and I believe this is something that actually at least Abby, I believe you noted as well, deleting this line under four one to B. Basically by having this in, it's saying that the gateway zoning district does not need to follow the parking standards for accessible parking, for bicycle parking, for changes of use, for the dimensions of parking stalls and for surface parking treatments, excuse me. So this would by eliminating this last line or this last part of this sentence would say that all those apply to the gateway as well, which I think we wanted to. That's pretty much the intent. So, deleting that. Do you want to take questions as we go through this or do you want to go through it all and take questions after? Let's do them as we go. There's not that many changes. So I think it's easier just to do them as we go. Well, this wasn't a change, but when I was reading through back to section four one on abandonment, on D one C. Yep. I'm wondering if we should put in there, just add a reference to four one C so that other information so that anyone who wants a demo building has to show that it doesn't meet historic architectural and cultural significant resource. Well, so I think. Maybe it's redundant. Well, I was gonna say, I think that's gonna be redundant because anything that falls into that category would be covered under four four, which specifically addresses demolition of those types of buildings. Okay. And so we'll talk about that in more detail at the next agenda item actually. So, I think that's a redundancy, but. You know me, I'm full of redundancy. Right. No, I was just thinking to make sure that there's not a, it doesn't slip somehow that it's there so that if someone reads that without reading the rest of it and argues, well, it doesn't say that here. That's all. Yeah, I think anything that would fall under four four would be covered under part C already. So it would have to go through that process regardless. Okay. All right. So next up, just adding here unit or suite depending on how we're referring to a non-residential space. Just to kind of clarify that it could be a unit or it could be a suite. Year 412. Yes, sorry, this is back in section 412. This is under vehicle parking adjustments. Let's see. Next up, still in 412 is adding for the incentive for reduced vehicle parking. The properties in the central business district would be able to take advantage of the underground parking provision because we potentially could have properties in that district that would have underground parking. So instead of just limiting it to the gateway only, the central business district could take advantage of that incentive. And just for reference, those are basically the properties in and around the downtown core and kind of on the western side of the circle. The next item, as we look at bicycle parking, adding in language here under for short-term parking, basically to say that if there's an existing existing publicly accessible short-term bicycle rack that would or bicycle rack that would meet the standards of the short-term bicycle parking requirements, being the location, the design, all of those parts and pieces that if there's already something that exists that that could be used to satisfy the short-term parking requirements that are outlined in this next section. So Eric, does it, I don't see any reference to it being located on the site or within a certain distance from the site? That's gonna be under the specifics on, that'll be in here under short-term parking, shall be located as follows under part four. So this will talk about where it needs to be located and how it's located for short-term parking. Okay, I got you. This additional language would basically say if there's already a facility that meets that need or that meets those standards and is designed appropriately and installed appropriately, that it could be used to meet the short-term parking needs of a proposed development site. Okay, so when it says it's located in a way that meets these standards out, that would tie it into four. So that's right, that's right. Sorry, do we get Joe? I do not have Joe. No, good question though. I wasn't looking at my attendees list until just now. Can Joe call in? I have not seen Joe, so. Is there a phone number though that he can call in too? Oh yes, there is. Hang on a second, okay. He can call in on 646-558-8656. 646-558-8656. Yep. And then we'll have to probably enter the webinar ID as well. Whoops. What's the ID? The ID is 862-2093-4351. 862-2093-4351. Yep. Eric, the only thing that I would mention about this language is to, we have bicycle parking requirements is located in a way that meets the standards, is located and designed in a way that meets the standards so that it references sort of our design and not just location standards. So the next change is on the actual requirements. One of the items was to change the, for multi-unit dwellings for the long-term parking to shift it from one space per dwelling unit to one space per two bedrooms. This is consistent with what, I forget who's, I looked at another community's regulations and that's how they do the long-term for multi-unit as well. And I think that would be a, I think that's a good change because while we do have a lot of studios in one bedrooms, this would I think address some of the needs for the, it'll reduce the overall number of long-term parking facilities at a multi-unit building for one, which I'm not necessarily saying is a good thing, but I think that was one of the concerns from councils that we were requiring too much of the long-term parking. So I think this would help address that concern. Question for you, getting back to, if someone were putting up a project with three and four bedroom units, then you'd be looking at more than one space per unit. So I'm wondering- In total, yes. I'm wondering if one space per two bedrooms, and I have no idea if that's reasonable or not, but if it lets us assume it is, or one per unit, whichever is more, I don't know if it's more or less, but whatever is more. You know what I mean? So that if you have three bedroom units, you don't have to put in one and a half bicycles racks. You know what I'm saying? I think I know what you're saying. You're basically saying that it would be the greater of the two potentially. That actually I think it would be the lesser of the two, one per two bedroom or one per unit. If you're more than two bedrooms, maybe it should just say, if you're more than two bedrooms, one per unit for three bedrooms and up or something. I'm just thinking if you've got, if you've got 10, four bedroom apartments, well, now you've got the 20 spaces, and do you really need that in a building? Well, and I think that's the intent here is that, so the more bedrooms you have, potentially the more people you're gonna have, therefore the more longer term parking you would wanna have on site. Excuse me, so that if you've got. I'm raising the question. I don't know if that's true or not. Maybe it is, but I'll leave it to other experts. I shouldn't say our experts on this committee, whoever they may be, you and Abby, I think it is. It's definitely like locomotion put together a model by parking ordinance for this, for the state of Vermont, so that municipalities could have expert framework to create the standards. And their standards are one space per dwelling unit. I think it's, they could come out in the wash because we're assuming that we're just gonna have a lot more studio in one bedrooms, which we might, which would make the new language, I think, total less. But if we had more bigger unit, it might end up with more by parking. So I did listen to the council meeting. I didn't really understand sort of what the concern was about the language that we had. And why they was concerned about providing adequate long-term bike parking. So I guess that would be my follow-up question, Eric. Did you understand what the concern was? Like having too much bike parking, why was that, like long-term bike parking, why was that a concern? So I can take that. It's because the bike parking is competing for space with car parking. And so like, if you're reducing the amount of space available for car parking, you're reducing the units that can be built because of our parking minimums. So there's some sort of balance there between bike and car parking related to the density that can be built. Well, I also heard, I listened to most of that meeting too. And I thought I also heard compete, that the long-term parking would be competing with space in the building that could otherwise be used for a unit or a bed. Yeah, basically it's like a concern about the impact on density. And if this volume is the right number compared to the other things that are competing for the space. But my other reason for raising that question is we're trying to incentivize three and four bedroom units. And so having to build more bike parking because you have a bigger unit, does that maybe go against or hurt our incentive? I think bike parking takes up really minimal space. You're talking about 10 long-term bike parking spots per one vehicle parking spot. So I think it's a, Mike, I think it's a wash either way. I don't think their bike parking rooms are taking away from dwelling space. And you can fit so many bikes in such a small amount of space, it's probably neither here nor there. Well, I guess, I mean, again, if you're talking about three or four bedroom units, that ratio changes if you're at two per bedroom. Yeah, so with the original language, would result in less spaces if there were larger units, that's certainly true. Less long-term bike parking spaces, yep. Yeah, that's my only question is for three and four bedroom units, if they ever get built, which is probably a big if in the current world, but if they ever get built, do we really need two parking, two bike spaces for those units? I don't know, maybe the answer is yes, but I'm gonna stop complaining about this right now. And also I just wanna reiterate, where any of this discussion would go forward to council, we're not proposing new language to them necessarily, but just to be clear. And I can see the same discussion taking place at council. Right, right, so I wanna acknowledge that councilor Oakleaf has her hand raised, so. Go ahead, councilor. Why don't you just let her into the meeting? No, that's okay. I'm fine, just commenting as needed. I appreciate it though, Mike. I had a question about the section above, perhaps it was 412G4, hard to follow along a little. So I was curious about this language as well. So what are, you know, are developers providing any financial options and offsets to help maintain the public bike parking? Or, you know, what's the expectation that the city maintains this in perpetuity as well? Are there obligations there? That's a good question. It's not maintained when, you know, what's the loss for the city taxpayers for saying, sure, we'll negotiate a reduction in space so you can take advantage of this existing infrastructure already, but being public infrastructure, that's also subject to change. Yeah, that's a good point. I'm not sure I have an answer for that, but definitely something for consideration for council discussion. That was my question for the moment, thank you. So I think Mike's point is worth bringing to the council, especially because the recommendation, the recommended language from our bike experts is the original language, so just sort of, yeah. Yep, absolutely. Then in addition on this same page, an increase in the minimum for short-term parking for industrial from 10,000 to 20,000, an increase in the short-term on the community cultural religious facility from 1,000 to 2,000, and an increase in the funeral homes from 1,000 to 2,000 gross square feet as well. Just because the nature of those uses, it could, it may be that there's not a lot of people that would be riding their bikes to those locations, so I thought potentially raising the threshold a little bit, and I think I'd have to look at the actual guidance, but I believe local motions guidance is for the community cultural facilities and funeral homes is that increased level. It's, I'm looking at it right now. It's the one space per 1,000 for cultural centers and funeral homes, so the original language isn't in line with their recommendations as well, but the new language for the industrial is in line, the new one is more in line with their recommendation for the industrial one specifically yet. Got it, thank you. So that's another one. Oh, the other thing I wanna mention is the numbering in this section is off. I didn't, I started it new instead of carrying it forward, so that will change, but I don't, that's more of a administrative type thing. The next item would be the addition, again, for short-term bike parking, if the, if the preferred location for short-term bike parking is in the city's right-of-way, then that might be an option and could be incorporated with approval from Department of Public Works. If that short-term parking is gonna be better suited in a location such as that, so adding that language and then under item five, adding that the long-term parking needs to be free of charge for the tenants or residents of the building. So on 4AV, what popped in my mind was Brin's question, because if you're putting a bike rack in the public right-of-way, then you get the same kind of situation as a public bike rack that you can use. So I'm wondering if, I guess maybe it's up to the council to put in charges, but I don't know if it's appropriate for us to put in here something about, you know, as Brin said, paying some kind of upkeep because it's either you own it and it's in the right-of-way, and so you have to take care of it or it's public in the right-of-way in front of your building, so why aren't you taking care of it, you know what I'm saying? Because if I own it in the public right-of-way, public can still use it, but I have to maintain it. You know what I'm saying? And I think that would be part of the discussion with the public works that if they, I mean, it would obviously need to be installed to their standards and specifications, it would need to meet all of the design requirements, et cetera, and there would need to be an interest in taking that over as an asset from the city. So I think if it met a community benefit as well, that would be the reasoning for that, not just an open acceptance of any public right-of-way for use in this regard. So I'm not sure if it's appropriate for us to put something in about the cost or if that's something that the council, because the council takes care of all that, makes those decisions. You know what I'm saying? Because it seems like with approval of the public works in, I'm thinking, including, you know, payments or maintenance or something like that. As well. Yeah. As well. I'm taking notes on this to make sure we do bring that to the council discussion. Also would follow up with staff on what is the current process that DPW follows. They may already have something in place related to this. So we'll get more information. Yeah, and I do think it's in your jurisdiction, Christine, to the council to add something playing it was like that. Agreed. Hey, we agree on something. And so that's the only other item of change. So I just wanted to bring those forward. I think at this point it's probably best that we not look at updating a report until we see what council wants to do with it after their discussion and bring it back to a future meeting for the actual update after council sets a hearing so that we can coordinate those two specifically with the language that'll be sent forward to the hearing. So anyway, just wanted to make you guys aware of those changes. As I mentioned, those will be discussed with council in more detail for how we move forward with this, with these amendments for consideration. So let me ask you, because this report is going to the council for their next hearing with these relatively minor changes. I say relatively minor, I think one could argue that the changes to the parking requirements could be substantial, though I'm not sure they really are, but that's for the council to decide. So I don't know if it would hurt to approve this report since there's a couple of changes from the previous one. The whatever council discusses, whatever language comes out of their discussions, I should say, that's what will get advertised for the hearing. And I think that's when we'll have the specific language for the report that we can update at a future meeting. So I mean, I think- You'll have another shot at this before the public hearing is what you're saying. Correct, correct. Yeah, and I believe the way that statute is written, it only needs to be, you need to get it within like 10 days before the hearing and then it needs to be delivered to council by the hearing. So there's no timelines other than that really for how the report gets forwarded back to council. Okay, is everyone good with that? It's fine with me. Yeah, okay. And Joe, thank you for joining us. Since you're on the phone, I believe it's the star six to unmute, star nine, one of the two. So feel free to unmute yourself and join in at your convenience. Why don't you try it Joe to make sure it works. Can you hear me? Can hear you now. We can. Excellent. Okay, I'm listening in via my phone. Yeah, I'm doing the best I can here but taking in everything you folks are discussing. All right. Did you catch some of what we just discussed? I did. Okay. And you're okay with it? I think so. Okay, good. All right. Okay. What's next? We're talking about the, what is section five? We are on to section four four. Four four. That's what I meant, four four. Right. Okay, so included with your packet is draft language for section 4.4. You'll notice that some of this is quite different than the last time we looked at it as it is no longer being called design review. So we are now, the new language that's being proposed is calling this section 4.4, local, historic, cultural, architectural and archeological resources. So I had, if you recall our last meeting, I indicated or I asked if there was a willingness or an interest from the planning commission for me to reach out to our city council, I'm sorry, our city council, our city's council, legal council, about whether or not we could take the list of resources that the state currently has for the city of Winooski, the historic resources and adopt that as a local list of historic resources that we regulate through our own set of guidance and guidelines. The long and short of it is, the response I got was yes, we can do that. And so what this new language reflects is what that would look like. And I had a conversation with our legal council earlier today actually to get clarification on a couple of things which I will highlight some changes that'll need to happen to this text as well. But basically what this means is, we can take the state's list of historic resources, adopt those as our own local register, so to speak and then have these regulations only apply to those properties. That way we're not bringing in extra properties in these design review boundary areas that we're going to bring in other properties that really have no potential historic, cultural, archeological, architectural value to the city but by the nature of having to draw boundaries would bring in these properties. So what this is doing now is saying, if you're currently listed in the state register, once adopted, you will now be in the city's local register and these regulations will apply to you for the covered actions. So a lot of the changes that you'll see will not impact the covered actions, they will not impact the review process, the standard of review, any of those things, it's really more of kind of the mechanics of how we get here is what the big changes are. So. Hey, Eric. Yeah. Just a quick interruption. So you're referencing the state register. Yep. And I'm not sure, you know, Bryn did a survey of some type and has a bunch of properties. I'm not sure if there are any properties that she identified as, I think it was strongly important, moderately important. I forget how she did it, but can we add those properties? I don't think that we can because there have not been formal surveys done on those properties. What Britta did was more of a, what I'll call a desktop slash windshield survey to evaluate the exterior, look at some of the history of the buildings but did not actually do a formal survey process as if similar to what the state did to establish our current register. So that's not to say those properties couldn't be added in the future to our local register, but there would need to be a process to evaluate those properties specifically for their historic cultural, archeological or architectural value. And so I take it that there is a process, either a state process or some kind of process that's out there, how you do that? Well, or is it something that we have to come up with? We would have to do that locally, which I do have language in this new draft that would address that. Right, but I'm saying to do the review, to add a property to our list, is there a formal process that has to be followed or is that something that we make up, the process, what we look at, et cetera? So I think it's a little bit of both. Excuse me, I think there is some guidance that we would need to follow from the state, basically to determine or to make sure that we're actually evaluating the correct elements, but that would be a local process that we use. Okay. So to start off, one of the first changes is some additional language here under the intent section, really just to put in the statutory reference for where this is coming from. So coming from 24VSA 4414 part F, and then just adding in some additional language on what we're doing. And actually, let me flip to the, so this is the proposed that you're looking at tonight. This is the previous version as design review. So that would be- Eric, do you want a screen share again? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I, here I am looking at stuff and you guys aren't even able to see it. Thank you very much, Mayor. I apologize for that. It would, yeah, that would be a lot easier to see what's going on. Okay, sorry about that. So here's under the intent section. What you see highlighted in red is new language, obviously, compared to the previous version was not there. So what I, yeah, so in this case, it's really just to clarify what we're looking at. And the statutory reference. And I'll just work through these. I won't go super fast, but a little quick. So feel free to stop me as you need. There's some additional changes in the applicability section, basically just to clarify that properties in the gateway will only be subject to the demo provisions because there's other review processes there that'll address more of the other covered actions. Similarly, properties in the downtown are exempt from this because there's a completely separate review process for those, which basically that's very similar to what was there before, except it wasn't explicit that the downtown core would be exempt because of the design review and the additional scrutiny that those projects get for the Act 250 process being under an Act 250 permit. So just some clarification there as well. Part C under covered actions, none of this has changed with the exception of the addition of item seven. And this was added, I believe, in response to some possible concerns from council about the fact that some of these older buildings may be either unsafe or not up to current code and that we're not saying that by going through this process, you couldn't make changes that would bring a building up to code or remove hazardous materials or things of that nature that we're not saying you need to keep all that in place in order to follow these regulations. Otherwise, part C is the same. Can you hear me, Eric? Yes. I'm sorry to interject there. I do think that that's actually a very good concern that they're raising. And one of the things was with the main and mansion project when that came forward, ostensibly the only change that had occurred to the historic structure at the corner of, I think it's 109 Main Street. The only change that had occurred from when that building was listed to when it was being reviewed for delisting were the modern windows that had been put in. And as you know, egress windows and like soundproof windows and things like that are now being encouraged and imperative, it's something to consider that like these things that like we have other regulations that are enforcing, they shouldn't be used as kind of things to discredit the historic nature of building, right? Right. That's right. Okay, so just kind of we're on the same page there and that's why I'm affirming what council is saying. Yes. So, but otherwise section sub part C here is the same as what you reviewed previously with the addition of item seven. Moving on item D, this will need to change a little bit but this is a new section to basically say that we're gonna create a list and a map that shows the resources so that people know where they are and both the physical address and a map showing the properties as well. So this will need to change a little bit because I think we're gonna need to adopt that map and list as part of the land use regulations where the way this is written now is it would be a standalone document so we could add and change that without having to update the regulations but based on conversations with our attorney he's recommending that we incorporate it into this document so that it's part of the bylaw which would then give it additional statutory protection. So the bulk of this language in D will remain the same except with a few minor changes. Item E, the only difference here is instead of previously I believe it was called the, what were we calling it? Design review commission or something like that? We were calling it, yeah, the design review advisory commission so now we're referring to it as the local resources advisory commission so otherwise nothing here has changed under E with the exception of the name. Next item F, none of this would change this is all still the same as before and similarly item G remains the same. Nothing new there. Item H is actually also the same as well there's nothing new being proposed here so this would all be the same process, same requirements as before. Item I is a new item, item I and J are both gonna be new. These will relate to the listing and delisting of properties so the only change basically what this is doing is outlining a process whereby properties would be added to our local register and what that looks like. The way this was drafted is that it was drafted with the register being a standalone document so it had approval by city council. Again, that part will need to be updated and that is really reflected under item four here that city council would take a formal action. City council would still take a formal action but it would be on an amendment to this bylaw not to a separate document. So the language needs to change to basically to say that the planning commission would make a recommendation to council for their approval of this amendment just like any other amendment to our land use regulations. So Eric, at the beginning of that, you say the city of Wienewski from time to time will evaluate properties. Would that fall under the, I'll call it the LRAC? It could. Does that need to be, I mean, what does city of Wienewski mean? Oh, I'm sorry, I see what you're saying, Mike. So in this case, the city of Wienewski would be either a property owner, the city council, some concerned interest group, myself, the historical society, whoever within the city might go to a property and say, hey, this looks like it's important. We should try to protect this. We should try to include this in our list. So. So do we need to identify where it comes from? Or I guess you're saying anybody could come in and say, hey, I think Mr. Smith's property is historic. Go evaluate it. So yeah. Okay. Okay. Excuse me, and then obviously item one would then have to apply where the property owner would need to give permission to do that unless they're the one who's initiating the request. Okay. That's a good question, thank you. Mike, are you asking whether or not it makes sense to add some language here that says something to the effect of the city of Wienewski from time to time will evaluate properties on petition of interested parties within the city? I think that makes sense. You know, and well, but I guess the problem is, you know, I guess I was initially asking who is the city of Wienewski that's gonna evaluate it? Is it, would it go to the LRAC? So yes, excuse me. So to actually do the evaluation, basically a report would be done. So let's just walk through this. A property is identified. The property owner is contacted. They consent, say yes. Then the city in conjunction probably with the state will go through and do the formal evaluation of the property. All that information would go to the LRAC for them to make a determination or to make a recommendation of determination for amending the list and the map. Under part three, then, sorry, under part four, if they make a positive determination, if they say there's more information needed, then it goes back a process to do that as well to get additional information for the LRAC to basically make a recommendation for or against, including a property in this register. Again, I'm just, who is the city of Winooski, both in the intro and in two, the city in consultation with the state? Maybe it's not important, but I'm just curious if it's supposed to be the LRAC that's one of their responsibilities or? I can clarify that, Mike. Yeah. Does that make sense to everybody else just me being thick-headed? I think it's worth addressing. Makes sense. Okay, so this basically just lays out a process to list properties and what that looks like. And then similarly, there's a process here to delist properties. So if a property is, because we're using the state's list as our basis, at least now and in the future, if a property owner says, hey, this property has changed or been altered so much that it's no longer has any value, a similar process would be followed. The property owner would submit their evidence to the LRAC for review. They would evaluate that information, either request additional information and make a determination one way or another for delisting of that property, whether they say yes, it should be delisted, no, it should be, it should stay on the list, et cetera. They would make a recommendation and then that recommendation would go forward to you all as the planning commission to either amend or not amend the list and the actual regulations. So otherwise, this section is pretty much the same as it was before. Sorry, Joe. Can I have a question here? Is it possible with the establishment of this district to request the Division of Historic Preservation to reevaluate properties within that district? So I think to answer that question, Joe, we would, that would probably require the city to become a certified local government for one and then petition the state for funds to do that evaluation, or the city could, I think if the city wanted to pay for it outright themselves, I think they could do that as well in consultation with the state, but I think that's where bringing the state in would require some additional certifications or designations of the city. Okay. I'm just raising the concern here that again, we're working off a 44 year old document and just what's the, going forward, what would be the mechanism for updating that? And it doesn't sound like the state has any real intention to ever update that, which is kind of a weird thing to me, but it seems like we're running into problems with kind of the flaws of that older document. Yeah, I don't disagree with you, Joe, and I think that's something that, I think the state is trying to kind of get out of that business for lack of a better term and start getting municipalities to take ownership of their resources. And I think, I think that's why they're kind of pushing more of the becoming the certified local government to open up funds to be able to do the local evaluations and reviews with kind of some of their guidance, but without them actually doing the actual work necessarily. So I think that's kind of the direction that the state is trying to go in. I don't know that for sure, but that's my speculation. So- Because that's kind of what I'm wondering is if the district was established, if that would kind of merit enough attention for them to revisit this. Yeah, I don't think that in its own would. I think if we were to pursue certified local government status and be granted that, I think that's when the state might get more interested. So do you think that this district would put us on track to be a certified local government? I think it would because I believe that's part of it is establishing some sort of local commission to do that reviews the properties. And I can't remember offhand, but I think there may be a component of having some sort of local regulation as well that you need in order to achieve the certified local government status. So this would put us, this would set us in that direction. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Let me ask a clarifying question, Eric, I know Joe, you're using the term district, but my understanding is this applies to the whole city except for, I think he excluded the downtown core. Yeah, so I was actually, I was, I'm glad you brought that up, Mike, because I wanted to make comment on that as well. So, yes, what we're talking about now is that this would apply citywide to any property. Basically what we would do to start is to take the state's list of properties. And adopt that as our local list as well, including a map. So what that looks like is the properties that show up here in blue are the properties that are currently on the state's list. So what this would do is say that any of these properties would now fall under these regulations for any of the covered actions that are proposed, or if one of the covered actions included in section 4-4 is proposed, these regulations would apply to any of these properties. With that said, I wanna be clear, what I'm talking about here is property, not structure. So the state's list is specific to structures or to buildings. What this regulation would do is apply to that property as a whole. So, for example. Hurt, understood. So, with St. Stephens. Oh, that's something else I wanna mention. Thank you, Connor. Just so everyone knows Connor had to leave, so he's on his way out the door. Yeah, Connor. We still have a quorum. So this would not apply to any projects that are already in process, like any of our regulations, anything that we already have an application for, any new regulations do not apply to those. They only apply to applications that are received after the adoption. But, looking at the St. Stephens property, the rectory is listed. That there's still some question about whether or not the church is listed or not. With what this proposal would say is, the rectory is listed and it's on a piece of property. Therefore, any actions, any of the covered actions that occur on that property, fall within these regulations. So that there's context taken, depending on what the action is, to the property as a whole, and not just a particular building or structure. That makes perfect sense. So, any of the properties that are showing up in blue, if one of the covered actions that are listed in section C were to be proposed, that whole property would go through, that covered action would go through this process for that property. Eric, I have a question. I think you may have covered it, but just for clarification purposes, so I understand. Because this is a 44-year-old registry and the process to update that registry, if we were to take it on, hopefully we'll take it on is a long process. And so we're sort of starting with the state historic registry and then maybe building to that in the future. Is it outlined in here to actually have a full, instead of it's just like the window assessment that was done by BHP, like a full assessment of the city to have like a newer record of what's historically significant. Because it sounded like some of these may have less historic significance now because they were taking so much was done to them. And then others that weren't captured during this assessment would be captured in a newer assessment. Question, Abby. These regulations would not specifically require that. However, with that said, that's not to say that that couldn't be a policy of the city to, once we have the regulatory, really what this language is intended to do is provide some level of regulatory review for properties that we know are currently listed. What the city could do is build off of that and say that they want to continue to update this newly created local register to evaluate properties to either add or remove and proactively do that. So that we are getting that more detailed look at the properties that we know may have some historic significance, may not. The property owners could also initiate that, but really what this is gonna do is, at least in my mind, is start to create the framework for where we are able to do those reviews and evaluations and add and change our local, a local registry. And if I'm hearing it right, there's not really language in here about having a full city assessment as part of the future of historic preservation in when you ski, the leverage point for adding property is if the property owner brings the property to the table, am I understanding that right? And do we need language to kind of cover the assessment of the city by the city or by whatever body would be the most appropriate body to assess the city? So this has language for adding properties. As you mentioned, either via the, oops, sorry, I'm looking at the wrong section, either through the property owner or some other entity in the city. I think what you're talking about, Abby, is better suited outside of this document because this is really, this is what's really gonna provide the regulation for those properties. I think a mechanism to do more regular evaluations of those properties, I don't know if it's really best incorporated into the land use regulations because they're really intended to be regulatory, not to create the mechanism to do the evaluation as much as how the properties that are included are going to be evaluated for changes. So I think that's a different, I think that's a different piece of documentation and also potentially policy direction from the city to say we want to move forward with regular evaluation of properties for inclusion in our local register and providing the funding and the other resources to actually do that. Okay, so really the LRAC would be working with the city to make that happen outside of this sort of regulatory document. That's right, or some other entity, like the Historical Society or some community group could do that, but I think, yeah, I think it's, that's something else outside of this process. Okay, thank you. Yep. To Abby's point, I kind of hear what you're saying is that there should be some sort of groundwork laid for going forward with that, rather than just kind of depending on working on the 40 year old document in perpetuity, rather than kind of thinking about, well, how does that evolve? Yeah, and I think through the work that Brita did, I think there were some draft ordinances or other documents that would serve those purposes. But again, there are standalone documents that are outside of this framework. They really kind of, again, lead for, they established the policy direction for the city to go down that road, rather than a regulatory component. Let me jump in and ask if you feel like doing it. Christine, and is Bryn still on here? Thoughts? Thoughts about what is being proposed. Are you asking me about like, not what Eric has here, but something to compel update, regular updates of the registry? No, I'm talking about the way this is written now, getting away from design review districts and tying it to properties. I think this is more aligned with what I've heard when talking to counselors, one-to-one, that they wanted more, like this provides a tight focus on our highest priority structures. So I think that this is, I think this is very supportable. Thank you. Bryn, do you want to jump in? She's not on anymore, Mike. Oh, she's not. Well, come on, Bryn, where are you? Okay. Thanks, Christine. Anything else about this section that anyone wants to bring up or discuss? So what I can do is for our next meeting is look at the language that needs to be amended based on my conversations with our council today and bring that draft back to you along with the map that I just showed and a list of what the properties would be that would be included in that. So that you can kind of see the full package of what this looks like with updated language. And also, I guess I'll just add real quick, Mike, that this would also necessitate changes in Article 8 to, again, go from the, whatever it was, the design review advisory commission to the local resources advisory commission. So changing these acronyms here as well. All right. Great, thanks, Eric. Well done. Great, thank you all. So are we, I think we're probably in the city updates about now, if we're not, we're gonna jump there. We are to city updates, yes. I will share some work from other commissions. Our housing commission has started investigating short-term rental regulation. Our housing initiative director has collected policies from other towns in Vermont and is trying to figure out what might be the best approach for us. So I think that is, we heard from a member of the public earlier about the urgency in our housing situation. That's another way that we're trying to tackle that. Maybe minorly relevant to the, is there a question? Okay. Maybe minorly relevant. We have been considering changes to the sidewalk use around the rotary put forth by staff to address safety concerns about parking and conflicting with the tables around there. Staff are collecting input from business owners right now. We presented those changes through our finance commission from a lens of economic vitality. And there is some tension around, if we're reducing outdoor seating in favor of the amount of space for safety reasons, what is the balance there? More to come on that. Monday's meeting, we're gonna see design updates from Nettie on the hotel project. So that is moving forward if you hadn't seen the construction yet. And- So Christine, if I can interrupt you, that's the hotel and parking garage? Hotel, parking garage, and workforce housing. I know they've been talking to VHFA. I do think that they're gonna put in some affordable and potentially family size units there, but I don't have details on that yet. And then we have bids on the Main Street project. They're still under analysis. So I think early October, we could make an award. But I think it doesn't start till next year. But forward motion on that, that big effort as well. I think that's it from me. I would just add you'll, so you may be seeing some activity on 7D currently. They have a permit to do some soil remediation, basically removing some contaminated soils and some additional stabilization. So there's right now like a big block wall against the CCV property. They're gonna be taking that wall down and putting in some more permanent sheet piling. So they have a permit to do that work now, but that's as far as they have permitting for. So until they get design review approval from council and move forward on that end, and actually they will have to get everything else permitted as well. So while you're seeing activity there, it's related to the construction, but they are not permitted to do the construction yet. So just, I wanna be clear about what's actually happening there for folks. Updates for me, I think the main update that I wanted to give you all is on October 10th, we are going to have a public meeting in conjunction with the safe, healthy connected people meeting for our walk bike master plan. We've been doing a lot of community outreach on that project already. I think we've had around 25 targeted engagement points and we've received through our survey work and those engagement points. I think we've received over 800 comments on specific either issues, concerns, advantages, things like that related to walking, biking, rolling throughout the city. So we're gonna bring all that information together for our, through a public meeting on October 10th. Like I said, that's gonna be in conjunction with the safe, healthy connected people commission meeting. So be on the lookout for either of those items. We'll start advertising those here before long. Eric, do you know what time that meeting is? I believe it's gonna start, it's either six or 6.30 start for that commission. Okay, thanks. Yep, and that'll be, I believe that's gonna be here in council chambers and online as well. That'll be a hybrid meeting for folks. I think that's the only, the only other update I had for folks. So let me just jump in and Christine correct my problem. Incorrect. I think it's at the O'Brien community center. Yeah, yeah, that's right. Actually a town meeting TV, I think it's gonna be at that meeting as well. I believe. Good. Anything, any other business from folks? I did do this earlier, but I did not so apologize. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I did this earlier, but I did not so apologies. Sarah actually who's not here tonight, sent me an email earlier and basically wanted me to, wanted me to thank Abby for all the work done with the amendments that went forward and presenting at council that she really appreciated all that, all the effort that was done there and bringing those discussions forward and also wanted to, she, let's see. She wanted to ask the mayor if, because we're not gonna have a lot of time with these latest regulations to, let's see. Because we don't have a lot of time to spend on our current discussions about preservation work, make an extra effort to communicate with the other counselors where we're headed on this and any feedback be brought back to us as well. So it sounds like that's what you're doing. I am doing that actively. I'm taking much more diligent notes and making sure in check-ins with counselors that I'm providing clear updates throughout this process so that by the time this gets to council, we'll have addressed any concerns in advance as best we can and they'll have an understanding of what's coming forward better. Sounds like that's- And Abby, you did do a good job. Kind of summarizing the situation at the last meeting. So thank you. Of course. Thanks. The only other item I had for other business is our meeting schedule. We're currently at one meeting a month still. I know we talked about doing that through the summer. We are gonna start ramping up on some other changes, some statutory changes that need to be made to our regulations. So I don't know if folks are interested in going back to two meetings a month or staying with one a month and just working harder to get through some of the updates. But if we do have a second meeting we could do that in September, which would be I believe the 28th would be the second or sorry, the fourth Thursday or we'd be looking at October 12th and potentially October 26th or just October 12th. So I wanted to get folks' interests on our meeting schedule and what we wanna do about that. How do you feel, Joe and Abby? I would definitely be in favor of at least having one meeting in September. I don't know, Eric, if you see what's coming down the pike that necessitating two meetings after that. Yeah, I think doing one meeting in October should be okay. Sorry, in September should be okay. I think once we move on from design review and start looking at some of the statutory changes from Act 47. Let me interrupt you, Eric. It's no longer design review. Thank you. Once we move on from section 4.4 and start looking at the statutory changes that are outlined in Act 47, I think it's gonna be at least initially, I think it'll be helpful to do two meetings a month because I think there's gonna be a lot of material to cover. Okay. Just because I think there's gonna be so much of the, so many sections of our regulations that might need to change that I think it'll be helpful to do that. So why don't we plan on two meetings in October? November is one of those months where the second meeting will be somewhere around Thanksgiving, so one meeting there. Yeah, it'll be on Thanksgiving Day. Yeah, so typically we only do one meeting in November and December anyway because of the holidays, so it... So let's plan two meetings in October. Okay. That means our next meeting would be October 12th. And I will not be here on October 12th. That's right. Sorry, Sue's taking me across the ocean. Nice. Good, Mike. Enjoy. Will do. Yes, with your steady hand, Eric, keeping me on track. Yeah, absolutely. So Eric said to me the meeting I missed in August that Abby ran, went smooth as silk. So, I... Not because of me. I took that as a clue for what it's worth, I guess. Yeah, there's a little assistance getting me through all the Robert's rules of order, but we did it. When you run a meeting, Abby, it should be the Abby rules of order. That would be nice. Doing great, Abby. And thanks for doing that, by the way, Abby. And also thanks for your comments at the city council meeting. I did see that. Yeah, thanks for attending, Mike, too. And Joe and Sarah. Yeah. Christine, you'll be happy I didn't jump in because I figured Abby said everything need to be said. I think you're right, Mike. I think so. If there's no other business, I'd be looking for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Joe, I heard your second. So, all in favor. I seconded. Yeah. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Okay. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Christine. Thanks, Eric. Thank you. Thank you. Abby, thanks, Joe. We'll see you. Have fun, Mike. See ya. Thank you. We'll do it.