2026-10-13 - Planning Commission

00:05[music]

00:13>> So we'll call the October 13th edition

00:16of the Montpelier Planning Commission

00:19uh to order.

00:20Um we have a couple of commissioners

00:23online. Uh so if those folks could

00:25please identify themselves

00:28before we start.

00:33>> Sean Lenehan, Planning Commissioner.

00:36>> Rona Bathorn, Planning Commissioner.

00:38>> Great, thank you.

00:40Uh next is approval of the agenda.

00:44Um please take a look at it. I know that

00:46Tim has an additional agenda item that

00:49we spoke about before the meeting that

00:50he may want to add.

00:52So I'll give him a minute to

00:55suggest that once he grabs his

00:57materials.

01:04>> Um

01:07Yeah, I don't I guess I don't really

01:08know how to go about doing that. Um Mike

01:11had sent along a memo from the Housing

01:14Committee um today.

01:16And I'm happy to add it to the agenda as

01:19something to

01:21for the Planning Commission to review

01:22tonight.

01:24>> Sure, that sounds good. Do you Do you

01:25know where you want to slot it in the

01:27agenda?

01:28>> No, I don't think it has

01:31Well,

01:33I I guess earlier that rather than

01:35later.

01:36>> Okay. How about

01:37uh right after general business?

01:39>> Sounds good.

01:40>> Okay. Or well,

01:42right after comments from the

01:43commission, I mean.

01:43>> Okay.

01:44>> All right.

01:44>> Good.

01:46>> [snorts]

01:50>> So since we've got an amendment, I'm

01:51looking for a motion

01:55to approve the agenda with that

01:57addition.

01:59>> I'm moved.

02:02>> Great.

02:03Any second?

02:05>> I second.

02:07>> [laughter]

02:10>> You guys can fight over that one.

02:11>> We'll give it to Maria.

02:13>> All right, there we go. All those in

02:14favor of approving the agenda with the

02:16additional item after comments from the

02:17commission, say I.

02:19>> I.

02:20>> Any opposed?

02:22Great.

02:23So, that is amended. Uh next is

02:26consideration of the September 28th,

02:272026 minutes. Please take a minute to

02:30take a look at those meeting minutes and

02:34let me know if you have any

02:37edits, changes, or other suggestions.

02:40Otherwise, I'd ask for unanimous consent

02:42to

02:43approve those minutes.

03:07>> I don't recall whether or not I attended

03:09that meeting or not, but I'm not even

03:11listed as having

03:13>> Okay.

03:15>> Don't believe you attended that meeting.

03:16>> No, I didn't.

03:17>> You didn't.

03:31>> [snorts]

03:42[snorts]

03:56[snorts]

04:01[clears throat]

04:03[cough]

04:06>> I would make a motion to approve these

04:07minutes.

04:09>> All right, so that's for unanimous

04:10consent. Have I even heard anything from

04:11anybody?

04:12Going once, going twice. The meeting

04:15minutes are approved.

04:17Not stealing your thunder, Tim. Sorry.

04:19>> No, I know. Just trying to

04:20>> Just trying to steal away.

04:21>> Uh

04:22>> [snorts]

04:23>> Next is public input session. This is

04:25our second one for the proposed

04:27revisions on the zoning map. We had an

04:29initial public session at our last um

04:33meeting. Uh so, this is the second of

04:35two. Um

04:37And we have Steve Whitaker here. We also

04:40have some folks online. Um

04:43I guess I'd hand it over to Mike uh if

04:46you want to give a brief overview.

04:49Um

04:51of the changes in

04:52Actually, let me stop for a second.

04:55Taking a cue from our last public input

04:58[laughter] session,

05:00Maria, would you like to give a brief

05:02overview sort of like guiding principles

05:04and what your thoughts were in uh sort

05:06of

05:07setting out the map that we have in

05:08front of us now?

05:09>> Yep.

05:10Um

05:12So, thank you, Aaron. [laughter]

05:13>> You're welcome.

05:14>> Um

05:15Well, before [snorts] we went about

05:16editing the map, we heard from

05:19several

05:20people that they wanted to see a

05:22simplified zoning map.

05:24So,

05:25this map takes us from 14

05:28down to

05:30Is it I think 10 or 9?

05:34And that'll be reduced even further once

05:36the Country Club Road parcel is zoned.

05:39Um

05:41but the idea was to build responsibly

05:43from the downtown outward.

05:46So,

05:48what we did was expand

05:51the downtown a block in every direction.

05:55And then, we also made arterials

05:57mixed-use residential one. And so, these

06:00would be like small offices,

06:02um

06:03kind of home businesses.

06:06And then, we also created a new category

06:08called mis- mixed-use residential two,

06:10which we are seeing as, um

06:14kind of the a pro-development zone

06:18where

06:19>> [clears throat]

06:20>> perhaps

06:21residential commercial would be

06:25more acceptable than in other parts of

06:26the city,

06:27um especially at a large-scale

06:30construction.

06:32Um

06:34there is this chicken and egg problem

06:36where we

06:38can either create the new

06:40[clears throat] zones first and then

06:41follow it up with creating the

06:45architectural guidelines for each of

06:46these zones, or we could go and, you

06:49know, create the architectural

06:50guidelines first and then create the

06:51map. And we all decided to create the

06:52map first. And our So, our what we'll be

06:55doing after this is then working on all

06:58of the

06:59dimensional standards for each of these

07:01zones. So, there'll be more

07:03time for public comment when we get to

07:05that part as well.

07:07Um

07:08I think that is

07:10all I said before.

07:12>> Great.

07:13Thanks.

07:14>> And Mike can go into more detail about

07:15all everything.

07:25>> All right. It doesn't make for a very

07:27big screen, um but I'll just go very

07:30quickly through

07:32um

07:33some [clears throat] of the the changes

07:36um that Maria highlighted. So, uh Uh, we

07:40used to have a Western Gateway that

07:43we've kind of merged into a new district

07:45called mixed-use residential two.

07:48So, we are have always had a mixed-use

07:50residential, and that's going to still

07:52remain mixed-use residential one. We're

07:53actually going to expand that a little

07:55bit. And that's for smaller

07:58um

08:02Keep one more. All right. Uh, some

08:03smaller um

08:06mixed-use, and these are areas like um

08:08the Meadow, uh

08:10that section of Elm Street out by the

08:11Meadow. That's a mixed-use residential

08:14area. So,

08:16um what we have up here on

08:18um

08:20what would be up in National Life is

08:22rather than having a separate National

08:23Life, which used to be an office park

08:25district, and then it was Western

08:27Gateway, it what we wanted to do is look

08:29to the future and consider this whole

08:31area up here as an area that has

08:32potential for redevelopment in the

08:34future as residential. And to do that,

08:38um these are bigger buildings, so we

08:41would have a different scale. So, that's

08:43why we have mixed-use residential two.

08:44So, everywhere you see the light brown,

08:46that's mixed-use residential two.

08:48Everywhere you see a dark brown, that's

08:50mixed-use residential one.

08:52And so,

08:53um

08:54we have that was one major change. We

08:56used to have three urban center

08:58districts. We're down to two.

09:01And really the difference between one

09:03and two is that one has

09:05has or allows for block style

09:08construction, so you can go to this to

09:10right up to your property line, and

09:12another building would

09:13come up and abut you. So, think about

09:15what the buildings look like on Main

09:17Street um across from City Hall. You've

09:20got buildings that are abutting each

09:21other or

09:23um only have alleyways. So, that's one

09:26type of zoning district, but the other

09:27one is buildings that are um we would

09:30not allow that, but they would still

09:32allow for um

09:34the very high

09:36um

09:37uh a lot of height and a lot of density

09:40and that's mixed-use residential too.

09:41So, think about the library up to the

09:44roundabout. Those are areas we wouldn't

09:45expect to have block-style construction.

09:48We would expect to kind of keep those

09:49types. But really beyond that, the uses

09:52and a lot of the other things would

09:53remain similar. But we used to have

09:54three districts, we're going to go down

09:56to two. And one of the main reasons is

09:58because we pulled urban center one down

10:02Berry Street. And the reason for that

10:04was simply to

10:06um

10:06this is an area that does have some

10:09uh some of that type of architecture and

10:12it's out of the flood plain and would

10:14make sense as a good area for the

10:16downtown to expand in a resilient

10:18manner.

10:20Um

10:21and then what used to be other parts, so

10:23Berry Street used to be riverfront,

10:25we're converting some of this to

10:27mixed-use residential two.

10:29>> [clears throat]

10:29>> So, that's some of the changes that you

10:31see.

10:32Um

10:34And other areas are mixed-use

10:36residential one. So, a lot of the

10:38changes are kind of in in that um

10:42in that thought, in that manner where

10:44we're just trying to shift between

10:46what was many to

10:49reducing them down to fewer zoning

10:50districts. And so, that mixed-use

10:52residential two wraps around and goes

10:53all the way to the end of River Street.

10:55So, even the areas where Tractor Supply,

10:57the Cody car dealership, those are all

10:59areas that are zoned mixed residential

11:02two rather than Eastern Gateway.

11:04We did keep Eastern Gateway just for

11:08Route 2. Um

11:10just because of the nature of that area

11:12over there is is a unique area, so we've

11:15kept that designation. We've turned the

11:18industrial area

11:20into

11:21uh an industrial zone. And that's

11:23because all these other places we've

11:24talked about mixed-use, you don't want a

11:26mixed-use area where you have an

11:28industrial. So, we really had to kind of

11:30create a new district for that one.

11:33Um Country Club Road, we really haven't

11:35touched

11:36um

11:37because we're in negotiations with them.

11:39So, we we have let them know we may

11:41rezone this and we'll be working with

11:43them to potentially convert them to

11:45mixed-use residential, too.

11:47But, we have got to go and work through

11:48some of the details first.

11:51Um And then the other big piece was we

11:53used to have four residential districts,

11:561,500, 3,000, 6,000, and 9,000. And

12:00those really related to the densities,

12:02one unit per 1,500 sq ft, one unit per

12:053,000 sq ft. What we did for this

12:08exercise was to merge the 1,500 and the

12:113,000,

12:13um making it all 1,500 and to merge the

12:176,000 and the 9,000 to be all 6,000. And

12:20then because we only had a few, we've

12:22just changed the names to high-density

12:24residential and medium-density

12:25residential.

12:27And so, that's most of the big changes.

12:31Um there are other small changes around,

12:33but that kind of covers a lot of the big

12:35ones. And as we said, the idea was to

12:38uh

12:39allow more housing density to happen. Um

12:43this certainly would give a lot of

12:44potential for um

12:47for undeveloped lots to take advantage

12:50and uh really be able to kind of build

12:52out a lot more units.

12:54And the rest, if you're new to the wire

12:57zoning, the dark green that you see

13:00on the outsides of town are all areas

13:03that don't have currently have access to

13:05sewer and water. So, those are res- uh

13:08zoned rural, and rural has a 2-acre

13:10minimum because you usually need about 2

13:12acres to fit a well and a septic field

13:15and a backup septic field. So, that's

13:17why it has 2-acre zoning. That's why

13:19these areas are zoned the way they are.

13:22And I guess with that,

13:26I can turn it back over to Aaron.

13:29>> Thanks, Mike.

13:30Um so with that, um I will open up the

13:33public input session.

13:35Um

13:36I'm not quite sure if we have any folks

13:38online.

13:39>> We have Alan and Doug online.

13:41>> Okay.

13:43>> And we have Steve here.

13:44>> No hands raised though?

13:46>> No. Oh, Alan's hand just went up.

13:49>> Great. Alan.

13:54>> Good evening. Thank you all very much.

13:56Um

13:57is there anybody else in the room who'd

13:59like to go first? You would would you

14:00like me to go now?

14:04>> Steve is looking at his phone, so I

14:06think the floor is yours, Alan.

14:08>> Well, thank you. Um

14:10thanks again, everybody. You really made

14:12a tremendous amount of changes in the

14:13map.

14:14Um thank you, Mike, and thank you, team.

14:17Um as we're looking at this now, I

14:19really try to fine-tune some of this.

14:21It's sometimes it's hard as you guys

14:23were discussing because the language is

14:25not created. So, we're just sort of

14:27looking at shades.

14:28We're hoping that the language will, of

14:29course, work out well for us.

14:32Um Mike, I don't know if you can put the

14:34map back up so we can look at

14:36potentially Sabins or a little piece of

14:38Crestview.

14:40Please.

14:46And if you could zoom in towards the

14:47Pinewood Crestview neighborhood, please,

14:49Mike.

14:52And so, look, we're we're looking at

14:54colors. And so, it's hard to always

14:56delineate. When you look at Pinewood and

14:59Crestview,

15:01um that area, I guess, is yellow or high

15:03density. And then it goes to the olive

15:05color.

15:06Yet, right behind those lots, my

15:09property is flat and exactly the same

15:11kind of property. So, I was just

15:13wondering why did the transition stop

15:16right there? And would that be something

15:18to be considered? If Mike, if you could

15:20scroll a little lower towards the front

15:22again.

15:24it's Thank you. Uh

15:26we don't often see this dark brown.

15:29Um it appears only in certain areas. But

15:32typically the dark brown transitions to

15:34the yellow. And again, it's hard without

15:36having the language. So I just see the

15:39visual part of there is a dark brown

15:41going to olive color there.

15:44And Mike, if you could please go over to

15:45Savins.

15:50And again, we're looking at colors. So

15:52you know, it's pretty abstract. Uh it's

15:55it's something similar again. We're

15:57seeing the dark brown.

15:58Um and the transition is directly to the

16:01olive color versus no more yellow coming

16:03through.

16:04And then the other thing that I wanted

16:06to please mention cuz I know you're

16:07really really working hard on this.

16:10On the lower part that we call the

16:11riverfront or whatever new work or

16:13whatever new district Mike is thinking

16:15of, you know, MUR 2. Um that

16:19area there

16:20it's not really ground truth.

16:22And we rushed when we were doing this in

16:25the beginning to do the 15 acres. We're

16:28hoping as we get to the language part

16:31that we can really ground truth it. We

16:33don't We're not asking more than the 15

16:35acres.

16:36But it would really make sense to use

16:3815 that are mostly usable versus

16:41something that may be wet.

16:42And we just hope that we can adjust that

16:44sort of ground truth to the ground there

16:46with the olive color. And so that's my

16:49observation. Um there's no yellow. It

16:52looks like a yellow band almost wants to

16:53come down by the brown. That doesn't

16:55mean it should.

16:57But I just see that as a

17:00as as looking at something balanced.

17:03Thank you. I really appreciate my time.

17:05Thank you.

17:08>> Thanks, Alan.

17:09>> Oh oh and I should say Mike, please. I'm

17:11open to any interpretations of how

17:14you've arrived at some of those

17:16transitions of the colors

17:17and why you think it might be that?

17:19Because we learn a lot, Mike, as you

17:20explain it to us and I appreciate it.

17:25>> Yeah, I mean, I guess some of it is just

17:27the browns are areas that are mixed use.

17:31Whereas the yellows and the greens are

17:33only residential. So, anytime you you

17:37have a brown and so

17:39uh as

17:41um

17:42Maria discussed

17:45what was proposed was for some of our

17:47main areas running into town. So, trying

17:51to add some additional areas. So,

17:54the the lavender is the downtown

17:59uh district urban center.

18:01Um and then abutting that is an area of

18:04mixed-use residential that would allow

18:06some small residential up Terrace

18:09Street. These are areas that are

18:10currently residential, but looking

18:13forward, we would have some areas that

18:14would have some some some potential

18:17uh for alternative uses. So, that's the

18:19only difference. The density of the

18:20brown and the yellow are the same.

18:23Uh it's just the uses that are allowed

18:26within those. This would allow for some

18:27some small, like we said, um think of

18:31the

18:32the areas in the meadow that have right

18:35on Elm Street that have some commercial,

18:38some offices, that type of use. This

18:41would help to build out this as more of

18:44a mixed-use neighborhood having a few uh

18:47amenities that might be walkable from

18:49this entire neighborhood. Um and then

18:51the shift from the yellow to the green

18:53is just um at this point

18:57uh you have that same shift on the other

18:59side as you go up Hubbard Park Drive.

19:01So, we have just a core of of these are

19:043,000 square-foot lots.

19:07Whereas these would have a minimum lot

19:09size is [clears throat] of 6,000

19:10square-foot lots. But, each 6,000 square

19:13foot lot can have six units on it. So,

19:16uh you can fit a lot of housing in here,

19:19uh especially if you were thinking of if

19:21someone was thinking of condos or

19:23um

19:24uh or or small homes or or some other

19:27types of mixes like that. So, that this

19:29is still um

19:33uh a fairly high density once you get

19:35down to house how somebody arranges

19:37their subdivision.

19:43>> Thank you very much.

19:50Just trying to see if we have anybody

19:51else.

19:54No.

19:56Don't see anybody else.

19:59Uh is there any other public input on

20:02the map?

20:06Looks like there's not.

20:07>> Mary, can I ask a question of Alan?

20:10>> Please.

20:11>> Alan, I think you used the term ground

20:13truth it, and I've never heard it

20:15before, and I was wondering what it

20:16meant.

20:18>> Hm.

20:19Actually, that's an old expression. In

20:21fact, somebody had asked once before

20:23about the vernal pools and where they

20:25came from.

20:26That was Brent Engstrom's work. He's a

20:28biologist out of Marshfield.

20:31And he brought it to us in 2007.

20:33When I was a planning commissioner in

20:342010, we decided not to use that work.

20:37And that's a classic term

20:39for for looking going onto the ground

20:42and actually seeing what's there,

20:44seeing if it's wetland, seeing if it's

20:46steep slope or should be protected, if

20:48it's clay soils,

20:50are the soils good for building? It

20:52gives us a chance to really look at the

20:54site and make sure we're doing it right.

20:56Uh Doug and I have planned all of Sabins

20:59to be active 50 compliant, even though

21:01we are exempt, we're still always active

21:0350 compliant.

21:05So, you know, we're trying to as they

21:07say they call it ground truthing,

21:09seeing if the wetland is correct

21:12and steep slopes and stuff like that.

21:15>> Okay. Thank you.

21:17>> Oh, you're very welcome.

21:19>> Yeah, a lot of the

21:20environmental requirements are developed

21:23using remote sensing satellites and

21:25other imagery and ground truthing is

21:27simply going out and saying, "Okay,

21:28according to the satellites, according

21:30to everything,

21:31this should be a wetland." And

21:32[clears throat] literally putting boots

21:34on boots on the ground to go through and

21:35say that, "That is actually a wetland or

21:37this is an area we should develop for

21:40high density." You get out there and

21:42find out it's a big boulder field and

21:43it's really shallow to the and you're

21:45like, "Oh, actually we can't do high

21:47density here. This is really not

21:49buildable." That's what the ground

21:50truthing is is kind of converting from

21:54the remote sensing to let's get on the

21:55ground and make sure that what we're

21:57seeing from the satellite is actually

21:59what we see on the ground.

22:00>> Okay.

22:02>> Thanks, Mike.

22:07Any other

22:09Any more Oh, go ahead.

22:10>> Yeah, I'm I'm just kind of looking at

22:12the public comments that are in the map

22:14itself. I don't know if we've gone

22:16through and

22:18discussed

22:19>> Good reminder.

22:20>> those public comments.

22:231 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.

22:28I know I don't know how many are new.

22:31>> I was just clicking through them and I

22:33think all of them are dated September

22:3628th. I didn't see any new ones, but

22:38>> Okay.

22:39>> Yeah.

22:40>> But we haven't gone through them

22:43as a commission.

22:44I I guess I'm curious about so we've

22:46been in a gathering mode for last

22:49meeting and this [clears throat]

22:50meeting.

22:51I look at the map as being part of the

22:53gathering mode. Shall we be discussing

22:56this now within the commission or should

22:59it should all of this public information

23:00be or be compiled and then brought back

23:03to us

23:05in one

23:06um

23:08yeah, one it's one session.

23:10>> And I think the committees are still

23:12we gave them a 20 October 26th deadline.

23:16Are you guys hearing from your

23:17committees at all?

23:19>> 28th? Is that the 26th?

23:20>> Is the housing committee planning on

23:22providing comments?

23:24>> Um

23:26I don't know.

23:27>> [laughter]

23:29>> I think my committees are

23:33I sent an email to the conservation

23:35commission and haven't heard back yet.

23:39But I believe they're meeting this

23:41Wednesday or next Wednesday.

23:42>> Next Wednesday.

23:43>> Next Wednesday.

23:44>> Yeah, I'm trying I'm trying to get on

23:46their agenda for next week.

23:47>> Okay.

23:49Yeah, so

23:50>> Well,

23:50sorry. Let me let me just jump in and

23:52say I I have been [snorts] chatting with

23:54the housing committee or the second

23:55committee that we've been connecting

23:57with about these meetings that we've

23:59been have in this last meeting and this

24:01meeting. But I didn't reach out to them

24:04and say if you're producing something as

24:06a committee, get back to us by the 26th.

24:09So,

24:10I should do that. I'll do that this

24:11evening.

24:16>> So, then does it make sense to look at

24:17everything once we have all comments?

24:20>> Yeah, I think I think we

24:21Yeah, my my suggestion is let's let's

24:24table this until we get every all the

24:26feedback from all the committees and

24:27whatnot and then we can put an agenda

24:29item on our

24:30first November meeting

24:32um

24:33and

24:34uh

24:35we'll give folks an opportunity to try

24:37to synthesize comments and come up with

24:40some recommend recommended changes to

24:41the map if we feel like that's necessary

24:44and appropriate. So,

24:46does that make sense to folks? Just

24:49hold holding pattern for now? Great.

24:51>> Sounds efficient.

24:52>> Okay.

24:53Um last call for any uh public input

24:57>> [clears throat]

24:57>> on the map?

25:00Seeing no hands raised online. Um we

25:03will close the public input session.

25:05Thank you everybody for the for the

25:06comments that did come in both written

25:08and spoken at our meetings. Um we will

25:11certainly take note of those and uh

25:13sort of try to

25:14see if there needs to be some changes to

25:16the map before we move forward. So,

25:18thank you again for uh taking the time

25:19to look at the map and your and making

25:22comments.

25:23Um next is general business. This is

25:25comments from the public that's about

25:27something that's not on the agenda.

25:29Um

25:32we have Mr. Whittaker here with us.

25:34Steve, do you have anything you want to

25:37speak to?

25:38>> to the LURB's conversation today.

25:41They [snorts]

25:42>> [clears throat]

25:42>> You have to be at the microphone.

25:49>> Uh

25:49Steve Whittaker. I think you all should

25:51listen to the

25:53Land Use Review Board's conversation

25:55today about public engagement and the

25:58challenges of that.

26:00They consulted with the

26:03The legislature has mandated some

26:06reports on this.

26:08And uh

26:09so the Vermont Council on Rural

26:11Development came and worked through some

26:13questions with them.

26:14But they're they're really bright people

26:16and they've given a lot of thought to

26:17this and

26:19this whole architecture is supposed to

26:21be based on a bottom-up

26:24uh public engagement and

26:26uh you can see how well that's been

26:30working.

26:31Uh

26:32I say sarcastically.

26:34So, um

26:38I think we're missing the boat by

26:41overreaching with

26:44uh

26:45planned growth area.

26:47Uh but that's a region-wide problem, not

26:49just Montpelier, but Montpelier is the

26:50biggest chunk of it.

26:52And

26:54it doesn't seem to

26:57factor in where our combined sewer

26:59overflows are. We can't

27:02be in

27:04regulated

27:06violation of A&R permits and then keep

27:10inviting more density into areas that

27:12are going to increase the

27:14combined sewer overflows. So, if we are

27:17not prioritizing the dis- the

27:20And all that data is missing. You

27:23our city plan was certified as having

27:25collected all this data and and the

27:27regional plan

27:28doesn't have the data in it, either. So,

27:31knowing [clears throat]

27:32which

27:34sewer sheds is a new word to me.

27:37Uh

27:40I don't think Country Club Road

27:42is in a

27:44overflow district, but I'm pretty sure

27:45School Street

27:47and Saint Paul Street,

27:49which is has some of the best infill

27:51potential.

27:52Um

27:54So, anyway, it's

27:58we should focus on a few parcels where

28:00we know

28:03where there's capacity, not just whether

28:05there's water and sewer there. That's a

28:06flaw of the whole mapping methodology is

28:10that

28:12they're saying if there's water and

28:14sewer there or within 1,000 ft. But

28:17those costs to put in 1,000 ft, to rip

28:21out a pipe and put in a bigger one, or

28:23to go another 1,000 ft with water and

28:26sewer are huge.

28:28And

28:30if you're serious about accelerating

28:32development, you would focus on where

28:34there's existing pipe with existing

28:36capacity right at a parcel that has

28:39has a developer interested.

28:42Um

28:43Similarly, the mapping methodology

28:49is not complete streets compliant.

28:52Um

28:53>> [clears throat]

28:54>> it's got some guidance in there that

28:56says you don't have to if you have less

28:58than 1,000 cars a day,

29:00you can ignore your sidewalks. Let Let

29:03the wheelchair bound handicapped person

29:05roll in the street.

29:07Sure, icy conditions.

29:09Uh

29:10that's not compliant with statute

29:12either, so

29:13um

29:14I think we're in for a rough road

29:17with our regional plan review.

29:19And we're still Do we even have a plan B

29:22if

29:24the Supreme Court says we need to

29:27do a de novo review of our municipal

29:29plan because

29:31if you don't know if you don't believe

29:32me that our plan doesn't comply with

29:34statute, you really need to go do your

29:36homework, you know? And that may change

29:39your work plan for the next year,

29:42you know? But

29:44contingency plans are smart.

29:51>> Thanks, Steve.

29:55Do we have anybody online that has any

29:57issues or

29:59general business?

30:02Looks like we don't.

30:05So, moving on, uh next is comments from

30:07the commission. Um this is an

30:09opportunity for commissioners to speak

30:11on something that's not an agenda item.

30:13Uh just very quickly,

30:15just want to recognize and welcome uh

30:17Seamus Lombardo, our newest planning

30:19commissioner. Uh welcome aboard.

30:21>> Thanks for having me.

30:22>> Yeah, and I look forward to working with

30:24you going forward. If you I don't know

30:26if you want to say a few words,

30:27introduce yourself.

30:29>> Uh

30:30sure. Yeah. Um Seamus. I live I live up

30:33on my uh

30:35Grandview Terrace.

30:37Um I've been following these meetings

30:40for better part of a year now, as well

30:42as the housing committee meetings, and

30:45I'm

30:45you know, really excited to be involved

30:48in this work, which I think is really

30:50important um

30:51for a bunch of different reasons, but

30:53one of my main personal motivators is

30:55housing issues, and so I'm excited to

30:58use the tools of this commission to help

31:01advance those goals.

31:03And um

31:04I'm excited to apply my own experience.

31:07I have a geospatial background, so eager

31:10to apply that, but also really eager to

31:12just learn from the experience of folks

31:14here. So, yeah, eager to be involved.

31:17>> Great. Thanks. Welcome aboard.

31:18>> Welcome.

31:21>> [laughter]

31:23>> Sean's disembodied voice there.

31:26>> Um

31:28Is there anything else, folks? Uh any

31:29other commissioners have any issues they

31:31want to

31:31>> I want to jump in real quick with

31:33something very inconsequential that I

31:36have been thinking about.

31:37>> it's consequential.

31:38>> It's very consequential.

31:40>> [laughter]

31:41>> Um it's actually with the agenda, or

31:44sorry, it's actually with the minutes

31:46from the last meeting.

31:48And I don't know if we need to like

31:49reopen this up, but I was just thinking,

31:51I think it'd be helpful

31:53um

31:54in this and moving forward to

31:57[clears throat] if there were any votes

31:58that were not unanimous, I think it

32:00would be nice to sort of indicate who

32:03was who voted yay, who voted nay.

32:07So, I would

32:09recommend

32:11I don't know. I don't know if we need to

32:12do formal language, but you know, I

32:13think it'd be nice to amend our meetings

32:16from the last meeting to sort of

32:19indicate who was in favor and who

32:21wasn't, and then moving forward

32:23do that.

32:25>> Uh so, I have two questions, one for you

32:27and one for Mike. And this is not to I

32:30do you think this is consequential, but

32:31I'm curious like why is it important for

32:33you that we list off the commissioners

32:35like specifically and how they voted

32:38when we have split votes.

32:39>> Mhm. I was thinking like when it happens

32:42in city council, like sometimes it's

32:44nice to know which of the my city

32:47councilors and my representatives sort

32:48of are voting in certain ways and so

32:51just anecdotally for me, I think it's

32:54nice to kind of get a pulse on what

32:57people's individual opinions are if it

33:01varies.

33:01>> Okay.

33:02Um and the question for Mike is

33:05does our AI software allow us to

33:09identify specific

33:11voters?

33:13>> I would have to ask Nick to take a look

33:16at that.

33:17Um

33:20They should be able to recognize the

33:21voices and know that.

33:24>> Huh.

33:24>> But it also

33:26the I think the question is whether or

33:27not it's got a

33:28one of the prompts check box prompts

33:31that lets you

33:32>> Okay.

33:32>> isolate those uh the

33:34The other option would be to unsplit

33:36votes, make sure that the chair,

33:38whoever's chairing, goes through and

33:40>> Or you could do a roll call vote.

33:42>> was for and then then it hopefully would

33:43get picked up in the minute description.

33:45But I'll ask

33:47um

33:49if we can uh amend the minutes to

33:54reflect who voted.

33:56>> Is that on the split vote?

33:58>> Um and I I don't think we need to do

34:00anything. We don't need to take a formal

34:02vote on this or anything, but I [snorts]

34:03would like to get kind of a

34:05sense from the group uh if

34:08this group is in favor of sort of

34:11identifying each vote

34:14in the minutes

34:16or if there's

34:18>> I really like that idea.

34:19>> any problem with that.

34:21>> And I I I like it for transparency's

34:24sake.

34:24>> Okay.

34:25>> Yeah, agreed.

34:27>> I'm in favor.

34:28>> All right, great.

34:29>> Yeah, I think it it's actually helpful

34:30because I believe if you get into

34:32Robert's Rules

34:34and somebody gets really wonky on

34:36something, there's certain things that

34:38it's like only a person who voted

34:40against this can go and vote for

34:41reconsideration or only a person who

34:43votes for this can vote for

34:45reconsideration. There's certain ones

34:47that isolate it and so

34:49it might be good to have that

34:50documented.

34:52Although it's very rare in ours to get

34:54into a

34:55a Robert's Rules bureaucratic

34:58discussion.

34:59Um

35:00but I I think there there is value from

35:02the rules to have that isolated. Now

35:05I'll ask if we can have that.

35:08>> Great.

35:10>> It's It's required anytime it's not

35:11unanimous if there's any online members,

35:14it's required to do a roll call and so

35:16that roll call would get names at least

35:19to repeat it for the audio recording.

35:22>> Right.

35:24Okay.

35:25>> We can't hear Steve.

35:28>> Steve just made the comment that if

35:29there if there had been a vote

35:32um

35:33where there was a planning commissioner

35:35who was online, if there was a split

35:37vote, it would have been a roll call

35:39vote anyways and therefore it should

35:41have been caught and picked up on the

35:43in the minutes. So, but yeah, I think

35:45it's just a I think it's probably just a

35:47prompt. These are pretty

35:48sophisticated AI programs so I have to

35:52imagine there's going to probably be

35:53something that says

35:56a check box that would isolate it, but I

35:57have to check with um

35:59with Nick uh who's in my office who

36:01knows how to do these um minutes.

36:06So, I will follow up with that at the

36:07next meeting.

36:08>> And now I have to go home and

36:10find my dusty copy of Robert's Rules of

36:12Order.

36:14Take another look. So,

36:17thanks for that homework.

36:19>> A quick question here. Has anybody

36:21circulated or

36:23planning commissioners reviewed the

36:25letter of intent that's being voted on

36:28tomorrow night by the council

36:30with the Country Club Road developer?

36:33>> Not that I'm aware of.

36:34>> Pretty important.

36:37Um

36:40>> [snorts]

36:41>> Any other comments from the

36:42commissioners?

36:43>> Uh I just wanted to um

36:46say one thing in response to Steve's um

36:49opinion about

36:51overreach when it comes to uh planned

36:54growth areas or urban growth areas um

36:56throughout the Central Vermont region.

36:58Uh planned growth areas represent a very

37:00very small percentage of land within

37:03Central Vermont.

37:04Um as I said, I think it's a matter of

37:06opinion and I just want to put on record

37:08that I believe in my opinion that um

37:12throughout this entire process

37:14uh that there's been a drastic

37:16underreach uh

37:19so to say um of of urban growth and

37:21planned growth areas

37:23and expansion throughout Central

37:24Vermont. Um

37:27that there's so much opportunity here in

37:30our already built um cities and towns.

37:33Montpelier is

37:35a city, Barre is a city, uh there's a

37:38ton of opportunity for increased density

37:41and growth uh and I encourage at the

37:44Planning Commission Housing Committee

37:46City Council level, CVRPC level and the

37:48Land Use Review Board level, state level

37:51to

37:53understand

37:54the housing crisis that we have had in

37:57Vermont now for decades and that a a

38:00solution moving forward includes

38:03a major expansion and um

38:07uh increased density um

38:09throughout I'll say Central

38:11Central Vermont because that's where we

38:12are.

38:15>> Okay.

38:17Um and that just reminds me very quickly

38:19just as an addendum to everything and

38:20there's nothing actionable here, It's a

38:22reminder to this folks for those who are

38:23interested. Uh CVPC is going to be

38:26voting on adoption of the regional plan

38:29and the future land use map at their

38:31meeting next Tuesday.

38:33So.

38:36Um

38:39Any other comments?

38:41Great. Moving on. Uh next is the new

38:43agenda item uh that was proposed by Tim.

38:46Um

38:48about discussion of the housing

38:50committee recommendations and the memo

38:53uh that was circulated to this group and

38:55is available uh

38:57here in the room. Uh Tim, you want to

39:00take this one?

39:01>> Yeah, do you

39:01>> Next item.

39:02>> It because it's not in the agenda or

39:04linked, should I

39:06read it?

39:07>> You not.

39:08>> I think

39:10Let me double-check to see. I asked I

39:11asked him to

39:12>> No, to be added to it today.

39:14>> I I checked this morning before you had

39:15sent it around.

39:16>> [snorts]

39:16>> Mhm.

39:23>> [snorts]

39:24>> Well,

39:25I can at least

39:25>> Yeah.

39:26>> jump in and because I'll I I will read

39:28the first section of it. Uh so this is a

39:30memo that came to us from the housing

39:31committee. It was dated October 6th,

39:342026 and um

39:36Seamus can confirm it. I think it would

39:38came along with a

39:40vote. So this was voted to uh you might

39:42not you might not know this actually.

39:44>> I believe so, but I think this was at

39:46the end of the meeting. So I can't like

39:48100% confirm.

39:49>> Okay. So a memo that was uh sent over to

39:52us officially from the housing committee

39:54on October 6th. Um so it's about Tier 1A

39:56and development regulations

39:57recommendations. So that I'll just read

39:59the first paragraph. On October 6th,

40:002026,

40:02Montpelier Housing Committee voted on

40:03two There you go. Voted on two items

40:06related to the Planning Commission's

40:07work. One, changes to the development

40:09regulations to ready the city to apply

40:11for Tier 1A status, and two, avoiding

40:14duplication. And please see below.

40:16Um I'll just note that uh that while the

40:18first section is pretty relatively

40:20straightforward, um I will not read I

40:23don't think we need to read all of the

40:24committee recommendations for the second

40:26piece, but I will start um with the

40:29first recommendation of of above.

40:31Um, so

40:33a short-term need for Montpelier unified

40:34development regulations, cities must

40:37amend their regulations to satisfy Tier

40:381A application requirements. South

40:40Burlington and Rutland already have

40:42included baseline Tier 1A language in

40:44their development regulations to

40:45facilitate Tier 1A status so that

40:48>> up?

40:49>> Oh.

40:50>> Did I just disconnect from the Zoom

40:51meeting?

40:52>> My Well, I the Zoom meeting just

40:54dropped, so I'm just

40:56>> Yeah.

40:57>> Rowan, did you lose them, too?

41:00>> I did as well. I'm glad it's not just

41:02me, I guess.

41:04>> Yes, I was just starting to close pages

41:06thinking, "Uh-oh, I have too many things

41:08open."

41:10Mhm. I think we're going back up.

41:14>> Yeah.

41:15This looks promising.

41:17>> It does.

41:18>> Recording in progress.

41:23>> Yes, I can now see the working members.

41:26>> All right. Well,

41:31>> No, I have to I have to be off or we get

41:33feedback.

41:36>> Yay, we're back.

41:39>> Thank you for being patient. We lost

41:41internet down here, so we couldn't do

41:43anything.

41:46>> We were just about to pull the plug,

41:47Taylor.

41:50We were almost going off.

41:51>> Luckily.

41:53>> We're back.

41:55>> Um, so we were in the middle of the

41:57housing memo.

41:58>> I'm not quite sure where

42:00>> Yeah, I was heads down and wasn't paying

42:01attention.

42:02>> just worth restarting.

42:03>> Okay.

42:04>> Let's go now and do so.

42:04>> I'll go through quickly. So, uh the

42:07Housing Committee at their meeting on on

42:08October 6th uh I on two items related to

42:11the planning commission's work. One is

42:13changes to the development regulations

42:15to ready the city to apply for tier one

42:17A status and two avoiding duplication.

42:20Um

42:21So, yes, I was starting to get through

42:23the first committee recommendation. So,

42:26uh cities must amend their regulations

42:28to satisfy tier one A application

42:29requirements. South Burlington and

42:30Rutland have

42:32already have included baseline tier one

42:34A language in their development

42:35regulations to facilitate tier one A

42:36status. So,

42:37the housing committee recommendation to

42:39the planning commission

42:41is that we is that we request that the

42:43city work with the planning commission

42:44and LURB to develop and include baseline

42:47temporary tier one A language into a

42:49minimally amended unified development

42:51regulations uh to be submitted to the

42:53city council for adoption as as soon as

42:56feasible.

42:57Um as I recall, we I'll just jump in and

43:00say I I we discussed this a bit at last

43:03at the last meeting. I'm not exactly

43:05remembering

43:07um

43:08where we ended on this in terms of are

43:10[snorts] we going to take an approach

43:13to our zoning regs um where we're going

43:15to uh

43:17go after low-hanging fruit for tier one

43:18A status

43:20um reasons or are we going to wrap that

43:22into

43:23the entirety of our work?

43:26>> Uh I think Mike spoke to this and I got

43:28to let you do it again, but my

43:29recollection is is that we are going to

43:32make some changes that would be

43:35necessary to support the tier one A

43:37application in advance of us submitting

43:39those things. So,

43:42uh

43:43Mike, tell me if I'm wrong about that,

43:44but that's I think we would be doing

43:46that work. So, I I think we we the plan

43:49is already to do to make those

43:52um changes to the development

43:54regulations in order to support tier one

43:56A application.

43:57Um

43:58So,

44:00>> Yeah, that's that's the plan. We're

44:01already working right now to with you

44:04all to amend the the um part two, the

44:09zoning map, and those districts.

44:12So, um we really have to do that piece,

44:17and the tier 1A we can kind of do at the

44:19same time. So, the goal being that we

44:22have a draft set of zoning regulations

44:25completed by the end of the calendar

44:26year.

44:27The

44:29CVRPC won't have a final approved

44:34um regional plan until maybe January.

44:38So, we can't submit [snorts] till after

44:40that anyway, so we might as well have a

44:42draft ready to go, so we can

44:45um

44:46be able to submit that

44:49to the LURB um after they've approved

44:51the regional plan, cuz then we'll have a

44:53You need to have your tier 1A map. So,

44:55we have to get that all built in.

44:58And then we have to demonstrate that the

45:00requirements within that meet

45:02the requirements of state law.

45:05>> So, my my thinking here is that I can

45:08respond to the housing committee and say

45:09this is underway

45:11um with some

45:13uh

45:15description of of our timeline. Um they

45:17did

45:18have and I sent an email back to Alyssa

45:21and and folks. Uh there is a link in

45:23here that says sample language is here

45:24and below. That that link was an

45:26internal link that brought me back to

45:27the top of this memo. So, I don't have

45:29that language. So, hopefully they can

45:32send that along as well. I think that

45:33could be super helpful for us as we

45:36um work through our our zone

45:37regulations.

45:39>> [snorts]

45:40>> And then part two was for and I we don't

45:42need to go through Well, we can, but we

45:43also don't need to go through each of

45:45the specifics here. Um but it's

45:46something that we've heard before and um

45:49they have But they do have more

45:50specifics around duplication, avoiding

45:52duplication. So, the housing committee

45:54has begun the process of looking for

45:55ways to simplify and streamline

45:57our uh Montpelier's regulations for

45:59zoning and land development. Below are

46:00high-level recommendations. So, the

46:02overall recommendation is request that

46:04the planning commission and city strive

46:05to eliminate uh review approval,

46:08permitting, uh of subjects that are

46:10already permitted by other authorities

46:12in Vermont. This will avoid duplication.

46:14The development review board

46:17can require the state permits as a

46:19condition for local approval. And then

46:21specifically, I'll just mention what

46:22they are without all the details.

46:25Uh steep slopes, erosion control, and

46:27stormwater management on parcels over 1

46:29acre, water and wastewater, wetlands

46:32including vernal pools, changes to state

46:34roads, accessibility on sites and and in

46:37buildings.

46:39Um that there are other departments or

46:42agencies that the housing committee

46:44believes

46:45um have that covered. Um and that we

46:49don't necessarily need that all of this

46:50information in our zoning regulations.

46:52I'll just pause there and say this this

46:54is you know, that's me paraphrasing

46:57um from what I read from the housing

46:59committee.

47:00>> I'll just say that I know Sandy has like

47:02um line by line through some of those

47:04sections. So, in your reply where you're

47:07asking for the link, it might be good to

47:08just say like, "Hey, as an appendix,

47:10could you like send us Sandy's latest

47:13redlining on this just so we have it?"

47:16>> Um you're talking about the And that's

47:18for recommendation number two, correct?

47:20Where she has gone through and

47:22>> Yeah.

47:23>> pointed out specifically [snorts] where

47:24duplication she believes duplication is

47:26happening.

47:26>> Yeah.

47:27>> Uh yeah, I will ask for that.

47:33Um and then my recommendation there for

47:34the planning commission would be to

47:36consider that as we're going through the

47:38zoning regulations.

47:40in more detail.

47:42Uh and I'll pause there.

47:44>> Sure.

47:46Is there any uh

47:48want to discuss either these

47:49recommendations or I I don't

47:51feel like there's anything

47:53that's actionable or anything we need to

47:55vote on right now, but if folks wanted

47:58dive into these issues a little bit and

48:00talk about them and put some ideas on

48:02the table, that's fine. Otherwise

48:04>> I can point out there is I have met with

48:06them and I have mentioned and it just

48:08seems like it has

48:10gotten no

48:12positive

48:14response back or acknowledgement um

48:16that

48:17we already have these in here and it's

48:21been explained to her, you know, I mean

48:22we'll point out

48:24you know, uh VTrans issues access and

48:27work permits for any impact on or

48:28connecting to the state highway. They

48:30don't in the city of Montpelier and we

48:31pointed this out. There are no 1111

48:33permits in the city of because they're

48:35all class one highways.

48:37We issue all the access permits for the

48:39for the state highways.

48:41And so you know, and

48:43um for erosion control and the

48:46environmental it literally says in our

48:48zoning, if you get a state permit, you

48:50don't need to meet these requirements.

48:52So there it's many places where we

48:54already do this and we've tried to

48:57literally we've emailed these things and

48:59said, we already do this.

49:02And they keep saying no, you no, we

49:03don't.

49:04>> I'm And is And is that And is that I'm

49:06sorry, is it Is that the same with like

49:07the wetlands permits and the stormwater

49:09permits as well?

49:10>> Yes, stormwater Yeah, if you get permits

49:14in in general

49:15if you get it'll There are many of them

49:18in there which go through and say, if

49:19you get a state permit, you don't need

49:21to meet any of these requirements.

49:23And we've we've tried to really point

49:24these out. The only one that we regulate

49:28um that we'll have a discussion on is

49:30wetlands. We do have a much smaller

49:33wetlands map. We only regulate wetlands

49:36that are on our natural resources map.

49:38So we don't regulate every wetland.

49:40Um that's going to have to change

49:43uh for tier one A status. So we're going

49:45to have to have a conversation about

49:47wetlands that's going to kind of change

49:49how this works, but really what's going

49:52to happen with that with my

49:53recommendation to happen with that is

49:55that

49:57we incorporate the wetland advisory

49:59layer as onto our zoning and basically

50:03say if you have a project that impacts a

50:05wetland advisory area then then you need

50:07to

50:08get a letter from the state.

50:10>> Okay.

50:10>> So I'm either says you're exempt or not.

50:12>> Yeah, I'm sorry. I

50:13I may not be following you. So

50:15the city has its own wetlands inventory

50:18and map that's separate and apart from

50:19the ANR map?

50:20>> Yes.

50:22>> And why?

50:23>> [laughter]

50:24>> No, I'm just I'm curious.

50:24>> It was done It was uh the conservation

50:26commission did this in 2000 and uh 6 or

50:308.

50:32That's what

50:33Alan had mentioned earlier. There was a

50:35survey that was done. It included vernal

50:36pools. So our map has vernal pools and

50:38wetlands, but not every wetland that is

50:40recognized by the state.

50:42>> All right.

50:42>> And they asked when we were adopting our

50:44new zoning to include that in the

50:46natural resources, so we did. I think

50:49we're going to have a conversation we,

50:51being us, you you mean conservation

50:53commission, about how this changes

50:57in this news draft because we do need to

50:59make some amendments to meet tier 1A

51:01status.

51:02Um the best thing to do if it's it's

51:05always my policy to not duplicate

51:07permits, which is why it's been written

51:09the way it is to say

51:11if you need a state permit

51:13if if you get a state permit, you're

51:15exempt from the local regulations. But

51:17if you go through and have it something

51:18that's pegged to a a number, like 1

51:21acre,

51:23um if the state decides to change its

51:25rules one way or the other to say,

51:27"Well, we're only going to regulate 1

51:28instead of 3 acres now." Well, now we're

51:30going to have a gap in the rules. We're

51:31only regulating up to 1.

51:33>> Right.

51:33>> They're only regulating over 3. There's

51:34nothing happening between 1 and 3 until

51:36we amend our zoning. By having it

51:38written the way we do to say we have

51:40rules,

51:41but if you get a state permit, you're

51:43exempt from our rules.

51:45Then the state can move to be less

51:47restrictive or more restrictive and

51:49whatever happens

51:51that's the way our rules are written

51:52right now is to really go through and

51:53say if you if you need that then you're

51:55exempt from this and

51:58>> And and just so I full circle on this

52:02what are the tier 1A requirements with

52:04respect to what changes do you have to

52:05make to meet the tier 1A requirements

52:08with respect to wetlands?

52:09>> Uh there aren't

52:12there aren't a lot with wetlands because

52:15the state generally regulates it but we

52:18will probably need to what A&R looks for

52:22is our connections um

52:26rare threat threatened and endangered is

52:28another one. We don't regulate that

52:29right now.

52:31But under the

52:33uh tier 1A we will but what really is

52:36going to happen is we're going to end up

52:37with a map that's going to show us the

52:40rare threatened and endangered species

52:41areas and if somebody does a project

52:44within that bubble

52:45then they have to go to the

52:48forest

52:49fish and wildlife and say

52:52you need to go talk to them and get

52:53clearance. Once we get clearance then

52:56you can go. It'll be the same with

52:57wetlands. It's just going to be there's

52:59there's a process step. We aren't

53:01actually going to take over regulating

53:03those aspects. We're just going to have

53:05a map that says when you enter that area

53:10you're going to need to get a letter.

53:11And that's um so we're really not going

53:14to be duplicating uh in in those those

53:17senses. And then these other ones we're

53:18going to maintain the same whether it's

53:20storm water erosion control um steep

53:23slopes is different. We regulate steep

53:25slopes for some different reasons. Yes,

53:28if you clear on steep slopes it becomes

53:30an erosion control issue. There is an an

53:32overlap between those two but we most of

53:35our time most of our efforts with steep

53:37slopes comes down to ensuring that

53:40whatever's happening at the top or the

53:41bottom of a steep slope

53:44is

53:45has the proper engineering. In

53:47particular, at the top. So, we've had

53:49people We've got a lot of cliffs, a lot

53:50of steep slopes, and so people will come

53:52in and say, "I'm going to build right

53:53here." And we're like, "Well, that's on

53:54the edge of a steep slope. We're going

53:56to need to know the foundation. We're

53:57going to need to have an engineer design

54:00that foundation and have it reviewed, so

54:02that way we know in 50 years that

54:04foundation is still sitting there and

54:06not starting to slide." And so, that's

54:08what our steep slopes look at, which the

54:11DEC general permit does not look at. All

54:14they're looking at is is there going to

54:15be erosion as a result of water running

54:18off the roofs of the buildings or those

54:19types of things. So,

54:21we'll have more conversations about

54:23these. Um

54:25um and yes, the So, these are These are

54:28things I I have met with them on.

54:30Um

54:31and you know, I do agree with the

54:33premise, you know, we should not have

54:35duplication of permits. And

54:37I don't think

54:38>> understanding, this is like now it's

54:40gathering learning question for me.

54:42Like, you reference kind of the clause

54:44where it's like if you get this from the

54:46state, then you don't have to get the

54:49municipal one.

54:50What is like the condition? You kind of

54:54tangentially reference like lot sizes.

54:57Is that it? It's just like properties

54:59over a certain size are required to get

55:01the state permit, and therefore they're

55:04going to wind up in that scenario where

55:05they don't have to get the local permit,

55:07and smaller ones are going to have to go

55:09through

55:10the municipal process?

55:11>> S- Sometimes it is area of disturbance,

55:15and sometimes it is like I I think the

55:18general permit looks at the area of

55:20disturbance.

55:21And so, there It depends which one

55:23you're looking at. Um

55:26but we know there's going to be a state

55:30um

55:32a state permit. So, I I just open up

55:343,000 3,008, which is erosion control.

55:383000B applicability applicability who

55:40needs to meet this requirement the

55:42provisions of this section shall apply

55:43to any development that will disturb

55:45soil except that one development that

55:48obtains a state construction general or

55:49individual permit shall be assumed to

55:51have met the requirements of this

55:53section. Any zoning permit or approval

55:54shall be conditioned upon the applicant

55:56submitting a copy of the state permit to

55:58the administrative officer prior to the

56:00start of construction.

56:02So

56:04a comment that we have a duplication of

56:07our erosion control standards

56:10is when this has been pointed out is

56:12just it's been frustrating.

56:14We we know we don't want duplication of

56:16permits because invariably they may have

56:19a different condition than we do and we

56:20don't want to have this thing where what

56:22do we do when they say do this and the

56:24DRB says do that and they conflict. So

56:26we are very

56:28conscientious cautious in looking at

56:31where these are

56:33um

56:35So again, that was

56:36>> I I appreciate that and I appreciate the

56:38the frustration in that space. I think

56:40this is coming from a a place of

56:43I don't know how historical it is but

56:45but some experience where folks have

56:48felt like they've visited with the city

56:50and visited and felt like there's been

56:53overlap with um state folks and maybe

56:56paying for

56:58um and waiting for permits at both the

57:00state and city level. I'm not a

57:01developer. I've never worked in this

57:03space before.

57:04Um so I don't have the experience.

57:08I would be curious and I might

57:10personally just do this reach out to

57:12some folks and

57:14ask them about what their experience has

57:16been. But I I I appreciate your

57:19listening to to this and I also

57:21appreciate that um

57:23this is something that the plan planning

57:25department is is focused on the

57:28um removing duplication. So

57:31Yeah.

57:31>> Yeah. So like like I said the big I

57:33think the big summary is we we don't

57:34disagree with either one of these

57:36recommendations. Um

57:38and

57:39but we just we want to make sure we

57:42don't spend a lot of time

57:45working on something that

57:48you know, spending time working on

57:49things that don't need to be worked on.

57:51Um

57:52rather than working on other things that

57:54because we have plenty of things that we

57:55do need to work through.

57:56>> Sure.

57:57>> And um

58:00we'll have these we'll have these

58:01conversations and continue to to work on

58:03them.

58:09>> Allen's had his hand up off and on

58:11during this conversation. I don't know

58:12if he

58:13wanted to

58:15chime in.

58:17>> Thank you. I Well, I going back and

58:20forth, you guys are covering a lot of

58:21ground. And thank you, Mike, for what

58:23you're explaining. Um

58:25I was just going to point out as I've

58:27gone through the process in the not too

58:29distant

58:30in the not too

58:31uh distant past, um

58:33some of our regs are

58:36more aggressive than the state and some

58:38are less.

58:40And that was part of what the group was

58:42trying to say is trying to make sure we

58:43follow the same state standards

58:46or becomes a challenge.

58:48Uh such as the vernal pools is a class

58:50two wetland structure.

58:52We've decided to make it a 500-ft

58:54setback.

58:55Mike has limited that by only the ones

58:57mapped on the system.

58:59When Doug and I went through and did our

59:00traffic studies,

59:02the um

59:03city has a greater

59:05uh requirement than the AOT.

59:08When we did our wetland program, the

59:10city right now had a 25-year wetland

59:13uh event and we just designed it all for

59:15a 100 year.

59:16So, those are some of the

59:18differences I know noticed in the state

59:21and I really appreciate what Mike's

59:22trying to do. We're trying to not

59:23duplicate things and also not um

59:27go beyond what the state standards are

59:30or not below

59:31because if somebody challenges it, it's

59:33going to go to the state.

59:35Thank you so much.

59:41>> Thanks, Alan.

59:43>> Uh any other discussion on this agenda

59:44item?

59:45>> I have a question about Mike, we used to

59:47have

59:48uh a spreadsheet of all the suggested

59:50changes to the zoning code

59:53like a year ago. Do you guys remember

59:55this?

59:55>> Mhm.

59:56>> Do you remember this?

59:57>> [laughter]

59:58>> Yeah, we we put together a matrix when

1:00:00we were doing the public hearings.

1:00:02>> Right. I feel like it would be useful to

1:00:05add these items to it. And I I remember

1:00:07it being organized by section in the

1:00:10zoning code.

1:00:11>> Yeah, we would have to start We would

1:00:12have to start a new one. The The last

1:00:14one we put those changes together so

1:00:16that way people would understand when we

1:00:18went to public hearing or when it went

1:00:19to adoption.

1:00:22People gave public comment

1:00:24um

1:00:25>> Mhm.

1:00:25>> And then what what were the changes that

1:00:27came out of that when we considered

1:00:29them. But I hadn't been starting that

1:00:31for this one because this was still

1:00:32public input. We hadn't gotten to a

1:00:33public

1:00:34>> Okay.

1:00:35>> formal public comment. But we could do

1:00:37whatever the commission desires for

1:00:39>> Okay. I just remember there being some

1:00:41specific items in there that would be

1:00:43helpful to

1:00:45uh resurface now that we're actually

1:00:48editing the zoning code.

1:00:50Including

1:00:51these suggestions, too.

1:00:54Do you guys remember this?

1:00:55>> Yeah, I do remember it, but I I mean

1:00:57it's a

1:00:58kind of one of a

1:00:59Where does that become

1:01:01Where does that matrix become useful in

1:01:03the process and

1:01:06I

1:01:07I'm a little hesitant to go back and

1:01:09look at prior comments that were done on

1:01:11an earlier iteration of proposed

1:01:13revisions that were

1:01:15considered and voted on by the city

1:01:16council

1:01:18um

1:01:18>> But I thought that we didn't include all

1:01:20of the changes.

1:01:22I thought there were still items that we

1:01:24hadn't considered because we're like,

1:01:26"Oh, when we go through the zoning

1:01:28code, we'll consider these."

1:01:29>> Maybe. I

1:01:30>> I mean, I think steep slopes was like

1:01:32one of the few that we actually adopted.

1:01:35I think there were other

1:01:36>> There might have been.

1:01:37>> comments that we kind of like pushed

1:01:39down the road.

1:01:40>> Um I would have to

1:01:42I'd have to really dig around and see

1:01:43what's

1:01:44>> I feel like it'd be helpful to have some

1:01:46like when we get to that section we can

1:01:48say like, "Oh, wait. What did the

1:01:49housing committee say about

1:01:51wastewater, you know?"

1:01:53>> Yeah.

1:01:53>> Um

1:01:55>> Yeah, I guess I hadn't appreciated

1:01:56>> our own memories.

1:01:57>> that we still had some issues left on

1:01:59the table after that by the regulations.

1:02:01It could be. Yeah, I I I believe so.

1:02:03Yeah, I think there was a a larger

1:02:05matrix.

1:02:06>> Yeah, we moved through and we didn't

1:02:07address all of the topics at the time.

1:02:09>> Yeah, we did interim changes. I can I

1:02:12can try to find that matrix and send it

1:02:14back out.

1:02:15>> The low-hanging [snorts] fruit I thought

1:02:16we dealt with.

1:02:17>> Yeah, that was Yeah, that one was

1:02:19>> higher fruit

1:02:20>> [laughter]

1:02:22[clears throat]

1:02:26>> Good memory.

1:02:31>> Yeah, cuz there are there are a number

1:02:32of other things that we did have on

1:02:34that. I know the access permits have

1:02:37been an issue. They've been a nightmare

1:02:38for us since it's been there for curb

1:02:41cuts, the location of curb cuts. And

1:02:43we've said this just has to get

1:02:46changed. And there are a number of

1:02:47alternative ways we could do it. But we

1:02:49just have to go through and say cuz

1:02:50right now the rule is you you have to

1:02:52have a 100 you have to line up your

1:02:54driveway with whatever's across the

1:02:55street or and you have to have 100-ft

1:02:58separation. Well, most of our lots have

1:03:00frontages of like 80 ft. So

1:03:02every new lot, every project, everything

1:03:04you have to go to the DRB. It would all

1:03:06be administrative except you have to get

1:03:08a special approval for

1:03:11the curb cut location.

1:03:13>> Right.

1:03:13>> Which

1:03:14really comes down to the opinion of the

1:03:18um engineering department looking at it

1:03:20and saying, "Yeah, that's a safe

1:03:21location to put that."

1:03:22>> Right.

1:03:23>> But we still have to have a public

1:03:24hearing. It gets opposed. That's what

1:03:25gets appealed to court. And you're like,

1:03:28"If we just change the rules that make

1:03:29this an administrative permit, then

1:03:33we can avoid a lot of headaches."

1:03:35>> Mhm.

1:03:37>> So yes. Yeah, we have we did have in the

1:03:39list a number of a number of those types

1:03:41of quick edits.

1:03:42>> Okay.

1:03:43>> So Mike, you're going to go back and

1:03:46go through the

1:03:47>> Well, at least find the old matrix that

1:03:49we had and just send that out so that

1:03:51way we can look. There should be a bunch

1:03:52of things classified as this change was

1:03:54made. Um

1:03:55>> Yep.

1:03:56>> Right.

1:03:56>> I mean, for for Sheamus's benefit or for

1:03:58anyone in the public, the the really

1:04:00goes through and um it'll have a a

1:04:04number and it'll have a public comment.

1:04:06And then it'll say, "What was the

1:04:08staff's recommendation?" So sometimes

1:04:09the staff says, "Well, we agree. We

1:04:11agree with that public comment. That

1:04:13absolutely should be made." Then it goes

1:04:14to the planning commission comment and

1:04:16the planning might say, "We voted yes on

1:04:18this."

1:04:18Um or it might say, "This is being held

1:04:21till

1:04:22the next adoption."

1:04:25So it's it's a big

1:04:27We call it a matrix. It's a big Excel

1:04:29spreadsheet, really, that's color-coded.

1:04:38>> And for

1:04:39big city planning zoning updates, it

1:04:41could be

1:04:42400 lines long.

1:04:44>> Yeah.

1:04:44>> [laughter]

1:04:45>> It gets It gets unwieldy. Yeah.

1:04:47All right. So Mike will go into the down

1:04:49to the catacombs

1:04:52>> [laughter]

1:04:52>> and find the old

1:04:53>> it's the um

1:04:55May 13th, 2025.

1:04:58>> Look at this.

1:05:02>> [laughter]

1:05:04>> Good thing the internet's back.

1:05:07>> So maybe

1:05:08>> Thanks, Leah. That's

1:05:09>> Maybe start there. May 13th, 2025. But

1:05:12>> I wasn't that long ago.

1:05:14>> And maybe there's something more recent.

1:05:16I don't know.

1:05:18>> [snorts]

1:05:22>> Any other discussion on this

1:05:25agenda item?

1:05:27Okay.

1:05:28Great.

1:05:30Uh

1:05:31now on to the main event, which is the

1:05:33continuation of the discussion on

1:05:35revisions to the United United I'm

1:05:37sorry, unified development regulations.

1:05:40And this is resumption of we had started

1:05:42to talk about changes to chapter two.

1:05:46Um and we're going to have resumption of

1:05:48that review.

1:05:49>> I just wanted before we started, Mike, I

1:05:51remember at our last meeting

1:05:53there was some discussion about whether

1:05:55or not the

1:05:56staff was going to be able to put pen to

1:05:58paper and draft some

1:06:01potential

1:06:03language that Okay. Am I Am I

1:06:06misremembering that?

1:06:07>> No, yeah. We were wait We were waiting.

1:06:08That was the question with Gabe was

1:06:11if we got some direction, we could start

1:06:13making some redlines. Of course, I was

1:06:15on vacation last week, so I haven't done

1:06:18much.

1:06:19>> No, I I I recall we didn't We didn't

1:06:21>> And then we decided not to, so we were

1:06:22like, "That's great. I'm going to be

1:06:24busy. I'll I'm going to be on vacation

1:06:25anyway."

1:06:26>> I remember the vote I remember the vote

1:06:27that we had about

1:06:29sort of scrapping the

1:06:31architectural standards and whatnot, but

1:06:32I don't remember the other piece, so.

1:06:34Yeah, great. So, we are

1:06:37>> So, I did print out some copies of what

1:06:39exists today in our zoning regulations

1:06:42in chapter two. They're over there.

1:06:44They're about 20 pages long through 25

1:06:46pages long.

1:06:48So, that way we can you can put eyes to

1:06:50what our current districts kind of look

1:06:53like.

1:06:54Um

1:06:55so, you know, they'll have a purpose to

1:06:57have neighborhood descriptions.

1:07:00They There's a use table, which is

1:07:02somewhere else. Don't worry about that.

1:07:04Then there's dimensional standards that

1:07:05are in there and architectural standards

1:07:08and in some cases some cases river front

1:07:10standards.

1:07:11And this is where we've got all the

1:07:13different requirements for what are the

1:07:15front setbacks, what's the parcel size

1:07:17minimum, what are the frontage coverage

1:07:20floor area ratio

1:07:22height requirements.

1:07:24So there are just a number of

1:07:26requirements in there and so the

1:07:27question starts coming up.

1:07:30Um

1:07:31we have had conversations of

1:07:34do we want to keep or not keep the

1:07:37neighborhoods? We currently in our maps

1:07:39have neighborhoods. So we don't have to.

1:07:42Most places don't. But when we initially

1:07:45developed the zoning in 2016

1:07:48we

1:07:49um we

1:07:51our consultant spent a lot of time going

1:07:54through and actually identifying on the

1:07:56map things that look the same, things

1:07:59that look similar. So all the parcels

1:08:00that looked at similar size started

1:08:02drawing lines around them and basically

1:08:04broke the city into 54, 52

1:08:07neighborhoods.

1:08:09And kind of said, all right, now what is

1:08:11what are each one of these pieces

1:08:14what are the minimum lot sizes? So that

1:08:16way we could right size our zoning.

1:08:20Prior to our adoption in 2018 about 50

1:08:24to 60% of our city was non-conforming.

1:08:28So we have a great city, but you

1:08:30actually aren't allowed to build it.

1:08:32So our

1:08:34goal in 2016 when we were working on

1:08:36this 2014, 15, 16 and eventually it was

1:08:39adopted.

1:08:40The public hearing process was in 2017.

1:08:43Um so during that what we were trying to

1:08:45do is to go through and break the town

1:08:47break the city into little pieces

1:08:49find out what it should be and then put

1:08:51pieces together to go through and say,

1:08:52hey look um this this this this and this

1:08:56are all about the same.

1:08:57Let's make a zoning district that's RES

1:08:593000.

1:09:01Um and they kept the neighborhoods and

1:09:03just drew a circle around it and said,

1:09:04"That's res 3,000." And hey, over here,

1:09:06these are also res 3,000. And these over

1:09:09here are res 1,500. And we built out a

1:09:11map

1:09:12using

1:09:13you know, that that as the starting as

1:09:15the base. So, we started out with this

1:09:18these various neighborhoods. Um,

1:09:22and so, we kept them

1:09:24um, and wrote out descriptions. Now, the

1:09:27comment that has come out since 2018 is

1:09:29that these are all really describing the

1:09:31way things are today, not how we want

1:09:34things to be in the future. So,

1:09:36um,

1:09:37we have two options. One is to

1:09:40eliminate the neighborhood character. We

1:09:42would probably still have a section that

1:09:43would probably be district character.

1:09:45And say, "What is our future?" And then

1:09:48can then make it a future-based thing.

1:09:50Otherwise, other uh, the other option is

1:09:52to keep the neighborhoods. We might have

1:09:53to adjust the boundaries to match our

1:09:55new

1:09:56um, map that we have. But,

1:10:00we could keep the neighborhoods and then

1:10:02simply, um,

1:10:04adjust each one of the languages in

1:10:06those. So, there a couple of options.

1:10:09The character of the neighborhood really

1:10:11only comes up in a very few instances.

1:10:14Um, variances and waivers.

1:10:17If you want a waiver from the height or

1:10:19the setback requirement, one of the

1:10:20requirements is, "Well, as long as

1:10:22you're not going to impact the

1:10:23negatively impact the character of the

1:10:24area."

1:10:25In some cases, it doesn't because,

1:10:27you know, there are still three

1:10:28properties that also have that. You

1:10:31know, there are three properties on your

1:10:32street that are non-conforming. [snorts]

1:10:33So, the fact that you're now going to

1:10:35match them isn't going to make you that

1:10:37much out of character. So, we'll allow

1:10:39it as a waiver in this case.

1:10:41Um,

1:10:42conditional uses. We have We don't have

1:10:45very many conditional uses left. They're

1:10:48usually for commercial uses in those

1:10:53mixed-use residential areas. So, we have

1:10:55these mixed-use areas where we're going

1:10:57to try to balance

1:10:59commercial and residential development.

1:11:01The trick comes up is you sometimes need

1:11:03to have that evaluation. It's like, you

1:11:04can do it as long as

1:11:08your business closes at 6:00

1:11:10because we're not going to let you

1:11:13repair motorcycles

1:11:15at 10:00 at night in a residential

1:11:17neighborhood. So, as long as your

1:11:18business is shut by this time,

1:11:21we'll allow you to have that repair

1:11:23business there. So, those are the

1:11:24conditions that you can put into a

1:11:26conditional use. Um and usually it's to

1:11:28protect the neighborhood character

1:11:31because conditional use has three three

1:11:33requirements, traffic uh impact on

1:11:37municipal facilities and services, and

1:11:39character of the area. And so, that's

1:11:41we've tried to get these ones like um

1:11:45if you want a a fourplex that you need

1:11:47to have conditional use, we've said no.

1:11:49We've gone through and removed all

1:11:50those.

1:11:51Um we've reached a point that really

1:11:53it's just these ones where we're trying

1:11:54to balance those commercial uses in

1:11:57mixed-use districts.

1:11:58Um

1:12:00or [clears throat] something that's just

1:12:01particularly

1:12:02um

1:12:03a big use that we're like, we we can

1:12:05allow this, but only in certain

1:12:07circumstances, and that's what the

1:12:09conditions will dictate.

1:12:12Um so, that's why you need to have the

1:12:14character and needs to be described

1:12:16because the development review board is

1:12:17going to look for something. They're

1:12:19going to like, we've got to evaluate

1:12:20character, and and we don't have any

1:12:22guidelines.

1:12:23So, having a description said this is

1:12:25the character of this neighborhood, they

1:12:26can then reflect back and say, "Okay,

1:12:29this new proposal really doesn't

1:12:31conflict with what's described here."

1:12:34>> Can I ask a clarifying question?

1:12:35>> Yep.

1:12:36>> Um so, if that were eliminated,

1:12:39character of the neighborhood, those

1:12:40descriptions,

1:12:42that wouldn't

1:12:44touch like

1:12:46dimensional standards, or, you know, if

1:12:49we were to describe character of a

1:12:51district, It's not like turning things

1:12:54completely wild west. It's just kind of

1:12:57one level of simplification.

1:12:59>> Yeah, it's just yeah, it's one level of

1:13:01simple simplification. That's a good way

1:13:03of of looking at it.

1:13:05Um

1:13:06like I said, if we get rid of

1:13:07neighborhood character, we would still

1:13:09have to have

1:13:10the

1:13:12um

1:13:14the the district character and we would

1:13:16just go through what is the character of

1:13:18the urban center one district as opposed

1:13:20to the three neighborhoods.

1:13:22>> And and we'll need that as as sort of

1:13:25mandated, not sort of as mandated in

1:13:28statute by the state. You have to have

1:13:30character of the area

1:13:31in your zoning regs.

1:13:33>> If you have if it appears in s-

1:13:36if you have conditional uses, which we

1:13:38do,

1:13:38>> Yeah.

1:13:39>> then you have to have um

1:13:41some guidelines.

1:13:45It it doesn't specifically say in

1:13:47statute you have to define character of

1:13:50the neighborhood.

1:13:51But case law

1:13:54says you have to have enough guidelines

1:13:58for an applicant and the reviewer to be

1:14:01able to reasonably as- determine and

1:14:04assert what whether they meet or don't

1:14:06meet the requirements. There has to be

1:14:07something in there that you can start

1:14:10pointing to. In a few places,

1:14:12uh

1:14:13JAM Golf is probably the biggest case

1:14:16court case that came out probably around

1:14:182006.

1:14:20And that was one that just had it that

1:14:21was

1:14:23specific to scenic.

1:14:26So, they had a South Burlington had a

1:14:28scenic requirement that said, well, you

1:14:31you've got to, you know, you can't be

1:14:32unsightly or something like that. And

1:14:34the courts threw it out. It said vague

1:14:36for void for vagueness because it just

1:14:38wasn't There's not enough there for the

1:14:40applicant or for the reviewer to

1:14:42determine whether or not you meet the

1:14:44the scenic requirements. Um

1:14:48This is this kind of goes the same way.

1:14:50>> Like would dimensional standards and,

1:14:54you know,

1:14:55hours of business, like you were

1:14:57describing,

1:14:59would that be sufficient legally? Like

1:15:01does it have to be kind of aesthetic?

1:15:05Like

1:15:07because we're talking about like I I

1:15:09understand the the legal premise, I

1:15:11think.

1:15:13But

1:15:14you know, couldn't you evaluate by a

1:15:17more streamlined and more objective set

1:15:20of criteria?

1:15:22>> If we could come up with objectives, now

1:15:24they're they still have to meet the

1:15:27um dimensional requirements. Except if

1:15:29they're applying for a waiver, but then

1:15:31you're you're back to looking at how is

1:15:33it going to impact the character. And it

1:15:35it is subjective. So, you don't have to

1:15:38be purely objective in your regulations.

1:15:41If you are purely objective, you can

1:15:43make those administrative permits. And

1:15:45that's what we've tried to do. That's

1:15:46why, you know, one of the comments is

1:15:48like we have very thick, detailed sets

1:15:51of regulations. Well, we also have made

1:15:53it very administrative. And to make it

1:15:55administrative, we have to have those

1:15:57details for Meredith to be able to go

1:15:59through and say, you know, landscaping,

1:16:01we have administrative site plan

1:16:03approval.

1:16:04In the past, those used to all

1:16:06automatically go to the DRB. There was

1:16:08no

1:16:09administrative site plans. Everything,

1:16:11if you're anything bigger than a duplex,

1:16:12had to go to the DRB.

1:16:15Um regardless, so you could even if you

1:16:17said um so the the two ways the two

1:16:20fastest ways to get to the DRB in the

1:16:22past were um

1:16:25a project greater than two had to have a

1:16:27site plan.

1:16:29And therefore you'd have to go to the

1:16:30DRB.

1:16:31And conditional uses would have to go to

1:16:33the DRB.

1:16:34So, the more we can make them permitted

1:16:36uses and

1:16:38um we now have a threshold of six units.

1:16:41So, anything six or less, we now have

1:16:43administrative site plan rules for. And

1:16:46we now also have administrative

1:16:48subdivision rules for. So, we've made a

1:16:50lot of these administrative, but to do

1:16:52that, we have to add meat to the bones,

1:16:54so we have objective standards in there.

1:16:57Uh and then we kind of leave this other

1:16:58layer of subjective standards, which are

1:17:00perfectly fine to have subjective

1:17:02standards, but you have to have enough

1:17:03guidelines and enough in there

1:17:06for the court and for applicants and for

1:17:09the reviewers to be able to point to and

1:17:11say, "If I'm going to deny this, I need

1:17:13to

1:17:15you know, if I'm going to deny this data

1:17:16center, I got to be able to put my

1:17:18finger on that's why we can deny it."

1:17:21>> Right. So, in this instance, I mean, we

1:17:23use we use the neighborhood descriptions

1:17:26to provide the DRB with with the

1:17:29character of the neighborhood or

1:17:30whatever you want to call it. We use

1:17:31that as the basis That's the DRB's basis

1:17:34for making the

1:17:35determination. But, I guess the question

1:17:37that I have is this

1:17:39the

1:17:40character of the neighborhood sort of

1:17:42construct

1:17:44that is rooted in what?

1:17:46It's not statute,

1:17:48right?

1:17:51>> Specifically, the verbage character of

1:17:53the neighborhood

1:17:54>> No, the the verbage Yeah, literally

1:17:57Yeah, literally in conditional use, the

1:17:59third standard of conditional use, if

1:18:00you were to look in statute, says

1:18:02character of the

1:18:03>> It is Okay, that's what I'm asking.

1:18:05Character of

1:18:05>> Uh character of the area.

1:18:06>> Character of the

1:18:07>> Character of the area

1:18:08>> area is what is

1:18:09>> I needed to clarify that's why I was

1:18:10getting a little confused.

1:18:12>> Yeah, by statute, it's character of the

1:18:13area. We defined area as neighborhood.

1:18:16We could also define area as district.

1:18:19>> That's that's helpful. All right, I was

1:18:20getting a little sideways, but

1:18:23>> So, I'm curious

1:18:25if people are open to eliminating the

1:18:27neighborhoods,

1:18:28>> [snorts]

1:18:29>> but then also, remember Tim had this

1:18:31idea of permissive zoning?

1:18:34If we open up the character of the

1:18:36district and use this permissive zoning

1:18:38language. Um

1:18:41So, instead of it becoming a way to hold

1:18:43back projects, it's a way to move

1:18:45forward projects.

1:18:47You know, um

1:18:50My husband often jokes about tall ugly

1:18:52buildings. He's like, I am the tall ugly

1:18:54building party.

1:18:56>> [laughter]

1:18:57>> But, that's the kind of thing like, what

1:18:58if urban center one becomes

1:19:02permissive to tall buildings and this is

1:19:04where we want infill development and we

1:19:07see this as being a dense walkable

1:19:11I don't know

1:19:13how many

1:19:15square feet is it, you know?

1:19:18If we [snorts] lay it out, this is the

1:19:20goal is to have

1:19:22you know, a five-block walkable area

1:19:25with infill housing

1:19:27and dense residential development.

1:19:30>> [snorts]

1:19:30>> You know, make it

1:19:32proactive instead of

1:19:35pointing backwards saying that we are

1:19:36trying to preserve historic integrity.

1:19:39>> The The only way that I've seen

1:19:42character of the neighborhood or

1:19:42character of the area I'll I'll I'll

1:19:44just talk about up here because that's

1:19:45where I've experienced it. The only way

1:19:47I've experienced it is

1:19:49as uh is in the appeals process and

1:19:53that's it.

1:19:54As a way to point to say, this is in

1:19:58your zoning regulations. It says this is

1:20:00the character of this neighborhood. And

1:20:02so, because of that, that is a often

1:20:04opportunity to appeal this particular

1:20:06project. Um

1:20:08so, [clears throat]

1:20:10I'm fully on board.

1:20:11>> [laughter]

1:20:12>> But then, I mean, we I think most of us

1:20:14agreed to get rid of the neighborhood

1:20:15descriptions.

1:20:17>> Well, we did, but we took a vote at the

1:20:19last meeting and it and it failed.

1:20:22>> Well, there's there's a lot more in the

1:20:23motion. It was to get rid of the

1:20:24neighborhood. Yeah.

1:20:26>> I think that vote was largely predicated

1:20:28on just you just hadn't had a

1:20:30>> No, I know.

1:20:31I know, I just wanted to get we are.

1:20:32Yeah.

1:20:33>> [laughter]

1:20:34>> Yeah.

1:20:35I mean I

1:20:37I mean I like the idea of like, you

1:20:39know,

1:20:40changing the descriptions of the of

1:20:42whatever the area unit

1:20:44that we're going to [clears throat] use

1:20:45to be more permissive and I think it's

1:20:47just yeah

1:20:49And I guess it's just sort of step one

1:20:51is is

1:20:53does this group I I pose this question.

1:20:56Does this group agree that the current

1:20:58way that the description the

1:20:59neighborhood descriptions that reflect

1:21:02the status quo

1:21:04of what the neighborhoods are at the

1:21:06time of this drafted

1:21:08do we want to do away with that like a

1:21:09description of how things are and move

1:21:13to something different without

1:21:15identifying what that is. Um

1:21:17Is I mean is that a general sense of the

1:21:19group?

1:21:20>> Yeah.

1:21:20>> Okay.

1:21:21>> I'd say so. I mean

1:21:22to just kind of try to move this along a

1:21:24little further then you just say

1:21:27Do

1:21:29Okay. Um

1:21:31>> Because what I'm hearing is that we need

1:21:34to have some type of description.

1:21:36There's no getting around it. We can't

1:21:37just

1:21:38not have a character of the area or

1:21:41neighborhood.

1:21:41>> But it seems like there's a clear

1:21:43opportunity for both simplification and

1:21:46like promoting more permissive

1:21:50descriptions while still meeting like

1:21:52the legal requirement that Mike has

1:21:54described.

1:21:56>> So

1:21:57let's just hypothetically say that the

1:21:59alternative if we say we scrap the

1:22:01neighborhood descriptions we move to

1:22:03something else

1:22:05and this is again I'm not necessarily

1:22:07saying this is what it should be but

1:22:08let's say we we

1:22:11move to

1:22:12dis- districts a district-wide

1:22:14description of the separate districts

1:22:17and then

1:22:18we really think critically about what it

1:22:20is we want to occur in those districts

1:22:23over the next 20, 30, whatever the

1:22:26whatever the horizon is that we decide.

1:22:29Um

1:22:31and I as I'm thinking about this is

1:22:33I think it's important for us to develop

1:22:35maybe a set of

1:22:37criteria that we want each district to

1:22:40address.

1:22:41Like what sort of like sort of economic

1:22:43activity would do we want there? What

1:22:45sort of

1:22:46um you know, residential traits do we

1:22:48want in these certain in this sort of

1:22:51>> [clears throat]

1:22:52>> uh

1:22:53if we have certain thoughts about what

1:22:55you know, like an urban

1:22:57like an urban center one, like do we

1:22:59want to focus [snorts] and make sure

1:23:00that we focus on like opportunities for

1:23:02infill development.

1:23:04Um

1:23:05you know, thinking of things like we

1:23:07know that there is a fairly large

1:23:10federal building that may or may not be

1:23:12developed at some you know, thinking

1:23:14about those things and I just

1:23:15um

1:23:16I think it's just an exercise like this

1:23:18is to

1:23:19maybe helpful to try to establish a set

1:23:22of

1:23:23at least a framework of kind of like the

1:23:25criteria that we want to address in each

1:23:27one of these descriptions so that we can

1:23:28be consistent across each one of these

1:23:31district descriptions if that's what we

1:23:32end up doing.

1:23:33Um I don't have the answer to that. I'm

1:23:36just putting that out there as an idea

1:23:37for the group to think about how we want

1:23:39to structure this stuff because

1:23:41I get the sense that we are generally in

1:23:43agreement with scrapping what we have in

1:23:45terms of the neighborhood descriptions

1:23:47and replacing it with something

1:23:50more forward-looking and I'm just trying

1:23:52to think of ways to

1:23:54get our heads together to think about

1:23:56how we want to do that before we start

1:23:58putting ideas out there for separate

1:24:01>> And I would say like along with those

1:24:03criteria that you just outlined, like if

1:24:06we can try and optimize for procedure as

1:24:10Mike what's described. Like if there are

1:24:12objective criteria that will help more

1:24:15things be administrative, like

1:24:18there's also the procedural objective in

1:24:21the rewrite, not just kind of the

1:24:24objective of the area.

1:24:26>> And the housing forward sort of

1:24:28objective. We talked about mixed use,

1:24:31you know, making sure that if we say,

1:24:32"Hey, it's mixed use, but we can also

1:24:34kind of put language in there to promote

1:24:36housing and not just have, you know,

1:24:39some national chain come in, you know,

1:24:41cuz it's also allowed." Can I clarify

1:24:44with everybody else?

1:24:45When we're talking about districts, is

1:24:48everybody else thinking zoning

1:24:49districts? Okay.

1:24:52>> Yeah, that's why I didn't

1:24:54cuz I wasn't sure about that.

1:24:57I was like, "Whatever unit we want to

1:24:59use."

1:24:59>> Okay, I was Yeah, so I was like, "I

1:25:01don't know if people mean like the

1:25:03northern district or the you know, but

1:25:05okay."

1:25:05>> Right.

1:25:06>> We're all thinking

1:25:07>> Um

1:25:10Yeah, I'm not trying to hijack this

1:25:11process or anything. I'm just trying to

1:25:13figure out ways to

1:25:15kind of structure this discussion going

1:25:16forward and

1:25:17um

1:25:18>> Yeah, I think there'll be some

1:25:19discussion within the character of the

1:25:22district that we'll talk about how

1:25:24things are now. I mean, if you're

1:25:25talking about Urban Center 1,

1:25:27um you are going to talk about, you

1:25:29know, this area does have flood hazards

1:25:31and therefore any new development is

1:25:33going to be having to address the

1:25:34elevation of this and how it and and you

1:25:37know, [snorts] and any

1:25:40you know, there is a historic district

1:25:41here and what does that mean

1:25:44for the redevelopment. [clears throat]

1:25:46Now, we have a lot of non-contributing

1:25:47buildings that can obviously be removed,

1:25:50but we have to have a little bit of of

1:25:53meat in there because that's where it's

1:25:54going to come in when when it hits

1:25:57the DRB is when somebody's trying to

1:25:59demolish a building or when somebody is

1:26:01trying to build something new, it's

1:26:03going to be like, "Well, you know, we

1:26:05have

1:26:06we have design review standards that

1:26:07will address these other issues, but

1:26:09within the character of the area, we

1:26:11want to recognize that there are flood

1:26:13hazards and these buildings are going to

1:26:14have to be elevated and

1:26:17the rest of the buildings aren't

1:26:18elevated. So, we can't go through and

1:26:19say, "Well, you can't look like that

1:26:21because you're going to have to look

1:26:23like that because that's that's our

1:26:25reality and that will be our reality

1:26:26going forward." So, there's going to be

1:26:27a little bit of this probably an intro

1:26:31of each neighbor of each district if we

1:26:33went with the district level would kind

1:26:34of talk about

1:26:36what is here, what's the potential out

1:26:38there, and what do we want to see or

1:26:40what would we hope to see as you know,

1:26:42kind of a maybe a three-step way of

1:26:44looking at

1:26:46What are the things cuz if we're talking

1:26:47mixed mixed-use residential, too. One

1:26:50thing that jumps out to me at the

1:26:51existing condition is there's a lot of

1:26:52potential

1:26:54development. There's a lot

1:26:56National Life has a lot of vacant land.

1:27:00You know, portions of Sabin's pasture

1:27:03and these other places where all these

1:27:04places that we've talked about um

1:27:07have potential for infill.

1:27:10That you're like there's this is a this

1:27:11is a district that we expect over the

1:27:13next 20 years to accommodate a

1:27:15tremendous amount of new growth

1:27:17because

1:27:18it's just has a lot of undeveloped space

1:27:22or under developed space that could be

1:27:24redeveloped in

1:27:26you know, and I think that's what we

1:27:27would want to see in these various

1:27:28districts. But we just we're going to

1:27:30have to spend some time and I'm going to

1:27:31probably lean on someone or some

1:27:34couple people to help write through

1:27:37those so that way we can avoid a lot of

1:27:40back and forth. If I've got Maria or

1:27:42somebody else to work with kind of go

1:27:44through and do a first cut on these then

1:27:46it'll probably save some time.

1:27:49Kind of reaching

1:27:51reaching a a good compromise position

1:27:53with where you guys are at.

1:28:04So, I don't know if we need a vote, but

1:28:06do we want to kind of lean towards

1:28:08district [clears throat] over

1:28:09neighborhood as the direction?

1:28:13>> Hold on a second. I

1:28:17Uh

1:28:19let's

1:28:20do this. I feel like we

1:28:24Do we feel like we're already on a vote

1:28:27to

1:28:28about whether or not to scrap

1:28:30the neighborhood the the description the

1:28:32neighborhood descriptions as they exist

1:28:33in the regs right now.

1:28:35>> Yes.

1:28:36>> Do we have a motion to do that?

1:28:39Understanding that we're going to have

1:28:41to figure out an alternative.

1:28:43So, we can we So, we can either do it

1:28:44this way. We can either have that vote

1:28:46right now and then discuss about what

1:28:47the alternative is or we come up with

1:28:50the alternative and then have a group a

1:28:53vote on that does both

1:28:56scrapping

1:28:57the current

1:28:58uh

1:28:59descriptions and replacing it with what

1:29:01we decide.

1:29:02>> I personally think we should have a vote

1:29:05and sort of have resolve in that space

1:29:07and that gives that's that begins to

1:29:09give some direction to the planning

1:29:10department about what is getting

1:29:14removed. Uh we know that something's

1:29:15going to go back into it, but I think

1:29:18it's I think it's an important part of

1:29:19the process to

1:29:21you know, there's been so much talk over

1:29:22the past handful of years about how

1:29:25extensive our our our zoning regs are. I

1:29:27know that Mike has explained this

1:29:29countless times about why and at the

1:29:31same time where we can sort of um

1:29:34honor that that that thought that idea

1:29:37and

1:29:40remove some pieces that

1:29:43go a little bit

1:29:44uh in a direction well, and we want to

1:29:46go in a different direction. I think we

1:29:47should do that.

1:29:49>> Yeah, and I think like

1:29:51you know, we're going to have to put in

1:29:52work [clears throat] to decide what new

1:29:54content goes in, but irregardless of

1:29:57what that ends up being, there's virtue

1:30:01in the simplification.

1:30:03>> Okay.

1:30:04>> How much more discussion do you think we

1:30:05need to have about

1:30:07doing a district level

1:30:10I'm just wondering why we can't have a

1:30:13motion that includes

1:30:15scrapping neighborhood

1:30:17character descriptions to be replaced by

1:30:20district level descriptions.

1:30:22>> Well, I think that's a that's a good

1:30:23question. I think but

1:30:25would that just be part of the vote and

1:30:26we don't move forward with

1:30:28what that language yet?

1:30:31>> Right. We we we will have to

1:30:34draft that language.

1:30:36>> Yeah.

1:30:37I'm just I'm just putting out there the

1:30:39question of whether or not we want to

1:30:41vote to do this thing that it seems like

1:30:42we all agree on without having an answer

1:30:44for what this what the

1:30:46replacement will be.

1:30:48It sounds like there's an appetite to do

1:30:50that.

1:30:51>> Yeah.

1:30:51>> So, if there's a motion

1:30:55someone can make that motion.

1:30:57>> I would move to uh

1:31:01remove neighborhood character

1:31:02descriptions from our

1:31:05current regulations and um

1:31:08begin the process

1:31:11of developing district level

1:31:14uh

1:31:15descriptions.

1:31:17>> And just to put a fine point on it, do

1:31:18you have a sense of what district Can

1:31:21you define what a district is?

1:31:24>> Uh uh zoning district level.

1:31:28>> Okay.

1:31:29Hey, we have a motion on the

1:31:32floor. Do we have a second?

1:31:34>> I'll second it.

1:31:35>> Tim seconds it. Do we have any

1:31:37additional discussion on this motion?

1:31:42All right, we have a motion to scrap the

1:31:45neighborhood level descriptions and

1:31:47start work on zoning district level

1:31:50descriptions to replace them,

1:31:53which will be determined as we move

1:31:55forward.

1:31:57All those in favor of doing that, please

1:31:59say I.

1:32:01>> I.

1:32:01>> I.

1:32:02>> I.

1:32:03>> Any opposed?

1:32:08Great.

1:32:10Eyes have it.

1:32:11>> [clears throat]

1:32:13>> Um

1:32:17Now that we've done that, do we want to

1:32:18talk about

1:32:21this some more to start forming up what

1:32:24we want those district level We just had

1:32:26a bit of a discussion. I think Mike's

1:32:28sort of three-pronged approach is a good

1:32:29one. We we can keep having that

1:32:31discussion or

1:32:33we can move on

1:32:34to another issue that was put on the

1:32:36table of our last meeting, which was the

1:32:39getting rid of the architectural

1:32:40standards as well.

1:32:42Um

1:32:44do we have a

1:32:45preference for what to do?

1:32:47So, I do not.

1:32:49>> Well,

1:32:51and I would be happy to take a first

1:32:53crack at the district descriptions.

1:32:56Um

1:32:57only because from working on the city

1:33:00plan, we know that it's easier to

1:33:02critique something if it's in front of

1:33:03you versus like

1:33:06I don't know, hypothesize into the

1:33:07ether, you know? I think if I draft

1:33:09something, then we can actually have a

1:33:11discussion

1:33:13about whether

1:33:14people agree with

1:33:17that direction or not.

1:33:18>> So, you're volunteering to draft

1:33:22district descriptions?

1:33:23>> descriptions.

1:33:24>> Uh there's a lot of colors on that map,

1:33:26aren't there?

1:33:27>> There are.

1:33:28I would accept

1:33:29>> It should be easy considering that

1:33:32uh

1:33:32>> They're unchanged.

1:33:33>> Yeah, there's a couple of them that are

1:33:36um

1:33:37one of them is a urban residential over

1:33:40in which only had one neighborhood

1:33:41anyways. Probably pull that out.

1:33:44>> Yeah, there's a couple of them.

1:33:45>> also be that if you feel like your

1:33:46bandwidth constrained, you could do it

1:33:48for a few so we get kind of like the

1:33:50structure and criteria. And then once we

1:33:52agree like this is what content

1:33:55format we want in a description then we

1:33:59could further share the load of like the

1:34:01actual descriptions for all of them.

1:34:04>> [clears throat]

1:34:06>> Yep.

1:34:08If anyone else wants to do it with me.

1:34:12>> [laughter]

1:34:14>> Then

1:34:14>> Maria, yeah, if we can if we can find a

1:34:17time to meet or

1:34:19and work on it that would be

1:34:20>> That would be great, Sean.

1:34:21>> That would be great.

1:34:25Yeah, cuz I I expect we've obviously

1:34:27been doing public input sessions on our

1:34:30map.

1:34:32But I don't I didn't get any sense from

1:34:35any of the input that

1:34:37we are far off

1:34:39from

1:34:40thoughts. So I I mean lines may move but

1:34:43I think we're going to have mixed use

1:34:44residential too.

1:34:47>> Right.

1:34:47>> Um but the line may adjust move here and

1:34:49there. Mixed use residential one may

1:34:51move here and there.

1:34:53Um

1:34:54but I think at the end of the day we

1:34:55have a pretty good sense of we're going

1:34:56to need a description of what this

1:34:58district is or what we hope it will be

1:34:59in the future. So

1:35:01>> What about Country Club Road? Do you

1:35:03want to hold off on making a description

1:35:05or are we

1:35:06keeping

1:35:06>> Proximity being here, right?

1:35:09The urban residential Yeah, the other

1:35:11part of Country Club Road was

1:35:13residential three which is

1:35:15now high density residential.

1:35:17>> Okay, cool.

1:35:19And so we'll just have to use that exact

1:35:21same

1:35:23Yeah, for the time being.

1:35:24>> Yeah, that's That's a little bit of the

1:35:25trickier part is cuz it's a little bit

1:35:26more general now. Um so while we're

1:35:29writing a district description for

1:35:31residential three or high density

1:35:33residential, we're going to be writing a

1:35:35district description that includes St.

1:35:38Paul Street

1:35:40and Loomis and also Country Club Road

1:35:44that's undeveloped. So we kind of have

1:35:46to

1:35:47we can't be as specific but again I

1:35:49again I think our goal was to you know

1:35:52and we may acknowledge that in the high

1:35:54density say most of this is already

1:35:56developed and we're looking at infill,

1:35:57but there are new

1:36:00urban residential or there are new high

1:36:02density residential areas that are also

1:36:05undeveloped and in those areas we would

1:36:07expect this.

1:36:08>> Right.

1:36:08>> So.

1:36:09I think there are ways of working that

1:36:11in. We just have to look at the map when

1:36:12we're writing the description to make

1:36:14sure we're kind of covering all of

1:36:16what's out there.

1:36:19>> And by we?

1:36:20>> By we,

1:36:21>> [laughter]

1:36:21>> by we that's that's you.

1:36:23>> Yeah.

1:36:24Me and Shawn.

1:36:29>> Um, well thanks for volunteering to do

1:36:30that.

1:36:33And obviously don't feel

1:36:35like you need to do them all.

1:36:37>> Well, I mean I have no idea

1:36:38>> Yeah, yeah, yeah. I just I don't I don't

1:36:40even know what the project would be.

1:36:42Um.

1:36:43Great.

1:36:45Uh, do we What time is it?

1:36:47>> 7:19.

1:36:48>> [snorts]

1:36:49>> Uh, do we want to have a discussion

1:36:51about the architectural standards and

1:36:53for 10 minutes or do we feel like that's

1:36:55maybe a bit too much

1:36:57to bite off right now?

1:36:59>> I would like to have a conversation

1:37:01about about it.

1:37:03>> About architectural standards?

1:37:05>> Yes.

1:37:05>> Okay.

1:37:08>> Personally I think it can be relatively

1:37:10brief, but I I might be fooling myself

1:37:11when I say that.

1:37:12Um, as I understand it, well, we have

1:37:15architectural standards in here for each

1:37:17of the

1:37:18um

1:37:19different neighborhoods

1:37:22um

1:37:23throughout the zoning regs.

1:37:25And as I understand it and I believe as

1:37:28Mike has discussed in the past, this

1:37:30um

1:37:31will primarily be covered by

1:37:34the design review committee.

1:37:36Um, and that is somewhat duplicative to

1:37:38have it uh our

1:37:41architectural standards

1:37:43described in detail in the in the zoning

1:37:45regulations. Um, and so

1:37:48because of that there's an opportunity

1:37:49to

1:37:50remove them from the zoning regs as it's

1:37:52covered by the DRC.

1:37:56>> Assuming we adjust the DRC boundary.

1:37:59That's

1:38:00>> Right. And

1:38:01uh, that's a good point. Assuming that

1:38:03we adjust the DRC boundary and that's

1:38:06been in discussion

1:38:08and it's something that's forthcoming.

1:38:13We're are we not necessarily doing that,

1:38:16but we are we have talked about doing

1:38:18that. Is that right?

1:38:19>> Correct. Yeah, we it's our

1:38:22looking at some of the tier 1A

1:38:23requirements and some of these other

1:38:24pieces, uh,

1:38:26we have

1:38:28we found that the design review

1:38:30regulations work well. Um,

1:38:32and what our thought was was that we

1:38:36would continue to have the high-level

1:38:38design review that we have right now in

1:38:40that downtown core. So, it has to at

1:38:43least include the designated downtown,

1:38:45but we might expand it to include all of

1:38:48the urban center areas.

1:38:50Um,

1:38:51but right now it also goes to the west

1:38:56and goes up to National Life. So, it's

1:38:59right now a really big area and we would

1:39:01shrink that down and what

1:39:04we've proposed as staff is that

1:39:07we could have a, you know, a

1:39:10a lower-tiered, a second tier of design

1:39:13review that would only apply to

1:39:16projects greater than six units of

1:39:19housing.

1:39:21So, that way these smaller projects, you

1:39:23know, aren't going to have to go through

1:39:25design review. But, if you're putting in

1:39:27a 10-unit building, you'll have to go

1:39:28through design review, but you'll have

1:39:30to go through design review instead of

1:39:31meeting the architectural standards cuz

1:39:34we can remove those um, because our

1:39:37design review standards have generally

1:39:39been and pretty well. We've been using

1:39:41them for for a couple of years now and

1:39:44they they tend to operate well. We have

1:39:46two standards. We have administrative

1:39:48design review as well as the the bigger

1:39:50design review. So, we have ways of

1:39:53minimizing this. If something goes to

1:39:54design review and is administrative, it

1:39:56comes back to the ZA. So, in the past it

1:39:59used to be anything that goes to DRC has

1:40:01to then go to DRB for approval.

1:40:03We've short-circuited that. So, we send

1:40:05things right back. So, that way it's a

1:40:07much faster process and keeps everything

1:40:09administrative, keeps it moving. So, we

1:40:11think the design review process works

1:40:13well. Um and if we simply Usually, the

1:40:16biggest complaint we get is that

1:40:19single-family homeowners are like, "I

1:40:21don't I don't

1:40:22I don't want people telling me

1:40:25what to do on the design of my house."

1:40:28It's like, "Well, this isn't This is

1:40:29going to be really only for those things

1:40:31that are apartment buildings bigger than

1:40:32six

1:40:33and commercial projects. So,

1:40:37So, Caledonia Square it's needed design

1:40:39review. The transit center needed design

1:40:41review. The parking garage needed design

1:40:43review. These are all projects that went

1:40:44through and and got design review. It's

1:40:46not an impossible process. Um and it

1:40:49works and it and it tends to work well

1:40:51in our opinion.

1:40:54But, it would be different. It would be

1:40:55something that we would be making a

1:40:56significant change to go through and say

1:41:00areas that didn't need it like Country

1:41:03Club Road isn't in design review. Well,

1:41:06now if you're doing a 35-unit building,

1:41:09you're going to have to go through

1:41:10design review for that 35-unit building.

1:41:14So, um and we think that helps helps us

1:41:17with our

1:41:18Tier 1A application. There's a lot of

1:41:21ways to meet the Tier 1A requirements.

1:41:23This is just the one that we've kind of

1:41:24said we we think this is it's it's we

1:41:27we've met with um

1:41:31historic preservation already. Now,

1:41:33historic preservation our design review

1:41:36rules have two sets of rules, one for

1:41:37historic buildings and one for new

1:41:39buildings

1:41:40and non-historic buildings. So,

1:41:42they've the person we were talking to at

1:41:44the state was on the design was on the

1:41:47historic preservation commission who

1:41:48helped write the rules. So, she's very

1:41:50familiar with it and was able to say,

1:41:52"Yes." She was like, "I These are good

1:41:53rules um and

1:41:56it's really up to the city how you want

1:41:59to go and

1:42:00meet the tier 1A requirement, but

1:42:02this is a demonstration that you are

1:42:05looking at these requirements um

1:42:08>> [clears throat]

1:42:08>> and so that was why we we thought

1:42:10considering

1:42:11we already have what? 25 pages in our

1:42:13design review rules that to have this

1:42:18was unnecessary.

1:42:21Uh this I'm sorry.

1:42:22>> Yeah, you're good.

1:42:23>> Uh design review considerations aside,

1:42:25which I appreciate, is there

1:42:27do you see any downsides

1:42:30to otherwise taking the architectural

1:42:32[snorts] standards out?

1:42:37The

1:42:38design review

1:42:40looks at some other things, but I think

1:42:43many of them are covered like the

1:42:44pedestrian access

1:42:46um these types of

1:42:48features are kind of in there.

1:42:51Gets into some of these other things.

1:42:52The ground floor buildings shall be

1:42:53designed to complement pedestrian

1:42:55orient- oriented activities. I think you

1:42:58know, that's less in our design review,

1:43:01but I think it's captured by the site

1:43:03plan. We have site plan requirements

1:43:04that talk about accessibility and um

1:43:08those requirements. So,

1:43:11I think until we start to get in there

1:43:14and start to

1:43:15test it out, we've had very few. So,

1:43:18right now the architectural standards as

1:43:19they exist now,

1:43:21um

1:43:22if you have to go through design review,

1:43:23you're exempt from these rules.

1:43:26And these architectural standards only

1:43:29apply to major site plans. And major

1:43:32site plans are defined right now, I

1:43:34think as six or more.

1:43:37And

1:43:38only larger commercial projects. So, a

1:43:40commercial project of

1:43:45more than 2,000 sq ft. I mean, I'm

1:43:47guessing, but there's there are

1:43:49thresholds. So, a small there are some

1:43:50small commercial projects that are minor

1:43:53site plans. And we can also go through

1:43:55and have our architectural standards

1:43:57our design review standards. If we did

1:43:59our design review standards, we also

1:44:00could again

1:44:02peg that to

1:44:04major site plan as well. To go through

1:44:07and say, you know, that way small

1:44:08commercial projects, if somebody's just

1:44:10putting

1:44:11a small addition on a commercial

1:44:14building, it doesn't have to go through

1:44:17design review. But, in some cases, that

1:44:19makes a difference. So, it's one I think

1:44:22I think we can talk further once we know

1:44:24we're moving in that direction. I think

1:44:26we can start to build towards that

1:44:27direction and say, all right, here's

1:44:30what we're seeing, but

1:44:32um

1:44:35I think that I don't see any large

1:44:39um drawbacks

1:44:42from what we have right now, because

1:44:44we've had so few that have had to go

1:44:46through

1:44:47major site plan.

1:44:49I mean, when major site plan was

1:44:52we cuz we've we've moved that threshold

1:44:55up.

1:44:56Um

1:44:57we did have a couple, but

1:44:59by and large, cuz I think uh Gabe one of

1:45:02Gabe's um

1:45:03triplexes that he built had to go

1:45:05through major site plan. That was one of

1:45:07the reasons we voted to go through and

1:45:09say that doesn't make sense. This is not

1:45:11who we wanted to have go through major

1:45:12site plan.

1:45:13>> [laughter]

1:45:14>> But, because he went through major site

1:45:15plan, he had to do the solar access.

1:45:18And he had to do the architectural

1:45:20standards. And he had to do

1:45:21um

1:45:22all those other pieces.

1:45:26>> [snorts]

1:45:27>> Okay.

1:45:40>> So,

1:45:42um

1:45:45Do you just

1:45:46So, are you recommending that we or are

1:45:48you are you saying that we could just

1:45:49give direction at the moment to the

1:45:52planning department or or

1:45:54uh

1:45:56for moving forward here with changes or

1:45:58should we vote as we just did around the

1:46:01neighborhoods to do the same thing with

1:46:03the architectural standards that are

1:46:04attached to

1:46:06the neighborhoods?

1:46:11>> Well, I think if we had direction to

1:46:13know

1:46:15that we were going to eliminate the

1:46:16architectural standards

1:46:18and go to a revised design review

1:46:20process instead, um

1:46:23that would let us start to make the red

1:46:25lines that we need to do to make that

1:46:28happen.

1:46:29Um

1:46:31So, I think that's

1:46:35I mean, it's it's just a matter of of

1:46:37where cuz we're just trying to be

1:46:38efficient with our time.

1:46:40And so, we don't want to be working on

1:46:42something that eventually we say, "Yeah,

1:46:43let's not [clears throat] do that."

1:46:45Um but ultimately, if we go through the

1:46:48process, we eliminate these and we get

1:46:50to the end we're like, "You know what? I

1:46:51don't think this is going to work. Let's

1:46:53go back." Then we'll it They're they're

1:46:55They these these will all be in

1:46:58This is all in Word. We can just go back

1:47:00and hit undo.

1:47:03Undo undo deletion and it'll put it back

1:47:05in. So.

1:47:06>> [laughter]

1:47:07>> It can be We can go back. It's not

1:47:09>> You're like, "We can just revise policy

1:47:10by just hitting undo."

1:47:12>> [laughter]

1:47:14>> But it helps us to start to put

1:47:17as as Maria pointed out, it's sometimes

1:47:19easier to start to react to Once we can

1:47:21start going through and saying, "Yeah,

1:47:22these are the directions. These are the

1:47:23two big two big bites we need." Then we

1:47:26can start going through and starting to

1:47:28to redline and put things together to

1:47:30say, "This is what this looks like

1:47:32if we moved in this direction, we would

1:47:34have this looking like this, this would

1:47:35look like this. Here's what a new map

1:47:38would be." You know, we'll we'll We

1:47:39still have a question of if we did this

1:47:42design review idea,

1:47:44full design review,

1:47:46smaller design review, does the smaller

1:47:48design review cover the entire town or

1:47:51does it just cover the tier 1A area?

1:47:54Because it could make sense to have it

1:47:56cover the entire town because it's still

1:47:58only the biggest

1:48:00pieces. Um

1:48:01so, we think about because then we might

1:48:03still need some of these standards. If

1:48:05you were on

1:48:06Route 302. So, somebody goes and buys

1:48:10Fecteau's lot where he stores

1:48:13the

1:48:15mobile homes.

1:48:17Says he's just going to go through.

1:48:18Somebody buys that.

1:48:22That's not in our planned growth area.

1:48:25So,

1:48:27um

1:48:27if we don't have design review, if

1:48:29design review only covers the planned

1:48:30growth area, that would be outside and

1:48:33therefore would not have any design

1:48:34review standards,

1:48:36would we then want to keep the

1:48:37architectural standards out there or

1:48:41or if we say, "Yeah, we're just going to

1:48:42have it cover the entire area." If

1:48:44you're in the city and you're doing a

1:48:45major site plan, you're going to have to

1:48:47meet the design review standards

1:48:49>> [clears throat]

1:48:50>> even if you're out here on

1:48:52River Street.

1:48:54>> Do the design review standards change by

1:48:56zoning district?

1:48:58>> No, it's an overlay district. So, it's

1:49:00>> my concern because, well,

1:49:03I like the idea of simplifying, but I

1:49:05could see a large commercial

1:49:07building going in, say, in our

1:49:11MUR2 zone.

1:49:13And we would want that

1:49:15like

1:49:16curbside pedestrian access, right?

1:49:18Because this is like a walkable part of

1:49:19town.

1:49:20But, if the same commercial building is

1:49:23going in on 302, you would expect there

1:49:26to be a parking lot in front of the

1:49:28building. So, it's like a very different

1:49:32architectural standard,

1:49:34>> [laughter]

1:49:34>> you know, depending on the where this

1:49:36building is located within the city.

1:49:38So,

1:49:40that is the kind of thing that

1:49:43this could be useful for

1:49:45is making sure that we don't have like,

1:49:49you know, a Costco go in

1:49:52and

1:49:54across the street from Shaw's

1:49:58with a huge parking lot in front of it.

1:50:09>> This is a lovely discussion than I had

1:50:10anticipated.

1:50:11>> Yeah.

1:50:11>> [laughter]

1:50:11>> Which is a good thing. Um

1:50:14And

1:50:14>> know what I mean? Like, the standards

1:50:16are are actually different depending on

1:50:17where you are in the city.

1:50:18>> Yeah.

1:50:19Um I want to be mindful of the time, but

1:50:21it is 7:32.

1:50:23Um

1:50:24it

1:50:25sounds like we might have some more

1:50:30uh staff to chew on this.

1:50:32Um is that

1:50:32>> We could try to bring in

1:50:35either Meredith or somebody from design

1:50:37review to to talk about the standards.

1:50:40Um it might be helpful to understand the

1:50:41standards

1:50:42>> Yeah, I think that

1:50:43>> detail

1:50:44>> Yeah.

1:50:44>> before we're deciding which one you want

1:50:46which path you want to go on.

1:50:47>> Yeah.

1:50:49I think it's just hard to kind of square

1:50:50what's on the page here with

1:50:53what the actual mechanics of like what

1:50:55the zoning administrator is actually

1:50:56doing on a day-to-day basis um

1:50:59when they look at these things. So, that

1:51:01that would be really helpful.

1:51:03Um

1:51:07So,

1:51:09yeah, I don't to To

1:51:11To be continued. That that sounds good.

1:51:12Um

1:51:15So, with that, it is a little past 7:30.

1:51:17Thanks for sticking around a little bit

1:51:18later, even though we had the

1:51:20short internet outage. Uh I'm looking

1:51:22for a motion to adjourn.

1:51:24>> I would like to make a motion to

1:51:25adjourn.

1:51:28>> Second.

1:51:29>> Great. We've got a motion to adjourn and

1:51:31a second. All those in favor?

1:51:33>> Aye.

1:51:33>> Any opposed? We're adjourned. Thanks,

1:51:35everybody.

1:51:43>> [music]

1:51:53[music]