2026-09-28 - Planning Commission

00:05[music]

00:13So, we'll call the September [music]

00:1428th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting

00:17to order. Uh, next agenda item is

00:21approval of the agenda. Please take a

00:24look at the agenda and let me know if

00:25you have any

00:27additions, changes, or edits. If not,

00:29I'd ask for unanimous consent to approve

00:31the agenda.

00:52Hearing nothing from folks, uh the

00:54agenda is approved. Next is

00:56consideration of the September 14th

00:58minutes. Uh please take a minute to look

01:01over those minutes if you haven't yet.

01:04Let me know if there's any edits or

01:06changes. If not, I'd ask for unanimous

01:10consent to approve the minutes.

01:13>> I will not that Alan Goldman was present

01:16and provided comments and is not listed

01:18as an also present. So he should be

01:21added to also present. Okay.

01:26So, we have some proposed changes. So,

01:28I'm looking for a motion

01:33once folks have looked over the minutes.

02:29I guess I finally made it to the end and

02:31our meeting adjourned more at the 7:30

02:35mark than it did 8:10 p.m.

02:42That's all I got. Attention.

03:03Okay.

03:04>> When the time was and make that edit if

03:07you want to approve it as amended.

03:08>> Yeah, it it definitely was not 810. It

03:10was much closer to 7.

03:17>> Would anybody like to move to u approve

03:19the minutes as amended?

03:21>> I will move to approve the amen the

03:23minutes as amended.

03:26I'll second.

03:28>> Seconded by Leah. All those in favor of

03:29approving the minutes as amended say I.

03:32I. I.

03:33>> Anyone opposed.

03:36>> Introduction to

03:37>> and I was just thinking about that as I

03:39was saying that. Um we have one

03:42commissioner uh online if they could

03:44just quickly introduce themselves.

03:47>> Thank you. Appreciate it. Rowan

03:48Hawthorne, planning commissioner.

03:49Apologies I can't be there tonight. I

03:51got sick yesterday over the weekend. So,

03:53just staying home to keep everyone safe.

03:55>> No problem. Feel better.

03:59All right.

04:01Uh, next is the public input session for

04:04the proposed revisions to the zoning

04:05map. I think we'll start with an

04:07overview by Mike.

04:12>> Right. Thank you for everyone who has

04:16come out.

04:21All right.

04:23So, uh, we have

04:28put together on online an opportunity to

04:31be able to put in some comments. Uh, and

04:33so I will also mention that we have

04:36received a number of comments. If you

04:40go in here, you can actually see what

04:42the public comments are. It will zoom

04:45you around. And so people have provided

04:48some uh detailed comments which um we

04:52can print out copies of for all the

04:55planning commissioners. So you guys have

04:57it if you don't have the opportunity to

04:59actually look each one of them up, but

05:01we do have

05:03um the various comments

05:06um that are online. I believe we had we

05:08had oh we're now up to six. We had five

05:10earlier. So um yes. So people can

05:12continue to add comments. You just click

05:14on the map and you can add a comment.

05:18And I am

05:21I'm going to take give you a quick tour

05:23around. Uh we could put them side by

05:26side, but it doesn't really work as well

05:28to see both the new and the old map. So,

05:33I'm just going to take you really

05:35quickly on a tour around of what has

05:37changed.

05:39And if you've got questions, we can go

05:41back and try to pull up some of the the

05:43pieces. So, we used to have a district

05:45called Western Gateway. Uh that would be

05:48this area on the uh Memorial Drive,

05:52National Life. Uh and the discussion

05:55that the planning commission had and the

05:57conclusions that were made was that we

05:59wanted to start looking at this in a

06:00future in a future scape future sense of

06:03what we would want to see out there and

06:05to start looking at this more as a

06:06mixeduse residential. And because we m

06:10we already have a mixeduse residential

06:12it's called um it's it's but it's

06:14generally for smaller

06:17buildings. So it's looking at um out

06:22near the meadow on Elm Street and those

06:24areas where you have small shops or

06:26heading up towards the college and not

06:29these large buildings. So we created a

06:31new district and we applied it in this

06:33area which would uh presumably when

06:35we're done adding in all the details

06:37would include the allowance of larger

06:40buildings. So this is mixeduse

06:41residential 2. The dark brown this is

06:44already mixeduse residential one these

06:46areas you see here. So these are

06:51um pretty much uh the the same in this

06:54area that we're at over here. Um, so

06:57that's one of the big changes and you're

06:59going to see mixeduse residential 2 show

07:01up in a number of places. It's replaced

07:04a a portion of the riverfront district

07:06as well. So I'm going to zoom in a

07:09little bit as we looking down at

07:10Northfield Street. Um, we used to have

07:14uh

07:16a number of residential zoning districts

07:19in the city. So we had 1500, 3,000,

07:226,000, and 9,000. and that really

07:24reflected the density and the size of

07:26the parcels that were allowed. What the

07:28planning commission has elected to do is

07:31to consolidate from four to two. So

07:34rather than having the numbers, we've

07:36just kind of gone to high density

07:37residential, medium density residential.

07:39We can name them whatever we would like,

07:42but um this green is the is the medium

07:46density residential and we also extended

07:48that down to Prospect Street. So,

07:51Prospect Street we felt was probably

07:54over zoned before um because of the

07:58steepness. It was very difficult to

08:00develop at high density. So, we've made

08:02that medium. And we've also so this

08:05entire area used to be in two or three

08:06zoning districts. It's now all in one.

08:09Um and it's um the medium density.

08:15Um there's been a shift. This used to be

08:19Riverfront down Berlin Street. Um the

08:23start of River Street and up Berlin

08:25Street used to all be in um that was

08:30Riverfront and this used to be

08:31residential. These are now the mixeduse

08:34residential one. So it's the small

08:37infill allowing some um additional

08:41residential uh commercial and

08:42residential infill in these areas.

08:45Um, and the rest of River Street on its

08:49way out has been changed to mixeduse

08:52residential, too. So, again, these are

08:54the mixeduse. You can have residential,

08:56you can have commercial, but you can

08:57have them in bigger buildings, and

08:59you'll tend to find these are where the

09:01bigger buildings are. This is Stone

09:02Cutters Way. This is um where Bar Hill

09:06is um out towards

09:10the old Country Club Road area.

09:13Um,

09:17and let's see again out in these areas

09:22as you get out Berlin Street, this used

09:24to be two zoning districts. It's now

09:26one. Uh, and it's all medium density.

09:30And then we made what used to be eastern

09:34gateway is also mixeduse residential. So

09:38rather than having these I don't know I

09:41would say 1980s 1990s zoning of this

09:43like it used to be office park used to

09:45be what national life was. Well we're

09:48trying to kind of get away from that. We

09:49want to have mixed uses. We want to

09:51allow these things. So even though most

09:53of River Street, what we have is 302,

09:56has been

09:58um built out as mostly commercial, we

10:01want to allow the possibility that

10:02somebody could put in a mixed mixeduse

10:05project or a residential project in this

10:08area.

10:10Um we have left so far the

10:17Country Club Road properties as is. Um

10:21this is the dark blue is the western

10:25gateway. So that is a gateway district

10:27now. But we carved out the industrial

10:32park, the industrial area. And that's

10:34because that is an area we don't want to

10:36have residential. So we do want to make

10:37a special case for that area because it

10:40really is not consistent to have

10:42residential development in the same

10:44place that you have. So, you don't want

10:46children walking around in areas where

10:48you've got tractor trailer trucks.

10:51Um,

10:54yeah. So, let me finish going all the

10:55way around and then we'll we'll grab

10:57some questions. Um,

11:01so as we move over, you'll start to

11:04notice we move back towards town. We

11:08have, as we said, we combine zoning

11:10districts. So what you have now is a

11:12high density district that covers most

11:14of the residential areas immediately

11:16surrounding the city uh or the the

11:19downtown core and the outside is all

11:22medium density. So you have high

11:24density, medium density instead of four

11:25districts, we now have two

11:29in the downtown. We had urban center. We

11:32used to have three urban center

11:33districts. We now have urban center one

11:36which goes from the redstone building

11:39all the way down Berry Street to the

11:41Granite Street Bridge. And then we have

11:45a section of urban center 2 which really

11:49reflects the fact that these are um not

11:52block style. These are more separated

11:54buildings or at least that's what we

11:56would want to have continue in the

11:57future.

12:00And

12:03I think as I pull out a little bit more,

12:06don't want to give get everyone seasick

12:09as I move quickly around. Uh we made

12:11some adjustments up on Terara Street to

12:13reflect some um recommendations that uh

12:17Allan gave us at the last meeting. So we

12:19think we've captured most of the areas

12:22that are medium density. Developable is

12:24medium density. We do have some high

12:26density down here and a little bit of

12:29new area that's mixed use one. I think

12:32that's the quick tour around. Um I'm I'm

12:36welcome to take questions or comments or

12:37thoughts. The idea really is to to try

12:40to simplify. We used to have 13 zoning

12:42districts. I think we're down to nine.

12:45And some of that may actually get

12:46smaller because we still have um this

12:49unique district over here for Country

12:51Club Road. We'll work with the

12:53developers over here to see if they want

12:55to be a mixeduse residential too, which

12:57is what I think would make the most

12:58sense. It would be the most similar, but

13:00we don't want to do anything. We're in

13:02negotiations with them, and we have to

13:03make sure that we work with them as good

13:05partners. Um, and I guess I'll turn it

13:09back over to Erin to take public

13:12comment.

13:12>> Great. Thanks, Mike. Um just very

13:14quickly before we do that, um Maria I

13:17think is we I mean this was all a group

13:20effort and obviously uh want to

13:22recognize everybody who spent a lot of

13:24time um mulling over these changes. We

13:27certainly had a lot of discussions and

13:29uh very appreciated. But I think uh I

13:32think it's safe to say that the sort of

13:33the general contours of this map were

13:36primarily driven by Maria. I think she

13:38kind of came out with the with the

13:39template from which we worked off of. So

13:42just wanted to give Maria a chance

13:44really quickly to if you have anything

13:46you want to comment on and sort of how

13:48you came up with this vision for this

13:50map. Um

13:52>> sure. So

13:54well first we heard repeatedly that

13:56people wanted a more simplified zoning

13:59map and so that was a guiding principle.

14:03We also wanted, you know, we've also

14:05heard the call for more housing in

14:07Montpielar. And so the question becomes,

14:09how does Montielar grow responsibly? So

14:12we wanted to kind of create a framework

14:15for Millar to grow within the next 50 or

14:17so years. So the idea was that we have

14:22the downtown used to be split into three

14:24zones and now it is two, but we also

14:27expanded the downtown by a block in

14:29every direction. And so you kind of want

14:31to see this development start in the

14:33middle and expand outward. Um

14:36likewise, we also added this um mixeduse

14:42residential to all of the arterials

14:44coming into the city. And

14:48mix residential one is kind of like

14:52small offices, um maybe like a

14:55chiropractic office or a law office. And

14:57so these are the kinds of uses that can

14:59blend in with residential without being,

15:02you know, uh

15:06uh that wouldn't really add traffic or

15:08you wouldn't need large parking lots

15:09for.

15:11But now all of the arterials coming into

15:13the city are this mixed residential. Um,

15:19we also consolidated, like Mike said, a

15:23lot of the residential zones. And so you

15:25kind of, we were trying to match like

15:26with like and that's reflected in this

15:30map where you kind of see, you know, the

15:31College Street area inwards and then I

15:35think it's Dair Lane inwards are all

15:37kind of treated the same because they

15:38currently all look the same. Um, and

15:41they could all develop similarly.

15:43Whereas the Res 9000, the houses are a

15:45bit more spread out.

15:47um there's not really that much on

15:48street parking and we kind of let those

15:52residential zones

15:54exist similar to how they are today. Um

15:58so it's anyway that is mostly what we

16:00wanted to focus on is just kind of this

16:02responsible development that starts in

16:04the center and grows outward.

16:07Er, can I just throw in there also that

16:09there was a there was some really good

16:11input on like where the lines should

16:13actually be from the housing committee

16:15and Tim working with uh Tim Heene and um

16:19uh Sandy Fitz to to really kind of dig

16:22into it in great detail. We're grateful

16:24for their work as well.

16:27>> Agreed. And I'll also just put a plug in

16:30um RTM Tim Senate uh did a lot of work

16:34with with the maps um has been working

16:36on with maps. Did you you worked on this

16:40one as well, right? I can't remember how

16:42you're always working with did you work

16:43on this one?

16:44>> Yes, I I was helpful with the um with

16:48sort of taking the vision into a GIS

16:50mapping space and then coordinating with

16:52Mike and Nick at the planning

16:54department. uh at which point they took

16:56over um and built out all of the

16:58proposals and revisions.

17:00>> Great. And thanks for that. So uh and

17:03with that, I'm not Do I need to open Is

17:05this like a public hearing? Okay. I was

17:07going to say All right. It's not a

17:08public hearing, so I don't need to open

17:09it, but um I'd open up the floor for uh

17:13public input. And uh we'll start here if

17:16you want. James, thanks.

17:18[clears throat]

17:23Uh James Moore um live up off of Town

17:27Hill

17:28and uh developing some parcels here in

17:31town trying to work on some of that

17:33housing. Um I think you answered my

17:37question. My question was about uh urban

17:39residential. What distinguishes urban

17:41residential from high density

17:45uh or mixeduse residential? It sounds

17:47like the vision for urban residential

17:50out there at Country Club Road is more

17:52akin to mixeduse residential. Is that

17:55correct?

17:57>> Yeah, that's what that's what I would

17:58think of. Mixed use residential

18:01the urban residential allowed for larger

18:03buildings. We had very loose.

18:07>> Great.

18:09So, um I know how much work you all have

18:12put into this. watched a number of the

18:15videos um and I can't say thank you

18:18enough. Um I think it's a great moment

18:21to pause. I'm grateful that you all are

18:23taking a quick pause to

18:26like prior to the official public

18:28comment period to kind of get some

18:30input. Um I also think it's a good

18:33moment to reflect on the goals like are

18:38you headed the right direction and are

18:42you on track? Those were kind of like

18:44the first questions that came to mind

18:46for me as I looked at uh this update.

18:50Um and I would say 100% headed in the

18:53right direction. It's um

18:57you've made great progress in kind of

18:59streamlining some and um being slightly

19:04more permissive in a number of areas and

19:06I think that's really positive for our

19:08community.

19:10I did start um doing the exercise though

19:14of like putting numbers on the paper for

19:17where are we going to get the 1500 units

19:20that you all passed in the city plan and

19:24I don't see it happening. I actually

19:26don't see us getting anywhere close to

19:27it with this reasonzoning because even

19:30if you get like two or 30 hundred out at

19:32Country Club Road and 80 plus or minus

19:36at Isabel Circle,

19:40like there really aren't that many large

19:44parcels for us to significantly expand

19:47housing in Montpielar. And there's one

19:51up on top of the hill that Habitat's

19:53been looking at which is challenging but

19:57um you know large parcel some potential

20:00for serious density. there's

20:04um you know savings and the parcel

20:07between savings and country club road

20:11and then there's kind of the properties

20:13on the other side of terrace um kind of

20:16redstone and beyond in that large

20:18parcel. Um,

20:22and then really it's like infill and

20:24infill is great. Like that is what our

20:26company is doing, but that's going to be

20:30the minority. Like most of our lots in

20:33Mont Pilia are pretty welldeveloped.

20:35And, you know, I we purchased a lot on

20:40Elm Street and subdivided it. And, you

20:42know, it was an awful lot of work to get

20:44four units. Um, and I think we to get to

20:51where we want to go, we need to take

20:53that step back and do a little more

20:55reimagining. I would

20:57love to see the density that we have in

21:01our College Street, you know,

21:03neighborhood and even, you know, in up

21:06above uh, Berry Street and all of that

21:09extend from Country Club Road into town.

21:14Like why do we have this

21:17high density country club road mixeduse

21:20island and then this like

21:24uh kind of the lime green or the p green

21:28the medium density and then we get back

21:31into town. I just think that that begs

21:33for kind of connectivity and closure. Um

21:37and I similarly I think that if we're

21:40good with the density on Terrace Street

21:44and you know um Dair Lane and whatnot

21:48like why would we not be excited to see

21:51that density in the undeveloped land

21:54right there right next to it. Um and

21:57actually think about um

22:00higher density there as well. I think,

22:03you know, we've got some condo

22:05condoesque density up on Murray Hill.

22:08Great. Let's encourage more of that.

22:12Like houses right next to each other.

22:14Um,

22:16and so I just think that

22:19you all were in the weeds, like deep in

22:21the weeds. Um, and I would encourage you

22:24to take this pause and to pull back out

22:27and say, actually,

22:29I think we can do more. Um, and I think

22:31to reach the goals that the city council

22:34passed and that you all put forward, um,

22:37you probably have to do more. Um,

22:46that's the gist of my comments. I could

22:48go on, but I don't need to. There are

22:50other other folks that want to weigh in.

22:52So, thank you.

22:52>> Can I just ask you a question?

22:53>> Yeah.

22:53>> Is that is that okay, Erin, if I have to

22:56follow up? I mean so in terms of like

22:59for lake right we've got these nine

23:01districts now if the density itself were

23:04increased that could satisfy your

23:06concern right it within those with the

23:10proposed if the density within those

23:12were increased that could satisfy your

23:13concern

23:15>> uh I think only partially I think I take

23:18issue with the like for like because

23:21that implies that we're going to do more

23:22of what's already there

23:25>> and when I look at like where I live up

23:27off of Town Hill, that means that like

23:29very few lots exist, period. And if they

23:34exist and you're going to do some

23:35development, it's likely to have like

23:38forlike as a single family home going

23:40in.

23:40>> Yeah.

23:40>> So, I think

23:42to envision the next, you know, 10 or 20

23:45years because I hope that our planning

23:49commission doesn't have to do this deep

23:51of a dive

23:54for the next decade. like you all are

23:56putting in the work. So, I would hope

23:58that our city doesn't uh endeavor to do

24:01this redo it again soon. I think you're

24:04really setting the plan and the vision

24:05for the next 20 years. And I think

24:10the other thing I I guess that I would

24:11add is

24:15changing the zoning isn't going to

24:17change what's on the ground anytime

24:20soon.

24:21like most of what's going to be there is

24:23going to be there for the next 20 years

24:26and much much longer. I do think though

24:29you start to have some of you give

24:31opportunity for some of these larger

24:33parcels to actually dream of like a very

24:36different dense neighborhood that's

24:38walkable that's connected to downtown

24:40that that would be fantastic. Just

24:42filling that in with single family lots

24:44I think would be a drag for and not

24:48really help us get to where we want to

24:49go. So, I would say like go ahead and

24:51increase the density. It's not going to

24:53change much in many of these

24:55neighborhoods. Um, so we need to

24:59>> go that much farther um if we want to

25:03see 1500 units or anywhere close to it.

25:06>> Thanks for coming in, James.

25:07>> Yeah,

25:10thanks. Yeah,

25:13thanks. Uh, Peter Kelman.

25:20Wh my video didn't start. Let me just

25:22see. Can you hear me?

25:25>> We can.

25:26>> Um yeah. Uh um I'm glad that Maria

25:31um gave that um overview. And I

25:36I would say that the next time you do

25:38this presentation,

25:40don't start with a guided tour until the

25:43guide tells you what the goals are,

25:46which is what Maria did. I couldn't

25:48follow almost anything that Mike said

25:51because I didn't know what the what the

25:53goals were. So, um that was that was

25:56very useful uh what Maria uh did but

26:00start there. Um the second thing um I

26:03would say is that I I this is a question

26:07what does medium density and low density

26:12and high density mean? We used to have

26:133,000 6,000 9,000 you know those are

26:16measurements. I'm not saying we should

26:18go back to measurements, but h how does

26:22a developer

26:24or the planning commission or the uh

26:28planning department

26:30u

26:31provide guidance to developers?

26:35medium density. What h [laughter]

26:38is it going to be defined more precisely

26:41than that? Like versus like meets like I

26:45mean that that doesn't really that that

26:48seems then you're just reinforcing the

26:51369,000

26:53bit. So uh maybe I'm missing something

26:55here.

26:57And the third thing that's that was a

26:59that's a question which I hope you'll

27:01answer. Not right now. Let me just make

27:03my other my last point here. Um

27:07I

27:10think maybe the 1,500

27:14units that the city that that that was

27:17in the plan is unrealistic

27:21and maybe that's too much. I mean, we

27:25live in a region. We're not isolated.

27:29Um, the region needs much more housing.

27:32Does it all need to be within

27:34Montpielar? I would suggest that you

27:38think about talking to

27:41um the leadership of East Montpielar and

27:44East Callus and u uh Berlin which

27:48clearly is expanding a lot. um Barry

27:51Town uh you know le let's let's think a

27:55little bit regionally when we have these

27:57huge numbers that are being uh suggested

28:01that quote we need yes the region needs

28:05it but does it all have to be in in

28:07Montpielar itself um the the and related

28:11to that um James uh you know is

28:15questioning um whether just changing the

28:18densities is going to give us enough uh

28:21even if we don't do 1500 still. My

28:26question is

28:28is a map

28:31and and a revised

28:33uh unified regulations going to be

28:36enough? It seems to me that one of the

28:39problems we have is we don't have a

28:42proactive aggressive

28:44um

28:46marketing

28:48of Melier as a destination for

28:51developers. We that's what we need to

28:54do. We need the planning department to

28:58encourage to really encourage and to

29:01hold hands and to to to to really do do

29:05what we've done for to get Bar Hill

29:07here. That kind of effort and I don't

29:10see that and I haven't seen that for the

29:12past 10 or 15 years. Anyway, that's all

29:16I want to say, but I would like you to

29:18say how much more specific you're going

29:20to get about density. Thank you.

29:27All right. So, I'll I'll answer the

29:29question on density. So, uh what when we

29:31combined the and the answer is yes,

29:34there's going to be all those specific

29:36numbers are going to be in the zoning

29:39regulations. So, when we combined the

29:41residential 1500 and the residential

29:433000

29:45um that went to the residential,500.

29:49So basically the residential 3000 area

29:51got upzoned to residential 1500

29:55and when the res 9 was combined with the

29:57res 6 the res 9 got upzoned to the res

30:00six so

30:02which is now called medium density

30:04residential.

30:05So the the idea is that it would allow

30:09for slightly smaller lots which will

30:11give some

30:14slightly larger parcels in you know

30:16maybe a res 9 area had um 15,000 square

30:22feet. Well that's not enough to be able

30:23to subdivide.

30:25But if you're in a res six if you're now

30:28zoned for 6,000 square feet you could

30:29subdivide it and build on on the two

30:31lots. So, it makes it easier to make

30:33some smaller subdivisions to allow these

30:35to happen. Uh, and that's why the

30:38upzoning we felt was appropriate and was

30:40a good way to allow for some infill. And

30:43of course, on each lot, the the lots are

30:45able to have six units on them. So,

30:49>> yeah. And Peter, I was going to say we

30:52had this exact conversation when we

30:55first started this process because it's

30:56a chicken and egg problem. Do you start

30:58by rewriting all of the zoning district

31:02requirements or do you start by redoing

31:05the map? And we went back and forth and

31:07I think we all kind of wanted to see the

31:10new zones first and then go back and

31:14rewrite what the zoning district

31:16requirements are. So, I hope we're going

31:19to talk about those later today.

31:22The second step will be um rewriting the

31:25zoning district requirements and that

31:27includes density and frontage rules and

31:30setbacks. All very much in the weeds,

31:34but this is kind of everyone's first

31:36glance at where we think we're headed. C

31:40>> can I can I just ask a quick followup?

31:42Thank you, Maria. Once again, you you've

31:46that should be right in the be said

31:48right in the beginning and so should

31:49that the upzoning. I I had no idea what

31:52until Mike just explained it that that

31:55that's what you meant. You went to the

31:56lower uh uh common denom the lower

32:00denominator. You that needs to be

32:02explained when you're making a public

32:04presentation. You guys are very familiar

32:07with all this. The public isn't this and

32:09and you you you need to altogether do a

32:14job so that people will understand what

32:15what they're looking at in addition to

32:17what the goal is. And I think that when

32:20you uh get to that stage too, which I'm

32:23glad that that's you're going to do

32:24that, one thing to think about is

32:27flexibility.

32:29Um so if as long as you continue to have

32:31the 3000s and the 6000s and the 9,000s

32:35in there somewhere, say, "Yeah, but you

32:37know what? If you're a little short or

32:40if it's a really really flat area,

32:43there's no slopes, we can we can wave

32:46that. you can do more in smaller uh you

32:50can get higher. I I think it's the lack

32:53of flexibility of the current um unified

32:56regulations that is really has stifled

33:00already quite a few possible projects.

33:02So I I urge you to to think about

33:05flexibility. Thanks.

33:09>> I wanted to say a couple of things uh

33:10Tim Senate here. Um

33:13uh the first thing was that the current

33:17zones also are somewhat confusing. Um

33:20residential 1500 and residential 3000.

33:23You would assume that minimum parcel

33:25size for 1500 is 1500 and minim and

33:28minimum parcel size for residential

33:303,000 is 3,000. The fact of the matter

33:32is it's currently

33:353,000 square feet for both of those. So

33:37there is confusion in the in the current

33:39regulations.

33:41I think this can all be cleared up uh

33:43moving forward.

33:45Um but most importantly, I think that we

33:47are what we're doing is consolidating

33:49four res zones down to two and and

33:51pushing density in in both of those

33:54spaces.

33:55Um this is just a matter of opinion, but

33:58when talking about 1500,000 units for

34:00Montpelier,

34:01uh it it might be challenging to get

34:03there, but I think it's a really good

34:05goal. I've taken [snorts]

34:08um this role, one of the reasons I've

34:10taken this role is as uh an

34:12environmentalist and I think the most

34:14environmental thing that we can do for

34:16central Vermont

34:18is to increase density in Montpielar

34:21drastically. Um

34:24so to bring 1500 units into Montpielar

34:26and not spread it out in our surrounding

34:29towns, Berlin, East Montpilar, etc., uh

34:32we are preventing sprawl. So, it's it's

34:35hugely essential um that if if folks

34:38want to live in central Vermont, please

34:40come to Millar uh and build here. It is

34:43the anti-spraw environmentalist approach

34:47in my opinion. It's one of the reasons

34:48I'm on the commission. I I'll just throw

34:51out too for people, you know, probably

34:52weren't paying as close attention to the

34:54the city plan process. The 1500 number

34:57came from so the state did an assessment

34:59of all the housing needs and then let's

35:02pull the homes wrote us a letter and

35:03said you guys are falling short with

35:05your goal. Your number should be like

35:06this and that's where it came from. It

35:08came from statebacked research and then

35:11you know a a really strong housing

35:12policy advocate saying this is the

35:14number that it really should be. So

35:17that's that is our fair that's our fair

35:19share of what Vermont needs.

35:20>> Thank you for adding that. Yeah,

35:21>> tacking that on. And then lastly, I I

35:23agree that the planning department uh

35:26should have um a spirit of of

35:29encouraging uh housing in in town. I'm

35:33going to go beyond that and say the

35:34planning commission um I'll I'll take

35:37that'll be part of my role as a planning

35:38commissioner um to say that ML is open

35:42for business and and that business is

35:44building houses and and uh getting more

35:47residents. And then lastly, I think that

35:49the that I I hope that all of our towns

35:53folk and people that live here

35:55currently, residents who are out on the

35:57street uh also take that attitude. I

36:00think it's a it's a multi-pronged

36:01approach that's that's needed to um push

36:04the our city forward

36:06uh in building all the housing that we

36:08need. And I'll end there.

36:15>> Great. Thanks. Uh next we have uh Sandy

36:18Vitzume.

36:25Sandy.

36:28Maybe we don't have Sandy.

36:30>> No, you do have me. Um, you don't have

36:32my face, which is fine. I can't turn it

36:35on. It's been disabled. Um, so

36:38>> I want to make a couple and it might

36:40freeze anyway, so maybe it's better to

36:42leave it off. But I'd like to make a

36:44couple of points. The first one is I

36:46totally agree with James and I

36:48appreciate his comments tonight. I think

36:51it is important to you may have reached

36:54your logical end right now and maybe

36:56it's good to move on to other topics. Um

37:01the I want to correct first the number

37:05of uh target units for Montpielar. So

37:09this is coming from the central Vermont

37:11Regional Planning Commission's targets

37:13which were in turn given to them by the

37:16state. So, our five-year target, which

37:19is actually for really four years now,

37:22is um between 600 and 900 units and our

37:2825-year target is between,900 and 3700.

37:34This is a careful analysis of the whole

37:36region. And one of the things that makes

37:39us have such a high number, it's one of

37:41the highest numbers in the whole region,

37:44if not the highest, is because of the

37:46large municip the capacity of our sewer

37:49system. So East Montpielar might like to

37:52add a number of homes, but they get it's

37:55suggested that they can only add about

37:57200. Uh they have to have septic

37:59systems, every single one of them. So we

38:03are in a prime position and I totally

38:06agree with Tim that it's important to

38:09build densely in our already urban or

38:13edge of urban areas. Um it will be doing

38:17the whole region a favor. So I I think

38:20we need to stay in step with central

38:23Vermont and with the state. The next

38:26point is um with this burden or um

38:30actually I would say it's an opportunity

38:32to build more houses um in Montpielar,

38:37we need to h add more areas to the map

38:40that was um created in August for the

38:43Central Vermont Regional Planning

38:44Commission. I'm in complete support of

38:46the one that went on to be it will

38:49become part of the state's mapping uh

38:52this fall but uh I think it's up to

38:55Montpielar to really do the full vision

38:59of where we could put houses in

39:01Montpielar to meet this this um goal

39:04target and that should be then driving

39:09the zoning district map and I am

39:12suggesting

39:13a complete simplification of the zoning.

39:17If you think about it, we really have

39:19three areas of zoning in Mulier. We have

39:22areas that we want growth and we can

39:24support growth. We have areas where we

39:27cannot have that much growth. In other

39:29words, they don't have sewer. And then

39:32there's zoning for other kinds of

39:34buildings. We do not have a definition

39:37for mix mixed use in the current zoning

39:40ordinance and I hope you're going to fix

39:42that. But the idea of just having

39:46a district that is residential and mixed

39:50use would be sufficient for a lot of

39:53Montpelier. And I have been advocating

39:56for over a year now for not having any

39:58densities. I think that getting mixed up

40:01between 3,00,500

40:03square ft per unit uh per lot is

40:07leftover from the days of trying to have

40:10every lot be conforming and not have to

40:13grandfather lots. So

40:16we hold on do hold on Salica. Um we do

40:20not need to have any density at all.

40:23Honestly people can figure out uh

40:26developers could figure out how much

40:28they can afford to fit on a property.

40:31So, um I I hope that you'll stop this

40:36process and first of all work on the

40:39future land use map for Montpiel, not

40:41for the C Central Vermont Regional

40:43Planning Commission, but for Montpielar,

40:45and then adjust the zoning district map

40:47to meet that and then think about what

40:51the uses are. And um thank you.

40:58>> Thank you.

41:00Thanks, Sandy.

41:02Uh, is there anyone else online who has

41:06any input or comments?

41:11>> I have just one quick followup.

41:13>> Sure.

41:16>> Feel free.

41:19>> Um, there's a slightly different

41:21perspective on the goals. Um, I think

41:24it's really smart to listen to the

41:26planners at the regional level and the

41:27state level and get that input. The

41:30reality is our city council codified a

41:33goal in our city plan. Like we don't get

41:36to change that. We don't get to say,

41:38"Oh, we we think it's too much or it's

41:40too little." Like that's the goal that

41:42we're working towards until we have a

41:45revision in the plan and that's when we

41:48get to like weigh in on changing it. Um,

41:53the other thing that I would uh comment

41:55on is from a developer's perspective,

41:58this is going to sound really weird, I

42:00don't want any flexibility in the plan.

42:02Mhm.

42:04>> If you think that

42:07um a building of a certain height is

42:10okay, the last thing I want to be have

42:12to do is to go to the development review

42:14board and ask for variance to say, well,

42:17you know, can you be flexible with me

42:19because really I think 40 is fine, but

42:23the regs say 35, but can you be

42:25flexible? Like that's the developers

42:29want predictability and clarity. So go

42:32to what you're comfortable with

42:35and leave it please. Um I the the whole

42:39kind of asking special permission for

42:42changes is uh just leads to lawsuits

42:46andor appeals. Uh so ambiguity bad

42:50clarity good.

42:55Thank you.

42:58Looks looks like [snorts] we may have no

43:02one else.

43:03Uh but Mike, you want

43:05>> Yeah, I just wanted to give two

43:06follow-up comments just um just for

43:10perspective so people kind of get a a

43:12sense of when we talk about these uh

43:16density numbers. Um, River Station on

43:20Berry Street Down Street's condos and

43:23and apartments that they have down

43:25there. That's almost a perfect 27 units

43:28an acre. That's our one of our highest

43:31densities we have. That's 27 units an

43:33acre. Um, under this

43:37um medium density zoning, you can have a

43:416,000 foot lot. That's seven units an

43:45acre or that's seven lots an acre and

43:48you can have six units on it. That's 42

43:50units an acre. So, um just to kind of

43:53push back a little bit on we, you know,

43:56the the the changes aren't going to make

43:58that much of a difference. These

44:00actually could you could build twice the

44:02size of River Station

44:06in the res in the medium density areas.

44:10So it's it's actually providing

44:13while we could go as Sandy said to the

44:16no density and um when we've had input

44:19from AARP and others who've come in

44:22they've said um if you have good design

44:24review regulations

44:26you don't really need to regulate

44:28density and I agree with that and I

44:30>> I agree with Sandy that's that's so if

44:32we think we've got a good a hold of that

44:34then then we can certainly go in that

44:36direction. What we have done instead is

44:39to just kind of set that bar so high

44:42that nobody's realistically going to be

44:45aiming for that.

44:47It's pretty much unlimited and it just

44:49kind of caps off somebody from doing

44:51something really really out there that

44:54puts us in a position where we we don't

44:56have any way of reeling it back in

44:57because even the medium density as I

44:59said those are you can have a lot of

45:02development happen in these areas and I

45:03think what's going to happen over time

45:05is um if prices reach a certain point

45:09there will be the opportunity where

45:10somebody may go in and purchase um a

45:14smaller building will buy a house with a

45:16with a small building on it and they

45:17will replace that building with a bigger

45:19building. We haven't had tear downs in

45:21Montpillar. That hasn't been a thing. If

45:23prices reach a point, that may happen.

45:25Not that I think it'll happen in our in

45:28our downtown core where housing prices

45:30are really high. You're not going to

45:31tear down a 900,000 foot Victorian to go

45:35and replace it. But you might be out on

45:37a place where you might buy a ranch or a

45:39raised ranch on one of these side

45:41streets and go through and say, "You

45:43know what? This is a a a ranch, a 900

45:46foot ranch on a quarter acre lot. I

45:48could buy this and and replace that

45:51building with a much bigger one that

45:53could have six six units. Um, and I

45:57think we'll see that over time and we'll

45:59monitor that and the

46:02council and the community will be able

46:04to start to respond and react to whether

46:06that's a good thing or a bad thing. But

46:08I think it does give us a lot of

46:10potential in there by increasing um and

46:14looking at these maps. I think this this

46:16does address a lot of the points of what

46:18we were trying to look at with this

46:20zoning map revision was to remove

46:21barriers. Um uh James is right.

46:26Uh you can remove barriers. Uh and

46:28zoning zoning is a barrier. It's not an

46:32an incentive in and of itself. It's not

46:35a way of encouraging. you need to do

46:36other things to encourage, but it

46:39certainly can be a barrier. And what

46:40we've tried to do is to remove certainly

46:42those areas and barriers that we believe

46:45are just not fulfilling any public

46:49purpose. And I think we're moving in the

46:51right direction with that. Um the last

46:54comment, um I just wanted to kind of

46:56clarify a little bit. So the state's

46:58goal is a 25-year goal. Our goal in our

47:01zoning or the goal in our city plan was

47:03a 20-year goal. So we had a 1500

47:06um unit goal for 20 years which um

47:11extended out to 25 years actually it's

47:13in that range of the state's range. So

47:17if we continued to build another 75

47:19units a year we would actually end up

47:20hitting into the the state's range. So

47:24I'm um you know

47:28feel good that we're looking at this in

47:31the right way and and hope hoping that

47:33we can actually fulfill much of much of

47:37what it is. I think sometimes if you

47:39know if you aim for a thousand you might

47:40get 800 if you aim for 1500 maybe we get

47:431,200. So it's the goal is to make it

47:46possible and to keep pushing in that

47:48direction.

47:49I I will note though that CVRPC's number

47:52for over the next five years is more

47:56housing than we have in our next five

47:58years.

47:59>> Yes. So yeah, it was a complaint that I

48:01had and I noted that to the RPC and to

48:04the state that they frontloaded what

48:06they what the state said was we have a

48:08deficiency in a certain number of

48:10housing units and we want to increase

48:15the housing. So, they put all the

48:16deficiencies in the first five years,

48:18which is why they're asking for 600,

48:20which won't happen. There's no way

48:21nobody's going to make their five-year

48:23goals.

48:25But, sorry I cut you off.

48:26>> No, I know that that was my main point.

48:29And, you know, this is this is all of

48:30this is like really amazing fodder for

48:32discussion, and I really appreciate all

48:34of the feedback that we're getting

48:35tonight. You know, I don't want to be

48:38setting our city up for, you know,

48:41having set having helped to set this

48:42goal. It has been codified 1500 units

48:44over the next 20 years. And the changes

48:47that we're making are we're paying close

48:50attention to, you know, what where we

48:53want to go, but also paying attention to

48:56what's currently there.

48:58Does that sort of will we hit our goal

49:01or will we come in at 50%, will we come

49:03in at 25%. That if we were to hit 25% or

49:0750%, that would be a huge concern of

49:10mine. And I I would go all the way to

49:12say that's a failure of the planning

49:13commission and and the city as a whole.

49:16If we hit 80 to 90%, I would say that's

49:18really close to a success. 100% would

49:20clearly be a success. Are we setting

49:23ourselves up where where we can in our

49:27near future actually hit those 1500

49:29units or are we kidding ourselves? I

49:32really hope that we're not kidding

49:34ourselves. I mean I think when we have

49:35the conversation which is you know the

49:37next thing you'll look at right is the

49:39is the idea of what does the density and

49:42and do these things need to change or

49:43are we going to hit the goal you know

49:46zoning reform is an enabler the economic

49:48factors also have to make sense right

49:50and so you could have you know you can

49:53build on a thousand square foot lot and

49:55we don't care build everywhere build as

49:56high as you want nobody's going to come

49:58in and build if the you know interest

50:00rates are seven and a you know seven and

50:01a quarter and people aren't buying homes

50:04for $600,000. Nobody's going to build a

50:06house here, right? And so what we're

50:08trying to do is create an environment

50:09where people like James and others who

50:11want to do some projects can find a way

50:13that they can build a profitable

50:14business and that zoning isn't

50:16preventing them from doing that. Right.

50:18So

50:20>> I appreciate that.

50:25>> Uh Sandy, do you have something else you

50:27want to say or you just leave your hand

50:28up online, your virtual hand? There it

50:33goes. Okay.

50:36>> All right. Uh if there's any more

50:39comments from any of the commissioners,

50:41I think we're done with uh the input

50:45session. Thanks everybody for your

50:47input. It is really helpful to hear and

50:49we'll uh certainly keep it in mind as we

50:51move forward. I'm sorry.

50:52>> Have a second we will have a second

50:54input session at our next planning

50:56commission meeting which is October 13th

50:59which is a Tuesday. Reminder, it's a

51:02Tuesday.

51:03And in terms of next steps, so we're

51:07gathering information now or we gather

51:08information in two plus weeks and then

51:11what will be our

51:13proposed

51:15uh path from there

51:18or do we have one or do we need to

51:19discuss

51:21>> getting by the 26th right?

51:26>> Yeah. Or the 28th something like that.

51:29>> Yeah.

51:31So I know we want comments by then

51:33>> and then have another and then have a

51:36discussion working session

51:40>> discuss I'm I was not here for yes

51:44>> the in between for for folks who who

51:46want to the process of what we want to

51:48do at this point is we're going to

51:50continue during this process the map is

51:52going to stay the map until after um the

51:55October meetings

51:57and we're going to continue to work on

52:00other details of the of the regulations

52:03that we were just talking about. What

52:04are we going to do about the the

52:06densities and what are these other

52:07pieces that we need to start looking at

52:10um

52:12>> including which we'll get into uh and

52:14number seven which is the tier 1A

52:16requirements and some other pieces. So,

52:17that's what we'll be we'll be talking

52:19about during this time. Hopefully being

52:22able to complete a full zoning re uh

52:26draft

52:28ready for the end of the calendar year.

52:31That's our goal. And um so if people

52:35don't want to um stay on for the rest of

52:37the meeting, that's the plan because at

52:39that point we will be able to start

52:41working on a on uh submitting a tier 1A

52:44application and we'll have draft

52:47regulations that will be open that we

52:48could submit the draft regulations to

52:51the lurb. The lurb can then review them

52:54and send us comments. um if we adopt the

52:57regulations and then go to the lurb and

52:58they tell us make these three changes

53:00then we have to go back to the start and

53:02re rego through the process. So it's

53:03easier for us to kind of have everything

53:05queued up ready to go to the lurb hear

53:07what comments they h they have and they

53:09want to change then we can make those

53:11changes and then immediately go to

53:12adoption and hopefully have this done uh

53:15in the early spring.

53:18Great.

53:23Okay. Uh, moving to our next agenda

53:25item. It's general business. These are

53:26comments from the public about something

53:28that's not on the agenda. Uh, we don't

53:31have anybody here in the uh, council

53:33chambers. Uh, if there's anybody online

53:36that would like to has any comments or

53:38anything that's not on the agenda.

53:43Looks like we don't have anybody who has

53:45any general business. Next is comments

53:47from the commission. Um, I just have a

53:50couple of quick updates for the group.

53:51Um first is on the CV RPC front. Um the

53:57regional planning commission issued a

53:59another draft of the regional plan in

54:02advance of um having their final vote on

54:06the plan which will be October 20th. So

54:10um there was some changes that were made

54:12to the plan. Mike submitted some

54:14comments. They were fairly minor. Uh

54:16Mike, if you want to speak to any of

54:17them, you can. But I don't Okay.

54:20They're mostly mostly minor things. I

54:21read I read through the draft plan just

54:23to make sure there wasn't anything in

54:24there that was

54:26>> out of order and it all looked great.

54:28>> Correct. And so I think generally

54:29speaking, the uh regional plan looks

54:31like it's in good shape. Uh we'll vote

54:33that out in again in October with the

54:35goal of having approval by the LURB uh

54:38from the LURB by the end of the year. Um

54:41as the CBRPC is the last regional

54:43commission to submit the regional plan

54:45for approval. um

54:49sort of dovetales into the second

54:50subject which was uh reached out to the

54:54chair of the RP of the RPC asked if they

54:57would be willing to re-engage with us to

54:59have further discussions about adding

55:01some of those additional parcels that

55:02they did not accept um pursuant to our

55:05recommendations thinking like you know

55:08there's some parcels up on Berlin Street

55:10along Elm Street some of those things uh

55:13long story short they basically declined

55:16to have any further discussion with

55:18respect to the map. So, I think we're

55:19going to let Sleeping Dogs lie on that

55:21front. I'll probably talk to them, but I

55:24don't have a lot of confidence that

55:26we'll be able to convince them to put

55:29those uh those other parcels back into

55:32um the regional map. So, but to be

55:37continued. Um

55:39>> thanks for trying a [laughter]

55:43you can't get it if you don't ask, you

55:44know. So, um the other thing I just

55:47wanted to update folks on is uh Tim and

55:50I had another meeting with the housing

55:53committee last week. Um we went over a

55:55handful of issues. Um uh Sandy actually

55:59spoke to one of them which I think is

56:01helpful which is um we spoke about uh

56:04making potential changes to the Millar

56:07future land use map in the city plan um

56:09to sort of expand it and have a more

56:11kind of aggressive

56:13uh vision for the city going forward. Um

56:17so that was put on the table and and

56:19noted again Dandy sort of advocated for

56:24that again tonight which I think is

56:25helpful. Um, so we'll take a look at

56:27that. Um, I think right now I'll just

56:30say from my perspective, you know, our

56:32our focus right now is getting this map

56:34squared away. Um, and then probably

56:37start turning toward and working on the

56:39zoning regulations, but the unified

56:41regulations, but that future land use

56:43map, you know, is in the background. And

56:44I think it's helpful at some point

56:46sooner rather than later that we take

56:47another look at that after we sort of

56:49wrap up this map because I think it'll

56:51help inform a discussion about any

56:52potential changes we might make to the

56:54future land use map. Um, another issue

56:58that we talked about was uh the housing

57:00committee was is very much interested in

57:03developing and or understanding the

57:05timeline for a tier 1A application. Um,

57:08which is why we have another agenda item

57:10below um, where Mike's going to have an

57:13overview of sort of where we see that

57:15uh, process and that timeline uh,

57:17playing out over the next few months.

57:19So, that was helpful for to get their

57:21input to make to see that they're um,

57:23very interested in making sure that the

57:26city obtains that tier 1A uh, status as

57:30soon as possible. And then I think the

57:32last issue was

57:35I think that might be it in terms of big

57:38stick issues. Is there anything else?

57:40>> No, I think that's right. I mean they

57:41they they discussed housing committee is

57:43going to move forward then with a long

57:46list 10 to 12 other

57:48>> uh agenda items of their own um that

57:51they'll be taking on independently. Um I

57:54will continue to leazison with them and

57:58uh they'll be working directly with I

58:00think um city council on a lot of those

58:01issues.

58:02>> Yep.

58:04>> And so it did sort of wrap up a chapter.

58:06I think I think it's safe to say that um

58:09the housing committee might be sort of

58:10reorienting themselves and turning their

58:12attention to other matters for a while.

58:14But this has been helpful for the last

58:15few months really working on the map

58:17with Tim. Um I think it's been a good

58:20collaboration and we certainly welcome

58:22you know re-engaging with them in the

58:24future uh as our process moves forward

58:27especially when we start getting into

58:29the meat of the uh unified regulation

58:31changes. So it was a good productive

58:34meeting uh we'll be meeting I think they

58:37scheduled a meeting for the end of

58:39October so um to be continued.

58:42>> Is there anything else you want to add

58:43about that?

58:43>> No. Okay.

58:44>> That covers it. Thank you. Uh, does

58:46anybody have anything else that they'd

58:48like to update or speak about?

58:52So, this is my last meeting. So, it's

58:54been almost five years. I didn't start

58:56at the very beginning of a term, but uh,

58:58thank you to everybody. I've had

58:59opportunities, everybody that's current

59:01commissioners, past commissioners, Mike,

59:04uh, you know, it's just been great. I've

59:06learned a ton and I am so excited for

59:08the work that you're doing. I I don't

59:10know, like there's been a lot of people

59:12that come and go. I feel like you have

59:13such a good group of uh housing

59:16advocates and people really trying to

59:17vision M prayer for the next 20 30 years

59:20and it's it's just great. So, it's been

59:22an honor to serve with you guys.

59:25>> Yeah, I know I speak on behalf of

59:27everybody else here, but we're really

59:29going to miss your expertise and your uh

59:32your perspective that you bring here.

59:33It'll be sort of

59:34>> Maybe I'll show up once in a I I'm I was

59:36going to say I that's what I was going

59:37to say is I I hope that we will see your

59:39face again sooner rather than later and

59:42and often again we I

59:46>> you taught me a whole I all I can do is

59:48speak for myself but I learned a whole

59:49lot from you in terms of how to look at

59:51these issues in a way that I'm not used

59:53to and it was is very helpful. So,

59:56>> thanks for all your uh your dedication

59:58and time and um

1:00:00>> yeah,

1:00:00>> has it been is it has been five years,

1:00:02six? I was trying to

1:00:03>> November would be five.

1:00:04>> November five.

1:00:06>> All right.

1:00:07>> Thank you.

1:00:09>> Thank you.

1:00:10>> Of course, Aaron, you're at what? 10.

1:00:12You're

1:00:13>> uh I am

1:00:15>> quite

1:00:16>> I'm coming close to nine.

1:00:18>> Yeah.

1:00:18>> Yeah. I

1:00:21>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ber.

1:00:25you know, it's a classic like I've

1:00:26forgotten more than most people know,

1:00:28you know, and but I just all I know is I

1:00:30just forgotten everything. So, um,

1:00:33>> which is, uh, which also leads to a

1:00:35little bit of a reminder for anyone who

1:00:36has not put in their reappoints yet,

1:00:38please put in your reappoints because we

1:00:40will be needing to get that to city

1:00:43council. They're having a special city

1:00:45council meeting

1:00:47next week for a retreat and they're

1:00:50going to approve

1:00:51the the slate of books. So

1:00:54>> I submitted last week.

1:00:55>> Okay.

1:00:56>> And we'll be excited for two more years.

1:00:59>> So you Maria Leah, are you okay?

1:01:04>> I think I was trying to recruit Sheamus

1:01:05and I He keeps coming to meetings. So

1:01:07I'm hoping that's I hope

1:01:10I I've seen a few

1:01:11>> I submitted my application.

1:01:13>> Yeah.

1:01:14>> Thank you. Excellent.

1:01:14>> Yep. Sheamus I saw was in and I I hadn't

1:01:18seen some of the others, but I hadn't

1:01:19been also looking. So Yep.

1:01:22>> Great.

1:01:24Uh any other comments from folks? Nope.

1:01:28Right. Moving on. Uh sort of dubvtailing

1:01:31to what I just was saying before is is

1:01:33um in our discussions with the housing

1:01:36committee um you know again they're

1:01:38focused on sort of making sure that we

1:01:40have a timeline and a process for that

1:01:42tier 1A application. Um I've also been

1:01:45approached by various folks around town

1:01:47and surprising number frankly um that

1:01:50have been interested in this. So, I

1:01:51thought it'd be a good idea um to have

1:01:53Mike give sort of a brief overview of

1:01:55what that process is, what our

1:01:56anticipated timeline is for securing uh

1:01:59the uh uh tier 1A application or status

1:02:03and probably more importantly, selfishly

1:02:05for us is what role the planning

1:02:07commission will play in that process and

1:02:09um what we can expect and when. So,

1:02:13>> all right. So, the first answer is so we

1:02:17have already submitted a tier 1B

1:02:18application. So that will mean as soon

1:02:21as

1:02:22we have the ability to as soon as the

1:02:26regional plan is approved, the tier 1B

1:02:30would go into effect and that will help

1:02:3299% that helps the James Moors and the

1:02:36lot the small builders across the city.

1:02:38you know, it doesn't hit as much of the

1:02:41city as we had all hoped for, but it's

1:02:43going to get a lot of properties in and

1:02:47uh it's a good first step and we'll keep

1:02:49working on

1:02:50expanding that um next year with the

1:02:53growth center. What what is that like on

1:02:55a map? What does that match up to? Uh

1:02:56this this is

1:03:02I'll put this up only because we already

1:03:04have this um we already had this up

1:03:08before. Um so this would they did add in

1:03:13I guess part of um Isabelle uh

1:03:16independence green. So, it does cover

1:03:18all the areas up here in green um and

1:03:22out in here in green, but does not cover

1:03:26the area in brown.

1:03:28And then as it swings around, it goes up

1:03:31to

1:03:33up Berlin Street as far as Heert, but it

1:03:37doesn't continue past Heert. And that

1:03:39was one of the areas we had wanted to

1:03:40get in. So, it's it goes all the way out

1:03:45Town Hill. So almost all of this area

1:03:47out here, Windywood, this is all this is

1:03:49all in. This is all in. Country Club

1:03:52Road is all in. Um so it's a rather

1:03:56large area. Um but there are small areas

1:04:00that are still cut out. So we didn't get

1:04:03everything. Um I believe it goes out as

1:04:06far as the [snorts] pool. I think I want

1:04:09to say that on this side. Um out Terrace

1:04:12Street. Yeah, I don't have the map right

1:04:14up, but we do have a number of these

1:04:15areas. Uh, half of

1:04:19Crest View or part of Crest View is in.

1:04:21So, we've got a number of these that are

1:04:22in,

1:04:24but not all of them. So, um, but it will

1:04:28help. Like I said, a lot of a lot of

1:04:29projects in the areas will be able to

1:04:32get some benefit.

1:04:37Um so to make the next big step to tier

1:04:411A which would cover the same area

1:04:44um as the tier 1B um

1:04:48we we need to do a couple of things. One

1:04:51is we need to have the CBRPC have their

1:04:54plan get adopted and that's why we can't

1:04:58um put in a pre-application until we've

1:05:00gotten ourselves through the door. So we

1:05:03need to get that uh get that piece um

1:05:07because a lot of the analysis inside

1:05:09says whatever's inside that area is

1:05:13has to be regulated in a certain way. So

1:05:16there's going to be certain um we did as

1:05:18staff a full review of the application

1:05:22for tier 1A and we've started to reach

1:05:24out to the various folks. So at ANR

1:05:29there really comes down to two folks ANR

1:05:32and um historic preservation.

1:05:36So at ANR we have a rivers group and um

1:05:41rivers and flood plane and we need the

1:05:44rare threatened and endangered.

1:05:48So those are two groups that we're going

1:05:49to need to work with. We need to get

1:05:51maps, make sure we understand what the

1:05:53rules are going to be. Now, fortunately,

1:05:55um, a couple of towns are cities are

1:05:58going ahead of us. Rutland City and

1:06:00South Burlington. Um, South Burlington

1:06:03has gotten a fairly good review. Um, so

1:06:07we'll have some good information in

1:06:08there to try to work with. Um,

1:06:10fortunately, we don't have any any rare

1:06:14natural communities in Montpillar, so we

1:06:16don't have to worry about checking that

1:06:18box. That's already done. But we do have

1:06:20rare, threatened, and endangered. And

1:06:21I'm not sure how it works. And I just

1:06:23have to get in and really start talking

1:06:25to the ANR folks about how this how this

1:06:30is going to play out, but we are looking

1:06:32very carefully at how it's being handled

1:06:35in South Burlington.

1:06:37Um the second piece is the river

1:06:40corridors piece um which we are

1:06:42currently in conversations with the

1:06:43state because um

1:06:47we have to have river corridors

1:06:48throughout the entire city in order to

1:06:51qualify for tier 1A and we don't because

1:06:55we exclude our downtown

1:06:58and the rivers group agrees that we

1:07:01should not have river corridors in our

1:07:02downtown but we do. So, we're kind of at

1:07:05an impass of trying to figure out how do

1:07:06we do this? Do we ask the state to

1:07:08adjust the maps? Do we ask So, we've got

1:07:11to just find a a way of fixing that that

1:07:15that issue. Um, but we're we're looking

1:07:18at it. They're willing to talk to us and

1:07:20they all everybody agrees. Um, we just

1:07:23have to go and figure out how to make

1:07:24the peg fit through the hole on that

1:07:27one.

1:07:28Um and then when it comes to historic um

1:07:33there going to be certain requirements

1:07:34that we have to meet for uh protection

1:07:36of historic. We think our regulations

1:07:38are good. We've had conversations here

1:07:40in the planning commission before about

1:07:43uh adjusting the design review

1:07:48boundaries. Um we have this current

1:07:53large area that you regulate everything.

1:07:57Um, so everything from swimming pools to

1:08:00whatever you you've got some some exemp

1:08:03exemptions, but for the most part, a lot

1:08:04of stuff if you're in the design review

1:08:06district, you've got to go to the DRC.

1:08:09Now, we've made some of these

1:08:10administrative, but they're still

1:08:12regulated. Um,

1:08:15and we're not sure if that's the most

1:08:17effective when you're talking about

1:08:19areas that are pretty far a field from

1:08:21our historic downtown. So, one

1:08:24discussion that we've all had is maybe

1:08:26we have this really high dens high high

1:08:30regulatory area. It has to at least

1:08:33cover the designated downtown. That's a

1:08:36requirement.

1:08:38So, this area of Main Street, out Barry

1:08:40Street, that has to have that really

1:08:43high design review. But maybe the

1:08:46outside area and maybe the entire rest

1:08:48of the town could be um a design review,

1:08:52but it only applies if you are doing a

1:08:54major site plan.

1:08:57And as a reminder, major site plan, what

1:09:00is maybe it's easier to look at what's

1:09:01not in major site plan, residential up

1:09:04to six units. So if you're doing a

1:09:06six-unit building, that's not a major

1:09:07site plan. It can't be. but large

1:09:11commercial projects, um big additions,

1:09:14um a lot of the projects out at Country

1:09:16Club Road, they're building a single

1:09:18family home, it wouldn't need design

1:09:19review. If they're building an 8-unit

1:09:21building, it would need to go through

1:09:22design review. So, those are just kind

1:09:24of some of the things that would

1:09:27probably make sense. If you're building

1:09:29a large building, we're going to go

1:09:31through the design review. And our

1:09:32design review rules, if you aren't aware

1:09:34of it, kind of have two big areas. One

1:09:37area says you're a historic building and

1:09:39here's how we're going to regulate you.

1:09:41And the other one is you're not a

1:09:43historic building. So if you're doing

1:09:44new build, you're not in those strict

1:09:46rules of

1:09:50how do we adjust? You're making a change

1:09:52to a window. That's a historic window.

1:09:53Is that okay to change that historic

1:09:55window? That's historic, you know,

1:09:57porches and decks and window alignment.

1:10:00So we have a lot of these rules in that

1:10:02historic that we don't have in the other

1:10:05one. And so we just have to be aware um

1:10:08and see if those rules would work. So

1:10:10that's just a suggestion because we in

1:10:12the tier 1A we do have to have a certain

1:10:14amount of design review and this would

1:10:16give us the ability to say we do have

1:10:19design review in our tier 1A area. It's

1:10:24our design review regulations, but it's

1:10:26only going to apply to big things. So,

1:10:27if you're a single family home

1:10:30outside of that core area, you're not

1:10:34going to have to worry about going

1:10:34through design review. It's just for

1:10:36these other pieces. So, those are just

1:10:38some ideas of what we'll talk about over

1:10:42the next couple of months as we try to

1:10:44get work our way to December and say

1:10:47here it is. So, when December comes,

1:10:49hopefully we've got a set of zoning

1:10:50that's all built up. We've already

1:10:52reviewed it with the state ANR. We've

1:10:54already reviewed it with historic

1:10:55preservation. um and we've gotten

1:10:58everybody's agreement that yes, this

1:11:00will meet the tier 1A requirement, then

1:11:01we could submit a pre-application in

1:11:04January and hopefully we'll be in good

1:11:06shape with a lot of positive replies

1:11:10that say yes.

1:11:12So,

1:11:14that's that's kind of the plan. And the

1:11:16last thing I'll say is what about all

1:11:18these other areas? We want to keep

1:11:20growing these um tier 1A and tier 1B

1:11:23areas

1:11:25that we need to wait for the regional

1:11:27planning commission. So we we're talking

1:11:29about the regional planning commission

1:11:30adopting a regional plan right now in

1:11:32order to meet that statutory guideline.

1:11:36They are actually already revising their

1:11:40plan. It just isn't ready. In 2027, they

1:11:45plan to readopt the plan again. That

1:11:49will give us a second bite at the apple.

1:11:51So all these places where we're like

1:11:52Berlin Street didn't get it in and Terra

1:11:55Street, we didn't get it in, and Elm

1:11:58Street, we didn't get it in, we will get

1:11:59another shot at those properties next

1:12:02year in 2027. We can go back and make an

1:12:04argument the second time to go through

1:12:06and say, "Here's here's what we need to

1:12:08do." And if we need to make some

1:12:10adjustments to capital budgets or

1:12:12something else to go through and make

1:12:14demonstrates like we plan to put a

1:12:15sidewalk out there, so stop denying us

1:12:20growth center. We're going to put a

1:12:22sidewalk out there and you can make that

1:12:24a growth center now. Um so that's that's

1:12:27the push. That's what we can look for in

1:12:29our that's our 2027

1:12:32look ahead is that we can be thinking

1:12:34about how do we make that and then once

1:12:36it's in the regional plan adopted late

1:12:4027 we could talk about amending our

1:12:43growth center or amending our tier 1A

1:12:47to

1:12:48take those other areas. So Mike can I

1:12:52just Yep. I just want to make sure I'm

1:12:54getting all of it's

1:12:55>> sorry a lot of moving parts. So

1:12:58CBRPC

1:12:59is going to vote October 20th. Is that

1:13:03you said on on this plan? Right. And

1:13:07once that is accomplished, then the ball

1:13:10is back in our court.

1:13:12>> Once well once the LURB approves the

1:13:15regional plan.

1:13:16>> Okay. Is how long does that take?

1:13:18>> Yeah. So after the 20th, if everything

1:13:21goes as planned, after the 20th, RPC

1:13:24adopts the plan. it goes to the lurb.

1:13:27Now, the land use review board, the

1:13:29lurb, has already reviewed the plan and

1:13:32said it's good. So, hopefully this

1:13:35should just be a little bit more of a

1:13:37formality at this point. We've made

1:13:39these changes. We've adopted it. We're

1:13:41sending it back to you for approval.

1:13:43They have a deadline of a certain number

1:13:45of days, 120 days to adopt it, to to

1:13:49review it and approve it.

1:13:52The statute said everybody had to be

1:13:54done by December 31st. So I think the

1:13:57lurb is going to probably be leaning

1:13:58heavy on let's see if we can get this

1:14:00done by December 31st because then then

1:14:03we've met our statutory requirement high

1:14:06fives all the way around. We did it. We

1:14:09got everybody in in time. Um so our

1:14:12expectation is we think it'll be and

1:14:14then at that point December January when

1:14:17it's official then um the tier 1B would

1:14:21go into effect.

1:14:22>> What's the fastest that you could get to

1:14:24tier 1A

1:14:27assuming that they get they approve it

1:14:29in December?

1:14:30>> Nobody's gotten it yet. So it's

1:14:32>> yeah. So

1:14:35>> it's it it'll take a little bit of time.

1:14:37Um but other people are going through

1:14:39it. I think yeah,

1:14:40>> we're going to be setting ourselves up

1:14:41to be getting in the queue pretty quick,

1:14:43though.

1:14:44>> So, there's Well, there's You want to

1:14:45talk about the There's the

1:14:46pre-application.

1:14:47>> Yeah.

1:14:48>> That other municipalities have put in.

1:14:50>> So, do we have a sense of when

1:14:54Montpillar might put in a

1:14:55pre-application for review?

1:14:58>> We can't put in the pre-application

1:14:59until the LURB has approved the CVRPC

1:15:01plan because we need to have that as one

1:15:03of our submission documents. So, if we

1:15:06put in our if if if the fastest that

1:15:09could go is we get the notice that it's

1:15:11been approved

1:15:13and the next day or the next week we

1:15:15submit our pre-application that starts

1:15:20uh you know another clock of so many

1:15:23weeks and

1:15:25possibly months for them to go through

1:15:27and do a full evaluation. It's probably

1:15:29going to depend on how much do they have

1:15:31on their plate. How many more of these

1:15:33tier one AAS are we one of five that are

1:15:35in or we one of three that are in?

1:15:38>> Yeah, I don't know if you've heard this.

1:15:39It seems like there's some communities

1:15:40that don't want it.

1:15:41>> Yep. I've been very surprised very

1:15:43surprised to see a number of communities

1:15:45that have come out and said they didn't

1:15:46even want tier 1B.

1:15:48>> So interesting. So there might not there

1:15:50won't be as many. I mean everybody had

1:15:52to go through this process but nobody

1:15:54you have to want it. The city council

1:15:56has to don't they have to

1:15:57>> Yep. City council has to sign off on it.

1:15:59>> Yeah.

1:16:00>> Okay. Okay. So, going back to the

1:16:01timeline,

1:16:02>> yes,

1:16:03>> October 20th, CBRPC

1:16:06adopts their plan, goes to the LURB. So,

1:16:09then it becomes like a parallel track

1:16:11where LURB is reviewing this for 120

1:16:12days. But it sounds like the planning

1:16:15commission and planning department are

1:16:16working in parallel at this point and

1:16:19possibly

1:16:21creating a new design review.

1:16:24That'll be part of the application in

1:16:26January. And this is all we hope to

1:16:28finish this by December. Yes.

1:16:31>> Okay. [laughter]

1:16:32>> But that's on us. It's not we're not

1:16:34waiting for anyone else at that point.

1:16:35It's just our internal work.

1:16:36>> Yep. It's it's our internal work. So,

1:16:38we're we we are working. So, I already

1:16:40have meetings this week with I I met

1:16:43last week with ANR uh Rivers. I'm

1:16:46meeting uh this week with historic

1:16:48preservation. So, we're we're already

1:16:50working on these pieces to start to go

1:16:52and realize how how close are we right

1:16:55now. Okay. and then start to have these

1:16:57conversations of what we would need to

1:16:58change.

1:17:00Um, my hope is that when we have these

1:17:04and I bring these to you in November,

1:17:07that these will be something that should

1:17:09be hopefully something that's like this

1:17:12is what we need to do for rare,

1:17:14threatened, and endangered. Here's the

1:17:16map. Here are the regulations. And

1:17:19here's the process that has to go into,

1:17:21you know, part four that talks about the

1:17:23process. this is how we would process

1:17:25these types of applications. If you

1:17:27reach this threshold, then you need to

1:17:29do this and I can explain it, but

1:17:32hopefully it's not something that we've

1:17:33got a lot of debate on. Do do we or do

1:17:35we not want to? Because the question is

1:17:36going to be then do we or do we not want

1:17:38tier 1A? If we want tier 1A,

1:17:42>> this is what you here's the hurdle you

1:17:43have to jump over and we'll have to

1:17:45either do it or not. And so, um, that's

1:17:50that's why I was thinking it's not going

1:17:51to be as much of a process. there's less

1:17:53public input to this unless the public

1:17:55comes out and says we don't want to be a

1:17:57tier 1A community in which case let us

1:18:01know uh let city council know that you

1:18:03don't want us to be uh out of act 250.

1:18:06Um, but as a pro-ousing community, I

1:18:09would really hope I think it would I

1:18:12think it would speak loudly of the

1:18:15city's commitment if we were one of

1:18:17three or one of four communities in the

1:18:19state that got ourselves out of Act 250

1:18:22in order to encourage more housing.

1:18:23>> I mean, you're not really out of act

1:18:24250. It's just the city has to oversee

1:18:27those. It just expedites things and gets

1:18:28exempts you from a lot of fees and the

1:18:30and the 10 house per whatever. There's

1:18:32still you still have to follow all the

1:18:34laws. Uh actually a lot of them a lot of

1:18:36them go away. There's only these handful

1:18:38of ones that are required. So things

1:18:40like prime egg soils goes away.

1:18:42>> It does.

1:18:43>> Yeah.

1:18:43>> Yeah. You you have the option of

1:18:45incorporating them.

1:18:47>> My assumption is we aren't because those

1:18:50are you know if we're going to be the

1:18:52compact settlement we can't be going

1:18:53through and conserving all of our all

1:18:55the primag soils in our growth area.

1:18:57We're trying to compact, put our housing

1:19:00here in order to protect Callus and

1:19:02Town,

1:19:03>> these areas that have farms and

1:19:07um

1:19:08allow those areas to to continue to be

1:19:11the rural countryside.

1:19:13>> But yeah, we do have a couple of them we

1:19:15do have to accommodate. As we said, it's

1:19:16that rare, threatened, and endangered

1:19:18and historic preservation are the two

1:19:20that

1:19:23>> and he's on the hook for those.

1:19:24>> Yeah, that we're on the hook for those.

1:19:26And it's we're still trying to

1:19:28understand the nuance. There's a lot of

1:19:30nuance as we read through these. Does

1:19:33that only apply to projects that would

1:19:35have otherwise needed act 250?

1:19:39So we kind of have to have this

1:19:42jurisdictional trigger somewhere where

1:19:43we go through and say, "All right, this

1:19:45one would have needed act 250.

1:19:47Therefore, we have to check it for rare

1:19:48threat threatened and endangered."

1:19:50I I assume that is determined by the

1:19:53>> act

1:19:55by 181. No.

1:19:59>> Yes. The the rules, they're it's it's

1:20:02one of these ones. You you have a short

1:20:04set of statutes that tell you what the

1:20:06rules are.

1:20:07>> Yeah.

1:20:07>> And then people like Meredith and I

1:20:10start asking a lot of questions of what

1:20:12about this, what about this, what about

1:20:13this, what about this? And they're like,

1:20:14oh, we hadn't thought of that. We hadn't

1:20:15thought of that. It's like, well, we'll

1:20:17figure out those details. Um, and that's

1:20:20I think a little bit of what Rutland and

1:20:21South Burlington are kind of working

1:20:23their way through and will hopefully

1:20:25benefit by the fact that they've worked

1:20:27their way through a lot of these hard

1:20:28questions of how do we determine I mean

1:20:32determining act 250 jurisdiction is not

1:20:36a straightforward easy process. Um,

1:20:39>> so is it then the lurb that is

1:20:42interpreting act 181 and those were

1:20:44that's where the ne negotiations are at

1:20:46this point? Yeah, I think that's where

1:20:47there's because in some cases I think

1:20:49the lurb has been pushing in one

1:20:51direction and South Burlington

1:20:53thankfully and and I think correctly

1:20:55pushed back hard on them to say that's

1:20:56not what state law says.

1:20:58>> Yeah.

1:20:59>> You know, you can't make us apply

1:21:02>> um these rules to projects that would

1:21:06not have otherwise needed Act 250. It's

1:21:09not putting Act 250 on single family

1:21:11homes. Yeah. which is kind of where the

1:21:13lurb would been pushing and then they

1:21:16kind of pushed back and then the lurb

1:21:17kind of backed off a little bit. So I

1:21:18think they're going to find a ground and

1:21:21it's going to help us have an easier

1:21:23time of finding the rules.

1:21:25>> Yeah.

1:21:25>> Yeah.

1:21:27But and also I I've said this before,

1:21:28but I think like the the in an ideal

1:21:31world the lurb understands as much as we

1:21:35do that we are have a housing crisis in

1:21:38the state of Vermont and what does it

1:21:40take to build the houses that we need uh

1:21:43here in our in our especially in our

1:21:45downtowns but throughout.

1:21:46>> Yeah. And I and I think what where the

1:21:48lurb is caught is they're they're very

1:21:49much in in the bureaucracy at this

1:21:53point. state law says this and we're

1:21:55going to focus on making sure we meet

1:21:58that whatever's in that required box.

1:22:01And that's why, like we said, I reached

1:22:04out and said, you know, we we qualify

1:22:06for all of these things under state

1:22:08state rules that say you have to have

1:22:10river corridors and we have river

1:22:12corridors, but not in our downtown,

1:22:14right? And that works for the RAF, and

1:22:15that works for all these other programs.

1:22:18>> What about tier 1A? And they said, "No,

1:22:20tier 1A says you have to have which

1:22:22means you wouldn't allow any development

1:22:25between if we're talking about Main

1:22:28Street from Main Street to Elm Street,

1:22:30you can't have any development,

1:22:31>> right?

1:22:32>> So 1216 Maine will forever be green

1:22:36because you're not allowed to build in

1:22:37there. That's River Corridor."

1:22:39>> Now, of course, that's absurd.

1:22:41>> We're not we're not going that

1:22:42direction. If if a building burns down,

1:22:44you can't rebuild it because that's, you

1:22:45know, you're like, "That doesn't make

1:22:47any sense. Everyone's going to ignore

1:22:48it. everyone's going to wave it and

1:22:49everyone's going to variance is because

1:22:51it doesn't make sense and and the rivers

1:22:53people are saying yes that absolutely

1:22:55makes sense. So either we move the river

1:22:58corridor map to be the river walls which

1:23:01says yes we now will protect everything

1:23:03between this river wall and that river

1:23:06wall and as it goes through the downtown

1:23:09then once it reaches the Bailey Bridge

1:23:11question mark or once it gets under the

1:23:13I89 underpass

1:23:16at some point you draw a line and say

1:23:18all right now it goes back to the

1:23:19regular river quarter that everyone else

1:23:22has.

1:23:22>> Sure. and we just have to work with them

1:23:24and find out what's the best best path

1:23:26to make that a reality.

1:23:30>> Okay, just to clarify the timeline

1:23:32again. [laughter]

1:23:33>> So, November the planning department

1:23:36will have recommendations to the

1:23:37planning commission for us to adopt

1:23:39changes to the zoning

1:23:41and then it'll have to go through city

1:23:43council too.

1:23:44>> No,

1:23:45>> changes to the zoning, right?

1:23:46>> That is what we're waiting for January

1:23:50on. Actually, we're waiting till past

1:23:52January,

1:23:53>> but the pre-application can be

1:23:55>> on with draft regulations.

1:23:57>> Yeah, Rutland has submitted them with

1:23:59draft regulations and South Burlington

1:24:01has submitted them on draft regulations

1:24:03for this exact reason because if they

1:24:05come back and say, "Hey, everything's

1:24:06great. Change number seven here to say

1:24:09properties less than 10 acres and we'll

1:24:12approve it." Well, we want to just be

1:24:14able to say, "Okay, there it is. Now we

1:24:15can now we can warn our public hearing.

1:24:1730 days. 30 days and it's approved.

1:24:26>> I'm good.

1:24:28Questions are

1:24:29>> good. All right. There'll be a quiz at

1:24:31the end of the meeting.

1:24:35Um, thanks, Mike. That's really helpful.

1:24:37And, um, I know that there's a lot of

1:24:40folks in town that are interested in

1:24:41this as well. So, hopefully people will

1:24:44see this and hear it. That'll be

1:24:47helpful. Um,

1:24:49let's see, where are we? Uh, next is,

1:24:52uh, municipal planning grant discussion

1:24:54updates.

1:24:56So, I don't know if anyone had any other

1:24:58municipal planning grant ideas. Uh, I

1:25:00think October 1st, the applications will

1:25:04come out and then they're due

1:25:07later. I want to even say maybe

1:25:10November. Um, but we've got some time.

1:25:12But um we did have Matt given uh Matt

1:25:16Chilacic in my office came up with a

1:25:19proposal for doing kind of a a

1:25:22resilience housing plan for kind of Elm

1:25:26Street. Um so we've have a downtown

1:25:29streetscape plan which encompasses a lot

1:25:34of the areas in the downtown but really

1:25:36doesn't cover Elm Street and there's a

1:25:38lot of projects and a lot of things

1:25:39going on. We've done a buyout. Um 87 and

1:25:4389 Elm Street. Uh we've got some

1:25:45congressionally delegated funds that

1:25:48we're trying to apply to doing some

1:25:50redevelopment or fixing the buildings in

1:25:52that area. And so he thought this would

1:25:54be a good opportunity to kind of get 30

1:25:58or $40,000 to go and hire an architect

1:26:01and engineer to kind of go through and

1:26:03kind of lay this out from like Spring

1:26:06Street to State Street, that chunk of

1:26:09Elm Street and say, you know, what are

1:26:11the what is the potential? What could we

1:26:13be looking at in this area? And that was

1:26:14his idea. But we also wanted to open it

1:26:16up to other other groups, people,

1:26:19individuals who are interested in

1:26:22Um, municipal planning grants, they can

1:26:24be used for planning, not for

1:26:26implementing,

1:26:27um, usually it's done for zoning,

1:26:31um, city plan updates, town plan

1:26:33updates, those types of things. But it

1:26:35can also be done for these types of

1:26:38initiatives like, u streetscape plans,

1:26:40downtown plans.

1:26:44>> And last year, the planning grant was

1:26:46focused on the riverfront. Yep. Right.

1:26:51two really important areas is the

1:26:52riverfront area and then also Elm

1:26:54Street. So if one's already taken care

1:26:56of or we have a grant for it already and

1:27:01I think Elm Street does make a lot of

1:27:02sense. Have you guys walked past it

1:27:04recently?

1:27:05>> There's just kind of like holes,

1:27:07[laughter] you know, like cuz buildings

1:27:09have been torn down that

1:27:10>> an awful lot of water means too.

1:27:12>> Yeah. So well yeah I meant like

1:27:15>> Yes,

1:27:15>> there's like gaps now. There's empty

1:27:17lots and so it does seem like we need to

1:27:20figure out as a city what to do about

1:27:22that stretch of road.

1:27:23>> Got to be the bio property is going to

1:27:24be is that going to become a park?

1:27:26>> It has to be a park. But we've also had

1:27:29um uh a purchase of the

1:27:33uh Baptist church and that's going to be

1:27:35demolished with potential infill housing

1:27:37project. there's um so they're they're

1:27:40purchasing they're folks who are who are

1:27:42looking and exploring different

1:27:43opportunities in there to go through and

1:27:45say you know what can we what can we do

1:27:49in this area

1:27:54um

1:27:56I want to give credit where credit is

1:27:57due and this was prompted by my daughter

1:27:59um we were walking around the other day

1:28:02and um we were walking down Langden

1:28:04Street and and so a few words. She

1:28:08basically was curious why there's

1:28:11traffic on Langden Street. Why do we why

1:28:13is it not a pedestrian mall?

1:28:14>> Oh,

1:28:15>> and I know that this is an issue that's

1:28:16sort of been turned around about from

1:28:18time to time. I don't know if we've ever

1:28:20the city's ever looked into it in a real

1:28:22serious way, but it made me wonder when

1:28:25she was saying that is whether or not we

1:28:27could apply a planning grant to like a

1:28:29feasibility study or something like

1:28:32that. And I don't know if there's an

1:28:33appetite for it or anything like that,

1:28:34but that's this is just again prompted

1:28:36by my daughter. He's smarter than I am.

1:28:39So, um I don't know if that's even

1:28:43something that's applicable if a grant

1:28:46could be applied to something like that.

1:28:49>> Uh it yes, the answer is yes, it could

1:28:51be. Um, I think we'd probably want to

1:28:53touch with Montpillar Live and some of

1:28:55the folks over there to see if that's

1:28:57something that the property owners and

1:28:59businesses are interested in before we

1:29:02jump ahead to talk about but there also

1:29:12alive that was like Langden Street Alive

1:29:15that kind of

1:29:15>> Yeah, that's kind of what I remember.

1:29:17>> They had a little thing and they would

1:29:18shut down. They would they would go and

1:29:19get permission to shut down Langden

1:29:21Street to have festivals down in there

1:29:22because it's a nice compact

1:29:25area. And uh

1:29:28>> park on the bridge, you can't open up

1:29:29your door anyway without any car. That

1:29:32>> that Well, that's what she was

1:29:33commenting on. She was like, "Why do

1:29:34they allow so much parking on this road?

1:29:36It seems

1:29:38>> uh unsafe, unreasonable. Why not just

1:29:41have people here all the time?" said,

1:29:44"That's a good question, but I don't

1:29:46have the answer to."

1:29:48>> I was like, "God, can't you fix this?

1:29:49You're jealous of all those people."

1:29:51>> She does. She does. She does not know

1:29:52what this is. There's no She has no

1:29:55sense because because frankly, I can't

1:29:57explain it.

1:30:01>> Um.

1:30:03>> All right. You continue.

1:30:04>> Yeah. Certain but it's certainly an an

1:30:06idea, but at some point we'll have to

1:30:08make a decision. Uh if it's not tonight,

1:30:10then it's the next meeting to go through

1:30:11and say what's our idea going to be. So

1:30:14that way Matt or whoever has an

1:30:16opportunity to put some time into

1:30:17>> I read Matt's proposal and I I think

1:30:20that's great.

1:30:23>> Yeah.

1:30:26>> Does that make

1:30:28a No, no. I I I didn't think it would

1:30:31carry the day. I was more I was more

1:30:32curious if it was

1:30:34>> something that could be done. Not

1:30:35necessarily that it would be done this

1:30:37time around. I business owners always

1:30:39get really upset when you take away

1:30:40parking. [laughter]

1:30:42>> The children are future.

1:30:43>> The children

1:30:44>> they are

1:30:45>> she's

1:30:47speaking at her own about the future.

1:30:49So,

1:30:50>> but if somebody wanted to make a motion

1:30:51to authorize Matt's application to move

1:30:53forward, I can give him the green light

1:30:55on that. Or

1:30:56>> maybe we'll do that because it can be at

1:30:57my last motion. Maybe maybe I don't

1:31:00know. I move that we adopt that we give

1:31:02Matt permission to move forward with

1:31:04that application.

1:31:05>> Any seconds? I will second the last

1:31:08motion.

1:31:09>> Uh we have a motion to move Matt's

1:31:13proposal forward. All those Any

1:31:16discussion on the motion?

1:31:18>> Nope. All those in favor?

1:31:20>> I

1:31:21>> Any opposed? Any abstensions?

1:31:27There we go.

1:31:28>> Okay.

1:31:29>> Thanks to Matt for

1:31:32>> Yeah, he's full of good ideas. That's

1:31:34why I like having him moving it forward.

1:31:38All right.

1:31:40Now, we visit an old friend to continue

1:31:43our discussion on the revisions of the

1:31:45unified development regulations.

1:31:48And I will be the first to admit that I

1:31:50cannot remember where we are in this

1:31:52process. It's been quite some time

1:31:56>> meeting. We teed up that we want to

1:31:58discuss what the process will be to

1:32:00update the rest of the zoning

1:32:01regulations.

1:32:03We didn't I think we spent all of two

1:32:05minutes on this.

1:32:07>> Enough time for me to tell them you guys

1:32:08should think about this. [laughter]

1:32:11So, they've obviously thought a lot

1:32:12about it.

1:32:13>> Okay.

1:32:13>> Past two weeks.

1:32:15>> Um, but I think what we're doing now is

1:32:18just coming up with how are we going to

1:32:19do it as opposed to jumping back in,

1:32:22>> right?

1:32:29I'll just throw out there again maybe

1:32:31maybe some final comments here but you

1:32:32know Mike had proposed and I mean we had

1:32:35some good feedback tonight you'll have

1:32:36some more good feedback but sometimes

1:32:38it's nice to just get something approved

1:32:40you know I don't know Mike what your

1:32:42timeline was but there was sort of like

1:32:43a sense of the whole thing needs to be

1:32:46gone through but maybe there's some

1:32:47things that could be done they're not

1:32:49emergency right but they could be done

1:32:51sooner

1:32:53such as if you go through and you

1:32:54actually look at the tables of uh uses

1:32:57and you look at the density requirements

1:32:58if there even should be some and

1:33:00setbacks and things like that. With that

1:33:01in the map, you could immediately start

1:33:04changing the way people might look at

1:33:05lots and opportunities even though

1:33:07there's a lot of other stuff to cover.

1:33:10I I can't remember what you had said

1:33:12about that.

1:33:12>> Yeah. Yeah. Once we've got once we know

1:33:14what the map is roughly going to be,

1:33:16that gives us the ability because

1:33:17there's a lot of things. The parking

1:33:19section references the zoning map. The

1:33:23pods references the zoning map. So,

1:33:25we've got a lot of these things once we

1:33:26say we're going to be doing this that

1:33:28we've got work for Meredith and myself

1:33:31to go through and and start line iteming

1:33:35everything and, you know, strike

1:33:37strikethroughs of well, these these

1:33:39these are the ones that are going to

1:33:40apply in these districts and these are

1:33:41ones that aren't for here and there and,

1:33:44you know, there's just a lot in in

1:33:45throughout the document that will get

1:33:48cleared up. But, there are areas that we

1:33:50know we still kind of want to fix. We do

1:33:52have [clears throat] those curb cuts

1:33:55that we've just that's I mean of all the

1:33:58things that's the one thing that keeps

1:34:00going to the DRB. We keep trying to

1:34:01eliminate unnecessary DRB hearings and

1:34:03the one that's still there is the curb

1:34:05cuts because we've got a requirement

1:34:07that curb cuts must, you know, driveways

1:34:09must line up opposite each other and

1:34:11they don't. And 99% of the city and so

1:34:14the project has to get kicked to DRB for

1:34:16a waiver of that which we always grant

1:34:18and the neighbors always fight it

1:34:20because it's the one thing they get a

1:34:21chance to fight. Um so we do want to fix

1:34:24that. So, we do have a couple of these

1:34:25little ones that we want to try to fix.

1:34:27And I think um permitting has

1:34:30drastically slowed down, which has given

1:34:32um Meredith uh a lot more bandwidth to

1:34:36try to start to tackle some of these and

1:34:38start making some some edits. So, once

1:34:40we've got that, hopefully we can work

1:34:42our way through and get ourselves in a

1:34:45in a good place that hopefully, [snorts]

1:34:46like I said, we're not going to have to

1:34:48debate a ton of these other changes.

1:34:51We're just going to roll them out and

1:34:52say here's here are all the changes that

1:34:54we have. Let us know if you've got any

1:34:56questions. They're not We'll go through

1:34:58all the big policy discussions, but I

1:35:00think most of them should be

1:35:03pretty straightforward. And we're not

1:35:05going to get to everything. As Gabe

1:35:06said, we're not we're not trying to be

1:35:08perfect because

1:35:10we don't want to be here in July of next

1:35:12year still working on the zoning. We

1:35:14want to

1:35:16>> speak for yourself.

1:35:18[laughter]

1:35:19we want to have this done.

1:35:22>> Uh, not always working on zoning

1:35:24regulations.

1:35:26>> Um, well, so I guess that that sort of

1:35:28begs the question. I mean, does it does

1:35:29it make sense to the group to have Mike

1:35:32and his staff identify some sort of I'll

1:35:36call them sort of more high priority

1:35:39fixes to focus on first or

1:35:44I'm not trying to inter

1:35:46the other way I'm thinking about it is

1:35:47like do we want to wrestle with like the

1:35:49big like dimensional standards

1:35:52because I mean I think there's like two

1:35:53approaches either we get we deal with

1:35:56discrete issues that staff identifies

1:35:59for us. We can start tackling those. See

1:36:02then once that we get that ball rolling

1:36:03then we can move into the larger sort of

1:36:06policy oriented discussions or we want

1:36:09to wrestle with the big amorphous

1:36:13you know how do we how do we address the

1:36:15dimensional standards pieces now that we

1:36:17have a sense of what this map is

1:36:21I don't have an answer for it but I

1:36:23think it's going to fundamentally

1:36:25the answer to that question is going to

1:36:27dictate how this process moves forward

1:36:30them.

1:36:32>> Well, I I'll just say that we we've had

1:36:34success with targeted sort of low

1:36:36hanging fruit uh going to the city

1:36:37council

1:36:39year ago um and getting votes

1:36:42unanimously through uh and and making

1:36:45those pretty rapid changes um that have

1:36:50been hugely beneficial I think to uh

1:36:53folks attempting to build housing in

1:36:54Montville. So if something along those

1:36:58lines can be done again,

1:37:01>> [snorts]

1:37:01>> um I would be for that. I also think

1:37:04that if we can be making any sort of

1:37:06updates in service of the tier 1A

1:37:09application that that that I I would

1:37:11want to put those into the same

1:37:12category. And then I think it um you

1:37:15know jumping back in at a at a maybe

1:37:18higher uh policy level and also tackling

1:37:21the dimensional standards and

1:37:23conditional uses afterwards makes a ton

1:37:25of sense. We would be carrying forward

1:37:29these sort of uh these lowhanging fruit

1:37:31these known entities that uh those

1:37:35aren't going to change again. They they

1:37:37would just get carried forward with with

1:37:39the continued work we do. That's my

1:37:42That's my thinking currently.

1:37:46>> Now, I'd like to

1:37:48So, I was looking at this on my

1:37:51computer, but each zone has about three

1:37:54pages of just like descriptive

1:37:57text like what this zone looks like,

1:37:59what kinds of buildings are in it. And I

1:38:01feel like we need to

1:38:05create that for our new zones

1:38:08where we get too into the weeds with all

1:38:11of the conditional uses. And like I feel

1:38:13like we need to do that overview of like

1:38:15defining what we mean by these new

1:38:17zones. So then we can

1:38:20go into the weeds later on and address,

1:38:25you know, the setback requirements and

1:38:27the building sizes.

1:38:28>> Yeah. Are you speaking about the the

1:38:30descriptions of the

1:38:32>> the text? Yeah. Just like

1:38:35>> you mean like the R9 says all all of

1:38:39that or because there are neighborhood

1:38:41descriptions

1:38:42>> the urban center one district

1:38:43encompasses the city's historic downtown

1:38:45the capital complex you know like that

1:38:46kind of like we need to wrap our heads

1:38:49around this type of

1:38:50>> that's not the neighborhood description.

1:38:52>> It does in some of the in that

1:38:55>> it's it comes next neighborhood

1:38:57character. That's helpful. Thanks.

1:38:58>> So, I think we need to go, you know, if

1:39:01we're we're at the zone map area right

1:39:04now, but then I think the next level is

1:39:06going through these and again, each

1:39:09zone has about three pages worth of this

1:39:12descriptive text.

1:39:14So the one question, so the these were

1:39:16the things I said we can start putting

1:39:18together some strikethrough copies

1:39:22for people to consider, but what we kind

1:39:25of need to know is the question of the

1:39:28neighborhoods. We've talked about

1:39:30eliminating neighborhoods.

1:39:31>> Yeah,

1:39:32>> we could keep them, eliminate them. Now

1:39:34that we've moved boundaries, we'd have

1:39:36to move our neighborhood boundaries

1:39:37because the neighborhood boundaries have

1:39:38to match the zoning boundaries. So we'd

1:39:40have to do some adjusting if we're going

1:39:41to keep neighborhoods.

1:39:43or we could eliminate the neighborhoods.

1:39:45And then the second one, we just talked

1:39:47about the design review. A lot of what's

1:39:49in there, that text in there were

1:39:50architectural standards. And what we've

1:39:53said is we don't need the architectural

1:39:54standards if we do this design review

1:39:57change. And if we're thinking we're

1:39:58doing the design review change, then

1:40:00that makes all that stuff just goes

1:40:02away. And

1:40:04>> I just need to know, yeah, yeah, I

1:40:06actually think we should do that. Let's

1:40:07at least put that into the draft.

1:40:10and we can start making a draft that

1:40:13incorporates that design review idea.

1:40:16Whether it covers the whole town or

1:40:17whether it just covers the tier 1A area,

1:40:19we would know here's the design review

1:40:23boundary. So, but if I knew

1:40:25>> higher tier 1A area in the design review

1:40:27district. Oh, yeah.

1:40:29>> Yeah, it has to be. You have to have the

1:40:31you have to have the design review for

1:40:33the tier 1A area, but it's only going to

1:40:35apply

1:40:36>> to

1:40:39um major site plans.

1:40:41>> So, everything that's one unit to six

1:40:43unit does not need to go through it. So,

1:40:44that's that's what I was saying when I

1:40:46said we'd have this

1:40:47>> the same and then we would the same

1:40:51design review that we have today. I've

1:40:52never gone to that committee, so I have

1:40:54no idea. I've only been to the DRV.

1:40:56That's that's torture, but I have no

1:40:57idea what designers do. Maybe it's okay.

1:40:59>> Yeah,

1:41:00>> I've heard stories, but

1:41:02>> yeah,

1:41:02>> but it sounds like we have like

1:41:04lowhanging fruit is something we can

1:41:06handle at the next meeting.

1:41:09>> Like, do you guys already have that

1:41:10ready to go?

1:41:11>> No. I mean, if you make if if you make

1:41:13decisions, we can start making edits.

1:41:15But what we don't want to do is to start

1:41:17jumping in because a lot of these the

1:41:19way they're structured they're kind of

1:41:20in the way the consultant had put

1:41:24together those those they're almost

1:41:26framework tables. They're not we

1:41:28actually have to adjust how they

1:41:29[snorts] are put together to kind of so

1:41:32if we're going to eliminate things then

1:41:33it's like good we can get rid of all the

1:41:34architectural standards. We can get rid

1:41:37of and if if you don't make the decision

1:41:39tonight it's okay we can do that on the

1:41:4113th. Well, if you have to have if it

1:41:42has to be in design review for tier 1A,

1:41:45right,

1:41:47>> you have to meet the historic

1:41:49requirements. And so the best way of

1:41:52doing that for us is actually to go

1:41:53through and kind of overlay the the

1:41:57design review, which covers a lot of the

1:42:00town, but it covers most of the western

1:42:03side of the town.

1:42:05And our growth center kind of moves to

1:42:07the eastern side of the town. And again,

1:42:09if somebody's doing a small residential

1:42:11project, it's not going to trigger

1:42:12design review. So those historic don't

1:42:15trigger. But if it's a larger project,

1:42:18seven or more units or a commercial of

1:42:21more than so many thousand square feet,

1:42:242,000 square feet,

1:42:25>> it would seem like you're going to have

1:42:26to do it. And it would seem it seems

1:42:28like you're going to have to do

1:42:29something anyway. And it seems like you

1:42:30could get rid of all those neighborhood

1:42:31descriptions and just be forward looking

1:42:33in whatever descriptions you end up

1:42:34writing.

1:42:36I if if we're talking about

1:42:38neighborhoods, I I definitely think that

1:42:39we should remove those. Personally, I

1:42:42think that our our new zones can can

1:42:46sort of speak for the neighborhoods in

1:42:49terms of what's what we what's planned

1:42:52to be in those locations.

1:42:55But we will have to have you review

1:42:57those as Maria said because even if even

1:42:59if Meredith and I work on this a little

1:43:02bit um to come up with draft language

1:43:04for each one of those zoning districts.

1:43:07>> Um the trick is we're turning what used

1:43:10to be and what everybody had pointed out

1:43:11was like it's really describing what's

1:43:13there now. What we really want to

1:43:14describe is what's the future,

1:43:16>> right?

1:43:16>> And so I'm going to Yeah. We're going to

1:43:18kind of have to

1:43:20>> as staff kind of guess at where you guys

1:43:22want to go. Um

1:43:25>> unless in your original document like

1:43:27some basic language.

1:43:29>> No.

1:43:30>> So

1:43:30>> yeah.

1:43:32>> Was that temps? There was something. I

1:43:34thought there was some like basic

1:43:35>> or Sean had some Sean I think may have

1:43:39gone.

1:43:39>> Yeah. And and so we can Yeah. I, you

1:43:41know, either staff can work with a work

1:43:43with somebody to sit down or somebody

1:43:45can jump in and go through and say,

1:43:46"Hey, you know, I'll take a shot at

1:43:49describing some of these." And maybe

1:43:50some of them are aren't maybe some of

1:43:51the ones we have right now aren't too

1:43:53bad.

1:43:54>> Take the neighborhood part out.

1:43:55>> They just need Yeah. Take the

1:43:56neighborhoods out and then the

1:43:57description for res what was res 6.

1:44:01We'll make that MDR and then kind of

1:44:03read that and go through and say how

1:44:04future, you know, how can we adjust this

1:44:07to be have a future tone instead of a

1:44:11rear view mirror.

1:44:16>> How far along are you in

1:44:19finalizing

1:44:21the the draft changes that we need to

1:44:23make to support the tier 1A application?

1:44:26>> We're just starting it right now, but

1:44:28most of those are going to probably be

1:44:30cut and paste chunks that we'll get in

1:44:33November.

1:44:34>> Okay.

1:44:34>> As we're working through because we're

1:44:36going to have to start working with ANR

1:44:37and go through and say, "All right, what

1:44:38did you guys what what did

1:44:40South Burlington come up with for a

1:44:42process and we're gonna have to say,

1:44:43okay, well, where is this going to fit

1:44:44into our regulations? Are we going to

1:44:45put it into major site plan? Are we

1:44:47going to make it into a new general

1:44:51general provision in 310 or we'll come

1:44:54up with where it's going to fit?

1:44:55>> So, we can table those changes for now.

1:45:01Just trying to think where to best put

1:45:03our energy to help support staff so that

1:45:08I don't want everybody doing three

1:45:09different things at once. Trying to I'm

1:45:11just trying to trying to figure out

1:45:13where to focus our energy. But I

1:45:16approach

1:45:18>> I know. I know.

1:45:19>> Yeah. I think I I mean I think that that

1:45:22some of those big picture things for

1:45:24part two. So, you know, we already know

1:45:25in part two we've got the zoning map and

1:45:29we're going to have those requirements.

1:45:30I think we can do Meredith and I can put

1:45:33together most of those bulk and masking

1:45:35requirements. Then you guys can approve

1:45:36them because really what we're going to

1:45:38do is take probably we've combined res 9

1:45:41and res 6. The rules are going to be RES

1:45:436 rules. And the RES 6 rules had been

1:45:46written to allow 90% conformance

1:45:49to everything in RES 6. So now we've got

1:45:53virtually

1:45:54100% of the properties in compliance

1:45:57because we've now got all the res 9ines

1:45:59in there as well.

1:46:02And so we're going to have a lot of

1:46:04compliance and

1:46:06we could make adjustments to that if we

1:46:08wanted to. I don't know if it would be

1:46:10necessary considering where we're at.

1:46:12And same with the other one. We'll have

1:46:13some questions with res 1500 and resz 3.

1:46:17We combine them.

1:46:19you know, minimum lot size 3,000 square

1:46:21feet probably. And then, you know,

1:46:24density 1500.

1:46:28So, we're probably looking at these, you

1:46:31know, I don't think there's going to be

1:46:32a lot to change in there. We can tweak

1:46:34them. We can look at them and say the

1:46:36height's 35 ft, maybe it should be 40,

1:46:41but I don't think there are going to be

1:46:42major jumps in there. I think the bigger

1:46:44changes are going to be with those

1:46:47architectural standards and uh the

1:46:50neighborhoods and writing up those other

1:46:52descriptions. And then we've got to get

1:46:53to the use table and and look at, you

1:46:56know, mixeduse residential

1:46:59two is going to kind of be new, but I

1:47:01think we can kind of steal a lot of that

1:47:03from Riverfront. Riverfront already

1:47:05contemplated

1:47:06>> contextual standards. This group decided

1:47:09you don't need those. You can provide a

1:47:12draft of everything. we could provide a

1:47:13draft. What we wouldn't want to do is

1:47:15put is to take them out and then try to

1:47:16put them back in. That would be be

1:47:18harder. But if everyone said, "Yeah, get

1:47:19rid of those two." We could start

1:47:21getting some drafts

1:47:24and see where we land. Cuz I I didn't

1:47:27hear anything that made me think that

1:47:31the zoning map may change slightly, but

1:47:34I didn't hear anything that said we

1:47:36don't have our zoning districts right.

1:47:38You know, we need additional districts.

1:47:40I think Peter may maybe made a comment

1:47:42that we should only have three three

1:47:43districts, but

1:47:46>> or Sandy um

1:47:49but I think you know just the reality is

1:47:51that we need to we need to have the

1:47:54nuance in there um

1:47:58for a number of reasons. Um, we you

1:48:00know, we we can't go to

1:48:02really super loosey goosey regulations,

1:48:05do whatever you want, and then expect

1:48:07we're going to get a tier 1A designation

1:48:08for having robust zoning. We kind of

1:48:11have to strike a balance that says we

1:48:12are having robust zoning, and we are

1:48:15allowing development at a pace and a

1:48:17scale and a size that's appropriate.

1:48:24So yes,

1:48:25>> I mean I'll make another motion just to

1:48:28see where people are at. You can have

1:48:29whatever discussion. I I move that we

1:48:31should get rid of the neighborhood desri

1:48:33descriptions and the architectural

1:48:35standards and use the design review for

1:48:37those more than six unit buildings. Um

1:48:40and that shows in good faith that we

1:48:42have a process that we're following that

1:48:43everybody can be happy with as we move

1:48:45forward on tier 1A. That's my proposal.

1:48:49>> That'll be my last proposal. Maybe I'll

1:48:51move to ajourn. John,

1:48:52>> we have a motion to get rid of uh the

1:48:55architectural standards and the

1:48:57neighborhood descriptions. Is that

1:48:58correct?

1:48:58>> Yes.

1:48:59>> Yeah.

1:48:59>> Uh do I have a second?

1:49:03>> Tim's not sure.

1:49:04>> No, I'm happy to second. I second the

1:49:06last one. I'm happy to second this one

1:49:07as well.

1:49:08>> Second. Do we have a discussion on the

1:49:11motion?

1:49:14>> So, architectural standards only apply

1:49:16for major site plan. Currently, they

1:49:18only apply to major site plan, but

1:49:23this could all

1:49:25we currently have two two things kind of

1:49:28doing the same thing. We have these

1:49:29design review regulations that are

1:49:31looking at it and we have architectural

1:49:33standards. And what we have is a thing

1:49:34is if you're in design review, you don't

1:49:36have to meet the architectural

1:49:37standards.

1:49:38And so what we've kind of said is the

1:49:41architectural standards kind of suck.

1:49:42Let's just let's just go to the design

1:49:45review which has been tested and worked

1:49:47really well in my opinion. I I think

1:49:50it's worked really well. The design

1:49:52review committee, they the historic

1:49:53preservation, they did a really good job

1:49:55of rewriting the rules. Yes, they're

1:49:57bigger, but they also have

1:49:59administrative rules in there that the

1:50:01architectural standards don't. So, we

1:50:02can we've got a lot more flexibility to

1:50:05do good things with the design review

1:50:07rules. So,

1:50:09>> yeah.

1:50:10>> Okay. So if this motion carries, does

1:50:13that mean that at our next meetings we

1:50:16would have some redline document to

1:50:19discuss?

1:50:21>> That will be up to Meredith. I'm on

1:50:23vacation next week,

1:50:25>> so that would depend how much work

1:50:27Meredith has, how much time she has to

1:50:29be able to kind of jump in and start to

1:50:30to really kind of take a chunk at it.

1:50:32Um, but we can certainly go through and

1:50:34start to highlight pieces of of things

1:50:37because I would like to start making

1:50:39some strikethroughs. Um because I think

1:50:41that's that's where we can start knowing

1:50:44all right these are the changes we know

1:50:45we're going to make we can all start

1:50:46agreeing to those and then hopefully

1:50:48when we get to January we're

1:50:50>> yeah set setting aside the the

1:50:53architectural the ar ar ar ar ar ar ar

1:50:54ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar

1:50:54architechural standards and the

1:50:56neighborhood descriptions that are part

1:50:57of this motion.

1:51:00Can you and Meredith and the staff start

1:51:02working on what you're talking about

1:51:04integrating the changes of the map? Make

1:51:07those line item changes to integrate all

1:51:10that stuff and make it cohesive for lack

1:51:12of sorry if that's amorphous when I say

1:51:14that. Um, do you know what I'm talking

1:51:16about?

1:51:16>> Yeah. Yeah. We're going to start I mean

1:51:18we're going to start with with part two.

1:51:20We want to start getting part two which

1:51:21is where all these

1:51:23>> Yeah. What's I'm

1:51:25>> part one is your just your introduction

1:51:26who needs a permit.

1:51:27>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:51:28>> And blah blah blah. Part two is these

1:51:30are the zoning districts and these are

1:51:32the rules for the zoning districts and

1:51:33that includes design review and so we

1:51:35can start going through and doing

1:51:36strikethroughs of all of part two to

1:51:38help to get something that we would have

1:51:40that the public or you can look at say

1:51:43>> and do you need resolution on the

1:51:45neighborhood descriptions and or the

1:51:47architectural standards in order to do

1:51:50that work? It would help tremendously to

1:51:53be able to do that because then we know

1:51:55like I don't have to rewrite the

1:51:57architectural standards or review them

1:51:58to see whether they need to be edited. I

1:52:00just know they're going away.

1:52:02>> We're not changing we're not proposing

1:52:04to change anything in design review

1:52:06other than the map.

1:52:07>> Yeah. I mean I am with you Gabe and but

1:52:12the only the only hesitation I have and

1:52:13this is just the group is like I'd like

1:52:15everybody to be able to look at those

1:52:17things before we vote on scrapping them.

1:52:19Um, that's the only thing that I want

1:52:22folks to do is really just look it over

1:52:25and make sure that we understand what

1:52:27we're getting rid of. Um,

1:52:30that's my only hesitation.

1:52:33So, but the motion's on the floor. So,

1:52:37[clears throat]

1:52:39>> I think I mean 7:28. Can we start with

1:52:42this next meeting? Gabe will not be

1:52:46here.

1:52:47>> We can. We can. The only thing is that

1:52:48we're we're giving up two weeks of

1:52:50>> right

1:52:51>> time for Meredith to start drafting

1:52:53things. Um

1:52:54>> I mean I I I have a feeling we we very

1:52:57well may end up in the same place

1:52:58tomorrow or next meeting. Um

1:53:00>> right. It's just I

1:53:03I feel like there's there's a

1:53:06there's a significant chunk of the

1:53:08existing regs that speak to those things

1:53:11and I want to make sure that we all have

1:53:13a firm sense of what we're getting rid

1:53:14of before we vote on that's

1:53:16>> they were just for everybody's memory.

1:53:18They were all things that we thought

1:53:19were useless when we went through them.

1:53:20>> But but we you I mean I just put it on

1:53:23there so you can get to this point and

1:53:25we can adjourn in a minute.

1:53:27>> I appreciate it.

1:53:28>> All right. So we've got a motion. It's

1:53:30been seconded. Uh, any more discussion

1:53:32on the motion to uh, scrap the archite

1:53:35architectural standards and the

1:53:37neighborhood descriptions in section

1:53:40two? I'll just add that I'm leaning more

1:53:44with you, Aaron. It makes me nervous to

1:53:47scrap something without fully

1:53:50understanding

1:53:52what it is.

1:53:53>> Yeah. I don't want to rain on people's

1:53:54parade, but I'm just

1:53:57>> I didn't want any surprises with my

1:53:59vote. That's all I

1:54:00>> It's fair. It's fair. Uh, any other

1:54:03discussion?

1:54:05>> All those in favor of Gab's

1:54:08Swanong motion. Uh, say I

1:54:12>> I

1:54:13>> I Any opposed?

1:54:16>> Nay.

1:54:17>> I know. I do feel. I just want to be

1:54:19able to look at it a bit more. Sorry

1:54:21guys.

1:54:21>> Say n too.

1:54:23Uh, I'm going to say nay as well.

1:54:25>> We are 33. The motion does not carry.

1:54:28We'll pick this back up at the next

1:54:29meeting.

1:54:32>> Um,

1:54:32>> so take a look at them. That's your

1:54:34homework assignment. Two weeks.

1:54:37>> Z, I I look, Gabe again will miss you.

1:54:41>> You miss me? This candy attitude.

1:54:43>> Can we break his motion down between

1:54:45neighborhood and architect? Like I feel

1:54:48good about neighborhood.

1:54:49>> 7:30.

1:54:50>> I think we're done. I'm calling it.

1:54:53>> Um but yeah, just for sure

1:54:55>> I was just say uh I just ask like I'll

1:54:57put an email later for this group. Um

1:55:00but yeah, I take a look at at section

1:55:02two with the neighbor the neighborhood

1:55:04descriptions and the architectural

1:55:05standards. We will pick this discussion

1:55:07up uh in two weeks. Um

1:55:11Mike, I don't know if there's anything

1:55:12actionable on your end, but it's my

1:55:14guess is we're probably going to end up

1:55:17scrapping them after some discussion.

1:55:19So, if you wanted to,

1:55:21>> well, we can we can start working on

1:55:22some some other pieces that are in

1:55:24there. Um, we know, like I said, we know

1:55:26these districts are going to probably be

1:55:28the 10 districts or nine districts that

1:55:29we're going to have, and we can start

1:55:30going through and making red lines in

1:55:32other areas of the document.

1:55:33>> Okay. Uh, and I'm looking for one last

1:55:36motion from Gabe.

1:55:37>> I did. I moved.

1:55:38>> Oh, you did? I apologize. I uh Gabe has

1:55:42moved to adjourn. Any second?

1:55:45>> I'll second.

1:55:46>> Those in favor? I

1:55:50>> thank you so much.

1:56:03[music]