 Okay, let's call to order this December 13th meeting of the mob killer planning commission. This is a regular Monday meeting. But we have a special purpose tonight which is to receive comments from potential proposed changes to the zoning bylaws and the river hazard map. The first thing we need to do is approve the agenda. So if the planning commissioners could take a look at that and give a motion to approve. Okay, no motion from Gabe. Gabe. A second. Second from John. Those in favor of approving the agenda say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed. Okay, we'll proceed. Next thing is comments from the chair so before we get going I'm going to run through some things Mike already ran through a few important items. Welcome everyone for this night this hearing for the for comments from the public is the second one we've had we had one two weeks ago. The structure that we'll have for tonight is we'll open up with Mike, the planning director Mike Miller explaining. Very briefly summarizing some of the proposed changes that were driven from public comment request. We're going to follow a memo that Mike prepared for the order of the comments. Play together you're going upstairs. And we'll stop here to remind everyone that you should keep it on mute, unless you're had raised your hand to do a comment. So we're going to begin that list of taking the items as they're as they come on the list, the link to the memo is been placed in the chat for this hearing. So everyone can access there so they'll know if they're coming for a specific item, they'll know when it comes up sequentially on that list. So tonight for the planning commission to deliberate depending on the amount of comments we should receive that's not our top priority. The top priority is to get all the comments. And if we don't end up delivering tonight which I'm not expecting that we will have time. We'll do that at a future meeting. It will probably be January and in commission meeting that we do that. Which everyone's welcome to, of course. When we do deliberate we're going to be following the current city plan and the regional plan. And that's what we're going to be doing. We are not going to be responding to specific projects specific parcels. This is going to be a process that's holistic and takes the entire city into account and all of our planning efforts into account. So everyone's aware of that upfront. And for tonight for your comments please keep them to two minutes and we'll be using the raise hand function like we said before. When we get to each item, people can raise their hands. I'll call on them individually and they'll have their two minutes. Okay, and and also to repeat as Mike said, state your full name, just so we have that record. So the media has that record if they report on it. We can move along to the next item on the agenda. Which is general business and comments from the public. So if there's anyone here to speak about something other than the items for for the proposed changes for the zoning bylaws. Now would be the time. So this would be anything that's not part of the hearing use the raise hand function now if you have something. I'm not seeing any general business comments so I'm going to proceed. That means that we're on to the hearing. So I'm going to hand it off to Mike to summarize the proposals. And then we'll have briefly have any questions from the planning commission if they need it. I'm not expecting they will. And then we'll go to the public comment. So, take it away Mike. So really quick, you know, technically. Kirby's open the public hearing just the way we've got that official kind of part of the this next step here. So I'm just going to run through I assume everybody has had and reviewed the now. Certainly if anybody has questions, anyone has not seen the memo or has any specific questions. I'm always available to answer questions about the contents of each one of these. But I'm going to go through really quick of the 10 just for the public if anyone's viewing this on television or viewing this later and want to understand what's going on. I'm going to give a quick update of what the 10 proposals are and then. And then, as Kirby said, we'll get some quick questions from the planning commission, if any, and then get to the public comments, which is why we're all here. So the first change is a map change for Harrison Ave and Whittier Ave area and so there's three parcels on Loomis Street and a couple so Harrison Ave. Pass the roundabout on Main Street. There's a short road that connects over its Whittier and you've got Loomis and Harrison kind of connects through those. So it's a small road. It's part of the College Street north neighborhood so it's owned as a college street and we had some proposals that led us to take a look at that street and decided it might be more appropriate that it be re-zoned residential 3000 which is the same as Loomis Street and a number of the other neighborhoods in that area. So we felt that was more appropriate to get that re-zoned to Res 3000 from its Res 6000 designation it is today. The second change is up on Heaton Street. So it involves two parcels to Heaton Woods care facility and Washington County mental health. So the proposal Washington County mental health that led us to take a look at the zoning designations there. And the decision was that, you know, these two are kind of unique parcels. They're also zoned as the same district as the residential properties in College Street. So they're kind of non-conforming. So we felt they would be more conforming and more consistent if there were zoned residential 3000 which would increase the density in that area and allow for some infill potential on the Washington County mental health and Heaton Woods site. Keeping in mind that three acres of the Heaton Woods, so the Heaton Field and the Heaton Woods area, the wooded part. Some of it is actually in a conservation easement so that can't be developed regardless of the zoning change. I didn't want to go and point that out. So the next piece is next change is up on Northfield Street. So this is a large rural parcel, it actually includes three parcels actually includes two parcels. It's shifting them from one from rural to from mixed use residential over to residential nine. And these would then match the colonial drive neighborhoods which are also zoned residential nine. The idea on this one is that the large parcel. 50 acres or 60 something acres but it's a large parcel. It was zoned rural because it did not have access to sewer and water that was how we defined zoning back in 2018. If you didn't have access to sewer and water than you are zoned in rural. The proposal is to extend sewer and water into a portion of this site and because we follow property line. The proposal was then to rezone this property as res 9,000. And it has occurred in other places Crestview off Terrace Street is also a property very similar to this large parcel in here. We have re zoned residential 9,000 to accommodate growth because it can hook the sewer and water so I think most of us are familiar with this project this is Washington, this is habitat for humanity. It's kind of spurred this discussion of rezoning this parcel. We've had a lot of comment on this and we'll no doubt have some more. I've received some written, written comments which I have forwarded to the planning commission already that was received today from some organizations that supported it some neighbors that have issues and outlined some of their concerns and made some recommendations so those have all been forwarded to the planning commission already. We'll discuss them and comment on them further later. The fourth was to reduce the side setbacks and residential nine from 15 feet to 10 feet so this was just a general change there's no specific one there. So 9,000 is one of the most, I'd say ubiquitous zoning. It's it's found on Northfield Street, found up Tara Street found up, found up main street up Elm Street up Berlin Street it's on Gallison Hill. It's cliff street. So it just found all over the place and so because they're various sizes. You know the zoning at 15 feet work well in some neighborhoods and not for others so the proposal was to adjust the side setback from 15 feet to 10 feet because we felt that would be more consistent with our walkable neighborhoods goals. The fifth change is somewhat specific. I think that involved the rail line out in the eastern gateway gateway farm and factory neighborhood so think about the other round about near the old formula Ford where the Ford dealer is. So if you go out on route to past it you have Gallison Hill Road. There's the real area that's that's on Gallison Hill Road that all a buts. All those properties on both sides a but on either active or abandoned rail lines. And so there was a proposal because the setback in those areas was 20 feet, which is quite big, most of those buildings are actually at zero lot lines. And so there was a proposal to adjust that to zero. We proposed five feet. And the person who was associated with this recommendation. We had said well if you get to something from date that says it's okay to have the rail line. They, they agreed they gave some draft language that basically says if you get an agreement from the rail line in advance they will let you build to zero lot line. We've got very specific language that's written up on that. That's testimony that's already been given, and we can review that. Also, they're on if there are questions. The sixth is to new language for planned unit development so we added two sections one for general PDs and one for footprint PDs won't get into this too much. Most communities have general PDs and don't have these specific PDs and we actually in 2018 adopted a whole bunch of very specific PDs as said if you want density bonuses and if you want these special things and you need to meet higher levels. But most developers that come in want a cluster don't want any density bonuses they just want to be able to move development away from steep slopes or wetlands and be able to move that development closer to the road so they could go and realize their development potential. And so that's what the general PDs and the footprint PDs kind of do in there just approaching things slightly different between the two varieties. I can answer questions on those. The seventh was to remove the required PD language from new neighborhoods and conservation PDs this has been an ongoing debate since they were originally adopted in 2018. They developed over a certain size that you are required to do one of these PUDs. And those requirements tend to create a lot of problems for developers so developers are actually avoiding doing projects because of those requirements. So we were just recommending removing the requirement you can still do them if you want the density bonus and you want to meet all those high standards, then great. But if you are just looking to cluster them we'd rather have you do a planned unit development general PUD then be required to do one of the other ones. The eighth is removal of residential density requirements from riverfront and res 1500 districts this came from the planning commission. We already have these two highest and this is already the case in our two highest density districts urban center one two and three. The idea is that we would be using our regulating density per se, we would be looking at the bulk and massing the form of the buildings and letting the form decide what happens. And the basis of that is really to try to go and allow developers to fill that space, based on really what the market had so if we need more single family single unit in studios, then maybe we develop more more units. Maybe the market says we need more two and three bedroom units in which case you end up with less total units but you end up with the same number of bedrooms so that's really kind of the basis. I will mention. I can mention it here I can mention it later but I'll mention it here up front. I did end up kind of having a surprise meeting on Monday. And ARP asked to have a meeting with me about our existing zoning and we got into a discussion about the proposal this proposal here. And they had reviewed our zoning and so their opinion of that was, they think that the the removing of residential densities is the next thing that we should be looking at doing and it's the next best thing. And their concern, and this reflects some of the comments we received last meeting was that our, our design standards were not sufficient to, to make that next step possible yet. So I will just pass that along at this point we can kind of discuss and debate that more later but they were willing to kind of talk about resources that they could maybe provide that we could use to help basically increase our design review standards to make it that type of proposal would be more successful in the long run. So, Mike to clarify there. They said that our design review wasn't sufficient to switch to having no density city wide right. Well the concern was residential 1500 was only partially in our design review district and residential 1500 is only partially in our design review district so within our design review they felt there was probably, you know, they, they, they haven't written anything up. They're going to give us a written document at some point. Apparently they've been working on this and they're reviewing a number of communities around the state and around New England. And they happen to pick ours is one of the ones to review so they were, they're going to write a report for us. I don't know when we'll get it, but that was the comments that they provided generally was that yeah this is the next step you guys should be doing but your design standards. Outside of your design review district are not sufficient to be able to support that next step. Okay, that's that's great info. I'm glad I'm glad you had that conversation. So the night, the night that's really kind of a group of a whole bunch of small changes their minor technical fixes these are things that come up from time to time that the zoning administrator will find. So, we've got a recommendation to split that nature or recreational parks into two different groups. Mostly because we've had a couple of things like a proposal for a dog park. And we don't have a use that dog park fits into because nature or recreational park is really meant to be just hiking trails. So we kind of split it into kind of natural walking trails is one definition and recreational fields is another so if you wanted to put in a soccer field or baseball field, or, or a dog park. So it's going to have a more likely have a chance of impacting neighbors. Then somebody having a hiking trail in their backyard. So that's really what I was looking at to make sure we had more conditional uses make sure we addressed it make sure we had the definitions right. And then the next grade up from that so we would have any nature. Natural parks, recreation fields and recreation facilities. So the third step recreation facilities are much larger where you would have, say for example, bleachers lights, it's more of a facility, just having, you know, a basketball court with no, no lights, no stands just it's just a basketball court for kids to play on that would be a recreation field. And if you're going to go and build, you know, a mountaineer stadium, that's a recreation facility and it really has levels, really has conditional use and everything because the impacts of that, the parking, the lights, the noise. Definitely want to have neighbors have opinions so that was, you know, kind of minor thing there, add provisions to discuss accessory setbacks again. So these are small things. Garages or accessory buildings, they have one setback houses, have a different setback because they're bigger their primary so primary and accessory have different setbacks. What happens when the garage touches the house. These are things that zoning administrators run into. Well, does it have to meet the primary. primary structure or does it get the accessory structure because it's separate. So these are the type of answers that come into a bunch of couple of things on signs. There's a lot of things on signs that need to get fixed we just cleaned up a couple of them here. A couple of things about fences we always get comments about fences. This just clarifies stuff about front yard fences when it's something a front yard fence. It's a typo change a typo. The ability of landscape requirements. And the last one we did receive some comments on last time involved the shading requirement. The shading requirements apply to development. And the current rules were that they applied to yards. They applied to roofs and roofs, and felt that was a bit too, too broad and wanted it narrowed and so the discussion was maybe we should just narrow it down to applying just to existing and proposed solar facilities. And then number 10 is some river hazard regulations that's why this is actually warned as two separate hearings because technically this is a separate regulation. So we had made some interim changes in 2020 that we have to make permanent so we'll make those permanent. One reference that said here's where to find those changes. So really quick those are the 10 changes and I'll give it back to 30. Thanks a lot Mike. Do you need the plenty commissioners have any clarifying questions for Mike. It's looking like none, which means we can open things up for questions and comments from the public. And as we mentioned before, we'll start with the memo item number one. Item number one is the person person have person have change needed. I was reading farther down go to scroll back up. Yes, the map change in the person have with your area. So if everyone who has any comments or questions about that, use the raise hand button now for that. This is also could be referred to as the Washington County mental health. No, no, that's no that's the next one. Sorry, sorry, jumped the gun. Okay, nothing. Oh, yeah, no, I'm not seeing any hands for Harrison. So I'm going to move on to the Washington County mental health change. I would change for Heaton Woods and Washington County mental health area to be changed to res six. No, change three. Change from res six to res three. Okay. Joe, go ahead please. Joe Castellano over at saving street. I just had a quick question I know that the last meeting, we had Keith and who was discussing that they were looking for family housing because they definitely definitely desperately need family housing which is one of the reasons why this proposal is being brought up. And I would like to see if they can get some did you get some clarification what they meant by family housing is going to be living there or I just wasn't quite sure what the ultimate purpose was. So I am here, folks, Keith career from Washington County mental health services. It's good to see everybody. Sure. So, you know, in regards to the project, we're still in the very early exploratory stages. And this really is a focus on affordable housing for members of our community may need some additional health and like social services assistance, some of which will be handling on site. The units are primarily for individuals that's our vision at this time. And then if we go forward to develop the project, we did discuss the possibility of having a few units on site where more than one person or a small family could reside it to your point Joe there is a dearth of family housing affordable family housing in Montpelier. I think it's that the project will be with and in collaboration with regional service providers, and to assist those to live independently, not just Washington County mental health service clients. And we are none of this will be possible with a partnership with our housing partners. So one of the things as those partnerships, plus our hope is that sort of the vision of this project to come to them solidify. I hope that that helps. Just a quick follow up question Keith. Yeah. Do you ever see that the people who would be living in these units would basically have tendency for six months a year I'm just trying to give a figure out a timeframe or what what your your parameters are. There are criteria for transitional housing Joe we're not that's not part of our vision is transitional as we're looking to. It's a housing is what we're looking to. It's going to be permanent then. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Is there anything else Joe. No that was it. Okay. Eve. Okay. I have a couple of questions or points. One is the housekeeping on the memorandum. There's sort of a misrepresentations that's still there about this being employee housing. I think it's, I think on the last. Yeah, I think that was the key was the, that it was a request that was the other thing that it would turned out in our last discussion that it wasn't an exactly in a request it was sort of a discussion that got made into a, hey, let's do this. You know, I think I think the memorandum should be a little more clear about about the history of this and what is, you know, and maybe even what, what Keith was just saying because he kind of waters it down or changes, changes what it is. And I guess, you know, Eve Mendelson and I live here nearby on Fuller Street. You know, he's had this mention that this is going to keep the vibe of the neighborhood. But you know this is like maybe a quarter mile street maybe not even and 22 townhouses I think you mentioned at that last meeting. But then I saw on the paper it was four houses with 22 units. You know it's quite a bit to add to a extremely small and almost like a rural neighborhood with you walk and feel the vibe of that neighborhood. You know, we do have some concern about this is that you know kind of a massive change for for very little section of town. Thank you that's my comments. Thanks Eve. Keith, did you have a clarification there or was that that four houses with 22 units is correct. The number of units of housing again, we won't know, we're still in a very sort of early stages of it, but we're not anticipating 22, like, units of housing with in four, like townhouses or anything like that that's not what we were envisioning. Part of the plan is to look at he and those of you who live in the neighborhood heat and street as it is the building. We're converting that into housing so that would be where the bulk of the individual units would be would be in that building. Does that make sense Teresa. That's a little different than the bridge article and also what, like you said last week, I, or whenever it was couple weeks was more about these townhouses and matching the vibe and 22 units, I mean, for 20 units, I think I heard that day but I think we just want real clear clarification about where it's heading because again, it matters to those of us in this neighborhood. So I guess just to summarize to make sure I'm, I'm understanding what in general what this proposal and this little bit of a question as much as it is. Recitation is that there's going to be a number of individual. They're going to be doing creating units in the existing building that are going to be for individuals living to live there. They're definitely living there that is the client housing. Then they will create for units or four ish units. You know, as he said he's working on it in the parking area which would be more townhouses for families, potentially again all of this is very early stages of exploration and somebody asked a why are, why are we here and how do we come to my appeal my recognition is we started Washington County mental health services as many of us do recognize the affordable housing challenges we face as a community and we're willing to cover the table to think about ideas of how to ameliorate that not only just for the individuals that we serve but our entire community you know we see it through the individuals we serve a work painfully aware of it as a as a problem for the rest of our community. This would be affordable housing folks we would have to work with our affordable housing providers, the state of Vermont. And it would not be just for Washington County mental health service clients I want to be really clear about that that's not our intention is to sort of limited to Washington County mental health clients. But we are also aware of and have experience and providing supported housing that means that we provide supports to individuals who are living independently so they can successfully live in the community. So that's part of sort of what we are and who we've done for quite some time and we're quite good at it. In regards to the design of the land or the buildings or whatnot. Again we are really early on in the stages. And as we were talking about this we became aware that Montpelio was exploring potential zoning changes so hence we reached out to this group here and said hey what's up. And that's sort of how this conversation started here. Thanks Keith and that is correct we're always looking at tinkering with the zoning I mean it's it's a living document. It's it's not something that's meant to stay static. It never is. And to respond to Eva also apologize that the memo was was inaccurate and I haven't updated the memo because it's just been where I didn't want to start changing things in the memo midstream so I do recognize that the memo was inaccurate. Unfortunately, you know I went over this with my zoning administrator who was also in the meeting and what was written was what we had understood to be the request and the reasoning behind the request so I apologize that it isn't accurate. But as we move forward, you know, a new memo is going to be drafted based on what comes up and, you know, we'll go, go moving on from there. So there's yeah there's there's really two things about that that I'd like to make everyone perfectly aware of. One is it's great to know if there's a proposal and the details of the proposal and it's for the purposes of having informed public that's great. For the purposes of the planning Commission's information we're looking at making a zoning change and we're not keeping one particular project in mind anyway we're just looking at is it appropriate for this neighborhood to be zoned differently in general. So in some ways, the specific details of a project actually aren't very important to us, if that makes sense, because of the way that we need to look at it. It's better than a project because we're like, you know, I said over and over again we're not facing any decisions on a specific project anyway. So with that, I will call on Teresa. Thanks. Um, so some of my questions have been answered. I'll just chime in, because I can that that the letter did miss represent the plan that's being proposed. So that concerned me to I guess I should just go on the record. And I should go on the record and say that I'm, I also live at three Woodrow Avenue and 19 Heaton Street so I own two properties that about Washington County mental health. And my only other comment at some of the information that's been shared tonight has been really helpful. And has answered a few of my questions I have I have many more but as it as the plan rolls out. You know I hope to get them answered. One suggestion that I could make is, you know I've been a neighbor of Washington County mental health and Heaton Woods for 26 years now very successfully. We've been awesome neighbors. And I really would have appreciated just some outreach some general outreach from Washington County mental health to just kind of talk this through and as a neighbor. As opposed to hearing about it. You know through the through the planning commission which I'm really grateful for and grateful to participate in the process. But it would have been really helpful I'm really curious to know and I know. Kirby that you just said that the details aren't important to the planning commission but but of course they certainly are to us, but I'm really curious to know where the four unit building is is going to go. I mean I'm looking out my window and looking at, I know the area like I know the back of my hand so you know that kind of information is a detail but you know it's important to the neighbors. So again, thanks and we'll be following it carefully and really appreciate the opportunity to chime in. Thanks a lot Teresa. Peter. Hi, I'm Peter Kalman. Let me just put my, let me find my video on site. Peter Kalman. I actually live across town. But I want to make a just build on on what Kirby said about the more general point. We know that we have a tremendous need for more housing in Montpelier. We specifically has have need for affordable housing, both for low income individuals and for workforce housing, not low income but not able to afford to even live in the town that they work in teachers, for example. I mean, this is the larger issue that we have to think about, and it certainly is, it's gratifying to know that organizations like habitat for humanity and Washington County mental health services are thinking about this as about doing this, these kinds of things in Vermont. So that raises two points one is the one that Teresa just raised. It is very important to engage neighbors in these conversations with that that is absolutely true. But it is also true that some of these conversations some of these thoughts like with Washington County mental health are just beginning. I think we shouldn't think that somebody's trying to pull a fast one on this habitat for humanity also hasn't even yet done or is just beginning to do their feasibility study. Again, nobody's trying to pull a roll over us. It is also true in this conversation this came up last time, you know the chicken and egg or cart before the horse argument. Why are you looking for, you know, zoning changes now why don't you do it after you've done your feasibility study, know that you can't do it that way. You know how to be done sort of in tandem. It makes no sense for habitat for humanity or Washington County mental health services to spend their time and money, you know, trying to think through these things. If there's going to be a block to it because of zoning. And I think that's why it is both, but what Kirby said is true. They're not dealing here with the specifics of these projects, but they are dealing with the general issue of how we can get more housing into into Montpelier when there are very few open spaces to do it in. So, I just want everybody to kind of maybe lower the temperature and realize that this is really a great thing to be looking at, and everybody's opinion is of course should be welcome, but don't panic. This is just really one part of the whole story. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Do we have, do we have we have one more here. I know Joe's already commented but I want to make sure Tom, Thomas Weiss gets his comments first here before, or Joe gets his second round. You can take your hands down so that I am aware of who has a new hand up. Good evening. I'm Thomas Weiss resident of Montpelier on Liberty Street. These comments build on a sequence starting with nine heat and street, then move to 10 heat and street, then move to the upper portion of Liberty Street, and Mr Miller will have a copy of my written comments that go into more detail. I'm mature to move nine heat and street into the residential 3000 district. The standard housing density allows nine housing units on this location in addition to the existing facilities. If bonuses for infill are used, there could be 14 units. If the bonus for a cottage cluster is used there could be 19 units. This is not taking into account the new information that I learned today that some of the housing units will go into the existing facility. So there could be more units because a portion of the lot that's allocated to the existing facility could then be allocated to housing. I suggest that the planning commission reject this proposal. And I suggest that the planning commission instead ask the proposer of the amendment to evaluate the feasibility of a project with the units allowed within without bonus bonuses under the current zoning. I'm mature also to move 10 heat and street into the residential 3000 district. The standard housing density allows 52 housing units on this lot, in addition to the existing facilities. And I do have numbers as to how I cut up how I calculated these numbers in the document I'll be giving to Mike in a few minutes. That 52 housing units is without bonuses for either infill or cottage clusters. And I request that the planning commission reject this proposal to I believe no one has actually proposed or is considering a project to put housing on this lot. And I believe the reason that this came up is to avoid a one parcel enclave of nine heat and street of residential 3000 district within the residential 6000 district. Because there is no need to amend now the zoning at nine heat and street as I've just explained there is no reason to further consider an amendment at 10 heat. And then last hearing a suggestion came up. Well, why not toss the upper end of Liberty Street into the residential 3000 district. And it's unnecessary to do that and it would also not comply with the master. The master plan calls for protecting the appeal of the neighborhood while accommodating a modest increase in density through compatible infill development and conversion of existing buildings to multi story you and occupancy. This portion of the street has 37 units on 31 lots. Current zoning will allow 20 more units. Probably a modest increase residential 3000 will allow a total of 117 units more than today. Definitely far in excess of a modest increase. The appeal of the neighborhood will be reduced by changing to residential 3000 and my written comments provide more information also on the features of the neighborhood that contribute to its appeal. More density is not needed and is not in conformance with the master plan. The master plan has a goal of 50 new units each year over 20 years a total of 1000 new units existing zoning will allow more than 2000 new units in the growth center alone. And I do have backup as to how I come up with that as well. There is no need to change zoning to meet the housing goal. So I request that the planning commission reject the suggestion to rezone this portion of Liberty Street. The suggestion to do this was actually made as conditional on a change in zoning attend Heaton, and I have already explained why the commission should not accept that change. I also explained how changing the Liberty Street zoning is not needed to meet housing goals and how the change will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, each of those reasons is sufficient to reject the change of zoning district here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rice. So, so Joe, did you have something else. Let's try to let's try to be quick on repeat comments. I just wanted to have a follow up for Keith. Just basically should the proposal go through. I wanted to find out what sort of your timeframe and what the process would be as far as getting approvals, and the other follow up would be. If this is not approved by the planning commission. Could you have the similar density or apply for something through the conditional use of approval process. So, in terms of timeline there is no fixed timeline. I can't give you that I don't know. There's a lot, like I said we are in a very early stages explored really. And then in regards to your second question. I don't know who just spoke, but maybe possible to do something with existing zoning you know to somebody else's point earlier. We got engaged in this conversation because we became aware. He was looking at zoning changes. And we wanted to make sure that we were in that conversation early, given that we were thinking about a project like this. So, they have it. Thanks, Keith. We have any other questions about this item or comments. Okay. I'm going to move on to. Before you jump into the third one. Sandy vits you wanted to have some general comments to put in that kind of cover a number of things. I'll give her the floor here. Okay. Thank you. I'll try to keep this to two minutes. Okay. I'll try to. Yes, but there's no other opportunity to speak to the planning commission. So, I mean, you can, you can send us, you can send us written comments, by the way, just if you want to send. My neighbors don't hear it. I mean, I haven't gotten the written comments tonight that were submitted to you. Right. It's supposed to be about community participation. Yeah, we need, we need the whole community and not just a few people. So, so that's why we have to keep your short unfortunately. So, so go ahead. Maybe you could think of a better format. So, Mr. Weiss I what I think was a great thing to tie into that in general, there seems to be a move to, to change the ordinance so that we have fewer variances and fewer public discussions kind of a movement of that is not in a great direction. I thought his comments were very good in a holistic way, trying to appeal to the spirit of what is the planning commission, which I understand is about planning. And also part of that would be doing research and encouraging communication in the public, so that we come to some kind of consensus about what is best for the future. Both as landowners and residents, but you know, for our children with quality of life. I just need to point out to you that I happen to speak today with my next door neighbor who also lives on Loomis Street. I should say I'm Sandy vits to him at 14 Loomis. Diane MacCurrio was at 16 Loomis she's worked tonight she only found out about this meeting in the letter right before Thanksgiving and she works so she couldn't be here. She wants to tell you that she found the letter from Mike Miller to be incomprehensible. She said she spent a lot of time and tried to figure out the illustrations which she said were not helpful. She tried to understand the term she said they were not defined. She spent many hours and ended up giving up. I don't think this is the precedent you want to set for for a knowledgeable community and informed community. Her only recourse is to appear at the city council and make a complaint there, which I think she's going to try to do but this is this. It's a very non incoherent way of moving forward. And I just appreciate that you folks are comfortable working on your own, kind of without a lot of public participation when we could be useful speaking more than two minutes. But the problem with that is you don't seem to be doing your research, and you don't seem to be looking at what are the consequences of some of these changes that you're proposing. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else for the third item or before we move on to the third item for the Northfield Street. Okay, so so yeah we'll proceed to Northfield Street, which is the the suggestion that came from a possible Habitat for Humanity project. Is anyone here to discuss that. Raise hand function. You have someone like. Yeah, we do have somebody. Thomas wants to comment on this one as well. Okay. And if the folks who are using zoom could go ahead and use your raise hand function so we'll know afterwards. Welcome back. Thank you. Thank you for welcoming me back on this second topic and it'll be the last topic I plan to talk on this evening. And my comments this time are similar to my comments that I made on the second point. Moving the rural portion of 102 Northfield Street into the residential 9,000 district will not comply with the mask. Oops, sorry, will not comply with the master plan. The future land use plan shows most of this parcel to be in the rural district. The parcel is already in the residential 9,000 district. And that portion has 11 units now. And under it zoning, there could be three more units. The large remaining portion of not quite. 54 acres if I remember correctly may have 26 units under the existing zoning without changes. And those units, the way the master plan is set up would preferably be clustered and with conservation easements or transfer of development rights as it's put in there. With the bonuses cottage cluster and I believe also that infills eligible here if it meets those criteria, an additional 64 units could be added to 102 Northfield in its entirety. I request that the planning commission reject this proposal. I suggest that the commission asked the proposer to evaluate the feasibility of a project with the units allowed with and without the bonuses under current zoning. So thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Christ. Hi everybody. Sorry for yelling at my kids and yelling at the room right when I jumped in the meeting. So you guys don't have to go upstairs. But just want to come in as a comment on this item. The biggest thing I think I really appreciate the comments and helping us orient the planning commissions in the city's perspective of not being about one project not being about this habitat for humanity project as proposed. I think the question is how is this the right place for more housing and I certainly am in support of more housing. I think the thing that me and my family, when we really get into this and think about it are really concerned about is how a reason on this without any feasibility study without any conditions attached to it about preservation of open space or heart space, it really flies in the face of molecular stated goals of building open space, walking and bicycling network in all neighborhoods, you know master plan goal to be. And I think that's our biggest concern that this project moving forward may or may not be feasible. A res nine developer comes forward and build something that gets more housing but doesn't achieve the affordable housing goals set forth in this project doesn't achieve the open space preservation goals stated. And so I just hope that the city can hold on to their bargaining chip of a rezone on this parcel, or do some other method to preserve equity and open space access. The other side of town is getting expanded hover park access. This side of town just has private lots that we scurry through. So that's my hope that the planning commission can really consider how to preserve the equity and open space access through this process. This, this may not be. This may catch people off guard so so I understand if you if you're not able to respond right now but I anticipate that we may discuss making some changes in this area that just encourage PUDs in general, because I expect that what we will really acknowledge this open space issue and look at every so maybe a zoning change that involves like a required open or if it's if it's going to be, you know, larger development. How, how do you think the neighbors would react if we did something like that. I think that's a good concept right doubles in the details with any of those things. But I think I do think that the most important thing is just preserving public access while still allowing Montpelier to grow and, you know, achieve the housing goals because those are important, you know, and it's it's the balancing act and I think the I think we should look at it as proposed like there's a feasibility study not done yet. Let's rezone now, see what happens later. The concern is that with the reason now then all of a sudden you don't have anything to sort of push for a PUD or any give from the developer if the whole thing's res nine and it's not habitat for humanity doing it. Yeah, yeah. So, I gave you a heads up about about something that maybe I plan to bring in for further deliberations on this is making making making sure that the open space is taking care of maybe by by encouraging PUD somehow or something like that. So we have Brian. Thank you. Good evening everyone I'm on the Montpelier Housing Task Force I'm a resident of Montpelier. I'm on the Good Samaritan Haven board. I'm an advocate for affordable housing, but at the same time we have a housing crisis in this state in this country. I want to just basically put it out there that I think that NIMBY ISM will really cause a problem here. It has caused a problem here. One thing that I would encourage the commissioners to do is to really identify what the priorities of the city are is is our priority housing on solving or at least helping alleviate some of the housing problems that we have in the state. Or are we going to basically bicker over backyard, not my backyard. I really do encourage the commissioners to to really take a stand, make it a priority that we want to make changes to try to solve a major housing crisis that is going on countrywide. Thank you. Thank you Brian. Neil. Hi there. I'm an architect I'm working for Habitat for Humanity. And we're concerned with this large parcel there's a piece of the parcel that's on Northfield road that we would like to go ahead and build the house on. The problem with the site is that it's up against the hillside. Because of that and the zone that it's in. It requires that the building be 24 feet high. And because of the way the height is measured. The building would be built into the grade that steep slope so the average height of the building, at least at the height of the building at the front would be over 30 feet. So the height of the building can't work that high. But also, that means that that's a three story building in on a very small site. And it, I don't know if it makes sense for anybody built there but you're not given the chance to get a waiver on height. The rationale on the minimum height is, but for a small building that minimum height would have to extend around the sides of the building back 20 feet or more. So, basically, it's a three, maybe more story building on a very, very, very small site. So, I don't know how you would go about doing this but the having the ability to get a waiver on height would be a good thing for us and I would think anybody at this site. And to put it into a residential mind zone is a possibility. I guess there's some concern about spot zoning or something, but having the ability to seek a variance for the height would be great. 10% variance is not going to do a whole lot for us it would take a 31 foot building down to say a 28 foot high building, but just so three foot three story building. So, these are the main concerns at least for that particular site site that we could go ahead and develop on if there was some way to get a variance for them. Thank you. I could clarify just real quick to go and make sure public understands that there are there, there has been two projects that have been discussed by habitat. It's on basically the same parcel. And if you, if you saw the parcel map, you would see that there's the large parcel that kind of wraps around then there's a little parcel that's separately owned in the middle. So they actually own both sides, all three sides of that parcel. They were going to. I think it's it might even already be subdivided that there's that that little tooth that sticks out ended up being residential, which requires three story buildings, or two story buildings. And that actually applied to the next building up as well which is why we looked at those and said they're non conforming they don't make sense to be in mixed use residential. They should probably have been zoned in something else and the question was what what should that something else be. And then the other proposal was to take that second, I guess more southerly, where the driveway comes in attaches to the big parcel and that's where there's the second project which is the one most of you have commented on so that's the larger potential 50 unit project that has been discussed. So this, this proposal that Neil Husser was was discussing is just that small piece right on Northfield Street. It's currently vacant it's just trees, but they can't meet their requirement there so that's where this, the second piece came in just so there's a little bit of clarification of why there's two projects one parcel. This one was just a single single unit piece. That's right there. So, that's I think, thank you. Hi, I'm Carolyn midpath and I'm a resident of Montpelier. I'm on the homelessness task force and I go to the housing task force meetings. And I want to go back to what Brian said, which is that we do have a crisis in housing at all levels, particularly the the unhoused and the lower income but also affordable for people who work here. And I think what the committee has to do is to hold that thought that housing is important. And I think that that needs to be conveyed to people like the housing committee who are doing their best to try to figure out different ways of expanding the housing stock and in the community. Thank you. Thank you Carolyn. Do you have any more questions on this topic for comments. Yeah, let me try to raise my hand here, Kirby. Sorry, John Campbell I think I finally figured out how to raise my hand here. After you started talking to that's okay. Go for it. Thanks Kirby john Campbell three Pleasant Street and just a couple of things like to, to bring up. But first of all, I think that everybody on this call all the people in in that are concerned about these issues are concerned about affordable housing. But you also have to look to see if we have the resources to actually handle all the housing and whether or not there are other areas that that should be or would be more proper for the housing. You know we look it up here in this this 56 acre property, and I look at the characteristics of the land. It is an absolute. It's a very steep area, but it's it houses or it's just a habitat for deer for all kinds of birds for bear and unusual it's not really like the neighborhood down down the street. And in fact, actually, the road to get up here is extremely steep extremely narrow, and we only have about 15 or so 20 houses up here, because it is so difficult to to get up here. So if we look at the, you know, what is the, the public benefit here, and sure, you have to, you know, take it and to find out if we are adversely affecting a change to this land for really no total public benefit. And certainly is in talking to habitat for man, humanity when Zach was talking. They are only planning and I don't know if this has come out if he's talked to you all about it but they're planning on developing about 50 or taking about 51% of the development that they're asking for or that they eventually will do. And the other part will be going to, as he said on the call to the highest bidder. So that tells me that you can get a private developer who can come up here and build whatever. And it certainly would not be the impossibly very not would not be affordable housing or low income housing. I doubt that a private developer is looking to do that. I think you have to look at that and then also the fact that, you know, what we have here is one again this is on the other side this is one of the only areas that are really a green spot green space, and I'm not talking about just for people to walk and ride their bike through but I do talk, I do, I am concerned again about, you know, the habitat the wildlife habitat that we have back here. If there are other places as has been alluded to earlier that are better for for housing or they can that we can do the housing those are the ones that I think the city should be looking at, not for taking what green space we do have and what the wildlife habitat we do have, and then putting it into a residential area when it could be done in a better area. This is not a NIMBY issue this is an issue where you have to look at the overall plan of the city and what do you really want for everyone. And I think that all the people here also are concerned about habitat. I mean, one of the reasons for living in Vermont is because we are so in touch with with our concern and for wildlife habitat. So, I would urge the, the, the board to not approve this zoning change. I think that the one spot down there with the waiver that Mr. Husker Usher was talking about that's understandable, but as far as the back lot area in the back 56 acres. I think that there's no definite plan as to what they're planning and doing, except for that they are going to be using private developers as partners to pay for the project. And that I don't think that is a something that is you are currently considered. So, I would urge you back to approve. Thank you. Thanks, John. Do you have any other comments for this item. Yeah, we do have Zachariah here who wanted to respond to those comments. Okay, right Watson. Thank you, Mike. And thank you Kirby commission. My name is Zachariah Watson and I'm the executive director I spoke last meeting and I appreciate the opportunity to address you all again. Just wanted there was a recent update that I wanted to let folks know about and we can say it officially now that we've received the letter of confirmation but the planning grant that we received for this project was approved. So that's pretty exciting that grant will be used for the feasibility of this project and a big part of, you know, the application was was the zoning here, which will enable us to build as many affordable housing projects as possible so that's really exciting. I just also want to, you know, I appreciate any, any opportunity to work with the folks along Prospect Street and Colonial and Pleasant Street to make sure that we continue to maintain open space and as I've said in the past and we'll continue to say that if we move forward with this project, we will actually be protecting that land and turning it into a publicly accessible park with main chain trails that are accessible to all folks in Montpelier currently. That parcel is only available to the butters. And they're the ones that walk it so if folks are concerned about equity. I think it's important to remember that if we really want to create a green space on that side of the river, the way that we do that is we actually create a park. And that's what we're trying to do. So, anyway, in any case, we do want to work to find a solution, maybe some conditions. You know, Kirby I'm interested to hear your proposals what you might have in mind I also would like to work with you also our hands are not tied where this project no longer becomes feasible because of restrictions that were put on it but we're happy to work with you all to, you know, to again to make sure that the green space is protected. Finally, I do want to address johns johns comments. John was at a meeting that we had as a publicly, it was a public meeting. John brought up the comment that he just made and I directly addressed it so I think there was some interpret intentional misrepresentation of my comments, the due to the federal grants that we will be receiving. At least 51% of the units that we developed will have to be for affordable housing. We will certainly partner with developers that will help us build middle income housing, such as downstream housing and community development. But the goal is not to sell 50 or 49% of the blots to the highest bidder and john knows that. And I've known john for a long time but I would appreciate if there wasn't misrepresentations of the things that I had said, our goal is to build affordable housing. And we will do everything we possibly can to make that happen. Any efforts to delay the process or create legal arguments against it will only increase the cost of our project and make it so we will have to basically subsidize the cost of the affordable housing with the sale of market value housing. So that's that's all my comments again Kirby and the commission thank you so much for having us here and for the opportunity to present on this project. Thank you, Zachara. We have any other comments for this item. Before we proceed I'd like to circle back to the first item the Harrison at Whittier Street one because we have someone who missed out on that one. It looks like we just got a new hand though from Peter. I'm assuming this is going to be about North Northfield Street, Peter. Yes. Okay, go for it. First of all, I'm very strongly in favor of the rezoning of the large parcel for that where habitat is looking to build. Not just because of habitat but certainly for that reason, very strongly, but also for the reason that even though I live across the street. I have access to that area. It is right now just pretty much for the butters and their friends. And I think it's very important that we not mix up discussions about equity discussions about how there's land other places, and not really be honest with ourselves. That is what NIMBY means, not in my backyard, in somebody else's backyard. And talking about habitat for bears and so on and so forth. You know, I have habitat for bears in my backyard, because it belongs to national life, and I am very glad that national life is keeping it that way. There is a kind of protection that habitat would provide. And if they're if habitat is going to partner with some developers to develop some middle income housing or even maybe one mansion, you know, that is going to only be so they can pay for the other housing and they will have strict controls And by the way, one more point, all of this, these theoretical numbers that gets so big that that you know and scary. Those are based exclusively on density arguments. There are many other reasons why you can't build 112 units just because you can cut it up and meet the density requirements and all the bonuses. It's very, very misleading. And I think, and constant reference to the master plan, what master plan is this. Is this a master plan today, or from five years ago, our needs today for affordable housing for workforce housing are extreme. I'm not going to be talking about the master plan, as if this is some holy grail. It is not what we really need to look at right now is getting housing built as best we can with the participation of neighbors, yes, with the participation of neighbors doesn't mean with the with with with attitudes that are very highly disguised and it is. Thank you. Thanks, Peter. Neil, is this a new hand. Did you have something else. Let's, let's make it like repeat comments quick so you can, so you can make sure we get through everything. Go ahead, Neil, if you have something. Yes, basically what I wanted to say was the property could develop as all housing, but not affordable and the habitats opportunity is to create affordable housing and that's, that's our goal. So this property is a very valuable property. I would like to see a substantial part of that. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, so we're going to, we're going to circle back now to we have one more, one more quick one more in person. Yes, it's me. It's Sandy vitz to me for Loomis Street again. I just, I'm a, I'm a very big fan of housing and I actually worked on habitat houses, and I've worked in affordable houses most of my career. I've actually tried to develop two tiny house developments, when partnership with others in Montpelier and neither group got neither development got built. But I just need to make sure everybody knows that the housing shortage which is serious in the United States right now is due to much larger economic forces than this, the size of available lots of Montpelier. People are buying five or more houses and his investments to force and it forces others to become tenants or homeless. I totally get that I think that the, the master plan is a critical process, not just a document but process of community discussion of what to do and yes, it was last made before this shortage. But that may mean that some of our really vulnerable landscape, our steep slopes need to be sacrificed, but that should be a public discussion. Thanks. Thank you. So one one clarifying about the master plan by the way is that the housing chapter is is quite ambitious. So that the master plan does state that housing as a serious need, even though it's a little dated at this point, but just so everyone's aware that we'll be taking into account that the master plan does call for, you know, us to do serious things about housing. Okay, so let's circle back to the first question, which was about Harrison Avenue and Whittier Avenue or Whittier Street rather rezoning. Mr. Josh Kelly had something. Yeah, thank you Mr Keaton and maybe Mr Miller this is a quick question for you and I apologize for circling back and being late to this meeting. So thank you for humoring me. Yes, Mr Miller it could you just tell me quickly what the change would be for Whittier Street and Harrison have properties. I mean in a layman's terms, I apologize for that. So, really quick, the, they are currently zone residential 6000 so the 6000 number is the square feet for building lots. So, and it's also the density you get one unit per 6000. That zoning is consistent with and you're in the same neighborhood as College Street, much larger houses much bigger lots. Even though your neighborhood is really adjacent to areas like Luma Street, Ewing Street, even main area, which have smaller lots, higher densities. And so the proposal is actually to rezone Harrison Ave to residential 3000 so that would increase the zoning density, decrease the minimum lot size so currently there are 19 parcels that would change I believe there were either three or four that are currently non conforming which means they're actually less than the 6000 lot size so it would make them conforming. But it would increase the densities, such that a couple parcels would then have the ability to add an additional unit. So currently everybody is allowed to have two units. Everybody's allowed to have a duplex in the city is allowed to have at least a duplex unless you already have a duplex. So this would provide an opportunity for a couple of parcels to that have at least 20,000 acres square feet to be able to to develop a third unit and we had a proposal from somebody who is living on Harrison Ave who came in and said, you know he couldn't believe that he wasn't going to be able to put a tiny house on his property because he had a quarter acre lot he had the space for it and, and so we said we would entertain that. And bring that up to the planning commission and see about the rezoning because other people on Loomis Street could be able to do that or Liberty Street to be able to do that. So that's, I hope, hopefully that answers the question. Yes, thank you and thank you to the planning board and to the mobility planning department for your professionalism and your determination to pursue the goal. I mean, I mean, in the midst of feedback that can be tough. I'll just say, I did land conservation for seven years in Vermont and New Hampshire and Maine, and you would, and this is sort of towards the comment of green space is absolutely something to look at, and maybe considered is just more of a general comment so thank you Mr Miller for talking about what your street in Harrison Ave, of which I live on what your street. I just mentioned that, you know, really, if you're really honest about habitat you got to be looking at much greater size than little old Montpelier and I think that is pretty well understood by folks on this call but on the zoom meeting but you know habitat is if you don't allow some increased development in Montpelier is just going to go elsewhere. And it is like unlikely to be as affordable or as walkable or as livable in some ways, as it may need to be so I commend the Planning Commission and the Montpelier development and planning division for pursuing this path and I hope you keep on it. Good luck. Thanks. Thank you, Josh. I'm going to move on to the fourth item from Mike's memo, which is the proposal to reduce size setbacks and res nine from 15 feet to 10 feet. Maybe not as exciting as some of the other things we discussed. Anyone want to talk about setbacks. Okay, I'm not seeing any new hands. Okay, so we're going to proceed. The fifth item is a change to setbacks again on the property lines for the rail. So that the rail line setbacks. Because anyone have anything on that. The next change is Oh, we do thanks. I'm switching between screens. So I'm not seeing. Yes, this is this is about the rail lines, right? Yes, it is. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't need to read or anything from last meeting that it's all part of record and whatnot. It'll all come into your discussion. Perfect. Thank you. That's all. Thanks so much. Thanks so much. I think we feel like we, we know the details there. And most importantly, Mike is very well informed with the details. He will remind us when the time comes. I'm going to move along. So the PUD rules. It's not something we've gone into great details. At the hearings and Mike summary, he used referred to the written ones. I do want to take a moment just to tell the planning commissioners to make sure to read the documents that are attached to Mike's cash to the memo so that when we go to deliberate, we're all caught up on on specifically what's said in those documents because that's just going to take some sitting down and with it and learning it. And I think that'll help us when we go to deliberate on that on the PUD changes. Does anyone have any comments on those though. Yeah, I think six and seven have to do PUD language. And the eighth item is the removal of residential density requirements from Riverfront and res 1500. We have any comments about that. Yeah. Okay, we have a couple here. So go ahead, Barb. Others go first if you want Kirby. Thanks for taking this on and you know it's it's always a challenge to do these public hearings and so I'm really glad you're doing it. And I just want to make a few comments about this particular one, the removal of the density requirements because my sense is that it's just the precursor to a much bigger effort to remove them on more residential districts. So we can sort of look at this as an example. I just want to sort of start out reiterating that I'm an architect so I've actually used zoning ordinances in the past so I know how to approach an ordinance and how to make it work. And I've worked with owners to maximize their development on properties so that's sort of the way I always have approached any of those kinds of changes on density. I'd also want to second Sandy victims comments about that the biggest barrier to housing is is not density is it has much more to do with cost and a number of other issues that we can address in other ways. So I was on the planning commission when the zoning was rewritten, and we put a lot of effort into figuring out ways to, to increase density in the various districts and I really pushed for moves to increase housing density in existing neighborhoods. Particularly if we're considering what the effect is on our neighborhood character, I think that you know that we can do both, we can have our neighborhood character, we can still increase our density. And I think that the other piece of that is that I'm very much in favor of development on new parcels where that seems appropriate. Again, if we come back to this idea of neighborhood character. So what I always like to do when when these kinds of proposals are being discussed is to do a reality check. So I took a look at an existing property on Luma Street. And right now under res that 1500 property could have 10 units on it. With no density limit, it could have 20 units on it. And with no floor area ratio, it could have 30 units on it. And so everybody says well but is this reasonable is it really possible, given our other requirements and I can tell you it is that it would be possible still to meet all of the requirements, including setback, massing, and the other elements, and still potentially get put 30 units on it. Is that appropriate for Luma Street. So I think that's, that's really the concern here. And I know that when the zoning rewrite happened. There were a lot of very emotional comments from people who were concerned that developers might come in with the zoning densities and tear down existing houses in order to be able to maximize their development potential on a particular parcel. And we were very clear at that point that there were other constraints, one of which was the density restriction that would keep that from happening. But now I'm not so sure. Now I think it could happen that you know if this particular person on Luma Street decided to tell sell their property. It's very possible somebody could come in and put significantly more units on it. And again we have to keep asking, is that appropriate to the neighborhood. Also, in terms of considering whether residential districts are really not like urban center one, two and three, in terms of massing so the idea of trying to use form based form based codes. I think that setting is significantly different than using it in our residential settings, our residential properties have some in some cases very large lots and some cases, lots that are difficult to develop but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be developed. So it's, it's not an approach. I guess I would be concerned that it's, it's an approach that is really not appropriate throughout our city. So I'd ask you to take another look at that. And just to be clear, I recently stepped down from the planning commission, because I felt that you know this that sometimes my reactions were not in keeping with the way that the planning commission was was moving. And that that was frankly a concern. So, thank you. Next part. Yeah, yeah, we'll be having discussions along the lines what you're talking about. And part of part of this proposal is about asking the question. Does, does having a density cap really affect how our neighborhoods look. And we've heard a lot over the years about people being concerned about density and having worst case scenarios and as far as I've seen. There's never ever happened. There's never been any, like fear over a density increase leading to some terrible development as far as I know. We had a density cap. Yeah. Well, in a way you made the point that we loosened up the density caps and everyone said this is going to ruin the city and then nothing happens. And that's kind of the same thing with this change to is the idea is to get people used to density does not mean that the neighborhood is going to be, you know, Can I. Yeah, I mean, we could go on and off. I mean, I know, you know, that's, that's because the other requirements prevented that but they know those those barriers those those guardrails are no longer there. We will be forward with this. We will be just we'll be discussing the details of this in the deliberations me Mike mentioned earlier that he met with a couple of organizations about this and we'll be taking their, what they have to say into account and any kind of change we end up making. Yeah, there'll be there'll be more deliberations. Joe. Thanks, Kirby. I have kind of a two part question this sort of follows up on what Barb just said but I guess Mike questions for you and for Mike as first, what do we expect this change to accomplish. The next question is, I know that I asked you at the last meeting any cities within Vermont, if anybody else has implemented something like this, that we can look to and they you said that there was nobody else. I would want to find out if you know of another city of similar size that has done this and what the results have been. And last, I think Mike could give some Vermont examples. Yeah was new ports thinking about it and I think it was somewhere down south I can't remember the other town. What I wanted to point it out was that Montpelier ourselves we do it right now for our urban center one, two and three. Yeah, and when the local ones that do form based code in Vermont are that I know when new ski new port. I think that are looking at it I don't know if they've adopted them or not like South Burlington was looking at it. Bristol was looking at it. I think came from the last discussion on this was was the idea of a doing a study to see what I think I think you mentioned Joe like is there any kind of study to see the impact and I think one thing I'm interested in I think the the best, the best kind of information we could have on this, I think it could come from looking at, well what happened when our urban center changed from having a density cap to not having a density cap. We're going to be looking into that later, and make sure that we are aware of what changed. I have the impression that it didn't impact development that much, or at all. And like but but but we'll see I don't I don't have that info yet but Mike's going to get it for us. And just my last question is I know that you met with a couple of organizations. Should I follow up with both you and Mike via email if you're not a liberty to discuss what ARP was looking for. If you don't want to disclose that right now because it's too early in the process. I'm kind of concerned, just curious on what what they were saying about how they were talking more about our development review process not being sufficient to roll out this kind of density proposal. Our development reviews not citywide was my understanding what Mike was saying. Okay. Yeah, I mean this was a study that Congress for new urbanism and ARP we're doing they're doing a study looking at zoning regulations throughout northern New England or at least, at least throughout that much the people on the call were from New Hampshire or Vermont so they're reviewing zoning regulations, you know, they're, you know they didn't contact us in advance they already had done the review to try to make recommendations to communities about what are the steps that they could take to improve their regulations to facilitate housing development. And most of their comments were very positive they said, you know, we're very much ahead of the curve on a lot of our things so a lot of the stuff that we did in 2018 are a lot of the things that they're recommending to other community to do so they were impressed by the fact that we already had gone through and updated our regulations to match our neighborhood densities. But then they had a number of recommendations. And they were just talking through recommendations and they have it, I guess they'll send a report when they're done. They just kind of wanted to they do a review then they talked to them. And then they come back and amend and adjust based their, their conclusions based on what they hear heard from me and from Meredith, our zoning administrator so to see I think what they were looking at is, is, you know, kind of different, different stages along a curve. And you know I explained to them a lot of what came up in the last, you know, Joe you were involved in that last owning process as well. You know they wanted to know why we only listed our zoning to accommodate, you know, kind of matched the 90%. They're like well you don't give yourself a lot of infill potential you could you could, you know you could take your res sixes and make them res threes and I said well we had a public process. And we heard from the public, and the public was very much concerned about neighborhood character, and you know we may we matched our zoning to the neighborhoods which allows some modest increases in properties that are underdeveloped. So, some properties are fully developed and can't add any more but some underdeveloped properties could get more units. And that's what the community with supporting so I'll be interested to see the report I don't know if that necessarily means we're going to we're going to automatically take up those. I don't know when we'll get that that report, but they're, I know they're working on Montpelier and Burlington. So, you know I'll be curious not only to see what our report says but what some other communities have in their reports. And just kind of, you know, as I said we're, we're kind of trying to explore things, and it's good to have a third party take a look at our rules but again related specifically to this. So what we're trying to understand was removing residential densities is, you know, that's for communities that have gotten to the point and we are there to explore that but they're there's their concern in the conversations was to tie it to to design review standards, sufficient design review standards, then you're at risk of having bad development, it doesn't mean you're doesn't guarantee bad development but you leave yourself at risk to have somebody come in and abuse the rules and I think that's what Barb was getting at. And I think that's what the CNU was talking about. The density is a good idea in their view, because it's an artificial number, and what we really need to be concerned about is, is the bones and making sure that the design review rules, not just Balkans, the design review rules that go into that, that there's a sufficient process. So looking at the details as I think somebody said earlier the devils and the details and a lot of the times that's what we have to watch out for is, you know, we do have good rules on demolition are they good enough. So those ideas of well somebody could come and tear down this building and put something else up. If it's a historic building, it's, you know, we have rules to protect the tear down of any historic. Are they sufficient. That's that's a question for everybody to consider planning commission staff, city council public to prevent somebody from doing tear downs. But I guess that's where I'll leave that's where the conversation I'm very interested in seeing their report. I talked to him for about an hour or an hour and a half. And then thank you, Mike, I appreciate you, you clarifying that for me, I really appreciate that. I guess the other question it was the first part of my question is, what do we hope that this roll out of the form based zoning is will accomplish I mean, do you guys have some sort of ideas, what sort of increase in housing density we might see or any sort of rough number. The hope for one thing I want to I want to say that when Mike and I first started talking about this before we ended up putting it as part of these proposals. I, I thought that that that that the two areas we were considered the two types of neighborhoods we were considering removing the caps for I thought that they were entirely within the design review. So it's good. It's good that that's come to life because that's that wasn't my understanding we first looked at this. I thought that this was going to so that's definitely something that's going to come up in our deliberations and we're going to need to tweak for sure. The, the, the, the, the policy goal is related to removing the arbitrary things that could potentially get in the way of new housing. But for me, it's also a factor that density arguments obstacate the actual issue. And I think we've, we've, we see that in hearings like this. We'll fixate on zoning when they're really concerned about how something looks with or they fix it on the density rather when they're when they're really concerned with the look of something. And so let's have our conversations let's have our zoning design in a way in which we can have those conversations, and we don't have these proxy arguments that have to do with density. That's not actually the issue. Like, when Barb was saying earlier that there was a lumistry something could go from 15 to 30 units. I think those of us who are interested in increasing housing say that's wonderful. She was saying it would look exactly the same but it would have twice as many units. Isn't that wonderful. I mean, isn't that what we want. Isn't that the problem we're trying to solve. So you can see how density kind of gets in the way of our conversations. Does that answer your question. Yeah, it does. Thank you very much Kirby I appreciate you. Follow me up on that. Yeah. Okay, Teresa you have comment on this. I just have a quick question maybe for Mike I'm not sure just for my edification on six, number six and seven Mike on the memorandum. Earlier in the evening you talked about that developers were. I don't know if complaining is the right verb but they were talking about requirements that were burdensome and hence the, this creation of number six and seven so the removal of the required food line which can you talk about what the developers were complaining about, or what requirements they would like to see removed. What's, what's the basis. Yeah, so you grab one really quick here so like the new neighborhood so the new neighborhood planned unit development. So it's really it's designed. The principle behind it was that if you're going to have and get an increased density bonus, then you need to meet certain additional design requirements. And we had developers coming in that we're going through and saying yeah but I don't need the additional design requirements, and they would end up. So let's say having a requirement that in new neighborhood that no more than 75% of the dwelling units may be the same. So you're tripped into new neighborhoods by having, let me see what the number is 40 units. So let's say you had a large parcel and you were going to do a 40 unit apartment building would automatically trip you in if you're in that zoning would trip you into a new neighborhood you'd have to do a new neighborhood and then you would have to go and take that and not be able to do the 40 units. You'd have to maximum have 75% of those units be multi family and you'd have to then go through and start making other single family so we've had projects that that would have to then come in and do 39 units, just in order to avoid tripping into the sections but they have rules like no more than 75% of units, maybe the same type. And yes, there are issues with where the direction the buildings were facing. Because we eventually took it out of the riverfront district because you know all the buildings had to face the street. The street on in going up through savings pastor the new proposed street and savings pastor would be Asia way. That would mean that you're not really facing, you're not facing the buildings towards Barry Street, which we would all think is there because there the street there is ages street. So it was a number of issues like that where they're like well really want to go and kind of present ourselves to to that you know not to this little access driveway we want to present ourselves to Barry Street. So we had issues in there so there are a number of little things that that that just started to catch up with it in the conservation beauty has all sorts of. It sounds good and concept, but when you start talking to the folks who kind of get that the nitty gritty, you start finding it's really hard to track and administer. Okay, thanks. Okay, it's like we've handled that topic. We still have a number we still have a number eight, we still have Sandy wants to have a comment on number eight. Okay, riverfront. I appreciate Mike's comments that hit from the feedback. And I want to say, I don't think Barbara and I are afraid of density I live next door to 10 Loomis, which has at least 15 units most of them are studios in it. I get along fine with my neighbors that's not an issue and to kind of reduce the conversation to that is a, I'm going to try to explain it better. I would say the one thing that stands out with that is the very large non residential parking lot. I mean that's a completely separate issue right now. So what Montpelier has if you look at the R 1500 district is traditional zoning which is defining maximums maximum setbacks or sorry minimum setbacks maximum maximum density of a footprint of the building floor area ratio heights, you know all this to take away one maximum of density. But leave all the others is not form based zoning it's just not form based zoning where I have worked with it in other cities is very specific it tells you for instance the range of the slope of the roof. Where I live on Loomis Street, most of the houses have pitched roofs. If an architect is to build maximum if they're told by the developer to put the maximum number of units on is going to be a much larger building. I did the drawings a few years ago and try to explain this and it was difficult to get across I'm so glad Barbara is doing it now. But I'm going to give you quickly an example of my own property 14 Loomis Street. It right now has three units. So I, two of them are kind of shared and once a separate care to you know carriage house, and they total income from that is about including if I were to convert mine as a rental 4500 you can say let's say 5000 a month. If I were property, someone could buy it, and they would do the math with today's rental rates 20 to 30 units let's say if there were 20 they might get $1000 a month. If there were 30 maybe they'd get $700 a month. Whatever you look at it that is $20,000 a month. Period. And very quickly, it makes no sense to keep the existing building it's going to be torn down because it's not half of the R 1500 is not in the historic design review district, and almost half of the river view front district is not there. So really, honestly, I've seen so many buildings get torn down in Montpelier. It's pretty easy to justify it. Let it fall apart and you say oh it's not worth the expense to fix it. And if you're putting in 20 units or 30 units, each with a little bathroom in a kitchenette. And typically there's no point in trying to restore or you know renovate an historic old house it's just way too much infrastructure so it's easier to tear the thing down and start new. I mean the floors aren't flat. They're not good installation in the walls. They're not great mechanical. The whole thing just says tear me down. And then they once they start that exercise they will, any developer will build out the maximum number that they can on the site. That's how the math goes to get the maximum amount of income. And if you were a developer why would you consider $5000 a month versus $20,000 a month. That's how they paid down their construction loan. So the max just removing one part of what used to be coherent and keeping the maximums. A is not form based which which is where you're trying to go. And B is just, it is opening a Pandora's box and yes I agree. The boogeyman has not shown up so far, but your, your urban center is mostly commercial has some, it would be hard to build it out a lot but the number and commercial you've probably known has been depressed horribly depressed because everyone's working at home, not shopping. There's no surprise to me that there hasn't been a big pressure on our, our building footprints and massing. In the last three years, or two of them have been coven. So I just say that it hasn't hit us yet. It is actually not true if you look at Cedar Street that one development really disfigured Cedar Street. And I hope you've walked down at nighttime really all you see as pedestrian walking down Cedar Street is big concrete peers and fluorescent lights and it does not feel at all like it used to so it was disfigured. So one will begin to really turn a neighborhood and actually change what is the norm in that neighborhood very quickly. And I am so encouraged that Mike is taking my comments seriously about the design review district, I mean, much of my neighborhood has been inventoried by the state. It's just sitting there waiting to be made part of the historic district. And I guess I bet my neighbors if they knew about this would actually support this and I know a lot of them came out against it before, but they didn't know they're Andy and we're afraid we're out of time. Thank you. I also want to say, whoever mentioned the idea of doing some studies to actually see what this would look like. Thank you so much for hearing that too. Okay. Do we have Teresa take it your hand, your race hand is from before. Correct. Sorry, sorry about that. It's okay. So we have we have the technical fixes next does anyone have any comments for any of the technical fixes. Maybe I should have started reverse this time because anyone does have comments and stuff. I feel for them. So I've had to wait a long time. I don't have anything on any of the on number nine technical fixes. Okay, Sandy's got Sandy's got another quick one for number nine. Do you want to let other people go first. Okay, I am I am truly sorry but this is all important. I think this is where you're looking at this part chapter 340 changes. That was number 67 but we can. Oh, Jesus. Okay, I just 3030 402 G point D frontage. Is that about footprints parcels or is that about frontage of a lot. This one here what while he's doing that 30. Oh, is that footprint parcels or a lot parcels. That would be under the footprint one. Okay, good. And now the next one. Accessory structures deck and garage. Is that just PUDs as well. No, that's actually this gets to the number nine one that we're at right now. Oh, good mental right place. So that is 3002 point C, B four, we're in this restructure such as a decker garage is attached to a principal structure, etc. We also have reduced the setbacks down to five or zero feet. A deck does not impact the neighbor. A garage will and that ties in with the next one of the other one about just reducing are getting rid of the language to protect years. That's from solar devices but nothing else. There are a lot of people who live including me off of our gardens and traditionally something like that is done with a variance, which gives the public an opportunity to talk about it, not as an obstructive tool, but rather as a discussion tool to see if something better can be solved. I wish these things were staying as variances so that there could be a discussion to to. I was talking with Diane today about she was saying oh I would love to put in a house in my backyard. And that'd be great but if she were to put it on the lot line. Then it would totally impact the, the, any use of my backyard that I think it's a mistake to be able to to both with view, but mostly with light effect, the neighbor's yard and a deck won't do that but a garage will. And other other structures might too. Thanks. Okay. Do we have any other comments about the proposed changes. So anyone have anything else before we move on on the agenda. We don't have time to deliberate, obviously, we're out of time. And we also don't have time to consider the minutes so we're going to skip those things. Before we adjourn, give one last shot to see if anyone has anything else to comment on regarding these proposals. This, this is the final hearing for comments. Okay. In that case, do any of the planning commissioners want to move to adjourn officially closed hearing there Kirby. The hearing is closed. The, the hearing shall be closed. Motion to adjourn for me. We have a motion from Gabe. We have a second. Second. Second from Jeff, those in favor of adjourning. Hi. Hi, we are adjourned everybody read up all the materials, and we will deliberate later. See you at the next meeting.